Friday, January 11, 2008

Christian Terrorists on the Attack

Christian terrorists were on the attack again in Albuquerque last month.

This just goes to show that "radical Islam" does not have a monopoloy on terrorism. Let's call these crazy-ass christians who are attacking abortion clinics what they truly are - - terrorists.

And hey, aren't we fighting a war on terror?

31 comments:

G said...

Maybe I'm missing something, but that article didn't say anything about them being Christians.

BAWDYSCOT said...

Ya beat me to the punch, g. I read the whole article and I did not see the word Christian once. You know what side of the fence I am on, csm, but an assumption is just that. This would be the same as saying crimes committed by white supremacists were the work of "crazy Christians". Chances are you would probably be right, but there is always the possibility they were just crazy. After all the "Christians" who post here assuming all of us "atheists" think alike, I would like to think we are better than that.

csm said...

The only group I know of with an agenda to attack abortion clinics is christian, hence christian terrorists. Are you both saying you "believe" that these were not christians and were not driven by christian dogma (alebit perhaps misguided) to do what they did? If so, I'm all ears. They were Christian terrorists and you both know it.

BAWDYSCOT said...

I guess my next question to you csm, is did you see the word "group" in the article either? These two men in custody and the ones who pulled off the latest attack in the article could be "lone wolves" without any association to any "group". Are they probably Christians? Yeah, probably they are. Do we know for sure they are just from this article? I don't think we can say that. That is just an assumption, an assumption you didn't qualify. Now I know you are someone who believes in facts and proof of facts as your guide. Do you really have enough facts from this article(unless you have read more on these instances than just this article)to justify your assumptions?

Ceroill said...

Good grief, not this again? I missed the news item, I'm afraid. I was so hoping people had outgrown or gotten tired of this particular 'demonstration'.

G said...

csm,
I was simply pointing out that there is nothing in the article that says anything about them being Christians (or as bawdyscott pointed out, a group). You inferred it from the fact that they attacked an abortion clinic. Is that assumption any less bigoted than someone who assumes that the middle-eastern man is a terrorist... the hispanic is here illegally... or the african-american in a Mercedes is a drug dealer?

I'm sure you will find this hard to believe, but there ARE non-Christians who are opposed to abortion (just as there are some Christians who are not opposed to it).

In answer to your question, I would not be surprised if they claim to be Christians (and maybe even attend a church). If my memory serves me correctly, around 80% of our nation's population claims to be Christian when asked. But at the same time, when questioned about the foundational doctrines of Christianity, the number drops to less than 20%.

So just based on statistics, it is a good guess that they claim to be Christians. But based on their actions (as well as statistics) it is highly doubtful that they really are.

csm said...

Ah, yes, g, and your point here is EXACTLY the intent of this posting. We are supposedly at war with "terrorism" and the right wing (not all, but many) equate that with a war on Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. And many people blindly nod their head - - yes, those damn Arabs, those filthy Muslims, they are the terrorists. But every time an IED explodes in Iraq do people say, "Well, there is no proof that this was set off by a Muslim?" Hell, no!

This same logic can be used in this case. There are those who use Christian dogma to call abortion murder. They then condone terrorist actions against the people/buildings/etc. who perform abortions. This is exactly what we had in Albuquerque -- hether it was a "group" of two, or more.

BAWDYSCOT said...

csm,

Well you already know how I feel about the misguided use of the words "War on Terror". Terror has been with us since the beginning and always will be. To add to your point of Americans and their feelings towards Muslims; I would venture most Americans still think all Muslims are one and the same. But that all comes down to Americans having little respect for others, their ideals and their histories, except of course for our own glorious past.

G said...

csm,

I did understand the intent of your post. However, I think you missed the full intent of mine.

While the point you are trying to make has some validity behind it, the means by which you chose to express yourself reveals an attitude that is no better than those whom you so quickly and vehemently condemn. It is just another flavor of the same bigotry.

Also, while I obviously can't speak for the entire country, I have never heard any Christian or pseudo-christian leader condone attacks on abortion clinics (but have often heard them condemn that type of action).

With respect to Islam, I can't recall ever hearing anything other than "Iraqi insurgents" to describe the attacks against US forces in Iraq. And maybe it's just because I come from cosmopolitan Southern California, but I've never heard anyone even HINT that all Muslims (or even a majority) are terrorists... even though I am commonly in the presence of conservative, biblical Christians.

