Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Contents 1 This "article" reeks of denial 2 Deletion 3 Northern Ireland, Nagaland, Karen Homeland 4 NPOV misapplied 5 Created Archives 6 Edit War 7 Stephen Knapp's Page on the Nagaland Rebels 8 Hypocricy of Hipocricies 9 Requested move 9.1 Survey 9.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 9.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 9.2 Discussion 10 sections to include for expansion 11 Blogs etc. 12 Weasel words

This "article" reeks of denial

The title is dishonest. "Christian extremists terrorists"? Is there any other type?

On the page, "Islamic extremist terrorism", it says:

    Where such terrorist activity aims to establish an Islamic 
    theocracy and impose religious law (Sharia), it is sometimes 
    termed Islamist terrorism. Other widely used terms are 
    Islamic terrorism and Islamic extremism.

Why is there such hypocrisy? "Islamic extremist terrorism" is "also called Islamic terrorism" but "Christian extremist terrorism" is NOT called "also called christian terrorism"? The wording implies something different.

Also, the wording suggests that christian terrorists are "not true christians", which is bullshit. Saying "James Kopp isn't a true christian" is as stupid as saying "Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a true christian". A christian is someone who believes there was a jesus christ and claims to follow "his" teaching. That is equally true of MLK Jr. and James Kopp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.58.53.139 (talk)

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm making the language match now. — coelacan talk — 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The title is still over-categorization, however, and redundant. — coelacan talk — 18:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

