Since Rosie O’Donnell declared that Christian extremists were as dangerous as Muslim extremists, it seems to have become an official talking-point of American politics. I’ve heard media talking heads say that Christianity and Islam are the same: not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians proselytize.
Naturally, telling someone there’s a free gift of eternal salvation available to all is strikingly similar to blowing up yourself along with a bus load of people, or two trade towers. Why didn’t we see that before? In perspective, we can all now see that every Billy Graham event was as damaging to America as 9/11. Yet the American military doesn’t seem to be able to track down one old man in the mountains of North Carolina. I smell conspiracy. How did we not realize this when Graham called his events the most politically incorrect word: “Crusades!” Oh, the horror of extreme Christians!
George W. Bush promoted the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. What about that sneaky worldwide trend of violent extremists rising up within Islam? We’re told that every religion has extremists, but it is no reflection on the religion or the people who follow it. But especially Christians.
Today a Christian extremist is in the news again.
A small US church says it will defy international condemnation and go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary.
The top US commander in Afghanistan warned troops’ lives would be in danger if the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida went through with the plan.
Muslim countries, the US government and Nato have also hit out at the plan.
But organiser, Pastor Terry Jones said: “We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam.”
The US government, NATO, even General Petraeus have spoken against this man. Petraeus warned that the action could cause violence “not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world.”
The Huffington Post calls this “our own home-grown variety of dangerous extremism.”
The State Department calls him “un-American.”
I’m not arguing that this guy is correct – or that he’s incorrect – in what he’s doing. But I think it’s important that we get down to what is happening here. Like the conversations at Jim Taggart’s wedding reception, no one is willing to name what is going on here: Terrorism.
Crowds of Muslims in Afghanistan are chanting “Death to America,” and burned an effigy of the pastor – who as of yet, hasn’t done anything. The Obama administration has called on Americans to join these protests against this American pastor.
And yet, less than a year ago, there was a Bible burning that did not receive international or even presidential condemnation. What’s the difference? What’s the thought pattern in this case?
Everyone’s behavior should be modified out of fear of violence from a certain group of people.
Yet – isn’t that the very definition of terrorism? (Yes, it is: “the state of fear and submission produced by the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce.”)
Will this empower the enemies of America in Afghanistan? Perhaps. It already has, and nothing has happened.
Will this endanger American civilians in Muslim countries around the world? Possibly.
Is it foolish to tempt a bully that is threatening violence against you? Perhaps. And that’s why the bully stays the bully. That’s why the mob wins. That’s why terrorism works.
The government of the United States is one that will pay someone $15,000.00 to take and popularize photos of a crucifix in urine, that will ignore Bible burnings, yet speaks out against anyone who does not submit to at least some of the commands of Islam.
Regardless of Rosie’s talking point, anyone who argues that this guy is a dangerous Christian extremist is saying that only because of what Muslim extremists will do. Anyone who argues that he should stop because of potential violent Muslim reactions is saying there is a difference between Christian and Muslim extremists.
