Mark Juergensmeyer is a distinguished sociologist of religion, but if this piece is an example of his reasoning, I don’t for the life of me know why. Here’s the core of the argument:
It is fair to call [Wisconsin mass murderer Wade Michael] Page a Christian terrorist since the evidence indicates that he thought he was defending the purity of white Christian society against the evils of multiculturalism that allow non-white non-Christians an equal role in America society. Like the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, and the Norwegian militant, Anders Breivik, Page thought he was killing to save white Christian society.
Though there is no evidence that Page was a pious Christian, that is true of many religious terrorists. If the hard-talking, swaggering al Qaeda militants can be called Muslim terrorists, certainly Page can be called a Christian terrorist.
There’s plenty of evidence linking Page to white supremacism, but, as Juergensmeyer concedes, none pointing to his Christian piety.
Every orthodox Christian teaching with which I’m familiar condemns racism and white supremacism. Consider, for example, this, from St. Augustine:
This heavenly city, then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adopts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced.
So Juergensmeyer’s argument boils down to this: if we can apply the world ‘Muslim’ to terrorists who come from countries that are predominantly Muslim, we can call white supremacists Christian. We don’t have to look too closely at the teachings of the denomination or of any religious leaders with whom the terrorists happen to be affiliated (or not), to say nothing of the individuals’ actual beliefs or practices (or complete absence thereof).
This is an incredibly sloppy argument, and its effect is pernicious.
August 7th, 2012 | 11:04 am
Hatred of Christians among American academics is nothing new, but then again it is so irrational that reports of it are sometimes hard to believe…that is until it is typed up and published.
August 7th, 2012 | 11:17 am
It seems to me it’s doubtful the word terrorism applies, let alone Christian terrorism. Terrorism, it seems to me, has some kind of agenda that goes beyond murdering people. It is a means to some kind of political end. We don’t know Page’s motive. Calling him a terrorist tends, in a kind of twisted way, to elevate him to something more than a mass murderer. It implies he had some kind of purpose or cause he was acting to further. The word terrorism is overused. So far, based on what we know, Page is not a terrorist. He’s a disturbed person who senselessly murdered innocent people.
August 7th, 2012 | 11:24 am
Hatred of Christians among American academics is nothing new . . .
There is even less evidence for implying Mark Juergensmeyer hates Christians than there is for calling Page a Christian terrorist.
August 7th, 2012 | 1:03 pm
Less than none?
August 7th, 2012 | 1:03 pm
Suppose this Page character was a member of the violent faction of the White Supremacist Brotherhood or KKK or whatever they are called these days. If he killed to advance that cause, perhaps as a vanguard of some sort, I see no reason, in principle, not to label him a terrorist, or his actions as terrorism.
But then, would “moderate” be an appropriate label for the non-violent faction of the White Supremacist Brotherhood? I don’t think so, but that label, it seems to me, is exactly what is acceptable in many quarters for outfits like the “Muslim Brotherhood.” Since they are not international terrorists, like Al Queda for instance, we are free to label them as “moderate Muslims” despite that fact that their hatred of Jews ranks right up there with the guys in the white hoods. So, why is the term “moderate” in-bounds for the Muslim Brotherhood, but out of bounds for a Klansman?
August 7th, 2012 | 1:17 pm
I think a lot of Islamic terrorists cite religious beliefs or excuses to justify their attacks (i.e., purifying the Holy Land by ridding it of infidels and their influences, establishing sharia, ensuring entry into Paradise) and often incorporating prayer and shouts of Allahu Akbar into their actions. They are (or pretend to be) self-consciously and essentially religious.
I don’t know that this is true of white supremacists. I think an appropriate term for them is “racists”. Those that kill are murderous racists.
August 7th, 2012 | 1:46 pm
Less than none?
Smitty,
Mark Juergensmeyer at least gives his rationale for calling Page a Christian terrorist, and while I don’t find it convincing, there is nothing in it that smacks of hatred of Christians. Juergensmeyer mentions Islamic terrorists and Jewish terrorists. Does that mean he hates Muslims and Jews, too?
I have seen photos of Page wearing the white-power symbol that incorporates the Celtic cross. Whether that is being used as a symbol of Christianity, I don’t know, but of course there are specifically Christian white-supremacists groups.
In any case, I see no evidence that Mark Juergensmeyer is trying to denigrate Christians or Christianity in any way. You can read in his piece what motivates him to call Page a Christian terrorist, and although it may not be convincing, it is not hateful.
August 7th, 2012 | 1:54 pm
[...] Christian Terrorism? – Joseph Knippenberg, First Things/First Thoughts [...]
August 7th, 2012 | 2:28 pm
One of the links above quoted someone who said he was a normal child and came from a loving family or something. Later in the article, I lost track of his family break ups and messes. So, no, he did not come from a normal family. But the journalist doesn’t want to seek to understand, only to spectate.
August 7th, 2012 | 2:34 pm
Al-Qaeda’s leaders specifically say and have said that they are acting in the name of Islam. (Most of the world’s Muslims, of course, disagree.) If Page or the people who inspired him claim(ed) to be acting in the name of Christianity, then he could be labeled as a Christian terrorist as fairly as bin laden was labeled a Muslim terrorist. Absent evidence of such claims, not so much.
August 7th, 2012 | 3:04 pm
The vast majority of self-described “Christians” in the racialist or neo-Nazi swamp subscribe to “Christian Identity” – which bears no resemblance to orthodox Christianity.(Then there are neo-Nazis who claim Odin as lord. Will Mr. Juergensmeyer warn us of the danger of Viking terrorists? Purple clad Minneapolis stormtroopers, with horns on their helmets and mayhem on their minds?) Mr. Juergensmeyer needs to go back to school. Or under a rock.
August 7th, 2012 | 3:08 pm
I know for a fact that Juergensmeyer is a practicing Christian, though this doesn’t stop him from being critical of Christianity when he feels it is warranted. I suspect his use of terrorism here is used to help place these acts into a larger framework, where we start to see these acts of violence as part of a bigger, global problem where ‘others’ are hated, and must be eliminated in pursuit of a purist vision.
