To InstaPundit: No, they won’t
posted at 1:45 pm on May 14, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I get the warning and humor of this line, but frankly I’m tired of it. Prof. Reynolds needs to hit the books.
THE ANSWER TO THE EXAMINER’S QUESTION IS SIMPLE: It’s because people are afraid they’ll blow things up.
Sooner or later, you know, fundamentalist Christians are going to pick up on this lesson, engage in similar behavior, and make similar demands. Because, apparently, it works fine.
He’s right that the credible threat of violence drives people all over the world to bow to unreasonable Muslim demands, demands they would laugh off if they came from Christians or members of any other faith. Demands like this, and this, and situations like this. But he’s wrong that “fundamentalist Christians” are going to take this as a cue to start up their own terrorism to get what they want. And he’s wrong because he starts with an error on the basics: Namely, that Christianity and Islam aren’t the same thing, don’t believe the same things and don’t teach the same things. The foundational texts of the two faiths are very different, and the differences make all the difference in the world.
The New Testament doesn’t teach that violence against non-Christians is ok. The Koran, especially the second half of it, does indeed teach that violence against non-Muslims is ok. In fact, it commands violence against infidels in certain circumstances.
If you want to talk about the Crusades, well, they were defensive wars against imperialist Muslims who were spreading Islam by the sword. If you want to talk about the conquistadors or the Inquisition, go ahead. Those actions were done in the name of God, true, but entirely outside any actual New Testament teaching. Tim McVeigh? Agnostic who had more in common with the Luddite Unabomber than any Christian. Eric Rudolph? Agnostic who preferred Nietzsche to the Bible. Three of the most murderous men of the last century — Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin — were all atheists/occultists. Should we start expecting effette latte-drinking Utne reader types to start engaging in terrorism if they don’t get their way? Perhaps, and leftwing ecoterrorism doesn’t get nearly enough coverage, but InstaPundit never makes that argument — he always draws the false parallel from Muslims to Christians as though they’re two sides of the same coin when they’re not. Bin Laden and Zawahiri and Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad constantly quote the Koran to justify their global jihad, itself a dual Islamic concept that includes both internal and external warfare. Saladin’s jihad followed Muhammad’s example. Christianity has no such concept and Christ provided no similar warlike example.
It’s a pity that five years into this war, or nearly 30 if you’re dating its beginning to the Islamic Revolution in Iran, so few people actually understand this. Most of our political leaders in both parties don’t understand it, secular humanists constantly conflate Pat Robertson with the Taliban thereby demonstrating that they don’t get it, and most of our pundits and most of our major bloggers obviously don’t understand it either. Our dominant strains of voluntary ignorance may literally kill us.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
You’re extending it an awful lot. He’s making a simple point, one which, ironically, every social con should appreciate: if you reward depravity, you get more of it. Isn’t that the gist of every harangue about “Hollyweird” and its excesses? That they’re corrupting the culture by glorifying sex and violence?
Glenn’s simply saying that if we humor one religion’s fanatics, other religions’ fanatics will act in the expectation of being humored too. He’s not saying anything about numbers. On the contrary, it’s you guys who seem to be suggesting that no Christian fundamentalist would ever resort to violence. History is not on your side.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 4:14 PM
I used the comparison the wrong way. All I’m saying is that there are psychos in our Church, too. It’s not impossible that a group of psychos could break off, and form a group that they think is killing it Christ’s name. Would they be? Hell, no.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 4:15 PM
To believe there could never be a group of batpoo insane radical christians capable of violence is a bit naive. Their are plenty of nuts in all groups. Of course the corollary to that would be to wonder why Glenn never uses fundamentalist buddists or radical atheists.
Dash on May 14, 2007 at 4:15 PM
I agree, he could’ve phrased it better.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Well, given the body count, I’d say the world has a lot more to fear from Atheists and Islamists than Christians. Perhaps Atheists do like being reminded of that?
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Suspecting my motives? You can put up half a dozen atheism posts for every one of mine defending my faith and I never question your motives. Franky I don’t care what your motives are; I take those posts on their own merits and don’t go looking for some ulterior purpose behind them. Perhaps I should?
My motive here was to correct a category error that causes an awful lot of people to misunderstand some basic things about the war, like who the enemy is and isn’t. This idea of Glenn’s, which goes back several years, that Christians are just chomping at the bit to go jihadi but don’t for some odd reason, is one that needs correcting because it isn’t true. It’s based on bad information and faulty logic. You didn’t make that error, so I’m not even sure why you’ve spent so much time in this thread making the post all about what you think. It’s not about what you think or reason #56 Why The GOP Isn’t Your Ideal Paradise. It has nothing to do with that. If you read anything else into it, that’s on you, not anything I’ve done or written.
Bryan on May 14, 2007 at 4:17 PM
But again, the only one running right now with any decent religious creds is the guy you just admit some religious right are calling satan.
If we do, as you say, run the party, then how in the world are Rudy and McCain doing so well so far? Seriously, how un-religious can you get in a candidate?
FYI, the only litmus test I have is the one you detailed. I can’t say that I don’t wish my president to be someone who prays to God, but I can’t say that I don’t wish everyone would pray to God, so that’s moot. Sorry for the double negatives.
I only mention the prayer in schools and speeches as politics I consider religious. They’re not issues I see a reason to fight over, but I am firmly against government-sponsored censorship no matter the form.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 4:17 PM
that’s what it is. didn’t specify “no gays” from the onset? oops!
if you want to change that now, i’m afraid it would be a change. and one which would resemble the 14th amendment in reverse.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 4:19 PM
And you want unelected people wearing black robes with no accountability to the people do it it by fiat. Now that’s democracy!
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2007 at 4:21 PM
You’ve lost me. First you claim that murderers in Christianity are not unusual.
Then you site McVeigh as an example, to which reply that certainly the man is unusual.
