Rosie O'Donnell's Misunderstanding

I guess many in the blogosphere have taken exception to Rosie O'Donnells latest foot in mouth moment.

From Newsbusters comes this story.

Rosie O’Donnell, the new host of "The View," restrained herself for exactly one week before letting fly with her extreme liberalism. On the September 12 edition, in response to fellow co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck’s comment that militant Islam is a grave threat, O’Donnell stated that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America." The comedienne also attacked America’s response to 9/11:

O’Donnell: "We were attacked not by a nation. And as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people we invaded two countries and killed innocent people in their countries."

This is a common theme among the anti-war left. When someone tries to refute a statement such as this by accurately pointing out that Christians do not blow up innocent people on a daily basis, this is the common retort. But is it accurate?

One can say that radical Christians are not tolerant, like many Muslims aren't. And, that would be accurate in some instances. One can point to kooks like Eric Rudolph bombing abortion clinics. And, that would be one isolated example of a dangerous threat by a radical (so-called) Christian. One can look at the attitudes towards a good many social issues and see common values between the two groups. And, you could draw an accurate conclusion that there are some people that do not have their heads screwed on right.

But how often, can anyone honestly say (with any realistic expectation of being considered credible), there is a strong likeness between the two groups? You can't. But as absurd as her initial comment is, the strong implication that the U.S. has been bombing two countries in the name of Christ, is even more so.

Despite what the secular progressives may believe, this is a secular government. This nation (and many of its laws) may have been founded on many Judeo-Christian principles, but that (in and of itself) does not constitute a Christian government, not in the least.

You can debate whether it is right or wrong to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan, based on a whole host of arguments. But that does not mean that this is a Christian government. You can have elected officials that have a deep faith in Christianity, they can go to church regularly, and still, this would not qualify for a Christian theocracy.

There may even be a good many Christian clergymen that agree with the war, but that does not equal a theological motivation, at least not with all of them. There are many that have a distorted view of God and the government, but how many order suicide bombings to kill innocent people in another land, or in their own? How many preach this from their pulpit? How many openly seek to destroy America, Europe, or Israel and spend countless days, months, and years indoctrinating people, to do it?

Now contrast these questions to the imams of Islam. How many of them engage in this kind of activity?

If you are honest with yourself, you can answer this question with confidence and clarity. If not, you may find yourself using more fallacies, to explain the fallacies you cannot already explain. That's what Rosie has done here.