August 7th, 2012 | 3:38 pm
David Nickol –
I’ve re-read the piece, and I think it was worse than “unconvincing” — rather, to attach the label “Christian” to these horrible acts is more akin to a slur. I don’t claim that the author hates Christians, or anyone else; only that it’s too easy for some to make the assumption that far-rightwing, or racist, or xenophobic, equals Christian. It doesn’t. For all we know, I could just as easily call the killer a Pagan terrorist. Why not?
August 7th, 2012 | 4:09 pm
Smitty,
The point I care about making is that it cannot be concluded from what Mark Juergensmeyer said that he hates Christianity. I think Mic in the message above yours makes a good point. Juergensmeyer is outlining things in very broad terms. I can see why people are objecting, and I don’t agree with Juergensmeyer myself, but I don’t think he is being intentionally offensive, and I see no reason to take offense.
to attach the label “Christian” to these horrible acts is more akin to a slur
If Page at some point declares himself to be part of the Christian Identity movement or some other white-supremacist group that actually does identify as Christian, I still don’t think we would call the shootings “Christian acts.” We have to remember that Islamic terrorism does not reflect poorly on Islam itself or on Muslims who condemn it and have nothing to do with it, and Christian terrorism does not reflect poorly Christianity itself or on Christians who condemn it and have nothing to do with it.
August 7th, 2012 | 4:27 pm
‘have seen photos of Page wearing the white-power symbol that incorporates the Celtic cross. Whether that is being used as a symbol of Christianity, I don’t know, but of course there are specifically Christian white-supremacists groups.”
I have seen a lot of entertainers wearing crosses —they are often ostentatious items. Some even wear rosaries as necklaces. I have always assumed the jewelry was a fashion statement rather than a sign of the wearer’s religious affiliation. Some might be Christian, too, but mostly it’s just bling. I don’t think of them as “Christian artists”.
August 7th, 2012 | 7:33 pm
Wow, this is such a case of apples and oranges it’s hard to know where to start.
First, the so called ‘Christian terrorists’ have little association with any Christian teaching. They are typically white and middle class so academics associate them with Christianity for no other discernible reason.
Second, their actions are universally condemned by Christians everywhere and Christians always flood in to support victims with money, food, clothing, or just moral support; whatever is needed.
Christians demand justice be done and the perps be severely punished.
Contrast that with Muslim terrorists.
They are 100% dedicated to promoting their religion. They are recruited and trained by the thousands by top leaders in their faith.
Their evil acts are celebrated by the majority of their faith. When was the last time you remember any Mosque or Muslim congregation or Muslim leader aggressively condemn Muslim terrorism?
August 7th, 2012 | 7:36 pm
We could describe him as a “musical terrorist”, too, considering his enthusiastic participation in the white supremacist rock scene.
August 7th, 2012 | 8:29 pm
The reality is that we live in a society that has a thoroughly Christianized heritage. That means that anyone who isn’t consciously and deliberately acting against Christianity or in the name of something distinctly disjoint from Christianity is going to “smell” Christian. There will be Christian trappings in the behavior or associations of almost anyone who doesn’t consciously seek to distance himself from all things Christian (and really, in a fair number of those who do, because most of us don’t realize how culturally deep Christianity runs.)
That is a far cry from identifying someone who is associated with a group that is Christian in the sense that it isn’t consciously unChristian and still uses Christian language as a “Christian” who is supposedly motivated by “Christianity.” There’s a little difference between connecting the dots from “Well, the KKK was founded by a bunch of Baptists” (or whatever they were) and a guy who is actually yelling Allahu Akbar when he sets off his bombs.
August 8th, 2012 | 12:07 am
pentamom,
The following is from the Wikipedia article on Christian Terrorism:
The Klan was not incidentally “Christian” because the people who founded it just happened to be Christians. It was a Christian organization, believing itself to represent and protect Christianity.
August 8th, 2012 | 12:25 am
[...] Additional Reading: Joseph Knippenberg, "Christian Terrorism?"; Leonard Zeskind, Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the [...]
August 8th, 2012 | 7:38 am
Some years ago, certain anti-immigrant groups in Spain were using the image of Santiago Matamoros [St James the Moor Slayer] on their banners and leaflets. That said, I do not believe they were involved in any anti-terrorist acts.
The traditional statue has been removed from many churches, or its base of sprawling corpses concealed, but it still appears, I believe, in bas-relief on a panel of the reredos of the Church of Christo Rey in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
The Order of Santiago, of which the King of Spain is Grand Master, was quick to point out that the cross of the order (a cross flory fitchy) refers to the sword of St James’s martyrdom, rather than to his apparition and exploits at the battle of Clavijo.
August 8th, 2012 | 9:04 am
I was surprised when I heard the quick association by the enlightened between Page and Christianity. Perhaps they are trying to take the sting out of the public’s predisposition to associate Muslins with terrorism: “See, there are Christian terrorist, too.” Then again, academics and the inhabitants of the newsrooms will do what they will. But the truth is, those like Page are Christian heretics at best. As has been pointed out, however, we don’t know Page’s motives and perhaps never will.
August 8th, 2012 | 9:53 am
David, that was not precisely my point.
They took on Christian trappings, sung hymns, used the name of Jesus, etc., because they were culturally Christian. Had all those KKK people lived in a FSM country, they would have used FSM trappings. Maybe they would have had sacramental meals of antipasto, or something, and talked about the purity of pesto.
How do I know they were only trappings based on their culture, and not an actual manifestation of Christianity?
Easy. Because there is absolutely nothing in any identifiable version of Christianity outside of Klanism that teaches people to burn crosses on people’s lawns at night because they are of another faith, are accused of certain crimes, or associate with the wrong people.
They were practicing Klanism in a Christian culture (and in association with individual Christian belief), so their Klanism looked Christian. But I would be puzzled to find any source for Klan practice within Christianity.
August 8th, 2012 | 10:35 am
Pentamom,
Your comment is, as always, helpful and well put. You made a very good point about the error of connecting the dots between Christianity and anything bad that happens within a nation with a 90-something percent Christian heritage.
Since 9/11, what we are seeing among many of our elites is a similar but even more irrational practice–that of connecting bad things that happen in Islam to American Christianity. Since that last sentence will no doubt send someone here into fits, let me explain what I mean.
