Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 3

message: The title is dishonest.  "Christian extremists terrorists"?  Is there any other type?  
On the page, "Islamic extremist terrorism", it says: 
     Where such terrorist activity aims to establish an Islamic 
     theocracy and impose religious law (Sharia), it is sometimes 
     termed Islamist terrorism. Other widely used terms are 
     Islamic terrorism and Islamic extremism.
Why is there such hypocrisy?  "Islamic extremist terrorism" is "also called Islamic terrorism" but "Christian extremist terrorism" is NOT called "also called christian terrorism"?  The wording implies something different.
Also, the wording suggests that christian terrorists are "not true christians", which is bullshit.  Saying "James Kopp isn't a true christian" is as stupid as saying "Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a true christian".  A christian is someone who believes there was a jesus christ and claims to follow "his" teaching.  That is equally true of MLK Jr. and James Kopp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.58.53.139 (talk) 
:Thanks for pointing this out. I'm making the language match now. — coelacan talk — 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is still over-categorization, however, and redundant. — coelacan talk — 18:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This "article" reeks of denial 

message: The only thing remotely close to "Christian terrorism" included in this article are the actions of the racist Christian Identity movement and anti-abortionist extremists in the US. According to the article "Christian terrorism is terrorism carried out in the name of furthering Christian goals or teachings." Neither of these two meet those criteria very well. Abortion has, historically, never been a big Christian issue, and racism and attacks on black people (Christian Identity's main occupation) have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, in fact almost all of the anti-slavery advocates and civil rights activists in Britain and the US over the past 3 centuries have been fervent believers. One does not need to be a Christian at all to endorse racism or oppose abortion. Since racist terrorism and anti-abortion terrorism already have their own articles, I hardly see the need for this article. Until sources from the Bible or classical sources of Christian theology can be provided to the effect that racism and/or anti-abortion are central Christian "goals or teaching" traditionally very important to the faith, I am nominating this article for deletion.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 23:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you are coming from; however I think the argument that "Real Christians don't do violent acts" and the corresponding "If they do violent acts, they are not Christian" is a circular argument.  As for Christian theology supporting violence, Luke 12:49-53 fits the bill.  And, to be fair to Christanity, the article states "Most mainstream Christians consider these acts to be egregious violations of the religion's ethics, and regularly condemn all acts of terrorism including those perpetrated by self-professed Christian terrorists."--something you tried to delete. Samboy 05:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Christian theology supporting violence"...? The proper way to interpret Christian scriptures is to let verses clarify other verses, particularly parallel passages. Luke 12:49-53 confirms the non-literal interpretation of Matthew 10:34. Jesus did not endorse violence, but he warns people about possible family division. For a commentary see tektonics.org and ccel.org. Leah (13 January 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.73.129.135 (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay User:72.184.244.25, now that you've been blocked 24 hours for edit warring, and hopefully cooled down, maybe I can get a word in. You need to understand that just because you left a message on an article's talk page doesn't mean you suddenly have license to start deleting content from the article at your whim. Leaving a message on the talk page is only the beginning of seeking consensus for a controversial change. And if another user reverts your change, even once, that is an indication that you do not have consensus to act. You need to stop reverting immediately and take your issues to the talk page right then, lay it all out, and stop editing that article while a community consensus forms. This can take days, and you'll just have to be patient. Now, as to the content of your issue, I agree that "One does not need to be a Christian at all to endorse racism or oppose abortion." However, if a group takes these stances and claims to be drawing them from Christianity, then we have to take them at their word. It would be WP:original research for us to sit around and make judgments on which of these groups are really motivated by Christianity and which are using it as an excuse, or anywhere in between. It would also be original research for us to even decide that Christianity is ever simply being used as an excuse, or that it's invalid for Christians to engage in terrorism, even in the general sense without naming particular groups. We have to take these groups at their word. That's all that the WP:OR policy allows us to do. — coelacan talk — 14:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that you've been blocked a second time, at your account as well as your IP, maybe you'll take my advice seriously. You need to understand that just because you left a message on an article's talk page doesn't mean you suddenly have license to start deleting content from the article at your whim. Leaving a message on the talk page is only the beginning of seeking consensus for a controversial change. And if another user reverts your change, even once, that is an indication that you do not have consensus to act. You need to stop reverting immediately and take your issues to the talk page right then, lay it all out, and stop editing that article while a community consensus forms. This can take days, and you'll just have to be patient. If you do not understand what I am talking about, read WP:CONSENSUS. As to Rudolph, he affirmed that he is a Catholic, and you don't get to enforce a litmus test on who's Christian and who's not. A Christian might prefer Where The Wild Things Are to the Bible, and this would not be a reflection on their dedication to Christianity (it would only be a reflection on the literary quality of the Bible). If the groups affirm that they are Christian groups, that's it, that's enough, we don't have the right to demand that they provide Biblical justification for their actions. The fact that they declare themselves to be Christian groups is the only metric for inclusion in this list. They don't need citations, they don't need Biblical exegesis, they don't need any of your litmus tests. To demand anything other than their own opinion of themselves is to impose our own analysis and this is a violation of WP:No Original Research. And by the way, tell me again how I'm just trying to "poke the Islamophobes". That was cute of you. — coelacan talk — 01:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The diff between your last two edits is pertinent. The fact is that we don't need them to have specifically declared themselves to be "Christian terrorists". Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan will never admit to being terrorists, but we don't fail to categorize them as such. We only need them to be terrorists who declare themselves to be Christian. We can take some time to work out citations for all the groups you dispute, but Eric Robert Rudolph, for instance, is easy. Simply being a member of Christian Identity and mailing letters for Army of God is enough, as the groups' names themselves are the declarations. — coelacan talk — 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly KKK doesn't work as an example at this time, since it's not in the article these days, but the general point remains. Governments and media classify terrorists when the terrorist doesn't choose it, Christianity is a label taken unto onesself. — coelacan talk — 04:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but I still disagree.  The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is, as stated in that article, "It has consistently been the second-largest of the groups forming the Palestinian Liberation Organization".  The PLO is generally considered to be a Muslim terrorist organization.  The main reason the PKK is not considered a Muslim Terrorist Organization is because they just don't get enough attention from the western media. Samboy 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no consensus.  Here is what happened: You proposed a number of changes.  Five, count them five different editors have reverted your changes:     .  Making edits against the wishes of other editors is not what I would call consensus. Samboy 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: As spelled out on their individual Wiki pages, the PIRA (and the INLA, and all of the other NI terrorist groups, loyalist and republican), God's Army, and the NLFT are nationalist/ethnic terrorist groups, not religious groups. They seek a new state of political affairs for their people, not a Christian theocracy. The overriding issues in these conflicts is certainly not religion.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've seen it argued that al Qaeda is not Islamic, that their primary motivation is not religious but political, to get Western occupying forces out of Arab lands. But that doesn't mean we can stop calling them Muslim terrorists. We have to take al Qaeda at their word that they are Muslim. And we have to take these other groups at their word that they are Christian. WP:OR demands that we do precisely that. — coelacan talk — 14:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've seen it argued that American Regime is not Christian and Jewish, that their primary motivation is not religious but political, to attack countries in the name of democracy and to attack Pelestinian democracy in the name of dictatorship. But that doesn't mean we can stop calling them Christian and Jewish terrorists. We have to take American Regime at their word that their president Bush says that he is told by God what he is going. And we have to take these other groups at their word that they are Christian. WP:OR demands that we do precisely that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VirtualEye (talk • contribs) 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't make these arguments to keep the Irish Troubles, Nagaland and the Karen in this article and keep the definition of Christian terrorism in the first line: 'Christian terrorism is terrorism carried out in the name of furthering Christian goals or teachings'. They're just not mutually consistent. Please choose which is correct. Trent 900 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The PLO is seen as an Islamic terrorist organization.  The Kurdistan Workers Party does not get much attention from the western media because they are fighting other Muslims.  Samboy 19:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PLO is seen as Islamic terrorist organization??? By whom? Fox? CNN? CBC and their brainwashed christian and jewish extremists? VirtualEye 08:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern Ireland, Nagaland, Karen Homeland