The only thing remotely close to "Christian terrorism" included in this article are the actions of the racist Christian Identity movement and anti-abortionist extremists in the US. According to the article "Christian terrorism is terrorism carried out in the name of furthering Christian goals or teachings." Neither of these two meet those criteria very well. Abortion has, historically, never been a big Christian issue, and racism and attacks on black people (Christian Identity's main occupation) have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, in fact almost all of the anti-slavery advocates and civil rights activists in Britain and the US over the past 3 centuries have been fervent believers. One does not need to be a Christian at all to endorse racism or oppose abortion. Since racist terrorism and anti-abortion terrorism already have their own articles, I hardly see the need for this article. Until sources from the Bible or classical sources of Christian theology can be provided to the effect that racism and/or anti-abortion are central Christian "goals or teaching" traditionally very important to the faith, I am nominating this article for deletion.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 23:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from; however I think the argument that "Real Christians don't do violent acts" and the corresponding "If they do violent acts, they are not Christian" is a circular argument. As for Christian theology supporting violence, Luke 12:49-53 fits the bill. And, to be fair to Christanity, the article states "Most mainstream Christians consider these acts to be egregious violations of the religion's ethics, and regularly condemn all acts of terrorism including those perpetrated by self-professed Christian terrorists."--something you tried to delete. Samboy 05:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Christian theology supporting violence"...? The proper way to interpret Christian scriptures is to let verses clarify other verses, particularly parallel passages. Luke 12:49-53 confirms the non-literal interpretation of Matthew 10:34. Jesus did not endorse violence, but he warns people about possible family division. For a commentary see tektonics.org and ccel.org. Leah (13 January 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.73.129.135 (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay User:72.184.244.25, now that you've been blocked 24 hours for edit warring, and hopefully cooled down, maybe I can get a word in. You need to understand that just because you left a message on an article's talk page doesn't mean you suddenly have license to start deleting content from the article at your whim. Leaving a message on the talk page is only the beginning of seeking consensus for a controversial change. And if another user reverts your change, even once, that is an indication that you do not have consensus to act. You need to stop reverting immediately and take your issues to the talk page right then, lay it all out, and stop editing that article while a community consensus forms. This can take days, and you'll just have to be patient. Now, as to the content of your issue, I agree that "One does not need to be a Christian at all to endorse racism or oppose abortion." However, if a group takes these stances and claims to be drawing them from Christianity, then we have to take them at their word. It would be WP:original research for us to sit around and make judgments on which of these groups are really motivated by Christianity and which are using it as an excuse, or anywhere in between. It would also be original research for us to even decide that Christianity is ever simply being used as an excuse, or that it's invalid for Christians to engage in terrorism, even in the general sense without naming particular groups. We have to take these groups at their word. That's all that the WP:OR policy allows us to do. — coelacan talk — 14:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Coelacan you write "However, if a group takes these stances and claims to be drawing them from Christianity, then we have to take them at their word. It would be WP:original research for us to sit around and make judgments on which of these groups are really motivated by Christianity and which are using it as an excuse, or anywhere in between." I would like to see proof that the abortion clinic bombers and/or Christian Identity people explain the reason why they do what they by saying something along the lines of "I do this for God" or "I do this for Christianity." For instance, sine Rudolph admitted he prefers Nietschze to the Bible, I think he can be struck from the list. He does indeed seem to be a believer, but just because one is a believer doesn't mean the terrorism was carried out for religion. See the discussion below about the PKK and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Just because they are mostly composed of Muslims does not mean that the PKK do what they do for Allah. Most clinic attackers claim they are motivated by Christian love for the unborn, but they do not cite the Bible in their attacks and do not claim to do it for God or Christianity-- they do it for the unborn (according to them). Again, we already have Wiki pages on Ethnic violence and Violence in the abortion movement. I do not see why information about these types of things cannot simply be moved to those places. Ditto with the freedomite movement, they do what they do not for God or for Christianity, but their extremist interpretation of libertarianism. They are not religious terrorists, but political terrorists.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've been blocked a second time, at your account as well as your IP, maybe you'll take my advice seriously. You need to understand that just because you left a message on an article's talk page doesn't mean you suddenly have license to start deleting content from the article at your whim. Leaving a message on the talk page is only the beginning of seeking consensus for a controversial change. And if another user reverts your change, even once, that is an indication that you do not have consensus to act. You need to stop reverting immediately and take your issues to the talk page right then, lay it all out, and stop editing that article while a community consensus forms. This can take days, and you'll just have to be patient. If you do not understand what I am talking about, read WP:CONSENSUS. As to Rudolph, he affirmed that he is a Catholic, and you don't get to enforce a litmus test on who's Christian and who's not. A Christian might prefer Where The Wild Things Are to the Bible, and this would not be a reflection on their dedication to Christianity (it would only be a reflection on the literary quality of the Bible). If the groups affirm that they are Christian groups, that's it, that's enough, we don't have the right to demand that they provide Biblical