As Isis gives up territory,they hasten to remind us that the real battlefield is for the mind.They attacked a Nice celebration of the French 4th of July.We can expect more of this symbolic/real assassination.This sort of lone wolf terrorism is virtually impossible to stop.We,ostensibly,wish to understand radicalization but assassinate our own domestic terrorist not linked to Isis but to race hatred.who decided that nothing was to be learned from him?Who decides that this sort of radicalization is a different process? Now Gingrich wants a special test of domestic Muslim mentation.How long before mood testing for all who look,worship and or think differently is mandated?Why is the Republican party the source of so many bad( undemocratic…no pun…)ideas?
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Octogenarians 
GregoryS (Jul 22 7:55): “After reading your latest apologetics, I’m smiling because you think I’m a leftist. I don’t consider myself a leftist; I’m where the righteous ought to be.”
There are lessons here otherwise I would let it be. I am not “supporting” or “justifying” a faith of any kind so I cannot be involved in apologetics as the dictionary defines the word. And, nowhere have I said that GregoryS “is a leftist”. He has not provided sufficient information to justify such a general classification. My only use of the word “leftist” was to show that secular beliefs can be as much a construct of faith as are the more recognized religions. But more importantly, his political “grouping” does not matter except in the negative sense that we tend to desire simple categorizations and if we succumb to this impulse we deny to our minds “out-of-the-box” possibilities. My responses to Gregory’s writings are specifically to the ideas he has expressed. Are there conflicts with fundamental empirical or logical truths? Are there apparent contradictions? Are other possibilities being ignored?
For instance, isn’t it legitimate to question one’s “knowing” the locus of righteousness given the fact that history is filled with examples demonstrating that opposing sides are clearly willing to die fighting the other in support of their particular “righteous” beliefs? GregoryS says that “I’m where the righteous ought to be.”
For an inquisitive mind the following question screams to be addressed: Is the human future better if served by a “righteousness” supported by faith – or a “righteousness” supported by “what works best” as measured by empirical evidence?
Gregory stated that I am “a master of apologetics”. Perhaps this is because I make the case that Christianity TODAY is far less dangerous to the human future than some sizable (and growing) forms of Islam. There is an important reason that I choose against “justifying” any religion. As a sailor who has navigated many seas I will use some nautical metaphors.
I direct attention to how things actually work – cause and effect – measurable correlations. The process is more like that of an enthusiastic engineer rather than a moralist. If we want to get from here to there, how do we best navigate to achieve the goal? Obviously, to do this well, we need charts that are true to the world. The best empirical and logical evidence (scientific method) provides for us the higher probabilities as to what the important truths are. Usually when I recommend government policy, the ultimate goal is the greatest viability for the human species. I like this goal because it enhances the probability that I and my loved ones will actually experience the best (in this banquet of life). It is understood that perfect is not possible, but best is. Interestingly, AND VERY IMPORTANT, it appears that the best “viability” is achieved by avoiding the ego-enhancing, conflict-building, hazards linked to a cultivated belief that one possesses a special knowledge about a particular moral path – and others don’t, but should! Clearly, apologetics is not what I am about. Sometimes I see reasons that the stated goals of others will fail to achieve what they want. Very often the reason they will fail has to do with their use of charts on which there are misconceptions. I call these false beliefs. When false beliefs become emotionally ensconced (cherished), the charts being used by these navigators are highly resistant to correction (some become indelible). But to the degree that we can correct the false beliefs and unify our navigation methods, we reduce conflicts with other navigators and reduce conflicts with nature as well.
Gregory writes: “While you fear factor against Islam, your GOP leadership is trying to institute the Christian equivalent of Sharia law.”
That those who are devout would try to influence the processes of government should be expected. This includes many secular “isms” as well. We can see and measure the impact of Islamic terrorism today. The claim that because Christian thought has influenced some passages in a party platform it is “equivalent” (equal to) Sharia laws that insist that there be a Theocratic-led government is a good example of a highly distorted, if not false belief. But yes, it is good to always be wary of those who are led more by faith than reason.
