Schools equate Christianity to Terrorism

[Multigraph]

What Schools Are Teaching Our Kids

Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.

Two-and-a-half years ago, Islamic terrorists took 1,200 people hostage at a school in the Russian city of Beslan. They ultimately slaughtered 344 people, including 186 children. The attack brought back memories of the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, in which two disaffected students shot to death twelve classmates and a teacher.

It is no surprise, then—especially after September 11—that a New Jersey school district felt the need to practice anti-terrorism drills. What shocked students was who the mock terrorists were supposed to be: homeschooling Christian fundamentalists.

It’s another example of how openly those hostile to any forms of Christianity express their contempt.

The anti-terrorism drill was organized by the Burlington Township Police Department. According to the Burlington County Times,the drill scenario described intruders as “members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the ‘New Crusaders’ who do not believe in separation of church and state.” The storyline also says the mock terrorists were angry because the daughter of one gunman was expelled from school for praying in class. The drill “specified that two armed men invade the high school . . . shoot several students in the hallways, then barricade themselves in the media center with 10 student hostages.”


Not surprisingly, Christian students, parents, and local pastors were upset about Christians being portrayed this way, and conservative media outlets expressed outrage. In response,

[ArmChair General]

What Schools Are Teaching Our Kids

Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.

Two-and-a-half years ago, Islamic terrorists took 1,200 people hostage at a school in the Russian city of Beslan. They ultimately slaughtered 344 people, including 186 children. The attack brought back memories of the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, in which two disaffected students shot to death twelve classmates and a teacher.

It is no surprise, then—especially after September 11—that a New Jersey school district felt the need to practice anti-terrorism drills. What shocked students was who the mock terrorists were supposed to be: homeschooling Christian fundamentalists.

It’s another example of how openly those hostile to any forms of Christianity express their contempt.

The anti-terrorism drill was organized by the Burlington Township Police Department. According to the Burlington County Times,the drill scenario described intruders as “members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the ‘New Crusaders’ who do not believe in separation of church and state.” The storyline also says the mock terrorists were angry because the daughter of one gunman was expelled from school for praying in class. The drill “specified that two armed men invade the high school . . . shoot several students in the hallways, then barricade themselves in the media center with 10 student hostages.”


Not surprisingly, Christian students, parents, and local pastors were upset about Christians being portrayed this way, and conservative media outlets expressed outrage. In response,

Christians have been responsible for more terrorist attacks in this country than Muslims have.

[Multigraph]

I know!

There are too many Christian fanatics (or other religious fanatics) and someone needs to calm their asses down.

How can they not see the contradictions within the Christian doctrine? Anyone with a brain can figure it out.

[Castle]

I believe that religious extremism has no place in public schools anyhow....period!

My son's school system banned Christian religious observances like Christmas and thanksgiving from class and school calendars. No big deal to me, until they decided to spend a day in history class discussing Ramadan. I politely asked them to reconsider in light of their removal of all Christian topics. When they refused I told them not to expect my son in school that day. Problem solved.

School should be about education, not religious and political agenda's.
How pathetic is our public education system that it cannot grasp this.

-Castle

[jb_1430]

Christians have been responsible for more terrorist attacks in this country than Muslims have.

Well, I guess if you count every vandalism or bombing of abortion clinics AND you just assume that they are Christians, you could be right. I dont believe there have been ANY attacks this century. In the last 50 years there have been 4?-5? deaths at the hands of so called Christian terrorists. in the last 7 years there have been 3000 deaths at the hands of Muslim terrorists.
MARK

[ArmChair General]

Well, I guess if you count every vandalism or bombing of abortion clinics AND you just assume that they are Christians, you could be right. I dont believe there have been ANY attacks this century. In the last 50 years there have been 4?-5? deaths at the hands of so called Christian terrorists. in the last 7 years there have been 3000 deaths at the hands of Muslim terrorists.
MARK

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

[vyo476]

My son's school system banned Christian religious observances like Christmas and thanksgiving from class and school calendars. No big deal to me, until they decided to spend a day in history class discussing Ramadan. I politely asked them to reconsider in light of their removal of all Christian topics. When they refused I told them not to expect my son in school that day. Problem solved.


I still think that students should learn about religion and religious doctrines. There's a difference between practicing and learning about something. If they learn about it in an objective way (which is supposed to be the purpose of school) then they can make up their own minds about whether or not it's something they believe.

[vyo476]

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

He wasn't exactly fighting the name of Christianity, though, was he?

The Branch-Dividians are a better example. And there's always the Jonestown incident, which was overwhelmingly American even if it didn't happen on American soil. And there's the KKK, which derives many of its prejudices from the isolationist Protestant ethics of the early nineteenth century (the idea that the KKK is purely anti-black is a myth - for a while they were primarily an anti-Catholic group).

[ArmChair General]

He wasn't exactly fighting the name of Christianity, though, was he?



