Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Terrorists

Personally, my interpretation of Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism has always been to side with stating that it's "sometimes okay" to refer to something as "terrorism", such as "The September 11th 2001 attacks were an act of terrorism conducted by...", but to avoid labelling individual people as "terrorists". "Zacarias Moussaoui was a failed pilot and hijacker, who wanted to participate in the 9/11 terrorist attacks". As such, I think this article should err on the side of "extremists" (technically another W:WTA) or simply avoiding the label altogether, not say "One such terrorist is Eric Rudolph" or anything. Thus I have reverted the most recent change. I welcome agreement or dispute. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with you on that - I added the offending phrase, in the course of other information, without really thinking about it. You're quite right that it wasn't acceptable. My bad. Thanks for changing it. -- TinaSparkle 08:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on section "Criticism of the concept of 'Christian Terrorism'"

There have been several reverts and readditions of this section in the last few days, and we need to try to have a constructive conversation about it rather than just going back and forth. This is the section in question:

Criticism of the concept of "Christian Terrorism" Critics of the concept of "Christian Terrorism" have maintained that the moniker is a false pretext used by the radical left and radical secularists to discredit Christianity with those that have little affiliation with or are not really motivated by Christianity. As one commentator put it: "Watch closely and see how the Leftist media raises up the image of Rudolph as a 'Christian terrorist' as its latest tactic to damage and discredit Christianity." An expert on extremist groups, James A. Aho, of Idaho State University, said he is reluctant to apply "Christian terrorist" to Eric Rudolph because it is an oxymoron. Instead he prefers "religiously inspired terrorist" because most mainstream Christians consider Christian Identity a heresy. Despite claims of a threat of "Christian Terrorism", there is not a single Christian group on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, meanwhile the Communist groups, officially atheist, are second only to Islamic groups on the list.

I actually agree with Sefringle that this section is unencyclopedic, certainly in the way it stands at present. If you compare to the Islamist terrorism article, which is replete with problems of its own, there's an obvious issue with this paragraph here. Like mainstream Christianity, mainstream Islam obviously does not advocate terrorism. It is perfectly obvious that most Christians view terrorism as a heresy. So do most Muslims, but that doesn't negate the fact that a tiny minority exists in both religions (and most others) who are in favour of it, and the Christian version of that tiny minority is what we're writing about here. The opinion of Aho that the term "Christian terrorist" is an oxymoron is abjectly biased. "Islamic terrorist" could just as easily be considered an oxymoron, and yet people happily use that all the time. Let's call a spade a spade. These people consider themselves Christian, and they are legally defined as terrorists. (On that basis, it is also completely wrong to put the words "Christian terrorism" in inverted commas, as they have been in the title "Criticism of the concept of 'Christian terrorism'".)

Furthermore, the last sentence of the offending section is appallingly POV and totally unacceptable. It is being presented as if it constitutes evidence that Christian terrorism does not exist. In fact, it could just as easily be taken as evidence that the US is biased against non-Christian forms of terrorism, and has a high tolerance for Christian fundamentalism - and even for violence committed in the name of that cause. As the Jennifer Posner article in the refs points out, there has been a very large number of Christian terrorist incidents in the US, and the fact that they are not always recognized as such is very much a Christian-centric POV perspective. Moreover, it is apparent that most Christian terrorism in the US is domestic, not foreign, and so the fact that the names don't appear on a List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations seems to me to be completely irrelevant.

As Wikipedians, we have to try to write this article from a neutral perspective, without the bias towards Christianity that is evident from this very one-sided and rather defensive criticism section. I would suggest that it stays deleted and, instead, that we add a section similar to the Muslim attitudes towards terrorism section in the Islamist terrorism article, called "Christian attitudes towards terrorism". This section should be used similarly to report one or two (not 100) condemnations from Christian leaders (not wingnut commentators of either side or biased academics) of violence in the name of Christianity. I think it would also be appropriate to include some sort of opinion poll result, probably from the US seeing as that seems to be the location of most Christian terrorism, indicating statistics on what Christians in general think of bombing abortion providers, etc. I am sure that both the refutations by leaders, and the statistics, will adequately demonstrate that Christian terrorism is a minority pursuit -- thus allowing mainstream Christians to feel that this article is not slandering their faith, while allowing non-Christians to feel that this article adequately represents the facts and isn't a piece of pro-Christian propaganda.

I'd welcome further comments on this, of course. -- TinaSparkle 09:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree, the only part of the section that seems admissable (though not necessary) to me is that "no Christian groups appear on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations", thought it might be best to see if we can say the same for the UN list or not...and definitely don't keep the editorializing about atheists/muslims/etc. The worst part of the section, that definitely has to go, is the quotes from random university professors...they are like poor "expert witnesses", either side of any debate can get a University professor or columnist to say whatever they want...so only presenting one "side" simply distorts the image that...surprise, just because you teach Political Science somewhere, doesn't mean you get to write the dictionary definition of what terrorism is/isn't. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 10:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mostly. I had moved the bit about Aho's criticism of the term to the paragraph on Rudolph, where it seems to apply specifically. I'm dubious about including anything sourced to frontpagemag.com. If some notable person has said there is no Christian group on the State Department list, then we might say so. We should probably not comb through the list ourselves and declare things based on our reading of it - that would be too close to original research. Finally, just as every murder commited by a Korean is not Korean terrorism, the recent massacre in Virginia is not Christian terrorism unless reliable sources say it is. I don't think the addition of Cho Seung-hui here is an edit meant in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree very much with the points made above by Sherurcij and Tom Harrison. And yes, though it's a separate point from the Criticism thingy, I agree 100% that Cho Seung-hui has no place in this article. As far as I can see, all he claimed was that he would "die like Jesus Christ" - which isn't even a profession of Christianity, and doesn't by any stretch make him a terrorist in the name of Christianity. One lone madman without an explicit ideology doesn't qualify as a terrorist, anyway - as the article on terrorism points out. -- TinaSparkle 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we get semi-protection on this article? It's insane that we're reverting it 3-10 times a day, from the same anonymous editor. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means nominate it. I agree, the constant reversions are getting in the way of actually improving this article. Have a look at the policy and procedure for nomination here. The page gets blanked on a regular basis, and suffers from repeated POV edits from several sides of the argument. I think there is a case to be made for permanent semi-protection. -- TinaSparkle 16:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If the anonymous contributor is repeatedly undoing people's work, you can report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"... it is apparent that most Christian terrorism in the US is domestic, not foreign..."

Christian terrorism performed in the US would be considered domestic terrorism. However, Christian terrorism is not relegated to the US alone. Included in some recent contributions were references to Christian terrorism performed in Northeast India, but the information was edited out of the article. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to include a section about Christian terrorism occurring in foreign countries?24.168.226.64 12:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I'm reverting the vandalism stating that the current President of the US is a terrorist, and nominating this page for full protection. I'm not overly familiar with what's going on here, but one look at the history page shows around 40 edits in a span of three days. That's either heavy vandalism or an edit war. BASICwebmaster 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it only requires semi-protection since it is only anonymous vandals we are having trouble with - and we have already dealt with all their issues on the talk page in a reasonable manner and concluded that his editorializing is non-encyclopaedic. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The protection was denied, as it's a single POV-pushing individual it seems, and they have a final warning. If the IP tries to put this on again, we can request a block on their IP at WP:AIAV. -- Kesh 04:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, editors!

Keep up the good work. Ichormosquito 08:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: removal of poster

[1]. My first idea was to notify the reverting user on his/her talk page, but it seems to be semi-protected, so I have relegated it to here. So this is directed towards User Sherurcij (talk · contribs).

You removed the poster by saying that it is not relevant. I would like to understand how a poster depicting a Christian terrorist is not related to an article on Christian terrorism. Thank you.--0rrAvenger 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be relevant if you could provide sources that both:

1. he is a christian terrorist
2. there was information in the article about him or his organization.

--Sefringle 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Presumably it was removed because since Fatah is a secular organisation, this is a case of a "terrorist" who is Christian, not a "Christian terrorist." I almost removed it myself for the same reason, but Sherurcij got there first. Nick Cooper 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm not too keen on these sorts of subjects, and I'm sorry if I was too hurried in adding the picture to the article. The picture uses Christian imagery, and goes as far as to quote the Bible, so I thought it would be considered Christianity-based.--0rrAvenger 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, I can't even find any reference to him being Christian, the only weblinks I saw simply said that he was wanted by the IDF and shot while driving a car with two friends. To be honest, I doubt he fits the classic definition of "martyr", and since, as Cooper and Sefringle pointed out, his motivations were not Christian, he can't really be a Christian terrorist, or a Christian martyr Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the image description here: Image:Bethlehem-fatahchristianmartyr.JPG. Calls him a Christian martyr. Maybe calling him a martyr is sensationalism on the part of Fatah, but it is certainly NPOV to call him a Christian. Perhaps we can call him a Christian militant? Holding a gun doesn't seem like a very non-militant thing to do =O.--0rrAvenger 22:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I foresee a slippery slope if we start labelling every Christian with a gun as a "terrorist" ;) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But seeing as how Fatah is considered a terrorist organization by many nations, I don't see how it is a slippery slope to consider a member of Fatah a terrorist...?--0rrAvenger 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure who this guy is. Do we even have a name for him?--Sefringle 03:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the image description, his name is Daniel Saba George.--0rrAvenger 03:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How are the KKK "Christian terrorists?"