@Don Spencer
“I direct attention to how things actually work – cause and effect – measurable correlations.” ~ DS
Were I to accept that premise, I would have to ignore the elephant in the room. While you are busy fear factoring about the threat of death to our citizens due to Islam, you completely ignore the effect that gun advocates’ interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is having on our citizenry (30,000+ deaths/year). Weigh the gun deaths versus Islamic terrorist deaths in the U.S. Why isn’t your attention directed to that cause and effect with measurable correlations? The answer is simple: negative apologetics.
Add to that the idea that Islam is somehow trying to corrupt our government and way of life in the U.S., which you seem to want us to believe. Really?
“The Constitution, by its own terms, is the ‘supreme law of the land.’ All judges are bound by the words of the Constitution, and all laws made by legislatures within the United States must yield to the Constitution’s provisions. This is the central insight of the American republic — the idea that the structure and limits of government are laid out in a written document, and that document is binding on all government actors subject to its terms.
The Republican Party’s 2016 Platform rejects this concept outright.
So, you fear factor about effects that Islam may have on our citizenry and our government (Sharia Law will take over unless we fight Islam).
Meanwhile, in the United States, the new GOP platform (66 pages) includes 7 pages that it refers to as ” A Rebirth of Constitutional Government.” In these seven pages, it seamlessly weaves together some of the most radical ideas offered by modern day libertarian scholars with the rhetoric of Christian conservatism. This thought comes from the following article:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/19/3799596/single-radical-line-republican-party-platform/
Based on this empirical evidence, it appears that many GOP Christians in the United States are trying to force their religion into legislation, and in the process destroy the protections afforded to all by our constitution. While you fear factor against Islam, your GOP leadership is trying to institute the Christian equivalent of Sharia law.
“What looks like politics, and imagines itself to be political, will one day unmask itself as a religious movement.” ~ Søren Kierkegaard
“It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” ~ Robert A. Heinlein
And, that’s precisely what “A Rebirth of Constitutional Government” is intended by Republicans to do … a Christian version of Sharia Law. Republicans want to do away with separation of church and state. Did you miss Carson’s speech at the convention?
That’s how things are actually working if Republicans have their way. Is that where your attention is directed, as you claim?
Gregory, the claim that there are yearly 30,000 “gun deaths” represents a compellation of different quality statistics (including suicides). Many of them are of the “car death” variety (approximately 40,000 a year). We don’t demonize cars because they have positive functions considered to offset the costs. The main function of guns is to deter bad behavior. “More Guns Less Crime” by John Lott provides some of the empirical evidence that supports the pragmatic life-saving value of a right to keep arms.
There is good reason to fear some sects of Islam. Believers tell us in their own words, and by deeds, that they are willing to die while killing the infidels. Do you doubt that if those who flew planes into the Twin Towers (each potentially containing 25,000 workers) had had access to chemical or nuclear technology they would not have been delighted to use them to cause millions of deaths? There is a wealth of information other than the highly probable answer to that question. Consider starting with the book, The Al Qaeda Reader: The Essential Texts of Osama Bin Laden’s Terrorist Organization Paperback – August 7, 2007 by Raymond Ibrahim (Editor) .
Gregory writes, “Add to that the idea that Islam is somehow trying to corrupt our government and way of life in the U.S., which you seem to want us to believe. Really?”
First of all distinguish between the Islam that has evolved to be compatible with our Constitution and the factions of Islamic belief that are incompatible. I don’t expect the dangerous forms to succeed here. But Turkey and other countries with large Muslim populations are at great risk. I think that the dangerously extreme sect of Islam would love to spread worldwide their God-ordained belief in their particular sharia-based Theocracy. You don’t? Why? Maybe you have not read or thought much about the Pew Research that clarifies the percentages of Islamists who hold beliefs that lead them to advocate policies that are contrary to human rights (even as leftists interpret them)? Translate the percentages into numbers of believers and if you do not experience deep concern or even fear, maybe it is your sentiments, and not mine that are inappropriate.
The “Think Progress” piece is an example of partisan hysterics – The author may actually believe what was written, or it may be an intended form of propaganda specifically designed to cause readers to fear all Republicans. We should all understand that all religions, AND ALL OTHER DOGMAS (like leftism) have always, and will always try to shape the character of our Constitution to suit their values. Original intent protected for all our citizens the values of individual liberty, equal individual justice, free markets, and small, divided-power government. “Progressive” judges who believe in a “Living Constitution” have had an easier time ignoring the barriers intrinsic to original intent and on occasion can create new law (Thereby sidestepping the law-making duties of a people-influenced Congress). It is not reasonable to assign “written in stone” seriousness to the wishful, impossible-to-pass-into-law inclusions of “big tent” party platforms. Such platforms are famously fickle and sloppy.