All Roads lead to Elohim City.

[vyo476]

All Roads lead to Elohim City.

Huh?

I've never heard of any religious connections to Timothy McVeigh...do tell, I'd be very interested to hear about them.

If you want to see something sick, go on YouTube and look up Timothy McVeigh. You'll find an obscene number of tribute videos, declaring him a hero and a martyr. Scary stuff.

[top gun]

I believe that religious extremism has no place in public schools anyhow....period!

My son's school system banned Christian religious observances like Christmas and thanksgiving from class and school calendars. No big deal to me, until they decided to spend a day in history class discussing Ramadan. I politely asked them to reconsider in light of their removal of all Christian topics. When they refused I told them not to expect my son in school that day. Problem solved.

School should be about education, not religious and political agenda's.
How pathetic is our public education system that it cannot grasp this.

-Castle

You make a good point. In the old days the vast, vast majority of students in any given school were Christians. Now the public schools are so mixed that it is unfair to force a certain set of religious holidays across the board. I still like to see the kids get a little holiday break at school but there are ways to make them multi-denominational and all inclusive.

No one, especially a kid, likes to feel like the odd one out.

[vyo476]

You make a good point. In the old days the vast, vast majority of students in any given school were Christians. Now the public schools are so mixed that it is unfair to force a certain set of religious holidays across the board. I still like to see the kids get a little holiday break at school but there are ways to make them multi-denominational and all inclusive.

No one, especially a kid, likes to feel like the odd one out.

But would you agree that religions should still be taught, if not practiced?

[Castle]

I still think that students should learn about religion and religious doctrines. There's a difference between practicing and learning about something. If they learn about it in an objective way (which is supposed to be the purpose of school) then they can make up their own minds about whether or not it's something they believe.
.....and this would be fine also, as long as the school system does not disqualify one and embrace another. I would prefer that religious studies be optional.

-Castle

[r0beph]

Religion itself is a matter of choice. You can choose christianity, you can choose islam. Choice has a place in all aspects of life, however being that it IS a choice, one should not be expected to make a certain choice regarding the belief of an optional aspect of life.

Let's take a sidestep here and use Art as an example.

In school, Art is often taught, no one has a problem here. Why? Because you'll never have a teacher who will force upon a student that they must believe that the reason an artist painted his painting the way he did due to a specific opinion and treat it as if it is fact. Religion has problems being treated as art and literature are treated in this. It often becomes inflammatory because you have many people with preconceived notions about religions. If a religion is taught in a class with a pure objectivity you will still have a subset of students who will feel the need to express their preconceptions. Everyone sees something different in the Arts and Lits, religion has larger cohesive groups. If a teacher says that a painting expresses the artists depression and distaste for his living conditions, a student may disagree without backlash. Try this with religion. I think this is the difficulty in teaching religion. Objectivity is way to difficult.

[Freethinker]

Does anyone here doubt that Hitler and Mussolini were practising Roman Catholics?

[vyo476]

Does anyone here doubt that Hitler and Mussolini were practising Roman Catholics?

Yeah, I'll throw it out there that I doubt that. And in fact I'll throw it out there that Hitler was pretty un-Catholic; can't speak for Mussolini because I've never studied him in any depth, but I can quite confidently say that Hitler was about as Catholic as Martin Luther - although they had different ideas about what was wrong with the religion.

[Segep]

Huh?

Elohim = God.... or more accurately, Lords

[vyo476]

He wasn't exactly fighting the name of Christianity, though, was he?


I just realized the typo there. I meant to say "fighting in the name of Christianity." Completely changes the meaning. Terribly sorry.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, I guess if you count every vandalism or bombing of abortion clinics AND you just assume that they are Christians, you could be right. I dont believe there have been ANY attacks this century. In the last 50 years there have been 4?-5? deaths at the hands of so called Christian terrorists. in the last 7 years there have been 3000 deaths at the hands of Muslim terrorists.
MARK

How conveniently you forget about all the Christian attacks on black people--can you say "lynching"?--and what about all the beatings, rapes, and murders of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people--all justified in some twisted way by the Christian Holy Book. Maybe killing queers doesn't seem like terrorism to you but it does to us. It's all a matter of perspective, members of Islam probably don't see their attacks on us as terrorism, but we do. Even the most casual examination of Christian history will reveal that Christians have been visiting Hell on Earth on people they don't like--including each other--for nearly 2000 years. Islam didn't run the Inquisition, Islam wasn't responsible for the Dark Ages, and it wasn't Islamic crazies that burned 10's of thousands of women at the stake over a 500 year period all across Europe.

And I'll bet--just a guess on my part really--that the thousands of Iraqi civilians (the women and children at the very least) whose country has been bombed into the stoneage probably view us "Christians" as terrorists.

[Castle]

Does anyone here doubt that Hitler and Mussolini were practising Roman Catholics?
Hitler was born into a Catholic family, but he specifically rejected Catholicism and rejected Christianity in general as well.

