Talk:Christian terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian terrorism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
  1. September 2004 – October 2005
  2. January 2006 – September 2006
  3. October 2006 – February 2007
  4. April 2007 – Dec 2007

Contents

[edit] NLFT: Christian Terrorism?

Is the NLFT really a Christian terror organization? According the the sources cited its goal is establishment of an independent state. Moreover, it is not even exclusively Christian. Also according to one of the cited sources, about 10 percent of the top ranking NLFT cadres are non-Christians. Based on this it would appear that it is a nationalist terrorist group made up mostly of Christians. It doesn't seem to meet the academic criteria for this categorization. Mamalujo (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War & proselytization section

This section has been removed and reinstated a couple of times. Since this is a controversial topic, I'm taking it here in hopes of reaching a consensus. I'm not certain if this meets the strict definition of terrorism, since no violence occurs directly. It is clearly a willful violation of law, however. Any thoughts on the section? Snowfire51 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only does it not meet a strict definition of terrorism, it does not even approach meeting a very loose definition of the term. It has no place in the article.Mamalujo (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Hoffman's quote inaccurately represented

Bruce Hoffman in no way suggests that "there must be some sort of clerical figures involved in some leadership roles" to meet the definition of religious terrorism. In context, Hoffman said, "I think the main question is really what role does religion play in the justification and legitimization of violence. 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."[1] It is not necessary for clerical figures to be involved to define acts of religious terrorism. Religious bias defines the crime of religious terrorism. The swastika/rock hate crime described in the article did not involve clerical figures, yet, because the men were motivated in part by religious bias, by legal definition, the act was one of religious terrorism.66.57.188.0 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoffman reference non-specific to Christian terrorism

"Christian terrorism is terrorism by those whose motivations and aims have a predominant Christian character or influence"[1] Pg. 90 of Inside Terrorism makes no specific references to Christian terrorism.66.57.191.240 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Reference

"Some people protest against use of the term "Christian Terrorism" and 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, much like many who oppose the term Islamic terrorism." The article cited by Lowell Ponte makes no specific reference to the term 'Christian terrorism' being a false pretext. The quote by Lowell Ponte is specific to Eric Rudolph: "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."[2] The article also includes the quote by Michael Barkun, professor of political science at Syracuse University and a consultant to the FBI on Christian extremist groups, "Based on what we know of Rudolph so far, and admittedly it’s fragmentary, there seems to be a fairly high likelihood that he can legitimately be called a Christian terrorist."66.57.189.5 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OR and other inappropriate citation re definition of Xian Terrorism

The citation to the federal regulations is inappropriate. First it is original research. Second, it doesn't define the term "terrorism" for a general purpose but only as it is used within that regulation which pertains to the FBI. Third, even if it was intended to be a general definition of terrorism, it is not a definition of religious or Christian terrorism (that jump requires the inappropriate synthesis with the next OR cite to the FBI site). Fourth, the definition for purposes of that federal regulation is only applicable to the U.S. Actually there are more problems with the definition and the cites which support them (i.e. hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism), but that should be enough to show that they are not proper sources for this article.Mamalujo (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment of original research is incorrect. The regulations are properly cited.66.57.189.5 (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to the following excerpt from [WP:OR]:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

The material at the begining of the article does not comply with this policy. It required analytic, interpretive and explanatory input from the editor, which input I can tell you, as an attorney, was done incorrectly from a legal standpoint. Moreover, it also require other analysis. There is no question that the intro is OR. Also, the sources being federal regulation and the FBI would only be applicable to the U.S., even if they weren't misinterpreted. The info purportedly supported by the second source make an erroneous leap from hate crimes to terrorism. The material has to go. The info sourced from Hoffman is, despite the claimed flaws, vastly better. It specifically deals with religious terrorism and comes from a reliable secondary source. If you feel it is misinterpreted, please edit it. I'm going to delete the material source to the federal regs and the FBI. Please don't revert it. It is plainly inappropriate. If we must, we'll have to pursue other avenues.Mamalujo (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote by Hoffman not specific to Christian terrorism

