Posted on 06/03/2003 8:54:13 AM PDT by Believer 1
To: Friends
From: Gary L. Bauer President American Values
Date: Monday, June 2, 2003
Christian Terrorism?
It took the Washington Post less than 48 hours to link accused Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph with Christianity. This is the same Washington Post that downplays the growing evidence that the Washington, D.C. snipers were driven by their Islamic faith. An article on page 3 of the Post this morning, under the headline, "Is Terrorism Tied to Christian Sect?" heavily quotes Professor James Aho of Idaho State University. Professor Aho tells the Post that if Christians take umbrage at the juxtaposition of the words "Christian" and "terrorist," "that may give them some idea of how Muslims feel when they constantly hear the term 'Islamic terrorism.'" Professor Aho goes on to assure us that "every major world religion has people who have appropriated the label of their religion in order to legitimize their violence."
Is the professor really this ignorant? Assuming Eric Rudolph committed these crimes, he cannot find one word in the teachings of Christ to justify them. Nor will he find any theological leader of any branch of Christianity willing to defend his criminal conduct. No Christian neighborhoods burst into celebration at the news of the bombings. Nor are Christian children being taught that if Rudolph had died in his attacks he would be a "martyr" welcomed into heaven.
The contrast with radical Islamic teachings couldn't be more stark. Each terrorist act against Christians and Jews by those acting in the name of Islam is excused by countless Islamic leaders, theologians, imams, and philosophers. Schools are named after jihad bombers. And there are plenty of verses in the Koran cited to justify the murderous attacks of Islamic "warriors." Do you see the difference, Professor Aho?
and there isn't any reference to "speaking of killing infidels". Still Clueless.
Martin Luther? The heretic who hated the Church he had been a member of so long that he confessed, "when I pray to God I cannot conceal my hatred for the pope, and I pray that he go to hell". The Martin Luther who wrote a book in 1543 called "On The Jews and Their Lies", in which he wrote that he proposed to set fire to their synagogues and schools, to take away their homes, forbid them to pray or teach, or even to utter God's name. And that he wanted to "be rid of them" and requested that the government and ministers "deal with the problem". He requested pastors and preachers to follow his example of issuing warnings against the Jews. And who said in this book, "We are at fault in not slaying them." That Martin Luther? The Martin Luther who wrote: "Men were born to sin, so go and sin, and sin boldly". That one? The Martin Luther who swore on the altar of God to live a celebate life, but who broke those vows to marry an apostate Catholic nun who also broke her vows? That one? Luther was a mentally ill, raging nutcase who caused a massive division in the Church and led thousands of people to their deaths when he incited the German "Peasant uprising" and then left them totally abandoned to be crushed by German authorities. Like I said before, you need to read a book. (FYI, most scholars today, Catholic and Protestant, agree that the Crusades were fought primarily becuase of the Islamic defeat of the Byzantine Empire Army at Manzikert in 1071, and Islam's frightening history of expansionism. The Western world had nothing left to do with such barbaric pigs as the medieval Mohamedans but to take the offensive and keep them out of Europe. And if you ever do decide to study the Crusades, you will then find that the Crusades were nothing but a crushing defeat for Christians at the merciless hands of the Seljuk Turks and Arab Muslims. All this revised ranting about Christians going into Islam to kill and convert is the stupidest damn thing I've ever heard, and there is absolutely no historical record of this happening. After the First Crusade the Crusaders met with nothing but defeat after defeat. Who the he-l does a defeated army convert?
I agree with you, the Crusades were effective in keeping Islam at a safe distance from Western Europe. The reason that I said the Crusades were a "crushing defeat" was specific to a FR member's allegation that the Crusades were launched to subject Islam and convert them to Chrisitianity. I was trying to point out to him that militarily, (after the First Crusade), there were no lasting military victories and no vast military occupations of land that could have facilitated the "forced conversions" he dreamed up. Mostly the Crusaders settled for taking a few strategic areas to set up defensive positions, build defensive castles, and protect from a rear attack of supply lines to Jerusalem. The First Crusade began with approx. 500,000 Crusaders and ended up with only around 15,000 after the many battles and trecherous trek took their toll -- these estimated 15,000 took Jerusalem against a vastly greater number of defenders. But 15,000 men was barely enough to hold and defend Jerusalem, let alone go out and force conversions on Islam. It's remarkable to me how many people today understand the Crusades as an attempt by Christendom to conquer nations and convert them by the sword, when quite the opposite was true; it was a completely defensive thrust to prevent Islam from furthering their bloodthirsty conquests into Europe and to open a safe route for Christians to pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
I have stated repeatedly that Eric Rudolph is NOT a Christian.
Even your simple insults make no sense.
Stop being pissed at G_d and take responsibility for yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.