How conveniently you forget about all the Christian attacks on black people--can you say "lynching"?--and what about all the beatings, rapes, and murders of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people--all justified in some twisted way by the Christian Holy Book. Maybe killing queers doesn't seem like terrorism to you but it does to us. It's all a matter of perspective, members of Islam probably don't see their attacks on us as terrorism, but we do. Even the most casual examination of Christian history will reveal that Christians have been visiting Hell on Earth on people they don't like--including each other--for nearly 2000 years. Islam didn't run the Inquisition, Islam wasn't responsible for the Dark Ages, and it wasn't Islamic crazies that burned 10's of thousands of women at the stake over a 500 year period all across Europe.

And I'll bet--just a guess on my part really--that the thousands of Iraqi civilians (the women and children at the very least) whose country has been bombed into the stoneage probably view us "Christians" as terrorists.
Ya see, this is what I love. Christians over the last 2000 years have done some regrettable things in the name of Christianity. Of this there is no debate. So based on this fact, am I somehow barred from expressing a critical opinion of current Islamic extremists because I happen to be Christian? So we're supposed to give Islamic terrorism a pass now because we used to be rather savage too? Hmmm......you'll have to do better than this before you make a self hating radical Muslim apologist Christian out of me.

-Castle

[Justinian]

Put the puzzle together in your mind and realize what America and Western society is becoming. And people try to denounce me. Unfathomable.

[USMC the Almighty]

Ya see, this is what I love. Christians over the last 2000 years have done some regrettable things in the name of Christianity. Of this there is no debate. So based on this fact, am I somehow barred from expressing a critical opinion of current Islamic extremists because I happen to be Christian? So we're supposed to give Islamic terrorism a pass now because we used to be rather savage too? Hmmm......you'll have to do better than this before you make a self hating radical Muslim apologist Christian out of me.

-Castle

Well said.

[9sublime]

Western society is becoming increasingly unreligious, that what gets to your core most Justinian. You can't handle it because someone did a very good job absoloutley brainwashing you into total belief and you can't imagine a world without it. It scares the crap out of you that people don't want to believe and follow what you follow.

[JavaBlack]

Hmmm...
"New Crusaders" "fundamentalist" "prayer in school"
Sounds pretty generic actually. Could apply to Christianity, Islam, or any other religious sect. No one specifically said "christian". Sounds more like they were just trying to add a generic homegrown flavor.
Probably would have been better to use a made up religion... but then people would still be complaining because it makes religion sound bad.

The logic behind being offended is pretty silly though.
"The fictional bad guys are Christian... therefore it's sending the message that Christians are evil!"
Puh-leeze.
That's like saying:
"The villain in the book we read in English class was white. Therefore the message is whites are evil!"

The school avoided using Muslims because they knew so close to after 9/11, such a stunt would only increase the stigma on Muslim Americans and anyone else who lools like them because that group was already stigmatized with a terrorist image. Christians have no such stigma and no one would start going nuts and beating up Christians over the stunt they went with.
Unfortunately they forgot that these days Christians are being raised by their organizations to see every single thing that pops up anywhere as an attack on Christianity!

I get the feeling that Christians don't actually learn anything in school. They're so concerned with content like whether Christianity is presented nicely enough that they never seem to get the actual point of the assignment.
Hopefully as the political machines like the Christian Coalition die off, we'll see less of this Christian paranoia.

[PLC1]

“members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the ‘New Crusaders’ who do not believe in separation of church and state.” The storyline also says the mock terrorists were angry because the daughter of one gunman was expelled from school for praying in class. The drill “specified that two armed men invade the high school . . . shoot several students in the hallways, then barricade themselves in the media center with 10 student hostages.”

That paragraph describe Christians, how again? Is it the word "Crusaders" that gives them the Christian title? I think that word has a broader meaning today than it did a thousand years ago, don't you?

[mustardayonnaise]

So what if they were depicted as Christian? (they weren't, at least not directly).
The point of the exercise was to train the kids in how to act in the event of a terrorist attack. The brand of terrorist is really immaterial here. Oh, and if you think Christian terrorism in America is an absurd idea, I suggest you check out the documentary "Jesus Camp" on Google or YouTube...

[Segep]

So what if they were depicted as Christian? (they weren't, at least not directly).
The point of the exercise was to train the kids in how to act in the event of a terrorist attack. The brand of terrorist is really immaterial here. Oh, and if you think Christian terrorism in America is an absurd idea, I suggest you check out the documentary "Jesus Camp" on Google or YouTube...

Good post mustard.

I wish I could see your avatar better.

[mustardayonnaise]

Good post mustard.

I wish I could see your avatar better.

