Members of Christian Militia Arrested

Funkenpants wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think the difference is that these folks didn't use their interpretation of American texts as philosophical justification for their terrorism. For that, we need to look at their crazy religion. I agree that it isn't entirely necessary to be a terrorist in order to be a Christian, but these folks found in their reading of Christian texts the seeds of their violence.

John Hinkley found the seeds of his violence in Taxi Driver and Jodi Foster. I don't see that as meaning that Taxi Driver needs to be criticized giving the wrong ideas to a nutjob.

This seems pretty chicken and egg -- whether Hutaree got its violent ideas from a close reading of the KJV or a close reading of the KJV gave them justification they needed for their pre existing violent rhetoric seems largely semantic. Violence was planned, and Christianity was a driving element -- just like Taxi Driver was a driving element for John Hinkley.

And you'll notice no one here is advocating banning either Christianity or Taxi Driver for the actions of psychopaths.

Funkenpants wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think the difference is that these folks didn't use their interpretation of American texts as philosophical justification for their terrorism. For that, we need to look at their crazy religion. I agree that it isn't entirely necessary to be a terrorist in order to be a Christian, but these folks found in their reading of Christian texts the seeds of their violence.

John Hinkley found the seeds of his violence in Taxi Driver and Jodi Foster. I don't see that as meaning that Taxi Driver needs to be criticized giving the wrong ideas to a nutjob.

If eight of his friends saw Taxi Driver and came up with the same idea, then, yeah, we gotta criticize the movie.

Seth wrote:

And you'll notice no one here is advocating banning either Christianity or Taxi Driver for the actions of psychopaths.

That's not what at issue. If you describe someone as a Christian and say they found their ideas for violence in their Christianity, you should be able to point to those sections of Christian doctrine that either condone or encourage the behavior. If someone reads, "Though shalt not murder," then says to themselves, "Hey- this says I've got to go murder a cop- let's do it," are we really talking about mainstream Christians here, or people who are angry and look to the bible to justify the violence their emotions tell them they should commit?

OG_slinger wrote:

If eight of his friends saw Taxi Driver and came up with the same idea, then, yeah, we gotta criticize the movie.

When the movie was also viewed by millions of people who DIDN'T decide to murder cops? You guys are getting into territory occupied by the video-games-cause-violence crowd.

Funkenpants wrote:
Seth wrote:

And you'll notice no one here is advocating banning either Christianity or Taxi Driver for the actions of psychopaths.

That's not what at issue. If you describe someone as a Christian and say they found their ideas for violence in their Christianity, you should be able to point to those sections of Christian doctrine that either condone or encourage the behavior. If someone reads, "Though shalt not murder," then says to themselves, "Hey- this says I've got to go murder a cop- let's do it," are we really talking about mainstream Christians here, or people who are angry and look to the bible to justify the violence their emotions tell them they should commit?

I think the examples of the Bible explicitly and implicitly advocating violence have been tread on these forums more than once, so I don't follow your logic here. I don't see why you're resistant to calling a violent sect of people Christian when they call themselves Christian. it's quite easy to "point to those sections of Christian doctrine that condone the behavior;" Christians have done it for millenia.

Large groups that are generally moderate always have to deal with extremists co-opting their name. Muslims deal with Al Qaeda, Christians deal with Hutaree, Republicans deal with Tea Partiers, Operation Rescue deals with Scott Roeder.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I agree that it isn't entirely necessary to be a terrorist in order to be a Christian, but these folks found in their reading of Christian texts the seeds of their violence. We can argue about whether or not they were misreading it just as folks have debated whether suicide bombers are misinterpreting Islam, but the influence of both can not be discounted as simply incidental.

I think it's more likely that if they weren't able to do the mental contortions to see terrorism as their holy duty, they'd find another reason to do it or restrain themselves (but still want to do it). Religion legitimizes a cause and unifies people in that cause. It does not necessarily create the cause.

Even if I were to accept that, why must we make special accommodation for delusional constructs that allow folks to create the mental and psychological space between logic/reality and their base desires necessary to allow them and their followers to blow themselves up or engage in holy war? If this were a chemical folks were routinely abusing to give them that ability, we'd control its access.

Funkenpants wrote:

When the movie was also viewed by millions of people who DIDN'T decide to murder cops? You guys are getting into territory occupied by the video-games-cause-violence crowd.

OK, then to that eight let's add the KKK, Aryan Nation, the Montana Freemen, the entire Christian Patriot movement, elements of the Minutemen, and who knows how many other crazy militia groups. Sadly, the common thread is that they all want a Christian America and by Christian they really mean white and Christian.

