St. Timothy McVeigh strikes again
One of the ways that defenders of the mosque near ground zero make their case is curious. They say, "Did we fight the building of Christian churches in Oklahoma City after Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building there?"
There's quite a bit going on in this type of statement. The point is to draw equivalencies between Islam and Christianity, to say that violence committed in the name of a religion should not tar the entire religion, to suggest that people who oppose the mosque project near ground zero are Islamophobic bigots and hypocrites.
Of course, in order for this statement to work, it requires Timothy McVeigh to not just be a fanatical Christian but to claim that he bombed the federal building because of his religious views.
Neither of these things could be further from the truth. McVeigh did have ties to religion -- his parents had raised him as a Catholic, for instance. But he described himself as an agnostic. And he was quite clear about why he bombed the building. It had absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with anger at the federal government over its actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge. His religious views aren't exactly secret. Sam Donaldson interviewed one of the reporters, Dan Herbeck, who knew McVeigh best:
DONALDSON In these letters to you that you're publishing this morning, once again, he talks about his belief or nonbelief in an afterlife. And he said, "I will improvise, adapt and overcome. If I'm going to hell, I'm going to have a lot of company."
What does that mean to you, Dan?
HERBECK Well, he is an agnostic. He doesn't believe in God, but he has told us he doesn't not believe in God.… Death is part of his adventure, as he describes it to us. And hee told us that when he finds out if there is an afterlife, he will improvise, adapt and overcome just like they taught him in the Army.
So why does the belief about McVeigh persist? I don't know. President George W. Bush once alluded to it, as has former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham. Last week NPR's Michel Martin said it on CNN.
And yet all facts to the contrary, USA Today has just run another piece perpetuating the myth. Sadly, it's written by a seminary president.
Note to everyone: if you want to claim that Christianity is just as violent as Islam by pointing to one other event in history, pick an example based in reality.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: St. Timothy McVeigh strikes again
I imagine, one of the reasons that McVeigh rejected his parents' faith is that serious Catholics would seem very weak, and too pacifist for his taste. "Faith, Hope, and Charity?, puh-leeeze...." McVeigh would probably be more attracted to the ancient warrior religions.
Jul '10
Re: St. Timothy McVeigh strikes again
The biggest difference between McVeigh and domestic Islamist terrorists is competence: his bomb, sadly, actually detonated.
I keep hearing how successful our government has been at deterring terrorist acts here at home, but let's be honest: we're extremely lucky that the potential malefactors are such hopeless mopes.
They take their home-made Jihadi videos to Wal-Mart for processing, leave useless Rube Golderg devices smoldering in Times Square, and negotiate deals for surface-to-air missiles with FBI agents they met at the local mosque.
Even with weeks of training in the finest terrorist academies of Yemen and Pakistan, they still can't manage to blow up their underpants.
Aug '10
Re: St. Timothy McVeigh strikes again
This new argument really irritated me as a Christian. Especially since this new rewriting of history gets a free pass on the news programs and cable talking-head shows.
Reading that opinion piece in USA Today by the Seminary president was cringe-worthy.
May '10
Re: St. Timothy McVeigh strikes again
I think about this every time I go through one of those useless TSA lines in the airport. We spend $7B on TSA annually and I have to rely on a lousy t-shirt salesman to stop the Times Square bomber.
Re: St. Timothy McVeigh strikes again
This McVeigh thing really frosts me. And not only because they keep getting it wrong -- McVeigh wasn't religious; the bombing in Oklahoma had precisely zero religious meaning. Put it this way: the Manson Family murders were more religious.
But it also frosts me because I think it willfully misses the point. What happened at Ruby Ridge (and Waco, for that matter) were acts of asymmetrical violence by the federal government against its own citizens -- all citizens, even those citizens, as troublesome and dangerous as they were, have the right not to be executed by federal police.
And another thing: the response to 9/11, from that crowd, has been excessive tolerance and outreach to the Muslim community. If 9/11 and Oklahoma City are so analogous, shouldn't the media be treating militias and the black helicopter crowd with the same simpering, slavish attention?
Or are they two different things, being yoked together just to make an indefensible point?
Aug '10
Re: St. Timothy McVeigh strikes again
This reminds me of something I've often noticed about progressive Christian culture, but still struggle to put into words. Something about how the collectivization of guilt leads to hubris and disdain for one's neighbors...
All Christians are taught to intercede for each other and bear one anothers' infirmities. But the traditional Christian view is that only Christ can truly take on others' sins and absolve them, and that the sinner himself must ultimately repent -- no one else can repent for him.
Progressive Christians, on the other hand, often take it upon themselves to repent for others, rather than simply intercede for them. They see this as identifying with the sinner, but I'd say it's more like arrogating to oneself the powers of messiah. For only Christ bears others' sins (rather than just the bad effects of others' sins). No one else can do that. A person who believes he can effectively repent on another's behalf is therefore usurping powers unique to Christ.
(1/3)
Edited on Sep 7, 2010 at 10:34amAug '10
Re: St. Timothy McVeigh strikes again
And, as any traditional Christian might expect, usurping (or attempting to usurp, since the usurpation cannot succeed) powers unique to the Christ doesn't lead to extra humility, a deeper connection with one's fellow sinners, or more compassion (although these are the intentions of progressive Christians when they repent on another's behalf). Rather, it leads to a lofty pride and disdain for one's fellow sinners -- after all, they're such ticks that there's no end of the repenting you could do for them!
The mania for repenting for others' sins (rather than your own), needn't be confined to people you know, or even other Christians. It can encompass anyone -- particularly those you disdain. But if you can find any way, however tenuous, to identify the one you disdain as a Christian (since repenting for someone of another religion could be a multicultural faux pas), go for it! This, I think, explains the McVeigh mania. He's not of a religion other than Christian, and he went to church as a boy -- so let's call him Christian, as this ups the collective Christian guilt we get to repent for, oh joy!
(2/3)
Aug '10
Re: St. Timothy McVeigh strikes again
Lastly, the practice of repenting for others' sins is a gross violation of human freedom. Even God does not make us repent against our will. We are free to be sinners to the very end, and God will not violate this freedom.
But if you truly believe you can repent on another's behalf, you also believe you have (or ought to have) the power to override his unrepentance against his will, so that he is no longer free to repent or not repent on his own. You are then claiming a power that even God Himself does not claim, so you're also setting yourself above God as you degrade your neighbor's freedom.
Nice combination, don't cha think?
(3/3)