Christopher Hitchens and others among the so-called New Atheists (and not just the usual four suspects) had spent most of their time leading up to 9/11 directing their attacks at American Christianity because it is the last stand of Christianity in the West (can Richard Dawkins really be upset about the state of Christianity in England??). Along came 9/11 and these fellows absorbed Al Qaeda into their war against Christianity by conflating the two under the banner of “religious fundamentalism.” Suddenly Islam, Christianity was all beside the point–at least when talking about the 9/11 hijackers–this was the same “religious fundamentalism” these guys had been talking about all along.
Bill Maher became so uncomfortable with mostly Christian conservatives condemning the attacks as cowardly, he shot back saying that it is the Americans who are cowardly and the Muslim attackers are anything but. What’s the impetus for that?
The obvious point is that Bill Maher hasn’t spent his career directing his ire at Afghan or Saudi Arabian Muslims. It’s Christians he hates, and any acts of Islamic terrorism must be left at the Christian doorstep one way or the other.
August 8th, 2012 | 11:12 am
pentamom,
First, let’s note that nobody writing here appears to accept the classification of Wade Michael Page as a Christian terrorist. I don’t buy that classification, and I don’t think anyone writing here has supported it.
But as for the KKK and other Christian groups, I think you are in denial. I doubt that any of us here can agree on a definition of what constitutes pure and true Christianity, but certainly in Christianity as practiced down through the ages there has been ample evidence of racial and religious hatreds and persecutions. The KKK didn’t invent anti-Semitism. It was a long-established Christian “value,” upheld by some of the greatest Christian thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther. There seems to be a desire here to claim that Christians can do no wrong, so in all the Protestant-Catholic wars (e.g., the Thirty Years War), were both sides right? Was the Irish Republican Army not a terrorist group? Was the Spanish Inquisition what we expect of Christians?
The KKK was a Christian group, and there have been other Christian groups that have been just as reprehensible. It makes no sense to speculate what the KKK would have been if it had been created in some other culture. Here is something from the site of the Knights Party, a direct successor to the Klan:
These folks are not just incidentally Christian. They have a warped view of Christianity, in the opinion of most of us, but if they are baptized Christians and practice their religion, no matter how much Christianity wants to disown them, they are still Christians.
August 8th, 2012 | 11:28 am
Again with the “Klan was established as a ‘Christian’ organization” argument? That characterization is historically misleading or at least imprecise. If one consults wiki under the less ummm tendentious heading of Ku Klux Clan some clarity is brought to the discussion. There have been three major iterations of the Klan. The first, begun immediately after the Civil War, was an explicitly political (and designated ‘terrorist’) organization with no apparent connection to Christian faith or churches — from the entry on the Klan:
“In effect, the [first] Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life..”
That first Klan died out rather quickly, due to a combination of government prosecution and supercession by other white supremacist organizations. There is no indication that there was any explicit or implicit connection to “Christianity” as a religion or set of beliefs and practices.
The second iteration of the Klan began around 1915 and was likely spawned by DW Griffith’s film “The Birth of a Nation”. Griffith celebrated and mythologized the first Klan. It was Griffith’s film which inaugurated “…[m]uch of the modern Klan’s iconography, including the standardized white costume and the lighted cross… Its imagery was based on Thomas Dixon’s plays and novels and a romanticized concept of old England and Scotland, as portrayed in the novels and poetry of Sir Walter Scott. …”
Thus it was this second rising of the Klan that began the (both symbolic and in some cases actual) association with white Protestant Christianity. As many as two thirds of the national spokesmen for the Klan were Protestant ministers. It was this second Klan that began the practice (never practiced by the first) of cross burning.
This second Klan was, for more than a decade, extremely ‘popular’ claiming more than 6 million members by 1924. As the Klan began to be increasingly understood not as ‘a law and order organization’ but as a criminal and terrorist enterprise it’s popularity waned rapidly. By 1930 the membership had declined to around thirty thousand.
While it remained a violent, racist presence in the South for another generation, the Klan never again rose to the level of prominence it had briefly enjoyed. Following the Second World War and the advent of the Civil Rights Movement the Klan was further decimated by law enforcement prosecutions and the great African American population shift northward. It’s national membership these days is estimated at no more than a few thousand.
Thus we can see that there was for a time an association between the Clan and mainstream Protestant Christianity. But not at it’s founding, and certainly not today in any but the most ‘fringe’ manner. In fact, if we are interested in playing “guilt by association” the Klan’s associations with the Democrat Party in the South are far stronger than any to do with the Christian Church. It would be more accurate to call it at it’s founding and through much of its second wave of popularity an arm of the Democrat Party, than it would be to call it a “Christian” organization.
August 8th, 2012 | 1:44 pm
David Nickol writes:
Where is this claim made? Who made this claim? I’ve never seen it on this website in all the years I’ve been reading it, although I’ve seen this accusation from you before. This false accusation is important to you and your argument depends upon it.
August 8th, 2012 | 4:40 pm
Where is this claim made? Who made this claim?
Douglas Johnson,
There is a very concerted effort going on in this thread—even though we all agree that the term “Christian Terrorist” doesn’t apply to Wade Michael Page—that such organizations as the KKK weren’t or aren’t Christians, because Christians don’t do the kind of bad things that the KKK did.
Obviously, “can do no wrong” is a figure of speech. Everyone knows that Christians believe all men (and women) are sinners (excepting Jesus, and if you are Catholic, Mary).
This false accusation is important to you and your argument depends upon it.
My argument is that there have (and are) Christian terrorist groups. There are Muslim terrorist groups. There have been Jewish terrorist groups.
August 8th, 2012 | 4:49 pm
David,
Sounds like you need to dig deeper before you make some of your claims. Given your requirements, david c’s proposal that the Klan was a group of “Democratic terrorists” seems very tenable. Can you accept that?
As to “Muslim terrorist”, I believe it is used, but far more common, and certainly much fairer, are the appelations “Islamist terrorist”, “Taleban terrorist”, and “al Queda terrorist”. Then again, Willis36 has a major point that polls of the worldwide Muslim population show a high level of support for the terrorists among the Muslims not associated with the terrorism acts. At the same time, that support is falling, not surprisingly, as most Islamist terrorism winds up killing Muslims.
In the end, we don’t know Page’s motivations and probably never will, given a manifesto by him has yet to be found. I much prefer to think of him as a White Supremacist serial killer. After all, most of our home grown serial killers come from some kind of Christian background as pentamom noted simply because that is our history.