It's from a skit on Mr. Show. You can find it on youtube. It's part two of three; the first is "mayostard" and the third is "mustmayostardayonnaise". Check it out it's a classic!:D :D

[r0beph]

Remember the fundamentalist Christian feels the NEED to feel persecuted. I've no prob with christians mind you. Just the retard fundies who have no grasp on the sciences or logic what so ever. Christianity is not a bad religion, but unfortunately we have a large population of sheeple with no real self-thought.

[vyo476]

Remember the fundamentalist Christian feels the NEED to feel persecuted. I've no prob with christians mind you. Just the retard fundies who have no grasp on the sciences or logic what so ever. Christianity is not a bad religion, but unfortunately we have a large population of sheeple with no real self-thought.

I've only met one fundamentalist Christian in my nineteen and a half years of existence. I'm pretty sure he had some form of brain damage, too, so I'm not sure he counts.

Then again, I don't venture out of New England very often, so I guess that isn't too surprising.

I'd like to meet Fred Phelps. That might be interesting.

[Justinian]

Western society is becoming increasingly unreligious, that what gets to your core most Justinian. You can't handle it because someone did a very good job absoloutley brainwashing you into total belief and you can't imagine a world without it. It scares the crap out of you that people don't want to believe and follow what you follow.

Shut your goddamn face you stupid silly alien atheist.

[9sublime]

Just so everyone knows I'm an agnostic.

[vyo476]

Shut your goddamn face you stupid silly alien atheist.

Gee gosh golly I'm gonna miss you Justinian. Nothing but the sharpest, most intellectual stuff came out of your corner.

[Napoleon]

So we're supposed to give Islamic terrorism a pass now because we used to be rather savage too?

There are still plenty of Christian terrorist groups at work in the world, primarily in India and Africa, and the acts of Al Qaeda are quite humane in comparison to what they do. The Lord's Resistance Army, for example, routinely kidnaps children in broad daylight. The girls are taken as sex slaves while the boys are forced into militant training camps. If you happen to be the unlucky village they've targeted for forced conversion....beware. Refusal results in your babies being bashed against trees, your elders stabbed and hacked to death with spears and machetes, and the lucky ones end up with a bullet in their head. Islamic terrorism doesn't get a pass but good luck finding any media outlet, government institution, or political organization willing talk about what Christian terrorists are doing these days.

[PLC1]

There are still plenty of Christian terrorist groups at work in the world, primarily in India and Africa, and the acts of Al Qaeda are quite humane in comparison to what they do. The Lord's Resistance Army, for example, routinely kidnaps children in broad daylight. The girls are taken as sex slaves while the boys are forced into militant training camps. If you happen to be the unlucky village they've targeted for forced conversion....beware. Refusal results in your babies being bashed against trees, your elders stabbed and hacked to death with spears and machetes, and the lucky ones end up with a bullet in their head. Islamic terrorism doesn't get a pass but good luck finding any media outlet, government institution, or political organization willing talk about what Christian terrorists are doing these days.

Do you have some facts and references to back up that astoundingly unbelievable assertion, or are you just blowing smoke?

[Napoleon]

Do you have some facts and references to back up that astoundingly unbelievable assertion, or are you just blowing smoke?

Here are links about two well known Christian terrorist groups:

Lord's Resistance Army (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.htm)

National Liberation Front Of Tripura (http://http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/tripura/terrorist_outfits/NLFT.HTM)

Here is a link about the specific incident I was referring to:

"Forty-eight people were hacked to death near the town of Kitgum in the far north of Uganda (on Thursday). Local newspaper reports say elderly people were killed with machetes and spears, and babies were flung against trees." (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2002/07/mil-020726-2f1ee7a8.htm)

[PLC1]

Here are links about two well known Christian terrorist groups:

Lord's Resistance Army (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.htm)

National Liberation Front Of Tripura (http://http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/tripura/terrorist_outfits/NLFT.HTM)

Here is a link about the specific incident I was referring to:

"Forty-eight people were hacked to death near the town of Kitgum in the far north of Uganda (on Thursday). Local newspaper reports say elderly people were killed with machetes and spears, and babies were flung against trees." (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2002/07/mil-020726-2f1ee7a8.htm)

Lord's Resistance Army: This is Christianity? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony)

It was a strange religion Kony adhered to. He prayed to the God of the Christians on Sundays reciting the Rosary and quoting the bible; but he also did the Al-Jummah prayer on Fridays, like the Muslims. He celebrated Christmas, but he also fasted for 30 days during Ramadan and prohibited the consumption of pork.

National Liberation Front Of Tripura? I've never heard of them, and the link didn't work.

[Napoleon]

Lord's Resistance Army: This is Christianity? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony)

His goal is to turn Uganda into a Christofacist state and, yes, he practices a sect of Christianity.

National Liberation Front Of Tripura? I've never heard of them, and the link didn't work.

Just remove the additional http//

[SW85]

First of all, before I even get into debunking some of the most absurd breaches of logic propagated in this thread (what are you guys, Marxists? Christ!), shame on the lot of you for derailing the topic.