The article is not improved by references which are misrepresented.66.57.189.5 (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"The excerpt from Hoffman is as follows:
"I think the main question is really what role does religion play in the justification and legitimization of violence. 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....
"Now you do of course have clerical figures in Islam, in Judaism, in white supremacist Christian Churches in the United States, using liturgy to justify violence, including Bin Laden citing the Quran again, a perverse interpretation of it."
I don't think the article's intro misinterprets him at all. He says the "key" to whether it is religious terrorism is whether they are using religious liturgy or scriptures to justify the violence and whether there is clerical involvement. He is plainly talking about Christian terroism (as well as Jewish and Islamic). In fact the question was about Christian terrorism specifically and he refers to Christian terrorism later in the discussion as well. Where is the misinterpretation?Mamalujo (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The continued misrepresentation of religious terrorism serves no benefit to this article nor to the public seeking information on the topic of religious/Christian terrorism. Contorting the reference made by Hoffman puts forth a slanted perspective. Not all religious terrorism involves 'clerics' or the officially ordained authorities of established orthodoxy. What is 'key' in any situation is the 'instruments' being used. An orchestra can still perform a symphony even if there are some 'key' instruments missing. Substitutions can be made. For instance unordained followers of religious terrorist organizations might act as 'leaders', promoting beliefs and instigating violence 'whether' there are clerics involved or not. Whether indicates alternatives to possibilities and not an imperative. Hoffman is not indicating that clerical involvement is essential to religious terrorism, only that clerical involvement is one possible element to be considered when assessing religious terrorist activities. Including Hoffman's quote in full is much more informative than paraphrasing it which implies more than what is actually being conveyed in the original context.66.57.189.234 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoffman's quote in no way indicates that clerical figures MUST be involved for terrorism to be 'considered' religious terrorism. The paraphrasing is vague and misleading in general, but more precisely, the term 'considered' which can in vernacular language connote 'inclusion' within a group, more precisely indicates that which is regarded as opinion or point of view and not that which is crucial or vital to association or connection to a group, in this case religious or specifically Christian terrorism. Therefore, Hoffman is merely submitting that participation of clerics is something assessed as part of various factors associated with religious terrorism and not as essential, crucial, or vital to religious terrorism.66.57.188.198 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In reference to involvement of clerical leaders in Christian based terrorism, "...the concept of leaderless resistance has been adopted by many right-wing extremist groups. The capability for lone terrorists to launch deadly attacks was demonstrated notoriously by TimothyMcVeigh, the 1995 Oklahoma bomber"[3]specifically supporters of the Christian Patriot and Militia movements. This does NOT support the misrepresentation of Hoffman's statement regarding the NECESSARY involvement of clerical leaders.66.57.188.198 (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that Hoffman's definition does support those group as "Christian" terrorists. In fact, I think in some of his writing he has specifically identified them as regligious terrorists. There are ministers involved in the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements actively inciting religious and racial hatred.Mamalujo (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoffman's quote as paraphrased misrepresents religious inspired terrorism in general, not only Christian terrorism, particularly in regard to 'lone wolf terrorists' who act alone and not in conjuction with clerics. Also the paraphrasing disregards the 'leaderless resistance' adopted by many terrorist groups. Use of deceptive information to promote a distorted view is tantamount to gaslighting visitors to the Wiki site on Christian Terrorism.66.57.188.150 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Christian Terrorism

Arguements opposing the very title of the article should be relegated to the talk page or a specific article should be created to focus on semantics rather than bogging down the issues of violence related to religious zeal and Christianity specifically.KDACAPELLA (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing in this article