I don't know what drives these groups more, religion or racism, but it's pretty clear they've blurred the line and made Christianity a deep part of the identity.

I think there is a horrible misuse of the term "Christian" in society, it blankets anyone who has EVER gone to a church service it seems. While being a actual Christian requires the commitment and personal relationship with Jesus and through him, God. These people may have fit under the broad blanket, but i highly doubt the later term fitting them. (this is up to God to judge, not me)

Yes, throughout history the bible has been used for violence and you can find all sorts of texts for things in their purpose, however the broad message and the whole message of the new testament is very non-violent. As mentioned earlier in the thread, even Gandhi saw that. It doesn't take much for a "red neck" to find a reason to want to shoot things. As seen across the world in just about EVER religion, whipping one self into a frenzy over mis quoted or misunderstandings is pretty easy to do, and sadly is what most people, who don't know the religion personally, know about it.

My point is this: The guys were WAY CRAZY, and i'm happy they were taken down before anyone got hurt, cop or not. However i think that anything remotely associated with Christianity instantly gets painted with a huge target and people jump on the hate wagon. I persoanlly think the bible does a good job of supporting the government

1 PETER 2:13-17 wrote:

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

I also realize having been a Christian for awhile now that its the way of the world to hate on Christians...it even says so in the bible...lol so i just wanted to say my piece, and hopefully remind you all that not every "Christian" is a Christian.

John 13:35 (New King James Version) wrote:

35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

I just heard the collective rustle of about 12 P&C posters puttin' on their typin' gloves.

Holla wrote:

I think there is a horrible misuse of the term "Christian" in society, it blankets anyone who has EVER gone to a church service it seems. While being a actual Christian requires the commitment and personal relationship with Jesus and through him, God. These people may have fit under the broad blanket, but i highly doubt the later term fitting them. (this is up to God to judge, not me)

Yes, throughout history the bible has been used for violence and you can find all sorts of texts for things in their purpose, however the broad message and the whole message of the new testament is very non-violent. As mentioned earlier in the thread, even Gandhi saw that. It doesn't take much for a "red neck" to find a reason to want to shoot things. As seen across the world in just about EVER religion, whipping one self into a frenzy over mis quoted or misunderstandings is pretty easy to do, and sadly is what most people, who don't know the religion personally, know about it.

My point is this: The guys were WAY CRAZY, and i'm happy they were taken down before anyone got hurt, cop or not. However i think that anything remotely associated with Christianity instantly gets painted with a huge target and people jump on the hate wagon. I persoanlly think the bible does a good job of supporting the government

1 PETER 2:13-17 wrote:

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

I also realize having been a Christian for awhile now that its the way of the world to hate on Christians...it even says so in the bible...lol so i just wanted to say my piece, and hopefully remind you all that not every "Christian" is a Christian.

John 13:35 (New King James Version) wrote:

35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Where do you draw the line though? Matthew 25:40 makes it very clear that following Jesus requires a hell of a lot more charity and compassion than just about anyone who follows Prosperity Theology is capable of, and yet there aren't a lot of "Christians" stating that they aren't Christians.

OG_slinger wrote:

I don't know what drives these groups more, religion or racism, but it's pretty clear they've blurred the line and made Christianity a deep part of the identity.

How does the Aryan Nation have a Christian identity when Christianity has since its founding been open to people of all races and colors?

Well, since the predominate religion for america has been Christianity, and many churches preach a "be a good person and your good to go" theology most people don't know they are Christians. my line is drawn at the question "do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" Then living out that relationship... its sad to say but there are very few examples of Great Christians that get shown, and every example of bad. Matthew 25:40 in the situation just goes to show that they aren't following the bible...

and this thread isn't about arguing Christianity, and I REALLY try to avoid that because arguing doesn't change minds or really solve a lot of problems... In the end the important thing is that God loves me, i love him and through that, i can love you like he does.

How about i mention how little attention the Russian subway bombings have gotten?

Holla wrote:

Well, since the predominate religion for america has been Christianity, and many churches preach a "be a good person and your good to go" theology most people don't know they are Christians.

That's very sect dependent, many sects still preach "faith not deeds".

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Holla wrote:

Well, since the predominate religion for america has been Christianity, and many churches preach a "be a good person and your good to go" theology most people don't know they are Christians.

That's very sect dependent, many sects still preach "faith not deeds".

agreed

Paleocon wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I agree that it isn't entirely necessary to be a terrorist in order to be a Christian, but these folks found in their reading of Christian texts the seeds of their violence. We can argue about whether or not they were misreading it just as folks have debated whether suicide bombers are misinterpreting Islam, but the influence of both can not be discounted as simply incidental.

