Stones Cry Out

I remember after 9/11 listening to a U of Michigan international law prof at DU try to rewriting history by claiming that McVeigh was some sort of outspoken Christian. And then a few months back I did a search in the national newspaper database looking for the term “Christian fundamentalist” pre 9/11 and I received less than 100 articles from 1978-2000 while I stopped counting after 10,000 came up between 2001-2005. Simply stated evangelicals are being framed.

Eric Rudolph was a homosexual male prostitute in Atlanta for a number of years.

I only just came across this because I noticed a spike to an entry I wrote about Eric on my own blog coming from here. I would suggest folks try not to be too quick to push Rudolph into the atheist camp simply because he prefers to read Nietzsche over the Bible these days. It sounds to me like he's simply stating a reading preference. As an atheist I read the Bible quite regularly, often when debating folks who come to my site to argue with me about it, but I'm sure you'll agree that simply because I read the Bible that doesn't make me a Christian.

There's also the issue of Eric's written statement released by his attorneys on April 13, 2005 in which he states:

"I am not now nor have I ever been an Identity believing Christian. I was born a Catholic, and with forgiveness I hope to die one."

That sounds quite a bit more like a statement on his religious outlook than a simple reading preference, wouldn't you say? Though I can understand why Christians would want to seize onto anything that might put some distance between themselves and Rudolph, the cited excerpt from a letter to his mother doesn't hold up well as proof of his supposed lack of faith.

how can I write to eric?

If Eric Rudolph is not a Christian terrorist, then Osama bin Laden is not a Muslim terrorist.

For Christians to use one phrase and not the other is hypocrisy and moral cowardice.

"I was born a Catholic, and with forgiveness I hope to die one..."
"I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."

Um, I'm very backward and slow, what with being an evangelical Christian and all, but it seems to me that these two statements are mutually exclusive. An honest, repentant Christian would not prefer Nietzsche's screeds to the Bible. To hold this dichotomous view is akin to using a term like "flaming snowflakes."

Jesus Himself long ago anticipated people like Rudolph by proclaiming that His followers would be recognized by the way they lived their lives (John 15:8). Thus to classify as Christian those who are responsible for instigating atrocities is to beg the question of who Christ's disciples are to begin with. As Jesus pointed out, not everyone who calls him "Lord" is the real thing (Matthew 7:21-23).

Obviously anastasio, you've never meet a Catholic.

What's the point anyway if each Christian dogma ultimately cosigns the other to hell? There is no "half getting it" there are no compromises when it comes to god. And I enjoy pork products. Christiany (judiasm 2.0) is 100 percent dichotomy. Fighting dualisms. We foolishly believe all is fine, and we have our peace as long as the Sons of Abraham (the wily money lending jew) gets his tribute and seat above the offshoot believing masses. The jew is the reason Christianity is alive, a bug in the system, something so foul and yet artifically held up as ideal, but if not for this cog the gears of a battle between protestant vs lutheran vs catholic would run till they kill each other (the "unbeliever") to the last man.

I'm a Christian too. I'm white, American, and not jewish, without strong feelings towards atheism, yes I am a Christian. There is no other identity.