  • Wikipedia must be neutral, and cannot favour Christianity over Islam. This article must use the same criteria for inclusion as Islamic terrorism.:
    Islamic terrorism...is terrorism...perpetrated by a person or group identifiably Islamic and/or...
  • If you feel that this is overly broad, and that any group that expresses a desire to unify or build a nation should be excluded, then take it up on Talk:Islamic_terrorism. To do otherwise is blatant POV-pushing with the goal of eliminating Christian terror groups whilst including Islamic ones.
  • The content in the lead explaining that religion is not the sole motivator are not specific to Christian terrorism, so I moved it to Religious_terrorism#Criticism_of_the_concept_of_religious_terrorism. Again, to include such defensive quotes in the lead, which aren't even specific to Christian terrorism, and to not include similar statements in the lead of Islamic terrorism, is blatant POV pushing.
  • Wikipedia must be neutral, and cannot favour Christianity over Islam. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You are somewhat correct. Even the intro sentence at that article basically said that Islamic terrorism includes any terrorism committed by an Islamic person. That is, of course, unquestionably false. I have addressed it on that article's talk page, and if an editor there does not correct it shortly, I will do so. But you should not use an error there to make this article less factually accurate, or to spread your POV. There has previously been discussion here about N. Ireland. The result was that it was not inlcuded. I pointed out that Hoffman, a leading expert in religious terrorism pointed out that it is not really religious terrorism. Your personal opinion aside, it does not belong in the article. Neither do all kinds of other additions belong where no appropriate source has identified them as Christian terrorists. The fact that they are Christian and have committed an act of terror alone does not make them fit within the term.Mamalujo (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
A reliable source - Professor Juergensmeyer, an expert on religious violence, Terror in the Mind of God published by University of California Press, has identified Northern Ireland violence as religious terrorism: "residents of Belfast and London... live with acts of religious terrorism: shocking, disturbing incidents of violence laced with the passion of religion - in these cases, Christianity"[2]:19 and "The violence in Northern Ireland is justified by still other theological positions, Catholic and Protestant." You may personally disagree with his assessment, and you are of course free to add reliably sourced content that disagrees with Juergensmeyer, but you cannot exclude relevant and reliably sourced material from this article.
All that aside, I do understand why it is desirable to separate nationalism, but I do not realistically think it is possible to do so in many cases - for example, see this; many experts believe that there is no difference between religious and political terrorism when both characteristics are shared by some particular group.
I also note that Hoffmann's definition is that of a single person. Given that there are several hundred definitions of terrorism, I'm sure that we can find some definitions of religious terrorism that widen the scope (Juergensmeyer almost certainly has some different definition which should be checked). Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There are number of problems with some of the groups listed, some are not Christian but a mixture of many different beliefs common to animism and witchcraft, The group that wants the ten commands is comical if not very tragic for all the violence - they have broken every one of the commandments and have many different spirit guides, even a strong atheist source says they are not Christian and a leading Christian publication also says the same, they pray in the direction of mecca and mix Christian and Islamic prayers and rituals with superstitious repetition. The other group followed spirits and held clearly animist beliefs, which commonly absorb other practices into them. Other groups are not motivated by christen ideas but have a small number of individuals that use religion as a cover. There have to be over 100,000 Christian groups in the world, lets at least find some terrorists for this page that are truly motivated by Christianity the same goes for the page on Islam. 10:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether you, personally, believe that these groups are Christian or not is irrelevant. They say that they are Christian. Reliable sources have identified them as being Christian. If you have some reliable sources that say they aren't, then it may be appropriate to add them to this article. But eliminating them from this article is like eliminating groups from Islamic terrorism because they represent Wahhabism and not "true Islam". Christian Identity are certainly not mainstream Christians, in fact, none of the groups here are mainstream Christian, and all have used syncretism to pull together their own beliefs with Christianity. So if you eliminate groups on that basis, you will end up eliminating every group. The NPOV violation with that approach as contrasted to the Islamic terrorism article is clear. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added an overview of Juergensmeyer's definition. When he writes about a religious "world view" he seems to be saying that anything that pits people of one religion against another would class as religious terrorism. He is another expert who agrees that in these acts religion can't be separated from politics: "religion is not innocent. But it does not ordinarily lead to violence. That happens only with the coalescence of a peculiar set of circumstances - political, social, and ideological - when religion becomes fused with violent expressions of social aspirations, personal pride, and movements for political change."
As far as I can tell, your argument that groups with geopolitical goals should be eliminated from this list will mean that groups like Hamas should be removed from Islamic terrorism, as their goals are primarily related to the existence of the state of Israel. Is that correct? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overbroad Definition of Christian Terrorism based on a fringe theory

