Members of Christian Militia Arrested

Self-identifying as a member of a religion doesn't require any training classes or registration exams (well, unless you're Catholic.) It's easy for anyone to call themselves a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Druid, or Wiccan whether they understand the religion or not. I'd actually say this is more the norm than the exception. People might get a condensed wikipedia summary of a religion and decide that's the one for them. You latch on to a few key ideas that you like and roll with it.

Just within Christianity this is extremely evident from the sheer number of sects. From Catholics and Protestants down to snake handlers, faith healers, and street preachers you've got it all. Some latch onto the idea of a loving God who forgives all and wants everyone to just get along. Others latch onto the stories that paint God as a jealous and vengeful deity who demands his followers punish the non-believers.

Even the modern, main-stream, well adjusted sects have to practice selective belief. A Bible literalist from cover to cover would likely go insane from the sheer number of conflicting commandments, examples, and rules. It shouldn't be surprising that some crazy groups like this militia just pick out the parts they like and call themselves Christian. When broken down its bare-bones in order to call oneself a "Christian" all they have to do is profess they believe Jesus was the son of God. That's about it. Everything else is up to the particular sect to iron out.

*edit* Oh come on! Don't you people have jobs!? Those last 6 responses weren't there when I started typing in between calls. Do some work you slackers!

Malor wrote:

Now, I think nearly any sane person would believe in your version more than theirs, but when even Christians can't agree on what being a Christian is, I'd submit that the term is very nearly valueless.

I'll buy that. It seems to me that if Christianity can't be defined reliably, it isn't valid to say that these people mush share religious beliefs with other christian sects because they both happen to self-describe themselves as Christian.

Oso wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I would tend to say that calling yourself Christian pretty much makes you Christian. There's no formal litmus test.

I *HOPE* you are right. However, there is the concept that the formal litmus test is who gets to go to heaven and who has to go to purgatory or hell. We could bring up the doctrine of universal salvation, i.e., g*d loves us too much to damn anybody, but people who believe that are probably in the hell camp. ;-)

Yes, well, I'm an atheist, so that particular litmus test doesn't work particularly well for me. To me, these militia nuts are Christian, but using them as a way to make Christianity as a whole look bad is as silly as someone saying that I was a bad person because I went to high school in Waterloo, IA, and John Wayne Gacy once owned a KFC in Waterloo, IA. The fact that we're associated in some way doesn't say something of any value. Christianity isn't inherently violent or racist because of these Hutaree people; they just happened to interpret it that way. You can find people willing to kill in the name of Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or any other religion. It doesn't mean anything about the religion itself.

The main difference is that these particular crazy violent people are crazy violent people who believe God wants them to be crazy and violent.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Oso wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I would tend to say that calling yourself Christian pretty much makes you Christian. There's no formal litmus test.

I *HOPE* you are right. However, there is the concept that the formal litmus test is who gets to go to heaven and who has to go to purgatory or hell. We could bring up the doctrine of universal salvation, i.e., g*d loves us too much to damn anybody, but people who believe that are probably in the hell camp. ;-)

Yes, well, I'm an atheist, so that particular litmus test doesn't work particularly well for me. To me, these militia nuts are Christian, but using them as a way to make Christianity as a whole look bad is as silly as someone saying that I was a bad person because I went to high school in Waterloo, IA, and John Wayne Gacy once owned a KFC in Waterloo, IA. The fact that we're associated in some way doesn't say something of any value. Christianity isn't inherently violent or racist because of these Hutaree people; they just happened to interpret it that way. You can find people willing to kill in the name of Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or any other religion. It doesn't mean anything about the religion itself.

The main difference is that these particular crazy violent people are crazy violent people who believe God wants them to be crazy and violent.

I think it is better to compare it to something like recreational drug use. Some folks can handle their cocaine just fine. Others do some dumbass douchey stuff when they're high.

Paleocon wrote:

Others do some dumbass douchey stuff when they're high.

This was referred to as "ripping the shirt off" in my old circle. It was used in a similar fashion to "jumping the shark". Invariably everyone would be having a great time at a keg party and then some dude who did too many lines of coke is taking his shirt off and you know its time to head off to another party.

I've never "ripped te shirt off" thankfully because I've always been smart about drug use.

I may have "puked in the potted plant" a few times though.

Religion is a personal journey of belonging.

Religion gets framed on both a personal and group level.

We have a tenancy to laud religious warpings that are currently fruitful. We judge those shapings that lead to violence, greed and selfishness.

