Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

‘Christian terrorism’ is a jarring, but accurate, term

April 8, 2010

Advertisement

A few words about Christian terrorism.

And I suppose the first words should be about “those” words: “Christian terrorism.” The term will seem jarring to those who’ve grown comfortable regarding terrorism as something exclusive to Islam.

That this is a self-deluding fallacy should have long since been apparent to anyone who’s been paying attention. From Eric Rudolph’s bombing of the Atlanta Olympics, a gay nightclub and two abortion clinics to the so-called Phineas Priests who bombed banks, a newspaper and a Planned Parenthood Office in Spokane, from Matt Hale soliciting the murder of a federal judge in Chicago to Scott Roeder’s assassination of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, from brothers Matthew and Tyler Williams murdering a gay couple near Redding, Calif., to Timothy McVeigh destroying a federal building and 168 lives in Oklahoma City, we have seen no shortage of “Christians” who believe Jesus requires — or at least allows — them to commit murder.

If federal officials are correct, we now have one more name to add to the dishonor roll. That name would be Hutaree, a self-styled Christian militia in Michigan, nine members of which have been arrested and accused of plotting to kill police officers in hopes of sparking an anti-government uprising.

Many of us would doubtless resist referring to plots like this as Christian terrorism, feeling it unfair to tar the great body of Christendom with the actions of its fringe radicals. And here, we will pause for Muslim readers to clear their throats loudly.

While they do, let the rest of us note that there is a larger moral to this story and it has less to do with terminologies than similarities.

We are conditioned to think of terror wrought by Islamic fundamentalists as something strange and alien and other. It is the violence of men with long beards who jabber in weird languages and kill for mysterious reasons while worshipping God in ways that seem outlandish to middle American sensibilities. And whatever quirk of nature or deficiency of humanity it is that allows them to do what they do, is, we think, unique. There is, we are pleased to believe, a hard, immutable line between us and Them.

Then you consider Hutaree and its alleged plan to kill in the name of God, and the idea of some innate, saving difference between us and those bearded others in other places begins to feel like a fiction we conjured to help us sleep at night.

“Preparing for the end time battles to keep the testimony of Jesus Christ alive,” it says on Hutaree’s Web site. And you wonder: Who is this Jesus they worship and in what Bible is he found? Why does he bear so little resemblance to the Jesus others find in their Bibles, the one who said that if someone hits you on your right cheek, offer him your left, the one who said if someone forces you to go one mile with him, go two, the one who said love your enemies.

Why does their Jesus need the help of men in camo fatigues with guns and bombs? In this, he is much like the Allah for whom certain Muslims blow up marketplaces and crowded buses. Muslim and American terrorists, it seems, both apparently serve a puny and impotent God who can’t do anything without their help.

Sometimes, I think the only thing that keeps us from becoming, say, Afghanistan, is a strong central government and a diverse population with a robust tradition of free speech. The idea that there is something more is a conceit that blows apart like confetti every time there is, as there is now, a sense of cultural dislocation and economic uncertainty. That combination unfailingly moves people out to the fringes where they seek out scapegoats and embrace that feeble God. And watching, you can’t help but realize the troubling truth about that line between “us” and “Them.”

It’s thinner than you think.

— Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald. He chats with readers from noon to 1 p.m. CDT each Wednesday on www.MiamiHerald.com. lpitts@miamiherald.com

Comments

independant1 4 years ago

Don't buy that moral equivalency crap.

0

MacHeath 4 years ago

it is quite different, because the idea of legality is not in question. If there is illegal terrorism, there must also be legal terrorism. so, give me an example of legal terrorism. Hiroshima? This is an example of how words can be twisted to mean different things for different purposes. Whatever the department is, they should use a standard dictionary, not make one of there own. The Defense department wants to make sure to point out that they carry out only "legal" terrorism. That is, during a war, for instance. My point is that we like to think that we, as a nation, do not commit acts of terrorism. This is nonsense. Someone give me one example of a war, any war, that was fought, let alone won, without acts of terrorism.

0

Ralph Reed 4 years ago

@MacHeath re: your 0222. The dictionary I used is a Department of Defense dictionary, not Department of State. It varies little from standard definitions. Dueling definitions adds little to a discussion. I defined something so you would no from where I was speaking. BTW, Websters online dictionary defines terrorism as, "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion", (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism). This isn't any different than my definition. Not having ready access to the OED, I commend you for having one, I've searched elsewhere and have found definitions similar to Websters', above.

