This is in response to a colleague’s letter, Nathan Howard, regarding radical Christianity and Islam. Respectfully, his response to Pete Barron’s letter is irrational.

There is a difference between the “reason” why something occurs and the “excuse” for which it is justified. I say this to rebut his inference that President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is an example of “radical Christianity.” No one logically has attempted to state the invasion was the result of the president’s adherence to a particular dogma or theology. In fact, when the subject has been brought up at all, it has been to attack Bush’s alleged piousness in the face of such actions as the Iraq War (i.e. that his professed beliefs contradict his actions). If there are accusations of a “Christian invasion” based on “radical Christianity,” they make about as much sense as blaming Christianity if a madman shoots up a grocery store because he “heard the voice of Jesus” in his head telling him to do it. There are not merely individual Muslims, but entire sects and factions that condone, support, praise and/or practice terrible acts of violence in a way markedly different from Christianity. These divisions of Islam (and they do represent a minority of Muslims) are the reason for the violence, not merely an excuse for implementing radical political or social changes.

While tempted, I will not swell the pages of The University News further by refuting some of the other outlandish points made regarding the “lessons of history,” save only for one or two lines regarding the Crusades. Too often “the Crusades” is used merely as a catchphrase without qualification, explanation or clarification. Such is the case here. Dropping it is insufficient to prove the truth of the matter asserted regarding “radical Christianity.”

Tim Wright
Second Year Law student