I think it's more likely that if they weren't able to do the mental contortions to see terrorism as their holy duty, they'd find another reason to do it or restrain themselves (but still want to do it). Religion legitimizes a cause and unifies people in that cause. It does not necessarily create the cause.

Even if I were to accept that, why must we make special accommodation for delusional constructs that allow folks to create the mental and psychological space between logic/reality and their base desires necessary to allow them and their followers to blow themselves up or engage in holy war? If this were a chemical folks were routinely abusing to give them that ability, we'd control its access.

Because one of our country's most sacred beliefs is that you have the right to use whatever idea drugs you like, particularly of the religious flavor.

Holla wrote:

However i think that anything remotely associated with Christianity instantly gets painted with a huge target and people jump on the hate wagon. I persoanlly think the bible does a good job of supporting the government

Do you really feel that happens here? Do you feel persecuted? I'm not sure it's reasonable to go into a thread about a Christian terrorist group and take issue that people disapprove - or hate - these people and mention that they're Christian.

No one is claiming that what they've planned to do or what they've done is intrinsic to Christianity. Crying persecution only prevents an honest discussion about the connection between these people and the beliefs they claim to espouse.

Holla wrote:

How about i mention how little attention the Russian subway bombings have gotten?

You're welcome to make a thread about it. No one's discussing the Russian subway bombings because they aren't really related to the matter at hand.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Holla wrote:

However i think that anything remotely associated with Christianity instantly gets painted with a huge target and people jump on the hate wagon. I persoanlly think the bible does a good job of supporting the government

Do you really feel that happens here? Do you feel persecuted? I'm not sure it's reasonable to go into a thread about a Christian terrorist group and take issue that people disapprove - or hate - these people and mention that they're Christian.

No one is claiming that what they've planned to do or what they've done is intrinsic to Christianity. Crying persecution only prevents an honest discussion about the connection between these people and the beliefs they claim to espouse.

I'm sorry if it came across as crying persecution, and i don't want to get into that topic at all. All i wanted to do was to remind people that just like the suicide bombers don't represent all of Islam, these guys don't represent all of Christianity...its very easy to lump.

Holla wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Holla wrote:

However i think that anything remotely associated with Christianity instantly gets painted with a huge target and people jump on the hate wagon. I persoanlly think the bible does a good job of supporting the government

Do you really feel that happens here? Do you feel persecuted? I'm not sure it's reasonable to go into a thread about a Christian terrorist group and take issue that people disapprove - or hate - these people and mention that they're Christian.

No one is claiming that what they've planned to do or what they've done is intrinsic to Christianity. Crying persecution only prevents an honest discussion about the connection between these people and the beliefs they claim to espouse.

I'm sorry if it came across as crying persecution, and i don't want to get into that topic at all. All i wanted to do was to remind people that just like the suicide bombers don't represent all of Islam, these guys don't represent all of Christianity...its very easy to lump.

I can certainly agree with that, but I think the line of distinction is an important one.

Some (mostly zealots and outsiders) would argue that, although suicide bombers do not represent all of Islam, they certainly do represent a certain portion of it. Others would argue that it is antithetical to it. I want to know if the same applies to Christianity and terror groups like the KKK. Are these folks, as you seem to assert, simply not Christian or does their violent extremism represent a part of the Christian fabric that you wish wasn't there but is? Considering the violent history of sect on sect violence, the expansion of empire and use of genocide with the aid of the Catholic Church in the Americas, and the blood libel against the Jews, I would contend that this is very much part of Christianity -- just as violent jihad is part of Islam.

I suppose I would ask who gets to decide what is or is not "Christian." Everyone has the right to say, "these people are not like me," and "I do not believe what they believed." They have much less of a right to say that what someone else believes cannot be called the same thing they call their beliefs.

After all, if one sect thought another "got it right," they'd be the same sect.

Funkenpants wrote:

How does the Aryan Nation have a Christian identity when Christianity has since its founding been open to people of all races and colors?

You need to be careful with that interpretation that Christianity is all sunshine and lollipops. I'm sure the Jews during the several hundred years of the Inquisitions and everyone living throughout the Middle East during any of the Crusades would have a very different view of the 'openness' of Christianity.

As for the Aryan Nation, you'd have to ask them, especially since it was spawned as the political wing of a Christian church.

Paleocon wrote:

Considering the violent history of sect on sect violence, the expansion of empire and use of genocide with the aid of the Catholic Church in the Americas, and the blood libel against the Jews, I would contend that this is very much part of Christianity -- just as violent jihad is part of Islam.

I don't disagree that violence is a part of the overall quilt of Christianity. Whether it ought to be, and whether a true Christian would espouse such values, is a different topic.

That said, what does such agreement gain you, if you aren't going to use such an acknowledgement to attack all of Christianity in some way? I think that's why there's resistance to admitting it - the non-violent Christians assume it'll be used to smear their religion as a whole.

Whoa nelly, didn't expect to see bible quotes. I better step carefully and haul ass out of the thead.

I just wanted to say it really is amazing the difference between urban and non-urban areas. It's like these people live in a Michigan that is in some bizzarro world version of the one that I do.

I think it comes down to poor education, shoddy living conditions, and overall disenfrachisement. THere are many parts of the state that are just dirt poor and the roadside is littered with delapitated mobile homes and shanties made of corrugated metal. I can only imagine what wintering in those must be like. Jobs are scarce aside from being corrections officers at the plethora of prisons.

Regardless of religion or political ideology I think domestic terrorism is largely the result of disenfranchisement.

Haven't seen you post before Holla and I understand your sentiment but you are preaching to the choir here. In general this is a pretty progressive board filled with people who understand that you cannot judge an entire group by the actions of a few. That said, the typical rhetoric usually used in those types of discussions doesn't gain much traction here. There is an assumption on GWJ that your fellow goodjer is not a complete ignorant asshole. With the exception of Seth I tend to agree with this. Seth is a vile human being.

OG_slinger wrote:

I'm sure the Jews during the several hundred years of the Inquisitions and everyone living throughout the Middle East during any of the Crusades would have a very different view of the 'openness' of Christianity.

Among the group's teachings are the view that all non-whites—who are labelled "mud people"—have no souls and hence, no place at all in the afterlife; and since they are not going either to Heaven or Hell after they die, they have no incentive to self-regulate their earthly behavior. Jews are considered a race of devils born from Eve and Satan, and the church believes that they were placed on earth to do his bidding.

In terms of categorizing faith, this one seems to have traveled far afield from Christianity.

Holla wrote:

Well, since the predominate religion for america has been Christianity, and many churches preach a "be a good person and your good to go" theology most people don't know they are Christians. my line is drawn at the question "do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" Then living out that relationship... its sad to say but there are very few examples of Great Christians that get shown, and every example of bad. Matthew 25:40 in the situation just goes to show that they aren't following the bible...

and this thread isn't about arguing Christianity, and I REALLY try to avoid that because arguing doesn't change minds or really solve a lot of problems... In the end the important thing is that God loves me, i love him and through that, i can love you like he does.

How about i mention how little attention the Russian subway bombings have gotten?

I just want to say good luck. You have your work cut out for you today.

Crispus wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Considering the violent history of sect on sect violence, the expansion of empire and use of genocide with the aid of the Catholic Church in the Americas, and the blood libel against the Jews, I would contend that this is very much part of Christianity -- just as violent jihad is part of Islam.

I don't disagree that violence is a part of the overall quilt of Christianity. Whether it ought to be, and whether a true Christian would espouse such values, is a different topic.

That said, what does such agreement gain you, if you aren't going to use such an acknowledgement to attack all of Christianity in some way? I think that's why there's resistance to admitting it - the non-violent Christians assume it'll be used to smear their religion as a whole.

I was mostly responding to this "true Christian" business. Before the Protestant Reformation, it was possible to determine who a "true Christian" was and wasn't. In this age of do-it-yourself Christianity, however, no one really gets to decide besides the individual.

I remember having a conversation with a street preacher in Seattle once. He was spouting all manner of fire and brimstone and handing out bibles at the time. I asked him if I could ask him four basic questions about his version of Christianity and he agreed.

I asked him if the word of God was powerful. To this, he handed me a bible and said that there was no more powerful words in any language ever written.

I asked him if the word of God had been misused. To this, he went on and on about how the Jews, Catholics, Mormons and others had twisted the word of God and created all manner of mischief with it.

I asked him if he encouraged people to learn of the word of God. And to this he said that there was no greater enterprise anyone could put himself to than to learn the word of God.

And finally, I asked him if he would ever take responsibility for the actions of someone he encouraged to learn the word of God who misused it. All manner of backpedaling and brimstone commenced.

My point is that ideas are powerful and religious ideas are the dirty nuclear fission of ideas. Religions rely on the unprovable and often absurd being regarded as unquestionable. And as Voltaire put it "Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities".

The problem is that it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between followers of Christ and people who call themselves Christians but don't pass muster. (Can we call them Ch.I.N.O.s? Christians in name only?)

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?

Do we just call the people we don't like "fake Christians?" Some of the new mega-church sects and their popular beliefs do this with mainstream denominations, and traditional denominations do this right back. Hell, there is a long and time honored tradition in America for protestant sects to consider Roman Catholics to be "idol worshipers" and claim that the veneration of Mary is evidence that Catholics aren't "real Christians".

Who gets to decide who is a "real Christian" and who is a Ch.I.N.O.?

Clearly, if there is a g*d, she knows her own. As was said in the Albigensian Crusade: "edite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" – "Kill them all! Surely the Lord discerns which ones are his". Short of this, I don't think we can make this call. Sure, we'll end up with some self-label Christians about whom Jesus probably feels the same way that the Cherokee Nations feel about Ward Churchill, but that is preferable to arguing over whether Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Copts, Greek and Roman Orthodox and other sects are so-called "real Christians" or heretics. The Christian label is like the .org top-level domain, is is supposed to mean something, but that distinction is not enforced.

If we spent one bajillionth the mount of time deconstructing islam like we are deconstructing Chistianity here we'd be looking at the middle east in a much different light.

Who is a Christian? Someone who professes to be Christian. It's not a gender or an ethnicity it is a set of belief systems.

That whole "I am a REAL christian this other person is a nujob" is just pointless semantics. The fundamentalist muslims are muslims but so is the quiet, pleasant muslim family who lives on your street.

Corruption, ignorance, greed, lust, these are present in any sort of organzation be it a church, a company, or a household.

I personally feel that all sects of all reigions should have more culpability in policing their respective fundamentalist elements.

I really rally detest fundamentalism of any kind. ANY kind.

TheArtOfScience wrote:

With the exception of Seth I tend to agree with this. Seth is a vile human being.

That's it, I'm COMING TO YOUR HOUSE Dion!

Actually, Detroit scares me. Let's meet in Hell.

btw I see that my prediction of 12 posters putting on their typin' gloves was pretty accurate.

Lobstermobster wrote:

I suppose I would ask who gets to decide what is or is not "Christian." Everyone has the right to say, "these people are not like me," and "I do not believe what they believed." They have much less of a right to say that what someone else believes cannot be called the same thing they call their beliefs.

This is pretty identical to my line of thinking; my solution is to just use the same nomenclature that people choose for themselves. Thus, Hutaree is Christian because they claim they are.

I had a coworker who seemed completely sane until one day at lunch during a discussion of churches calmly said that Catholics weren't Christians, they were idolaters who worshipped the pope, and they were all going to hell. To her, Catholics weren't "real Christians". There's no definition of "real Christian". I would argue that most people aren't actually Christian in anything resembling spirit--they're Americans, and Christianity is the dominant religion of this country. They go to church on Sunday, sing a few songs, toss a few bucks in the collection plate, and then live their lives however they want the rest of the week. They're "Christian" because that's what they call themselves.

The militia nutbags are a self-described Christian nutbags. Sure, they're twisting about the Bible to justify their beliefs, but people have been doing that for a couple millenia now. Scripture has been used to justify slavery, conquest, and discrimination throughout history. I would tend to say that calling yourself Christian pretty much makes you Christian. There's no formal litmus test.

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.

and hopefully remind you all that not every "Christian" is a Christian.

But the thing is, that's an awfully slippery definition, because they can say the exact thing about you... that you're not a good Christian because you're not willing to spread the Word by whatever means necessary.

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.

It's like blaming all of Montana for the Unabomber, or all of Afghanistan for the Taliban. Most people want basically the same stuff... a sense of belonging, a sense of contributing to the world, a sense of prosperity, and a better life for their kids than they had. Conservatives also seem to have strong desires for order, sanctity, and certainty, which liberals largely lack.

We get all caught up on the window dressing, like facing Mecca and praying X times per day, instead of the fundamental desires. We seize on the wrong symptoms as being the cause of the disease. It's not important that these guys were Christian, any more than it's important that Mideastern terrorists are Islamic. The important part is picking up a gun and killing people, and that's not limited to any creed, race, or ethos.

Seth wrote:
TheArtOfScience wrote:

With the exception of Seth I tend to agree with this. Seth is a vile human being.

That's it, I'm COMING TO YOUR HOUSE Dion!

Cool! I need company with my wife being out of the country. Just be sure to bring your wife, a midget, a tukey baster, a zippo lighter, and a 5th a Jagermeister. If you have trouble finding a mid-I'm sorry P&C a "little person" on short notice just PM me because I have a couple dozen contacts in the old rolodex.

Haha, I'm only kidding of course. You know I'd never drink Jager!

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?