The Department of Defense Dictionary is found here, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/

0

jstthefacts 4 years ago

barry penders says/quotes

The e-mail in question was sent by Bergen County Education Association president Joseph Coppola in the form of a prayer, which said:

"Dear lord,' this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor."

Answer: If this statement was emailed, as you state, this is most certainly a terroristic threat.

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

Are these "Big Government Union Teachers" Christian Terrorists? Or Tea Baggers? Or Janey Napoleantano's Right-Wing Terrorists?

Apr 10, 2010 11:10 am US/Eastern Union Memo Hints At N.J. Gov.'s Death

Bergen County Teachers Union's Memo The Latest Salvo In War Of Words With Gov.

Marcia Kramer TEANECK, N.J. (CBS)

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's take-no-prisoners demand for education cuts got him a whole lot more than he bargained for -- a death wish.

It was in a controversial e-mail sent by the Bergen County Teachers Union to its members asking that Christie be "taken" by the Lord.

In seven years as the Garden State's pugnacious U.S. Attorney, Christie got only two death threats -- from the bloods and the crips.

It took only three months as governor for an adversary to wish him six feet under.

"To have the leader of the Bergen County Teachers Union send out an e-mail to their 17,000 members asking them to pray for my death I think just goes beyond the pale," Christie said.

The e-mail in question was sent by Bergen County Education Association president Joseph Coppola in the form of a prayer, which said:

"Dear lord,' this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor."

Christie got a swift apology.

Stimulus, Killer Teachers, and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless us all

0

jstthefacts 4 years ago

Pitts left out the christian terroristic policies of the Israeli government. They use our weapons to impose terrorism on the palestinians: terrorism pure and simple. There is no argument that the right wing pundants who thinly vail promoting terroristic acts such as murdering doctors and bombing healh clinics are unquestionable christian terrorist. This not to say all christians are terrorist. The reasoning for the obama admisistration to try to move away from the label "terrorism" was because the Bush administration mis-used it as a means of scarring the american people into agreeing with what ever bush's flavor of the day was.

0

jayhawklawrence 4 years ago

It is the silence of Islam in speaking out against extremism that confuses Christians.

It is the existence of schools that teach children to hate and kill Americans that disturbs us.

When Leonard Pitts compares modern radical Islamic extremism and the enslavement of millions of people under its tyranny in an article as narrowly focused as this one, it just isn't right.

I am very disappointed.

0

independant1 4 years ago

Never was a nation founded and maintained without some kind of belief in something…and that is religion. Never mind what kind. But it’s got to be something or you will fail at the finish. (Will Rogers)

0

bobberboy 4 years ago

all terrorists are sick and should be removed from society.

0

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

Its tough binky-sucking for cry-baby right wingers.

A black man of Kenyan ancestry as president. Christians committing acts of terror.

A black president and christian terrorism is enough to make a cry-baby right winger throw his rattle from his crib. Tough binkies indeed!

0

markbr52 4 years ago

Quoted from the article "Sometimes, I think the only thing that keeps us from becoming, say, Afghanistan, is a strong central government and a diverse population with a robust tradition of free speech."

What did the group do? So far it is only speech. Censored speech. Kind of silly to talk about free speech and what is happening to this group in the same sentence based on what has been published.

0

Machiavelli_mania 4 years ago

And this Bush/Clinton Haiti fund: It will be a cold day in hell before I give those men any money.

I will find a hatian family and directly give them the money. I need no money distribution going to untrustworthy fellas. P on that ad.

0

Machiavelli_mania 4 years ago

It isn't jarring to think of Christian terrorists. Our Counter-terrorism experts have been talking about for almost a decade now, and knew about it long before that. One counter-terrorism expert considers the (still-at-large, IMHO) Anthrax Killer to be a christian right-wing terrorist, and said as such. His story printed and stored somewhere in the house.

And then there is the finding that Pat Robertson was funding Christian Terrorists in Niger.

0

MacHeath 4 years ago

Ok, well.. I usually look in a dictionary for definitions. The common usage of the term "terrorism" is painted with a broad brush by definition. I use the Webster definition... and I checked the OED. The issue of legality, or illegality is not a factor.
I am not writing a state department memo. I have no need, nor intention to justify any government, or individual action, or to establish the legality or illegality of any such action. I am making no judgement as to morality, legality, or need. I am defining a term. I am using American English, as defined in any civilian dictionary. Not state department double-talk. Any terrorist act is justified by the perpetrator, or that act would be merely one of random violence.

