Terrorism: Stop Calling Timothy McVeigh A ‘Christian’

I’ve heard it pop up a number of times that Timothy McVeigh is an example of a ‘Christian terrorist.’  As the charge surfaces again in light of the hearings that Rep. Pete King has called regarding terrorism and the militarization of American Muslims, let’s consider the “evidence” that Timothy McVeigh is a “Christian.”

From my looking for evidence that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian who executed his Oklahoma City bombing as a Christian, it mostly boils down to this quote from Time Magazine:

Time: Are you religious?

McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

Time: Do you believe in God?

McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes. But that’s as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way [to] alienate themselves from me and that’s all they are looking for now.

This quote from the Time Magazine article is so prevalent that I can’t find the actual article.  And, of course, I wonder what else he said that someone like myself would find useful.  Those who want to maintain that Timothy McVeigh was a ‘Christian’ explain that McVeigh distanced himself from Catholicism, not Christianity.  And that since he still believed in “a God,” he wasn’t an atheist or a secular humanist, and hence he was a Christian.

But what you see is a man who had some contact with Catholicism, and then basically turned away from it.

For the record, Christians don’t believe in “a God”; we believe in the one and only true God, the Creator of the Universe and of man.  McVeigh actually corrected the interviewer: “Do you believe in God?” (i.e., the monotheistic deity of Judeo-Christianity).  “I do believe in a god, yes.”  That usage of an indefinite article “a god” actually screams volumes about whatever Timothy McVeigh’s religion is.  But let’s examine the question whether religious affiliation as a child means that one is an adherent of that religion:

Obama’s mother, divorced from Obama’s father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering – Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant.

And:

His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama’s grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended. That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class.

Well, congratulations, liberals.  We now have the smoking gun proof that Barack Hussein Obama is in fact a Muslim.  Because we’re going to use the same childhood standard of religious affiliation on Obama that you want to use on Timothy McVeigh.  And by that standard, Obama is Muslim.

The fact of the matter is that Timothy McVeigh walked away from his Catholic faith (for the record, I myself am a Baptist), and never came back to it.  And rather than having anything whatsoever to do with Orthodox or organized Christianity, he had come to have his own subjective views about something he described as  “a god.”

He definitely did not bomb the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah federal building in the name of Jesus, or do it as an act of his “Christian faith.”  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever save anti-Christian bigotry and profound religious intolerance to suggest that he did.

That is very unlike the hundreds of videos recorded by terrorist suicide bombers who expressed their intent being directly connected to Islam.

Let’s go on.  Was Timothy McVeigh a Christian?  Not according to his own words:

In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would “improvise, adapt and overcome”, if it turned out there was an afterlife. “If I’m going to hell,” he wrote, “I’m gonna have a lot of company.”

And:

McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, “Science is my religion.” [Michel, Lou and Herbeck, Dan. American Terrorist. pp. 142–143]

I - as one example among millions of true Christians - am a Christian.  I am not an agnostic.  And science is very definitely NOT my religion.

I came across a quote – “Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. he refused to have a clergyman while awaiting execution but changed his mind at the last moment “to cover my bases” – that is directly supported by firsthand sources who had direct access to McVeigh.  McVeigh was an agnostic who in the very end doubted his agnosticism.  He was most certainly no Christian.

Hey, I’ve got an idea: maybe the mainstream media can start saying that McVeigh was a scientific terrorist.  Or at least an agnostic terrorist.  Because either of those statements would be far closer to reality than that he was a “Christian terrorist.”

There’s a little more to say.

I am going to reproduce here the entire article that, if true, proves that Timothy McVeigh merely participated in yet another of the hundreds of thousands of Islamic terror attacks across the world:

“Homeless” Man Hussain Hashem al-Hussaini is “John Doe #2 in Oklahoma bombing
 Doug Hagmann  Friday, March 11, 2011

On Wednesday, a “homeless man” was arrested in the Boston suburb of Quincy, Massachusetts, on a charge of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after allegedly striking another man with a beer bottle. His name is Hussain Hashem al-HUSSAINI, although has several other aliases and a previous arrest record.

His arrest would have likely gone unnoticed except for the tenacious investigative journalism conducted in the months and years following the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City by author and investigative journalist Jayna Davis. Ms. Davis, a former reporter for KFOR-TV at the time of the bombing, identified al HUSSAINI as the “John Doe #2” in the April 19, 1995 bombing that claimed the lives of 168 people, including 22 children, three who were unborn. Her investigation is chronicled in her book, The Third Terrorist, and is an important investigative report into the actual events that took place in the months, days and weeks leading to the bombing, and perhaps even more importantly, in the years afterward.