However, both the beneficial and harmful skewing of religion is the same process. The whole discussion is hypocritical.

Consistent logic requires recognizing that localized framing of religion is beneficial with the risk of abnormal violence. Or you must disavow localized framing of religion because the risk of abnormal violence outweighs any potential gain or any current gain may in turn become abnormally violent down the road.

Fang, there is also a minimalism that many attempt. Muslim extremists in Gaza, but rarely do we hear of the Zionists. The war crimes of the Turks in the Holy Land, but Joshua was waging a holy war, that killed or exiled everyone in Canaan. And not once de we know what their crime was, other than being poorly armed.

The Inquisition, forced conversions, theft of Jewish, Roma, Muslim babies by Christian families.

I can even get international on you about the horrific treatment of the poor and women in Hindu society. The caste system is alive and well.

Religion is like anything else we create, capable of great good or evil. A rocket can take a probe to space, or it can drop a nuclear bomb. A gun can get you dinner or it can rob a store. Religion can be a great source of community, provide education, moral guidancej or it can breed soldiers, racism, bloodlust.

KingGorilla wrote:

Fang, there is also a minimalism that many attempt. Muslim extremists in Gaza, but rarely do we hear of the Zionists. The war crimes of the Turks in the Holy Land, but Joshua was waging a holy war, that killed or exiled everyone in Canaan. And not once de we know what their crime was, other than being poorly armed.

The Inquisition, forced conversions, theft of Jewish, Roma, Muslim babies by Christian families.

I can even get international on you about the horrific treatment of the poor and women in Hindu society. The caste system is alive and well.

Religion is like anything else we create, capable of great good or evil. A rocket can take a probe to space, or it can drop a nuclear bomb. A gun can get you dinner or it can rob a store. Religion can be a great source of community, provide education, moral guidancej or it can breed soldiers, racism, bloodlust.

I think the difference is that dogma is in a special category of "things we invent". It exists for the purpose of eliminating dissent, clouding reason, and destroying one's ability to challenge authority rationally. It is the evil opposite of reason and reason is what allows us to use other tools responsibly. Among dogmas, religious dogma carries with it both special significance and a privileged position in our society. It has both unquestionable power and immunity from investigation.

I am saying that the greater evil stems from the inconsistency:

It is more evil when people allow themselves personal alteration of their religion and judge or exclude others (of the same or other faiths) who do the same.

Likewise, it is more evil when people cling themselves to the one true faith and deem others as heretics who do the same with a different denomination.

I think it is more enlightened and consistent to:

Allow yourself personal alteration of your faith, knowing full well that others of any other faith may do the same to nefarious purposes. And this makes them no less a member of that faith.

Still recognizing other faiths, denounce personal alterations for everyone starting with yourself.

TheArtOfScience wrote:

I've coined my own religion and no, it isn't Pruit though I was tempted to latch onto that meme. My religion is called: Apatheticism

I'd describ the tenets but...meh...whats the point?

Now this is a religion I could really get behind if I could ever muster the energy!

Oso wrote:

Who gets to draw that line? Now that the Hutarees are politically unpopular it is easy to say that "they aren't real Christians, but who gets to make that kind of claim with any authority?

Actually, this is exactly why I found myself in the loving embrace of agnosticism. I once considered myself a Christian, but my politics are libertarian to liberal. So when the Religious Right and Moral Majority rose to power and I discovered that I couldn't go to church without being told that my personal choices damned me to hell (which is a human construct anyway), I began to see that religion for what it really was. I woke up and never looked back.

Paleocon wrote:

I think the difference is that dogma is in a special category of "things we invent". It exists for the purpose of eliminating dissent, clouding reason, and destroying one's ability to challenge authority rationally. It is the evil opposite of reason and reason is what allows us to use other tools responsibly. Among dogmas, religious dogma carries with it both special significance and a privileged position in our society. It has both unquestionable power and immunity from investigation.

True, but without a little dogma, we have no way to know for what purpose to use our tools/reason.

The most famous statement of dogma being: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Oso wrote:

Who gets to draw that line? Now that the Hutarees are politically unpopular it is easy to say that "they aren't real Christians, but who gets to make that kind of claim with any authority?

I think that's the issue, one of authority. I think sometimes we try and answer a question from an *anthropological* standpoint and then we want to use that as a way of proving something from a moral standpoint, and vice versa.

