Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism

[sr71plt]

That's how all of the religion threads end up here. There are a bunch of bitter anti-anything-Christian regulars posting here who have had some sort of bad experience with religion in their lives apparently and can't rise above it and want to wallow in it. All bitterness and no balance. I'd say they'd be happier not picking at the scab if they just didn't comment on these threads--except they are the ones who start them, zipping right to the extreme and being Amicus-like in pigeoning holing anyone who doesn't dance around the fire with them.

 

[Stella_Omega]

eh, well.

IF I were christian, which I am not, I would think about beginning an evangelistic ministry in fundy areas, to bring the poor lost lambs back into the liberal flock.

 

[sr71plt]

eh, well.

IF I were christian, which I am not, I would think about beginning an evangelistic ministry in fundy areas, to bring the poor lost lambs back into the liberal flock.

Come to a major university town like the one I live in. You'll have your pick of churches just as liberal as you would like--if, of course, you weren't close-minded on the subject.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Come to a major university town like the one I live in. You'll have your pick of churches just as liberal as you would like--if, of course, you weren't close-minded on the subject.

Poor baby, you need to get laid or something. I am not worth your attention.

 

[sr71plt]

Poor baby, you need to get laid or something. I am not worth your attention.

I like to set some time aside each day for those who love to make sweeping assumptions--usually things that have occurred to them by osmosis. Today is a lucky day for you and JBJ in that regard.

 

[Corylea]

Poor baby, you need to get laid or something. I am not worth your attention.

Sweetheart, you're worth ANYbody's attention!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Sweetheart, you're worth ANYbody's attention!

I'd love some of yours....

 

[Huckleman2000]

That's how all of the religion threads end up here. There are a bunch of bitter anti-anything-Christian regulars posting here who have had some sort of bad experience with religion in their lives apparently and can't rise above it and want to wallow in it. All bitterness and no balance. I'd say they'd be happier not picking at the scab if they just didn't comment on these threads--except they are the ones who start them, zipping right to the extreme and being Amicus-like in pigeoning holing anyone who doesn't dance around the fire with them.

Actually, I didn't mean for this thread to become a "religion thread". Not at first, anyway - I named it what I did because of the parallels I see between the Xtian and Islamic varieties of Fundamentalism and how certain elements use both to justify acts of political violence and terrorism. Few of us blink an eye at seeing the phrase "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism" and leaping to justify all manner of societal condemnation and stigma, grabbing lines from the Koran about killing infidels to point out how Islam is somehow 'fundamentally' different from Christianity. Yet, modern Xtianity in the US is more a loosely-organized media company than a religion.

And it's a media company that, like Al Qaida and its ilk, knows how to use mass-media, television, websites, and has a political arm as well. And its 'secret police'.

 

[sr71plt]

Actually, I didn't mean for this thread to become a "religion thread". Not at first, anyway - I named it what I did because of the parallels I see between the Xtian and Islamic varieties of Fundamentalism and how certain elements use both to justify acts of political violence and terrorism. Few of us blink an eye at seeing the phrase "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism" and leaping to justify all manner of societal condemnation and stigma, grabbing lines from the Koran about killing infidels to point out how Islam is somehow 'fundamentally' different from Christianity. Yet, modern Xtianity in the US is more a loosely-organized media company than a religion.

And it's a media company that, like Al Qaida and its ilk, knows how to use mass-media, television, websites, and has a political arm as well. And its 'secret police'.

I find the suggestion that "modern Christianity" in the U.S. is organized to do anything together as complicated as acting as a media company quite amusing.

 

[Pure]

is it religion?

i don't think this murder has all that much to do with religion. here's a bit of the AP bio of roeder:

Roeder:
"The anti-tax stuff came first, and then it grew and grew. He became very anti-abortion," said Lindsey Roeder, who was married to Scott Roeder for 10 years but "strongly disagrees with his beliefs."

"That's all he cared about is anti-abortion. `The church is this. God is this.' Yadda yadda," she said.

Lindsey Roeder said that the early years of the marriage were good and that Scott Roeder worked in an envelope factory. But she said he moved out of their home after he became involved with the Freemen movement, an anti-government group that discouraged the paying of taxes. The Roeders have one son, now 22.

"When he moved out in 1994, I thought he was over the edge with that stuff," his ex-wife said. "He started falling apart. I had to protect myself and my son."

In 1996, Roeder (pronounced ROW-der) was arrested in Topeka after being stopped by sheriff's deputies because his car lacked a valid license plate. Instead, it bore a tag declaring him a "sovereign" and immune from state law. In the trunk, deputies found materials that could be assembled into a bomb.

He was convicted and sentenced to two years on probation and ordered to stop associating with violent anti-government groups. But the Kansas Court of Appeals overturned his conviction in 1997, ruling that authorities seized evidence against Roeder during an illegal search of his car.
[Note: Roeder is a professing Christian]

===

listen, however, to our own amicus:

The allusion to world war two Nazi Death Camps and abortion has been made, and could any nation have prevented that holocaust, they had the moral right to do so.

Those who believe that life begins at conception and that to take that life without cause, is comparable to what the Nazi's did and they feel an obligation to take measures to protect that life.

Had there been no abortion violence to respond to, the laundry list provided by the Threadstarter, would not exist as all attempts to stop abortions are caused by the fact that abortions are being performed daily.

If you want to stop the violence; Stop the Violence. A prudent man does not risk committing a moral violation when the premise of life is unclear or uncertain.

Abortion, like the Holocaust, is a dark chapter in the history of man.

====
O'Reilly

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/bill-oreilly-crusaded-aga_n_209665.html

Some of the things O'Reilly has said of Tiller, according to Salon:

He "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000."
He's guilty of "Nazi stuff,"
a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida
"This is the kind of stuff that happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union"
"operating a death mill"
"has blood on his hands"
"executing babies about to be born"


===
the common element here is murderous certainly. roeder, "from what my god tells me, I may be obliged to murder you."

amicus "from what my Reason tells me, one may be obliged to murder you."

O Reilly is denouncing you as a 'nazi', who's clearly deserving to be offed.

roeder explicitly declared himself 'sovereign'; a law aganst murder does not apply.

amicus, for 'liberty' of the "individual" makes the same argument.

o'reilly sets the stage; he's fighting nazis.

the irony is that all claim to be proud to live in a great country, with constitution and laws.

for debate purposes, however, it's suddenly "we're living in nazi germany, and i'm the underground hero."

i suppose these niceties--constitutions and laws-- are for the rest of us, the 'usual suspects'; the 'sovereigns' decide on their own laws, and act as police, judge, jury and executioners on behalf of their Source, be it God or Reason. amicus and o'reilly applaud.

as i said, the common element is murderous certainty; love of violence--guns and bombs-- as a solution to problems, even in the freest of societies. there are of course distinctions: the fellow who actually does the act is perhaps 'zealous', his encouragers merely fan the hate; create the climate and alleged justification.

 

[sr71plt]

Not all that much to do with relgion? But . . . but, Pure, that doesn't match the mind-set here. Got to have that scapegoat of religion.

You are sprinkling water on the mob torches. That isn't very cooperative of you.

 

[DeeZire]

Not all that much to do with relgion? But . . . but, Pure, that doesn't match the mind-set here. Got to have that scapegoat of religion.

You are sprinkling water on the mob torches. That isn't very cooperative of you.

To light a fire, you need combustible materials and matches. To kill in the name of god, you need lethal weapons and faith. It would be very Box-like of you, SR, to try to discount religion as a motivating factor in this incident.

Re: Stella's distress - Christianity could disown hate-speech, the same way it disowns sinning, but it doesn't. This paints all Christians with the same brush, especially when the hate-speech is in the name of Christianity. Where are the "no hate-speech" buttons? Where are the boycotts of the advertisers who support hate-speech? They certainly aren't coming from the Christian majority.

 

[SimonBrooke]

1. Under Christian tradition, woman have stopped being property.

Under Roman law, women were indeed effectively property. But Roman law was exceptional in this. Under contemporary Celtic and Teutonic legal codes women had extensive rights. Furthermore, the advent of Christianity made absolutely no difference to this - women were as much property under the (Christian) emperor Constantine as they had been under the (pagan) emperor Augustus.

2. War has finally stopped being the rugby of the rich.

The invention of the machine-gun democratised war. The Christian knights of the Teutonic Order who raped and pillaged their across Poland and Prussia were very much the rugby-playing rich, and, indeed, the rich have used Christianity as a casus belli for their rapacious rugby from Granada to Gallipoli.

Christianity's shameful record is at its most shameful on the battlefield.

3. Those who are charitable to to others are elevated rather than thought odd.

As they were before Christianity, both under Judaism and under many forms of paganism, and are now under Hinduism and Bhuddism and, most particularly and notably, under Islam. Christianity has nothing special to claim here.

4. Even thinking atheists know better than to take your simplistic viewpoint.

If you find it 'simplistic' to judge modern Christianity against the teachings of the carpenter from Nazareth, against what standards should you judge it?

And think, before you answer. It was Christians, both in the UK and the US, who deliberately told lies to start the war in Iraq. It has been Christians who, in the UK, have engineered and presided over the greatest increase in the gap between rich and poor in modern times. It has been Christians who raped and bullied and tormented the children of Ireland - yes, and of many other places - and who deliberately covered up those crimes and protected those rapists, so they could rape again, and again, and again.

The sins of Christians past are in the past. We can do nothing about them now. But Christianity continues to be a force for evil in the world, right here, right now - and it is our duty to confront it.

 

[Verdad]

I think Stella's point is good because the thread is about a crime of a Christian, committed in the name of Christianity. Her saying that it's the responsibility of the 'good' Christians to disown the rhetoric that leads to such crimes and do some cleaning in their own ranks is spot on. If not primarily theirs, whose responsibility should it be?

However, the general bashing of Christianity strikes me as a bit old. Simon's points, though eloquently presented, do strike me as a tad simplistic. My opinion of his take on original sin, dominion on Earth, and lust is that it's too literal, and my opinion of historical crimes committed in the name of Christianity is that they would have happened anyhow. Call me a cynic, but human beings are a pretty bellicose sort by nature. One causa works as well as any other, so long as it lets them do what they wanted to do in the first place.

 

[amicus]

Perhaps one needs to hold a one second old baby daughter, with umbilical still attached, in one's arms, as I did, to feel the rage towards a physician that would strangle that new life to death.

Religion aside, as I am an atheist, what else can one conclude from the convenient taking of a human life, than a lack of respect for human life of those who so disgrace humanity?

I would have preferred the baby killing Doctor to have faced trial and been judged by a jury and sentenced to the appropriate punishment for his evil and inhuman deeds.

The passive liberal mentality, frightened to wetting their undies over an absolute moral system defining right and wrong, good and bad, will stand by and observe the butchers of Islam and turn the other cheek.

Religion is a dead issue, pick your church, choose your ethics, gay, pro abortion, anti Jewish, anti Black, you name it, the faith of your choice is there to support you.

The psuedo atheists, the relativists and situational ethics folks, are merely intellectual and moral cowards who have not the courage to take a firm stand on any issue.

Abortion, killing an unborn child is wrong. Period. Wrong, immoral, unethical and indefensible under any circumstances but one, that of the life of the mother in jeopardy.

Anyone who has participated in such a travesty is guilty of a moral crime and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Just so you know where I stand.

Amicus

 

[SimonBrooke]

Where in history have atheists stood in the forefront of the anti-war movement? Which self-proclaimed witches denounced the Viet Nam War? Where were the non-believers who were martyred resisting Hitler, Stalin or Mao?

Unrestricted evil, my foot!

I'm now going to go find some well-mannered people to talk to.

(i) Bertrand Russell was the leading pacifist campaigner in the Western world during the 1914-18 war, and continued to be a significant pacifist campaigner until his death in 1970. Albert Einstein, in later life, was also a pacifist and campaigned with Russell,.

(ii) I know of no witches who campaigned against the Vietnam War. As you will know, the majority of those who campaigned against the Vietnam war were Bhuddists.