August 8th, 2012 | 4:57 pm
David Nickol writes:
Let me ask again, who said anything like this? Where did they say it? “A very concerted effort” should be easy enough to quote. Let’s see it.
August 8th, 2012 | 5:24 pm
David — Douglas Johnson’s incredulous questions may arise partly from the fact that you’re answering me as though I asserted that racism and anti-Semitism have never occurred among Christians.
Since I never said anything close to that, it’s not so surprising that Douglas might wonder who you might think you’re addressing.
Find me the recognized Christian teaching that prescribes cross-burning and other stealth vigilante tactics against specific infractions of a purported racial order, and we can continue this discussion. Otherwise, we’re not talking about things associated with Christianity, we’re talking about things that people over the years have wanted to justify by associating them with Christianity. There’s also a long history of schizophrenics claiming Jesus appeared to them and told them to do some bizarre thing, but I hope that doesn’t mean that those bizarre behaviors go into the historical record as manifestations of Christian practice.
August 8th, 2012 | 5:25 pm
And also, I never said, “They’re not Christians.” To put it succinctly, what they’re doing isn’t Christianity, and the fact that they’re Christians, or that they justify it by claiming it Christian, doesn’t make it so. There’s a difference.
August 8th, 2012 | 5:59 pm
David N,
It would be helpful for you to make a distinction, I think, that most of the folks here in this thread and elsewhere on FT website make rather routinely. That is between “people (who it happens) are/were Christian who do or think bad things” and “bad things done or thought ~on the basis of, or motivated by,~ generally accepted orthodox Christian teaching or thought”.
The conflation of those two very different historical realities into a single blameworthy/accusatory stew makes for a difficult and frustrating conversation because it mixes two different problems or concerns. I am certainly not going to (nor do I see many of the other folks here) make the claim that Christians “can do no wrong”. History and honesty (as well as basic Christian anthropology/theology) tells us differently. But rational distinctions are important for honest conversation and the questions of motivation, of rationale, etc are crucial ones.
I hope you agree?
August 8th, 2012 | 6:17 pm
Given your requirements, david c’s proposal that the Klan was a group of “Democratic terrorists” seems very tenable. Can you accept that?
Mike Melendez,
One question. Which did you have to be to join the Klan? A Democrat, or a Christian?
Here is something I found from Klan literature from the 1920s. Note all the references to the Democratic Party.
You can find similar or identical language on Klan sites today.
Yes, I’m focusing on the “second” Klan, but the character and founding of the “first” Klan don’t absolve the second Klan of being a Christian movement through and through.
I am not “blaming” Christianity for the Klan, or saying that Christians today are like Klan member, or anything of the sort. But the Klan was a white Protestant movement. Being a white Protestant was a requirement for membership. As david c even notes, large percentages of its leadership were Protestant ministers. There is just no way around characterizing the (second) Klan as Christian. It’s just a fact. It’s what I was taught in Catholic school.
August 8th, 2012 | 10:18 pm
Juergensmeyer addresses many of the issues brought up here in an earlier article (on Breivik) from the same website:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4910/is_norway%E2%80%99s_suspected_murderer_anders_breivik_a_christian_terrorist/
Is this a religious vision, and am I right in calling Breivik a Christian terrorist? It is true that Breivik—and McVeigh, for that matter—were much more concerned about politics, race, and history than about scripture and religious belief; with Breivik even going so far as to write that “It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).”
But much the same can be said about Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and many other Islamist activists. Bin Laden was a businessman and engineer, and Zawahiri was a medical doctor; neither were theologians or clergy. Their writings show that they were much more interested in Islamic history than theology or scripture, and imagined themselves as re-creating glorious moments in Islamic history in their own imagined wars. Tellingly, Breivik writes of al Qaeda with admiration, as if he would love to create a Christian version of their religious cadre.
If bin Laden is a Muslim terrorist, Breivik and McVeigh are surely Christian ones. Breivik was fascinated with the Crusades and imagined himself to be a member of the Knights Templar, the crusader army of a thousand years ago. But in an imagined cosmic warfare time is suspended, and history is transcended as the activists imagine themselves to be acting out timeless roles in a sacred drama. The tragedy is that these religious fantasies are played out in real time, with real and cruel consequences.
This is obviously an attempt at using a comparative perspective — mixed in with a little ritual analysis — to get a handle on contemporary religious violence. Juergensmeyer’s point seems to be that certain type of individual commits spectacular acts of violence as a way to participate in “cosmic warfare.” Religious is defined here in a loose fashion so as to encompass notions of cosmic warfare as varied as “jihad” and , for American and European Christianity, “kulturkampf.” A rough beginning for a sociological analysis, perhaps, but hardly evidence of an anti-Christian animus.
August 9th, 2012 | 12:15 am
David Nickol writes:
“But the Klan was a white Protestant movement. Being a white Protestant was a requirement for membership. As david c even notes, large percentages of its leadership were Protestant ministers. There is just no way around characterizing the (second) Klan as Christian. It’s just a fact. It’s what I was taught in Catholic school.”
In his book _The Segregationists_ (1962), author James Graham Cook interviewed Robert Lee Davidson, who at the time was the Imperial Wizard of the largest Klan group in the country.
Excerpt (p.122):
“Of course a Catholic can’t belong to the Klan; that’s because his own religion won’t let him join any fraternal order but the Knights of Columbus,” he [Davidson] said…”Jews don’t belong to the Klan because the Jewish faith doesn’t accept Christ as the Saviour.”
I don’t think that Davidson here is honestly expressing his true feelings about Catholics and Jews (!), but that he thought of the Klan as being a Christian and Protestant organization is clear. (by the way, there is no mention of registered Republicans being excluded from Klan membership). Cook then quotes from what he says is a Klan pamphlet given to him by Davidson (p.123):
“IT [the Klan] IS A PROTESTANT ORGANIZATION… We can say to the world without apology, and say truly, that our forefathers founded this as a Protestant country and that it is our purpose to re-establish and maintain it as such…”
A more general point would be that the Klan of the 50s and 60s, like other segregationist groups at that time, tended to self-identify as defenders of “white Christian civilization.” Which leads us back to people like Timothy McVeigh, Breivik and others who also saw themselves as engaged in, if not Christian violence, then violence in defense of things Christian.