justification for their actions. The fact that they declare themselves to be Christian groups is the only metric for inclusion in this list. They don't need citations, they don't need Biblical exegesis, they don't need any of your litmus tests. To demand anything other than their own opinion of themselves is to impose our own analysis and this is a violation of WP:No Original Research. And by the way, tell me again how I'm just trying to "poke the Islamophobes". That was cute of you. — coelacan talk — 01:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have completely ignored what I wrote below, so I'm going to repost much of it. You say "If the groups affirm that they are Christian groups, that's it, that's enough, we don't have the right to demand that they provide Biblical justification for their actions. The fact that they declare themselves to be Christian groups is the only metric for inclusion in this list." Yet I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that the IRA (and all subsidary Irish republican militants), NLFT, UVF (and all other loyalist militants), or Eric Rudolph, or any of the abortion bombers have "declare[d] themselves to be Christian [terrorist] groups." Please, I would really love to see a citation to the the effect that the PIRA do what they do for Jesus or the Catholic Church. No such event has ever taken place. Again, if you knew anything about the conflict, you would know that all through the 60s the IRA was a Marxist organization, and Marxism continued to be a big influence on the Republican movement, especially with the creation of the INLA (jeeze, I forgot how much Marx loved the Catholic church). Only someone very ignorant of the situation in Northern Ireland could actually label either side as "Christian terrorists." Please, I'm begging you, actually do some reading on the subject, talk to some Irish people, something. As for the NLFT, again I would like some citation to the effect that they claim to be a "Christian" or a "Christian terrorist ogranization" from a reputable source (not Christian Aggression). God's Army is clearly an ethnic/nationalist group, but I'm willing to let them stay if a citation can be found to the effect that they claim to act on Christian principles, for Christianity, etc. BTW, both you and samboy seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am a Christian believer, and I'd like to dispell that right now: I'm an atheist (an ex-fundy atheist, in fact).--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 17:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The diff between your last two edits is pertinent. The fact is that we don't need them to have specifically declared themselves to be "Christian terrorists". Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan will never admit to being terrorists, but we don't fail to categorize them as such. We only need them to be terrorists who declare themselves to be Christian. We can take some time to work out citations for all the groups you dispute, but Eric Robert Rudolph, for instance, is easy. Simply being a member of Christian Identity and mailing letters for Army of God is enough, as the groups' names themselves are the declarations. — coelacan talk — 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly KKK doesn't work as an example at this time, since it's not in the article these days, but the general point remains. Governments and media classify terrorists when the terrorist doesn't choose it, Christianity is a label taken unto onesself. — coelacan talk — 04:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's get started. Anything about the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UDF, in NI claiming to be "Christian groups" would be appreciated. As for Eric Rudolph, I will you refer you to my post below once again: just because someone is Christian and a terrorist does not mean they are a "Christian terrorist" (illud est one who committs terrorism for Christianity, the Christian God, Jesus, etc.)! By this criterion, the radical left-wing environmentalist terrorist group Earth Liberation Front would have to be classified as a "Christian terrorist group." Since this article is clearly meant to establish parity between the evils of Muslims and "Islamophobic" Christians I'll give you two examples from the Middle East: the PKK and the PFLP, both very famous (or infamous) Middle Eastern terrorist groups. Although their membership is made up overwhelmingly of Muslims, they do not claim to act on Islamic principles, wish to enact sharia, etc. (in fact they claim a militant Marxist-Leninism, quite anti-religious) and so are not "Muslim terrorists" despite the fact that they are made up overwhelmingly of Muslims. The same criterion must be applied to Rudolph: did he claim his actions were intended to further the cause of Christianity, that he did them on behalf of Christianity, etc.? If not, than his religion is as irrelevent to his actions as Islam is to the actions of the PKK, a mere fact about him, the same as the fact that he is a man. Despite the fact that he wears glasses, Terry Nicols is not a "glasses terrorist", and unless he claims to have killed those people on the basis of Christianity, Jesus, etc. he is not a "Christian terrorist" despite being a believing Christian.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the above almost a week ago, if I don't get any response I'll assume consensus and begin the process of cleaning up this article.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still disagree. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is, as stated in that article, "It has consistently been the second-largest of the groups forming the Palestinian Liberation Organization". The PLO is generally considered to be a Muslim terrorist organization. The main reason the PKK is not considered a Muslim Terrorist Organization is because they just don't get enough attention from the western media. Samboy 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Samboy, you really should sign your name. According to the Wikipedia article on the PLFP their idealogies are "Secular, Socialist, Marxist-Leninist." How can a "secular" terrorist organization be considered "Muslim terrorists?" Also if you look on the Islamic terrorism page they are not included their. Consnensus had already be achieved for several days when you made your edit, I have no choice but to revert your edits as per Wikipedia's policy. If you want to achieve consensus, you must continue to post and argue on this page. Thank you.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Here is what happened: You proposed a number of changes. Five, count them five different editors have reverted your changes: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Making edits against the wishes of other editors is not what I would call consensus. Samboy 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland, Nagaland, Karen Homeland

