Well, Eric Robert Rudolph finally plead guilty in the case of the Olympic Park Bombing (along with other offenses).
An audio clip of the story from NPR can be found here
And a link to a decent article on the story can be found here
Of course it is rather cliche to point this out but it is "funny" that he has links to Christian Identity groups but he doesn't get called a "Christian terrorist" in the above pieces. I've heard that newspapers and tv/radio stations often have guidelines about this sort of thing (who is a "terrorist" as opposed to freedom fighter, insurgent, rebel, etc.) but I wonder what they are.
For what its worth, Wikipedia is willing to cite Eric Rudolph as an example of Christian terrorism. But I've seldom seen or heard those two words next to one another in other news media. I think the last time was many years ago when I read a newspaper article about a militant Christian group in Uganda. And the terminology "Christian terrorist" surprised me so much I clipped it out and saved it.
4 comments:
I think the difference largely stems from the fact that Christianity clearly condemns the idea that one can "kill for God." Therefore, whether the Olympic bomber committed atrocious acts is irrelevant because the Christian faith did not motivate him to do so.
In contrast, Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, was a mighty warrior who killed many people, both in the heat of battle and as a punishment for various offenses. In Islam, it is not only appropriate to kill others, but it's mandated to do so (i.e., in battle, to punish an apostate, etc.). Therefore, if a person kills in the name of Islam, that is noteworthy to a newspaper reporter since it provides an "answer" as to why the killing to place.
I think the distinciton you are making can't really be sustained.
Most Christians are actually not pacifists and believe that violence is permissible in order to prevent certain harms.
Also, if Eric Rudolph had bombed and IRS office or a federal building I think you might have a case that his motivations were secular. But Rudolph was guilty of bombing at least two abortion clinics and one lesbian nightclub and obviously there are many Christians who believe abortion and homosexuality also constitute "atrocious acts" (to use your term).
On top of that, even if we just wanted to stick to American history, Christian understanding of their own beliefs have clearly changed over time. 150 years ago it probably would have been very easy to find many Christians in the United States who had an understanding of the Gospel which was perfectly consistent with using violence to enslave Africans, promote segregation, and fulfull Manifest Destiny. And even in the current day there are Christian universities like Bob Jones which seem to be reminiscent of that earlier time.
I'm not saying that Christianity is *necessarily* racist and violent. But what I'm saying is that the racist ideology of the Christian Identity movement and the far-right militias are in the neighborhood of what "mainsteam" Christianity used to be in this country.
And on top of all that, even in the Bible itself, it is not that hard to find places where "God" commands violence and even genocide:
"Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But spare for yourselves all virgin maidens" (Numbers 31:17-18).
or
"I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27).
or
"When the Lord, your God, brings you into the land that you are entering to possess, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the Lord, your God, delivers them before you and you defeat them, destroy them utterly. Make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them" (Deuteronomy 7:1-2).
or just read through the entire book of Joshua.
I think if you look at the issue candidly and objectively, I don't see how anyone with any degree of moral consistency could accept the Biblical genocides but then condemn the relatively moderate just war theory of Islam.
Again, I'm not saying that every Christian is bent on commiting genocide. But there is enough of a foundation for violence and genocide in the Bible that one can NOT easily dismiss the Christian Identity movement or people like Eric Rudolph as simply being non-Christian.
It's not my job to defend the actions of so-called Christians. Rather, it is my job to raise up the authority of scripture since it is the Word of God.
The portions of the bible that you referenced (excluding Luke) are all part of the Old Testament of the bible, or the original Jewish bible. Christians acknowledge the relevance of the Old Testament and the fact that it is the word of God. Jesus himself upholds the authority of the Old Testament as well. But Jesus brought a new covenant between God and humankind. So God's command to kill was specific to a certain time and a certain place. And if you read the Old Testament, as I have, it is quite apparent that this is the case, and not just an interpretation.
Regarding Jesus' words that you quoted from the Gospel of Luke, feel free to check out the following website that talks about the parable the Jesus was telling. It is not correct that you did not identify Jesus words as a parable.
http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/pa/pa_34.htm
Anonymous writes:
"It's not my job to defend the actions of so-called Christians."
I think that is a totally reasonable position to take. I'm actually not asking you to defend them. And I'm not accusing you of being a terrorist or of planting bombs or re-starting the crusades or any of that either.
But what I'm saying is that those people who DO engage in such violent actions in the name of Christ, from my perspective, really are a part of the Christian historical tradition.
I'm not saying they are good Christians or exemplary Christians or that all Christians are like them. But that they grow out of the same ground as the rest.
They read the same Bible that you do, but they come to different conclusions.
There are many different interpretations of Christianity, some of them are violent and racist and oppressive and some of them are not. I think your specific argument about the Old Testament misses the point because there are clearly hateful ways of interpreting even the New Testament (for example it is easy to find passages in the Gospels which can be used to support anti-semitism)
Personally, I think it is a powerful and intriguing kind of
paradox that the same religion which produced the Christian Identity movement and the KKK is the same religion which produced Martin Luther King Jr. and Bob Marley.
But I also understand how a Christian might not want to see it that way.
Post a Comment