(iii) Half a million Gypsies (Roma) died in the Nazi concentration camps. Many thousands of Uzbeks died resisting Stalin, and the opposition to him in Chechenia and Ingushtan was so fierce that Stalin ended up deporting both whole nations.. Of the 3,700 who died in Tienamen Square in 1989, as far as I know none were Christian.

No-one in this discussion has been uncivil, or called anyone names.

 

[Pure]

note to ami

ami Anyone who has participated in such a travesty is guilty of a moral crime and should be punished to the full extent of the law

Pure: but tiller broke no law, neither Kansas, nor US.

he broke the law declared by amicus' Reason.

ami I would have preferred the baby killing Doctor to have faced trial and been judged by a jury and sentenced to the appropriate punishment for his evil and inhuman deeds.

pure: 'would have preferred'; but since there was no law breaking, and no trial in the forseeable future, i'd venture to suggest that you, like o'reilly, are content with your 'next best' preference.

incidentally, do you believe Roeder [or the correctly identified murderer of Tiller] committed a crime? would a Freedom Medal be more appropriate?

 

[Verdad]

Anyone who has participated in such a travesty is guilty of a moral crime and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Just so you know where I stand.

This is rather disappointing, Ami. You can stand where you like, but abortion is legal. The punishment "to the full extent of the law" would be no punishment at all, as there's no punishment for a doctor performing his legal job. Which is all pretty much beside the point, because we're not talking about legality or even morality of abortion, but rather about ideology that propelled a disgusting murder. Surely you're not justifying that? Any attempt of putting a 'positive' spin on it is abhorrent and disqualifies the source as a source of any moral recommendations.

 

[john-the-author]

(i) Bertrand Russell was the leading pacifist campaigner in the Western world during the 1914-18 war, and continued to be a significant pacifist campaigner until his death in 1970. Albert Einstein, in later life, was also a pacifist and campaigned with Russell,.

(ii) I know of no witches who campaigned against the Vietnam War. As you will know, the majority of those who campaigned against the Vietnam war were Bhuddists.

(iii) Half a million Gypsies (Roma) died in the Nazi concentration camps. Many thousands of Uzbeks died resisting Stalin, and the opposition to him in Chechenia and Ingushtan was so fierce that Stalin ended up deporting both whole nations.. Of the 3,700 who died in Tienamen Square in 1989, as far as I know none were Christian.

No-one in this discussion has been uncivil, or called anyone names.

There were in fact a number of witches that campaigned against the Vietnam War--I know quite a few but was not a witch at that time--but it was rarely witches as witches. There just weren't a lot of witches in this country at that time (my own estimate is less than 15,0000-20,000). Witches also didn't tend to get a lot of press coverage because they were dismissed heavily as being nutballs... and, well, a lot of them are, quite honestly. In fact, one of the things within the Wiccan community for several decades was dealing the press appropriately meant that you pushed to be covered on the religion page like any other religion.

It is only in the last, oh, 15 years or so that people who are witches have been relatively comfortable saying so in public. TV shows like "Charmed" have had a lot to do with that: it did a good job of painting witches positively (although the general theology wasn't correct for most forms of the Craft).

 

[Stella_Omega]

Louise Heubner was the "Official witch of Los Angeles" and was right there in the protests-- as were my parents, both of them atheists.

 

[sr71plt]

It would be very Box-like of you, SR, to try to discount religion as a motivating factor in this incident.

Where have I discounted religion as a motivating factor of this? I have consistently criticized and disowned Christian Fundamentalism. What I have objected to is the Amicus-like lumping of anyone calling themselves Christian under the heading and/or the supposition that if I call myself a Christian I have to somehow take ownership of the Christian Fundamentalists.

Some of you guys are so steeped in your zealot atheism that you do exactly the same thing that Amicus does in these discussions--just from the other side.

Christian Fundamentalism is a big part of the cause here--as are a separatist attitutude toward government and taxes (which comes back to bite them there, as they want the government to control people's bodies) and a "let's drop a bomb on them" attitude toward anyone who disagrees with you.

