The Continuing Burden of Bad Philosophy

“They have been so nice, I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible.”

— Convicted murderer Eric Rudolph, sometimes called a “Christian terrorist” for his attacks on two abortion clinics, a gay nightclub, and the 1996 Summer Olympics, on “good people … mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul.”

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “The Continuing Burden of Bad Philosophy

  1. I believe that he could denounce Jesus on a live, multi-network broadcast and he would still be referred to as a “Christian terrorist” because to think otherwise would require an immense paradigm shift. Those who are using Rudolph as an example of a Christian probably are not interested in making that change.

  2. Rudolph may prefer Nietzche to the Bible, but the point has always been that he has Christian supporters who approved of his actions.

  3. James- While you may indeed be correct, I would say that anyone who supports the actions of someone like E.R. (or even a McVeigh) really does not understand the concept of Christianity.

    But that is a difficult position to support with mouthpieces like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I for one am thankful that Protestants do not have a pope-like figure. The Pope has decorum, wisdom, and knows when and when not to speak (hopefully). Protestants, including the venerable Martin Luther, have not been so blessed.

  4. They had a longer time to solve the bad pope problem, Burwell. We’re newer at this! They had some who make Robertson look like Mother Theresa. No offense, Kathy. I’m ultra Catholic friendly.

  5. Hunter, that is a good point (about the amount of time the Catholics have had). Protestants, however, are still more inclined to be individualistic and speak their minds about various issues, even when it is not completely in accord with Scripture. And I write this as a Southern Baptist (occasionally embarressed by my own denomination).

  6. The longer time frame has its disadvantages too. The Orthodox have been pissed off at us about three times longer than you guys have even had a denomination.

  7. “James- While you may indeed be correct, I would say that anyone who supports the actions of someone like E.R. (or even a McVeigh) really does not understand the concept of Christianity.”

    I think you are right, but howcome nobody remembers this idea when talking abour islamic fundamentalists? If people want to pain every crackpot mullah as being the core of islam then they shouls expect their own wingnuts to be labeled as the core of their faith.

    All I want is a little equanimity.

  8. I wasn’t thinking of any specific utterance here, you are correct in that. I mean that there’s no shortage of messages on the internet and in the media and even from the government about Islam being a religion of violence.

    As has been pointed out other places the very fact that the term “Islamic terrorism” is used extensively when people feel no need to say “Christian terrorism,” “Maoist terrorism,” or “Basque terrorism” indicates a certain prejudice of mindset. It seems that in other cases people regard terrorism as being connected to an ideology whereas with Islam they believe it caused by the ideology.

Comments are closed.