As spelled out on their individual Wiki pages, the PIRA (and the INLA, and all of the other NI terrorist groups, loyalist and republican), God's Army, and the NLFT are nationalist/ethnic terrorist groups, not religious groups. They seek a new state of political affairs for their people, not a Christian theocracy. The overriding issues in these conflicts is certainly not religion.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And I've seen it argued that al Qaeda is not Islamic, that their primary motivation is not religious but political, to get Western occupying forces out of Arab lands. But that doesn't mean we can stop calling them Muslim terrorists. We have to take al Qaeda at their word that they are Muslim. And we have to take these other groups at their word that they are Christian. WP:OR demands that we do precisely that. — coelacan talk — 14:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it argued that American Regime is not Christian and Jewish, that their primary motivation is not religious but political, to attack countries in the name of democracy and to attack Pelestinian democracy in the name of dictatorship. But that doesn't mean we can stop calling them Christian and Jewish terrorists. We have to take American Regime at their word that their president Bush says that he is told by God what he is going. And we have to take these other groups at their word that they are Christian. WP:OR demands that we do precisely that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VirtualEye (talk • contribs) 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

You can't make these arguments to keep the Irish Troubles, Nagaland and the Karen in this article and keep the definition of Christian terrorism in the first line: 'Christian terrorism is terrorism carried out in the name of furthering Christian goals or teachings'. They're just not mutually consistent. Please choose which is correct. Trent 900 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about yesterday, I was on a different computer and did not automatically sign in. Anyway, you write "And I've seen it argued that al Qaeda is not Islamic, that their primary motivation is not religious but political, to get Western occupying forces out of Arab lands." This is nonsense, as they clearly want to impose strict Shar'ia law on all Muslims, realize a global caliphate stretching not just across Arab lands, but across all Muslims lands. As has been noted frequently, Osoma is a pan-Islamist, not a pan-Arabist. You say "And we have to take these other groups at their word that they are Christian." but that misses the point. A terrorist group that has Christians in it is not actually a "Christian terrorist group" or else the Earth Liberation Front and many other leftist terrorist groups in the West would have to be labelled "Christian terrorists." Since this whole silly article is meant only to "stick it" to the "Islamophobes" let me give you two more pertinent examples. In the ME there exist two very famous (or infamous) terrorist groups the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Both of these groups are made up overwhelmingly of Muslims, seeking to rid their homelands of what they as foriegn domination, yet neither is a "Muslim terrorist group." Their goals are completely ethnic/nationalist, homlands for their people, and their ideaologies are Marxist-Leninist, not Islamist. The fact that their membership is made up overwhelmingly of Muslims is irrelevant. They do not seek to enact Sharia , so they are not Islamic terrorists, though their members claim to be Muslim and are overwhelmingly Muslim in make up. Anyway you said we have to take them (meaning "at their word that they are Christian." Excuse me, but do you know anything at all about the Northern Ireland conflict, or are you just using this as a pointy stick to beat the "Islamophobes" with? Tell me, when did the PIRA, UUF, UVF, INLA, RIRA, or any other of the various nationalist/unionist terrorist groups announce themselves to be "Christians?" If you knew anything about the conflict, you would know that all through the 60s the IRA was a Marxist organization, and Marxism continued to be a big influence on the Republican movement, especially with the creation of the INLA (geeze, I forgot how much Marx loved the Catholic church). Only someone very ignorant of the situation in Northern Ireland could actually label either side as "Christian terrorists." Please, I'm begging you, actually do some reading on the subject, talk to some Irish people, something. As for the NLFT, again I would like some citation to the effect that they claim to be a "Christian" or a "Christian terrorist ogranization" from a reputable soure (not Christian Aggresion). God's Army is clearly an ethnic/nationalist group, but I'm willing to let them stay if a citation can be found to the effect that they claim to act on Christian principles, for Christianity, etc.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 17:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The PLO is seen as an Islamic terrorist organization. The Kurdistan Workers Party does not get much attention from the western media because they are fighting other Muslims. Samboy 19:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

PLO is seen as Islamic terrorist organization??? By whom? Fox? CNN? CBC and their brainwashed christian and jewish extremists? VirtualEye 08:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The PLO is different than the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Neither Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine nor the PKK have any religious goals at all. I do not see the need to relate all terrorism back to the religion of the terrorist, seems to be an obsession to me.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV misapplied

When I first editted this page with an NPOV tag, there was a line in the opening paragraph disparaging the media for liberal bias by "the net's biggest joker". After marking the page NPOV and reloading, this entry seems to have disappeared. I'm removing the NPOV tag, and apologize for muddying the thread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drmccoy (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Created Archives

Given the sheer length of some of the discussions here, I've gone ahead and created archives. I tried to keep posts together as best I could, but a few folks had gone back and replied to older sections literally a year after it was originally created, which made a nasty gap in a few of them. If you're unsure where your comment went, check both archives and please do not continue discussions in there. If you want to comment on something contained in the archives, create a new topic on the main page here and just link to the old topic for others to read what you're referring to. -- Kesh 04:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

Okay, we appear to have an edit war on our hands. I have reverted to the last revision of the article as it originally was written. Before further edits or reverts, let's discuss this here.

Note: a lack of discussion on the Talk page does not equal consensus. One cannot have consensus from a lack of discussion, so let's start from scratch here: what changes are proposed for this article to make it more encyclopedic? -- Kesh 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rudolph is reported to be tied to Christian Identity, but has now denied it.--Cberlet 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there sources you can cite for this? That's what I created this section for, to discuss points like yours above and try to resolve them. If you can cite a source, that'll go a long way towards helping clean up the article. -- Kesh 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to my post at top of page. VirtualEye 09:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved your comment below this one. Please keep the discussion going down the page, to keep people from being confused as to the order posts were made. -- Kesh 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked for a shred of evidence that the IRA, Posse Comitatus, or the NLFT claim to do what they do for Christianity, Jesus, God, etc., and I have consistently been denied any evidence. All I have been told is that their memebers *might* be Christian, but no proof has been provided that they claim Christianity as their ideologies. And yet, this article remains as is. I supposse on Wikipedia reality need have no relation to the article. Please, please, please, somebody source these claims, or get rid of them.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 23:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input. I'm not sure how this will become part of the article. The IRA, for example, are Christians. They are also terrorists. They would not do the violent acts they do if there was not a religious conflict in norther Ireland. Then again, it is fair to point out that the IRA do, in fact, have secular motives for their behavior. Samboy 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a valid point. The IRA is motivated by the Protestant-Catholic divide in Ireland, which is inherently based on their Christian beliefs. And it is quite obvious that they are a terrorism-based organization. This one seems indisputable, and a simple link to the IRA article should suffice.