A fear that Christians could actually be successful in creating a Theocracy of our United States is unwarranted – but infused with this fear, inappropriate though it is, they vote as the manipulators hope.
@Don Spencer
After reading your latest apologetics, I’m smiling because you think I’m a leftist. I don’t consider myself a leftist; I’m where the righteous ought to be.
But I must say that I couldn’t agree more … even if I wholeheartedly disagree, because whether I completely agree or completely disagree, I couldn’t agree more.
I had already said what I wished to say, so I’m through with this discourse for now. I have more pressing issues that require my attention at this time. Though, I will try to contribute to future discourse at a later time. It’s been real ….
GregoryS (Pertaining to postscript Jul 20 5:10 PM)
Given that my focus is directed to an understanding that inappropriate sentiments are the locus of social ills, your friend’s diagnosis (on the basis of my written analyses) is understandable. Particularly if my analyses of appropriate feelings put at risk the sentiments you or she holds dear. I would be very interested if your friend (OR ANYONE) can “understand” or “know” the difference between what are appropriate sentiments and inappropriate sentiments without the application of objective analysis.” Please explain how that can be done.
You needn’t worry that I am lacking in emotions. I am filled with gratitude and enjoy (probably far more than most) the thrills of being alive within an existence worthy of great wonder! The following is a fundamental observation: “Life is a banquet, and most poor souls are starving!” (From the play, Auntie Mame)
And I LOVE the process of being as good a detective as can be. The varied methods by which many inadvertently deny to themselves the full richness of life’s banquet are among fascinating clues as to a narrowness of vision. Inaccurate labeling is among them.
Oh, DS! Though yours was directed at GregoryS, I couldn’t help but comment! I knew we would find something in common … AUNTIE MAME! (which I could probably recite verbatim). The actual quote to which you refer is … “Live! Life’s a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death!” BTW, on live stage it was … “Life is a banquet, and most poor sons-of-bitches are starving to death!” Fun fantasy though, amongst many social foibles, it did touch on anti-semitism.
DS: “The varied methods by which many inadvertently deny to themselves the full richness of life’s banquet are among fascinating clues as to a narrowness of vision.”
Very true. Thank you.
@Don Spencer (Pertaining to postscript Jul 20 5:10 PM)
Introspection is a worthy cause, so I’m pleased to see that you use that function, as do I. Whether either of us is qualified to do so from a psychologist or psychiatrist’s standpoint is another matter. But examining our own core values and character is something we all do, or should.
“You needn’t worry that I am lacking in emotions.” ~ DS
I assure you, I wasn’t at all worried. The assessment my friend made was based solely upon our posts … that’s as objective as she could be. As mentioned, she made interesting comments about me as well.
“The varied methods by which many inadvertently deny to themselves the full richness of life’s banquet are among fascinating clues as to a narrowness of vision. Inaccurate labeling is among them.” ~ DS
Addressing the accuracy of her labeling (master of apologetics with a dash of alexithymia): As stated, she only had your posts to base that labeling upon … I already knew what an apologist was (I’ve seen lots of negative apologetics used in political discourse) and after she explained to me what alexithymia was, I could understand why she used those two labels. Obviously, that could be cognitive bias on my part, confirmation bias in particular, but I could understand her reasoning.
You obviously disagree and that’s your right. Many people also deny that racism still exists in the United States. You may well have been your own worst critic until we became somewhat acquainted (by way of a blog), but know that I will now assist in that effort, at least in the realm of your system of political beliefs.
People often become wiser together through a healthy clash of viewpoints.
“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” ~ Confucius
“We are all born with infinite wisdom at our fingertips. All you have to do is approach every disagreement, debate, and alternative view of your core beliefs with the sincere and soul honest desire of being proved partially or completely incorrect” ~ Carl Henegan, Darkness Left Undone
That works for me.
