As Peter Barron pointed out [in his letter] (“Response to McShane,” Oct. 26), there is a difference between radicalized Christianity and radicalized Islam. However, his belief that they are not equally as dangerous is foolhardy. Although correct in his assertion that we rarely see “Christian radicals . blow themselves up,” all one has to do is pick up a history book to see the devastation that Christian radicals have caused. Take, for example, the 11th to 13th century Crusades; or the 16th century Spanish conquistador Hernan Cortes’s destruction of Aztec civilization; or the tens of thousands killed in 14th to 18th century Europe because Christians accused one another of being witches; or the car bombings in Ireland in the 20th century. However, a better example might be President Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Many people throughout the world perceive Bush’s invasion of Iraq as Christian radicalism. Bush himself was quoted by Bob Woodward after ordering the Iraq invasion as saying that he was doing “the Lord’s will.” If they are correct, and this is a glimpse of what modern-day Christian radicalism is capable of, it seems unlikely that one form of radicalism is any less dangerous than the other. A September 2007 report by the Opinion Research Business estimated over 1 million Iraqis have been killed by violent means since the invasion, while an October 2006 report by The Lancet estimated the number to be 655,000. Either number is grotesque; however, this isn’t the issue. The issue is that people seem to think one form of radicalism is worse than another, and that simply is not the case. At any time, in any religion, people acting in the name of religion can go too far. But to say that radicalized Islam is more dangerous than radicalized Christianity, or any other radicalized religion, is not only foolhardy but naive as well.

Nathan Howard
2nd year law student