Note, however, that simply being Christian and being a terrorist does not necessarily make one a Christian terrorist. Only if the motivation for the terrorism is based in their Christian beliefs would that label apply. For the IRA, I believe that has been established.

I am unfamiliar with the other two organizations in question, and will have to research them (probably tomorrow). Hopefully I can provide a neutral opinion on those, and help settle this matter amicably. -- Kesh 06:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The conflict in Ireland is inherently based in nationalism, not religious factionalism. The latter is a factor, but to ascribe the entire conflict to it is naive and simplistic in the extreme. Nick Cooper 08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a footnote: "The Irish terrorism groups were motivated by nationalistic reasons as much as, if not more than, religious beliefs". Samboy 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Marcus, please stop changing the phrase "non-whites" to "non-white Christians." Your latter version makes it sound as if they only target non-whites who are Christians, leaving other non-whites alone. Simply put, they target anyone who is not white, and not Christian. If anything the phrasing might best be written, "non-whites and non-Christians." -- Kesh 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"They would not do the violent acts they do if there was not a religious conflict in norther Ireland." This is nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Throughout the 50s and 60s the IRA was a Marxist organization, which automatically puts it out of the running for being a "Christian terrorist organization." Secondly what you said is completely untrue. If all religion where gone tomorrow that would not change a thing for the IRA, for them it is not about Prod/Catholic but about British occupation. If 50 years ago all religion ceased to exist the Troubles still would have happened. Two of the IRA's founding "hero" figures" Charles Stuart Parnell and Theobald Wolfe Tone were Protestants, and the IRA editor of the first Gaelic language newspaper was a Protestant. If you had asked anyone, Protestant or Catholic, during the height of the Troubles if the IRA would kill a Prod just for his religion, they would have said "no." Again, to be considered a "Christian terrorist organization" the org must claim to act on Christian principles, for God, for Christianity, etc. The IRA has never done so, and never will. The IRA gladly accepted Protestants into its ranks, and always viewed Protestants as good Irishmen bamboozled into collaborating with the British occupiers. And I'm still waiting for sources in which the Nagaland Rebels claim to kill people for God or Christianity. Ditto with Terry Nichols.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 03:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Irish terrorism groups were motivated by nationalistic reasons as much as, if not more than, religious beliefs".

How come you get to put that in without consensus? It's gone. --MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 03:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I put that there in an attempt to compromise with other editors and because it seems to better reflect the truth of a very complicated situation. Editing on Wikipedia is about assuming good faith, about compromise, about bowing to consensus, and about, as much as possible, seeing why editors make the edits they make. Samboy 08:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of nonsense. No consensus was reached, no edit. The only way to reflect reality on this page is to completely take the IRA out. As the IRA themselves would say, not a bullet, not an ounce. Also, you have not responded to any of my arguments, except by two-line replies basically saying "no, it's not" and little else. Is "consensus" on Wikipedia nothing more than stonewalling your opponent interminably and then crying "consensus" when he changes some blatant lie after a long, long period of silence?--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also waiting for sources on Posse Comitatus or the Freedomites.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 03:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Knapp's Page on the Nagaland Rebels

On Stephen Knapp's page he claims

"The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura. "

Yet I have the read NLFT Charter, and it makes mention of no such thing. Unless verification can be brought up for this claim, his links and all of the Nagaland Rebels stuff has to go from the page.

NLFT Charter http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/tripura/documents/papers/nlft_const.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Hypocricy of Hipocricies

If I edit the article then there will come some people threatening me to complain moderators , or some moderators will jump right there warning me. But DO YOU PEOPLE THINK??? This question seems to be insulting. But I would ask what kind of mind twist is being used in the article "christian extremist terrorism".

First of all its title is totally biased. Second and more important is that, Just after the first line of text, it is cunningly directing the reader to a very very insignificant example of a person killing another 'one' person because of the dispute about abortion. How nice? In all 2 billion christians in the world, only this stupid example you people got? All christians are pious? while this one murder is the biggest example of terrorism? Who you people are fooling to?