In response to GregoryS posts of 7/18/16, 5:14 pm and 6:21 pm:
Sir, we accept the empirical evidence you have submitted. Consequently, we have formed a society in our area dedicated to enlightenment and have named it after you. Since we believe in the honor of acknowledging sources, we promise not to plagiarize (even if the product has been ghostwritten on behalf of an actual speaker … or named “author”). We sincerely thank you for your efforts as you and we continue to promote greater understanding.
In response to Anwar Ghali: “The constitution guarantees the free expression of religion that the liberals are now trying & to a great extent have been successful in stifling it!”
Liberals successful in stifling? What? Certainly not religion. The Constitution guarantees freedom OF worship … whatever religion … implied in the separation of church and state is also freedom from religion, if one chooses. In other words, no specific or designated official religion. Therefore, is the stifling success that no one is compelled to choose a state sanctioned religion? Free expression lives. If unintentionally I have misunderstood your message, I sincerely apologize.
Thank you, Gregory. Good correction (18 Jul, 5:14 PM). I said that Christian killing of innocents “isn’t happening” and you proved that statement to be false. This focuses our attention to that of relative impact. Is the killing of innocents by Christians today more or less significant (and how so?) than the killing of innocents by Islamists?
Gregory writes that “Terrorism isn’t a religious idea, it’s an extremist idea utilized by members of all religions. I don’t blame the religions’ Gods, I blame the followers.”
I wish that it is true that for all religions “terrorism isn’t a religious idea”. There are many references to forcefully spreading the belief (Koran), and killing those who do not believe or act as the “good book” (Bible -Koran) dictates. Today those passages are subdued or exaggerated by various religious factions. The “followers” will be empathic with those subdued or exaggerated passages that are believed to be dictated by their preferred concept of God. It seems that that which they “follow” cannot be separated from the blend of causative factors. Don’t we need to “blame” the religion (faith-based false belief) and the followers?
Don, You’re asking me to comment on the significance of killings by religious followers? Significance to whom? To the victims and their families, I can’t think of any greater significance.
If your question is based on killings by a particular religion versus another, I won’t even consider the Crusades, which I’m sure you probably would have expected me to do. Rather, I’ll refer you to the Bible itself. Since you state that we need to blame the religion and the followers, how about killings by God? According to the Bible, which Christians believe to be absolutely accurate, God himself committed the largest and most thorough act of religious genocide in mankind’s history … do you remember Noah’s Ark and the great flood? Christians quote the Bible in relating it to their progeny as a children’s story.
What you have to consider, Don, is that all religious texts are copied and translated numerous times over the course of thousands of years, in numerous languages and under the influence of attitudes and cultural influences at that time by various amanuenses. Each one imparts their own interpretations in their translations.
Consider our own U.S. constitution. We can’t even agree upon what it means, nor of the meanings of amendments to it. And that has been after only less than two and one half centuries. Now consider the centuries past between the passing of Jesus and the writing of the first Bible. Do you see my point?
I condemn all acts of violence by every follower of any particular religion, especially when that violence is committed in the name of that religion, claiming their God as their ally. I can’t think of any more debased and demeaning a behavior to partake in on behalf of any God claimed to be good and loving. If the God isn’t claimed to be good and loving, why would people worship that God?
Blaming an entire religion for the unspeakable acts committed by extremists within it is ludicrous. In a previous reply I mentioned enslavement, rape, burning alive, dragging in the streets, decapitating, dismemberment, bombings, shootings, and many other hideous practices by some in the Christian religion. Surely, you don’t blame the actions of these Christians as being representative of all Christians.
If your claim is that the Quran (Koran) backs up the practice of terrorism and killing against non-followers, I suggest you read both the Old and New testaments more thoroughly. So many people today have no idea exactly what is written in those texts, as poorly interpreted and translated as they have been throughout the centuries. Let me give you one simple, benign example: corn. The corn spoken of in the Bible is actually barley and not maize as we now consider corn to be in its many varieties.
Bottom line, don’t fear factor or spread messages of harm against members of any religion, whether you be atheist, agnostic, or a follower of any particular faith. While people fear factor against terrorists, 30,000+ die by gun in the U.S. every year. Deal with that threat.
Gregory,
This is an interesting puzzle – how to first identify and then how to assemble the pieces such that a rational (realistic) structure is clarified. We are to try to understand “religion”, which relies on subjective variables of faith more so than on empirical evidence. And we must try to understand the degrees of correlation connecting what people believe and what they do. And, we then need to understand whether “what they do” impacts “positively” or “negatively” on the human present and future. And then, maybe we can plot a course on this chart so clarified that we might actually be able to navigate to the better-for-humanity place.