// //

The disheveled homeless man arrested this week is at the epicenter of a plot that involves not only domestic terrorism, but the inexcusable failures and activities of the FBI that led directly to the events of September 2001. Ms. Davis documented the direct involvement of a Muslim terrorist operation involved in the 1995 bombing, and attempted to warn the FBI of additional attacks being planned. Despite impeccable documentation compiled by Ms. Davis that I personally reviewed in my capacity as an investigator, her warnings went unheeded. Six years later, the worst attack on American soil killed another 3,000 people. It is my belief that the attacks of 9/11 could have been stopped had the FBI acted upon the evidence she submitted to the FBI.

Instead, twenty-two witness affidavits she compiled and submitted to the FBI in January 1999 that, in part, connect al HUSSAINI to the events of the bombing “disappeared.” Those affidavits contain sworn statements of multiple witnesses who placed al HUSSAINI in the company of Timothy McVeigh prior to the bombing, exiting the Ryder truck that was used for the bombing, and speeding away from the area just prior to the blast. Despite solid witness statements, the FBI reportedly failed to interview al HUSSAINI.

In addition to the “hands-off” approach with al HUSSAINI, the FBI continues to refuse the release of closed circuit camera footage that exists of McVeigh and “John Doe #2” as they exited the Ryder truck in front of the Murrah Building. Why?

Leading up to, and at the time of, the Oklahoma City bombing, Hussain al HUSSAINI worked for a property management company owned by a Middle Eastern businessman who was suspected of having ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization(PLO). Six months prior to the bombing, this man hired several former Iraqi soldiers. Four years earlier, he had been convicted of federal insurance fraud.

Investigation in Boston

In mid-May 2005, I personally conducted an on-site investigation of “John Doe #2” in Boston. My confidential 30-page investigative report was submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice on 1 June 2005. The information contained in that report verified all of the relevant aspects of Ms. Davis’ claims as they pertained to Hashem al-Hussaini. The following is a redacted version of my partial investigative findings from 2005.

Hussain Hashem al-Hussaini

The primary subject of this investigation is Hussain al HUSSAINI, an Iraqi national who has been identified in sworn witness statements obtained by Ms. Davis as, in part:

  1. Accompanying Timothy McVeigh in the Ryder truck used to deliver the bomb to the Murrah Federal Building on 19 April 1995;
  2. Stepping out of the Ryder truck at ground zero minutes before the blast;
  3. Speeding away from downtown Oklahoma City immediately after the detonation of the truck bomb;
  4. Being seen in the company of Timothy McVeigh a various times and locations prior to 19 April 1995.

Hussain al HUSSAINI, a former member of the Iraqi military and Saddam’s elite Republican Guard, currently resides in Braintree, (Norfolk County) Massachusetts, a southern suburb of Boston. As well documented in The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis, al HUSSAINI came to the U.S. following the Persian Gulf War in 1991 under the guise of escaping persecution from the Iraqi dictator. Because of the significant number of refugees admitted into the U.S. and other factors, the checks-and-balances that were (or should have been) in place to verify the authenticity of those seeking entry into this county were admittedly strained or not properly implemented. Regardless of the reason, al HUSSAINI remains living in the U.S. as of the date of this report.

Subsequent to the Oklahoma City bombing, al HUSSAINI moved to Dallas, Texas, and then to Boston, Massachusetts, where he worked at Boston Logan International AirportAt that time, he resided with two Iraqi men (brothers) who provided food catering services for the commercial airlines at Boston Logan during the time leading up to and including September 11, 2001.

imageThe two Iraqi brothers referenced above have been identified as Khalid [REDACTED] and Majed [REDACTED]. They both continue to reside in Braintree, Massachusetts. Due to their close proximity to the primary subject and their activities in Oklahoma City near the time of the 1995 bombing, this investigator has also conducted comprehensive database research and an on-site investigation and covert surveillance to update their activities as well.

Both men were observed at their residence. The activities of both men were documented, and their activities undocumented by law enforcement, according to a source contacted within the FBI. According to this source, they have “no interest” in either subject.

Left: Surveillance photograph taken by Douglas Hagmann 16 May 2005

Multiple Identities

Investigation determined that Hussain al HUSSAINI possesses a social security number issued in 1994 in the state of Massachusetts. For reasons unclear, it was reissued in Texas in 1995. Several dates of birth are associated with al HUSSAINI, all listing his month and year of birth as September 1965. He also has a lengthy list of aliases, including but not limited to Hussain Hashem Jassem Al-Hussaini, Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini, Hanan Hashim Jassem Al-Hussaini, Adnan Hashim Jassem Al-Hussaini, Salem Hashim Al-Hussaini and eleven others.

Neighbors as well as fellow employees knew him simply as “Sammy.”

imageAt the time of this investigation, al HUSSAINI was working as a landscaper while living with his 30-year-old American girlfriend, her father, and a two-and-a-half year old daughter. He has resided at this location since 1997. Distinctive in his appearance, he has tattoo reflective of his association with the Iraqi National Guard.

