The recent attacks on
the French satirical periodical Charlie Hebdo resulted in a worldwide outpouring
of support for the victims and condemnation of the terrorists. But the
condemnation also came with a lot of confusion and rhetoric from both liberal
and conservative factions. I don't believe it is right to paint all Muslims with
the terrorist brush. As John A. Azumah explained in his
recent piece, the Wahabbists follow a specific type of Islam, but they also
shirk their own authority structures and seek to take matters into their own
hands.
1 Thus, the terrorists are both the natural
outworking of Islamic beliefs and violators of its governing bodies.
While
some on the right may have a penchant to see every Muslim as a terrorist, some
on the left make two very different types of errors. The first is to see no
connection between the terrorists and Islam at all. This is absurd to the point
of ridicule. After Mohammad's conquering of Medina and Mecca, the Caliphite
expansion across North Africa and into Spain, the Crusades, the Ottoman
expansion, the attack on the Marine base in Lebanon, the attack on the USS Cole,
9/11, the London Subway bombings, the Madrid train bombings, and countless more
attempts that have been thwarted, I think that any reasonable person can see a
pattern developing. History shows that Islam was in fact spread by the
sword, and it is easy to see how the children of the Hanbali tradition would see
justification in continuing that tradition.
But it is the other mistake some
have made that concerns me even more deeply. There are some on the left who
would argue that it isn't Islam that's the problem, but it is any type of
dedicated religious belief. These people charge that Christians who take
their faith seriously are just as much a terrorist threat as radicalized
Muslims.
One case in point is an article written by Jack Jenkins that
appeared on the Think Progress site a month before the Charlie Hebdo attack.
Entitled "The Other Kind Of Religious Extremism: The Christian Terrorist
Movement No One Wants To Talk About," Jenkins tries to link individual attacks,
such as the white supremacist Larry McQuilliams who shot up several buildings
(but no people) in Austin, Texas with groups like Al Queaeda, Boko Harem, and
ISIS.
Jenkins knows that McQuilliams was following the teachings of the white
supremacist group the Phineas Priesthood. But for him, that's more evidence that some Christians can be dangerous. He writes, "McQuilliams' possible ties to the
Phineas Priesthood may sound strange, but it's actually unsettlingly common. In
fact, his association with the hateful religious group highlights a very real —
but often under-reported — issue: terrorism enacted in the name of Christ."
2
Wait a minute. Did Jenkins really enact terrorism in
the name of Christ? Did he scream out "Jesus be praised" during his attack? Not
at all. According to the
Austin Chronicle, who interviewed FBI special agent
Chris Combs, "he had a rooted motive. 'He could not find employment,' Combs
said. 'He was also upset that – in his eyes – many immigrants had more services
afforded to them than he had afforded to him.'"
3 Yet,
Jenkins is pretty quick to rush his judgment simply because he had a book published by a white supremacist movement with the word "Christendom" in the title. Jenkins then
shows his hand by widening his scope:
But there is a long history of terrorist attacks resembling
McQuilliams' rampage across Austin — where violence is carried out in the name
of Christianity — in the United States and abroad. In America, the Ku Klux Klan
is well-known for over a century of gruesome crimes against African Americans,
Catholics, Jews, and others — all while ascribing to what they say is a
Christian theology.4
Is he
kidding? "All while ascribing to what they say is Christian theology?" Jenkins
uses the IRA of Northern Ireland as one example of "terrorism enacted in the
name of Christ." That's ridiculous; the IRA was very much a political group,
described as "a militant nationalist organization" by the
Encyclopedia
Britannica.
5 There was no ascribing their actions as the
proper outworking of Christian theology. Likewise, the Klu Klux Klan cannot claim any
verse that tells them to burn crosses or hang people because of the color of
their skin. In order to demonize Christianity, Jenkins simply tries to grab hold of anything that seeks to use the word "Christian" while violating both
the core teachings of Christianity and the example set by its founder, Jesus
Christ.
When looking at the foundation of Christianity, one sees that the
followers of Jesus died for their faith, and even during those times of early
persecution they didn't form an army against their persecutors. The inherent
worth of all men including those with physical or mental defects comes from
Christianity. The teachings of Jesus such as the Golden Rule, to go the extra
mile, or to "turn the other cheek" are the best values for a civilized and
gracious society. Jesus Himself did not conquer with an army, but gave himself
as a sacrifice for others. If an individual's acts with intent to terrorize or
kill, you no longer have Christianity. You have something else entirely.
In
perpetrating intentional distortions such as these, Jenkins himself engages in a
kind of journalistic terrorism, seeking to ghettoize the faithful followers of
Jesus as some kind of threat. The public would be better served with the truth
than misleading articles such as his.
References