Faith is a method by which we can inject into selected beliefs more certitude than a weighing of all the evidence would justify. Some psyches need and thrive on such beliefs. But for the sake of intellectual growth, I would recommend for all who are able that they shift from the psychological securities and highs evoked by faith and start thinking in terms of probabilities. I am not going to defend any position that is based primarily on faith. Faith will tend to reflect (and exaggerate through self-righteousness) the full range of what people are capable of being – from most kind to most vicious.
The suggestion that there is no correlation between what people believe and what they do seems to me like a denial that gravity causes us to fall when jumping out of a plane. Premises establish logical outcomes. When premises are true to the objective realities our conclusions based on them are likely to be in harmony with objective realities (we can have more confidence in our navigation decisions). When the premises on which life decisions are based consist of cherished desires instead of empirical evidence our conclusions are more likely to be in conflict with objective realities. People ACT on their beliefs, and that is why the objective truth of what we believe is so important.
There is a structure of religious belief TODAY (radical Islam) that is a greater threat to our future than any of the ugly aspects of past religious belief (such as the Crusades). The technology which allows the killing of great numbers (potentially millions with one device) is far more lethal than ever before. It is rational to make the effort to control both the technology and the state of mind (belief systems) that would move people to misuse the technologies. It should be clear that some religions can be and are more deadly than other religions. We shouldn’t be afraid to acknowledge this objective truth just because another form of faith (Progressivism or Leftism) declares such a statement to be blasphemous.
@Don Spencer
As you have mentioned, faith is what one chooses to believe regardless of empirical evidence. In the United States, we are all granted the freedom to believe as we choose, and even the right to state our beliefs, provided they don’t bring harm upon others. In your responses, there is a definite sense of fear factoring against the religion of Islam as being one that wants to force its will and beliefs on everyone regardless of their own beliefs.
Meanwhile, in the United States, the new GOP platform (66 pages) includes 7 pages that it refers to as ” A Rebirth of Constitutional Government.” In these seven pages, it seamlessly weaves together some of the most radical ideas offered by modern day libertarian scholars with the rhetoric of Christian conservatism. This thought comes from the following article:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/19/3799596/single-radical-line-republican-party-platform/
Based on this empirical evidence, it appears that many GOP Christians in the United States are trying to force their religion into legislation, and in the process destroy the protections afforded to all by our constitution. While you fear factor against Islam, your GOP leadership is trying to institute the Christian equivalent of Sharia law.
Postscript:
I’ve been told that you are a master of apologetics with a dash of alexithymia. Don’t infer this to be an ad hominem attack on my part, it’s not. It is an analysis by a psychologist friend of mine who I’ve shared our discourse with. I’ve been trying to understand your positions on issues and elicited her analysis. She made an interesting analysis of my discourse as well. Hopefully, we can both improve our responses accordingly.
Since many in the field of psychology read this blog, I’m sure not all of their analyses of me would prove favorable. I’m a work in progress.
I would prefer to have mentioned this in a private convo, but this blog doesn’t lend itself to that nature. If this reply is struck, I will understand. No hard feelings on my part.
Offensiveness and political correctness have little to do with the acts of diplomacy which are aimed at encouraging allies and alienating and isolating enemies.The struggle between Sunnis and Shiites is centuries old.The neocom embrace of Saudi Arabia brought Wahaabism into close proximity.(The Towers/9/11) and the struggle between the Saudis and Iran with Netanyahu pushing for war with Iran (using our troops)as he pushed for war with Iraq (promising the end of a real nuclear threat) and Putin making hay with the Syrian mess should tell us that the blunderbuss cannot work and the rapier is called for.Unless you are for a “Sea of Glass ” approach to the human race.
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog.
Our country faces a dilemma. We claim there to be a freedom of religion, and are forced to confront a religion consisting of many who believe that their religion should deny others their religious freedoms. Name a Democrat who, first understands the conundrum, and second, is brave enough to suggest solutions.
@Don Spencer, concerning the dilemma our country faces:
Since daedal2207’s post is about the attack in Nice, are you saying that it was committed by a man due to his religion? As of 6:30 pm, July 15, 2016, there is no evidence to that effect.