I don’t see how that’s the point you were trying to make. I appologize if I’ve missed something.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Well said Bryan! It’s time these closet athiest liberals got their facts straight. Yes I said the ‘L’ word. Putting a liberal spin on Christianity just does’nt work…but they’ll keep on trying in their pseudo-intellectual way…and just like liberals they want to destroy what they don’t like.As Christians we will forgive them but as Christians we will also defend ourselves. Comparing Christianity or any part of it to radical Islam is just more Rosie trash talk.
DCJeff on May 14, 2007 at 4:22 PM
SS Nationalistic Atheists.
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Plus, if you look at the link in Bryan’s post, McVeigh wasn’t really a Christian.
see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Bryan, all do respect, but I don’t think anyone thought for a minute, that the Christian Church is about to wage Jihad. To me, it sounded sarcastic, when Reynolds adds the “you know”, in there, almost mocking the Left, as it has been a religious talking point, when they’re trying to defend the fact that the Koran contains a message of Jihad.
Usually, Allah’s posts aren’t all about his religion, or lack-there-of. He usually contains it, within a larger point, or story. This whole post, was about something Glenn Reynolds posted, most likely before he headed out the door for class.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 4:26 PM
John on May 14, 2007 at 4:10 PM
John I don’t think he really meant to go that far with the analogy. Likewise, my analogy had to do with alliances and criticism and didn’t extend to bomb throwing. I read his post as firmly tongue in cheek. Certainly, he was no more serious than the countless number of Christians who have told me that my soul is bound for eternal damnation simply because I don’t believe in their particular strain of Christianity. You guys are kidding about that, right? I mean, who are you to say something so outrageous about my soul?
Ahem.
But again, within the framework of our politcal and cultural system, Christians are a powerful force. There is no denying this. There is also no denying that Christians have taken a very prominent role in our political process. The fact that I agree with many of their goals does not prevent me from being frustrated that they have disproportional power and order their priorities much differently than I do.
JackStraw on May 14, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Far too much sturm und drang re GOP welcoming of/hostility to agnotheists/social cons. We’re a coalition and all of our interests are best served by the most limited government possible: values legislation is bad because it sets the precedent that who controls the legislature/bureaucracy can enforce their values, and the social cons won’t like the result most of the time (banishing school prayer, left wing social policy cheerleading, etc). The smaller government stance that gets the government out (no public funding of stem cells, abortion, etc) can be supported by both people like me AND social cons. People like myself and Insta (I think) can be pro choice AND against Roe, lining up solidly behind judges like Scalia and Alito. So… can’t we all just get along?
To get on point: Glenn’s saying that caving in to violent religious fanatics and denigrating peaceful religious people who ask nicely is a bad long term strategy and creates horrible incentives. This has been seen in the UK, where violent Sikh extremists closed a play that they didn’t like (by a British Sikh doing the usual assimilated 2nd generation immigrant play about his parents’ culture and negotiating the conflicts), as well as in India where Hindu extremists frequently close movies and even movie sets (Water by Deepa Mehta was chased out of the country by attacks and threats).
Peaceful Christians get Piss Christ and elephant dung Mary, unstable Muslims get RoP, PBUH and much genuflecting by the PC brigades. Irrespective of doctrines, people respond to incentives and these differing treatments portend bad things. Glenn’s message is to the Left that is creating these situations, rather than truly thinking that Christians are likely to do this. Given Glenn’s personal background, he is deeply, deeply familiar with Christian thought and theology – his dad was a left-wing peacenik pastor and war protester.
Anyone can use any ideology or religion for violence, since humans are violent creatures adept at self-justification. The Irish are still pretty serious about extreme violence between Catholics and Protestants despite all the teachings of Christ and their religious commonality. The IRA is essentially communist and had deep links with the USSR but they’re supposedly the Catholic vanguard. None of that jibes with Christian theology, but there it is.
We need to create incentives for good behaviour and punish bad behaviour, the reverse of what we are currently doing. The first problem is that we have never dealt with the 5th column that has infested the West since the 20s. Hollywood celebrates Communist Spies and denigrates american heroes. We need to deal with people like Jane Fonda and everyone else who has ever adhered to the enemies of the US or aided and abetted the ongoing communist genocides around the world. Instead the people who assist in genocide get rich while spouting Marxism ans Islamism like Chomsky. End that, and we can start improving our treatment of the religious. As with most things, the problem is the Left.
libertarianuberalles on May 14, 2007 at 4:27 PM
I wrote:
Sorry AP, but, in modern real life, history is on our side, that theory has been debunked. There may be a few wierdos out there, but Christians are not “chomping at the bit” to “get even”.
Agnostics, and atheists, should find another song to sing. Much of the rantings remind me of truthers. You find one samll error in the painting and ignore the big picture.
right2bright on May 14, 2007 at 4:28 PM
You seem to me misunderstanding me, and I’m running out of ways to clarify myself.
There is no “didn’t.” What I’m proposing has not happened and may never happened.
The Left (and you apparently) only care about one group who cannot marry the partner of his/her choice, but there are certainly many other groups that feel left out and in time, those taboos may disapear just as quickly as homosexuality’s tabboo did.
If that happens, just allowing men to marry men and women to marry women will not be enough.
There will be another crisis where marriage has to conform to society.
So I propose that if we’re going to try to fix this “crisis,” why not put some forethought into it and think past the present.
Following me yet? This is just the idea I have, not something currently implemented.
It’s disengenuous to say that marriage needs to be inclusive when you’re only proposing to include one extra group. You may as well say that instead of “whites only” fountains, we make them “whites and asians only” fountains. That may work if asians are the only other ethnic groups being considered at the time, but eventually another ethnic group might want to drink too.
So my idea, if we are to change marriage (and that’s a big if), would be to simply get rid of marriage and embrace nothing but contracts and conduct them the same way we conduct any business contract.
Are we clear here? I think that’s the best I can do.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Certainly not how I have read Glenn’s comments now or in the past. He’s not saying all Christians, he’s saying some fringe fundamentalist “God hates Fags” type.
Sure Falwell compared to the Taliban is moral equivalence, but that doesn’t mean Falwell doesn’t scare the poo out of me. It majorly freaks me out to see people like him have a big following.
Dash on May 14, 2007 at 4:29 PM
gay or straight, marriage is not in the constitution.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Allah, I think you’re wrong on both parts. It’s not that Glenn is minimizing the threat, nor is it the reminder about Christian bad applies.
The exception I take is that these wayward Christians are largely mythical, straw men that the left and the seculars trot out with annoying regularity as though the streets are drenched in the blood of slain abortion doctors. It’s nonsense.
Kensington on May 14, 2007 at 4:32 PM
but that doesn’t mean Falwell doesn’t scare the poo out of me.
You are easily frightened and should probably avoid politics. Also, leaving the house in the morning.
Crimminy.
Fred on May 14, 2007 at 4:33 PM
I’ll put it all in one post. All I’m saying is that nobody can say that it’s impossible for some group of psychos, who claim they’re Christians, to become a group who uses the same tactics as the people Glenn mentioned.
My point that I attempted to make with McVeigh, was that it’s not like people who call themselves Christians, haven’t killed before. All those murders you hear of on the nightly news, weren’t commited by non-Christian citizens. They aren’t all Christians, but they aren’t all non-Christian.
Is McVeigh unusual? Yes, of course. But, he’s not the only unusual one. You get a bunch of unusual ones together, and we’ve got an issue.
Let’s look at another case. Eric Rudolph. The FBI considered Rudolph to have “had a long association with the radical Christian Identity movement, which asserts that North European whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, God’s chosen people”.
Rudolph denied it. However, in another letter, he cited Biblical passages, and attempted to explain his militant opposition to abortion, using the Bible. Of course, he couldn’t, but he thought he could. He also thought he was acting on behalf of the “Army of God”.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Clearly we have laws that are not found in the Constitution. I do not recall heroin being mentioned anywhere within it.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Decent? He makes most religious people look like pikers.
But he isn’t the “right” type of Christian and you know it. He has been called a cultist, not by those of us who don’t care about religion, but by you guys. Romney absolutely romped in the first debate, yet, you’re right, he’s still getting creamed in the national polls. Why is that? Don’t look at us agnostics.
Look, you guys don’t own the Republican Party. I never meant to suggest that. If you did a dork like Mike Huckabee or an equally dim bulb like Sam Brownback would be rolling. But if you didn’t have a significant position, neither would be running either.
I just want my President to be a fiscal conservative and a hawk on defense. On Sunday, he can rest for all I care.
JackStraw on May 14, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Tell that to the Massachusetts Supreme Judaical court. They disagree with you.
Do you believe in freedom? Do you believe in Democracy? Then why would you be against allowing people to vote on what marriage is?
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Allah, I’m a Catholic GOP volunteer who is regularly contacted directly by the Michigan GOP. Who is a guest?
DannoJyd on May 14, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Amerpundit, no offense, but did you read bryan’s post up top? He brought up McVeigh and Rudolph, and did a pretty good job of shooting them down as straw men.
see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Dash on May 14, 2007 at 4:29 PM
I can’t imagine why one idiot, advocating peaceful change through the established political process, is frightening. That’s like being frightened of Dennis Kucinich. Sure, I disagree with the crap that he puts out, but he’s not scary. People who hang gays and who stone women for any number of offenses are scary. People who will literally kill you in order to get their way are scary.
Laura on May 14, 2007 at 4:38 PM
yes, but now i’m wondering where i got my wires crossed.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 4:39 PM
As noted above someplace…
Just another anti-Christian straw-man argument trying to equate Islamofascism with American Christians for the purpose of a political agenda.
Been there. Done that. It never works. Will the nutroots ever learn?
Lawrence on May 14, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Look, this is my final comment, then I’m moving on. I read Bryan’s post. I also read Glenn’s. However, anyone who can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that some group, who claims to be Christian, won’t start doing the same thing, is naive.
If these tactics of intimidation continue to work, it will become that Jihadists won’t be the only ones using them. That’s what Reynolds is saying. Take “fundamentalist Christians” out, and replace it with any religion or group, and it’s the same. Sooner or later, some psycho, no matter what their religion teaches, will do the same thing.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 4:43 PM
I’m sorry but he did go exactly that far, which is why Bryan was right to call him on it. He said:
Similar to what? The answer to that question is suggested in his previous sentence:
Essentially using violence as a means of intimidation. Please show me where I’ve misread him. I don’t think I have.
I think history is on my side here, certainly in the last 20 years. We’ve been subject to how many hundreds and thousands of jihadist attacks. How many of the one billion Christians around the world have followed this example? I’m not trying to claim its impossible. Of course it probably could happen somewhere. But Glenn is suggesting it’s nigh inevitable.
He could just have easily have made this claim about Marxists, eco-extermists or other non-Christian groups. How about picking on them for a change.
John on May 14, 2007 at 4:47 PM
We all agree that murder is wrong. We all decide that is a value we want to enforce, but when it comes to defending the lives of the unborn, now it’s a “values” thing? I agree that the government that governs the least governs the best, but there is a line that cannot be crossed. Pro-life is not a Catholic/Christian values thing, it is a rational being thing. If you can’t follow the logic of why life must be defended at conception, you need an education.
tadams1138 on May 14, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Check the demographics. That’ll explain why he’s concerned mainly with Christians. And once again, I repeat my point that we’re talking about numbers here. No one would deny, I hope, that fundamentalists in any religion are capable of violence. Glenn objects to egging them on by rewarding the violence of others. Where’s the disconnect?
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Let’s be fair here. In the same way that a conservative doesn’t have to be a Christian, not all Christians have to be like the ones you mentioned.
Don’t lump me in with those.
There are many on the religious right who claim to have no problem with him being a Mormon.
The thing is, people view us as some collective blob about to cover the world in its blob remnants.
Don’t forget that we’re individuals who often have the same disagreements with each other that you and I can have here.
Personally, I really like Romney, probably even more than I should since it’s still early enough for us to learn something that might break my heart.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 4:53 PM
I consider myself Republican. I’m Agnostic at best–not affiliated with any church and on many of the “social” issues I’d be considered by some to maybe even lean left. Fiscally, I’m a far right capitalist. Like it or not there are “fundamentalist” Christians (abortion clinic bombers come to mind as well as KKK members I’ve met who think their racist outlook is very ‘Christian’–but they are idiots.) who would “kill” in the name of their religion. They just happen to be a very small minority and not a majority as in Islam. I’m not scared of them but they do annoy the crap out of me. I can deal with being annoyed. Lots of other people annoy me as well for different reasons that not religious. Fundamentalist Muslims scare me. Mainly because the really “radical” aspects of Islam seem to be the growing majority (and sorry, but until the “moderates” speak up I’m not buying they are the majority).
If I saw a huge majority of Fundamentalist Christians hell bent on implementing the laws according to Leviticus climb to power I might start to get worried, but they are not any where close to the level of influence the wackos are in Islam.
Faith1 on May 14, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Scary like any other kook with a big following. In and of himself he’s just a psycho, but with a lot of people listening to him it’s unsettling at best. Not that he’s going to saw peoples heads off, dont misunderstand. I’m not trying to eqivocate him with the Taliban or anything, but he certainly preaches hate, however disguised it may be.
Dash on May 14, 2007 at 4:54 PM
So, let’s just completely ignore the fact that the greatest mass murderers and brutal dictators of the last century were Atheists and focus on Christians because there’s a lot of them? Make sense to me.
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Here’s where you lose me. I agree Glenn makes a good point, however demographics is a cop out answer. The point is *any* group can learn this bad lesson. It doesnt matter if it’s Christians, Global Warming Gaia worshipers, PETA, Atheists, or the Cult of the Angry sweat socks.
Dash on May 14, 2007 at 4:57 PM
And in fact, many of those Leftist groups use intimidation tactics today, right here in America.
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Esthier
oh, i didn’t get my wires crossed. between your options of all or nothing, i’d take the nothing which preserves the original rationale for government meddling in peoples social arrangements in the first place. that is, a form of “marriage” which is only recognised between people with blood offspring or joint guardianship.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 5:03 PM
A voice of reason in the agnostic world.
You are right, anyone of any real conviction would probably belong to some type of organization. It does not mean that oraganization would want anything to do with them. Just announcing that you believe in something does not make you a member. But if you go to church and utter terrorists type words, and the church stands up and gives you an amen…I would be worried. But that does not happen, but when Muslim clerics stand and pronounce jihad, there is dancin in the aisles…then we get worried.
right2bright on May 14, 2007 at 5:07 PM
See, here’s what I’m saying.
He’s insane, and thinks Jesus would justify it. Of course, Jesus would condemn it, but he thinks he did it, and it’s ok.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 5:11 PM
How is that not all or nothing?
1. It would define marriage by offspring, something that would nullify many marriages today.
2. It would allow any group of individuals to come together if they are raising a child together, which, while requiring children being involved, is pretty much what I’m saying.
You’re making no distinction then by how many are in this union, what their gender is or even what their relation to each other is.
That is all or nothing with the sole exception that children must be involved. Basically, the only difference between what you want and my idea is that I wouldn’t force people to have kids in order to partner up. Otherwise, unless you have further restrictions you aren’t mentioning, we’re the same.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 5:11 PM
We get that crazy people think what they will, and I don’t think anyone is disputing with you there. The only difference people find in Christianity versus Islam is that Hadiths in Islam actually say things like “slay the infidel” whereas Christians do not have any text that asks for its followers to kill.
I’ve heard Muslims justify those “slaying” texts and am not saying they’re wrong in their justification, but it is a little different when you can point to a commandment for your actions even if you are misunderstanding the commandment.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Bryan,
I’m a fan but you and many of the commenters in this thread are in denial. OF COURSE some (!) fundamentalists are going perceive an advantage in violence and use it as a way to promote what they believe is God’s will. Indeed, they already have as we can see by the actions of some (!) in the right to life movement. You can’t escape this fact by defining it away as, “well, anyone who would do that is not really a Christian.” You can be sure that those who do commit such actions will believe themselves sincere Christians and will probably question your own faith for your failure to act.
student on May 14, 2007 at 5:17 PM
I agree. While Islam often promotes it, Christianity condemns it. I just wanted to say, that what Glenn said, isn’t entirely impossible, though the Church would condemn it.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 5:18 PM
I guess it’s in the definition of “fundamentalist” being used here.
I’m getting a Masters in Science and Religion at Biola right now. Biola literally invented “fundamentalism” in the 1920s. I drive up to campus every Wednesday for classes. So when you throw around the phrase “fundamentalist Christians” I think I know the people being spoken of pretty well. The idea that my professors or fellow students would turn to “blowing things up” to replicate the successes of Al Quaeda is simultaneously laughable and extremely obnoxious. It’s more likely that students at Glenn’s own campus would go postal, though that also seems pretty unlikely to me.
Now if you want to say that’s not how Glenn was using the word fine, I’m open to a redefinition of terms, but I’m quite familiar with how most atheists/agnostics use the phrase “Christian fundamentalists.” They mean people like me.
I do appreciate that Glenn got some really nasty e-mail during the Schiavo affair. I’m certainly not the first Christian to condemn such incidents. But it’s not as if people on the other side of that argument got any fewer threats? I’m sure we can’t count the number of gleeful death wishes aimed at Ms. Schiavo herself. Were the groups arguing for her death influenced by the Taliban? I sort of doubt it.
How many death threats has HotAir cataloged over at HuffPost? Are those people taking their cues from Al Quaeda as well? Are they more or less likely to be religious? Glenn seems to be employing some very selective demographic concern in this case.
John on May 14, 2007 at 5:20 PM
You just proved Bryan’s point. To compare a madman to the threat posed by Radical Islam is dangerous.
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2007 at 5:29 PM
I don’t think it’s a “category error” to point out, as Glenn has, that people respond rationally to incentives, Bryan.
Centerfire on May 14, 2007 at 5:30 PM
I’m with Fred on this, we need to tone down the evangelical/religious/atheist/secular slapfights. I’m getting kinda tired of listening to both groups bitching.
That said, the idea of western christians being as bad as jihadis in the Mideast has become such a canard of the Left and evangelical Atheists that people get real touchy about it, which I’m guessing is why this got posted.
Bad Candy on May 14, 2007 at 5:33 PM
BP our going to need some HBP medicine pretty soon! Great Post!
Drtuddle on May 14, 2007 at 5:35 PM
If Glenn chose to use a more likely demographic for his example (e.g. atheist leftists), then his argument would fall on deaf ears. For his argument to actually be effective for those who need to hear it, it has to be the Christians, although he should have thrown in a disclaimer.
As to Rudolph, a snippet from a letter saying he likes Nietzsche hardly makes him an agnostic, given that he associates himself with the “Army of God” and claimed Jesus’ approval for his actions. Now, I’m not implying that Christian violence is really a problem; like Bryan, I think that it’s extremely unlikely, due to the obvious fact that Jesus forbids it and it’s a religion of love. But I think it’s inaccurate to portray Rudolph as atheist/agnostic.
sandberg on May 14, 2007 at 5:38 PM
You can be sure that those who do commit such actions will believe themselves sincere Christians and will probably question your own faith for your failure to act.As a famous Muslim once said regarding another subject, just because a cat gives birth to kittens in an oven it doesn’t validate the “belief” that said kittens are actually biscuits.
Do we (again) need to re-define the definition of ‘is?’
No reasonable Christian will dispute the fact that some Christians will sin. The :::cough::: fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that we’re all sinners who can be saved by accepting the sacrifice and rebirth of Jesus Christ.
However, just because a person commits an act and believes that he/she is following the Christian creed does not mean that such a person’s belief is equal to reality.
If “belief” were the only requirement for reality and self-definition, then I could “believe” that I am a DVD player.
baldilocks on May 14, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I wasn’t so much attacking Bryan’s post, as some of the comments after it. I’m saying, again, that to say that it won’t happen that some Christian group breaks off and uses the same tactics, is naive. It’s quite possible. It wouldn’t be condoned by the Church, but it’s possible a Christian group would do, what Glenn is talking about.
Now, again, I’m leaving this thread.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 5:43 PM
And voila! I’m a DVD player.
baldilocks on May 14, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Sounds like a question Harry Caray would ask on SNL, “If you could turn yourself into a DVD player, would ya do it?”
Bad Candy on May 14, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Guess that got answered…
Bad Candy on May 14, 2007 at 5:48 PM
The whole point, that so many on this thread seem to be missing is… any group of Christians behaving in such a manner would not be fundamentalists.
What makes the “radical” Islamic movement so dangerous is that it’s not very (drum roll) radical. Islamic terrorists are harvest the power of fundamentalism because their actions are supported by their holy book, the most vocal leaders of the faith and (by their utter silence) too large a percentage of the lay-folk.
Any Christian group perpetrating similar acts would find no such support and, therefore, no comparable source of power.
The fact that such intelligent and dependable allies as Mr. Reynolds and Allahpundit still do not understand this 5 1/2 years on is the most frightening fact of all.
12thman on May 14, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Look, these people go to church, pray regularly, do missionary work, and appear in all ways (other than their violence) to be the same as other Christians. You can say, if you like, that their use of violence means they aren’t really Christians, just as they can say that your failure to act means that you aren’t really a Christian. And you can be sure that they will be able to point right at the Biblical verse that justifies their action. Why is your definition of Christianity anymore justified than theirs?
student on May 14, 2007 at 6:05 PM
s/harvest/harvisging/g
12thman on May 14, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Exactly. Bingo. Right on.
see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 6:08 PM
I went over and found this definition for the word fundamental:
All religions and beliefs have a fundamental origin. In the case of Christianity, it’s the Bible. Therefore, fundamental Christians are people who hold the values, teachings, wisdom, and directions of this book. All those who do not hold the values, teachings, wisdom, and directions of this book ARE NOT fundamentalist Christians…regardless of what they call themselves.
Other religions also have some form of fundamental origin. In the case of today’s moderate and peaceful Muslim, they can’t call themselves fundamentalists simply because “their religion of peace” is in contrast to it’s fundamental book, the Koran.
This is where the difference exists. But people who are ignorant of this fact continue to make comparisons between Christians and other religions that don’t even exist. Bryan says it much better than I do in this article he posted last year.
Joshua P. Allem on May 14, 2007 at 6:18 PM
If you go back and read your history, the difference between Christianity and Islam is striking; Christianity was largely spread by missionaries, Islam generally by the sword — and one of the reasons Islam spread so quickly in it’s early years was that the Christian lands they conquered had become more and more pacifist over time.
By 700 A.D. the old Roman provinces could only field a fraction of the forces preChristian Rome had sent forth. Civic militarism entered steady decline right from the beginning of Christian influence.
Even as late as 1200 A.D., with the Muslim expansion long underway, Christian knights who participated in jousts risked being denied a proper burial because the events were deemed violent and unChristian.
In summation: Christianity is basically a pacifist faith.
TallDave on May 14, 2007 at 6:26 PM
I think this explains, btw, why wacko Christian extremists tend to look like Jonestown or the Branch Davidians and not like Al Qaeda.
All that said, Glenn’s comments are in essence correct, though I doubt it will ever play out that way. Christianity is in more danger of dying out from its own passivity than of becoming an overly militant faith.
TallDave on May 14, 2007 at 6:33 PM
SS Nationalistic Atheists.
Atheists that listed their religion as “gottglaubig” (believes in God). Odd atheists, there. Of course they were probably just filthy lying atheists. Not acceptable to the German people. Slaughtering Jews, no biggie, but admitting to atheism? Over the line.
dorkafork on May 14, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Please Please people get a grip. A person who commits an act of violence in the name of Christianity is no more a Christian than a person eating a pork chop sandwich calling him self a Muslim. Read the BOOK sheesh! I might add what religion do the people who steer their boat in front of whaleing vessles or raid laboratories to FREE THE MICE belong to. The church of Green Peace! How about assulting a war vetran or defacing public property by the people of the church of Sheean. There are extremists in any human endevour so I think the majority of the population is sane and sensible for the time being. It all comes down to the working man again. The hands on skilled individual who is actually producing a product (mabey) some services. The working man has been carrying all you non productive service oriented,real estate,mortgage,banking,medical, churchy type leaders,actors,artists,criminals,writers,musicians,POLITICIANS,all media and any other non essential geek you can think of in the world. When this house of cards comes crashing down and the only skills needed are going to be that of survival then ya’ll might put some value in the blood sweat and tears philosophy. Get a damned job!
sonnyspats1 on May 14, 2007 at 6:42 PM
I think it’s certainly POSSIBLE that some nominally Christian fringe group would do this. But it’s way, way down on my list.
But it won’t work. They’d be punished FAR more harshly than a jihadi would. Plus, the NY Times, Andrew Sullivan, Richard Dawkins, etc., would use it to whip up indiscriminate persecution of ALL Christians. Just like the way a school bully gets a slap on the wrist, but his target would be expelled for fighting back.
JimC on May 14, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Christianity is not pacifistic, its peaceful. Pacifisim implies that no use of force is ever justified. While you should turn the other cheek, you cannot standby while someone else is assaulted. Thus a good Christian cannot be a pacifist because that would mean he stood by while his neighbor was harmed.
Iblis on May 14, 2007 at 6:53 PM
As with almost all things American, AP, Christians tend to fill up the tent. I would bet that most Christians in the GOP are not the least bit satisfied with its Christianity, either.
Sometimes you make me think of Travolta’s Michael the Archangel, always looking for the next chance to fight someone, in your case about religion. Battle!
Jaibones on May 14, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Over at Ace, Jack M has some excellent comments about this post in an update. This one line really caught my attention, though: Or, if we are to give Glenn a pass, should we give Rosie a pass too?
Laura on May 14, 2007 at 7:00 PM
The Koran, written in the late 600s AD borrows heavily from the Old and New Testaments, but with critical alterations, such as naming Ishmail rather than Issac as the heir, and switching Jesus into the role of John the Baptist with Mohammed in Jesus’ place – not precisely, as the Koran dismisses the divinity of Jesus and makes Mohammed instead to be the true revealer of the truth, the correct revelation of God, but not divine. The Koran holds on to many of the Old Testament prohibitions, listed in the Torah, such as eating “clean and unclean” meat, old covenant prohibitions that were ended under the new covenant Jesus announced at the Last Supper.
These borrowed scriptures then do have the ring of authority that comes from the original, but they are quoted, with the first half correct and the second half altered or eliminated. It should be no surprise then to discover many of the same prophecies – but again altered and modified.
It’s not coincidence there are similarities between the Bible and the Koran. One was cribbed from the other.
naliaka on May 14, 2007 at 7:00 PM
O fer the love of…if I’d have thought for a second that this post would generate all of this noise I wouldn’t have bothered. It wasn’t a blanket statement about anything, it was just meant to take IP to task for a line of reasoning that he has used consistently for years and that I have always found at best very annoying and at worst a downright smear. That’s all, nothing more and nothing less. If you’ve never made the same mistake, then the post wasn’t about you. If you have, well, that’s your business but it still wasn’t about you.
And it’s not like I’m trying to read him out of the GOP (of which I don’t even think he’s a member), just to tackle this one line of thinking that I think is counterproductive. Because it is.
That is all. Thanks–
Bryan on May 14, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Could you name a “Christian Fundamentalist” that was accepted by the Christian faith, that has fit the description of this?
I think you are creating a storybook in your head to fit your bias.
right2bright on May 14, 2007 at 7:03 PM
I think Glenn made the same gaffe as the folks at the New Jersey high school who staged a terrorism drill by “Christian fundamentalists.”
Glenn’s point seems to be that, yeah, it’s bound to happen.
John on May 14, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Besides the Crusades, there was also the 30 years war, which killed about 20% of Germany’s population. It was basically a battle over Protestantism vs. Catholicism. You can say those weren’t Christians, but to the Instapundit’s of the world, they can’t tell real Christians from the rest. The lefties say real Communism has never been tried. The difficulty with Christianity is that when it is practiced it usually doesn’t make the news. If you want to get a more accurate sense of what Christianity is all about, then have stories saying what Christian fundamentalists, aka missionaries, are doing out there in the world.
I think the doom and gloom about a pacifist Christianity being overrun by Islamofacism neglects the fact that Christianity is the largest religion out there and is growing rapidly and peacefully in Africa, China, and India.
pedestrian on May 14, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Thanks Bryan, once again the most obvious example of modern day Christians not be tainted are the Palestinians Christians who live in a world of terror, who are immersed in it culturally. They have denounced that terror and have not committed any terrorists acts against either religion (Jewish or Muslim/Islamic). This modern example proves that Christian beliefs do rise above the extreme Islamists, et al.
Yet no one can pont to an organized Christian action, maybe a kook or two. No organized Christian group has taken up the cause of terrror or have embraced it or even recognized it as an option.
right2bright on May 14, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Five sects or five Christians? Ok, so the challenge was to find 5 anti-gay, anti-science and anti-women sects? Finding 5 proponents amongst higher ups in the various sects is pretty easy.
Anti-gay: It’s harder for me to find 5 PRO gay churches. None of that “love the sinner, hate the sin” cop out, either. The churches that are openly against that kind of discrimination, to the point of allowing gay priests are considered heretical.
Anti-Science: any church that openly pushes for creationism to be taught. Seriously, that’s way more than 5 of either category.
Anti-Woman: Any Church that teaches birth control is a sin. Last I checked, my wife and daughters weren’t baby factories.
The point is that these things are a commonality between Islam and Christianity.
Depends on the sect, once more. For all I know, you think the Pope is wayward and certain Southern Baptist Televangelists are just the bees knees. Perhaps you think the Unitarians are just super and have issues with what the Anglicans are all about. In other words, are these people wayward because they don’t follow the same type of Christianity you do? If so, then you may well be the wayward one.
I don’t see Christianity as some monolithic entity with a clear set of rules, because it doesn’t have any. I can make even the Golden Rule something that can encourage violence, I can make Jesus out to be a warrior. I can use the old and new testaments to degrade women and different races. I can do it all, for Christianity is adaptive and simply because it is essentially nonviolent in the larger sense at this moment in time does not imply it will always be that way.
I’ve seen people on this board make the claim of being Good Christians one day, and calling for nukes of certain regions the next. Either there is some loophole I missed, or the potential to do violence to the “other” is alive and well. How much of a stretch is it, really, to imagine that if threatened enough, violence will be the result?
Krydor on May 14, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Religion informs one’s politics, not the other way around. People will choose political parties, knowing they are imperfect, but with the mind to be associated with the party that is closest to one’s beliefs. At this point in time, many Christians believe that the Republican Party best reflects their priorities. “Best” can mean a lot depending on the state of the parties – even slumping to “barely” or “remotely, but better than the other party options. Previously, Christians could be found in abundance in both the Democrat and Republican Parties, but with the ascendency of the Left in the Dem Party, the Dem platform has become harder and harder to reconcile with Christian religious observances. Many have moved to the Republican Party, with varying degrees of satisfaction. Fundamentally, one has to work with what’s available and if the Left is invested in gaining power and bringing social change by political and judicial activism means, then the discerning Christian must also be politically and legally engaged to counter the manipulations of the hard Left, before poltical actions become codified. At any given time, Christians may be allied with Liberarians on such issues as controlling governmental overreach, to protect individual freedoms, then be in opposition on other matters, such as abortion or sexual limits (i.e. pornography/age of majority) . This would be because Christians have a lower opinion of man’s natural self-control than do Libertarians.
naliaka on May 14, 2007 at 7:17 PM
We’re too busy making money running all the banks, the media and anything else of value. War isn’t nearly as profitable.
Now, if the Elders would ever send me that check.
/I keed, I keed.
The reality is that of the three Abrahamic faiths, only Judaism says that you don’t have to be a member of their faith community to be righteous in God’s eyes. So while we accept converts we are not active proselytizers and have no motivation to conquer the world to spread our religion.
Note – While spreading the faith via the sword has been part of the history of Christianity, it’s never been official policy and there are no NT passages to support that activity, unlike the Quran which explicitly encourages Muslims to offer infidels the choice of the sword or Allah.
rokemronnie on May 14, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Many people seem to do this. I think it’s because most of us over thirty-five are exposed to some individual’s or groups’ “Christianity” growing up and operate from that concept of it. Upon reaching adulthood, many of those reject the religion of their fathers rather that the religion as documented by the New Testament and subsequent critical-thinkers on subject. People who fail to make the distinction between some murderous, delusional pinhead who calls himself a Christian and the actual religion itself are among this number, I suspect.
baldilocks on May 14, 2007 at 7:21 PM
I’ve rarely felt like that. I do, however, often feel that unless you’re a family values evangelical, you’re a guest in the Republican Party — to be treated with hospitality (since, after all, your vote is needed), to be sure, but there’s no question whose party it is.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:07 PM
I just don’t see that. Especially around actual Republican politicans and those that work for them. They lean much more to your views than mine.
Rightwingsparkle on May 14, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Well, the Republican party is the only one that promotes democracy, and if you believe that having a voice in your government is the same thing as dhimmitude, then by all means vote Democrat.
JohnJ on May 14, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Christians ain’t perfect, nor is their history, but common sense & experience defies Mr. Reynolds premise of ‘copy cat’ christian fanatics.
There are exceptions to every rule, but when it comes to oppression & violence the mohammedans have taken that rule captive, cut off its head & killed anyone who dares disagree with their actions.
I’ll take my chances in a ‘christian nation’ VS a ‘muslim nation’ anyday and I’m quite certain Mr. Reynolds will not be moving to the mid east anytime soon.
Shame on you, Mr. Reynolds, for playing such disengenuous game of relativism when any child watching mickey mouse can tell you the difference.
locomotivebreath1901 on May 14, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Without cutting and pasting all the comments I’ll simply state I’m with Bryan on this one.
So, everyone, take a deep breath. Do not deny anyone their humanity.
Zorro on May 14, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Krydor, I guess we’re not communicating well… you wrote
When I challenged you to find five, I meant in terms of consequences. I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear. No, you’re not going to find a lot of pro-gay churches. And the official Catholic position is evidently that birth control is God’s province and no one else’s. But you’re not going to find five churches (other than insane sects like Phelps that have been denounced) that advocate death to gays, and you’re not going to find churches where “physical chastisement” of women is advocated, etc. Churches promoting such ideas are rare and quickly denounced, as Phelps’ has been.
I’m sorry, I’m really not trying to move the goalposts on you. Yes, many Christians and Muslims disapprove of homosexuality, and both groups do approve of chastity and modesty, for example. But how that plays out are two entirely different situations, and that is what I meant. A fundie Christian will disapprove of you or even tell you you’re going to hell; a fundie Muslim will try to send you there.
Read Bryan’s article that Joshua Allem linked to previously…
Sure, the potential is there for Christians just like it is for anybody else, but it’s not approved or sanctioned by either our documentation – either the bible or any of the subsequent important writings of Christianity – or by our mainstream practitioners.
Laura on May 14, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Well, or at least agree that it would be proper if somebody or other did try to send you there. The biggest problem with Islam isn’t so much the number of actively violent actors, but the active or de facto approval they receive from other members of the faith.
Some people around here might know by now that I’m a rather unusual flavor of agnostic, passionate about science but decidedly ambivalent about religion (except when it attempts to tread on the shoes of science). But even I can see radical differences between the dispositions of mainstream Islam and even the most fundamentalist strains of Christianity. The two might be roughly equivalent when it comes to their appeals to the existence of various metaphysical entities, but when it comes to instructions on how to treat the living, there’s not much parallel to be found.
Blacklake on May 14, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Throwing in the Jewish perspective in these comments because lets face it, considering the crap that’s constantly said about Israeli, Jews and Nazis, sometimes I wonder why the Israelis don’t go out and do all the things the Arabs claim they do. You know, bomb indiscriminately, try to kill women and children, throw them all out of israel proper, invade and bomb syria, jordan and Egypt to make greater israel and then make a mountain of arab skulls. I mean peace love and tolerance don’t work so why not go hard the other direction.
There are two reasons, one secular and one religious. The secular reason is that Jews been on the receiving end of such and we honestly can’t imagine doing that to other people. The other is religious; the Torah is very very against such action. That’s murder to a degree unimagineable and the Torah speaks about the horrors of going after women and children in war. There’s one exception and that’s the Amalek who were a tribe that attacked the Hebrews women and children in brutal attacks while we were moving through the desert (sound kinda familiar?). We were commanded by G-d to wipe them out. Beyond that we’re not taught to exterminate whole peoples nor are we commanded to be an especially war-like people. This is unlike the Koran where its kinda there in black and white to go after non believers.
Instapundit has a nice intellectual argument but it really doesn’t stand up to the test of facts or time
Defector01 on May 14, 2007 at 7:59 PM
I don’t want to alienate either of you but family values is something that many people want to conserve hence the conservative movement. I can undertsand to an extent. I was going to emigrate to the South but after reading the comments on this site I would never move to an evangenical community.
aengus on May 14, 2007 at 8:01 PM
After the Warsaw ghetto fell what were they supposed to do to fight back? The Kurds didn’t fight the Baathists at Halabja either. Germany was a Great Power that almost conquered all of Europe twice in forty years. I don’t think a scattered cosmopolitian minority should be despised for its inability to fight back.
aengus on May 14, 2007 at 8:32 PM
I have tried twice now to quote a few sentences from Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” which puts an end to this assertion that they were Christians or believed in God at all. They were Pagans. Their stated goal was to destroy Christianity in Germany and replace it with paganism. If you care about the truth, go and find a copy of the 30th anniversary edition and read page 240. The HA filter must be picking up N..i or Hi..er and preventing the post.
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2007 at 8:33 PM
The irony, of course, is that Glenn was making the exactly opposite point… he wasn’t implying that fundamentalist Christians are prone to violence. Rather, he was making the point that positive reinforcement of violence will lead others who may not be inclined toward violent behavior–like fundamentalist Christians–to engage in that behavior.
DaveS on May 14, 2007 at 8:36 PM
No we won’t. We serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Muslim-mass-murderers serve the moon god of Arabia. Big dif. You know a tree by its fruit.
Mojave Mark on May 14, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Thanks, Bryan: Finally, someone Gets It
to those who disagree, go blow yourelves up, or worse
Janos Hunyadi on May 14, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Glenn Reynolds is one of those people who is so good on so many things that to have him fall back on “conventional wisdom” in the discussion of religions is like … well, thud. He can do better, if he puts his mind to it. He shouldn’t be party to the Left’s current meme, to link Wahabbists with Christians by a suggestive use of “fundamentalists.”
naliaka on May 14, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Almost 5 hours from the original post and finally someone’s getting somewhere!
What the agrieved Christians are expressing here is:
A fundamentalist Islamist would kill to advance his religion, a fundamentalist Christian would not!
What is a “fundamentalist”? Someone who strictly follows the faith-principles that are fundamental to their faith.
As Bryan is saying, it is fundamental to the Islamic faith to kill infidels, but it is fundamentally antithetical to the Christian faith to kill unbelievers or anyone. So suggesting that comparison is INVALID!
To reason from an invalid assumption – as Instapundit has – at minimum destroys his argument and at worst perpetuates a vicious myth.
[Here's where Allah intones, "you seem to be coming awfully close to claiming that Christians would never ever never ever - HUUUUUUUUUH - never ever never ever kill. . ."] Yes Allah, it is self-evident that there are and have been sincere Christians who kill. That’s true even if wackos like E. Rudolph aren’t included (rightly) in the category. But among genuine Christians this is a very rare individual offense. Employing the individual exception as support for the “possibility” of a violent Christian movement is beneath your intellect.
P.S. Esthier, you have made an admirably valiant effort to enlighten a contentious few who frequent the comments on this site. It is with a sigh that I say, Pearls. Swine.
The Ritz on May 14, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »