Christian extremism - a much more dangerous threat than Islam could ever be

[Hugabear]

For one, I never believed that Islamic extremists ever posed a real threat to our country. An isolated attack here or there isn't going to bring us down. Christian extremism, on the other hand, is a very real and dangerous threat. We've seen over the past few decades an ever-growing number of extremist Christian cults and militia organizations. These groups all seem to have one uniting factor, an overriding belief that the US government poses an existential threat to their existence. This belief is encouraged and fostered by right-wing propagandists like Beck, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, etc. Many of these groups are currently stockpiling massive arsenals of weapons - and not just your average hunting or self-defense firearms, but military-grade stuff, like fully automatic machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, bombs, etc.

These groups pose much more of a real threat to our system of government. Notice how their puppet-masters love to prop up Bin Laden and Islamic extremists as the bogeyman, they know very damned well that this is merely a diversion tactic.

[anigbrowl]

1. Here in the US, maybe so, but Islamic fundamentalism is a real problem in many places

For example: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/03/27/hardliners-force-out-sex-congress-participants.html

[Hugabear]

3. Religious extremism is always dangerous

Whatever form it takes, it's never a good thing.

[baldguy]

5. Crusades, Witch trials, Pogroms.

The history of Christianity is littered with the bodies of infidels - real and imagined.

The very idea of the "Holy War" is a Christian invention.

[demosincebirth]

10. what? 800 years ago. We're discussing the present,

[baldguy]

12. The present is rooted in the past.

If you don't understand where you came from, you'll have no idea where you are.

[demosincebirth]

16. So they say.

[baldguy]

18. Who says different?

Why is there ongoing conflict in the Middle East? Because 6000-7000 yrs ago - according to legend - Moses decided that the Israelites would live in Jerusalem. But first they had to conquer it and eradicate the Jebusites who lived there. Then throughout the modern era, from the 1700s up to the aftermath of WWII, the strip of land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea has always been the preferred site for a Jewish homeland by the Jews themselves - in spite of at least a half-dozen ostensibly more suitable sites from around the world proposed by non-Jews.

We are required to live with the decisions made by people in the past - no matter how harmful those decisions may have been.

[cali]

24. lol that's ridiculous. If you think that's why there's conflict in the mideast

you're utterly clueless.

[HillbillyBob]

26. I guess you have not been around when

the kkkreestians attack gay folks.
From my perspective I have shouted down and even shot at a bunch that tried to burn my house down while spouting Leviticus or a lynch mob spouting abomination while wearing cotton poly blends.
While I am smart enough to recognize that old testament quotes do not a Christian make, they claim to be Christian, but are not really they don't follow the creed of love thy neigbhor. It is just a cover for hate. How bout those evilgelicals who 'pray' for Democrats to die, or throwing bricks throw congresspeoples hometown campaign or congressional offices?

[demosincebirth]

9. In the world

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Amen, Amen, AMEN!

[arcane1]

4. In military oath terms, they are "domestic enemies of the Constitution"

[virgogal]

6. Internationally the Islamist terrorists are much more dangerous.. One world,remember?

[mike_c]

31. I'm not so sure-- consider how militaristic and militarily capable...

...the U.S. is, and what tools the christian fundamentalists would have at their disposal if they gained more power. Consider too the international reach of the U.S. and it's foreign policy, which has historically been violently exploitative and imperialist.

In the eyes of much of the world, the U.S. already dominates international terrorism. I mean, when someone bombs the houses of innocents in the middle of the night, or a busy market, or a wedding party, it makes little difference to the victims and their compatriots whether the attack was in support of some nation's foreign policy agenda or whether it was to score media points for some other group's cause. Terror is terror.

My point is that we already have the infrastructure for terrorism on a global scale, and we already use it-- we don't call it terrorism, but that's a rather fine point, don't you think? There is no muslim country on Earth, that I know of, that even comes close, including Pakistan and its nukes. We are also one of the most belligerently religious nations in the developed world. It's easy to imagine christian fundamentalism exerting more and more influence in foreign policy and the military. There is nothing like that anywhere in the Islamic world-- neither national institutions nor popular movements.

[hobbit709]

7. There are many would-be Nehemiah Scudders in this country.

[baldguy]

13. +1

[HillbillyBob]

27. I love me some Heinlein!

He had a good line on the religious hysteria in this country din't he?

[stray cat]

8. Anyone remember the number killed on 9-11 in comparison?

why do so many seem to minimize terrorism if its not the terrorist group they hate the most. The left extreme condones one group of terrorists while the right extreme condones the other group.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. Please link me to a post where the 9/11 act is condoned.

And I don't mean nutty conspiracy theories about who actually did it.

[comrade snarky]

14. We've had two major deadly terror attacks in the last 30 years

One from racist right wingers in Oklahoma and one from crazy islamic fundamentalists in NY.

To disregard either would be a mistake.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

15. They are dangerous any where

Extremists are stupid, dangerous, close minded, hateful, ready to kill for no reason. All of them use each other to scare their communities. Use religion to spread their goals which in 80% of cases personal goals.
They have the same repulsive attitude same fake words that no one uses but them. Their definition of freedom is to allow them to suppress and rule you.
And If you disagree with them you are disagreeing with God.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[etherealtruth]

19. Nah

A religiously insane person = B religiously insane person .... flavor or brand is irrelevant

[troubledamerican]

20. American TEA-liban

[Amonester]

22. TEA-rorists is shorter, and better suited. (nt)

[Lorien]

21. I enjoy being "allowed" to be educated, self employed, walk without a male escort

speak to who I wish and not wear a beekeepers uniform. The Talibornagains may be a real force here in America, but worldwide the Taliban's cruelty can't be minimized.

[cali]

23. much more dangerous?

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Obviously the most devastating attack has come from Islamic extremists. Sorry, if that's inconvenient or doesn't fit your narrative. I think religious extremists are dangerous no matter what their religion. The ability to pull off devastating attacks isn't reliant upon the brand of religious fundamentalism but upon the resources available to any given group.

[HillbillyBob]

25. I thiknk the op means more insidiously and hiddenly dangerous

since there are so many on the ground here. Unless you have spent any amount of time looking into the various groups around you would not really know.
Storm Front, Dominionists, 'Survivalists, they all sort of overlap along the edges.

I recall one lady in a church, looked like 'aunt bea' pie makin cookie bakin church lady...open her purse to show me she was ready for the 'revolution for kkkrist' and showed me what looked like an Uzi, or like one time a guy came up to me talking about a revolution to kill gays, blacks, jews, interracial couples (and their kids) except he used the F******, K****, N*****S terms and then rattled off an inventory of military grade weapons he supposedly stock piled at his house. This is only 2 out of several dozen incidents i have witnessed. I have been to several dozen churches over the years that euphemistically talked that 'soldiers of gawd' nonsense with real undertone of deadly seriousness.

[cali]

28. I actually know quite a bit. I've even met with Mark Potok

of SPLC in connection with these groups. I was writing my thesis on millenarian groups and he kindly met with me.

[ParkieDem]

29. I must respectfully disagree.

First, any type of religious extremism is dangerous. That's understood.

But Christian extremism, for all its faults, is nowhere near the threat that Islamist extremism is, nor has Christian extremism been growing in recent decades.

The most prominent "Christian" extremist group is the Ku Klux Klan. Today, there may be 5,000 to 8,000 members of the KKK - down from 6 million in 1925. The Klan has been almost completely marginalized in this country. If they hold a rally, ten times as many people show up to protest them. The Klan is dangerous, but not a significant threat to the country.

Also, look at the public reaction to incidents like Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians. Massive majorities of Americans backed the government in these operations, and thought Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh and the like were a bunch of crazy, religious wackos. An overwhelming majority of Christians believed this as well.

The only Christian "extremists" who are any threat at all are a subset of a subset of a subset. As disgusting as Beck, Limbaugh and Coulter are, most of their followers aren't dangerous. A portion of their "followers" are evangelicals, but even most of these people are at least reasonable when it comes to civility and the like. Only a fraction of evangelicals, who are a fraction of right-wing talk-radio listeners, who are a fraction of self-described "conservatives," show any propensity for violence. Plus, for every one of them, there are likely hundreds of mainstream Christians (evangelical protestants, Catholics and others) who overwhelmingly reject the idea of violent revolution -- primarily because Christ preached nonviolence.

This contrasts greatly with Islamic extremists. Having lived and traveled in conservative, moderate and pluralistic Islamic societies (most notably Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey), I can truly say that Islamic extremism doesn't really scare me, but it does scare me much, much more than Christian extremism. This is primarily because Islamic extremists can more readily find doctrinal support for their actions than Christian extremists can. Parts of the Koran are extremely violent, misogynistic and dogmatic. Parts of the Old Testament are, as well, but much of this is tempered by the New Testament. In conservative Islamic society, it's common to hear for adulterers, homosexuals, and other "infidels" to be put to death. Even in conservative evangelical Christian communities, these "sins" are rejected, but rarely is there such bloodthirstyness.

Am I biased because I'm a Christian? Maybe. But ultimately, I think that the Christian message of love and forgiveness influences more Christians than the radical notions of a few extremists. There are similar moderating voices in Islam, as well, but unfortunately, their voices are not heard as loudly for some reason.

[FiveGoodMen]

30. Christians killed and tortured a lot of people (often just for telling the truth) before

the governments of the US and then Europe decided to limit their power.

And some of them would like to start it up again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4326071

[Ter]

33. Timothy McVeigh didn't do it because of religion

He did it because of hatred of the federal government. In fact, he was agnostic.

[CBR]

32. Religious extremism is dangerous in all forms, equally. nt