0

Ralph Reed 4 years ago

@MacHeath I should have been more definitive. I should have said "modern" warfare. Besides, isn't talking about Hannibal the same thing that JHL didn't like at 0447?


@JHL. You said, "I believe there are people on this blog who would go so far as to say that the terrorists who crashed planes into our NY skyscrapers on 9/11 were somehow justified because they were making a preemptive, defensive attack on a nation that harbored Christian terrorists."

Isn't that a bit of a stretch and coloring with a broad brush? And, on what do you base your allegation? In that same vein I contend there are people on this blog who would go so far as to advocate an overthrow of our government, not just the current administration, but our system of government.


0

Stephen Johnson 4 years ago

I think we can call Pitts "Rip Van Winkle", because he's clearly been sleeping over the past 10 years. I guess if you give an idiot like Pitts a platform, you shouldn't be surprised at the nonsense they spew.

0

jayhawklawrence 4 years ago

Since some people are trying to say things that Pitt did not write and imply that he did, then I guess I can do the same thing.

I believe there are people on this blog who would go so far as to say that the terrorists who crashed planes into our NY skyscrapers on 9/11 were somehow justified because they were making a preemptive, defensive attack on a nation that harbored Christian terrorists.

If you believe that kind of thing, then I think you should look for another country to live in.

Pitts is reaching so far out in left field to make his point he fell out of the bleachers.

0

MacHeath 4 years ago

Civillians not been the targets of acts of war before WW11?? Civillians have always been targets of acts of war. Ask Hannibal what he thinks about that.

0

MacHeath 4 years ago

Gee Ralph, but I can't find a dictionary that excludes acts of war as acts of terrorism. I am not privy to your dictionary, however. Have you published yet?

0

Ralph Reed 4 years ago

@monkeywrench. The only thing about your post is that I've not heard of Radical Buddhism, Paganism, Naturism, etc.

0

monkeywrench1969 4 years ago

These individuals are part of CHristian Identity terrorist sects. They had end of the world scenarios and single out specific races as targets. The Turner Diaries were a blue print for these terrorist acts and were written by a person influenced by the Christian Identitiy movement.

All religions have some form of radical element who name the actions and their politics in the name of God.

0

Ralph Reed 4 years ago

@MacHeath. I agree that no terrorist calls themselves terrorist; it's usually the victims, targets or media saying that. Given definition of terrorism I provided at 0947, The examples you cite were not terrorist acts; they were in fact, acts of war. The only difference between armed battles and your examples is that during WWII, civilians became a strategic target. They had not been so before. However, had the outcome been different in 1945, those acts would probably be called "crimes against humanity," much like I've heard the London Blitz being called. (Who writes the history?) Your statement, "Pitts usually starts with a valid point, then goes off the deep end." would be an interesting discussion, but your provide no evidence. Could you provide evidence over time to support that statement? Without that evidence, your statement is simply a baseless opinion.

0

MacHeath 4 years ago

Pitts usually starts with a valid point, then goes off the deep end. No terrorist calls themselves a terrorist. What was the fire-bombing of Dresden, if not a terrorist act? What do you call the bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

0

Ralph Reed 4 years ago

First, let's define terrorism as, "The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.

@ jayhawklawrence. Given that definition, Pitts does not use poor examples nor is his logic faulty. You say there's plenty of blame to go around when you bring up the past. All of his references happened in the past two decades - one generation; some quite recently. I contend these are not in the past and that they are good examples. You say he uses poor examples. What would you cite as examples, or are there none because of the poor logic?"


I know Wikipedia is not definitive, but it is a quick reference. Given what they say about the Hutaree, I consider them a textbook example of the definition of terrorism. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree) For that matter each of his examples fits the definition above.

Pitts says, "Many of us would doubtless resist referring to plots like this as Christian terrorism, feeling it unfair to tar the great body of Christendom with the actions of its fringe radicals." Isn't that what we're doing with Radical Islam?

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

Good morning georgiahawk!

Yes, the 'Fresh' perspective of the Arabic named Noble Laureate, 'Blessed One' will cast a 'Fresh' bright light on the vulnerabilities the US has never experienced before.

