a common lie strikes again
Those of you who know me know that I am not religious, and it ought to be clear after nearly 1,500 posts that I am in no way a religious person.
I don’t like it when people lie, however, about Christians in this country.
A commenter at Josh’s1, who has either never heard of Google or has an IQ of less than 70 (and I’m now taking action on which one), claims:
What a drip.
“Of course, Christians aren’t prone to blow themselves up in subway tunnels.”
How about in front of abortion clinics?
Do christians ever set off bombs there?
Oh, sorry, my bad, these cowards lack the strength of their convictions and they don’t blow themselves up, they only like to blow other people up for jebus.
If this sort of idiocy is representative of the influence of religion, then I guess I don’t see how the country “becoming anti-religion” could possibly be considered a bad thing.
Got that? Christian fundamentalism is just as bad as Islamic fundamentalism.
This is part of a wider view held by many self-styled “progressives” – that Western culture (which by any measure includes modern Christianity) — despite producing the lion’s share of the scientific, philosophical, political, and techincal successes of the last thousand years; and especially where ethnic minority and designated “underrepresented” groups enjoy unparalleled opportunity compared to other countries — is still just not better than any other culture.
That is not, however, the point I wanted to make. Since I have both access to Google and (I think) an IQ greater than 70, I decided to use them:
Number of violent incidents at abortion clinics since 1997: 65. This includes not just bombings but all violent incidents (assaults, etc.). In all abortion-related violence since 1996, there have been five deaths, along with injuries and property damage.
How many Americans have died as a result of Islamist terror attacks?
- July 1996: Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. Deaths: 19 American soldiers.
- 1997: Letterbombs mailed to the federal prison in Leavenworth, KS and other places. Deaths: 0. These attacks were largely foiled.
- August 7, 1998: The bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These get included because (if memory serves) an embassy overseas is just as much a part of America as Massachusetts Street in Lawrence. Deaths: 12 Americans plus 235 non-Americans; over 5,000 injured.
- 1999: No Islamic terror incidents reported (several foiled2).
- October 12, 2000: The U.S.S. Cole bombing in Yemen. Deaths: 17 sailors, 40 more injured.
- 2001: September 11. Deaths: 2,783.
- 2002: Martin Burnham, a Christian missionary from Wichita, was killed in a rescue attempt when the Philippines Army raided an Abu Sayyaf compound in that country. Abu Sayyaf had kidnapped Burnham and his wife Gracia, who escaped with her life. Also, a bombing in Bali killed 7 Americans. Deaths: 8.
- 2003: 35 Americans killed in international incidents.
- 2004: Nick Berg, Paul Johnson are kidnapped and beheaded. Again, we exclude soldiers killed in Iraq by terrorists.
- 2005: One American killed in the July 7 London subway bombing.
There have been 1+2+8+2783+17+12+19 = 2,842 deaths of Americans due to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism (excluding soldiers in a combat zone), and five due to Christian fundamentalist terrorism. Neither is excusable, but to use this methodology to equate American Christian fundamentalists with Islamic fundamentalists is, as I think I’ve demonstrated, utterly absurd.
1: Josh himself never argued any such thing. The points he made in his original post stand. He, of course, cannot control all the clowns who comment on his site.
2: The FBI did, however, report several incidents by the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front.
11.22.2005 @ 13:31
The abortion thing is ridiculous. Five deaths in the past 9 years by people who are opposed to abortion. How many deaths have resulted from people who SUPPORT abortion? About a million PER YEAR. Over 30 million babies killed since Roe v. Wade. Now if that’s the result of anti-Christianization, what is the good in that? (sorry, the abortion thing, regardless of the scope, is something I’m particularly disgusted about)
11.22.2005 @ 14:24
Now if only we could hold all of those mothers down and force them to have babies…
11.22.2005 @ 14:35
Sorry, that was a little snide. Abortion is a multi-faceted issue that includes nearly every aspect of life: education, science, morality, and yes, even politics. I would love there to be a world where abortion isn’t needed. Prove to me that we are in that world today and you’ll have proven to me that abortion is never justified. As it stands, not everyone considers abortion to be murder.
11.22.2005 @ 15:39
The most prominent rationale for abortion is that it’s needed at times because of rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. These three reasons combined account for less than one percent of all abortions that occur in the United States. Furthermore, research has been done that shows women who get abortions have a statistically higher chance of getting breast cancer than women who don’t. Health of the mother, this time on the other side.