August 9th, 2012 | 12:21 am
David N,
Well if you learned it in Catholic school, I guess that settles it?
But seriously, please give some evidence that the Klan in any of its iterations was a “Christian movement through and through”. What were the Christian doctrines and practices that the Klan supported? What were the theological foundations for its racist ideology? In other words, I am asking you again why you are unwilling to distinguish between an organization whose membership is/was limited to white Protestants but whose aims are not religious but political and an explicitly Christian organization and or church?
And by the way by your standard, the KKK was in both it’s first two iterations was largely a “Democrat terrorist organization” in a far more comprehensive way than it was Christian. It’s purposes were explicitly political — fighting Reconstruction and suppressing black and white votes for the Republican party throughout the South.
August 9th, 2012 | 7:24 am
That is between “people (who it happens) are/were Christian who do or think bad things” and “bad things done or thought ~on the basis of, or motivated by,~ generally accepted orthodox Christian teaching or thought”.
david c,
I think we might be able to reach agreement, but not with this formulation. Throughout history, Christians have done evil things in the name of Christianity. The (second) KKK was about “Christian values.” I think you and I and most First Things readers would agree that the KKK was very much mistaken about certain aspects of Christianity as we understand it. But I think it would be a very difficult project to come to a unanimous agreement here on First Things about what is the very core of Christianity that all Christians agree on, what beliefs and practice are “optional” for all Christians, and which are to be excluded from Christianity altogether.
For example, read some of the things Thomas Aquinas said about Jews. Catholics themselves would generally disagree with Aquinas on these matters now, but are we to claim Aquinas wasn’t engaged in Christian thought? I would guess that in the history of Christianity, the belief that the Jews were collectively guilty for the death of Jesus has been the norm. It is a belief that was repudiated by the Catholic Church during Vatican II, but does that mean we can rewrite history and say anti-Semitism was never really a part of Christianity?
Some Christian denominations consider gambling immoral. Other Christian denominations routinely use gambling to raise money. What is the true Christian belief about the morality of gambling? What is the true Christian belief about divorce? The Catholic Church says Protestant “churches” are not churches “in the proper sense.” Some Protestant churches argue that the papacy is the antichrist. Which of these are Christian ideas and which are non-Christian or anti-Christian?
It would be very mistaken and wrong to say, “Oh those Christians! Why, the Ku Klux Klan was Christian. Is there no end to Christian evil?” But it is just denying history to deny that the KKK was a Christian organization. The most important requirement for membership was being a (Protestant) Christian, and they preached a brand of Christianity, no matter how repellant and discredited we may consider it today.
August 9th, 2012 | 9:48 am
Mark Juergensmeyer at least gives his rationale for calling Page a Christian terrorist, and while I don’t find it convincing, there is nothing in it that smacks of hatred of Christians.
Yes, because there’s a different standard of proof for Christianity – due entirely to the hostility aimed at Christianity – so it’s apparently possible to be magnanimous toward people who try to hold Christianity responsible for terrorist act, even if the rationale is so flimsy that even someone who argues that the KKK “is a Christian organization” (without bothering to actually explain what the KKK has in common with Christianity) can’t buy it.
Of course, we would recognize that it is hateful to try to hold all of Buddhism responsible for the actions of one self-described Buddhist, because we accord respect to Buddhism – while Christianity is threatening to humanists, and therefore is not accorded the respect that other groups are entitled to.
Muslim terrorists are defended by humanists to the point where even when you point out the direct link between the religious teachings and the violent action, it’s still “bigoted” to hold “radical Islam” responsible for terrorist acts: as long as there are moderate Islamic people, it doesn’t much matter if those moderate Islamic people don’t actually repudiate the actions of those other Muslims. The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation to prove the connection, and failure to do so could result in being labeled a “bigot”.
But only if the target is Muslim. Christianity is held to a different standard: it’s always been true that ideological groups bent on dominance attack those closest, not farthest, from their own beliefs and ideological position. (Something to do with coveting the real estate, I believe).
August 9th, 2012 | 10:14 am
David Nickol,
I think it is fairly easy to discern that most writers and commentators at FT believe that Jesus Christ is God’s son, that he was crucified on Calvary, died, was buried, and then rose from the dead. And they believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one.
My real question is whether it is possible to have an honest conversation with you about the difference between Christians and Christ and Christianity. Any conversation on any topic is a ridiculous waste of time if the participants don’t share a common understanding of the words being used.
For the purposes of these discussions so that everyone can understand/translate the terms you use, do you believe that Jesus Christ is God? Do you believe he rose from the dead after his crucifixion and burial, and ascended into heaven where he now sits at the right hand of the Father?
Please note I’m not asking you to do a wikipedia search. I’m not asking you to tell me what you know about the modalist heresy. I’m asking if you personally believe what I wrote above, which doesn’t even require google. I’m asking because if you don’t believe these things then the words and terms you are using bear little relationship to the meaning of the same words and terms used by believers.
August 9th, 2012 | 10:35 am
Douglas Johnson,
You are asking me to make a statement of faith in Christian dogma, and if I don’t, you are going to declare anything I write untrustworthy or irrelevant. I don’t think that is at all legitimate or even appropriate. What I say stands or falls on its own. I could be the most devout Christian imaginable and make poor arguments, or I could be an extremely well informed atheist who did not believe in Christianity at all and yet understood it better than most Christians.
August 9th, 2012 | 12:12 pm
David Nickol writes:
I expected this answer, and let me explain why I think it makes you a dishonest broker in these discussions. If one man says Christ is God and another man says Christ was just some man who people made up stories about, then what is meant by Christianity, Scripture, Tradition to each of these two men ultimately has nothing in common whatsoever. They can only have an honest discussion once both explain where he or she is coming from.
For the atheist, Christ’s divinity and miracles are all lies based on a will to power. It’s true the Devil knows his scripture (I assume better than any of us) and he quotes scripture to Jesus, but the meaning he tried to impart to the Word was an obvious lie.
I can and have had honest discussions with atheists once we both make it clear where we are coming from. It would be ridiculous for an atheist to claim an ability to read Scripture in faith, and explain its meaning in faith. A German soldier dressed up as an American soldier in the Battle of the Bulge might have a Brooklyn accent and know baseball far better than the American he’s talking to, but the German only knows the baseball for the purpose of leading his interlocutor on in an attempt to trip him up. It’s not an honest discussion.
