Israel-Palestine / religious terrorism (was non-islamic religious terrorism)

[Kevin Bonham]

A letter I sent to the Hobart Mercury yesterday. I have an excellent publication record in said paper but expect that this one will probably not make the cut, somehow:

Prime Minister Howard has recently called on Muslim communities to expose those supposedly within their ranks who preach what he calls a perverted and fanatical version of Islam. Islam, however, is certainly not the only religion invoked by terrorists. The USA has a long and bloody history of
Christian terrorism, from the once massive Ku Klux Klan to modern nutcases who have killed abortion workers and made death threats against the judge
and family involved in the Terri Schiavo case. In Uganda, Christian and
Islamic terrorism exist side by side in the Lord's Resistance Army, which
has kidnapped tens of thousands of children for use as soldiers and sex
slaves. Is it Howard's own bias as a Christian that makes him single out
Islam in such a simplistic fashion? Are there no votes in exposing
Christian terrorism because its sympathisers in the moral far right direct
their preferences to the Liberals? Or would any mention of "perverted and
fanatical" variants of Christianity invite too close an examination of the
illiberal, kooky and regressive versions of the faith espoused by some of
his own MPs?

[AES]

This is a very good point. All religions should be examined. Yes, even Christianity. Anyone can abuse a religion for their own personal goals. Little Johnnie should explore with Christian leaders whether any religious nuts (who are not real Christians) could abuse the Bible to do acts of terrorism. This would ensure that all religions are treated equally with no preference/bias.

[Alan Shore]

That's awesome Kevin, I really hope it does get published!

[pballard]

Hmm, a handle of nutters who have murdered abortion providers (does their number even exceed single digits?), and a terrorist group in Uganda (who, as far as I can tell, does not real links to the main church groups there).

Yep, we're really being overrun by Christian terrorism.

Besides, I think the Christian community has a pretty good record in denouncing hate and murderers (supposedly) from within their own midst. (As does some, even most, of western Islam, I must add). If Christians knew of a right wing group planning killings, do you really think they wouldn't act? To choose a more moderate example, (most) churches were very loud in denouncing Pauline Hanson.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the *current* terrorism threats come from Muslims so naturally he's calling on good-willed Muslims to cooperate.

[Kevin Bonham]

Hmm, a handle of nutters who have murdered abortion providers (does their number even exceed single digits?), and a terrorist group in Uganda (who, as far as I can tell, does not real links to the main church groups there).

I could have easily extended it to "Christian" defiance of the State in general, eg David Koresh, the Revd Jim Jones, militant "Christian patriots", and so on. I don't think the issue of links to the real church is relevant - is al-Qaeda linked to mainstream Islam?

Besides, I think the Christian community has a pretty good record in denouncing hate and murderers (supposedly) from within their own midst. (As does some, even most, of western Islam, I must add). If Christians knew of a right wing group planning killings, do you really think they wouldn't act? To choose a more moderate example, (most) churches were very loud in denouncing Pauline Hanson.

Not really a relevant example. While some One Nation supporters were Christians, Hanson herself is an atheist.

I think most Christians would act without needing to be told what to do by their Prime Minister. I also think the same is true of most Muslims.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the *current* terrorism threats come from Muslims so naturally he's calling on good-willed Muslims to cooperate.

Yes, but he is missing an excellent opportunity to stress that terrorism is unacceptable and that no religion should ever be used to justify it. I detect a subtle unstated slur in his words that this is some kind of "problem" Islam has that it has to address, when actually it is a problem from time to time for pretty much any religion.

[Rincewind]

Yep, we're really being overrun by Christian terrorism.

I immediately thought of IRA terrorist acts in Nth Ireland and England. They are a prime example of Christian terrorists if ever there was one. Not to mention their protestant counterparts.

[pballard]

I could have easily extended it to "Christian" defiance of the State in general, eg David Koresh, the Revd Jim Jones, militant "Christian patriots", and so on.

True, but they are very isolated incidents (and well in the past). Rincewind's mention of the IRA was a better example; but that's more political than religious - I've never heard of IRA terrorists killing in Jesus' name or appealing to Catholic ideals to further their cause.

I don't think the issue of links to the real church is relevant - is al-Qaeda linked to mainstream Islam?

I understand your point... but Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism does have a lot of popular support among Muslims. I've seen figures of between 25 and 75% support in Muslim countries. No doubt it's much lower among Muslims here, but there is obviously some level of support.

Not really a relevant example. While some One Nation supporters were Christians, Hanson herself is an atheist.

It is relevant in the sense that she attracted support from a fair sized minority of Christians, but nevertheless the vast majority of churches came down very hard in condemning her views (and by extension, those of their fellow Christians).

Yes, but he [J. Howard] is missing an excellent opportunity to stress that terrorism is unacceptable and that no religion should ever be used to justify it.

Why restrict it to religions? How about e.g. political groups?

I detect a subtle unstated slur in his words that this is some kind of "problem" Islam has that it has to address, when actually it is a problem from time to time for pretty much any religion.

But the reality is that, at the moment, there is a "problem" which Islam has to address.

[Kevin Bonham]

True, but they are very isolated incidents (and well in the past).

If we add up all the groups I've mentioned (Klan-derived groups were still lynching away into the 1980s) we've got several different terrorist-type Christian groups active in one nation, the USA, over a period of only 30 years. It's not as big a global problem as the current wave of "Islamic terror" right now, but it's there and it's persistent, and it's bound to have sympathisers here.

I understand your point... but Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism does have a lot of popular support among Muslims. I've seen figures of between 25 and 75% support in Muslim countries. No doubt it's much lower among Muslims here, but there is obviously some level of support.

Likewise there would be some level of support for abortionist-killing among "Christian" communities here. I have personally spoken to "Christians" who say they could not condemn someone who killed an abortionist, whatever their doctrine says otherwise.

It is relevant in the sense that she attracted support from a fair sized minority of Christians, but nevertheless the vast majority of churches came down very hard in condemning her views (and by extension, those of their fellow Christians).

True - but doesn't that make it the same as the IRA - a political issue in which people with religious views happened to be involved?

Why restrict it to religions? How about e.g. political groups?

I'd have no objection to extending it to all forms of possible cause of terrorism.

But the reality is that, at the moment, there is a "problem" which Islam has to address.

Is it really its problem? If one religion is responsible for warped versions of its teachings, aren't all? Doesn't that make Christianity responsible for all the lunatics that do idiotic things in its name too?

[Cat]

Is it Howard's own bias as a Christian that makes him single out
Islam in such a simplistic fashion? Are there no votes in exposing
Christian terrorism because its sympathisers in the moral far right direct
their preferences to the Liberals? Or would any mention of "perverted and
fanatical" variants of Christianity invite too close an examination of the
illiberal, kooky and regressive versions of the faith espoused by some of
his own MPs?[/i]

I suspect it's all to do with perception management, the specific design of western governments to dehumanise alternative cultures in order that their subjugation be more acceptable to our sensibilities. Our own standard of living is entirely dependant upon the enslavement of a large swathe of humanity, a reality too brutal for most of us to bear. By encouraging the perception that these people are fanatics or crazies, western governments can maintain the political support for their unholy crusades and keep domestic opinion in check. It's a load of old Goebbels!!

[firegoat7]

I suspect it's all to do with perception management, the specific design of western governments to dehumanise alternative cultures in order that their subjugation be more acceptable to our sensibilities. Our own standard of living is entirely dependant upon the enslavement of a large swathe of humanity, a reality too brutal for most of us to bear. By encouraging the perception that these people are fanatics or crazies, western governments can maintain the political support for their unholy crusades and keep domestic opinion in check. It's a load of old Goebbels!!

Well put Cat, and my I say its good to see you back.

cheers fg7

[four four two]

Do you own a horse Peter? Thinking of going on a crusade?
25-75% support in islamic countries, what utter rubbish!
If Al-Qaeda and "islamic" terrorists had that kind of support then the americans wouldnt have even had a chance of invading Iraq.The middle east alone has over 200 million muslims,which means by your reckoning that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups have at least 50 million supporters.If 10% of 50 million people were to be involved in active action then every government in the middle east would have been overthrown by now .
Stop regurgitating this stupid vile from the right wing press and use your brain for once.

[Kevin Bonham]

Our own standard of living is entirely dependant upon the enslavement of a large swathe of humanity, a reality too brutal for most of us to bear. By encouraging the perception that these people are fanatics or crazies, western governments can maintain the political support for their unholy crusades and keep domestic opinion in check. It's a load of old Goebbels!!

Much as I like to get stuck into the current government, I think the above falls over a bit empirically when you consider that some of the countries where support for Islamic terror is supposed to be strong are actually quite wealthy.

[firegoat7]

Much as I like to get stuck into the current government, I think the above falls over a bit empirically when you consider that some of the countries where support for Islamic terror is supposed to be strong are actually quite wealthy.

You are being deliberately ignorant. You know aswell as anybody else that Islamic oil wealth was created by American,British and European business expansion. You also know aswell as anybody else that the elites who benefit the most from these riches are not the majority of citizens within these Islamic or western countries.

Cats claims do not fall short empirically because to do that you would have to show empirically that the wealth of a nation ie GDP is connected to the general population, something that economists ignore every time they attempt to explain "wealth", since their is no individual statistical measurement of wealth anyway, except for mass statistical generalisations that are all, contextual speaking ,economically and culturally relative.

cheers Fg7

[Kevin Bonham]

You are being deliberately ignorant. You know aswell as anybody else that Islamic oil wealth was created by American,British and European business expansion. You also know aswell as anybody else that the elites who benefit the most from these riches are not the majority of citizens within these Islamic or western countries.

No, you're just picking a fight with me because of personal bias. Feel free to look up the relevant demographic indicators for the condition of the majority of the population; you will not find Saudi Arabia (for instance) too close to the bottom of the pile.

[Spiny Norman]

If one religion is responsible for warped versions of its teachings, aren't all? Doesn't that make Christianity responsible for all the lunatics that do idiotic things in its name too?

I think the first part of your first sentence is the clue that is needed. Islam is no more responsible for the current wave of terrorists than Christianity is responsible for the KKK.

The fact that some people claim a religious mandate to murder and maim does not mean that such a mandate either exists or is promoted by the mainstream of that religion. As you pointed out, significant "kooks" pop up from time to time, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Now if the mainstream start promoting violence, then that is another matter altogether.

As for whether Christianity condones the killing of abortionists ... it does not. Whilst many Christians (probably most, but not all) disapprove of abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancy, I cannot find any justification in Scripture for murder (or abortionists) as a solution to the problem. Nearby to my church is an abortion clinic. We regularly see people outside waving placards, protesting, etc. I personally disapprove of their approach to the problem. Marginalising and isolating both the doctors and the patients seems extremely counter-productive. I would much rather see church people offering support to those in need, rather than vilifying them.