CheezePavilion wrote:

True, but without a little dogma, we have no way to know for what purpose to use our tools/reason.

The most famous statement of dogma being: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I think there is a huge difference between the baby step of that piece of political dogma and the gigantic illogical leap of dogma necessary to believe that all men are inherently and irredeemably sinful and redemption comes only from following a book written 2000 years ago. Additionally, the above dogma is fairly transparent and belief in it is not necessary to derive from it a compulsion to treat other humans as independent and sovereign actors with unalienable rights we, as a society, have agreed all deserve.

I do not believe in a creator and don't believe that one "endowed" any of us with rights others can not remove by force (the wellspring of all "rights"). That said, I am probably far, far more likely to extend them to others than most religious people I know.

DSGamer wrote:
Oso wrote:

Who gets to draw that line? Now that the Hutarees are politically unpopular it is easy to say that "they aren't real Christians, but who gets to make that kind of claim with any authority?

Actually, this is exactly why I found myself in the loving embrace of agnosticism. I once considered myself a Christian, but my politics are libertarian to liberal. So when the Religious Right and Moral Majority rose to power and I discovered that I couldn't go to church without being told that my personal choices damned me to hell (which is a human construct anyway), I began to see that religion for what it really was. I woke up and never looked back.

I'm glad I did not attend that church -- that would have just been depressing. I found one that matched my personal line of beliefs that resulted from my own study of the bible. I'm not tied to a particular "brand," but I've found the Presbyterians typically reflect my own personal walk. I know there are the very conservative individual churches (even within the Presbyterian umbrella), but I have been lucky to find many that do not push or advocate the fire and brimstone crud.

It wasn't "a church". It was multiple churches. In Portland, Oregon, no less. I went "church shopping" for a while. And then my wife and I did together. Eventually I gave up on finding a church that wasn't concerned so much with Heaven and Hell and how to go to Heaven.

Paleocon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

True, but without a little dogma, we have no way to know for what purpose to use our tools/reason.

The most famous statement of dogma being: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I think there is a huge difference between the baby step of that piece of political dogma and the gigantic illogical leap of dogma necessary to believe that all men are inherently and irredeemably sinful and redemption comes only from following a book written 2000 years ago.

Additionally, the above dogma is fairly transparent and belief in it is not necessary to derive from it a compulsion to treat other humans as independent and sovereign actors with unalienable rights we, as a society, have agreed all deserve.

Ah, but as you reminded us, "Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." An absurd baby step is still absurd.

I think the issue here is that there *isn't* a "special significance and a privileged position in our society." Nationalism, for instance, has proven capable of constructing a dogma just as significant and privileged in our society, with "both unquestionable power and immunity from investigation."

What's interesting about that passage is that it rejects almost every sort of dogma but the religious--no divine right of kings, no tribalism, no talk of noble blood, but doesn't have to eschew religious dogma to construct a statement about how we should "treat other humans as independent and sovereign actors with unalienable rights."

In other words, I think the big difference isn't between religion and reason, but between the dogmatic and the non-dogmatic.

I did want to point out, depending on the book or religion, I did want to point out, all of them are nowhere near as ancient as some would like to say. Most Christian doctrine may have deep threads, but in truth date to the 4th century. Of Hebrew texts, the Second Century BCE. For both the canon was selected based on democratic vote.

There was a good Point of Inquiry where they mentioned the Jesus seminar. Which is a gathering of theologians, historians, archaeologists. And one thing touched on is just how flat our wrong most american and world religion can be in terms of belief, historical fact, literary purpose. There are pieces of dogma bandied about that are known to be utterly false to scholars. And sadly, these people have the same "don't rock the boat" attitude that most biologists have of let religion be even when they are wrong; even when they are wrong to great personal and societal detriment.

And let me just vent this here. What the f*ck was up with all the Shroud of Turin BS this weekend? Congrats, Christianity is in the same boat as Champ, Nessie, and the Chupacabra.

I don't know if it's productive or respectful to call a major religion's desire to see the face of their lord and savior, "BS." I had no personal interest in it but I can easily see how someone else might. Calling it such gives credence to those who claim we can't discuss Christianity without attacking it.

Whether Christianity - or any religion for that matter - is factually accurate is unimportant. What is important is whether or not someone believes that their religion is factually accurate, and how they act upon that belief.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I don't know if it's productive or respectful to call a major religion's desire to see the face of their lord and savior, "BS." I had no personal interest in it but I can easily see how someone else might. Calling it such gives credence to those who claim we can't discuss Christianity without attacking it.

