Christian Terrorism

[duncan]

everyone leaned so far into the debate about McVeigh, that no one spoke on the other extremist group.....the Pro-life groups that bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors in the name of their Christian beliefs. Cheese is right, there have been no condemnation of these groups because a small portion of them are psychopaths, yet how many Islamic temples were desecrated because some radical pschopaths from tha religion went crazy. What makes a 'pro-life' Catholic any different than a proud #####e?

[Agamemnon]

That is a very good point... however, when you look at many middle eastern countries... politics and religion are very much hand in hand... look at sharia law for the biggest proof of that.

Sure... and in many ways, the same thing is happening here. 'We' have tens of thousands of religious schools, churches, and institutions, which play an integral role in all of our lives. When someone blows up a bomb here, they're an ******* and a murderer. When someone does it in Iraq, they're a religious fundamentalist. Same person, different place, different skin colour, different label.

[Patek23]

Originally posted by duncan@Sep 26 2005, 06:49 PM
'pro-life' Catholic any different than a proud #####e?

Not much, just as long as they are bombing anythign, then they are terrorists.


As long as they complain about their beliefs respectfully and how they should be implemented than thats fine.

[MarchHare]

I know what you are trying to argue...and it's rediculous.

He was a White Extremist for one thing...where does that belief system take root exactly? The Quran? His own shallow mind?

Or are you suggesting he was only a Christian extermist (IE: Based his beliefs on Christianity) some of the time, and NOT when he blew the bejeezuz out of innocent people in Oklahoma City?

I see it as harder to seperate than it is to connect....disagree?

He wasn't a religious extremist in the same sense that Muslim extremists wish death to the infidels or whatever. As Agammemnon and I said, his motivation for blowing up the Oklahoma City Federal Building was political not religious. It wouldn't have mattered if he was Christian or Jewish or Hindu or Muslim or atheist...he would have blown up the building regardless.

[edit]
To put it another way, McVeigh was a Christian and an extremist, but not a Christian extremist. Kind of like how someone can be a Christian and a musician but not a Christian musician. His religion did not motivate his crimes. Saying he was a Christian extremist is no more relevent than saying he was a blue-eyed extremist.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Flaming Homer@Sep 26 2005, 08:38 PM
When your done w**king off to your George Carlin comedy albums come back with an open mind about everything, otherwise your just p*ssing and moaning.



EDIT- I should learn to spell.

an open mind like yours? I would beg to differ Homer...its yours that is firmly closed and entrapped.
Ill ignore the Carlin comment...for now.

[Reaper]

(drops 10 foot pole and backs away from thread slowly)

[oilfanforever]

i'm pretty sure the problem has little to do with religion.. and more to do with extremism... we consistantly only see one side of the coin in western civilization!

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by Cheese@Sep 26 2005, 03:49 PM

Why should we let Christians off the hook for actions that would see any other religion condemned across the world? Are Christians free to do as they please without condemantion as long as they see fit and can find a Bible phrase that allows them this priviledge?

Because there is nothing in the Christian church or in the Bible that advocates these actions. You shouldn't chastise a religion because of the acts of a few fanatics. You have to separate religion from extremism. Religion is often part, the smallest factor and motivation of people's lives in their actions. These people are just criminals.

Christianity is also one of the basic traditional tenants of the Western civilization you live in and has little to no violent underpinnings in it's actual teachings (compared to the Koran). If you lived in Saudi Arabia, they'd be more than happy to lock you up for being a Christian.

And why didn't they call McVeigh a terrorist? Why don't they call these acts terrorism? Well, it's simple. It's domestic terrorism and Governments need to differentiate them from international terrorist acts because if you call Mcveigh a terrorist, you foster fear that anybody around you, filling the prototypical white American male, is also a terrorist. No, for the public, they need to point out that these militia extremists, clinic bombers, etc. are isolated fanatics, they are just criminals, not a national security threat and an ongoing enemy.

And yes, you hear the term Christian fundamentalism all the time, that's just like Islamic fundamentalism. And do you think, that people who carry out acts like this will even listen to the denounciations of Christian leaders - which do occur by the way, just you never see it in the media.

[ah123]

Originally posted by Cheese@Sep 26 2005, 03:49 PM
Now dont get me totally wrong here, I support and admire those in the Christian community who try to do good for others, but Im wondering if some of you see some of the double standards evolving today.

