Do you actually have a study, reliable source for this statement? I would be very interested in seeing it.

The day the Federal Building in Oklahoma was bombed, Christians did not take to the streets in celebration-you can't say the same for Muslims in several predominately Muslim corners of the world.

No, but we did celebrate the bombing of Afghanistan, the bombing of Iraq, the killing of Saddam's sons, the capture of Saddam and the killing of Zarqawi. I'm not saying we were wrong to do so, and I'll tell you I was happy on each of those occasions. But from another perspective, where these states and these people were not vilified, it wouldn't look substantially different.

I don't generally follow the Arab media, so it's possible there's more reason for hope than I have supposed. That would be good news.

just me,

T'aint just mainstream Evangelicals who reject Christian Identity as being Christian in nature. I daresay almost all other Protestants, as well as Catholics, Mormons, and very likely Jehovah's Witnesses and Moonies, do as well. That makes the "mainstream" of Christianty that is rejecting "Christian" terrorists very broad.

Tlaloc,

You're still not trying hard enough.

The notion that violence is inherent in Christianity, lurking just under the surface, is without basis. Saying it a dozen different times and in different ways won't change that. Have you ever read the New Testament? There is precious little in it to justify Christians slaughtering unbelievers. That's why Christian Identity has to propagate stuff like The Turner Diaries rather than just have their followers read the New Testament.

It's a bit unclear to me how McVeigh's drift away from Roman Catholicism is evidence he's a Christian. Non sequitur much? Have you read a biography of McVeigh? I'll confess I've only read one. However, its conclusion was that religion played very little role in McVeigh's thinking and motivation, which (at the time) surprised me.

The notion that Islamists are backwards and violent because they are poor -- that is what you said, isn't it? -- ignores the more likely possibility that they are poor because they are backwards and violent. It's not the fault of the West that all that oil wealth isn't reaching the common Muslim in the street; it's their own backwards social institutions.

It also ignores the fact that al Qaeda arose among middle-class Muslims rather than the poorest Muslims.

Fair point on Qadhafi. I tend to lump Hezbollah and Iran under the Islamist label, especially during the Khomeini era, but the definition has likely changed somewhat over time.

James: I think you're wrong in putting Lockerbie under the rubric 'Other Islamists'. Qadhafi's government was and is not particularly religiously motivated. The bombing of PA-103 was done for reasons of state, state revenge for earlier attacks by the US.

Whether the Beirut bombings could be called 'Islamist' is a bit more problematic, but one could certainly argue for political motivation instead of (or at least more than) any religious motivation. It was conducted by a surrogate of the newly empowered Iranian Islamic revolution. That's certain. Whether it was to achieve religious rather than political ends, though, is a tougher call.

Tlaloc the main problem with your argument is that there isn't a single member of a mainstream Christian evangelical denomination that even remotely views Christian Identity as being Christian in nature.

True, but I don't see how it is relevant. What matters is the ideological source of the terrorists beliefs, not whether they get welcomed to the meet and greets

And as before the mainstream isn't nearly so anti-violence as we like to pretend. There is substantial support among christianity for abortion bombers. They may not be yelling it from a minaret like the muslims but it's still there if you look around.

Christianity in general condemns the freaks and kooks on its fringes, I am not so sure Islam is so diligent about doing the same.

And yet they keep popping out of the woodwork, almost as if that condemnation was sort of a "heh, you bad bad boys, naughty naughty, here have a cookie" kind of thing. Don't you think?

I mean if Christianity is really so opposed to violence why is it so damn common to find the two in bed together? Is violence the crazy ex-girlfriend of christianity? You know you shouldn't and you'll regret it in the morning but...aww what the hell, for old (testament) times sake...

Your problem here is conflating Christians with these groups-there really is a huge difference.

I don't see those lines drawn so brightly among Muslims.

The day the Federal Building in Oklahoma was bombed, Christians did not take to the streets in celebration-you can't say the same for Muslims in several predominately Muslim corners of the world.

Christianity in general condemns the freaks and kooks on its fringes, I am not so sure Islam is so diligent about doing the same.