message: When I first editted this page with an NPOV tag, there was a line in the opening paragraph disparaging the media for liberal bias by "the net's biggest joker".  After marking the page NPOV and reloading, this entry seems to have disappeared.  I'm removing the NPOV tag, and apologize for muddying the thread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drmccoy (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV misapplied 

message: Given the sheer length of some of the discussions here, I've gone ahead and created archives. I tried to keep posts together as best I could, but a few folks had gone back and replied to older sections literally a year after it was originally created, which made a nasty gap in a few of them. If you're unsure where your comment went, check both archives and please do not continue discussions in there. If you want to comment on something contained in the archives, create a new topic on the main page here and just link to the old topic for others to read what you're referring to. -- Kesh 04:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created Archives 

message: On Stephen Knapp's page he claims
"The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura. "
Yet I have the read NLFT Charter, and it makes mention of no such thing. Unless verification can be brought up for this claim, his links and all of the Nagaland Rebels stuff has to go from the page.
NLFT Charter
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/tripura/documents/papers/nlft_const.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Knapp's Page on the Nagaland Rebels

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#--Sefringle 06:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #--Sefringle 06:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: The KKK is one of the most well known examples of Christian terrorism, yet this article says nothing about it. This article should include something about it.--Sefringle 01:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only registered Wikipedian I see in that debate actually says that the KKK is a legitimate tangent, just like al-Qaeda isn't "really" Muslim, but they paint themselves as a religious brotherhood using extremist interpretations of scriptural passages to legitimize their violent and controversial methods.  Assuming there isn't a very strong reason against including them here, I'm going to try and write a NPOV section dealing with the KKK's relation to Christianity in here. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the current version is good for this article now. The article is too short already as it is.--Sefringle 05:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: and I will undo your edit. you can't just delete information because you don't like it.--Sefringle 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see a single thing decided there, I see two users who both have different opinions. Please stop claiming that things have been "decided already", they have not.  The KKK is undeniably terrorist, and undeniably claims to be Christian.  They are "not Christian" in the same way AQ and UBL are "not Muslim", but that's not the scope of these articles. Please see the KKK site's "Message to fellow Christians" and the Imperial KKK "recognized and protected Christian Organization"Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sections to include for expansion

message: Blogs etc. should not be linked to, nor should opinion pieces from non-experts with extreme political views. Jayjg (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but people keep adding them.  Joie de Vivre 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs etc. 

message: What can be done to get rid of the weasel words tag?  JeffBurdges 15:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is pretty much de-weaseled. If you agree, feel free to remove the tag. If not, feel free to edit. Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words