Or is the religion to which you are referring Christianity, since the recent killings in Dallas were committed by a Christian. And, since there is much evidence of Christians in America trying to legislate their religion into law, is that the religion that you feel Democrats should be brave enough to 1. understand the conundrum and 2. suggest solutions?
If so, I believe that our forefathers clearly indicated that there should be a separation of church and state, something which many Christians in America are trying to circumvent. Just curious, did Christians lay claim to the killings in Dallas as committed by a radical Christian terrorist?
And aren’t the “bathroom laws” being passed around the country an attempt by people of Christian religion to force their beliefs upon others? Are these the conundrums of which you speak, Don?
Maybe it would be best to leave the solutions up to the Democrats. By the way, Don, I am not a Democrat, but I find your comments against other religions to be offensive as an American.
Our forefathers said that the State cannot establish religion. The constitution guarantees the free expression of religion that the liberals are now trying & to a great extent have been successful in stifling it!
Anwar Ghali, MD, MPA
Dr.Ghali:
Can you supply an example of the stifling of religious free expression that you refer to? How does it compare with the examples of voter suppression that the GOP has succeeded in implementing ostensibly to prevent voter fraud.(.0007% nationally)An example is Texas accepting gun carry license as proof of voting eligibility while rejecting military and collegiate ID.
Gregory, if innocents are being killed in the name of Christianity we should be legitimately concerned about the character of the professed Christianity. That isn’t happening, so in this regard Christianity and Islam are not equivalent. Today the killing of innocents is being done in the name of Islam.
The fact that one is “offended” tells us nothing at all about the justification, or lack of justification for a belief. Claiming that one is offended is an emotional tool used to manipulate rather than inform. (Believe as I insist, or suffer my approbation!) Sometimes such tactics do sway. Those who are needy of the critic’s acceptance may indeed bend to such pressure. I recommend that we beware of those who are so insecure. The advantages of intellectual growth are much more likely to be found with more secure company. People who care less about how you feel, but care more about your ideas will stretch your mind. And then, feelings that have a higher probability of being appropriate will follow.
“Gregory, if innocents are being killed in the name of Christianity we should be legitimately concerned about the character of the professed Christianity. That isn’t happening, so in this regard Christianity and Islam are not equivalent. Today the killing of innocents is being done in the name of Islam.” ~ Don Spencer
Really? You say it’s not happening? Then how do you explain this:
From the FBI data base, Islamic extremists carried out 6% of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. between 1980 and 2005. During that same time period Jewish extremists carried out 7% of the terrorist attacks in the U.S., and the majority of attacks were by Christian extremists.
ISIS is not unlike the Army of God (American Christian terrorists)
1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012.
The virulent, neocon-fueled, Christian Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs.
2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009.
Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism, not al-Qaeda.
3. Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008.
July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Adkisson was vehemently anti-abortion, but apparently committing an act of terrorism during a children’s play was good ol’ Republican family values.
4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994.
To hear the Christian Right tell it, there is no such thing as Christian terrorism. Tell that to the victims of the Army of God, a loose network of radical Christians with a long history of terrorist attacks on abortion providers.
5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996.
Paul Jennings Hill is hardly the only Christian terrorist who has been praised by the Army of God; that organization has also praised Eric Rudolph, who is serving life without parole for a long list of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Christianity. Rudolph is best known for carrying out the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics—a blast that killed spectator Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others. Hawthorne wasn’t the only person Rudolph murdered: his bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama in 1998 caused the death of Robert Sanderson (a Birmingham police officer and part-time security guard) and caused nurse Emily Lyons to lose an eye.
6. The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998.
Like Paul Jennings Hill, Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder, James Charles Kopp is a radical Christian terrorist who has been exalted as a hero by the Army of God. On Oct. 23, 1998 Kopp fired a single shot into the Amherst, NY home of Barnett Slepian (a doctor who performed abortions), mortally wounding him.
7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994.
John C. Salvi, the radical anti-abortionist and Army of God member attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts, shooting and killing receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols and wounding several others.
8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010 (crashed plane into building).
Terrorist idea borrowed from al Qaeda? … maybe, but terrorist none the less. Who knows, maybe Muslim terrorists got the idea for truck bombs from Timothy McVeigh after the Oklahoma City bombing?