Furthermore, people claim abortion is a “woman’s right” and that it’s her body so she should be able to do with it what she pleases. Contrary to this argument, polls have shown that over 50% of abortion supporters are MALE. Why, if it is a woman’s right to her own body, are males the ones who support it more?
If abortion is “needed,” then it is by such a small group of people that does not warrant preventing parents from having a say if their under-18 daughter wants to have an abortion, nor does it warrant having the option available to virtually all people who just don’t want to have a kid, the latter of which account for an overwhelming majority of abortions in the country.
11.22.2005 @ 17:01
Abortion is a complex issue that will not be easily resolved, if it will ever be. (I do, however, object to any minor under 18 receiving any non-emergency medical procedure without said minor’s legal guardians being notified.)
What I’d meant to highlight is the dangerous degree of moral equivalence that has been brought to us by the confluence of identity politics and the “diversity” movement (the “group” uber alles) with the threat of terrorism — that causes such absurd statements as the one I noted to be uttered.
11.22.2005 @ 19:12
The issue of maternal health is valid, though I would have to see a study that controls for whether or not it’s the abortion-having demographic that’s more susceptible to breast cancer, and also, I don’t entirely agree with it being solely the woman’s right choose, as it generally takes both a man and a woman to make babies. Ideally, both genders would take equal responsibility, but yea, that’s just ideal for me, not necessarily reality. In addition, each must decide for themselves when abortion is justified; free will cannot be scripted for others. But that’s all beside the point.
Where I take offense: Comparing those who exercise their right to abortion, or perform abortions, to Islamic or Christian terrorists, in effect, condemns thirty million mothers and doctors as murderers. To condemn these folks as such requires believing that each fetus has a soul, and that destruction of this soul is murder. This is largely a Christian belief. Church and state are separate, and state decides who the murderers are.
11.22.2005 @ 19:26
I don’t think a mother getting an abortion is like a terrorist at all. Unless she directs a plane to fly into her hoo-hoo with a suicide bomber paid to do it, then no, it’s not terrorism.
I had typed a bunch of stuff to post as a rebuttal, but as you and I found out, Neil, on so many occasions, our politics will always clash, and we will have to accept disagreement.
I still win, though.
11.22.2005 @ 19:30
Dammit! Well since you called “win” I suppose you get this one. Next time I’ll be a little quicker on the draw.
So you coming home for Thanksgiving?
Oh yeah, and PFFOOOOOOOOMAGICSTARWARSPOOPPOOPPOOPGNARGNARGNARGNAR
11.22.2005 @ 23:28
This is a minor nit, but I don’t think a moral equivalence was being established.
One can say that two things are both bad without insisting that both are equally bad.
One can argue that Islamic fundamentalism is a greater source of violence, therefore deserves to be a top focus, or that Christian fundamentalism is right here in Kansas (see Timothy McVeigh) and we should clean up our own house.
Or we could figure out a way to walk and chew gum, taking on violent fundamentalism whatever the underlying creed, without assuming that doing so establishes an equivalence.
How deftly did I walk that line?
11.23.2005 @ 12:27
Not bad. All of these terrorist elements should be rooted out and crushed.
What I think many do is underestimate the role religion plays in the terrorist threat. I’m not saying that a Semtex belt (or anything else) is a part of the Islamic identity – that notion is patently absurd. What I’m saying is that there are elements of Islamic thought who would like it to be that way, and that there are more of them than we are willing to admit, and as I demonstrated, some of us are quite willing to deny for their own purposes.
If you want to do your own investigations on this, I recommend MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute. It’s a compilation of translated Mideast media reports looking at America.
11.24.2005 @ 14:27
Josh: And, via my counter-terrorism expert, I have a correction for you: T-Mac’s motivation for the OKC attacks, it was anarchist literature and anger about the Branch Davidian incident in Waco, TX. A psychologist who examined him for his trial told the BBC that he was bullied a lot as a kid, suffered from PTSD from the 1991 Gulf War, and then was exposed to the above literature.
That has not stopped white Christian racist groups from claiming him.
My source has promised a cite better than the one I provided soon.
11.24.2005 @ 22:55
Your list of Islamo-fascist terror attacks show at least go back to 1983, when the marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by a suicide truck bomb. Just a note…