You can try to dodge it, but the thematic undertones of your posts are clear. Eric Rudolph's name is typically invoked by people who want to equate the scourge of thousands of Muslim terrorists with the relatively insignificant non-threat of the one Christian terrorist they can think of. It's one of those "b-b-but Christians are just as likely to commit violence as Muslims" things.
Eric Rudolph was a terrorist and Jews were persecuted in Europe for over a thousand years. That's an undeniable truth. That these people claimed to be good Christians is neither my doing. Nor is the fact that they weren't good Christians my fault. If you want to criticize me for reminding your that terrorists can claim to be Christians, that's your choice. If you want to accuse me of bashing Christians based on my criticism of Rudolph et al, then you are using the reputations of over a billion innocent and God-fearing Christians in order to defend anti-Semites, murderers and terrorists.
Eric Rudolph's name is typically invoked by people who want to equate the scourge of thousands of Muslim terrorists with the relatively insignificant non-threat of the one Christian terrorist they can think of.
I mentioned Eric Rudolph's name because you seem to think that "Muslim" means "terrorist" and vice-versa. Erick Rudolph was clearly a terrorist and he was not a Muslim. Nor was he a "relatively insignificant non-threat" during his reigh of terror. He did, after all, bomb the Olympic games.
It's one of those "b-b-but Christians are just as likely to commit violence as Muslims" things.
If that's how you want to see it, that's your error. I think the numbers prove you wrong.