Religion and violence

If we're going to call the mass shooting in San Bernadino "Islamic terrorism," why don't we call the mass shooting at Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs "Christian terrorism"?

Syed Farook was a devout Muslim, but no one who knew him suspected him of violent tendencies or even anti-American feelings.   Friends at the mosque he attended describe him as quiet, reserved.   They never saw him angry or expressing any radical ideology.

We don't know his motives for the San Bernadino killings, but he and his wife said and did nothing to call attention to their religion, and their behavior did not fit the profile of violent zealots.    They were not known to be involved in radical groups, and left no messages.

Those who commit violent acts in support of an ideology let it be known.

They were a married couple with a six month old baby, which they left with the grandmother, saying they had a doctor's appointment.   Syed had a good job working for the Public Health Department, making $70,000/year, and it was his work acquaintances that he attacked.    None of them knew him to have radical ideas.  They had never aroused any suspicion on any government watch lists.

Just being Muslim and committing a violent massacre does not of itself make one an "Islamic terrorist" . . . 

. . . anymore than Robert Dear being a Christian evangelical and an anti-abortion zealot, who committed violence, makes him a "Christian terrorist."

Now, we may later learn more about either of these men that changes this perception.   But we're too quick to blame Islam for individuals' bad behavior, when we don't do the same for Christians.    Rand Paul lost no time raising the question of "Islamic terrorism."   The New York Post had a large, bold headline: "MUSLIM KILLERS."   Why didn't they splash "CHRISTIAN KILLER" on the front page when a man slaughtered people at Planned Parenthood?

Ralph