Can some one explain to me how the Ku Klux Klan is as an example of "Christian terrorism?" The KKK is a fraternal organization which is purely political and ideological in nature. It's more nonsensical than claiming that the Boy Scouts are a "Christian" organization because they require a belief in God for their members.

This looks like an example of the liberal atheists on this site just scraping up every remotely related topic to fill out this pathetic article. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The KKK is a christian terrorist group because they acted in the name of Christianity, and were Christians.--Sefringle 03:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, the KKK is not "like the Boy Scouts", they don't just happen to mention God in a pledge, they have actively said they are acting in the name of God - one could argue al-Qaeda is run by a man who defines himself as anti-Usury, anti-Saudi and fiercely "patriotic" about whether or not foreign troops should be welcomed on his soil, not anti-infidel...so you could claim they're not "Islamic terrorism", but the KKK falls under a similar vein. They definitely terrorise, that's the whole purpose of lynchings and cross-burnings on black lawns, and they definitely do it based on their religious beliefs, not political. So far as I know, I haven't heard any political partisanship from them, merely religious/societal. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sherurcij and Sefringle. The KKK is a prime example of a Christian terrorist organization. The organization is indeed "ideological" in nature, and the ideology in question is ultra-extremist conservative Protestantism. The KKK has never openly fielded political candidates nor operated as a political party. The fact that it is "a fraternal organization" is immaterial: most terrorist organizations are. Incidentally, there seems to me to be nothing "pathetic", nor anything "liberal" or "atheist", about this article. I've been watching it for a while, and the regular eds rigorously remove anything POV from any perspective. -- TinaSparkle 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also ask to refrain from attacks like "liberal atheists." in a pejorative sense. NPOV is a two-way street. McDanger 10:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"...The KKK has never openly fielded political candidates nor operated as a political party..."

David Duke, former member of the Louisiana House of Representatives, a candidate in presidential primaries for both the Democratic and Republican parties, has had more than a passing interest in politics, involvement with the KKK, and a history of criminal activity including pleading guilty to willfully filing a false tax return and mail fraud, resulting in a year-long prison sentence.

While the term 'terrorist organization' may be difficult to define, some states now have the ability to target criminal organizations like the KKK with new anti-gang laws.24.168.228.127 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone please provide reliable sources that say "KKK is Christian terrorism"? Otherwise, all opinions above are original research.Biophys 03:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Did this article ever include content on the KKK? If so, why was it deleted? There is no doubt that the KKK identifies itself as strongly Christian, and the Ku Klux Klan article cites them as terrorists and states "Hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism were issued." What is the issue here? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, this was taken from the KKK website. http://www.kkk.com/ In 2002, The Knights Party was officially recognized. It is working to build a nationwide grass roots movement of White Christian men, women, and children who support a return of White Christians to government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.243.60 (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Gay Christian Terrorism

In addition to terroristic activities against abortion clinics and providers, it appears that violent acts against L/G/B/T people and organizations have been committed by Christians in the name of Jesus Christ. A dramatic example was the arson and killing of many members of the L/G/B/T identified Metropolitan Community Church of New Orleans back in the '70s. More recent examples include the Feb. 21, 1997, bombing of the gay bar "Otherside Lounge" in Atlanta by the abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph. Also, claiming to be a "Christian Soldier working for the Lord" Ronald Gay opened fire on gay bar patrons on Sept. 22, 2000 ... killing one and injuring others.Buddmar 14:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)buddmar

I agree, many attacks and gay bashings are religiously motivated (an admission often made by the perpetrators themselves). You should add these examples to the artcile, buddmar. McDanger 10:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this broach WP:NOR?

I don't want to breach WP:NOR, but I think it would be useful to include a sentence in the first half of the article, to help "quell the dissenters" who scream 'This isn't Christian terrorism, this is just some nutjob!', if we had a line akin to "Christian terrorism has traditionally followed the lone wolf model, unlike its counterpart in Islamic terrorism" or something. It's equally terrorism, but some people are quick to dismiss "someone acting alone" as a "terrorist" - having a direct pointer to lone wolf terrorism might help foster some comprehension. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Expand tag

Any objection to removing the Expand tag? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"...while most, if not all other Christians don't agree with them..."

"...agree with them..."

With whom do the 'other Christians' not agree?

Christian terrorists in general?

Or KKK specifically?

"...most, if not all..."

Christian terrorism refers to more than sensational acts such as cross burning as the picture accompanying the article depicts. Christian terrorism can refer to any aggressive act which demonstrates determination to coerce or pressure others to conform to Christian standards, customs, or practices. In most Christian denominations and sects, it is widely held that it is the duty of all Christians to proselytize: to try to convert non-Christians to the Christian faith. Many of the insistent and assertive tactics used by Christian 'missionaries' can be considered terrorism by those targeted by religious activists as has been reported in such territories as Northeast India.[2]

24.168.228.127 19:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. Not only is it extremely POV as written, it does not belong in the lead paragraph. A section on forced conversion in India is valid, but not the way this was written, and not in the introduction. -- Kesh 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"...A section on forced conversion in India is valid, but not the way this was written, and not in the introduction..." Fair. But neither does the statement ""...while most, if not all other Christians don't agree with them..." belong in the introduction. Not only is the wording vague and ambiguous, but it is also extremely biased if asserting that most Christians don't agree with acts of agression in relation to religion and religious activism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.228.127 (talk • contribs) 20:40, June 20, 2007

First, please sign your comments here with four ~ symbols. Second, claiming that most do agree with those acts is a very extraordinary claim, and would require evidence. -- Kesh 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"...claiming that most do agree with those acts is a very extraordinary claim, and would require evidence..."

Absolutely correct. As evidence would be required to support the statement that most Christians don't agree with acts of aggression relating to religion or religious activism. Which seems to be a moot point since the article has been revised and the statement edited out.

However, there still remains the controversy over McMenemy and his 'belief' that the Edgerton clinic provided abortions. Upon whose word is the statement based? If it's McMenemy's word, then at least there should be some skepticism as to whether he's stating fact or merely 'claiming' he believed the clinic provided abortions. As there's nothing to indicate in any publications or advertisments relating to the clinic that abortion or abortion referrals are a part of the services provided, it seems more likely that the 'abortion attack' was subterfuge and the real motivation was some other interest, with the most probable cause being opposition to government funded family planning (as the clinic provides free birth control). In this case, the attack wasn't misdirected at all. The target was hit, but the media missed the mark as to the underlying theme of the terrorist's message: opposition to family planning. Essentially, McMenemy may 'claim' he attacked the clinic for any number of reasons, but that doesn't make his statements fact. 24.168.228.127 12:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR. If McMenemy indeed claims he attacked them believing they provided abortions, and the court documents support that claim, then that is the "official version of events", not your personal theories about possible other motivations. If you can find scholars or jurists advancing your theory, it can be included in the article referenced to them - otherwise it belongs solely on the talk page. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 12:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"...McMenemy indeed claims he attacked them believing they provided abortions, and the court documents support that claim, then that is the "official version of events"..."

To 'claim' is to say, without proof or evidence, that something is true. McMenemy 'claims' he attacked the clinic falsely believing abortions were provided. What McMenemy actually 'believed' cannot be proven. What can be proven is only whether or not McMenemy made a statement or a 'claim' to his beliefs. The "official version of events" then is that court documents record that McMenemy claimed to falsely believe that the Edgerton clinic provided abortions.24.168.228.127 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A minor distinction, at best. That's all the article ever said, was what he claims, so I'm not sure what your point is. Still, your edit added a decent reference, so I'll leave it be. The substance hasn't changed at all, and the wording isn't more neutral, just longer. -- Kesh 19:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a definite distinction between an 'affidavit' and 'verified proof'. An affidavit is merely a sworn statement. Verified proof is based on conclusive evidence such that what is specified or stated is proven beyond all doubt. McMenemy 'claimed' to 'believe', without any other proof or evidence that his statement was true.24.168.228.127 19:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're trying to get at. All we need for Wikipedia is verifiable sources that show what he claimed to believe. We can't know if he believed it or not, as we are not mind-readers. Claiming the need for proof "beyond all doubt" of what someone believes is pointless.