A bunch of little clues that together suggest he was, like most "American Patriots", *also* a Christianist.

look here:

According to them we have (as of 2005) eleven active terrorist groups in the US (that aren;t just in the US while focused on other countries):

• American Front
• Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
• Arizona Patriots (AP)
• Army of God
• Aryan Nations (AN)
• Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
• Hammerskin Nation
• Jewish Defense League (JDL)
• Ku Klux Klan (KKK)
• Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus
• al-Fuqra

The Arizona Patriots are a perfect example:

Founding Philosophy: The Arizona Patriots were a loosely organized group of patriots that subscribe to Posse Comitatus and Christian Identity ideology. The Patriots were white supremacist anti-Semites who sought to overthrow the American government. They began as paper terrorists, clogging the court system with bogus lawsuits. In the mid-1980s, however, the Patriots began planning more violent attacks on the government.

An American Patriot group connected to Christian Identity as well as being white supremacists.

McVeigh could only be categorized as part of the Patriot Movement, but I see your point in taking Benen's claim at face value for the sake of argument.

Don't be dense.

well I'll try...

Acts of violence by self-identified Christians are condemned by the mainstream of Christianity. This has practical consequences, including less tendency for self-identified Christians to turn to violence and more difficulty establishing effective terror networks.

Damn, if this is less I'd hate to see what more would look like. The truth is that advocating violence really isn't that far outside the mainstream for christianity. Violence is kind of on the porch of christianity after having been told politely that it was rather boorish in the living room. So now it's out there having a smoke and still very much part of the religion's house as it were.

I see remarkably little evidence that the same is true of Muslims. Yes, there are moderate Muslims who condemn violent jihad, and they deserve our respect and support. But I see little evidence that the extremists are significantly out of the mainstream of worldwide Islam.

Alright, but now let's compare circumstances: the Christians only control the only superpower on the planet as well as much of the rest of western civilization. They have all the force and all the money.

Meanwhile the Muslims have a number of third world states most notable for their possession of oil, a resource that has caused them to be much abused and taken advantage of.

That just might play into why their religion hasn't been able to divorce itself very well from violence. Just as black christians in the 50s and 60s were more likely to be violent than a similar group today- they are dealing with ugly oppression.

Don't be dense.

Acts of violence by self-identified Christians are condemned by the mainstream of Christianity. This has practical consequences, including less tendency for self-identified Christians to turn to violence and more difficulty establishing effective terror networks.

I see remarkably little evidence that the same is true of Muslims. Yes, there are moderate Muslims who condemn violent jihad, and they deserve our respect and support. But I see little evidence that the extremists are significantly out of the mainstream of worldwide Islam.

It really does make a difference.

I guess I'm a little hypersensitive when I see the door open a crack to allow those who try to place *ahem* xianists (or whatever the derogatory phrase of the day may be) on the same plane as those who base their actions on a Wahhabist or Salafist interpretation of Islam.

The difference being...

Help me out here because on the one hand i see a bunch of neanderthals who kill out of their perverted misunderstanding of ancient superstitions, and on the other side I see pretty much the same thing.

What exactly is the fundamental difference between a christian group like the KKK and a muslim group like Al Qaeda? Sure they swap out the particular holy text they claim to follow and they have different specific races/ideologies they hate (although both conveniently hate the jews, ah the one hatred that springs eternal), other than that though I'm hard pressed to see much difference in the underlying pathology.

Like I said, help me out here...

Well, sure, there are more Christian nuts than there are members of al Qaeda in the country. But "more likely to be killed" was the claim, not "more likely to be the subject of an attack."

I wasn't saying you were wrong, actually I was agreeing with you, although cutting out the small attacks does skew things quite a lot. AQ really has only had two domestic attacks. The Christianists have had hundreds. It's just that the Christianist crimes are generally very small scale.

And, frankly, if you're not an abortion clinic worker or in a government building, your chances of the latter approximate zero.

Or gay...
or a pagan...
or a hippy...
or a jew...
or black...
or...

Man, the list of what you have to be to have a zero chance of getting attacked by Christians is getting kinda long...