After 400 years of terror, isn’t it time for all Christians to speak out against ‘Radical Christian Extremism?’

Slavery was terrorism: Plantations were concentration camps. The Native American genocide was terrorism: The Trail of Tears was a death march. Hangings by slave patrols and the Ku Klux Klan were terrorism: These murders—often perpetrated or approved by white ‘Christians’—were intended to grieve, horrify and intimidate blacks.

Virtually all who committed these acts of terrorism claimed they were Christians.

This radical Christian extremism persists. Militant Christians still verbally and physically attack gays and blacks, Muslims and immigrants. They justify their hate by appealing to Jesus and the Bible.

Actually, the word ‘Christian’ may not apply to any who perpetrate these horrors. Should terrorists be called radical ‘Christian’ extremists? Their claims of following the tenets of Christianity are wholly false. More than a billion Christians should not be smeared by those committing acts of terrorism. Their crimes are perversions of Christianity.

The same is true of radical ‘Muslim’ extremists. Their claims of following the tenets of Islam are wholly false. More than a billion Muslims should not be smeared by those committing such acts. Their crimes are perversions of Islam.

Many Republican leaders, especially Donald Trump, disagree—along with many voters in the base of the Republican party. Why? Must all Muslims bear responsibility for those claiming acts of terrorism are a legitimate expression of Islam?

This political blame is based on fear and hatred. These are not Christian motives. As stated in I John 4:18, “There is no fear in love. Perfect love drives out all fear.” Also, Jesus insisted Christians must love, not hate, their enemies. He modeled this love throughout his life and even during his crucifixion.

We must contend with our fears: our fears of blacks; our fears of gays; our fears of Muslims; our fears of immigrants. Unchallenged fears result in misplaced rage and scapegoating of ‘the other.’ This leads to verbal attacks and violence against hated groups.

Racism and homophobia are repulsive. Islamophobia and xenophobia are abhorrent.

Insisting all Americans oppose Muslim immigration or be castigated as purveyors of politically correctness is obscene. Yes, we must seek to be correct—politically and morally—but we can only do so, as the Apostle Paul states, by “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).

What is the truth? Muslims are our neighbors. Muslims are soldiers serving our country. Muslims are patriotic citizens. And Muslims are no more deserving of prejudice than Christians.

What does love require? We must treat the vast majority of Muslims as neighbors, not enemies. We must respond with compassion to the extraordinary hardships of refugees, including Muslims. We must see Muslims as human beings—people who have far more in common with us than differences.

Love also requires those of us judging others must first judge ourselves. Jesus was explicit: Before taking the speck out of our neighbor’s eye, we must remove the log from our own eye.

Those using a broad brush to paint all Muslims with the taint of terrorism imagine falsehoods. Let’s reject our biases and diligently seek truth.

Moreover, let’s ask to what degree our Christian community is responsible for historic acts of terrorism which executed and enslaved millions. Orlando, San Bernardino, Paris and even 9-11 are horrific singular acts of terror. Contrast these with the multitudes of ‘Christian’ atrocities spanning centuries.

Does evil and apathy prevail among American Christians? Could it be that we Christians really do need to account for the log in our eye?

We can choose to scapegoat those having nothing to do with perpetrating terror attacks. Or we can conscientiously oppose such evil massacres, come together, foster unity, and overcome our fears and hatred by speaking the truth in love.

This 2003 Quoflection is still pertinent for reflecting on our politics and values:

Can we set aside our national, cultural and intraspecies biases? Let us imagine we are Glipsloks from the planet Urduz (though a bit hairy, we consider ourselves beautiful). Using instantaneous googolplex processing, we quickly decipher all communications on Earth.

Our mission today is to educate our galactic neighbors. Please share your thoughts regarding the following proposed communication.

Residents of Earth,

To gain understanding, we Glipsloks are observing your planet. Your ways are puzzling to us. We notice you have 800 million people on your planet who suffer from malnutrition. You allow 100,000 children to die every week from starvation. You say you value justice. But we perceive much selfishness and apathy.

Our survey indicates more than 30 nations are currently waging war. This infliction of misery is confusing. You say you value human life. Yet you are oblivious to the suffering you impose upon multitudes of your fellow humans.

Your linguistic logic is bewildering. Many of your governments declare they are seeking peace—even while conducting a war. We Glipsloks do not understand. Until we heard such reasoning, we had no concept of duplicity.

You have video and audio capabilities that could inform you of misfortune throughout your world. Yet you focus your vision and care upon those like you. We Glipsloks value compassion for all. We see no benefit in choosing ignorance or prejudice.

We observe the leaders of one wealthy nation using advanced weapons to invade and occupy an ancient civilization. They say their purpose is to eliminate the other government’s advanced weapons. Yet they are unable to locate such weapons—while they maintain vastly superior stockpiles of such weapons of mass destruction. This double standard is perplexing.

Some leaders proclaim their love of liberty while advocating laws which severely restrict the freedoms of their citizens. They use these laws to arrest and detain many innocent people. The irony is these injustices are initiated by those managing the Department of Justice.

These leaders also appeal to patriotism, asserting that those who disagree with them do not love their country. Yet their country was founded on the principle that people are free to disagree. We Glipsloks do not understand such treachery.

We are also mystified by religious prejudice. Some leaders reject theocracy—if established by another country—but approve of a “Christian nation.” These leaders say they are motivated by faith while the basis for their actions is fear. How can this be?

They also speak of the evil of the other nation’s president. We see that he has indeed committed numerous atrocities. But don’t those who initiate war realize they cannot conquer evil with more evil? This produces a cycle of evil. We Glipsloks understand that only goodness overcomes evil.

Many leaders trust weapons whose power is puny. True, these weapons can take control of another nation. However, perpetrating violence for short-term advantage creates more problems than it solves. Your saying is true: “The pen is mightier than the sword.” We Glipsloks understand that genuine power is the result of speaking the truth in love.

We must ask you earthlings: Do you not value Peace? Love? Faith? Do you not regard Wisdom? Compassion? Goodness? Do you not cherish Humanity? Justice? Truth? You claim to honor these values. Yet your actions do not reflect them.

Nevertheless, we Glipsloks have hope for your planet. We see a leader among you who taught and embodied these values. He was willing to die, not kill, so you might find life. His risen spirit will guide you—if you follow him.

*     *     *     *     *

My fellow Glipsloks: How would you encourage our neighbors to reflect upon the disparity between their values and their actions?

“It’s Up To You” – John F. Kennedy (1960)

One of the things I love about this ad is the jovial bounce of its tune; it’s like that friendly person you know who’s always up-beat. There’s also a hell of a lot of repetition in this ad; by my count “Kennedy” is shouted roughly 30 times in an ad which lasts only a minute. And that’s not including all the time his name appears on screen in animated signage, combined with the theme “A Time For Greatness” or the word “President”. This ad was featured on AMC’s Mad Men and actually, Kennedy’s opponent Richard Nixon completely ripped it off for his 1962 run for California’s Governor (a race he also lost).

“Nixon Now” – Richard Nixon (1972)

You do have to give Nixon credit though; he never gave up. And this ad from 1972 is just mind-boggling in retrospect. The idea of a sitting president during the Cold War, much less a Republican president, showing himself hanging out with Chairman Mao of China and Premier Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union while the phrase “reaching out, across the sea / making friends, where foes used to be,” is sung would be unthinkable in the current day.

Also unthinkable, that Nixon ever ran this campaign ad, which features a sign declaring “Peace: Nixon Does More Than Talk About It” while the Viet Nam War had escalated under Nixon’s rule. It’s especially ironic considering that in less then two years, Nixon would leave office disgraced by Watergate and ushering in an era of cynicism making this ad and the previous Kennedy ad seem like relics from a bygone era.

“Daisy” – Lyndon Johnson (1964)

The “Daisy” ad is considered the mother of all attack ads, but frankly, I think that’s beside the point. To me, it’s just a really interesting ad. There’s a way the girl flubs the count, counting “six” twice and missing “seven” completely. There’s the way the countdown voice sounds both like “zero” and “kill” as it’s obscured by the sound of the nuclear explosion. And then there’s LBJ’s magnificent Texan twang as he intones “these are the stakes: to make a world in which all of God’s children can live or to go into the dark. We must either love each other; or we must die.” It’s a beautifully Manichaean sentiment, we’ll all chose to love each other and we all should.

It also uses Johnson’s theme; “The Stakes Are Too High For You To Stay Home.” Many people have interpreted this ad as saying that if Johnson’s opponent, Republican Barry Goldwater, got his way, there’d be nuclear war. Johnson’s other ads seem more concerned with Goldwater’s opposition to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; though this one uses Republican governors (including Mitt Romney’s father) to argue against Goldwater using Republican words. And he also focused on his War on Poverty.

“Armed Chinese Troops In Texas!” – Ron Paul (2012)

I really enjoy this ad, because it’s a complete castigation of American foreign policy and it’s pretty much right on the money on everything. You can see why Republicans believed Ron Paul was the least trustworthy candidate on foreign policy during presidential primary. Is it overwrought? Yes, but no more then the Kennedy or Nixon ads were enthusiastic. And most importantly, this is taken from an actual speech Paul gave (as should be clear when the narrator’s emphatic voice changes to Paul’s softer, mournful one). There’s an underlying weirdness to Ron Paul’s candidacy; like Johnson did, he utilizes the word “love” to counterpoint the war mentality of his opponents.

This is probably as good a time to talk about why liberals have this flirtation with Ron Paul, and this ad is what makes it clear. However, it should be noted that his domestic policies are pretty much twice as backward as the Ryan Plan.

“Don’t Wake Up With Conservative” – Unofficial Labour Party (2005)

Okay, I’m pretty sure this is a fake one (it’s part of a trio), but it’s still good, in my opinion. This is an unofficial one for the Labour Party in the UK, and it’s good on multiple levels. There’s the general hungover nature of the young woman as she wakes up to discover this Conservative in her bed. There’s his glee at testing foreigners for AIDS or building prisons, and the sort of psychopathic way he keeps saying “four years” whenever the woman protests that she wants him gone. He’s also a posh twit, and has posh twit friends.

Then there’s our hero, Anthony, who comes in with this triumphant music that instantly turns melancholy. When he asks what happened and the woman puts out the protest “what about the war, and all those inquiries?” His response is classic: “Look, that would’ve happened anyway. And a lot of the facts have been twisted by malicious journalists.” It’s a line that would fit in perfectly in America, where blaming the media is often a way to shift attention off of our own failures.

It’s also an ad that says that disgust with a ruling party isn’t really a reason to turn to alternatives you’d hate more. Plenty of European nations who turned to conservative parties following austerity introduced by social democrats are discovering that (Spain, for example). And it’s precisely the choice Americans made in 2010 to get the worst Congress ever. And now in 2012, we’re facing that choice again.