Except that’s a pretty meaningless statement. I’m more at risk of an attack at a US Jewish temple from radical muslim terrorists than I from Christian terrorists. What does that prove, other than that I can spin the danger anyway I want by cherry-picking specific locations. If I think back to the 60s and the 70s, most of the terrorism we experienced wasn’t religiously motivated at all, but rather radical political groups like the Weather Underground or SLA.
What we do know is that there are large groups of Islamists around the world who would love nothing more than to commit terrorist attacks on US soil. If that’s not much of a concern of yours it’s because our government has done a good job of preventing those folks from succeeding. “Christian terrorists” are indeed a threat, and when they start blowing up airplanes, cafes, and concert halls, then I’ll put them up there with Islamists in terms of how great a threat they are relative to Islamist terrorists.
Except so far* there is no evidence he was terribly Christian much less a “radical Christian”.
If one wanted to compare him to someone who could be described as a “Muslim terrorist” then rather than the Paris attackers, I’d compare to Naveed Al-Haq, who shot up a Seattle Jewish community center, then surrendering to the police but not before ranting about Jews and how he was a “Muslim American” angry at the Iraq war and how the US government was controlled by Jews.
I guess Haq technically qualified as a “terrorist” but I think he, Dylan Roof, most of the “Muslim lone wolves” and Dear had far more in common with most of various mass shooters we have in the US, like the kind in Santa Barbara or the Aurora shooter than the ISIS gunmen.
Real terrorists are far more like trained soldiers operating in groups and showing vastly more patience, discipline and planning.
People can of course decry violent attacks. Though it would be better if they didn’t immediately try to make political capital out of such attacks, or, take cheap political shots at their opponents.
I didnt say any of these things such as the denial of rights are correct.I simply said Christianity has coexisted with liberal democracy. It has not attempted to subvert the democratic process. For the most part it works within our democratic system albeit not without friction.
The radical Christian community having a stranglehold on one of the main political parties in the US kind of proves my point. The rightness or wrongness of radical Christianity is not the debate here, but the fact that radical Christians embrace the democratic process is a positive in my view. Your comparison of Republicans to ISIS is a rather dubious however.
And when someone posts that an attack on a Jewish temple by “muslim terrorists” is as much terrorism at an attack by “Christian terrorists”, I will agree with that person, too. I don’t see what the rest off your post has to do with the OP or my posts.
Your posts suggest to me that you think I am saying Islamic terrorists are not a threat, but I cannot see why you would.
Yes, there is.
I have seen no such actions; your post strongly implies you think this thread is. I find that both appalling and offensive.
You said “we have already seen the worst that modern Christianity can throw at us”; I am not convinced of that. I don’t think Christianity always does coexist with liberal democracy. I think it most definitely has attempted to subvert the democratic process.
Damn, did you just sleep through the Kim Davis story?
What?
Terrorism, specifically that inspired by religious radicals irrespective of the creed, IS the debate here, and I maintain that terrorism is wrong; I do not agree that radical Christian confine their methods to the democratic process; and I did not compare Republicans to ISIS, I just challenged your assertion that Islamic terrorists have a better support structure than Christian ones.
Huh. Well, that is certainly a well-argued statement.
Since you claimed there is evidence that Dear was “a radical Christian” as opposed to just having extreme beliefs about the government and/or Barack Obama, perhaps you could post some evidence to back up your claim that he was clearly a radical Christian.
In my experience having grown up with Die Hard movies, there are a few necessary components of terrorism:
Commit a highly visible act of violence
Publicly take credit for that act
Threaten future acts of violence if certain political demands are not met
I know some people are very concerned over whether or not the Ft. Hood shooting is officially labelled a terrorist attack, but I’ve always had a hard time with these sorts of “lone wolf” attacks. It seems hard to make a credible threat of future violence without some kind of organization, even if we think we know the motivation of the individuals.
Leaving aside the fact that the reports say he made numerous seeming unconnected statements including anti-Obama rants, I don’t see how the phrase “no more baby parts” is seen as strong evidence of him being a Christian, much less a radical Christian.
You’ll notice according to similar reports his neighbors say he be never went to Church which is certainly not exactly consistent with being a radical Christian.
Yes, that means he could be Christian but it’s hardly strong evidence that he is.
If you get caught, it’s hard to credibly threaten future violence since you’re going to end up in jail. Had the Unabomber been caught during the commission of his first act of violence, would he not have been a terrorist?
The guy’s “cause” or reason to inflict terror doesn’t seem very well staffed, organized, trained, equipped, or tied to any recognized downtrodden violent group to me. So yeah, clear as mud.
Probably not in my book. Looking at the wiki (my memory was fuzzy) it seems that he didn’t even announce any sort of reasoning behind his bombs until 18 years after he started, when he finally released his manifesto. Was there any previous indication of what his demands were? When did people start calling him a terrorist, I wonder?
Right, if your cause is sufficiently esoteric that it would be reasonable for people to think that no other attackers are likely to emerge. That may have been the case for Kaczynski, given that most people didn’t get what he was on about anyway, but it is certainly not the case for Hasan or Dear.
If you show up at your first act of violence with a manifesto that threatens future violence if your political goals are not catered to, and then you get caught in the act so you can never follow through, of course that’s terrorism. Or heck, if you confess from your jail cell that you were going to make public threats of future violence, that counts too. But if you never tell a soul what your motivation is, never make threats of future violence, and get gunned down at your first act… Hard to see how we could make a determination.
You claimed there is no evidence Dear was a Christian; there is.
If you meant there is no evidence he is a radical Christian, you misspoke. “Much less” does not indicated the primary statement.