How about I define the "Islamic extremist terrorism" as the killing of Dr. ABC by some Moron? Will you accept that example in the article? I am 100% sure that you people will not let it place even at the end of article.

I, being a muslim believe that there are thousands of misinterpretters and wrong doers in the Muslim world. While you people cant confess this for christian world.

Is there anything despite the abortion issue in christians? They all are pious innocent pretty angles?

If president Bush says that he is doing what he is told by God to do, then how about his invasion in Iraq and carpet bombing in Afghanistan? Where in your Bible it says to kill all humanity of a country to capture one suspect who allegedly killed 2800 people?

Please dont make Wikipedia to be a basket of rubbish. VirtualEye 09:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I would ask you to relax a bit. While I appreciate your opinion, your choice of words is bordering on uncivil.

The article title is not biased. Its subject is terrorists who commit their acts because of an extremist Christian faith. This includes single acts of murder designed to terrorize others, when the cause is claimed as part of an extremist Christian movement. It also includes bombings and other mass-murders.

And please don't bring politics into this. We don't want to get bogged down, when the topic is improving this article. I would prefer you help by citing sources for or against the subjects in this article, and suggesting new subjects (with verifiable sources) to add to it. -- Kesh 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

sections to include for expansion

The KKK is one of the most well known examples of Christian terrorism, yet this article says nothing about it. This article should include something about it.--Sefringle 01:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. This has already been discussed in the archives, here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_extremist_terrorism/Archive_1#Klu_Klux_Klan , and it was decided against. The whole KKK article makes no mention of them being "Christian terrorists." You would have to convince them first. Please do not bring up old rubbish already consigned to the garbage heap.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 21:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The only registered Wikipedian I see in that debate actually says that the KKK is a legitimate tangent, just like al-Qaeda isn't "really" Muslim, but they paint themselves as a religious brotherhood using extremist interpretations of scriptural passages to legitimize their violent and controversial methods. Assuming there isn't a very strong reason against including them here, I'm going to try and write a NPOV section dealing with the KKK's relation to Christianity in here. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. No respectable scholarly journal has ever questioned the Islam of Al Qaeda, the argument does not apply. If they are just "using" "scripture" "to legitimize their violent and controversial methods" what exactly are their "methods" working towards? I see no attempt has been made on their page to include mention of them being "Christian terrorists." No evidence, no citation, it goes. I also see no citation has been provided for the existence of these minority Christian terrorists. They go, too.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the current version is good for this article now. The article is too short already as it is.--Sefringle 05:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What? You changed the article, on the grounds that you "liked the other version better" because "The article is too short already as it is?" I think you need to read Wikipedia's rules. If you think an article should be longer, fill it with valid information, don't stuff it full of trash. I'm reverting it to the way it was.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

and I will undo your edit. you can't just delete information because you don't like it.--Sefringle 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to report you for vandalism. It was already decided long ago on this page that the LRA is not a Christian org. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_extremist_terrorism/Archive_1#LRA_is_NOT_Christian . This was also the conclusion reached on the actual LRA talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lord%27s_Resistance_Army#Religious_orientation.3F . Adding old and already decided material is vandalism. You have not provided any reliable citation for either the Freedomites or the NLFT, other than a personal blog. If you are going to make such a claim you MUST cite your sources. As for my "editorializing" on Rudolph I think you need to consult your dictionary and Wikipedia's policy on Original Research. It is an established fact that he has never claimed to be "on a mission from God" or any such thing as Mr. Clayton Waagner did. If you are going to assert that he did say such things, the burden of proof is on you, and you must provide citation for it. --MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 18:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In the KKK article it was decided that they are not Christians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan#Christian_identity . If you want to make the case for them being "Christian terrorists" you will have to make it there first.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a single thing decided there, I see two users who both have different opinions. Please stop claiming that things have been "decided already", they have not. The KKK is undeniably terrorist, and undeniably claims to be Christian. They are "not Christian" in the same way AQ and UBL are "not Muslim", but that's not the scope of these articles. Please see the KKK site's "Message to fellow Christians" and the Imperial KKK "recognized and protected Christian Organization"Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs etc.

Blogs etc. should not be linked to, nor should opinion pieces from non-experts with extreme political views. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but people keep adding them. Joie de Vivre 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

What can be done to get rid of the weasel words tag? JeffBurdges 15:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty much de-weaseled. If you agree, feel free to remove the tag. If not, feel free to edit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)