It took the Washington Post less than 48 hours to link accused Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph with Christianity.
This is the same Washington Post that downplays the growing evidence that the Washington, D.C. snipers were driven by their Islamic faith.
An article on page 3 of the Post this morning, under the headline, "Is Terrorism Tied to Christian Sect?" heavily quotes Professor James Aho of Idaho State University. Professor Aho tells the Post that if Christians take umbrage at the juxtaposition of the words "Christian" and "terrorist," "that may give them some idea of how Muslims
feel when they constantly hear the term 'Islamic terrorism.'"
Professor Aho goes on to assure us that "every major world religion has people who
have appropriated the label of their religion in order to legitimize their violence."
Is the professor really this ignorant? Assuming Eric Rudolph committed these crimes, he cannot find one word in the teachings of Christ to justify them. Nor will he find any theological leader of any branch of Christianity willing to defend his criminal conduct.
No Christian neighborhoods burst into celebration at the news of the bombings. Nor are
Christian children being taught that if Rudolph had died in his attacks he would be a "martyr" welcomed into heaven.
The contrast with radical Islamic teachings couldn't be more stark. Each terrorist act against Christians and Jews by those acting in the name of Islam is excused by countless Islamic leaders, theologians, imams, and philosophers. Schools are named after jihad bombers. And there are plenty of verses in the Koran cited to justify the murderous attacks of Islamic "warriors."
Do you see the difference, Professor Aho?
For more information about the American Values organization, visit their