Despite the consensus (both in this article and in the academic community) that N. Ireland is not an instance of religious terrorism, a single editor insists upon constantly reinserting it and other groups which most commentators do not consider religious terrorists because their overwhelming motivation is secular. With regard to N. Ireland, Mark Juergensmeyer, the authority cited for the overbroad inclusion within this article, despite the fact that he asserts it is religious violence, admits,"most observers question to what degree religion is actually at the heart of the dispute." Juergensmeyer also admits that Gerry Adams and another top leader of Sinn Fein considered themselves "engaged in an anticolonial struggle that has nothing to do with religion." One commentator notes that Juergensmeyer "while addressing the religious element that is often present in many secular terrorist groups and the degree to which this is a factor, arguably risks misrepresenting such group’s aspirations and motivations, and, as a result, mislabeling them in calling them religious terrorists." The same commentator noted "such groups are overwhelmingly motivated by a political not a religious imperative. As such, they should be considered secular rather than religious terrorists." In light of the fact that the N. Ireland groups were excluded from the article as a matter of consensus, that the theory including them is a fringe theory (which should not be included by Wikipedia policy), I suggest they be excluded. The same should be the case with other questionable classifications. Some of the recent additions are not even considered terrorists by reputable sources (MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base) much less Christian terrorists. Fringe theories should not be included in the article.Mamalujo (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Juergensmeyer is not fringe - he is a highly respected academic with hundreds of relevant publications to his name. Your personal opinion that he is fringe is irrelevant. If you have reliable sources that disagree with him, then please add them. But to constantly say that he must be removed, is plain POV pushing for the purpose of shortening this list. The cited source in which he regards N.Ireland terrorism as religious in nature is published by the University of California Press. To quote WP:SOURCES "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks;" This kind of author and publisher are the best type of source Wikipedia has. Your repeated reverts are completely inappropriate and bordering on vandalism. I also note once again that your standards for inclusion in this article are orders of magnitude higher than those for Islamic terrorism, and that this is a clear violation of neutrality. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note that in we have several references to experts who believe that geopolitical and religious terrorism can't be separated. You believe that they can be, and that you can pick and choose which cases to include in this article, and by extension, which experts are right and wrong. Why should we follow your opinion, which is that of an anonymous Wikipedia editor, rather than these experts? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Rather than edit war over this, I have requested an independent opinion on WP:RSN. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Following comment on WP:RSN
“ Juergensmeyer is certainly a reliable source... what we would call an 'expert' in the field. If there is a question as to the factualness of something he says, it can be expressed as his opinion ("according to Mark Juergensmeyer... etc.") ”
I have re-added N. Irish groups. The other groups all fit his definition as well. You may personally disagree with him, but he is a notable expert and you aren't. If you have experts that do disagree with him, then it may be appropriate to add them to the article. This brings the article more into line with the inclusion policies of Islamic terrorism, making Wikipedia more neutral. I note that if you were so concerned with neutrality, rather than pro-Christian POV pushing, then you would have removed all the groups from Islamic terrorism that have stated geopolitical goals. The fact that you haven't done this attests to your POV. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

this artical has turned into crap. Take the last section for one example, the sources says "Habash told me he rejected Christianity then" but we have a large chunk of of text trying to make him into a Christian motivated terrorist and this problem is spread out over the entire page. Hardyplants (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the quote by quoting it without context. Having no time to think about religion because you are homeless (what he said) is not the same thing as rejecting God entirely (what you think he said). 129.215.37.132 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Go back a read the time article, it says "I remember asking one of the soldiers where we were supposed to go." Habash told me he rejected Christianity then. "I was all the time imagining myself as a good Christian, serving the poor. When my land was occupied, I had no time to think about religion." not God but Christianity. your pulling words out of the air and adding them to the time piece. Hardyplants (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication on his Wikipedia article, or anywhere else, that he gave up Christianity. Don't you think that if Habash converted to atheism, or became a Muslim, (I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming he was), then it would've been mentioned somewhere?! He was a very notable figure, such a conversion would get more than a passing comment in a single article! This is getting ridiculous. 129.215.37.85 (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Then include that quote in the article. However, the quote implies that he only rejected Christianity at that single point in time. In fact, his Christianty was notable enough for TIME magazine to call him "Terrorism's Christian Godfather". TIME is certainly a reliable source, and statements from them can be included in this article. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topics for discussion

"A personal point of view held by a Chrisitan like yours truly which will be shared by many other Christians is that the so called "Christian terrorism" label is not religious or Christian terrorism but actually social unrest and terrorist activities for social-economic-political motives undertaken by Christian individuals and groups in the modern world or by violent sects which have no relation with organised Christian religion.

It is simply blasphemous to say that these activities are the interpretation of words in the bible or the paramilitary activities of formal Christian churches and their clergy.

Christian terrorism in the middle and dark ages should not be termed terrorism but imperial invasions which had the blessings of religious leaders who had the interests of kingdoms and the Christian communities and subjects in mind. The tone of the articles below indicate a systematic claim that the Church which formed the Holy Roman Empire was a form of terrorism. In everybody's opinion imperialism was the social order when the word democracy was not invented and terrorism meant poor peasants organising a riot or boycott.