Whether Christianity - or any religion for that matter - is factually accurate is unimportant. What is important is whether or not someone believes that their religion is factually accurate, and how they act upon that belief.

I'm pretty sure what he meant by BS was that the whole Shroud of Turin thing has been pretty incontraveribly debunked and yet the Church in its official capacity continues to trumpet it as an authentic holy relic of historical significance. It would be like building a religion entirely on "relics" you find at a Ripley's Believe It Or Not Museum.

KingGorilla wrote:

And let me just vent this here. What the f*ck was up with all the Shroud of Turin BS this weekend?

Sunday was Easter.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Whether Christianity - or any religion for that matter - is factually accurate is unimportant. What is important is whether or not someone believes that their religion is factually accurate, and how they act upon that belief.

And, since most Christians' beliefs bear little similarity to those held by the Michigan militia, even if they share the same root, you'll have a lot of trouble convincing most Christians that the militia has anything to do with them.

Well, I am more speaking of informed belief, and acknowledging that charlitans will try to profit off of your faith. This ranges from fals reliquary, selling indulgences, to having an infomercial for your church. And then extending that to ignoring or denying evolution, the earth being a spheroid, heliocentric solar system, taking Jefferson out of history and teaching how right McCarthy was, etc.
There are a lot of people taught from birth the bible was, more or less dictated by god. They are taught some illiterate sheep herder knew more of naturalism than a travelled, educated, and peer reviewed scientist. If trying to talk about reality is an attack, we have enterred some bizarre realm, indeed. I am talking about education so someone with a chicken bone is not going to defraud you saying it is St. Peter's finger. I am talking about not giving your life savings to a faith healer when you should be in chemo or enjoying your final moments on earth.

Crispus wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Whether Christianity - or any religion for that matter - is factually accurate is unimportant. What is important is whether or not someone believes that their religion is factually accurate, and how they act upon that belief.

And, since most Christians' beliefs bear little similarity to those held by the Michigan militia, even if they share the same root, you'll have a lot of trouble convincing most Christians that the militia has anything to do with them.

Well, that's fine. Are we trying to convince them otherwise? I don't think anyone's pointing to these psychopaths and saying, "see, this is who you really are." Some people are saying, "these people believed some of the same things you believe." There's a difference. If this was the Blue Skies militia and claimed they wanted to kill people because the sky is blue, that doesn't mean the sky is not blue, it does not mean that they don't "really" believe the sky is blue, and it doesn't mean that anyone who believes the sky is blue is a bad person. Given how benign and popular a belief that is, wouldn't you be curious to know how they got from point A to point B?

Paleocon wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

I don't know if it's productive or respectful to call a major religion's desire to see the face of their lord and savior, "BS." I had no personal interest in it but I can easily see how someone else might. Calling it such gives credence to those who claim we can't discuss Christianity without attacking it.

Whether Christianity - or any religion for that matter - is factually accurate is unimportant. What is important is whether or not someone believes that their religion is factually accurate, and how they act upon that belief.

I'm pretty sure what he meant by BS was that the whole Shroud of Turin thing has been pretty incontraveribly debunked and yet the Church in its official capacity continues to trumpet it as an authentic holy relic of historical significance. It would be like building a religion entirely on "relics" you find at a Ripley's Believe It Or Not Museum.

Even if it was genuine, what would that really mean? That a guy once died? It's not about authenticity. It never has been. There's no one out there who would look at this 3D image from the shroud and say, "OK, now I believe," nor is there anyone who would lose their faith simply because science says the shroud is a fake.

KingGorilla wrote:

I am talking about education so someone with a chicken bone is not going to defraud you saying it is St. Peter's finger.

People aren't taken in because they love finger bones. They're taken in because they love St. Peter.

Do you watch Pawn Stars, Lobster? They often get people in there taken for hundreds, thousands of dollars thinking they have a genuine antique sword, scrimshaw art, etc. In most instances they are bad forgeries. And what gets people is they have greed or some whimsey getting in the way of their frontal cortex.

I am not saying the love of Inuit culture, world history is the culprit. Any more than wanting a relic for a church stems from your faith, love of the church, community. But that cannot allow you to be made a fool, a much poorer fool in many cases.

I just cannot abide people using more thought in buying a used car than they might on the so called articles of faith. Or worse, passing that mindset to their kids, and other people.

KingGorilla wrote:

Do you watch Pawn Stars, Lobster? They often get people in there taken for hundreds, thousands of dollars thinking they have a genuine antique sword, scrimshaw art, etc. In most instances they are bad forgeries. And what gets people is they have greed or some whimsey getting in the way of their frontal cortex.

I am not saying the love of Inuit culture, world history is the culprit. Any more than wanting a relic for a church stems from your faith, love of the church, community. But that cannot allow you to be made a fool, a much poorer fool in many cases.

I just cannot abide people using more thought in buying a used car than they might on the so called articles of faith. Or worse, passing that mindset to their kids, and other people.

I happen to think there's merit to your argument. However it's one we've had many, many, many, MANY times before and it always ends up locked. I don't think we neet Yet Another Religion vs. Reason thread, especially when there's something worth discussing about this particular situation.

Yeah, a derail in that direction would be unfortunate precisely because there is value in discussion the culture of right wing Christianity in the US and whether it has the potential to be anywhere close to as violent as other religions are. There are examples from Ireland and Africa (keeping it in modern times) that Christian religions can be violent and bent in that direction. And it appears, at least from where I'm sitting, like we're sliding dangerously in that direction currently.

DSGamer wrote:

Yeah, a derail in that direction would be unfortunate precisely because there is value in discussion the culture of right wing Christianity in the US and whether it has the potential to be anywhere close to as violent as other religions are. There are examples from Ireland and Africa (keeping it in modern times) that Christian religions can be violent and bent in that direction. And it appears, at least from where I'm sitting, like we're sliding dangerously in that direction currently.

I wouldn't call Ireland an example of how Christian religions can be violent and bent in that direction: the 'Christian' violence in Northern Ireland had almost nothing to do with differences over, well, religion. Both the Protestant paramilitaries and the IRA had almost completely secular goals: the former to keep NI part of the UK and the social status quo, the IRA to make NI part of the Republic of Ireland/greater civil rights for Catholics.

That's why I think the situation in NI makes for a good comparison: you have a 'religious' conflict where dogma played almost no role, where there was almost no talk of 'holy war', where neither side denied the right of any other country to exist, etc.

When talking of Northern Ireland, politics and national sovereignty may be the impetus but religion has been the rallying point. For something closer to home. It is analogous to the racial disparity in much of Latin America. The more native your roots, the poorer you are, with less political power. In the same manner as you see gangs and revolutionary groups in Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina rallying behind their Native roots vs the power of those with European roots, you see Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.

Anyone ever watch Sandy Pebbles? Great line about how much evil, how much death, has come from flags(nationalism, demonizing or lionizing one's own or other nations).

KingGorilla wrote:

When talking of Northern Ireland, politics and national sovereignty may be the impetus but religion has been the rallying point.

And that's the thing: in something like a Christian militia or an Islamic terrorist group--at least the ones I see us talking about--religion is playing a much bigger role than just being a rallying point. There's usually some kind of religious goal, something you didn't have in the NI conflict.

For something closer to home. It is analogous to the racial disparity in much of Latin America. The more native your roots, the poorer you are, with less political power. In the same manner as you see gangs and revolutionary groups in Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina rallying behind their Native roots vs the power of those with European roots, you see Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.

The thing with Catholics and Protestants in Ireland is that they both claimed the same 'roots': they both wanted to be part of liberal Western democracies. Unionists might have wanted to be part of the UK and the IRA might have wanted to make the Six Counties part of the Republic of Ireland, but that's not 'Native vs. European' that's about which European country the two sides wanted to be a part of.

I would disagree characterising that religion is not the rallying point at play here in the US. For 20 years Dick Armey has been riling up church groups for the republican party, for lobbying groups. He did it against healthcare reform on multiple occasions, he did it for stemcell research, environmental policy. He, and many like him, will be hired by corporate lobbyists, a republican group, and campaign at churches to drum up fervor and manufacture "grass roots." In the years he has been doing it he has often gotten the same churches to support or decry measures of polar opposites at different times.

These churches are the rallying point for the underpinning political agenda. And absent these churches these organisations and lobbyists would not have a ready made constituency. Why bother going door when there are hundreds, thousands of gullible people in one spot? Reverend Jim is preaching about how bad abortion is? Well this new bill will force your tax dollars into Planned parenthood. Climate change research or legislation threatening your oil buddies? Well that is a bunch of elitist, liberal, atheists from Harvard pissing on the Bible.