Now, perhaps you're claiming the affadavit is false, and he only signed it as part of his sentencing. That's a different argument entirely from what you've presented so far, but still irrelevant. Unless he comes out and claims differently, it's all we have to go on for his motives. -- Kesh 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that precision in language is important to convey an accurate message. Making a distinction regarding 'claims', 'beliefs', or 'verifiable proof' is important when discussing such topics as religion especially in relation to terrorism or political violence and what is recognized or established by a court of law.24.168.228.127 00:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a court of law, however. While I admire your tenacity, it's not as necessary here. We are a Tertiary source, per WP:RS we report on what secondary sources have said. The citation you brought to the article is good, but I don't see that the rewording of that paragraph changes anything. On a side note, I've reformatted the citation to match the rest of the article. I will say kudos for finding that citation, as it seems very relevant to the article. -- Kesh 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a court of law, but regarded by many as a reliable and credible source of information. Therefore, precise and accurate language should be important...don't you think?24.168.228.127 02:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself says not to rely on this as your primary resource, precisely because of its fluid nature. Citations are paramount, so that anyone can confirm the information we present. Our language can never be perfect enough to fully convey anything we put here. While I admire your desire for accuracy, we can only do so much with the medium we're given. -- Kesh 02:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A source of information, if not a 'primary' source, quite popular and appreciated by alot of people. Communication, in any medium, involves complications and difficulties. But with the effort of so many contributors, Wikipedia articles are some of the most comprehensible and accessible online sources for research, study, or entertainment. Continue the good work.  : ) 24.168.228.127 03:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and I wish you the same. :) -- Kesh 04:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting the page in a broader context

I have rewritten the lead after reading this whole page and noting the editing disagreements. Some of the wording was not as preceise and helpful to the reader as it could be. In addition, there does noeed to be a mention that in contemporary times, most official Christian church governing bodies condemn terrorism. I tied to balance that point with a histoic note. Feel free to shred the text, but take seriously the need for more context and precision in wording.--Cberlet 13:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Precision in wording

"...Contemporary examples of terrorism tied to Christian belief tend to involve individuals or small groups; with offical church governing bodies condemning such actions..."

Proselytization, or trying to convert somebody to a religious faith or political doctrine, is supported by most Christian movements, not condemned. The methods of many 'missionaries' are considered terrorist tactics, especially overseas, when culture, ethnicity, customs, and traditions of non-followers are disregarded and treated with indifference and even disdain.24.168.226.64 14:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And what published scholarly source suggests that proselytizing or evangelizing is a form of "terrorism." Please provide a specific cite. Certianly it can be seen as annoying, or even a form of cultural oppression, but "terrorism?"--Cberlet 14:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"A Dangerous mix: Religion & Development Aid" By Eman Ahmed, WHRnet http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:7R8nlhLywYoJ:www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/WHRnet/2005/July.PDF+global+christian+terrorism+missionaries+

There exist many other scholarly texts regarding Christian evangelicism and its association with terrorism online.24.168.226.64 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please learn how to format discussions using colon. I read the cited text. There is no part of the text that links Christian evangelicalism to terrorism. Here is how the word terrorism is used. "The Faith-Based initiative launched by the US president raises concerns about government's alliance with and sponsorship of Christian values and missionaries. It also lends credibility to the critics who attest that the war on terrorism is really a religious crusade." I have reverted your addition. This is really tendentious editing. If you continue in this manner, I will ask that the page be locked to prevent editing by unregistered editors.--Cberlet 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cberlet here. Evangelism itself is not terrorism, and it's a pretty big leap to make that connection. Some Christians may engage in terrorism to force conversion, and we can document those examples here with reliable sources. But a blanket claim of prostelyzation as terrorism is ill-founded. -- Kesh 16:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Many methods of proseyltization can be under certain circumstances considered terrorism. Reliable sources have been cited. Religion and Global Affairs: Religious "Militants for Peace" by R. Scott Appleby is another good source.[3] Religion refers to more than supernatural belief, but also to obsessive devotion, including political advancement of theories, practices, and policies. A 'crusade' is a religiously motivated 'war effort'...which leads to the subject of this article: terrorism. Terrorism utilizes unjustified use of force for political purposes. The article in question relates how Christian 'humanitarian aid efforts' transcend charity and through sequential events and successive stages evolve into a political power which exploits the desperation of communities after wars and environmental disasters as a platform to promote religion. One example given in the article refers to the aftermath of an earthquake in rural El-Salvador. Samaritan's Purse, a faith-based organization which has received more than 13 million in US government funds, insisted on holding prayer sessions before helping and teaching residents to build emergency shelters. This kind of activity amounts to coercion and duress. There is really nothing tendentious in the contributions submitted. It's evident that 'Christian terrorism' is a touchy subject and that care and tact must be used to prevent inflammatory responses. It's unreasonable, however, to neglect and ignore the tactics of religious 'crusaders' in foreign countries. Refusal to acknowledge the dilemma faced by those who are forced to convert or be denied humanitarian aid is to significantly diminish the impact of the Wikipedia article. A little more objectivity perhaps would benefit this particular project page.24.168.226.64 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to have a strong point of view that is challenging your ability to objectively edit this article. Terrorism is well defined, and while requiring prayers before offering to help build shelter is atrocious it does not fall under the definition of terrorism. You would be better served by noting this incident in Criticisms of Christianity#Persecution by Christians. -- Kesh 17:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure many of us agree that demanding specific prayers before providing humanitarian aid is obnoxious and coercive. It is not, however, terrorism. The term terrorism refers to threats of and actual physical attacks on civilians to promote a policy objective. If a Christian threatened to break the arm of anyone refusing to pray, that would be terrorism.--Cberlet 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article 'Definition of terrorism' states: "The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial." The article goes on to state: "Some such definitions are so broad, like the Terrorism Act 2000, as to include the disruption of a computer system wherein no violence is intended or results."

Terrorism is an accepted term referring to the unjustified use of force to compel and manipulate the actions of others by inducing fear. Denying aid, which would be "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm" unless imperiled victims submit and conform to religious ritual would seem to be a prime example of an 'anxiety-inspiring method' of intimidation and coercion...which meets the definition of terrorism written by the UN's expert Alex P. Schmid.24.168.226.64 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please try to understand that there is a prohibition on Wikipedia of an editor simply posting his or her opinuions and original research into articles. Supply us with a specific text quote properly cited claiming that some form of Christian evangelism or provision of humanitarian aid under duress is a form of "terrorism" and it will probably become part of the page. Otherwise you are wasting all of our time here. We have rules of the road for editing. Please take the time to learn them.--Cberlet 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In context, the foreign Christian missionaries meet the definition of religious terrorists. The people consider themselves Christian and their actions meet legally defined terms relating to intimidation and coercion which is terrorism. There's an obvious issue regarding whether the term 'Christian terrorist' should apply to acts of religious violence or intimidation performed by people acting as Christians. So, it comes as no surprise that there should be controversy regarding the acts of missionaries in foreign countries. The guiding principle remains the same, however, whether an Islamist is bombing a tower or a Christian is forcing submission: religious tyranny. Nevertheless, for the sake of time, I acknowledge the prohibition of the contribution.24.168.226.64 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy and Verifiability

"...Contemporary examples of terrorism tied to Christian belief tend to involve individuals or small groups; with offical church governing bodies condemning such actions..."

Perhaps some specific text quotes properly cited claiming 'individuals or small groups' tend to support Christian aggression rather than larger groups would lend more credibility to the statement.

Also specific quotes from Christian church officials condemning specific acts would help clear up any discrepancies between claim and truth.24.168.226.64 15:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added the cites requested. Reading the books will verify that the paragraph is an accurate summary.--Cberlet 16:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you put page numbers? Just dropping a list of several books is unhelpful to anyone actually interested in finding out where that specific claim is made.PStrait 16:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

May I assume that I don't need page numbers for the books on the Crusades and the Inquisition?--Cberlet 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to cite anything if it is common knowledge, but then that begs the question of why it is in an encyclopedia. You do need to cite a source that considers the crusades and the inquisition "terrorism." My feeling is that the Inquisition is much more likely to be considered "terrorism" than the Crusades, since the Crusades were about reclaiming land, not inspiring fear.PStrait 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To further clarify, I think the discussion centered around providing citations about contemporary terrorism done by small groups, and the response given by the organized bodies. Also, when you add the cites, you can make them footnotes by using <ref>citation</ref> at the end of the sentence.PStrait 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations regarding recent terrorist attacks and the specific numbers of people who engaged in contemporary Christian inspired offensives would provide a little more clarity to the article.

As for the line: "with offical church governing bodies condemning such actions...,"

some quotes from recognized contemporary Christian church authorities condemning as terrorism recent and specific acts of Christian inspired hostilities would help explain the 'official church' position.24.168.226.64 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Inquisition wasn't "terrorism", lol. Silly people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.30.95 (talk • contribs)

Please stop blanking this without coming to consensus here on this talk page. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation

Cberlet, I'm having trouble figuring out the citation you added. Are these books? Pamphlets? Who was the publisher? It's a bit mashed together. -- Kesh 03:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The citations are keyed to the books listed at the bottom of this entry page. This is a standard form of citation. Not hard to figure out. The format I use is also common in scholarly work--tying each publication to the specific topic for which it is cited.--Cberlet 12:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A search of statements issued from the National Council of Churches regarding condemnation of terrorism revealed no specific references to 'Christian terrorism'; however there were many statements related to Islam and terrorism.24.168.226.64 11:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A search of what? Most of the statements by church bodies about Christian Identity were issues before the advent of the Internet as a vehicle for information. The booklet by Zeskind was issued by an official church body. The booklet is a condemnation of Christian Identity, its theology and its methods.--Cberlet 12:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The text of the article reads:

"However modern examples of Christian terrorism are overwhelmingly tied to individuals and small groups, drawing condemnation from actual church bodies."

Therefore the 'condemnation' refers to 'Christian terrorism'. There are no statements from National Council of Churches which relate directly and specifically to 'Christian terrorism'.24.168.226.64 12:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are simply searching the Internet, you claims are invalid.--Cberlet 12:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Provide a direct quote from the NCC that refers specifically to Christian terrorism.24.168.226.64 13:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Without a direct quote from the NCC or other recognized church authorities refering to 'Christian terrorism' specifically, I propose that the entry stating "Christian terrorism ... drawing condemnation from actual church bodies" be changed to reflect the more general attitude toward violence with direct quotes from acknowledged church leaders to substantiate those views. As the entry is written the statement is vague and based on inference with little conclusive proof.24.168.226.64 17:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet, to inform readers as much as possible and provide an efficient guide to the sources used in your arguement, it would be helpful to clear up the ambiguities by using a footnote format most lay readers find accessible. Footnotes should include author's name, title of document, page numbers, with citations arranged in sequence to correspond to the appropriate sentences in your text where the sources can be checked and verified, especially in regards to material that has been summarized or paraphrased.24.168.232.218 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent 'Lone Wolf' Attack?

Original research does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Equating the Benoit murders with "terrorism" is pretty heavy OR. Let's not go down that road, okay? -- Kesh 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC) That is a rocky road, isn't it?24.168.234.227 18:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could the recent serial murders and subsequent suicide committed by Canadian wrestler Chris Benoit be considered acts of Christian terrorism? The man killed his wife, then his child and placed Christian Bibles by their bodies to convey some message, one would suspect religious in nature, before then killing himself. The New York Daily News reports Chris Benoit was sending biblical text passages to colleagues during the weekend of the killings along with sections of his will. In addition, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports: "In what was a poorly thought through prank or an eerie forewarning, someone apparently reported the death of Chris Benoit's wife on Wikipedia — the online open source encyclopedia — more than 14 hours before police discovered her body, along with her son's and husband's, at the pro wrestler's Fayette County home." All terrorists share some very common characteristics: They never commit actions randomly, but usually plan well in advance to ensure their attacks generate the publicity needed for terrorism’s success. Chris Benoit's attacks seem to fit the description.24.168.226.64 11:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC) I disagree. It appears to be the act of a single person involved in a domestic tragedy. You would as well blame the Manson family killings on Rock and Roll (as some Christians did). This is beginning to appear to be a substantial POV bias against Christianity.--Cberlet 12:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC) That's a big leap, Cberlet, to accuse bias, when precision and accuracy is of paramount importance. Keep in mind that while the NCC has published pamphlets condemning CI specifically, this doesn't constitute a blanket statement condemning 'Christian terrorism' in general. However, disregarding the overt religious overtones in the obviously planned and highly publicized serial killings committed by Benoit is to deny the connection to terrorsim and specifically to Christianity.24.168.226.64 12:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Not a big leap at all. I think the bias is obvious. It took me less than a minute to find this recent article: "Catholic head - condemns Thursday’s violence," Tonga Today, 19 November 2006. You should register as an editor and read [[[WP:NPOV]] and WP:OR if you wish to participate in editing text on this entry. You need not register, but unless you do, other editors cannot hold you accountable for edits which have been controversial at best. Prolonging this debate without editing text takes up time and energy that can better be used elsewhere. It becomes a pointless exercise in omphaloskepsis. I understand that you are sincere, but you need to do some homework and abide by the rules if you wish to edit text here on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC) There is no specific reference to 'Christian terrorism' in the article, Cberlet. Condemnation of violence in general is not a direct quote encapsulating the 'official church' position regarding 'Christian terrorism' as is defined by this article. As for bias, religious terrorism is an intriguing and fascinating subject which compels one to investigate basic human nature, the origin, development, and structure of societies, and the behavior of individuals and groups in society in relation to among other things, politics, sex, reproduction, and particularly violence. Simply because Christian terrorism is the topic of this article and my comments are focused on specific and definitive acts related to Christian terrorism should in no way imply that my feelings regarding Christian terrorism are more or less strong than my feelings regarding any other form of religious violence. My regard for religious terrorism is the same whether it's performed in the name of the Judeo-Christian God or any other religious deity.24.168.226.64 15:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC) I have to agree with Cberlet here. You seem to be using the broadest possible brush with which to claim any act as Christian terrorism. Claiming the murder-suicide of the Benoit family as "terrorism" is absurd on its face, and the recent edit to claim the US government was committing terrorism in the name of Christianity was also pretty far in left-field. While I admire your desire to investigate the matter, you must be careful not to lump anything that involves Christians and violence under the label of terrorism. Please read through the archives, we've gone over this subject for quite some time and narrowed down what constitutes "Christian terrorism" to be as precise as we can, specifically because too many off-topic incidents were being thrown into the article. -- Kesh 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC) It's important, when a subject matter is being discussed, examined, studied, or otherwise dealt with, to develop first a line of thought from specific instances to a general principle. From examining details of past events, a judgment which constitutes the broad, general definition of 'Christian terrorism' is determined. After that has been decided, recent events can be compared to the established definition. It's not absurd then to question whether or not there is a connection to religious terrorism in the violent deaths of the Benoits, especially when religious symbols are deliberately placed near the bodies of the murdered victims, the killer sends religious text messages to colleagues during the time of the killings, and publicity, the main component of any form of terrorism, was and is a key factor. As to the reference to the US government, patriotism, and Christianity, USA Today has published an excellent article by Tom Krattenmaker titled: "Faith shouldn't be red, white and blue". An excerpt from that article reads: "...may religious people revel in the beauty of their faiths. But let's remember that being Christian is not a requirement of patriotism..." All contributors to this article should keep that in mind when discussing the particulars of Christian terrorism.24.31.118.85 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) More editors here disagree with you than agree with you. It's that simple. Sorry.--Cberlet 12:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC) There seems to be more than a little distortion and obstruction of view when considering the characteristics of Christian terrorism. Stategem is of paramount importance in any 'war'. 'Holy wars' are no different. Subterfuge can be a key element to terrorism's success; therefore, terrorist attacks are often perpetrated utilizing quite extraordinary covert measures. Take into consideration that the KKK, unarguably one of the more unsophisticated Christian terrorist groups, disguises the terrorist actors in hoods and robes. Not all forms of Christian terrorism, however, are as crude and shockingly offensive as cross burnings or bombings of health clinics. Some terrorist acts are performed with methodical, systematic, and painstaking attention to the process of concealing and obscuring the terrorist group's real objective. 'Performance violence' is one such method of terrorist assault. Highly organized and coordinated attacks are contrived to deliver an intended message through indirect means to provoke strong, emotional reaction rather than to communicate any kind of valid, reasonable, or defensible basis for arguement. This technique deliberately avoids opposition of any kind as the audience is provided with little recourse to respond with any kind of dissent or expression of opinion regarding authenticity of the acts.24.31.118.85 14:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Re: the Benoit murders, the problem is not whether there was a religious connection. The problem is that there is no rational way of calling it terrorism. That's my biggest problem with your edits, a desire to call damn near anything "terrorism" and, if it has a religious connotation, you try to add it to the article. -- Kesh 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Not all acts of war are terrorism. Many acts of war are aimed merely at obliteration of an enemy. Terrorism, however refers to deliberately planned attacks which are calculated not for total annihilation, but to convey violent political or religious statements aimed at forcing compliance or conformity through fear, anxiety, and intimidation. Religious violence involves not only physical assaults but also extreme fervor or zeal and may include extreme forms of propaganda, agitation, and public campaigning.24.31.118.85 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) "propaganda, agitation, and public campaigning" do not qualify as terrorism. -- Kesh 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Terrorism refers to planned and organized series of violent actions intended to disturb the peace, provoke strong feelings, and spread and promote policies, ideas, or beliefs. Terrorism, therefore, incorporates agitation, propaganda, and 'campaigning', all of which can be quite militant in nature.24.31.118.85 19:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Only if you ignore the word "violent." Propaganda is not violence. Campaigning is not violence. Agitation, while it can involve violence, is not inherently violent. You are stretching this to the limit of incredulity. -- Kesh 21:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Regarding definitions...perhaps those writing in this thread should read here: Terrorism. There is not one set and agreed-upon definition of terrorism. Kukini hablame aqui 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) The main issue for me is that the edits of several users, including 24.31.118.85, have become disruptive. Also the fact that we are being buried in opinion and original research that has no place in this discussion nor the entry itself.--Cberlet 21:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC) <-----------I have asked that this page be semi-protected, so that we can have registered users engaging in this discussion, as a way to encourage cooperative editing, and discourage what is clearly turning into a revert war. We need to be able to hold each other accountable for abiding by Wiki policies and not engaging in disruption of the text or the discussion page.--Cberlet 21:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Violence = destructive force, the coercive 'fear factor' of terrorism. Destructive force is influence, power, or strength intended to injure, cause distress, or offend and can take the form of propaganda, scare tactics, or fear-mongering. Terrorist assaults are designed to be spectacular and impressive, and aimed at broadcasting or spreading a message. Also, terrorists often threaten and carry out elimination unless targets conform and comply with demands. If Benoit were 'acting' under the direction or management of some body or organization providing instructions, his attacks would seem to fit the description of terrorism.KDAdkins 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC) This type of conspiracist speculation is not helpful.--Cberlet 16:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Not speculation, but deduction, a conclusion reached by applying the rules of logic to a premise. Scripted events with pre-determined outcomes are a part of the professional wrestling circuit. Wikipedia describes a supposedly 'real life event' that is in fact scripted and staged as a 'worked-shoot': Worked-shoot is the term for any occurrence that is scripted by the creative team to come off as unscripted and therefore appear as though it were a real life happening but is, in fact, still part of the show. The romance that led to the Benoit marriage was staged. It's therefore not unreasonable to suspect that the murders were staged as well. 'Staged murders' aren't uncommon. Psychological approaches to serial murder, religion, and staged crime scenes suggest that serial murderers are, through conducted performances, 'creating' something[4] ...'performance violence' (relative to performance art) coupled with the "God (or his agent) told him to do it" motivation. In "Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence", Mark Juergensmeyer explains how 'performance violence' matches up with terrorism: The very adjectives used to describe acts of religious terrorism — symbolic, dramatic, theatrical — suggest that we look at them not as tactics but as performance violence. In speaking of terrorism as "performance violence," I am not suggesting that such acts are undertaken lightly or capriciously. Rather, like religious ritual or street theater, they are dramas designed to have an impact on the several audiences that they affect. Those who witness the violence — even at a distance, via the news media — are therefore a part of what occurs. ...Terrorist acts, then, can be both performance events, in that they make a symbolic statement, and performative acts, insofar as they try to change things. ...24.31.118.85 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC) This entire screed is original research. I've only seen logic like this in conspiracy theories. There's no way this will ever make it into the article, so I'm not sure what your point is. -- Kesh 01:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC) The point is to illustrate the complexities of defining terrorism (and therefore what may or may not be included in this article). Performance violence (or terrorism) has primarily a communicative goal in which the essential elements are for the act to be witnessed and for the message conveyed to be understood. Christian terrorism and WWE share this communicative theme: the circuitous morality play, the archetypal struggle of good and evil, premeditated, scripted, and staged for the world to see and presented in 'street theater'. While a violent act may be performed by an individual, it is always performed with relation to the group and the group ideology. The 'messages' behind such performances must be deduced using what is known about the group-defined symbology. Placing bibles near the bodies of murder victims would connote some kind of religious aspect to a crime as religious symbols and artifacts found at crime scenes are particularly relevant to ritualistic crime and religious terrorism. It's no theory that the WWE has staged extremely violent events in and out of the ring to promote specific issues and to capitalize on the hopes, fears, politics, and even religion of their audiences. Religious terrorism and car bombings have recently been generating alot of publicity and the Denver Post reports that: "In a storyline concocted by the WWE, McMahon was supposedly "assassinated" in a limousine explosion two weeks earlier. McMahon appeared at the beginning of Monday's telecast and acknowledged the bombing was made up." While planning and plotting serial murder/suicide to promote a social/political/religious issue may seem extreme, extremism is an aspect of religious terrorism. Isn't it?24.31.118.85 15:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but that will never be anything more than extreme original research. You're stretching things incredibly far just to add stuff to this article, and it's becoming tiresome. -- Kesh 16:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Texas church arson

"Three Burleson men who belong to a "radical Christian activist group" were in the Johnson County Jail on Friday night after a church deacon caught two of them attempting to ignite an explosive device on Independence Day at a church under construction in north Burleson, authorities said Friday...

Cmdr. Chris Havens, the Police Department spokesman, said the suspects boasted about belonging to a leaderless group of 10 or 15 who share a belief that society has become too focused on self-improvement and self-gratification and has lost focus on the glorification of God.

"They admit to being Christian and being brought up Christian, but they believe there should be one denomination and one church, not multiple denominations," Havens said.

"They did not say they had a name for their group, other than they were a radical Christian activist group. That was the way they explained their group," he said...

"We put them in the category of a domestic terrorist group," Havens said."[5] --noosphere 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning News reports:

"Mr. Ragon also faces a charge of tampering/fabricating physical evidence. Bail for that charge was set at $5,000."

Do you think if Ragon was 'fabricating evidence', that perhaps these young men weren't really serious? Maybe it's only burlesque and they're mocking a serious matter by imitating it in an incongruous way. Are any of these young men associated with theater?

'Serious' intentions or not, don't you think this should be included in the article as an act of Christian terrorism?24.168.234.227 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Church and other institutional church bodies

Catholic Church and other institutional church bodies

In a document issued Tuesday, July 10, 2007 with the full authority of the Pope, the Vatican reasserted its position that the Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ adding that Protestant and Orthodox denominations are defective and “not proper Churches” but ecclesial communities.

So the veracity of the statement: "Examples of Christian terrorism are overwhelmingly tied to individuals and small groups, drawing condemnation from the Catholic Church and other institutional church bodies," is questionable, not only regarding what is or is not a church, but also the alleged 'condemnation' of Christian terrorism. Some precise quotes from a recognized and accepted 'church body' regarding official condemnation of 'Christian terrorism' in particular, not statements regarding just violence in general, would help support the statement.24.168.234.227 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no direct quotes from 'official church bodies' regarding condemnation of 'Christian terrorism' in particular?24.168.234.227 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fire, Farce, and Federal Crime

NBC News and news services Updated: 7:57 p.m. ET March 8, 2006 Three college students, including two aspiring actors known around campus as pranksters, were arrested Wednesday in a string of nine church fires across Alabama.

(North County Times) "Three plead guilty to state counts in Alabama church fires, get 2 years in prison each" CENTREVILLE, Ala. (AP) -- Three former college students accused of setting a string of church fires last year pleaded guilty to state arson and burglary charges Thursday, three days after they were sentenced on related federal counts.Matthew Cloyd, 21, Benjamin Moseley, 20, and Russell Lee DeBusk Jr., 20, were sentenced to two years each in state prison, to be served after their federal sentences.

“He wasn't raised as a Christian, and he had never found any kind of religion to settle down with. He thought he'd found something that worked for him. It's not worshipping the devil. It's nothing ritualistic. It's about the pursuit of knowledge. He explained to me that there can be Satanic Christians. It gave him the peacefulness and serenity of Buddhism. It was a real peaceful thing.” - Jeremy Burgess speaking about his college roommate and Alabama church arson suspect Russell DeBusk, USA Today, March 10, 2006, 3A.

Do you think these crimes meet the definition of Christian terrorism?24.168.234.227 20:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No. There is no indication theses fires were set in the name of Christianity, or to promote a specific form of Christianity. If anything, at a glance, they appear to be anti-Christian acts of violence. In any case, there is nothing in the article you quoted that indicates motive, which means even if it were Christian-motivated, we have no verifiable statement that it was. -- Kesh 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There were statements made by the three young men to indicate that the acts were part of the 'Satanic Christian' movement: 'pranks' and other motives, (a la Merry Pranksters), related to 'doing evil for good'. This may seem difficult for some people to grasp, but there are many denominations of Christianity, each with its own particular, and often peculiar philosophies and beliefs. 'Satanic Christians' have an expressed belief that there is 'no opposite to God', that God created Satan for a reason and therefore, as Christians, they are not opposed to 'doing evil' for a perceived 'good cause'...much like the eco-terrorists, the Animal Liberation Front, who believe that conspiracy and arson are good things, although the animal righs activists admit responsibilty for miscalculating a vandalism target, a western Pennsylvania business which hadn't sold furs for about 20 years, police say. The fire there resulted in damages, physical harm, or injury to property or persons that make the victimized less useful, valuable, or able to function. The group responsible has been convicted of terrorism.

Regarding the church arson in Ala, according to a USA Today report posted 3/10/2006 :

Burgess said DeBusk told him last summer that he had found a new religious interest...[Burgess said about DeBusk's religious interest:] "It's about the pursuit of knowledge. He explained to me that there can be Satanic Christians..." Burgess said DeBusk invited him on a "demon-hunting" trip last summer. The trip resulted in a series of deliberately set fires at nine churches in rural Alabama.

But, if you conclude that this doesn't meet the definition of religious terrorism, who am I to argue?24.168.234.227 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the second paragraph:

Frequently-cited examples of Christian terrorism include incidents during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, during the Reformation, and up to the present day including during the American Civil Rights Movement and against abortion clinics. Examples of Christian terrorism are overwhelmingly tied to individuals and small groups, drawing condemnation from the Catholic Church and other institutional church bodies.[1]

If the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, perpetrated by the Catholic Church, are examples of Christian terrorism, how then do these examples support the statement that acts of "Christian terrorism are overwhelmingly tied to individuals and small groups"?24.168.234.227 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the garbled lead paragraphs to make more sense. It was a mess. Please read it again.--Cberlet 19:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

Perhaps more emphasis on the 'controversial' aspect. Reversing the order of the last two sentences to read:

Since the application of the term terrorism to any specific action is controversial, a specific list of acts of Christian terrorism is equally controversial. In recent periods, examples of Christian terrorism are seemingly tied to individuals and small groups, drawing condemnation from religious communities.[1]

Also, replacing 'overwhelmingly' with 'seemingly' may help connote the uncertainty and confusion implicit in this subject matter. E.R.R., one must consider, claims to be Catholic, and while he is an individual, supposedly has ties to a very BIG organization.

Additionally, replacing 'Catholic Church and other institutional church bodies' with 'religious communities' would defuse any arguements regarding what is or is not a valid church body.24.168.234.227 19:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Some good ideas here, I made some changes.--Cberlet 00:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some question as to what is a valid 'church body', that phrase may invite more controversy than agreement. Perhaps some direct quotes from religious community leaders regarding condemnation of Christian terrorism (not just violence in general) would make the statement more well-defined? Otherwise, some good changes.24.168.232.218 11:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversial page - please discuss major changes first

As is noted at the top of this page.--Cberlet 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some references to religious extremism in the evolution of Christianity from its 'pagan' origins would help explain why violence occurred rather than merely listing and describing events. The quote by the fifth century monk, Shenoute, "There is no crime for those have Christ," is a typical example of religious zealotry and how excessive enthusiasm for any cause can lead to violence.24.168.232.218 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hideous quote. Agreed. You need to find a source that says this quote shows that "Origins of Christian radicalism may be found in a declaration issued by a fifth-century Egyptian monk, Shenoute, who expressed a typical example of religious extremism." Otherwise this is your opinion and original research. See WP:OR. I understand this is frustrating, but there are rules we follow, especially on controversial pages.--Cberlet 21:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet,the following are two sources to support the statement:

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/there-is-no-crime.php

There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire By Michael Gaddis Published 2005 University of California Press—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.232.218 (talk • contribs) 22:10, July 20, 2007

Please remember to sign your comments by typing four ~ symbols at the end.

Your link leads to what appears to be a forum, which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. The book intrigues me, but I don't have access to it here. If you can provide a proper citation (preferably a quote w/ page numbers), we might be able to work a quote from it into the article. -- Kesh 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll find the quote by Shenoute on page one in the introduction of the book "There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ." The author continues in the first paragraph: "The statement neatly expresses a paradigm of religious extremism, a belief that righteous zeal for God transcended considerations of worldly law and order."24.168.236.113 14:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's rather weak if you want to use it as a citation for "Christian Terrorism." -- Kesh 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a cite for "religious extremism," not for "Christian Terrorism." I agree with Kesh. Sorry.--Cberlet 01:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Expanding upon the quote, the first paragraph of the introduction reads:

"In the early fifth century, the Egyptioan monk Shenoute issued an open letter containing a thundering denunciation of a local pagan magnate. Shenoute and his followers had taken the law into their own hands, ransacked the pagan's house, and smashed his idols. In response to the magnate's accusation of lesteia - banditry, crime, illegal violence - against him, Shenoute proclaimed that "there is no crime for those who have Christ." The statement neatly expresses a paradigm of religious extremism, a belief that righteous zeal for God transcended considerations of worldly law and order. Religious conflict, and the attitudes that drove it, form the subject of this book."

Terrorism is defined (in part) as illegal violence or the threat of such violence, carried out for political or religious purposes. Shenoute's violence and his purpose for the violence meets the definition of religious terrorism. However, the disagreement and clash between ideas on this subject seems to be evolving into an atmosphere of extremism and immoderation which is severely restricting any development of the article. I take note that the information regarding the recent Texas church arson was not included in the article although law enforcement clearly stated that the violence was being regarded as terrorism. Definition arises from context, therefore, I suggest the editors give careful consideration to material with regard to not only surrounding words or phrases which help explain the full meaning of a particular passage, but also the circumstances that form the environment within which religious violence or terrorism exists or takes place when deciding what may or may not be included in the article.24.168.236.113 13:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're arguing for a uselessly vague definition of the term "terrorism," when consensus on Wikipedia has been rather strict about it. The actual quote, however, is intriguing and might be workable.

As to your second point, we weren't arguing that the Texas incident was not terrorism. We said that there was no indication it was Christian terrorism. In fact, the target of the acts were Christian churches, so it appears more anti-Christian terrorism. The boys own brand of Satanism reads more like stuff made up in school one day than an actual religious faith, or a true branch of Christianity. There's no real justification for including it in this article. -- Kesh 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be confused as to which arsonists I refer. I refer not to the arsonists responsible for a string of nine church fires across Alabama, but the Texas arsonists who attempted to ignite an explosive device on Independence Day. Authorities in Burleson, TX clearly stated that the men declared themselves to be members of a 'radical Christian activist group', not satanists. As law enforcement put them in the category of a terrorist group and the group proclaimed themselves to be Christian, this then would categorize the group as 'Christian terrorists', don't you agree?24.168.233.73 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. Please refrain from straw arguments followed by "don't you agree?"--Cberlet 16:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In the future, you may want to be more clear. Do you have some news links about this other group, so we can read about it ourselves? I can't agree until I read the article in its proper context. -- Kesh 21:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Material relating to the Burleson, TX arson was first submitted 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC). Today is July 26. A google news search using keywords Burleson and arson offers at least eleven links related to the story:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Burleson+ARSON

One of the most in-depth articles can be found at the Burleson-Crowley Connection:

http://www.burlesoncrowley.com/publish/article_1620.shtml

The news story reports of two men charged with engaging in organized criminal activity and states further: "Burleson police arrested two men July 4 and one July 5 who cited religious beliefs in attempting to detonate a bomb..."

The report goes on to say: "...the men identified themselves as radical Christian activists who oppose government and organized religion..."

Referring to the group the article continues: “They said the act at the church was a test of the device itself and to get the attention of the community,” Havens said. Group members share common beliefs about the demise of society, which they believe has become too focused on self-improvement and self-gratification and lost it’s focus on the glorification of God, police said. The group is attempting to wake up society by committing destructive acts, according to reports. Group members further believe there are too many denominations and churches, and there ought to be only one."

Law enforcement states: "Police consider the group domestic terrorists..."

The article concludes: "...the U.S. Attorney’s office intends to file federal charges." 24.168.233.73 11:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Be serious. Two men. A failed plan. Not notable. At best worth half a sentence with a cite.--Cberlet 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be confused. The article states that 4 suspects belonging to a 'radical Christian activists' group of 'about 10 to 15 members' which 'oppose government and organized religion' twice attempted to detonate an explosive device at a Burleson, TX church construction site on July 4th. 3 men were arrested, 2 on July 4th, 1 on July 5th, and charged with 'engaging in organized criminal activity'. The article states: "Calaway and Plaisted are in the Johnson County Corrections Center on $100,000 bail each. Ragon is being held on $105,000 bail, the extra coming from a charge of tampering with and fabricating physical evidence." One of the men, Ragon, attempted 'to destroy evidence on the manufacturing of the explosive device'. Ragon 'doused the evidence with gasoline' and was subsequently 'burned in the fire' which ensued. The three men have been 'charged with arson at a place of worship, a first-degree felony'. Police did not charge the fourth suspect.

McMenemy's 11 September 2006 alleged 'suicide bombing' of the Edgerton Women’s Health Center was also 'unsuccessful', but has been added to the article. The objective of terrorist attacks is to garner attention and generate publicity by committing acts of illegal violence or threats of illegal violence through which the terrorists hope to gain leverage and to influence their targeted audience, whether that's a rival ethnic, religious, or political group, or an entire country and its leadership. Therefore, whether an attack is 'successful' or not is merely a matter of perspective. The attack was made. Publicity was received. The men were engaged in terrorism whether the explosive device detonated or not.24.168.233.73 18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I stand corected. Be serious. Four men. A failed plan. Not notable. At best worth half a sentence with a cite. Could you please learn to add colons to the front of your posts? What you are doing messes up the format and is very discourteous to people with eyesight issues.--Cberlet 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It takes only one individual to commit a terrorist attack. Eric Robert Rudolph, Clayton Waagner, and David McMenemy each acted as individual agents. As far as 'failed' terrorist attacks: On September 11, 2001, United Airlines flight 93 was hijacked by four men who claimed to have a bomb. Many people categorize the subsequent crash as a 'failed' terrorist attack; however, although the airplane did not crash into a national monument like the United States Capitol Building or the White House (speculated to have been probable intended targets), nevertheless 44 individuals, 37 passengers (including the 4 hijackers) and 7 crew members, died as part of one of the most widely publicized organized terrorist events occurring in the US in recent history.24.168.233.73 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

17 Christians convicted under anti-terrorism laws in Indonesia

Does this fit the definition of Christian terrorism?

Indonesia jails Christians over Muslim killings

Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:36AM EDT

JAKARTA (Reuters) -

An Indonesian court jailed 17 Christians for up to 14 years on Thursday under anti-terrorism laws for the murder of 2 Muslims.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSJAK25548520070726?pageNumber=2&sp=true

2 Muslims were attacked, murdered, and beheaded in September 2006 by a mob of Christians retaliating for the execution last year of 3 Christians convicted of leading a militant group which killed hundreds of Muslims in Poso in 2000.

17 Christian defendants were found guilty of "acts of terrorism by the use of violence". 2 defendants received 14-year sentences for their main roles in the killings, while 10 were sentenced to 12-year terms.

5 other defendants in seperate hearings received 8-year sentences for their part in disposal of the bodies.24.168.233.73 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This has more merit, but you need to deal with the way your anger appears to reflect anti-Christian bigotry. We need to edit text here in a way that seeks a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) wp:npov.--Cberlet 15:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet, the controversial nature of this article may be influencing your ability to make valid conclusions. Your incorrect assumptions and the projection and ascription of your own perceived thoughts or feelings to others is incompatible and conflcting with reality. Terrorism in any form to me is abhorrent. Any references to anger or bigotry seem to be emenating from a source within yourself. Contemporary Christian terrorism is to me a fascinating subject because, although religious violence often makes headlines in Western culture, there seems to be a very strong unwillingness and reluctance to acknowledge the worldwide impact of Christian religious violence. I don't take you attacks, personally, Cberlet, but less antagonism and more objectivity would help with the development of the article.24.168.233.73 12:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Cberlet is right. Your constant attempts to assign anything to the term "Christian terrorism" lends an appearance of bias on your part. Again, you paint with such a broad brush that it's difficult to take your suggestions seriously. I detest terrorism myself, but your apparent eagerness to expand this article with extremely loose interpretations of the word "terrorism" has left a bad taste in my mouth. This new article seems to have more relevance than your previous ones. -- Kesh 21:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have made clear, terrorism, whether related to religion, ecology, politics or any other issue is abhorrent to me. Terrorism is not relegated to only isolated, spectacular events that make the headline news, but may be much more subtle and pervasive. Since its not my intention to engage in any kind of 'war' with anyone, especially the editors of Wikipedia, I'll not offer any more information for you and Cberlet to suppress.24.31.114.168 11:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Falwells's Followers

Should something be mentioned about the followers of Jerry Falwell's teachings (a student at Falwell's christian University) was arrested for planning to blow up protesters at his funeral. Homemade bombs were found in his car. [6]McDanger 09:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, but this one is a weird case. He was acting against Fred Phelps and his church, who are also Christians but of a different denomination. While it could be argued that his motives were because of his Christian faith, it seems more likely he was simply offended by the way the Westboro Baptist Church members were protesting in an insulting manner. I don't really see a religious motive here. -- Kesh 20:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced, anachronistic, OR and POV sentance re Crusades etc. in intro

The intro contained the following sentance "Like many religions, Christianity has seen historic periods where some of the faithful and their leaders have resorted to terrorism, such as incidents during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Reformation." I am deleting it for a number of reasons. First, per Wikipedia policy the intro is supposed to be a summary of the article. There is nothing in the article about this. Second, it is unsourced and/or OR. Third, it is anachronistic. Fourth it is POV. Mamalujo 20:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe only two of your points are correct. wikt:Anachronism means depicting something in the past that only exists in the present. While the term "terrorism" is more modern, the act itself is as old as mankind. Second, it is unsourced, but that can be fixed. Thank you for pointing out that these events aren't really described in the main article text. We should probably elaborate somewhat, then link to the main Wikipedia articles on those subjects.

I don't think this hurts the intro at all. And, once we elaborate on those subjects in the body of the article, that line would be appropriate there. As for POV, you might want to explain why you think so. Many acts during the various Crusades and the Inquisition were blatantly terrorism. The Reformation is more arguable.

Honestly, my main objection with your deletion was that you simply removed it with those comments, but never discussed it. The subject has been discussed on this Talk page before, so you might want to browse the Archives to see the prior debates. -- Kesh 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence provides context and history, and has been properly cited since first added. I object to its deletion.--Cberlet 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Like others, I think the sentence was meant as a compromise. We do not spend paragraphs discussing those topics which are "not really the focus of this article" which is more about the modern age, but we do acknowledge that they existed. I believe originally, only the Inquisition and Crusades were mentioned (some might want to reword "and various actions during the Crusades" since some of the crusades 'were' terrorism, and others were not), I'm not sure I really see how the Protestant Reformation was terrorism though. Agree we should find academic citations referring to the "terror" of the Inquisition and battles of the Crusades, but should definitely keep the reference. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed "Reformation" because there was no cite for it. The cites for the Crusades and Inquisition were there all along at the end of the paragraph.--Cberlet 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentance in both forms is a personal historical gloss on Christian Terrorism and is OR. Also, calling the Inquisitions and the Crusades terrorism requires a bit of weaseling, neither of them, nor any of the major events which make them up fit very squarely into the definition of terrorism. Also, the citations, which wouldn't cure the sentance's defects anyway, did not have a page cite and are hence not easily verifiable. Mamalujo 22:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see how this fits the definition of WP:OR. And please stop deleting it outright, while a discussion is ensuing.

Can you please clearly explain why you feel the Crusades and Inquisitions being labeled as Christian Terrorism constitutes OR and requires weasel words? -- Kesh 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about a reliable and verifiable source on terrorism that says these events somehow constituted terrorism. None has been provided yet. The editor's opinion, or even several editors' opinions that these events were terrorism, without more is the editor's novel notion and thus OR. And some writer who deals with the crusades or the inquisition but has no expertise in terrorism simply using the word obliquely or off the cuff is not enough. Lea for example, was a writer on the crusades and was no expert on terrorism. Also, although a groundbreaking scholar, he was known for certain biases and is thus not an acceptable source on some issues. Moreover, without a page cite, it is not a verifiable source. Mamalujo 06:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely that citations are needed to back this up. I recall reading the exact comparisons years ago, so I will try to track them down as soon as I have the free time. It's not OR at all, just uncited. -- Kesh 21:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Should something be mentioned about terrorism in Ireland? Some may dismiss these attacks based upon nationalism, but the conflict is entirely religious in nature (catholics vs protestants) - violence and destruction in the name of one's god against the other group (who refuses follow that interpretation of god) extending as far as London, by both religious groups and the nationalism is merely an offspring of this religious conflict? To ignore it seems a little POV. McDanger 08:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Check the archives. To summarize: it is most certainly not "entirely religious." There are a number of cultural issues and political issues that overshadow the religious ones. You might want to read about the history of this strife first. A large chunk of the religious differences originate from the political and social issues. -- Kesh 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should see [WP:CSB] for bias via omission. To ignore the religious aspect, because some believe the social aspect is more to blame does not excuse ignoring it completely. Some academics argue 9/11 was based on third world country politics, but it is still nevertheless included in the Islamic terrorism article. To refuse to place actual examples of christian terrorism, regardless of "some people's" opinion of what is the "true" cause does not negate the fact it is in fact Christian terrorism. It's also very unbecoming to speak with such hubris. McDanger 05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, hubris? Really? All I'm saying is that the religious portion does not outweigh the socio-political motivations. That said, I'm tired of the constant infighting on this page by people of various biases, and am bowing out of the discussion. I'll leave others to reach a consensus on the matter. Other pages will likely present me with less stress. -- Kesh 20:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ever ask yourself why there is such stress or infighting on this page? Why is it okay to label one group as terrorists or not another when both are motivated by religious ideology? The only resistance seems to come from other sides who want to maintain the intolerant stereotype that only Muslims can be terrorists. I was hoping Wikipedia would stay away from that type of close-mindedness. McDanger 02:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Hoffman one of the "foremost world experts on terrorism" addressed the question of whether the terrorism in N. Ireland was religious terrorsim. He rightly concluded, no. "The key is whether they are using liturgy or religious texts to justify or explain the violence or attract recruits and whether there is some sort of clerical figures involved in some leadership roles." "...they do not call themselves Catholic and Protestant. They call themselves nationalist, loyalist or unionist paramilitary. They consciously do not make a religious connection. Even if they go to church, they do not use liturgy or the Bible to justify their violence, they are not involving clerics in its justification or legitimization. I think it is very different from the contemporary religious terrorism we see today." He went on to contrast N. Ireland with white supremecist Christian Churches and al Queda, both of which use scriptures and have involved clergy. The N. Ireland case isn't even close. Mamalujo 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The assertion of political and religious identity on both sides and the results of 'material deprivation and overt discrimination' of Catholics by Protestants in Northern Ireland cannot be dismissed as primary elements in the terrorist activities in that region.[7]24.31.114.168 15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

SO basically, Mamalujo, you're saying if you don't call yourself a religious terrorist, you're not a religious terrorist? Well, how very simplified, and quite clearly an embodiment of POV bias via omission. Way to prove Wikipedia is as unreliable as everyone makes out. McDanger 10:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Came back after a breather to take a shot at this again. McDanger, you've completely misinterpreted what Mamalujo said. It's not about "calling yourself a religious terrorist," it's about using the religion as a basis of and excuse for the terrorism. As to your earlier question, yes, I've asked myself why there's so much infighting quite often. Mostly, it does stem from a need for one or another author to label/removed the label from Group X based on purely POV reasons, rather than the established facts.

In this case, the violence is primarily motivated by political and social reasons, and religious texts & teachings are not core to the reasons for the terrorism. At best, they are a side note, as the Protestants tend to fall into one socio-political group and Catholics tend to fall into the other. That later led to the violence against each other based on which church they went to, because it made it easy to identify "the others." It had nothing to do with Protestant or Catholic doctrine, but of political and social decisions that happened to fall along certain lines that favored one group or the other. Mamalujo has provided a very good, citable source to back this up. -- Kesh 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Nomenclature Christian Terrorist only applies if the atrocities of the group are Christian religiously motivated or influenced. The Provisional IRA are a POLITICAL TERRORIST GROUP. Nome of their stated goals included anything not to do with Nationalism or Republicanism. Until someone provides a good reason to put them on this page apart from the fact that they were nominally Catholic (and some were not) then I will remove them from this section. Also I note that while they are fully referenced here, there seems to be an exclusion of any Ulster Protestant groups (again who were politically motivated). Are there double standards at work? 86.43.71.254 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're personal opinion of the IRA is irrelevant. Mark Juergensmeyer, one of the world's leading experts on religious terrorism, states in a reliable source that he considers this terrorism to be Christian and religious in nature. That is why it should be included. The IRA are certainly the most notable group and should be mentioned. In the interests of NPOV, I agree that only including a Catholic group seems slanted (even if they are the most notable), so I would support including a list of the most notable groups on both sides. Please feel free to add them. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Poso attacks

Corrected inaccuracies including the date of attack. Also the heading 'Unorganized acts of terrorism' is an inaccuracy since the mob's disposal of the bodies would constitute some kind of planning and intent.24.31.114.168 15:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The attacks were not pre-planned by any group, but more to the point, "unorganized" was meant more to convey that there was not a specific organization involved (ie. these were not members of a religious terrorist group, but a mob moved to religious violence). Perhaps a better term is needed. -- Kesh 14:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

IRA

WHAT ABOUT THE IRA? I don't see the IRA mentioned here, the Irish Republican Army. I think they were considered a Christian Terrorist group by the state department atleast until the year 2000. Although I believe the IRA has been inactive in the past few years, and they may no longer be classified as a terrorist group, they still have a long history of deadly terrorist acts and this should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.196.223 (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please look through the archives. We've discusses their inclusion several times. -- Kesh 14:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When they say "discuss" they mean the majority decided it's not terrorism "because they say so." This page is controversial because some don't like to list acts of christian terrorism. Apparently they above source claims "if they don't call themselves religious terrorist they aren't," because one lone academic said so. Since when are all articles backed up with only one source? Rarely. You won't see a true reflection of the truth in this article.

Had this article followed the NPOV policy then both sides of the argument would be included in the main article, weighing up both sides in favour of IRA being considered religious terrorists, and those arguments against the IRA being considered terrorists. To omit the point entirely is POV bias via editing. McDanger 08:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's do without the rhetoric, shall we?

No, it's not "because they say so." The fact is that over the existence of this article, a consensus has formed that "Christian terrorism" encompasses acts performed specifically to promote and/or enforce Christian doctrine. If terrorism is performed by someone who happens to be Christian, but is not directly related to their religion, it doesn't qualify for this article.

The reasoning is that if we added everyone who happened to be Christian who committed a terrorist act, the article would bloat overnight. The definition becomes so vague as to be useless.

With the IRA, they are primarily a political and social terror organization. Religion is a minor motivation, which grew out of the political climate in which they formed. Adding the IRA to this article means that their motivation would primarily be religious, which does not appear to be the case.

You might be more accurate with adding specific acts of anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant terrorism in Ireland as being religiously motivated, but the IRA itself doesn't really fit in here. -- Kesh 15:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is asking to add every act committed by christians, but collective attacks where religion is a factor should be mentioned. Why not include the IRA on the main page, with both sides of the argument for and against its inclusion as terrorism, after all this is an encyclopedia? The only "rhetoric" seems to be the denial of religiously motivated attacks. McDanger 09:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OI

im probably just stupid but why does it say 'as part of the unconnected 2001 anthrax attacks' in the anthrax bit at the top. how can it be part of it when theyre unconnected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.174.225 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's poorly worded, but it's trying to demonstrate that this was one of the attacks, even though the attacks were not all related to each other - it was a number of individuals who "hopped on the bandwagon" and didn't know each other. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why this whole article is so ridiculous. None or very few of these "terrorist groups" (since a few of them really aren't "terrorist groups") commit their atrocities in the name of Jesus, the Church, or the Gospel. This whole article is just a bad attempt at stuffing a lot of disparate phenomena into the rigid hole of "Christian terrorism", a concept which from the beginning remains vaguely defined. This whole article is nonsense, merely created as a "counter-weight" to the Islamic terrorism article. It's so blatantly stupid not even French or German Wikipedia wants it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.223.76 (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Islamic terrorism article includes lots of groups that you wouldn't class as terrorists either. Hezbollah are a major political party which governs a large part of Lebanon. The Iraq groups are included, which aren't really religious and didn't exist before the invasion, they just want the U.S. troops out. Many of the Middle East groups in that article aren't religious nuts, they mostly just want the U.S. and Israel out of the Middle East. 129.215.58.3 (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

First Sentence

This article has a lot of problems, but the most obvious and probably the most egregious is the first sentence. It is just plain erroneous. Just because someone or some group commits acts of terrorism and happens to be Christian does not mean they are Christian terrorists. They have to use their faith as a justification or explanation for their acts or in recruiting or have clergy involved somehow. For clarification see this. I'd suggest someone clear-up the atrocious introduction. Or I'll get to it. Mamalujo 05:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't challenge that there may be cases of truly religiously motivated Christian terrorism (attacks on abortion clinics?). Prof Hoffmann seems serious and has a case. However, I have to agree with Mamalujo above that a lot of cases cited in this article are of terrorist organizations/acts where the relgious affiliation was a secondary issue. Eg the Klu Klux Klan was more racist than Christian and a lot of the other acts also refer more to ethnic conflicts or where the religious aspect was of secondary importance. As always we should base on what the sources/academics say, not draw our own conclusions or selectively add together individual and unrelated pieces of facts to create a new picture not supported by academia/media. Osli73 (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How about no-bloodshed Christian terrorism?

This page refers to Christian terrorism in terms of bloodshed. I think Christians are all over the place with an empire-building motive. Is that any form of terrorism? in an extreme case, isnt the Gulf war an act of terrorism? US involvement with N Korea is also terrorizing of the N Korean government to bow to it's supremacy. US is setting itself up for being a supreme commander of the world in the next 50 to 75 years. All this is happening in conjunction with Israel. Isn't this one type of terrorism? Or is this classified on some other page on wikipedia? Of course, this is just a conspiracy theory that I am putting forth. I wonder how many people believe in it. I am not signing this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.130.59 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote by Hoffman

The last quote by Hoffman didn't refer to Christian terrorism specifically. A direct reference to Christian terrorism would improve the article.66.57.188.142 (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an edit war is ensuing. The quote by Hoffman is as follows: "Even when terrorists are religious, the fact that they may worship in churches, may have been devout in their practices, is almost immaterial. The key is whether they are using liturgy or religious texts to justify or explain the violence or attract recruits and whether there is some sort of clerical figures involved in some leadership roles." This is only Hoffman's opinion. What is 'key' but STRATEGY? A clerical figure may be self-imposed, not officially recognized by the church. Religious texts may be interpreted, twisted, and corrupted to suit the agenda of the terrorists. This quote is very misleading. Instead of relying upon an interview with one man to define terrorism, perhaps a definition which has been carefully examined and scrutinized to determine its suitability?66.57.188.142 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice this article keeps growing smaller and smaller and smaller. Why not simply petition for its removal on the grounds that Christian terrorism doesn't really exist?66.57.188.142 (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)