That has practical nothing to do with mainstream Christianity, though, no matter how Stella and friends want to lump them all together. And knowing how incensed they get when they feel they are misrepresented, they really should have some understanding how mainstream Christians respond to their rantings (but, of course, they don't--because being know-it-alls pretty much goes with zealot atheism.)

In fact, I was shocked today in seeing the background and activities of the guy charged with killing this doctor. We have some regular posters on this board (not talking about Stella here--addressing the other extreme) who fit this profile to a T.

Hate and zealotry together are not a pretty combination--no matter what end of the spectrum is involved in it.

 

[sr71plt]

Re: Stella's distress - Christianity could disown hate-speech, the same way it disowns sinning, but it doesn't.

This is bullshit. The mainstream churches disown this stuff of the time. You are making this up.

 

[sr71plt]

I think Stella's point is good because the thread is about a crime of a Christian, committed in the name of Christianity. Her saying that it's the responsibility of the 'good' Christians to disown the rhetoric that leads to such crimes and do some cleaning in their own ranks is spot on. If not primarily theirs, whose responsibility should it be?

However, the general bashing of Christianity strikes me as a bit old. Simon's points, though eloquently presented, do strike me as a tad simplistic. My opinion of his take on original sin, dominion on Earth, and lust is that it's too literal, and my opinion of historical crimes committed in the name of Christianity is that they would have happened anyhow. Call me a cynic, but human beings are a pretty bellicose sort by nature. One causa works as well as any other, so long as it lets them do what they wanted to do in the first place.

No, as a mainstream Christian, I do NOT own the actions of anyone else doing something and claiming they are doing it for God. That is an utterly ridiculous statement. Do you have responsibility for a serial killer's actions just because you are both humans, the same gender, or live in the same city/state--even if he says he did it to cleanse humanity, his gender, or his city/state? If you (and DeeZire and others) have not heard the mainstream Christian churchs disown this, you just have not been listening--or most likely because you only want to hear what fits you dogma.

I guess I could also say you take ownership for Amicus posts here because you defended him against my use of his name to image something rotten. So, congratulations, babe, he's yours and you are responsibile for everything he posts here because you are now lumped with him.

 

[Boxlicker101]

To light a fire, you need combustible materials and matches. To kill in the name of god, you need lethal weapons and faith. It would be very Box-like of you, SR, to try to discount religion as a motivating factor in this incident.

Re: Stella's distress - Christianity could disown hate-speech, the same way it disowns sinning, but it doesn't. This paints all Christians with the same brush, especially when the hate-speech is in the name of Christianity. Where are the "no hate-speech" buttons? Where are the boycotts of the advertisers who support hate-speech? They certainly aren't coming from the Christian majority.

First, I want to point out that the suspect in the case is still a suspect, and has not been convicted yet. He may even be innocent of the murder; this remains to be seen.

Second, even making the assumption, for the sake of discussion, that he is guilty, we still know nothing about his religion. He is apparently something of an anarchist, but this has little to do with any particular faith. For all we know, unless somebody is privy to some specific information, he could be of any religion or even an Atheist. Amicus, to name one person, writes very strongly against abortion, and he is a professing Atheist.

I agree that hate speech should be disowned by everybody, but there is a difference between hate speech and a strongly-worded expression of opinion. Sometimes the difference is a very fine line. Over the last eight years, I have read some diatribes against W, religious fundamentalists and others. I have even written some. I don't consider any of those to be hate speech, or writing, just strongly worded opinions.

 

[freshface]

Second, even making the assumption, for the sake of discussion, that he is guilty, we still know nothing about his religion. He is apparently something of an anarchist, but this has little to do with any particular faith. For all we know, unless somebody is privy to some specific information, he could be of any religion or even an Atheist. Amicus, to name one person, writes very strongly against abortion, and he is a professing Atheist.

*sigh* His ex-wife, with whom he had a child, is pretty confident that he's religious, in an Old Testament sort of way. Also mentally ill and strongly anti-government, although I don't see anyone asking either of those groups to take responsibility for his actions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060201500.html