Acts of Christian terrorism are terrorist acts carried out by extremist Christian groups and zealous followers. Examples include the abortion clinic bombing by Eric Robert Rudolph, said to be a member of the extremist Christian Identity movement and murder by Christians of physicians who provide abortions, such as James Charles Kopp's shooting of Dr. Barnett Slepian.
Why wasnt Eric Rudolph, a devout Christian, labelled as a Christian Terrorist?

Why should we let Christians off the hook for actions that would see any other religion condemned across the world? Are Christians free to do as they please without condemantion as long as they see fit and can find a Bible phrase that allows them this priviledge?

The Christian world see no difficulty in labelling adherents of other religions. The Air India bombing was the work of Sikh Extremists, September 11th Muslim Extremists. In all of these cases its common to see the free world call on the leaders of those religions to denounce the acts, and sometimes they may be compelled to do so.
So why isnt anyone calling upon Christian churches to condemn people like Rudolph above or James Knopp, Timothy McVeigh...or hey what about Pat Robertson!
In Oklahoma City they first blamed the bombings on Muslim Terrorists before they found out it was Christian Tim McVeigh.

Noone calls for Campaign Life to be banned even after the shootings of Doctors and the bombing of the Morgantaler clinic in Toronto, whereas many Tamil and Muslim groups have lost rights or are forced to prove they have no terrorist association to maintain status.

Why the double standards...why dont you call for the condemnation of the Christian church for terrorism that we would find reprehensible among other religions?

This bias is, IMO, due to the media...The media in the West knows that violence is not part of Christian teachings and therefore is able to differentiate between "religious" and "political" motivations (e.g IRA has never been called a "Catholic" organization, even though the majority of its sympathizers are Catholic).

When it comes to Islam, most of the media has little understanding where the faith ends and where politics take over. The Muslim world is thus seen as a homogenous entity - the media (in general) has very little understanding of the enormous diversity of the Muslim world (in terms of interpretation & practice of the faith).

If the media were to label a Lebanese suicide bomber as "Lebanese terrorist" and not affix a religious label, I think this bias would eventually disappear (same for Jewish exremist vs Israeli exremist)

Just my $0.02

[Edited to stop never ending sentences ]

[Agamemnon]

And why didn't they call McVeigh a terrorist? Why don't they call these acts terrorism? Well, it's simple. It's domestic terrorism and Governments need to differentiate them from international terrorist acts because if you call Mcveigh a terrorist, you foster fear that anybody around you, filling the prototypical white American male, is also a terrorist. No, for the public, they need to point out that these militia extremists, clinic bombers, etc. are isolated fanatics, they are just criminals, not a national security threat and an ongoing enemy.

Right. That's the problem that some people are having, that we actively engage in and promote a double-standard, that the brown guy in Iraq who blows something up is a 'Muslim Extremist Terrorist', whereas McVeigh is just a really, really big jerk. Not a 'Christian Extremist Terrorist'. The motivations could be identical (as pointed out in this thread, they're probably political), but because it's 'them' and 'us'... one's a terrorist, and one's not.

And yes, you hear the term Christian fundamentalism all the time, that's just like Islamic fundamentalism.

'You' do not hear the term Christian fundamentalism all the time. Not if you're connected to North American society you don't. Christian fundamentalism says; "I believe in the Bible, Jesus, and Loving one's Fellow Man". Muslim fundamentalism says; "I want to kill every non-Muslim and rule the world". That's what the 'average' person (I'll wager) defines these terms as. You might not, granted. Most people do.

And do you think, that people who carry out acts like this will even listen to the denounciations of Christian leaders - which do occur by the way, just you never see it in the media.

That's not the point. The point is that these denunciations aren't happening. It's not about whether or not it would work, it's about trying. The fact that we don't see it in the media is, again, another example of our North American double-standard.

Because there is nothing in the Christian church or in the Bible that advocates these actions. You shouldn't chastise a religion because of the acts of a few fanatics. You have to separate religion from extremism. Religion is often part, the smallest factor and motivation of people's lives in their actions. These people are just criminals.

Christianity is rife with bloody, violent warfare, all in the name of the Bible, with appropriate passages quoted. Crusades, Christian Roman Empire, hell, Vatican and the Nazis (heavy implications of their dealings).

Sometimes people seem to think that because we 'Christians' basically own the world (in an eco/political sense) that we're 'peaceful'. The winners truly do write the history books.