Most of your comments on FT are attempts to persuade Christian believers into coming around to your point of view. You often claim an authoritative understanding of the Roman Catholic faith to make your point, but how can you speak with authority about a well-defined faith if you consider Nicea a lie? If you believe it to be a lie, then where is your authority?
I can’t for the life of me figure out what is “inappropriate” about your being honest about where you are coming from in these discussions.
August 9th, 2012 | 2:06 pm
For the atheist, Christ’s divinity and miracles are all lies based on a will to power. . . .
You often claim an authoritative understanding of the Roman Catholic faith to make your point, but how can you speak with authority about a well-defined faith if you consider Nicea a lie?
Douglas Johnson,
I am not an atheist. Suppose I am a Jew. Are you saying Jews believe that “Christ’s divinity and miracles are all lies based on a will to power”? Are you saying Jews consider Nicea a lie? Do you believe that people with different beliefs from your own consider your beliefs “lies”? And do you consider their beliefs lies?
I can and have had honest discussions with atheists once we both make it clear where we are coming from. It would be ridiculous for an atheist to claim an ability to read Scripture in faith, and explain its meaning in faith.
And in these honest discussions with atheists, did you say things like, “Well, now that I know you are an atheist and believe Nicea is a lie . . . “? I see no reason why an atheist or a Jew or anyone of any belief system couldn’t read Christians scripture and have a deep understanding of it. Understanding and believing are not the same thing.
During World War II my uncle, fighting in Europe, got separated from his unit behind enemy lines and was apprehended—fortunately—by other Americans. They quizzed him about baseball to make sure he was not a German masquerading as an American, and he was unable to answer any of their questions. They concluded no German trying to pass as an American would have been so ill prepared as not to know anything about baseball.
August 9th, 2012 | 3:26 pm
people who try to hold Christianity responsible for terrorist act, even if the rationale is so flimsy that even someone who argues that the KKK “is a Christian organization” (without bothering to actually explain what the KKK has in common with Christianity)
Classifying someone as a Christian terrorist, whether you agree with it or not, is not trying “to hold Christianity responsible for [a] terrorist act,” any more than calling someone a Jewish terrorist is trying to hold Judaism responsible for a terrorist act, or calling someone an Islamic terrorist is trying to hold Islam responsible for a terrorist act. I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand. Is it perhaps because many people actually do hold Islam responsible for Islamic terrorist acts?
A great many wars have been fought, people executed, people forcibly converted, and people persecuted in the name of Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant (and other). If Christianity were to be held responsible for everything done in its name that would place a terrible burden on Christianity.
Regarding the Klan, see my message of August 8th, 2012 | 6:17 pm. Anyone who claims the Ku Klux Klan (in its second incarnation) was not a Christian organization is in such total denial that it is pointless to argue the point further. How in the world do you argue away, “We honor the Christ as the Klansman’s only Criterion of Character.” The typical cross burning was begun with a prayer, followed by the singing of “Onward Christian Soldiers.” When the cross was set on fire, the assembled sang “The Old Rugged Cross.” How is that not Christian? It may be a very misguided interpretation of Christianity, but when you have Jesus as your model, Protestant ministers as most of your officials, you pray and sing hymns when you burn a cross, I don’t know how you can claim that not Christianity but rather the Democratic Party!
August 9th, 2012 | 4:28 pm
What were the Christian doctrines and practices that the Klan supported? What were the theological foundations for its racist ideology?
david c,
Your question seems to assume that I am calling the Klan a Christian sect, with its own doctrine and its own theology. The Klan was a Christian organization, open to all Christians (with the exception of Catholics and perhaps a few other denominations). That is, they were a nondenominational Christian organization, with a creed (kreed) of their own, but a nondenominational one.
The theology of white supremacy is a rather large topic, and I don’t see any point in trying to go into it in great depth. But it wasn’t developed by the Klan. It was shared in common by many of those who chose to join. I should point out that the Klan wasn’t just a Christian organization. It was a white, American, and Christian organization. They were quit passionate about the United States and the Constitution. People seem to object that calling them a Christian organization is an attempt to “blame” Christianity. But no one seems to be arguing that to call them a white organization or an American organization is to “blame” white people or America. They were undoubtedly American, but they represented some of what is worst about America.
August 9th, 2012 | 4:41 pm
David Nickol,
You have written two more or less identical variations on the following in this discussion:
Later you called it “a very concerted effort” but of course you hid from providing an example of either because no one did any such thing here.
Then you wrote a variation on something else that you often write at FT. You said:
On the contrary, I posited that every person writing on this thread who considers himself a faithful Christian would likely with the following:
It was important for you to say that no one here can agree on what constitutes Christianity because then you could make the relativist’s argument that
the Ku Klux Klan is “a Christian movement through and through.” But the Klan can only be “Christian through and through” as long as we accept your premise that Christianity is whatever anyone (including you) says it is.
This is when I decided to throw a wrench in your works by suggesting that, yes, Christians here can agree to tenets of the faith through which we might assess your assertions that the Klan is “Christian through and through.”
And I asked whether you believe the tenets I presented because you often presume to explain why the Roman Catholic church is inconsistent or wrong about their faith (usu. with regard to marriage). Well it’d be one thing to say “as a nonbeliever, I don’t understand why the church says…” But you never say that. You want to speak with some authority about the faith, but it is not possible to reason about the faith without faith.
I hope you can understand now why I thought it important to ask you about your beliefs, and indeed I think I can understand why you refused to answer.
August 9th, 2012 | 4:46 pm
David Nickol,
It is troubling to me that you actually buy the wikipedia entry you quote which states, “Their [the KKK's] cross-burnings were conducted not only to intimidate targets, but to demonstrate their respect and reverence for Jesus Christ.” And, therefore, this supposed reverence (shown also by e.g. the singing of some Christian songs) points to the KKK being a “Christian organization.”