Innocents are being killed in the name of Christianity right here is the United States. I should also mention that Christian terrorists in Africa killed Muslims, and Buddhists in the Far East killed Muslims as well. Have you forgotten the Crusades? And Christians kill Christians and Muslims kill Muslims. Terrorism isn’t an Islamic idea, it’s an extremist idea used by all extremist groups regardless of religion, Don.
“Gregory, if innocents are being killed in the name of Christianity we should be legitimately concerned about the character of the professed Christianity.” If innocents are being killed in the name of any religion, we should be concerned, Don. Didn’t you condemn Black Lives Matter, claiming All Lives Matter? Terrorism isn’t a religious idea, it’s an extremist idea utilized by members of all religions. I don’t blame the religions’ Gods, I blame the followers.
ISIS is an example of the corruption of the Islamic religion; here are examples of the corruption of the Christian religion:
Central African Republic – Christian militia groups destroyed almost all mosques in the Central African Republic unrest. Amnesty International reported several massacres committed by the Anti-balaka against Muslim civilians, forcing thousands of Muslims to flee the country. Other sources report incidents of Muslims being cannibalized, burned alive, and dragged to death in the streets.
Tripura, India – The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), is a rebel group that seeks the secession of Tripura, North-East India, and is a proscribed terrorist organization in India. Group activities have been described as Christian terrorists engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs. The NLFT includes in its aims the forced conversion of all tribespeople in Tripura to Christianity. These forcible conversions, sometimes including the use of “rape as a means of intimidation”, have also been noted by academics outside of India. Sounds a lot like ISIS, doesn’t it, Don?
The Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) is also a Christian Naga nationalist Militant group operating in North India. The group reportedly indulges in kidnapping, extortion and other terrorist activities.
Lebanon – Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims. They targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, and was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly.
Uganda – The Lord’s Resistance Army (Christian), a guerrilla army, used child soldiers and committed numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and using forced child laborers as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves.
United States – Contemporary American Christian terrorism can be motivated by a violent desire to implement a Reconstructionist or Dominionist ideology. Dominion Theology insists that Christians are called by God to (re)build society on Christian values to subjugate the earth and establish dominion over all things, as a prerequisite for the second coming of Christ. Political violence motivated by dominion theology is a violent extension of the desire to impose a select version of Christianity on other Christians, as well as on non-Christians. Muslims kill Muslims, and Christians kill Christians, and they both kill each other. Army of God, Christian Identity, and Christian Patriot are just a few of the Christian terrorist groups in the United States. A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem; they believed that their deaths would “lead them to heaven”. I wonder if they have virgins waiting for them as well.
Do Christians advocate killing of LGBTQI people in America? Pastor Roger Jimenez said “Hey, are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today? No … I think that’s great. I think that helps society. I think Orlando, Florida’s a little safer tonight, the tragedy is that more of them didn’t die.” Donnie Romero of Stedfast Baptist Church in Fort Worth told his congregation that all gays should be put to death — it’s God’s will.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/jacob-geers/2016/06/here-are-all-the-people-applauding-the-orlando-gay-club-shooter/
So, Don, tell me again how innocents aren’t being killed in the name of Christianity, and how Christians in the United States don’t feel that way … yeah, right!
Obama,Clinton,Kerry,Clinton,Warren,Castro,Sanders,Richardson,Bloomberg…et al and non democrat JEB..What the Heck are you talking about!
Daedal2207: “What the Heck are you talking about!”
Acknowledging the unpleasant truth that we are at war and must destroy a widespread religious belief that is threatening religious freedom is what this is all about. Obama, Kerry and the Dem administration tend to deny the fact that the terrorists believe that they are killing to advance tenets of Islam (They wish against the evidence for us to be fighting a criminal organization, not a religion). They believe that we should admit into our country large numbers of people who claim to be of the same named belief as that of the terrorists. There is another interrelated religion that uses the same name. It could be compatible, but it is a life-and-death issue, and we must learn how to distinguish between the two. And/or the two must clarify for the rest of the world their distinctions. Related – The Democrats embrace a form of political correctness that causes them to avoid criticisms of cultures and religions. In fact, such critiques are often stifled, deemed to be “offensive”.