BAWDYSCOT said...

g,

Hasn't Pat Robertson condoned such attacks? I realize he doesn't hold the cachet he used to(and many of his other statements would have caused consternation in the face of Jesus himself also, I think of his Hugo Chavez statements as an example), but I believe he still has a television network, doesn't he?

Oh, and by no means do I attempt to answer for csm, but you have to remember he lives in Texas where many speak without engaging the grey matter.

G said...

I don't recall Robertson ever actually condoning that type of attack, but I could be mistaken. I rarely hear anything he has to say unless it is one of his headline-grabbing declarations, which are typically nonsense.

I assume that he still has a pretty big following, but I've never met anyone who gives any consideration to anything he says.

csm said...

C'mon gents, don't you recognize provacative language? You may think that either I am bigoted (g) do not engage the gray matter (Bawdy), but we are talking here, aren't we? I know that sarcasm and tone do not often translate to blogging well, but only a chimp with alzheimers could have missed it.

To clarify my points:

(1) The right wing zealots who speak of radical islamic terrorism are whom I am criticizing.

(2) I using the christians who attack abortion clinics as a mechanism for doing so.

(3) I do this through language pointedly chosen to rouse emotions.

And it worked (at least a little bit, within the "community" of this blog).

For some additional, surrounding data points on the abortion attacks issue, try these links out.

Christian leader involved: Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and leader in Defensive Action killed a physician and bodyguard outside another abortion clinic

Here is another link (that I was not aware of when I originally posted this entry) that refers to the "Lambs of Christ" as christian terrorists. James Charles Kopp, a member of the Lambs of Christ, obviously Christian in nature (note the damn name), shot and killed abortion provider Dr. Barnett Slepian with a single bullet from a high-powered rifle through the window of his Amherst, NY, home.

There were quite a few supporters of Kopp, too, calling it justiable homicide. For example, Jonathon O'Toole, who claims to be a reporter for the Christian Gallery News Service. Others included Chuck Spingola (a close associate of Matt Trewhella, leader of Missionaries to the Preborn), Donald Spitz who manages the Army of God website, and Linda Wolfe, who was involved in maintaining the "Prisoner's of Christ" network.

And a link here that states crime and violence against abortion clinics are no longer in the headlines, but that doesn't mean they no longer happen. A new study reports on the ongoing vandalism and harassment that are part of the job for those who work in many abortion clinics across the United States. This same link discusses Paul Hill, who in September 2003 received the death penalty for what he deemed "justifiable homicide": the shooting deaths in 1994 of a Florida doctor who performed abortions and the man who drove the doctor to the clinic. That's a lot of death over a simple medial procedure. (Here again, guys, is an example of an inflammatory sentence written in a manner to provoke emotion - do I really have to explain all of these?)

Finally, you can always turn to the big map of abortion clinic violence to see who is attacking them baby killers in your neck of the woods!

csm said...

Here is some "crazy" from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, albeit not an endorsement of abortion clinic bombers: The Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson set off a minor explosion of their own when they asserted on television on Thursday that an angry God had allowed the terrorists to succeed in their deadly mission because the United States had become a nation of abortion, homosexuality, secular schools and courts, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ceroill said...

Ok, I'll admit to missing the sarcasm of the original post. I guess I'm not quite as cynical as I often think myself if this kind of activity surprises me. I guess I like to think of this country as being (on the whole) more mature than that. You know what I mean.

As to Pat Robertson and buddies, they also said that about AIDS, about Hurricane Katrina, etc.

G said...

Those comments from PR are exactly the type of nonsense I referred to.

My reference to bigotry came from your assuming that these two psychos were Christians, even though the article says nothing about it... assuming something to be true about a person based on preconceived ideas, with no evidence that those preconceptions are true about the person in question.

And if you want to get technical, I think your idea of terrorism is a bit too broad. From the first paragraph of the article at religioustolerance.org, "Then, as now, most of the violence appears to be the acts of religiously-motivated criminals acting alone."

In my mind, "terrorism" tends to speak more of an organized group working together. I realize that the article mentions a network of sympathizers, but I think that's a big difference from a network of people actively working together to perpetrate crimes.

