Talk:Christian terrorism

Observation: The_Lambs_of_Christ WP URL redirects to this page, yet there's not a single reference to LoC; that seems like quite the oversight. Doug Grinbergs (talk)

Although there is a section about the KKK, the article does not explain why it is considered a Christian terrorist organization. The text says, "the 1915 Klan espoused an explicitly Protestant terrorist ideology, partially basing its beliefs on a "religious foundation" in Protestantism and targeting Jews and Catholics." It's more likely they attacked them because of nativism, rather than doctrinal difference. In fact African Americans, who were mostly Protestants were also major targets of the KKK.

Religious terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda, convert and recruit people they see as infidels. There's no evidence the KKK ever did this. Nor is there evidence that they had a core religious doctrine. After all, they accepted members from different Protestant faiths. Protestantism could probably best be seen as part of ethnic identity, just as it is in Northern Ireland. TFD (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

You don't think KKK is a form of Christian. Nationalism? I think it is hard to separate the belief in a white christian chosen people and white exceptionalism. The protestant ideology that drives various forms of Christian nationalism is vastly different than other Christian ideologies. Perhaps this nuance needs parsing. RosPost 16:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Its ideology is a form of nationalism which would make it a form of ethnic/nationalist rather than religious terrorism. Religion, like race, is part of their identity. They are not trying to re-conquer Jerusalem, cast out demons or bring about the Apocalpse. Instead, they see themselves as protecting true Americans from aliens. Of course, to them, part of being American is to be white and Protestant. TFD (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I made this edit, in which I reverted what I consider some entirely good faith edits: , so I want to explain why. This page has a very long history of disputes. It is necessary to go through the talk page archives to see it. One of the most long-debated issues is whether or not to have a full list of things that happened in the past century or so, that might be considered CT, and the eventual consensus (one I initially was against, but came around to supporting, I'll just say for the record), is that we should not have a wall-of-shame listing of many examples, but instead, focus on what academic sources say about the topic as a whole. So the two paragraphs I removed, I removed partly for that reason.

The other issue is that there is a consensus that, to be listed by name, any act of CT must be reasonably notable, and must be unquestionably an example of religiously-motivated terrorism, not some terrorism that was primarily motivated by something else but happened also to involve Christianity. The Evers murder was clearly motivated by racial bigotry, so it was really racial terrorism much more than it was CT. And while the Phineas Priesthood seem to me to satisfy the criteria to be included here, Thody appears insufficiently notable to have a bio page about him. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

While the sources cited do support retrospective classification of the Gunpowder Plot using modern terrorism frameworks, the current subsection structure foregrounds a contemporary category label before the necessary historical caveat. This risks anachronistic interpretation. I suggest revising the opening sentence to explicitly state that ‘terrorism’ as a concept did not exist in the seventeenth century, and that the classification is a modern analytical lens rather than a historical designation.

Beyond subsection wording, the placement of the Gunpowder Plot under a modern category label at the page level risks implying that it was historically understood as “Christian terrorism.” While reliable sources do retrospectively analyse the plot using modern terrorism frameworks, the current structure may lead readers to infer a settled historical classification rather than a contemporary analytical one. Consider restructuring or relabelling to make the retrospective nature explicit at the point of navigation. ~2026-53139-7 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that examples of Christian terrorism before the term was invented should point out that modern writers are interpreting historical events. However, any comments must be sourced. TFD (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks — agreed. There is existing scholarship that explicitly cautions against the unqualified retroactive application of modern concepts such as “terrorism” to early modern political and religious violence, on the grounds of anachronism and reader misinterpretation. For example, Quentin Skinner has warned against imposing modern conceptual frameworks on historical actors whose political vocabulary and assumptions were fundamentally different (Visions of Politics, Vol. 1, 2002). Similarly, David Armitage notes that political concepts develop historically and should be presented with explicit attention to their temporal context (Foundations of Modern International Thought, 2013).

In light of this, while modern scholars do retrospectively analyse the Gunpowder Plot using contemporary terrorism frameworks, both the subsection title and its opening sentence should explicitly signal that this is a modern analytical lens rather than a historical designation, to avoid anachronistic inference at the point of navigation. ~2026-53139-7 (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)