Took your time, but the penny dropped. We’re over here, on this table. Beer?
:: pshht ::
Because, at least of the fundamentalist Christians that I know, the views that others hold as different (say, that pre-marital sex isn’t wrong), they take that as an affront and a call to everyone else to pursue a ‘lifestyle’ of godlessness. Therefore, since they are surrounded by this attitude (and in return, no one :rolleyes: is touting real religious belief vociferously enough), it means an attack. So, it’s only a short step from that conclusion to a further extrapolation of persecution.
Plus, you’ve got that whole ‘if you meet opposition, you must be doing something RIGHT’ idea (not to mention that being martyred for your cause is vastly appealing and, I suppose, leads to sewing up one’s spot in heaven) and your formula is set. Just not in stone. 
[Disclaimer: I’m only talking about those that would be described as radicals/zealots, or hell, even extremists, and then, only the ones I observe personally. Absolutely nobody other than that. Offer prohibited in New York, permitted in the state of east Texas.]
So you’re a radical antiradicalist?
By the way, what’s the definition of “radical”? Because it occurs to me that a radical Christian could be one who renounces the world and goes off to live in a monastery and spend the rest of their life in prayer and contemplation. (And similarly for “radicals” of other religions.) But those are the ones you don’t hear from as much.
Did she say “as bad as” or “as dangerous as”?
The former is true; Phred Phelps is as evil as Osama bin Laden. The latter is not; the rise of Western secularism has denied Phred the environment that would give him opportunity to engage in mass murder.
I’m sure Rosie would agree with you on that, but I’m also sure that she was talking about militant extremists.
He is a far right Christian, heavily influenced by fundie Christians who do believe such things. The Bush Admin certainly pushed the idea that Iraq was a hotbed of Islamic terrorism. I’ve also heard the the Iraqis are rather irritated at the wave of missionaries that followed our troops in.
What about Bush ? I’ll even give Bush the benefit of the doubt and allow that he may not be as radical a Christian as Osama is a Muslim; that doesn’t change the fact that Bush has done far more damage, and will continue to do so.
I’m quite torn about this thread. I see nothing wrong with discussing the ideas posted on someone’s blog. At the same time, I really don’t want a swarm of Dopers mobbing the blog with comments, and I really don’t want a swarm of bloggers invading the boards to retaliate.
I think I’ll leave it open for now, with the request that people refrain from posting to any and all blogs that get discussed, anonymously or otherwise. The minute people start mobbing a blog or there’s even a hint of a potential board war, this thread will be closed.
I note that the comment by Anonymous from 3:47 p.m. attempts to bring Mrs. Kelley’s attention to the word “radical;” the implication being that she should interpret the word “radical” in the sense that Rosie was evidently using it; i.e. willing to use one’s religious convictions as an excuse to act inappropriately vis a vis others’ right to exercise freedom of conscience and consensual autonomous activity.
Instead, Mrs. Kelley, along with others, rushes to the dictionary and comes back with THE :rolleyes: definition of “radical” as meaning “holding deep convictions”, or some such vagueness. In other words, they are embracing the term “radical” and insisting that Rosie is deliberately talking about them, personally. I don’t think these folks are amenable to any reasoning that deprives them of an excuse to bash a lesbian without having to hold hands and swap spit in public with Phred Felps.
OTOH, I’m sure that most of them also like to support the candidate who best represents the “conservative Christian values”. So they get to be conservative and radical at the same time. How – stimulating that must be for them.
That’s why I didn’t want to post a link at the beginning, but fair is fair and the Dopers wanted to know what I was talking about. However, I am sure that whoever linked back to this thread in the blog is somebody who either posts in, or reads the SDMB. I could be wrong, but I have the impression that it was one of our resident ‘opressed conservatives’ or perhaps one of our ‘persecuted Christians’ who got away while we were trying to use him/her as a torch for lighting the next Super Bowl.
We were just trying to save on electricity anyways. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t
Of course a singular radical Christian is as dangerous as a singular radical Muslim, they are both, apparently from your definition, willing to kill for their belief. My problem with SAgeRat’s post was that I took it that he/se believed that radical Christians, as a group, are more dangerous than radical Muslims as a group, which is just plain wrong. There are many more radical Muslims willing to (and who do) kill, maim, torture, and embrace terrorism, than there are radical Christians who do the same. I have no numbers, but I’d be willing to bet that the number of deaths caused by radical Christians for their faith in this country in the last decade is less than the number of deaths caused by radical Muslims for their faith.
But, as you note, on an completely individual level, a nutjob willing to hurt others for their faith is a nutjob willing to hurt others for their faith, whether they be Christian or Muslim.