I might also mention that calling Paul Hill a "former" Presbyterian minister tends to imply that the leadership of the Presbyterian church disagreed with his views.

Ceroill said...

It may not be a dictionary type definition, but my thoughts on terrorism are that regardless of how many are involved, the intended psychological effect on the society at large is at least as if not more important than whatever physical and collateral damage is done. There is also always a Cause that the perpetrators represent in one way or another.

csm said...

terror 1. intense, sharp, over-massing fear 2. a person or thing that causes such fear

terrorism 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coearce, esp. for political purposes

Source: Webster's Universal College Dictionary, 1997

And therefore, Christian terrorists.

G said...

I'm not going to nitpick on the definition of terrorism. That definition is fine, but can be understood very broadly or narrowly. Broadly, you would probably find every government in the history of mankind as "terrorists"... or striking workers... school teachers.

I would lean toward a narrow meaning. In the cases you referred to, I don't think one person acting alone would qualify... especially since it seems the basis for the action was "kill this doctor to keep him from performing abortions." The attitude of the murderer seems to be more defense of the innocent than trying to achieve political change.

But call them terrorists if you like. I don't care. I still haven't seen any evidence that they were Christians.

csm said...

Even if, in this particular case, these guys are not christian (doubt it), that does not diminish the points being made in this blog posting one iota. The are christian terrorists, every bit as scary as muslim terrorists, if we choose to keep using that term muslim terrorist.

I have no love for either group, christian or muslim, whether or not they are terrorists.

csm said...

Even if, in this particular case, these guys are not christian (doubt it), that does not diminish the points being made in this blog posting one iota. The are christian terrorists, every bit as scary as muslim terrorists, if we choose to keep using that term muslim terrorist.

I have no love for either group, christian or muslim, whether or not they are terrorists.

csm said...

Whoops, should read "There are..." instead of "The are..." in the previous comment.

Al said...

I think it was the Athesit pro-life league. They are back to their terrorist activities once again. Fear the atheist pro-lifers - fear them I say!

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

csm said...

I know there are atheists who are anti-abortion. (I rebuke the pro-life/pro-choice labels as stupid, manipulatory wordplay).

I challenge you to find one single instance anywhere of an atheist againust abortion of bombing or burning an abortion clinic. Nope. That is the jurisdiction of christian terrorists.

Ceroill said...

csm, I agree about the semantics. Another fun one is 'global warming'. It's too much of a simplification, of trying to come up with a simple catchphrase for something very complex.

Al said...

"I challenge you to find one single instance anywhere of an atheist againust abortion of bombing or burning an abortion clinic."

This one. Prove me wrong.

I have as much evidence to prove the atheist did it as you did that Christians did it. You don't like Christians therefore they are the only possible suspects. Muslims are the biggest terrorist, why not suspect them?
No No, I accept the atheist terrorist, they seem the most likely suspect. They were simply attempting to smear the Christians by initiating such an event. This has been there MO? The groupies are all alike.

BAWDYSCOT said...

csm,

This is the main reason I don't like to generalize, when I do I get misinterpreted. When I said that about Texans, csm, I was speaking in general. In no way was I talking about you in particular. Texans, generally, have an arrogance about them and this arrogance can give the appearance of talking without engaging the grey matter. If you recall the order of posts in this thread, the discussion at that point was about the degree to which some ascribe terror to the Muslim religion. My point was there probably are a fair amount of Texans, generally, who feel the mayhem proffered the rest of the world is just "Muslims being Muslim".

These last few threads are my proof that spiritual beliefs should stay personal. Minds don't get changed and animosity abounds. Peace everybody.

csm said...

Cool, Bawdy.

And to Al, Bah! (Which means I refuse to participate in your delusion.)

Ceroill said...

csm, at least it's more than just the three (four?) of us posting here, now.
Did you see the Slate article yesterday about the anti Castro expatriates down in Florida who've been essentially ignored for decades by the authorities? Here's the link:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/
2008/01/14/cuba/index.html?source=
rss&aim=/news/feature

Al said...

Its tough when your own fail you isn't is csm? So much for the radical fundies and their pet project of wiping out women's choices?

It was enjoyable as long as pandora's box remained closed. Be gone!

Ceroill said...

Huh?

csm said...

Well said, Bob.