Stimulus, Shazahn Padamsee, and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless you

0

georgiahawk 4 years ago

We need to rehash past wrongs until we learn not to repeat them!

0

Flap Doodle 4 years ago

Is "...jarring but accurate..." about the same as "...fake but accurate..."?

0

independant1 4 years ago

Yeah, those christians are out of control but don't worry, the government has them under constant surveillance.

0

jayhawklawrence 4 years ago

Pitt's article uses poor examples and poorer logic.

There is plenty of blame to go around when you bring up the past.

I think there is a limit to how much people should keep rehashing past wrongs.

I think I would have to grade Pitt's paper a D.

0

jayhawklawrence 4 years ago

Life in America before the white man was no Garden of Eden with tame lions walking around.

Maybe the white man was better at writing stuff down.

Almost everybody was fighting and killing somebody to survive.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

0

Gabriel Engeland 4 years ago

@whatthehell

I agree with some of what you are saying but to say the Christian church doesn't teach and breed hate and intolerance is wrong. The groups and the individuals mentioned above were trained christian murderers. It is easy for christians to separate themselves from the "extremists" because their churches and beliefs are not this way, but that is no different than muslims whose Mosques and religious views are different from the Islamic Terrorists.

The point is there are Christian terrorists very similar to Muslim terrorists. The great divider among the two isn't beliefs, but rather opportunity in life. It is surprising looking at the similar backgrounds of both groups, uneducated, impoverished, lack of purpose. The thing that is the least similar is willingness to kill for God.

0

Chris Golledge 4 years ago

Jaywalker had it 4 posts in.

Black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, who cares? Somewhere, at some time, someone who can be labeled as belonging to some group has done something awful to someone else belonging to some other group, for no other reason than that.

I do have a problem with how broadly the terrorist label is applied. Seems to me that a lot of who we are calling terrorists are just partisans, people feeling strongly enough about some cause to kill others, without the benefit of having the endorsement of some government.

0

Mike Ford 4 years ago

the past exists into today because the guilty want to forget it. I'm Choctaw and I'm a minster's kid. the past that is to be allegedly forgotten only benefits a culture that doesn't admit culpability and practices the silencing of memories to try and become less complicit over time. Until you've set and listened to the missionary David Ziesberger's diary accounts of the Gnadenhutten Massacre of March 6, 1782, in Gnadenhutten, Ohio, with an 85 year old descendant of a Christianized Native American who was murdered that day and realize that a specific tribe exists because a couple of parents decided to send their kids away prior to that massacre you have no idea. The two kids who survived this massacre did so by clinbing over the bodies of their dead relatives and walking 200 miles to Fort Detroit. One of the survivors was a kid who survived being scalped. I've sat with this decendant and read about a tragedy that was referenced by Teddy Roosevelt as a stain on American History a century or so after it happened. These people were her christian Native American ancestors beaten with their arms tied behind their backs by militiamen from Pennsylvania. A culture that forgets this history is doomed to repeat it.

0

Mike Ford 4 years ago

let's see, the pilgrims massacred the Wampanoag and Pequot people because they felt they were destined as god's people to take the property of "SAVAGES?" A militia from Pennsylvania massacred Moravian Munsee chirstian converts by tying their arms behinds their backs and beating 94 men, women and children to death on March 6, 1782, in the Gnadenhutten Massacre. I know people whose ancestors were murdered there who live here in Kansas currently. Methodist minister and Colorado militia leader John Chivington massacred hundreds of Cheyenne and Arapaho people flying a white flag of triuce on the Colorado prairie at Sand Creek in 1864. Euro-American Christian Supremacy was always used as an excuse to steal lands, rape indigenous women, and convert the culture out of Indians to make them "White" people like they did at Haskell from 1884 to 1925. There have always been Christian terrorists. Ask any Lakota, Dakota, or Nakota person who went through Catholic boarding schools from the 1880's to the 1960's. The Fathers and Nuns were the Christian terrorists who tormented and molested kids for decades. Read Tim Giago's "Children Left Behind" for the documentation of these statements. Indigenous peoples have known Christian terrorists since Christopher Columbus, Father Serra, and the Catholic leaders who terrorized the Pueblo people who would not convert and destroyed their kivas. We know all to well what Christian terrorists are capable of.

0

jayhawklawrence 4 years ago

Oops. Pitts fired a dud.

I know there is some sense in there somewhere but I hate having to guess what it is.

0

blue73harley 4 years ago

Saw the headline. Yep, it's by Pitts.

Movin' on to something worth reading...

0

Corey Williams 4 years ago

barrypenders (anonymous) says…

"I'm with Mahmoud."

April 8, 2010 at 4:49 p.m.

Noted.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years ago

Look at how the Mennonites rioted world-wide a few years ago over a cartoon of a guy wearing a black hat.

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Wednesday called President Barack Obama a nuclear-armed "cowboy",

I'm with Mahmoud.

Stimulus, Terrorist Cowboy and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless us all

0

gogoplata 4 years ago

Maybe they should be called White terrorists or American terrorists. We could call Roeder a Kansas terrorist. Maybe if they all shopped at Sears we could call them Sears terrorists. To be honest I'd just call Roeder a murderer not a terrorist. Calling someone a Christian terrorist is just as dumb as calling someone a Muslim terrorist. This is nothing but politically motivated BS.

0

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

Christian terrorists are every bit as much terrorists as Osama bin Laden. Scott bin Roeder. Timothy bin McVeigh. Eric bin Rudolph.

0

monkeywrench1969 4 years ago

Excuse me "Darwinian" ideas

0

monkeywrench1969 4 years ago

Once again Pitts presents only part of the story. Just like the extremist Islamists (individuals who politisize their religion and conform it to fit their needs) he has simplified the Christian Extremists who commits acts of terror as just Christians. THose he factually cited to be Christian Terrosits were factually attached to a white power religion created/promoted in the late 1800's called the Christian Identity religion which believe in Jesus etc, but claim Jews are the descendants of Eve and the Serpent and the rest of non white races are from a less favorable union.

Christian Identity was created to try and legitimize racist views through a "higher power." Rudoplh and the other cronies (except for Hale whose group was based more on warped Darminian ideas) followed a preverted form of Christianity as do many of the Isamist Terrorists.

0

Paul R Getto 4 years ago

"Pastafarians would never resort to such tactics" === Good points, and if they did, would it work? You can't hang someone with spaghetti and if you throw it at them, it just bounces off. Now, forcing another to eat at Olive Garden with their fake Italian food, that's terrorism!

0

Ray Parker 4 years ago

RalphReed, Actually, most of the victims abused by Catholic clergy were pubescent teenage boys, making the crimes pederasty, a crime rampant amongst homosexuals. Pedophiles, technically, are the ones who abuse pre-pubescent children. We may hope that the Catholic priesthood has learned a hard lesson, and will no longer admit known or suspected homosexuals into the priesthood, or believe the lies of any more quacks that claim that pederasts can be "cured" and returned to clerical jobs with unsupervised access to boys.

0

Ralph Reed 4 years ago

@HomeSlice. At the risk of sounding like I'm sniping at you but, "Don't look now, but your homophobia is showing." It's pedophilia, not a "gay sex scandal."

0

porch_person 4 years ago

We're not immune from being just as stupid, bullheaded, and "evil" as "they" are. We need to be constantly vigilant about that.

0

HomeSlice 4 years ago

Then let's start calling what is happening in parts of the Catholic church a gay sex scandal. That's what it is.

0

bruno2 4 years ago

"The President, the President!" Oops, the record's stuck, oops, the record's stuck, oops, the record's stuck...

0

remember_username 4 years ago

We're going to need a bigger boat...

0

whatthehell 4 years ago

History is full of this. Muslims and Christians have been "terrorizing" each other for thousands of years. To pretend otherwise is nonsense. In fact, to even have to write an article about it suggests how uneducated many of us are, or how short our memories are. To discuss American politics or race issues in this context is absolutely ridiculous and quite frankly shows how shortsighted you are if you wasted your time bringing it up. Really, the only difference I see is that the Islamic schools are set up to teach hatred and cultivate successive generations of suicide bombers. Islamic extremists are more adept at teaching hatred of anything different than christian extremists. One need only study the history of this conflict, just a little bit, to understand that it isn't going to change.

0

ferrislives 4 years ago

TomShewmon, I went to your link and tried to find where it says that "Blacks are 50 times more likely to attack whites than vice versa.". The link you've provided doesn't prove that point. Please show proof of this statement, and also provide what crimes blacks are "attacking" whites with according to that proof.

I do see that blacks make up a huge majority of the prison population, but I'm curious to know what crimes all of those blacks have committed vs. whites. I'll bet a lot of them are drug related and petty crimes. I clicked a link from your linked site, and found this graph: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/race.cfm. For violent crimes, blacks and whites aren't that far apart according to this data provided by the US Dept of Justice.

Concerning the article itself, terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the "cause". It is funny that when a person is in a religion, they defend actions of their religions' terrorist act, while chastising other religions for doing the same. Isn't that the same logic that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda use? Pure hypocrisy.

0

Roland Gunslinger 4 years ago

Ever notice that Brett Garner never answers questions directed at him?

Just attacks and runs.

0

Jimo 4 years ago

"Sometimes, I think the only thing that keeps us from becoming, say, Afghanistan, is a strong central government and a diverse population with a robust tradition of free speech."

In other words, the West is a post-Enlightenment world, which among other things separates religious and secular affairs (to some extent) by placing reason over religion as the organizing societal principle. (From that flowed the American and French Revolutions, market-based capitalism, the scientific method, and the conception of tolerance especially religious tolerance as a virtue.)

The Muslim world never has had such a similar event. Islam is an all-embracing guide to life including what we in the West would separate off as secular life (business, technology, politics, etc.). It is the extreme stress and contradiction from a foreign-derived sense of Enlightenment (modernism) grafted onto traditional (medieval really) culture of many traditional Islamic societies that leads to the prevalence of current violence in the Middle East.

The West's societal evolution however only came after centuries of violence and upheaval. (European history is filled with religious terrorism, whether the losers are branded heretics such as the Cathars, Bogomils, Arians, or some other variety of Gnostics, and ruthlessly slaughtered man, woman, and child, or the wastelands created by the reformation and counter-reformation.) Pitts' point here is only that there remains the occasional backlash in our own society, sometimes violent (often non-violent but still repressive such as the religious objection to secular marriage).

One can only hope the guide of the West (and for that matter some alternative Asian examples) can lead the Muslim world more quickly through its growth pains than over a few centuries.

0

werekoala 4 years ago

I get Pitt's point, which is that terrorist != Arab Muslim.

That said, I don't think "terrorist" needs an adjective, most of the time. The vast majority of adherents to ANY ideology, religion, faction, etc are by and large decent people with certain opinions. Then there are the 1% of violent nutjobs. I think they're pretty evenly distributed, and the same guy who's born in Afghanistan and joins the Taliban would have joined Westboro Baptist Church or Aryan Nation if he'd been born in the US.

Basically, an ahole is an ahole; why argue over the flavor?

0

deathpenaltyliberal 4 years ago

Go FOXers, blame the messenger.

You are such good sheeple.

0

gogoplata 4 years ago

Instead of going down the same stupid road, why not admit that they got it wrong the first time. Just call them terrorists. Does it matter if they are Muslim, Christian, Hindu, flying spaghetti monster, etc.

0

75x55 4 years ago

snap - Don't forget the Amish!

0

trinity 4 years ago

thank you, tanzer. yours was about the only coherent and logical post on this whole damn thread.

0

Ralph Reed 4 years ago

@tanzer and DontGoThere. Good posts, both of you. Terrorism is terrorism, period. ** @Tom. Get off your anti- President Obama rant. At no point does Pitts mention President Obama.

Try and stick to the point of his opinion piece. There are Christian terrorists, you and I both know that. Pitts uses examples from the US simply because most people will recognize them. Have you forgotten about the KKK, as well as the IRA, the "New Arian Nation" groups, neo-Nazis, and so on all over the world? It appears that you have in your desire to twist every thread to an anti-President Obama rant.

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

On 'Useful Culture' is a jarring, but accurate term.

Pitts plays the 'Useful' as well as the Vaunted Harry Reid described Poser, and as well as Michael Steele. With his and the Noble Peace Laureate's cagey 'Deciphering' fortay of Terroristic people, Russian Terrorists, Aryan State Iran, will comply with their Nuclear bomb acquiescence.

Stimulus, PADs Useful Culture, and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless us all

0

DontGoThere 4 years ago

I totally get what Pitts is saying and it makes sense. Terrorism is not the norm for Christianity nor is it the norm for Muslims... yet it's easy for "muslim terrorists" to roll off our tongue, not so easy for the other. Valid point and great job of "putting the shoe on the other foot".

And, this isn't a black or white thing... some people!

0

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

snap_crack_pop,

The president is near! The president is near!

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years ago

After November, the mood will be drastically different on LJW. After November 2012, we'll be back to Bush era hysteria, if not worse, much worse.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years ago

Our Pantone 138 Kansas-heritage President.......

0

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

Pitts is right on target. Terrorism is terrorism, whether employed by muslim or christian or whatever-ian.

This is a tough binky for christian right-wingerm cry babies to suck, so they scream like colicky infants.

Suck on christian terrorism, cry-baby right-wingers.

Teabaggers, rebel! Take to the street! Your president, Barack Hussein Obama, is a black man of Kenyan ancestry. Take your country back! Hutareeeeeeeee! Lame!

Sad trombones for christian right wing cry-babies: waaaa waaaa waaaa waaaaaaaaaaaa.

0

Paul R Getto 4 years ago

Sadly, humans have proven over and over again any 'loving god' can be turned into an excuse for terror and murder. If the skygods were real, they would pop on down here and kick some serious ass.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years ago

When will Pitts write a column on black on white crime (murder) and the black prison population? Wherein by the way, a majority of these black inmates convert to Islam over any other religion.

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=174

Keep in mind blacks make up app. 13% of the total US population. Blacks are 50 times more likely to attack whites than vice versa. How many black on white crimes make front page news? How many white on black crimes make front page news? Just about every one does.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years ago

"Does Pitts live in the same world as the rest of us?"

I'm sure Pitts doesn't live in your world of hypocrisy, BK.

0

Roland Gunslinger 4 years ago

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says… Pitts cites a minority--a very small minority--of lunatic fringers and implies that we have wide spread "Christian" terrorism.


Please point out where Pitts said we have "wide spread" Christian terrorism.

Also note that the muslim terrorists are also a very small minority of lunatic fringers. Their numbers, as a whole, are larger... but then so is their religion.

Bucker00 (anonymous) says… I like how they use McVeigh consistently, even though in his disjointed manifesto he proclaims himself to be an atheist.


Really? Hmm... apparently he told Time something else. He told them he was raised Catholic, lost touch with the religion, but kept the core beliefs. http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,109478,00.html

0

Jackie Jackasserson 4 years ago

don't get your shorts out of kilter. there are christian terrorists - Pitts point is that it is not the religion itself that makes them so, but their interpretation. his secondary point is we are all humans with the same potential for fault no matter what side of the planet we come.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years ago

Just look at all the beheading videos Methodists have posted on the interwebs.

0

Bucker00 4 years ago

I like how they use McVeigh consistently, even though in his disjointed manifesto he proclaims himself to be an atheist. But hey, Pitts has the truth he wants. This article is a joke.

0

jaywalker 4 years ago

Lunatics are everywhere. No doubt about it.

0

commuter 4 years ago

My question is if the any of Christian terroritsts were black, would Pitts written this article??? My guess is probally not.

0

Brent Garner 4 years ago

Let me see, Pitts cites a minority--a very small minority--of lunatic fringers and implies that we have wide spread "Christian" terrorism. Let me see. If we compare this rate of terrorism Pitts cites with the rate of terrorism from those of Middle Eastern religious/ethnic extraction--remember, the Usurper has forbidden the term Islamic Extremist--we get an interesting picture. First, it would appear according to news reports from Arabic, European, and even leftist American media that the majority of clerics in the religion of peace--remember Islamic extremism is now banned as a referenced term--endorse, support, advocate the use of violence to spread the religion of peace--see previous reference to banned term--and/or advocate, endorse, support the use of violence to subjugate the non-believer. Compare this to the majority of Christian pastors, bishops, clergy and you will find that there is no similar outpouring of support, advocacy, or endorsement of violence in support of Christianity. Does Pitts live in the same world as the rest of us?

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

The Pitts needs to take the 'Blessed Ones' cue and not 'Fractionalize' Christians. For the Pitts though, the Goose does not have to do what is good for the Gander. Pitts needs to have the same 'Love' for Christians as the Arabic named president of the this country has for Muslims. The Pitts must be following Janey Napoleontano's cue of hating 'Right-Wing' Terrorists.

"That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo and promised a "new beginning" in the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world. The White House believes the previous administration based that relationship entirely on fighting terrorism and winning the war of ideas"

"You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, 'We're building you a hospital so you don't become terrorists.' That doesn't make much sense," National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy said."

Stimulus, PAD Idealogues Fractionalize Christians, and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless us all

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.