If I and a few friends dressed up in intimidating garments, visited a Sikh family’s front lawn at 3 a.m., and proceeded to BURN a likeness of David Nickol on said lawn while reciting poems authored by David Nickol, would such acts demonstrate a “respect and reverence” for the actual beliefs & teachings of David Nickol and our identity in a “Nickolite organization”? If we BURNED a giant, wooden menorah or Star of David on your lawn while singing a Jewish song, would such acts demonstrate a “respect and reverence” for the actual beliefs & teachings Judaism and for the state of Israel? When protesters BURN the Stars and Stripes, are they demonstrating a “respect and reverence” for the nation represented by that BURNED symbol? Any real Christian who actually believes in Christ and follows the teachings of Christ and his apostles would be appalled if invited to BURN a cross for the purpose of terrorizing a minority group as a “Christian” act of reverence for Christ.
The reason why “Christian Identity” groups (mis)appropriate and (ab)use Christian terminology, symbols, songs, etc., is NOT because they are actually “Christian organizations” but because of the positive emotional and intellectual capital Christianity still possesses in some segments of our society. Look at how the term “liberal” is misappropriated and abused by some whose ideologies and policies are so far removed from classical liberalism. A wolf that attempts to bleat melodically like a sheep but otherwise stalks, thinks, and kills like a wolf is… still a wolf.
August 9th, 2012 | 6:32 pm
Any real Christian who actually believes in Christ and follows the teachings of Christ and his apostles would be appalled if invited to BURN a cross for the purpose of terrorizing a minority group as a “Christian” act of reverence for Christ.
armk,
This is, once again, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. The Klan admitted only Christian members. They took Jesus as their model. They sang Christian hymns. As david c tells us of the second version of the Klan, “As many as two thirds of the national spokesmen for the Klan were Protestant ministers.” However, your argument is that they weren’t “really” Christians, because Christians wouldn’t do the kinds of things the Klan did.
Perhaps we can agree on some formulation that will satisfy everyone. Say, for example, “Jesus and the Apostles never meant for Christians to be white supremacists, hate Jews and Catholics, and burn crosses to intimidate people who weren’t white or Protestant. They would have condemned such behavior. When it comes to the Final Judgment, anyone who did the things that Klan members did will have to answer for it, and it will be particularly serious, because they claimed to do it in the name of Jesus. They should have known better. Likewise, Catholics and Protestants who tortured and killed each other as heretics will have to answer for what they did in the name of Jesus.”
The problem with claiming the Klan wasn’t Christian is that probably most were devout Christians and patriotic Americans who had misguided ideas about race, and probably very few of them actually engaged in violence. They were terribly wrong about some things, but it was largely no doubt due to ignorance. You don’t stop being a Christian because you are ignorant or because you do something reprehensible. No doubt for almost all of them attending cross burnings, they prayed and sang hymns with true sincerity. There is nothing inherently wrong with burning a cross. (Remember, these weren’t cross burnings in people’s yards to frighten them out of town. These were cross burnings for assembled Klan members as a communal activity.)
August 9th, 2012 | 6:51 pm
I hope you can understand now why I thought it important to ask you about your beliefs, and indeed I think I can understand why you refused to answer.
Douglas Johnson,
Yes, I understand why you asked. You think you can discredit what I say by claiming I am not a believer, and by further claiming that what nonbelievers say should not be taken seriously. I simply don’t accept that. And suppose I say I am an atheist, and I say you really can’t speak with any credibility about atheism, because you are not an atheist. Only an atheist can really understand atheism. Or I say that you can’t realize the truth of Judaism, because you are not a Jew. Judaism can only be known from the inside, not from the outside. If you really understood Judaism, you would renounce Christianity and become a Jew. Or you can only know Islam from the inside. You can’t judge Islam without faith.
You are saying people can’t know the great mysteries of divine Truth, because to know them, they have to believe what you do. The problem with that is that every everyone who believes something different from you can say the same.
By the way, you did not answer my question about whether you believe people of religions other than Christianity believe that Christianity is a lie. Or whether you believe other religions are a lie. You seem to be implying that there are two things: truths and lies. If you believe you have the truth, then you must believe others have only lies. Is that correct?
August 9th, 2012 | 8:17 pm
This is, once again, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
And that you keep insisting on this, ignoring the rebuttals that have been offered in favor of just repeating it without addressing the objections, is an argumentum ad infinitum, aka argumentum ad nauseum.
As has already been pointed out to you, you are misusing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy: just as “not liking haggis” is not sufficient to deny someone their Scottish heritage, so too liking haggis is not enough to make someone Scottish. Every thing has its correct categorization, and the problem with the obviously partisan insistence of those who want to make white supremacist ideology into a “Christian” movement is that nobody has offered any evidence at all that there is any overlap between what characterizes white supremacy and what characterizes Christianity.
Do they have the same goals? No.
Do they believe the same things? No.
Do Christians accept white supremacist ideology as part of Christian culture? No.
In what way are they similar?
It has already been pointed out to you that the term Christianity, until recently, was a demographic term as well as a religious one (just as Judaism still is: some people are ethnically Jewish but not religiously Jewish). To be a part of “Christendom” was to be a part of a distinctly European tradition. Nobody would deny that white supremacists use this language in a demographic sense – but it is a fallacy of ambiguity to build an argument that relies on the same word in two distinct and distinguishable uses.
Speaking of fallacies.
August 9th, 2012 | 8:21 pm
The problem with claiming the Klan wasn’t Christian is that probably most were devout Christians and patriotic Americans who had misguided ideas about race, and probably very few of them actually engaged in violence.
By your logic, every sin committed by every individual and every group prior to the point where atheism became socially acceptable is proof against Christianity.
Somehow I don’t think you’d enjoy having the same non-logic applied against your own ideological or political groups.
August 10th, 2012 | 10:42 am
David Nickol,
I read these back and forths as a public discussion, and not a private conversation and sometimes you say something that, in my reading, is so perfect I’d only mess it up by responding. Sort of like this YouTube video. That’s pretty much how I feel about the first paragraph of your 6:51 comment. So you get the last word there!
Then you write:
Can you please provide the quote where I said that, or anything remotely like it? (And while your at it, when are you doing to show me the quotes that show “a very concerted effort in this thread” to say that the KKK can’t be Christians because Christians wouldn’t do that sort of thing?) Let me help you out here. Below is the closing sentence of an Anthony Esolen Touchstone article on Oedipus and David. This is what I believe:
But Christ didn’t write a book for us to read and study. He confronts us personally. Therefore there is a limit to this understanding outside of faith. You can’t just read and study (both things we all should do) and claim a full understanding of faith while remaining outside the faith. Do I have this full understanding? No. Do others? Yes (see the Saints).