Islamic terrorism are those actions organised by the theocracy from theocratic nations like Iran. Osama-bin-laden may call himself a Jehadi fighting against Christian infidels but that can be called Islamic terrorism only because it was sponsored and covertly supported by the entire community of Islamists in the Middle-East region.

The remainder of the article below is not written by me and should be considered extremely inaccurately labeled Christian terrorism."

The above submissions are more relevant to discussion and a detailed examination or investigation to determine the validity of the claims is recommended.66.57.189.33 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Different people have different beliefs. It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to say whether someone is right or wrong, but to merely repeat arguments that have been published in reliable sources (appropriately weighted with regard to the source, of course). As far as I know, no expert has said that Islamic terrorism must be organised by Islamic theocracies, and vice versa nobody has made a similar argument about Christianity. The text quoted above represents some Wikipedia editors personal opinion, and as such is not suitable for inclusion here. If a notable expert had said the same things, published in a reliable source, then that would be different. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Those lower on the totum pole pushing the false consensus' agenda even more ferociously and crudely than those at the top? Interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.196.240 (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoons and Christian Riots section

I'm wondering if the inclusion of riots in Nigeria really counts as Christian "terrorism" or, really, if it's terorism at all. I notice, of course, that Muslim rioting in response to the cartoons (or the murder of Theo Van Gogh) aren't in the Islamic Terrorism article. Also, the second paragraph of that section doesn't seem to be talking about Christians at all but rather about attempts by Muslims to murder the cartoonist. Either way, I hesitate to chop out sections of an article as contentious as this one, so I figured I'd bring the comment here. Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Our personal opinions aren't really important here - the way that Wikipedia works is that if a reliable source reports that it is terrorism, or reports that someone claimed it was, then it would be reportable here. In the case of the Nigeria riots, if the citation doesn't say that it was an act of terror, then remove it. There's been some edit warring on this article over the last three days by two people with opposing points of view; check the history and how the article was 19th Feb. Some of the new content is fine, some is not (e.g. I'm failing to see how the "Passion Play" is related to terrorism). Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just War Theory as rationale for violence

The request for 'citation' in the of attribution of violence to the 'just war theory' seems a little overkill to me. Doesn't it follow naturally/logically that an individual who uses violence in an attempt to advance his cause believes in the theory that there is at least some situation (his situation being the prime example) where using violence is justified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.196.240 (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Just War theory has a lot more to it than "sometimes violence is justified", though. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tsk Tsk Northern Ireland Terrorism

Once again someone jumps to biased conclusions about the situation: which so many Outside my country do not understand properly or have been lied to profusely about by the media. The situation is based along socio-political lines as well as religious. The conflict may have been much further enhanced and the people divided more by religion. The key words for the situation are not Catholic and Protestant, but rather loyalist and Republican. The Infamous words of James Craig "It is my proud boast that we are a Protestant state for a Protestant people," perfectly reflect the political times of division where most loyalists went North when Ireland was divided to maintain their prosperity they made their new home. Most of North of Ireland was already Loyalist and Protestant. To know why Protestants became the rich and Powerful I suggest a thorough study made of Ireland from 1600s onward from the Ulster Plantation to the Penal laws and the remaining powerfull estates afterwards. The Irish Roman Catholic was treated largely as the Untermenschen (even up to the latter half of the 20th century in Northern Ireland) and this is why it must also be understood as a class war based on the aforementioned lines and which political ideology would benefit either one the most. A Unified Ireland would lend strength against the abuses against Nationalist (largely Roman Catholic population) and this would be Republican Ideology whereas a continued Union with Britain would let the Powerful class keep their power and this would be Unionist Ideology. The struggles of both could be summed up then by UNITED IRELAND and UNION WITH BRITAIN. If it were based on religion then they would be still killing each other only on the basis of things like transubtantiation and holy communion . However this does not feature; as I would not have to explain to anyone who has done more than a Half-Arsed research about this country. Now - Until someone can prove that the conflict was about transubstantiation or the like (which they cant) or anything other than the fact that the combatants were nominally Catholic or Protestant I will delete and continue to delete the reference to this conflict regarding Religious Terrorism. Kedane (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason given to remove this paragraph is irrealistic. "How could any real christian be a terrorist?" Is that serious? Moez talk 02:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does make sense and evidently you have NOT read the part of the paragraph above. This was and still is my reason for removing it. NOT my remarks relating to Jesus. Ill remove that if it helps make more sense. Kedane (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC) To the Person who keeps reverting back Northern Ireland to this section; there is a relevant part of wikipedia to which the groups in Northern Ireland belong - Look up Nationalist and Unionist terrorism. It is included there. And because it was a conflict based on those two political spectrums rather than religious affiliation (not necessarily belief) that is where they belong. The onus is on you to provide a good reason to assume that the conflict, (which claimed the lives of mostly British security personnel) had anything to do with religion. At times you will find some (not many) Catholics who were not Republican and were prepared to fight on the side of British security. And you will also find some (not many) Protestants who were prepared to fight for National Liberation from Britain. I will remove the section once again. This is an encyclopedia. Not a Joke. Information needs to be encyclopedic.Kedane (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unpublished synthesis?

Greetings. Help me understand how and why other editors see this article as an "unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources." With so many references and relatively few {{cn}}, I am having trouble understanding the need for that tag. --Kukini háblame aquí 14:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

I removed the following text because it deals exclusively with religious terrorism or otherwise, not the specific subject at hand; much as an article about the Green Bay Packers doesn't need information on the history of football. Furthermore, it is laced with weasel words.

Condoning violence as a valid means of achieving radical change is based on "the perception that justice may reside with those who have been voiceless before."[citation needed] Proponents of violence might quote Scripture to back their cause citing examples of prophets who urged Israel to rebel against tyrants or Jesus' violent action against the money-changers, but pointedly ignore St. Paul's injunction in his Epistle to the Romans to "let every person be subject to the governing authorities." The support of violence is predicated on a just war theory[citation needed] which presumes that war is moral if there is a good cause at stake. "The theology of violence considers itself beyond the law. It needs no explanation and gives none."[4]
Mark Juergensmeyer suggests that religious terrorism consists of acts that terrify, the definition of which is provided by the witnesses - the ones terrified - and not by the party committing the act; accompanied by either a religious motivation, justification, organization, or world view.[5]:4-10 However, while there is yet to be a universal definition adopted for terrorism, the United Nations' General Assembly has constructed twelve major multilateral conventions constituting the main elements of international law which rely upon operational definitions based on specific terrorist activities including bombings, hijackings, hostage-taking, and covert financing of terrorist activities.[6] Religion is sometimes used in combination with other factors, and sometimes as the primary motivation. Religious terrorism is intimately connected to current forces of geopolitics.
Hoffman argues that to be considered religious terrorism the perpetrators must use religious scriptures to justify or explain their violent acts or to gain recruits and there must be some sort of clerical figures involved in some leadership roles.[7]"Although religion is not a single, simple causal factor in terrorist violence, religious elements often feature strongly in the belief systems associated with terrorist violence, and can also feature in other important fostering factors for terrorist violence, such as the use of rhetoric."[8]
Terrorism can be defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”[9] Terrorist groups often portray causes in religious and cultural terms to conceal political goals, generate popular support and silence opposition.[10] However, “those called "terrorists" by one side in a conflict may be viewed as "patriots," "freedom fighters," or "servants of God" by the other."[11]

— BQZip01 — talk 22:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

I propose removing the NPOV tag recently placed in the middle of the article. A tag is supposed to be an inducement for a discussion. Since nothing is discussed (and the section to which it pertains seems to be fine), I see no reason to keep this tag. It will be removed in 1 week if no discussion ensues. — BQZip01 — talk 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As it was added without comment and in a unanimous manner, I deleted it right away. It should be brought back only with discussion, in my view. --Kukini háblame aquí 13:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] titles not really neutral sounding

Islamic terrorism doesnt have titles like "Violence, Virgins and Villainy" but those are the sorts of rhyming titles I'm seeing here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.13.165 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Islamic terrorism does not have such titles...

...but neither does this article...

— BQZip01 — talk 00:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does this article mention the fact that it's disputed among Christian groups whether these terrorists are Christian.--69.234.180.195 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have any citations of this dispute, published in reliable sources, then add them to the "criticism of the concept of Christian terrorism" section. But please make sure it's appropriate criticism - there are Christians who say that George W. Bush doesn't follow the teachings of Christ, and there are Protestants who state that Catholics aren't Christian and vice versa... since there is no scientific definition of a "Christian", who can say whether someone who claims to be a Christian is wrong? 129.215.37.20 (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on your definition. If your definition is anyone who claims to be, then I suppose I can claim to be green and that would make me green. If you mean someone who believes in Christ and that the Bible is the word of God, then the racist groups aren't Christian. Although God is the one who ultimately determines who is Christian and who is not, murder and racism are condemned in Christian beliefs. Here is the debate: conservapedia.com/KKK christianfrauds.blogspot.com therefinersfire.org/challenging_ku_klux_klan.htm
There is also a debate as to whether they actually kill people. Look at these claims: shelleytherepublican.com/2006/10/03/the-ku-klux-klan-missunderstood-culture-of-christian-america.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.213.239 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
None of those are reliable sources. Please read WP:RS and cite some newspapers or academic journals "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
Murder may be condemned in the Bible, but killing isn't - and that is how these people see themselves, as soldiers fighting a war, rather than murderers. If Jesus really did prohibit killing (which depends on your interpretation of Turning the other cheek) there would be no Christians serving in the military, and a Christian president couldn't start a pre-emptive war. Since both of those things have happened, obviously most people think Jesus supported killing in some cases.
The crimes committed by KKK members, including murder, have been well documented. A claim that they haven't killed anyone isn't credible in the face of the massive body of contradictory evidence. 129.215.37.149 (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
None of them were reliable sources? I thought the only one that could be unreliable was the last one. But racism is also condemned in the Bible, please see Exodus 22:21“Do not mistreat a foreigner or oppress him, for you were foreigners in Egypt" and Luke 3:28"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." In addition, how could the KKK view what they're doing as anything other than murder? We are all equals according to the Bible, also the Song of Solomon was about a white man and black woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.179.16 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There are also quotes, particularly from the Old Testament, which says things like "it's okay to have slaves as long as they're from a different tribe". But from a more academic perspective, even Christian theologians have been unable to agree on exactly what a "Christian" is - see Christian#Who_is_a_Christian.3F. Many actually argue that only belief is required, and that actions on earth are irrelevant, since ultimately they will be forgiven as long as you have a believe in Jesus and God when you are judged. 129.215.37.129 (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

"Many critics[who?] of Jesus point to verses like Matthew 13:41-2, Luke 12:51-2, 19:27, 22:36 and John 2:5, 15:6 to show that Jesus was neither peaceable nor compassionate." How does this advocate violence among Christians? Matthew 13:36-43 36Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” 37He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Luke 12:49-53 49“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” It is possible he was merely saying that people would be against each other because Christians were going to be persecuted.

19:27 was part of a parable. Luke 19:11-27: 11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. b ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’ 14“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’ 15“He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it. 16“The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’ 17“ ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’ 18“The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’ 19“His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’ 20“Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’ 22“His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’ 24“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’ 25“ ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’ 26“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’ ”--69.234.193.143 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lynchings and mob violence

This section like many is pure OR and synth, none of the sources talk about Christian terrorism or even connect together the ideas that are presented here. Hardyplants (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree about this section, though the reference [12] is clearly talking about Protestant based terrorism against competing religious groups. The reference [13] is actually arguing that some people used religious narratives to oppose lynchings, the reference has been misrepresented here. [14] barely mentions Christianity, the stuff about public marches and minstrel shows is true - the KKK and other groups used them, but I don't see how it's relevant here, it would be better placed under the appropriate group sections. 129.215.37.140 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concept of holy war

A discussion of the concept of holy war seems necessary when talking about the "Theological justification of Christian violence" - it is important to recognise that before this turning point Christian martyrs were generally killed by other people, rather than the ones doing the killing. However, it has been removed twice by User:Hardyplants without any discussion.[2][3] As he appears to edit war quite frequently on this article I'm loathe to revert him.

So I will ask : how can this pivotal turning point in the Christian theological view of violence not be mentioned? Before this event, killing as a Christian wasn't possible, afterwards it was. Surely that needs to be mentioned somewhere in this article? 129.215.37.129 (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Christians served in the Roman army since the first century, so the synthesis of that paragraph is factually incorrect and is not tied to any sources that support those claims. Also the article is on terrism not violence or war. Hardyplants (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, they probably didn't serve in the Roman army that far back, since Christianity was only legalised under Roman law in 313. And even then, a few Christians may have served, but there was no overall theological justification for Christians that would give them spiritual rewards for performing acts of violence, which is what the holy war concept introduced by the Pope enabled. It was an essential pivotal point that changed mainstream Christian attitudes towards violence forever. I take your point that the article is on terrorism, but terrorism obviously depends on the application of violence. Alternatively, we could start a new article on Christian violence? It might be a useful catch-all for disputed content like this. 129.215.37.129 (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)