Whatever the past sins of Christianity, the fact remains that the major terrorist threat today comes from Muslims, and it makes no sense to hold safety drills that do not recognize this fact. If they don't want to offend Muslims, why mention a particular brand of person at all? Why not simply say "terrorists are attacking the school (or whatever), so here's our evacuation route"?

I've seen such nonsense so many times it's just mind-boggling. The defenses of it are even more so.

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

He killed less than 200 people. Not to mention his actions were motivated by politics, not religion. And that when he was punished for his crimes there was not a large fifth column in America *****ing about it.

If you want to see something sick, go on YouTube and look up Timothy McVeigh. You'll find an obscene number of tribute videos, declaring him a hero and a martyr. Scary stuff.

Ugh. I still remember during my year-or-so-long flirtation with the Libertarians, when I was a Free State Project member, there was a big group of people cheering about some fellow who had murdered a couple of people (including one or two police officers) over a land dispute. It was one of the big reasons I turned my back on them.

I don't get why some people glorify revolution. Obviously they've never lived through one.

Does anyone here doubt that Hitler and Mussolini were practising Roman Catholics?

Hitler was born Catholic. That's about where his affiliation with them ended. (This is rather like saying we should have attacked Saudi Arabia after 9/11 because most of the hijackers were ethnically Saudi, which I've always thought was a ridiculous argument).

He adhered to a highly revisionist pseudo-mythological treatment of the religion he called Positive Christianity. He regarded Jesus as an anti-Jewish Aryan crusader. I doubt he even believed this himself; I think it was more an attempt to mold the ideals of the Nazi regime to the overwhelmingly Christian people of Germany. We already know from his private table talk that Hitler ridiculed the Germans' religiously-motivated sexual conservatism because it interfered with his racial stud farms.

And again, whatever his religion was, his actions were motivated by other things -- i.e., his total insanity.

How conveniently you forget about all the Christian attacks on black people--can you say "lynching"?--and what about all the beatings, rapes, and murders of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people--all justified in some twisted way by the Christian Holy Book.

So? Look, there are three salient points here:

(1) As far as Christendom is concerned, such things don't happen today on anywhere near the scale they used to. (This is not true of Islam, where racially- and sexually-motivated assaults and murders are not only common but legally permitted).

(2) Christians may have been responsible for those things, but Christians were equally responsible for ending them. (Again, this is untrue of Islam, where the "moderate voice" we hear touted so often in the media is pretty much silent even here, and practically non-existent in the Muslim world).

(Yes, I know you were only responding to that guy, who was obviously wrong about Christian sins in the 20th century. But it's worth debunking these arguments now before someone comes along who will actually use this as a defense of Islamic atrocities).

Even the most casual examination of Christian history will reveal that Christians have been visiting Hell on Earth on people they don't like--including each other--for nearly 2000 years. Islam didn't run the Inquisition, Islam wasn't responsible for the Dark Ages, and it wasn't Islamic crazies that burned 10's of thousands of women at the stake over a 500 year period all across Europe.

(A) The Inquisition probably would never have happened if Moorish Muslims had not previously invaded and conquered parts of Spain.

(B) Christianity was responsible for the dark ages? That's new. The fall of Rome, due in part to the influx of eastern barbarians, was. Case in point: the Roman Empire was Christian long before the dark ages began. The Byzantines were Christian long after. And the Islamic sacking of Constantinople did plunge the region into a Dark Age. (And ironically sped along the western Renaissance, as Greek intellectuals had to flee westward to avoid the ravages of the barbaric Muslim invaders).

(Not to mention, the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are still living in a dark age!)

And (C) Islamic crazies have been killing women since their religion was founded. And unlike Christians, they still largely kill women today.

The logic behind being offended is pretty silly though.
"The fictional bad guys are Christian... therefore it's sending the message that Christians are evil!"
Puh-leeze.
That's like saying:
"The villain in the book we read in English class was white. Therefore the message is whites are evil!"

The school avoided using Muslims because they knew so close to after 9/11, such a stunt would only increase the stigma on Muslim Americans and anyone else who lools like them because that group was already stigmatized with a terrorist image. Christians have no such stigma and no one would start going nuts and beating up Christians over the stunt they went with.
Unfortunately they forgot that these days Christians are being raised by their organizations to see every single thing that pops up anywhere as an attack on Christianity!

I get the feeling that Christians don't actually learn anything in school. They're so concerned with content like whether Christianity is presented nicely enough that they never seem to get the actual point of the assignment.
Hopefully as the political machines like the Christian Coalition die off, we'll see less of this Christian paranoia.

You know, as I recall, when the Muslim fundies in Scandinavia rioted and destroyed cars over a damn cartoon, or when they butchered a few dozen people over Salman Rushdie's book, or when they left broad swaths of Paris in flaming ruins for no particular reason, liberals lectured everyone on how we need to be more sensitive.

Now that Christians are the target, all that goes out the window, they just need to grow a thicker skin, huh?

The point of the exercise was to train the kids in how to act in the event of a terrorist attack. The brand of terrorist is really immaterial here.

Precisely; so why be bothered to name a particular group at all?

There are still plenty of Christian terrorist groups at work in the world, primarily in India and Africa, and the acts of Al Qaeda are quite humane in comparison to what they do. The Lord's Resistance Army, for example, routinely kidnaps children in broad daylight. The girls are taken as sex slaves while the boys are forced into militant training camps. If you happen to be the unlucky village they've targeted for forced conversion....beware. Refusal results in your babies being bashed against trees, your elders stabbed and hacked to death with spears and machetes, and the lucky ones end up with a bullet in their head. Islamic terrorism doesn't get a pass but good luck finding any media outlet, government institution, or political organization willing talk about what Christian terrorists are doing these days.

I won't claim to be like the other fellows who think Christianity's hands are clean.

But on the other hand, how do you equate a few backwoods extremist groups, operating far from the Christian heartland and with their obvious condemnation, to a widespread religious movement subsidized by explicitly Islamic governments, with actual political power in virtually every place where its adherents exist in appreciable numbers?

[Napoleon]

(A) The Inquisition probably would never have happened if Moorish Muslims had not previously invaded and conquered parts of Spain.

I find that hard to believe considering the fact that the Inquisition was not focused exclusively against what were considered to be pagan religions. It was an affront against all science, literature, and art which did not reflect the mandated beliefs of the Pope. It would have occurred even if Muslims had not invaded France and Spain.

(B) Christianity was responsible for the dark ages? That's new. The fall of Rome, due in part to the influx of eastern barbarians, was. Case in point: the Roman Empire was Christian long before the dark ages began. The Byzantines were Christian long after. And the Islamic sacking of Constantinople did plunge the region into a Dark Age. (And ironically sped along the western Renaissance, as Greek intellectuals had to flee westward to avoid the ravages of the barbaric Muslim invaders).

The Dark Ages were, indeed, primarily caused by the Christian Church. It is a period in history in which many of the cultural, scientific, and technological advances made in the preceding centuries were lost due, primarily, to the policies of the Christian Church which deemed them heretical, mandated their destruction, and demanded the persecution of those who tried to resurrect them.

You know, as I recall, when the Muslim fundies in Scandinavia rioted and destroyed cars over a damn cartoon, or when they butchered a few dozen people over Salman Rushdie's book, or when they left broad swaths of Paris in flaming ruins for no particular reason, liberals lectured everyone on how we need to be more sensitive.

The riots in Europe, and especially France, were the result of socio-economic strain and had nothing to do with religion. We've seen the same thing occur in the United States many times over.

But on the other hand, how do you equate a few backwoods extremist groups, operating far from the Christian heartland and with their obvious condemnation, to a widespread religious movement subsidized by explicitly Islamic governments, with actual political power in virtually every place where its adherents exist in appreciable numbers?

The Christofacists do have their supporters in the so called "Christian heartland". Pat Robertson comes to mind. The traditional Christian Church didn't end it's own barbarity because it wanted to; it ended it because it HAD to due to it's tremendous loss of power, influence, and resources. Christofacism isn't anywhere near extinct.

[jeffbiss]

vyo476,

Here's a snippet from an interview from Time magazine:

"TIME: Are you religious?

MCVEIGH: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

TIME: Do you believe in God?

MCVEIGH: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now."

The entire interview is here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109478,00.html. I assume that this site does not handle HTML so I provided the URL instead of a link.

[jeffbiss]

SW85,

Unfortunately, Hitler was a Catholic. From everything I've read, he never renounced his faith and was in fact a member in good standing. He, like many despots, seemed to not have liked the fact that the Church wielded power in addition to himself and so fought certain Priests but that certainly does not mean that he did not accept Catholic theology because he did.

His anti-Semitism was purely Christian in origin. In fact anti-Semitism wouldn't exist if not for Paul's polemics and for the fact that the synoptic gospel writers got so many things wrong with regards to Jesus' speeches against the Pharisees and others who accommodated Roman rule. After all, it wasn't the Jews who killed Jesus, it was the Romans. They killed him for sedition against Rome with the help of the Pharisees and the Herodians who held the High Priesthood.

Hitler may not have practised Catholicism by faithfully going to church but he was a Catholic and a Christian. I understand that many Christians don't like this but that doesn't change the facts. Many Christian sects seem to not accept others who consider themselves Christian simply because the others' tenets deviate from their own. For example, many Christians don't accept that Mormans or Jehova's Witnesses are Christians. The problem is that religions are merely belief systems.

[SW85]

I find that hard to believe considering the fact that the Inquisition was not focused exclusively against what were considered to be pagan religions. It was an affront against all science, literature, and art which did not reflect the mandated beliefs of the Pope. It would have occurred even if Muslims had not invaded France and Spain.

Are we talking about the same Inquisition? As far as I can tell, its scope was limited almost entirely by religious considerations, even insofar as the prohibition of books was concerned.

The justification was almost entirely to drive Muslims (and the Jews who supposedly backed them) from Spain in the aftermath of its reconquest. Only later did it branch out to include "heretical" Christians -- Protestants, mystics, bigamists, etc. -- and their works.

And of course it's worth noting that the pope of the time was pressured into sanctioning the Spanish Inquisition by Ferdinand, strongly criticized its excesses, and at one point issued a papal bull to stop it.

The Dark Ages were, indeed, primarily caused by the Christian Church. It is a period in history in which many of the cultural, scientific, and technological advances made in the preceding centuries were lost due, primarily, to the policies of the Christian Church which deemed them heretical, mandated their destruction, and demanded the persecution of those who tried to resurrect them.

The Catholic Church merely prolonged the Dark Ages -- it did not cause them. Again, witness the fact that Christianity preceded the Dark Ages by some time, and that it existed in other places where there was no dark age (i.e., the eastern Roman empire). The splintering of the western empire into a mess of feuding barbarian petty-kingdoms was wrought the Dark Ages. I did not think this was even debatable.

And why do you call it the Christian Church? It was not the only established church in existence at the time -- the Orthodox church was nearly as old at the time, and vastly different. The fact that you lump the two together suggests to me that you don't even really understand the nature of the institutions you're criticizing, which certainly explains why your criticisms amount to very little more than the recycling of trite one-liners that don't stand up to historical scrutiny, mixed in with a sizable dose of raging hypocrisy that you won't criticize the equally flagrant atrocities of Islam both then and now.

The riots in Europe, and especially France, were the result of socio-economic strain and had nothing to do with religion. We've seen the same thing occur in the United States many times over.

That may be true of the riots in France (which I did not mention), but the riots in Scandinavia were over a cartoon and the worldwide riots (and accompanying bloodshed) in the early 90's were over Rushdie's book. Numerous people involved its translation and publication were murdered. You cannot seriously believe otherwise.

And no, so far as I know, no one in some time has been butchered in the United States over the publication of a disliked book or an unfavorable cartoon.

The Christofacists do have their supporters in the so called "Christian heartland". Pat Robertson comes to mind. The traditional Christian Church didn't end it's own barbarity because it wanted to; it ended it because it HAD to due to it's tremendous loss of power, influence, and resources. Christofacism isn't anywhere near extinct.

OK, wait, now you're saying Pat Robertson is worst then the nominal Christians who actually kidnap/butcher kids in Africa? Lord, you people are weird.

Pat Robertson is a harmless, relatively comical, bloviating old man. So far as I know he has never exhorted his followers to violence. If he did it is unlikely that any would have listened -- and it is a certainy that he would've been promptly arrested and tried for his crimes. He wielded no real political power in his life time and his sermons was never, at any point, sanctioned or funded by the government. In my book, this makes him substantially less of a threat to the well-being of a society than any of the wretchedly extremist imams of the west or their even worse counterparts in the Middle East.

I am simply floored by the fact that you people call fascistic the inane forces of modern western Christendom while begging that we offer more understanding to the people who are now, and have always, swam in the blood of their enemies -- pagans and faithful alike.

Unfortunately, Hitler was a Catholic. From everything I've read, he never renounced his faith and was in fact a member in good standing. He, like many despots, seemed to not have liked the fact that the Church wielded power in addition to himself and so fought certain Priests but that certainly does not mean that he did not accept Catholic theology because he did.

Then read more. His personal writings, the table talk that has come down over the decades, his publicly-advertised exhortations, and the claims of people who knew him from his days in school to the last hours of his life, all argue against what you say is fact.

I cannot argue with you people if you're not even going to make an effort to be well-read on serious subjects like this.

[Napoleon]

Are we talking about the same Inquisition?

I'm referring to the Roman Inquisitions.

The justification was almost entirely to drive Muslims (and the Jews who supposedly backed them) from Spain in the aftermath of its reconquest.

The earliest Inquisitions were not specifically directed at Muslims. They were directed at art, literature, science, and Judaism which the Roman Emperors and Christian Church deemed heretical.


Only later did it branch out to include "heretical" Christians -- Protestants, mystics, bigamists, etc. -- and their works.

The first Inquisitions specifically directed against heretical Christians were the Episcopal and Papal Inquisitions from 1184-1230s.

The Catholic Church merely prolonged the Dark Ages -- it did not cause them.

Debatable.


And why do you call it the Christian Church?

Because it was the only one which conformed to all of the decisions made by the Ecumenical Councils.

OK, wait, now you're saying Pat Robertson is worst then the nominal Christians who actually kidnap/butcher kids in Africa?

I'm not saying he's worse; I'm saying that, as a supporter of their actions, he is on par with them.

Pat Robertson is a harmless, relatively comical, bloviating old man.

Who just happens to have financially and politically supported such dictators as Charles Taylor and Mobutu Seko and has publicly advocated the detonation of a nuke at the State Department.

...and it is a certainy that he would've been promptly arrested and tried for his crimes.

Is it? He's escaped prosecution before as a result of his campaign contributions to Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley.

[r0beph]

See this is what gets me, without quoting and making note of each individual point. In reference to the Christian Terrorist Orginizations noted here, it's a great example of an often overlooked facet of the whole islamic terrorist debate.


You will have many come forward and proclaim that the islamic religion promotes terrorism, due to a VERY VERY SMALL and EXTREMELY minor ratio of the muslim population. Now were I to say all christians were terrorists due to the actions of the aforementioned christian terrorist groups, would you debate this with a hot point? I'm sure you would. All religions have some pretty screwed up sects and many rife with violence. In no case does this make any of the religions in their entirety violent, terroristic, dangerous, or otherwise. What is a danger however is the underhanded permeation of the sects, that while keeping their hands clean, support the darker groups under the religions banner. Pat robinson is a great example here. His words and his beliefs are heavily followed by many people, he supports, while remaining removed, christian terrorism. I do fear...I do I do

[SW85]

I'm referring to the Roman Inquisitions.

Why didn't you mention that when I talked about the Moorish conquest of Spain? That should've been a tip-off that I was talking about the Spanish Inquisition.

At any rate, I don't dispute that the inquisitions were a bad time for Christianity. What I do dispute is that it has any relevance to now. Muslims of antiquity were roughly as wretched as Christians, and unlike the vast majority of Christendom, remain so today.

I'm not saying he's worse; I'm saying that, as a supporter of their actions, he is on par with them.

I can't say I've kept up with Pat Robertson much over the years, but I'm pretty sure, given by the media circus surrounding his remarks about Chavez, that he never praised men who kidnap, kill, and impress children into sexual slavery.

Who just happens to have financially and politically supported such dictators as Charles Taylor and Mobutu Seko and has publicly advocated the detonation of a nuke at the State Department.

Hello? This is still a far cry from the "exhorting his followers to violence" of which you have accused him, and of which Islamic imams are guilty (and worse).

Is it? He's escaped prosecution before as a result of his campaign contributions to Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley.

For sleazy campaign fundraising tactics, not sending his minions abroad to kill the subjects of foreign governments.

Pat robinson is a great example here. His words and his beliefs are heavily followed by many people, he supports, while remaining removed, christian terrorism. I do fear...I do I do

Have you considered the possibility that it's because public schools indulge in cheap publicity stunts like these?

[Napoleon]

Muslims of antiquity were roughly as wretched as Christians, and unlike the vast majority of Christendom, remain so today.

Hardly. The Muslims of antiquity were capable of living side-by-side with members of opposing religions. Take Jerusalem for example, Muslims and Jews lived together in relative harmony. Unfortunately for them, the Crusades happened.


Hello? This is still a far cry from the "exhorting his followers to violence" of which you have accused him, and of which Islamic imams are guilty (and worse).

You don't consider calling for the detonation of a nuke at the State Department to be, in YOUR words, "exhorting his followers to violence"? Do you even know who Charles Taylor and Mobutu Seko are?


For sleazy campaign fundraising tactics, not sending his minions abroad to kill the subjects of foreign governments.

No, for funding Charles Taylor.

[Questerr]

Are we talking about the same Inquisition? As far as I can tell, its scope was limited almost entirely by religious considerations, even insofar as the prohibition of books was concerned.

The justification was almost entirely to drive Muslims (and the Jews who supposedly backed them) from Spain in the aftermath of its reconquest. Only later did it branch out to include "heretical" Christians -- Protestants, mystics, bigamists, etc. -- and their works.

And of course it's worth noting that the pope of the time was pressured into sanctioning the Spanish Inquisition by Ferdinand, strongly criticized its excesses, and at one point issued a papal bull to stop it.

You know this qoute and the one that started the post about the Inquisition being created to drive the Muslims out of Spain are both wrong and show an absence of historical knowledge.

The Inquisition was created by the Vatican to conduct investigations (Inquisition: Latin=Investigation) into heretical cults in southern France in the late 12th Century. In the early 13th century, the Pope took control of it and declared a Crusade against the Cathars in the area around Albi in southern France. The Albigensian Crusade. Christians killing other Christians.

The interesting thing to note is what belief made the Cathars heretical. They believed that they world is divided into two parts: the material world of sin and evil and the immaterial world of god. They were killed for believing what most Christians believe today.

Another interesting side note: the Albigensian Crusade began the tradition of burning heretics at the stake.