Finally, you write:
Well I guessed I didn’t see the question earlier. Do I believe that Jews, Muslims, atheists think the claims of the divinity of Christ are a lie? Yes. Is that supposed to be a tough question? How could they not believe it to be a lie?
Do I believe other religions are a lie? Depends which one. I believe the Hebrew Bible is the Truth (not to mention everything written by Jews in the New Testament). I believe atheism is a lie. I believe Islam borrowed a great deal from Judaism to construct a lie, and I believe the same thing about Mormonism borrowing from the Gospel accounts. As Danny Devito said in Ruthless People, “Now that outta do it!”
Now let me save you typing up your next wave of sentimental hypotheticals: I lie. I wouldn’t even bet a dollar that I’ll make it through the next 24 hours without telling a sinful lie.
As Anthony Esolen said, “he means to be understood.” If we can be relativistic about God, if each of us are allowed to create our own God in the privacy of our own basements, then we’ll never lie because each of us can be beholden to the personal truth/God of our own making. The problem is the Word became flesh and put an end to all that.
August 10th, 2012 | 11:11 am
As has already been pointed out to you, you are misusing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy . . .
Blake,
Please read this:
those who want to make white supremacist ideology into a “Christian” movement
White supremacy is not a Christian movement. It’s white supremacy. However, that does not mean there can’t be Christian white supremacist organizations, like the KKK or so-called Christian identity groups. Environmentalism is not an Evangelical Christian movement, but that does not mean there cannot be Evangelical Christian environmental organizations.
By your logic, every sin committed by every individual and every group prior to the point where atheism became socially acceptable is proof against Christianity.
This is basically the opposite of what I am saying. Just because some Christians—in fact, all Christians—fall short of Christian ideals is not “proof against Christianity.” Just because some Christians claimed to find justification in Christianity for slavery or white supremacy is not “proof against Christianity.” If someone could make a clear and convincing case that white supremacy is inherent in Christian thought, that would be damaging to Christianity. But the fact that a group of people claimed to find a rationale for white supremacy, no matter how sincere they were, is not damaging to Christianity if those people were wrong.
August 10th, 2012 | 11:59 am
I believe Islam borrowed a great deal from Judaism to construct a lie, and I believe the same thing about Mormonism borrowing from the Gospel accounts.
Douglas Johnson,
Lie is a very strong word, especially when used in regard to another person’s religion. I cannot find it in Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions). I do not recall ever hearing a Jew declare Christianity a lie. The use of the word lie implies, to me, willful deception. Are you saying—and I trust this is not the case—that a Mormon or a Muslim or a Buddhist or an atheist must be a liar? Are you saying that, deep in their hearts, they cannot really believe what they say they believe? Or are you saying they believe lies deliberately made up by someone else?
August 10th, 2012 | 2:20 pm
MODERATORS: PLEASE don’t edit this comment. If you find it offensive, just don’t print it. But I think the leading question game played by David Nickol deserves to be called what it is, which what I do at the end.
David Nickol,
If you like I will rewrite the sentence where I said “I believe Islam borrowed a great deal from Judaism to construct a lie, and I believe the same thing about Mormonism borrowing from the Gospel accounts.” I can remove the word “lie” and say, “I believe Islam borrowed a great deal from Judaism to say something that isn’t true, and I believe the same thing about Mormonism borrowing from the Gospel accounts.”
The funny thing is that you were the one who, in your question to me, demanded I address other religions as lies. So as not to get into some relativistic dance with you I decided to answer the question exactly as you put it. Then, you are aghast because I answered the question just as you asked it. Then you declare:
I get it. It’s obvious. It’s childish. It’s boring.
August 10th, 2012 | 3:05 pm
David Nickol,
Oh what the heck, I’ll indulge you. This time you ask:
Way back when magicians used to pass off their trickery as the real thing. What they were doing was a lie, and the people who were duped and affirmed it was real to others also told a lie. The fact that they didn’t know they were telling a lie didn’t make it less of a lie. No doubt those folks believed in their hearts what they were seeing was real.
August 10th, 2012 | 3:39 pm
The funny thing is that you were the one who, in your question to me, demanded I address other religions as lies. So as not to get into some relativistic dance with you I decided to answer the question exactly as you put it. Then, you are aghast because I answered the question just as you asked it.
Douglas Johnson,
Please recall that it was you, in your message of August 9th, 2012 | 12:12 pm, who introduced the concept of a religion one does not believe in as being a lie:
You introduced the topic of religions as lies. I didn’t. I asked you a follow-up question about your own words.
August 10th, 2012 | 4:08 pm
Way back when magicians used to pass off their trickery as the real thing. What they were doing was a lie, and the people who were duped and affirmed it was real to others also told a lie. The fact that they didn’t know they were telling a lie didn’t make it less of a lie. No doubt those folks believed in their hearts what they were seeing was real.
And this is the origin of non-Christian religions—all founded by liars and carried on by dupes. Very helpful.
August 10th, 2012 | 5:43 pm
No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing.
Yes, I understand that. In fact, I already addressed it.
And if someone were claiming that the KKK can’t be Christian because no true Christian would ever commit murder, then you might have a point.
Add “straw man” to the list of fallacies in your argument.
August 10th, 2012 | 8:48 pm
David Nickol,
Is joke, right?
August 11th, 2012 | 11:33 am
Douglas Johnson,
You are the one who set up the dichotomy of the religion (or non-religion) one believes in as truth, and all other religions as lies. You said, “For the atheist, Christ’s divinity and miracles are all lies based on a will to power.” You are the one who said to me, “[H]ow can you speak with authority about a well-defined faith if you consider Nicea a lie? If you believe it to be a lie, then where is your authority?” You are the one who then said, “I think the leading question game played by David Nickol deserves to be called what it is . . . .”
I think you have given me ample grounds for asking you a question such as, “How can you accept Nostra Aetate if you believe Islam is a lie?” In my so-called leading questions, I am not attributing anything to you so baseless as your suggestion that I consider the Nicene Creed a lie.
August 11th, 2012 | 7:16 pm
Christian terrorism is nothing new; however, it’s suppression by modern media is new. People are extremely scared of Christian militias and Christian terrorist and are really afraid to speak up. Thank the founding fathers for having the foresight to separate church/mosque & state.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact