Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Link to Islamist terrorism

I added Islamist terrorism under See also. TVPR removed it with an edit summary of "Superfluous." I wonder if he would care to explain his reasoning in more detail? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Islamist terrorism is covered under Religious terrorism. There's no reason to add a link to it in this article, unless you also intend to link to Jewish terrorism, Hinduist terrorism, Buddhist terrorism, Shintoist terrorism, Sikhistic terrorism, and so on. The fact that most of these do not have their own articles yet is something that needs to be solved, as terrorists after all come in all shapes, sizes, and religious beliefs. Except maybe Buddhist ;).

(((Oh really? The muslims in Burma and Thailand would beg to differ, as would those who suffered at the hands of the Japanese before 1945.)))

Anyway, I do believe a link to IT from here is superfluous as long as the Template:terrorism is applied. I just noticed there's a link to this article from IT as well, and would remove that as well, but I'd like to reach a satisfying conclusion to this situation first.--TVPR 15:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there's not enough Shintoist terrorism to make an anticle is a good thing. The absense of an empty article isn't really a problem I'm inclined to worry much about. Terrorists may in theory come in all religious beliefs, but they don't come in equal proportions. This page only exists to balance the carefully-named Islamist terrorism. I don't see the point in ignoring the pages' close connection, and I have no objection to including links to parallel articles. Still, reading the page on Religous terrorism, I think you are right; That link is good enough for now. I agree that linking directly to Islamist terrorism is not necessary right now.

Yesterday I added to Islamist terrorism the link to Christian terrorism. Maybe that was a bad idea, or maybe not. If you want to remove it, I won't oppose your doing so. Of course I can't speak for anyone else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy that we've reached an agreement. I think I'll leave the link at Islamist terrorism as it is, for now, especially since we've not had any third party input here. If anyone else has an opinion, please do voice it, so we can get some sort of quasi-policy on this matter. --TVPR 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We have bigger fish to fry, for example the double standard in the naming of Islamist terrorism. You have to understand that christians don't condone terrorism under their religion, but some zealots take the religion the wrong way. I think this is the biggest issue at hand. At this link I supply indisputable arguments as to why Islamist terrorism must be moved[1] --Urthogie 15:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

politically justified fluff

This was posted to the article page by User:ChristianAnarchist. I moved it here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(By Christian Anarchist) What a bunch of politically justified fluff. There are no references to this new term "Christian Terrorist" except here and perhaps in our new "Gestapo", the "Fatherland Security Agency". Today, any violence perpetrated by someone who claims to be a "Christian" is termed "Christian Terrorism" when in fact, it's just a crime committed by someone who claims to be a "Christian". There is a political agenda behind promoting this here-to-fore unheard of term, "Christian Terroist". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristianAnarchist (talk • contribs) .

ChristianAnarchist: We welcome your approach to this subject as long as it is presented in a neutral way. Please refrain from opinionated posts, as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Urthogie 15:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

page move

Is anyone oppose to moving this page to Christian extremist terrorism? I think that title would make sense because the crusades were clearly a mainstream interpretation of religion in their time, and we can have this article be more focused on the modern day extremists who blow themselves up, instead of having to overlap tons with the Crusades articles.--Urthogie 17:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'd very much like this article to conform to a standard it seems we're going to get from the vote on the move of Islamist terrorism to Islamic extremist terrorism (or Muslim etc., depending on consensus). On the other hand, as much as the Crusades have their own articles, I don't think the mention they have on this article is superfluous. As mainstream as they may have been in their days, one goal of the campaigns was arguably to terrorize the Muslim states. --TVPR 11:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My logic is that some politically correct christian will one day come to this article and ask for a page move, and its better that we find a reasonable middleground in advance.--Urthogie 12:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat bewildered, as it seems the crusades are no longer mentioned here - indeed, they have not been for some time. But yes, you are absolutely correct. And again, I would strongly support any reasonable uniform standard convention of naming, "~ extremist terrorism" is as good as any in this respect.--TVPR 13:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It seems like Christian extremist terrorism is a red link, so we don't need to fill out a requested move. I'll give 48 more hours for anyone to raise concerns or oppose:--Urthogie 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Despite what many christians would like to believe, the appalling nature of acts perpetrated by some christians does not mean that the perpetrators are not christian. Just as it would be ridiculous for an atheist to deny that Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists, so it is equally ridiculous for christians to claim Nazism was not founded in catholic and lutheran ideology or to claim that Eric Rudolph not motivated by the "christian identity" movement.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Adolf Hitler were both christians but that does not mean they share the same ideology; unfortunately, those christians who deny the religion of christian terrorists seem to believe that admitting that fact would infer that they do share the same ideology.

If the KKK and Adolf Hitler aren't "christian terrorists", then Osama bin Laden can't possibly be a "muslim terrorist"

The hypocrisy and denial one sees is astounding. -61.58.53.139

'A key purpose of this group was to create a scapegoat for the outbreak of the war and Germany's defeat. The scapegoats were found in "international Jewry," communists and politicians across the party spectrum, especially the parties of the Weimar Coalition, who were deemed "November criminals".' Taken from Adolf Hitler. Hitler looked at Jews and saw a scapegoat. He did not attack them because he was a Christian terrorist. If he was a Christian terrorist, why did he also attack gypsies and communists? -Mystaker1 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis weren't exactly Christian by any stretch of the imagination. See Nazi mysticism. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, I would point out that at wikipedia, Osama Bin Laden is never called a "muslim terrorist". It is only in line 28 of his article that we learn: "The West, particularly the United States, persistently sees him as the leader of a terrorist organization". We do have a page called Islamic extremist terrorism, where Al Qaeda, is "defined by most Western nations as an Islamic extremist group". Osama is only mentioned twice on this page, mainly to tell us that he is "opposed to the monarchy in Saudi Arabia" and "viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco". This makes me wonder if we should perhaps rename this page to Christian extremist terrorism. I would also suggest that if our friend 61.58.53.139 really wants to address "hypocrisy and denial" he might start on those pages.-- JJay 18:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

is de master satisfied?

The order's article doesn't mention faith and God's Army is "vaguely based on principles of Christianity" and I don't take threats well keep screwing with me and I'll have you banned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.246.111 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's against Wikipedia policy to keep reverting edits without reasoning them. I could always call upon the 3RR, to have this entry blocked from editing. Also, Wikipedia articles do not draw from other Wikipedia articles for reasoning, or as sources. Ergo, what the Order's article says about their faith and whatnot is irrelevant to what this article is to say about them. So I revert once more. --TVPR 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

lol

"Lane also vilifies at length the particular groups he believes to be leading the destruction of whites. The roster is familiar: Jews, who rule Western nations in an attempt to “mix, overrun and exterminate the White race”; Christianity, whose clergy he calls “lying, deceiving, greedy, selfish, treasonous swine”......."

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/lane.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=lane

132.241.246.111 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've now found a somewhat reliable source regarding one of the founding members of The Order. If you could add more references such as this for the group's leader, or the group itself, preferably from a source not blatantly pushing a pro-judeo-christian POV, within a weeks time, I'll leave your edit as it is. --TVPR 09:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Or you can let facts speak for themselves and avoid pushing a POV. 132.241.246.111 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What facts? And which POV would I be pushing? --TVPR 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a leader of the Order is anti-Christian proves it is not a Christian organization. 132.241.246.111 02:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This proves nothing. That one of the leaders of the UN is South African does not make it a South African organization. Be reasonable, and provide empirical facts rather than attempts at false logic. --TVPR 12:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Most scholarship on the Order describes it as a mixed group, emerging in part from Christian Identity, but also from other sectors of the white supermacist movement. I doubt it is fair to call it Christian terrorism without some sort of caveat.--Cberlet 13:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I can relate to that. So, do you think the link to them should be removed altogether, or do you have any better suggestions?--TVPR 10:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

An absolute joke

This page would be funny if it weren't actually taken seriously by a few of the more Fundamentalist Atheists on Wiki. Modern Fundamentalist Atheist Extremism revolves around two points: 1) Historical Revisionism to make Christianity the cause of all ills from the fall of The Roman Empire to The Invasion of Iraq, and 2) Seeing Islam as a rather poor, helpless victim, and seeing all Islam's inherent flaws as a result of 'Christian Persecution', which in the deranged mind of an Atheishit exists in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

The Atheists rallying cry will soon be 'Allahu Akbar!'.

-00:23, 28 May 2006, 86.138.0.221

Anyone else up for quoting this as a good old-fashioned example of WASP ideology, or whatnot? I can physically smell the hate seeping through the airwaves and out from my monitor from this guy... --TVPR 06:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi TVPR, I see you noticed my post. My point is this: The definiton of what defines 'Christian Terrorism' on this page, has become so ridiculously slanted and generally hazy that you can pretty much apply it to anyone and anything who is Christian nominally and has committed an act of violence. I feel though I must also affirm that my previous post was said out of anger more than anything else for the ridiculous comment of yours further down the page that claims the Quran expressively forbids murder. This is clearly part of the Atheist - Islamic Alliance, you know nothing about Islam, and I challenge you to a debate on the matter if you are up for it. I am a Deist but my family are Greek Orthodox Christians, that is why I feel a certain connection to Christianity, and that is why I defend it against the baseless and despicable lies that are spread about the crusades - Now, as a Greek I have no love for Crusades (sack of Constantinople), but one cannot deny that they were for the most part a counterreaction to the Islamic Conquests, a period of history usually glazed over by the likes of your liberal ilk as a period of 'enlightenment'.

Like all Northern European TVPR, you are rude, you hate Christianity, you doubtless hate Southern Europeans and consider us 'irrational' and you people are generally cold and rude and unfriendly, as opposed to us Greeks/Italians/Spanish (and even Turks), who are friendly and warm people, despite the fact we are stronger Christians than the Northern European unfriendlies who hate visitors.

*bites* Okay, my initial reaction was "Right, you really are crazy", but I'll try to remain civil. First off, the Quran does explicitly forbids murder. If you care to argue, I suggest you read the good book yourself, there's a fairly nice online translation (several interpretations, no less) in English right here. Fairly long, and more or less a duplicate of the Christian Bible - in fact, to me it reads like a "Bible for the learning-impaired". Not to put anyone down, but if you took the Bible (minus the New Testament), replaced all instances of "God" with "Allah", and repeated the phrase "by the way, God sees, knows, hears and wants all" a couple of hundred times, that'd basically be it. The narrative isn't half as exciting as in the actual Bible - at least not to my westernised eyes - but the outline is basically identical. Now, you'll naturally find a good bit of violence in it, but if you're tryin to claim that's unique to Islam's holy scripture, I'd advise you to think a few times about the phrase "Ass-whopping of Biblical proportions". It's very fitting to describe actions with intent to brutally kill or seriously injure someone in a more or less sadistical manner.

As for your belief in the existense of an "Athest - Islamic alliance", try getting a prescription for something sedative. This is not a joke. The very idea is absurd, seeing as though atheists and islamists (we're talking extremists in the latter group here, I presume) are mutually exclusive. Atheists are equally opposed to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism, and all other religions - the word "atheist" means, literally, "no-god-ist". As for islamic fanatics, I can't see how a religion in whose very fundament lies the idea of converting people to believe in their prime deity (which, for the record, is the exact same one as Jews and Christians believe in) could be compatible with a group of people refusing to believe in the very idea of divinity whatsoever.

Finally, regarding your personal attacks; generalizing denizens of Northern Europe as cold, rude and unfriendly is quite harsh. Implying that I feel some kind of hatred for Southern Europeans is unfounded, "irrational" as you so aptly put it, and - I might add - quite rude. Further, it is odd that somebody expressing such an intense dislike of muslims, atheists, northern europeans and large groups of people at a whole would claim that they are "friendly and warm", while we "hate visitors". Regarding the zeal of faith in Northern Europe, I don't quite know how knowledgable you are on the subject of European history, but please try reading up on the religious wars in the North. It was we who killed on another in the millions based on disagreements on the tenents of the same faith, which should speak volumes about the faith and zeal of the people living in this cold, godforsaken part of the world. Further, just for clarification, I am neither a Muslim nor an atheist. The term is agnostic - that is, I refuse to sit down and claim that "this faith is more true than that faith, and now I'm going to kill somebody over the idea", nor do I want to say "there is no divine being, full stop". This seeing as the fact of the matter is that we just don't know, there's no way we could know, not now, not ever. Not until we die because of some irrational fanatic blows up the subway, anyway, being he or she Shia, Sunni, Protestant, Catholic, Jehova's Witness, mainstream Jewish, Zionist, Taoist, Satanist, Atheist, or whateverist.

I hope this clarified a bit, and makes you drop at least a few of your prejudices and wild consipration theories.--TVPR 18:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not White Christian Terrorism. Is wikipedia only for the white folks?

If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not White Christian Terrorism. Is wikipedia only for the white folks?

AmandaParker

Well some Islamics are white, so I don't see how the race card can be played here.--M4bwav 01:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Non Xtian terrorism section

I removed the following text, because it is not about Christian terrorism. The article is on Christian Terrorism, not Christian Political Activism or anything else. I presume the text was added to provide a balanced POV. But NPOV is better served by adding info on Christians denouncing terrorism or providing sourced info on the fact that it is a minority view.

Rather than acts of terrorism, which are widely denounced, civil disobedience and nonviolent protest are methods encouraged by some Christian groups.

The most famous example is the Southern Christian Leadership Conference led by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Page move

I'm about to (ie I will have by the time you're reading this) move this page to Christian extremist terrorism, for balance with Islamic extremist terrorism. The reason? They both describe much the same situation (people committing terrorist acts in what they see as the furtherance of religious goals, but the justification for which is contested by other followers of that religion) in relation to a different religion, therefore it seems inconsistent to use different names. Cynical 11:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Tis a mistake, these pages ought to be called simply Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism, your just being weasely by adding extremist. And saying "Islamist terrorism" is even worse since not all Islamic terrorists are Islamists. 134.214.102.33 14:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Bombing

"Examples of Attacks and Aggression" cites the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as a christian terrorist event. The article, however, makes no reference to Christianity, although the attack on the Branch Davidians is noted as being a possible catalyst for McVeigh's actions. Could someone please explain how this event is an act of "Christian extremist terrorism"? --Aphyr

It's not period. McVeigh's opposition ot the Waco incident was not religiously motivated, but because it saw it as too much of an increase in federal government power. Hell, McVeigh himself was an agnostic. It's removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.123.221.244 (talk • contribs) .

From the McVeigh article : "McVeigh and his siblings lived with their father, a devout Catholic who often attended Daily Mass. Timothy McVeigh professed his present belief in "a God" in a recorded interview with Time Magazine. The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic, but no text of such a letter (or tangible proof of its existence) has been published or made public in any medium. McVeigh accepted the Sacrament of Extreme Unction from a priest of the Roman Catholic Church shortly before his death, and he had been visited by a priest during his time in prison" Sounds like a Christian to me. -- noosphere 22:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While his religious affiliation is disputable, the bombing was not religiously motivated.65.123.221.244 03:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus

The Posse Comitatus incident was recently removed by User:65.123.221.244 with the reason that "while the group had ties to extremist groups like Christian Idenitty, it was a mostly secular ideology". Yet, according to Stephen Rendahl in Gordon Kahl's Demonic Rhetoric:

In Kahl's view paying income tax was tantamount to obeying Satan thereby becoming a servant of the devil. By paying taxes, he would be condemning himself to Hell, and would spend "all eternity in the Lake of Fire." What was more, such taxes, according to Kahl, were collected to impoverish and starve "those who would support Christianity, and [enrich] and [nourish] those who would bring about its demise" (Kahl, 1981). By this reasoning, then, to pay income tax was to support the destruction of Christianity. Taxation became the battlefield of Christ and Satan.

Furthermore, according to the article on Gordon Kahl:

Kahl wrote a letter to the Internal Revenue Service stating that he would no longer pay taxes to the, in his words, "Synagogue of Satan under the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto."

Again, it's hard to dispute that Kahl was a Christian. -- noosphere 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Rudolph Count?

I do not really see how Eric Rudoph really counts as a "Christian terrorist". This is especially true given the definition given at the beginning of the article, which states the label applies to individuals who undertake there actions to further Christianity. Just because Rudolph has said he is a Christian and was loosely affiliated with a wacko cult, that doesn't mean he fits in this category. This is especially true given that he has even said himself he follows more of a nihilist philosophy. -- Grandpafootsoldier

What about the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)?

And also the Ulster Defence Association?

Both of these groups (and others) in Ireland are organized around religious divisions and also are terrorist.

Here's a good article to find a religious terrorists: Terrorism Act 2000

87.118.100.99 08:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are nationalist organizations, not religious. Neither group was trying to establish a theocracy of any sort. I also have a tough time believing that the ski-mask wearing IRA members seen on the news all the time frequently attended Mass and went to weekly confession, or that UDA mobsters known for drug dealing and buying prostitutes truly cared too much about religion.

It's true that the Catholic/Protestant divide was the biggest factor in the division between such groups, but that doesn't make it religious terrorism anymore than it makes secular Palestinean groups like Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Islamic terrorists or the mostly Hindu Tamil Tigers who target mostly Buddhist Sinhalese Hindu terrorists.

65.123.220.242 01:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists declare their affiliation - regardless of the majority they say they are with

I've reviewed the article and the discussion pages. So much of what I see is a large list of arguments with many people saying terrorists cannot be Christian because that's not what the religion teaches.

It is the TERRORISTS who declare what they are fighting for. The actions are also almost without exception not approved by the larger majority of people who believe the same thing. They declare their own allegiance to some thing when they state they explain why they did the action and what they want in response.

There are terrorists for Abortion, Islam, Christianity and who knows what else. Coke vs Pepsi? Burger King vs McDonalds? Brittney Spears Militant Fan Club. We could even see wikipedia terrorist blowing up Britanica publishing houses.

The point is there are groups of people who do these things and they decide why. I'm not sure how this should be written up, but I think it could stop some repetitive arguments if we could at least agree on this point.

I think this should be an article about terrorists who have decided their actions are in some what required or related to the Christian Faith in some way.

The Real Reason for the Lack of Condemnation by Christians

I object to the second paragraph in the introduction, which currently states that the majority of Christians tolerate or silently agree with Christian acts of terrorism. I would argue that Christian acts of terrorism are for the most part kept out of the mainstream media, and that most Christians simply are not aware that acts of terrorism are occuring in the name of their religion, other than the Protestant/Catholic troubles in Ireland that has gone on for so long. Many churches speak out on a regular basis against Christians committing violence against Muslims in reponse to 9/11, against abortion clinics, or for racist or homophobic agendas. CClio333 11:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I found the previous version of the second paragraph, last included in the revision by Samurai V, and replaced the current version with it. It has a source for the Christian Identity statement, and should not have been edited out. CClio333 12:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Why is NI on the list of Christian Terrorists? NI is a nationalist and not religious concern, and any violence is in the name of either Unionism or Nationalism. The only link to Christianity is that participants are in a Christian country, and that the nationalist/unionist division also happens to be a Catholic/Protestant division, labels used by the news as they are easier to understand than nationalist/unionist. To say that The Troubles are a religious problem is nonsense, and I propose that they are removed from the list of Christian terrorism. I apologise for the poor formatting, I'm a bit new at this.

I support this removal or at least add a disputed-comment there. When the guns in ireland where still smoking I never ever have seen the slightest grudge against the confession of the enemy but a lot of against their position towards britain. Being catholic myself I have been able to talk to both sides without the slightes sign of prejudices, it simply doesn't matter what confession you are as long as long as you don't touch "the british" subject. Crass Spektakel 10:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Christian terrorists executed in Indonesia

How come I can't find any references whatsoever to the execution of christian terrorists in Indoensia?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5366226.stm

Regardless of whether or not they really were reponsible or really were terrorists or whatever, it seems wikipedia is entirely silent on this issue. Here is a instance of Christian terrorism that is difficult to dispute.Entropy Rising 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say its because this event only happened two days ago and no one has had time to do anything yet. Write something up on it. CClio333 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There *are* references

There are several references, not a reference for every claim, but still. So, I've removed the "no references" tag, for now. Robocracy 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)