Also at the time of this investigation, the two Iraqi brothers who provided food catering services at Boston Logan on 9/11 were investigated. The reports of their activities, although redacted here, were detailed in my 2005 report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. Yet, much like the warnings of Ms. Davis, nothing has taken place.

Left: The former residence of Hussain al Hussaini in a suburb of Boston

Foreboding prediction?

Confidential psychiatric records confirm that in 1997, Hussain al-Hussaini made a foreboding prediction about a future event to take place at Boston Logan International Airport, the point of origin for two of the four hijacked flights that slammed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

According to those records and prior to 9/11, al-Hussaini suffered anxiety so acute regarding his airport job at Boston Logan International that he checked into a psychiatric hospital to seek treatment for recurring panic attacks. When asked about the source of his trepidation, he told his therapist “if something happens there, I will be a suspect.”

Interestingly, only days after my investigation into the activities of Hussain al HUSSAINI, he “disappeared.” He left his residence of eight years and slipped quietly into the shadows of Boston, only to be found homeless and facing criminal charges this week.

Something is terribly wrong with the FBI’s handling of the 1995 bombing and the events leading up to and including the attacks of September 11, 2001. Something at the highest levels of government that continue through the present.


I’ll allow you to draw your own conclusion regarding how accurate that article is.  But suffice it to say that there is far, far more evidence that Timothy McVeigh took part in a Muslim terrorist attack than there is that Timothy McVeigh was a “Christian.”

I close stating this: 126 individuals have been indicted on terror charges in the U.S. the last two years.  Every single one of them without a single exception is a MuslimFifty of these terrorists were Americans.  And all fifty of these Americans were Muslims.  Conclusion?  There is clearly no connection between Islam and terrorism, says the left.

The same left that says that Timothy McVeigh is a “Christian” based on the flimsiest evidence proceed to refuse ironclad evidence about the terrorist threat of Islam.

And every single person who falsely claims that Timothy McVeigh was a “Christian” is merely an intolerant anti-Christian bigot.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “Terrorism: Stop Calling Timothy McVeigh A ‘Christian’”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    WHAT A BUNCH OF B.S

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Anonymous,

    You’re a bunch of B.S.

    You liberals never cease to amaze me with your complete indifference to facts. You people are immune to the truth, and don’t even think you NEED facts to support what you think.

  3. Mary Says:

    “The same left that says that Timothy McVeigh is a “Christian” based on the flimsiest evidence proceed to refuse ironclad evidence about the terrorist threat of Islam.” So, calling him Christian makes people bigoted, but conflating Islam with terrorism (i.e. Muslims as humans are inherently terrorists) is not bigoted? Being quick to call any act of terrorism as affiliated with religion is ignoring the economic/political/social conditions surrounding that act (or the sheer mental illnesses that motivate the attacker…such is the case of Breivik in Norway). And your claim that individuals have been indicted on terrorism charges does not mean anything. Many people being held on these claims are held falsely – they are held as intelligence gatherers for the U.S. government. Have there been 126 terror attacks in the U.S. from Muslims? No. Your information is based on anti-Muslim rhetoric that ignores the simple fact that people who may be “Muslim” or from a “Muslim” culture may not identify with Islam in any way in their day to day lives. Finally, before 9/11, no one ever thought about the many Muslims that live in America peacefully. They have been part of this nation’s fabric for centuries, and unfortunately the events of 9/11 – orchestrated by a small group of extremists – have served to stigmatize an entire community. This is what those on the right should be ashamed of.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    So, calling him Christian makes people bigoted, but conflating Islam with terrorism (i.e. Muslims as humans are inherently terrorists) is not bigoted?

    Mary,

    Perhaps you could begin – you know, instead of demonizing me – by producing my statement that “Muslims as humans are inherently terrorists.” Because, you see, I never said anything even close to that.

    Your attack is what they call “a straw man.” You make up some extreme and easily demonized thing that I never said and then attribute it to me.

    Rather than lecturing me on what the right should be ashamed of, YOU should be ashamed for what you did to me.

    That said, let’s consider the evidence. Here is the latest report from the State Department on terrorist attacks:

    we have the following information re: terrorist attacks and terrorist groups:

    There were 11,604 terrorist attacks in 72 countries in 2010, which resulted in 49,901 victims, according to the annual US report on terrorism…
    The report includes a list of 47 foreign terrorist organisations designated by the United States, and it lists four nations designated as state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.

    Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
    Country Reports on Terrorism 2010
    Report
    August 18, 2011

    Al-Qa’ida (AQ) remained the preeminent terrorist threat to the United States in 2010. Though the AQ core in Pakistan has become weaker, it retained the capability to conduct regional and transnational attacks. Cooperation between AQ and Afghanistan- and Pakistan-based militants was critical to the threat the group posed. In addition, the danger posed by Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LeT) and increased resource-sharing between AQ and its Pakistan-based allies and associates such as Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Haqqani Network meant the aggregate threat in South Asia remained high.

    In addition, the affiliates have grown stronger. While AQ senior leadership continued to call for strikes on the U.S. homeland and to arrange plots targeted at Europe, the diversity of these efforts demonstrated the fusion of interests and the sharing of capabilities among AQ groups with different geographical focuses. We saw TTP provide support to U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad, who sought to carry out a car bombing in Times Square in May. Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) continued to demonstrate its growing ambitions and a strong desire to carry out attacks outside of its region. The group followed up its December 25, 2009 attempt to destroy an airliner bound for Detroit with an October 2010 effort to blow up several U.S.-bound airplanes by shipping bombs that were intended to detonate while in the planes’ cargo holds. Information about potential AQ plots in Europe prompted several European countries to raise their terror alerts toward the end of the year. On December 11, a car bomb device was detonated minutes before Sweden’s first ever suicide bomber carried out an attack in a crowded pedestrian area in Stockholm.

    Similarly, al-Shabaab in East Africa, some of whose senior leaders have declared adherence to the AQ brand of violent extremism, gained strength in 2010 and conducted its first major attack outside of Somalia in July when it claimed responsibility for twin suicide bombings that killed 76 people in Kampala, Uganda, during the World Cup. Al-Shabaab’s widening scope of operations, safe haven in Somalia, and ability to attract Western militants, made it a continuing threat to U.S. interests in the region.

    In addition to operations, AQ affiliates have taken on a greater share of the propaganda work. AQAP created AQ’s first English-language magazine, Inspire. Although the magazine failed to arouse sustained interest from Western media, it proved a platform for dual U.S.-Yemeni citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, who emerged as an operational and ideological leader in AQAP.

    In a troubling trend, English-speaking militants increasingly connected to each other through online venues like militant discussion forums and video-sharing platforms, which encouraged both violent behavior and individual action. Many participants in online communities have real-world relationships with extremists who bolster their radicalism and mobilize them toward violent action. Five Pakistani Americans contacted by a Taliban recruiter through YouTube encouraged one another to travel to Pakistan to train for warfare against the United States; they remained in Pakistani custody at year’s end. Several Somali Americans decided to go overseas to fight with al-Shabaab – a decision that was likely shaped by a combination of online propaganda, face-to-face recruitment, and supportive real-world peer networks.

    Not all of AQ’s formal affiliates and informal allies presented as grave a threat to U.S. interests in 2010. No group has made a bigger name for itself in the kidnapping for ransom business than al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which relies on ransom payments to sustain and develop itself in the harsh Saharan environment. AQIM carried out several attacks and continued kidnapping foreigners for ransom but is not an existential threat to governments in the region. The U.S. government urged its allies to refuse to pay AQIM and other terrorist group’s ransoms, which have become a primary means of financial support for terrorist organizations.

    Al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) continued to be politically marginalized as its constituency dwindled further. Though AQI remained capable of carrying out occasional sizable attacks, its violent tactics failed to ignite the sectarian violence the group sought. Instead, we saw two successful elections in Iraq and a decision by Sunni leaders in the country to participate in the political process.

    The wave of non-violent democratic demonstrations that began to sweep the Arab world at the end of 2010 held promise but also some peril. Great numbers of citizens advanced peaceful public demands for change without reference to AQ’s incendiary world view, upending the group’s longstanding claims that change would only come through violence and underscoring anew the group’s lack of influence over the central political issues in key Muslim-majority nations. But at the same time, the political turmoil distracted security officials and raised the possibility that terrorist groups would exploit the new openness and, in some cases, disarray, to carry out conspiracies, a possibility with significant and worrisome implications for states undergoing democratic transitions.

    The apparent blow suffered by AQ had no significant effect on other terrorist groups with deep roots in the Middle East, as both Hamas and Hizballah continued to play destabilizing roles in the region. Hizballah’s persistence as a well-armed terrorist group in Lebanon with an entrenched hold, if not veto, on the political process in Lebanon, as well as its robust relationships with Iran and Syria, and acquisition of increasingly sophisticated missiles and rockets threatened the interests of Lebanon and other U.S. partners in the region, especially Israel. Hizballah’s aggressive stance and threatening statements about the Special Tribunal on Lebanon, which is investigating the 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, increased the danger of Lebanon moving even closer toward sectarian violence. Hamas retained its grip on Gaza, where it continued to stockpile weapons – supplied in large part by Iran – that posed a serious threat to regional stability.

    I’m sorry, Mary, I really tried to find all the Christian terrorists, but there weren’t any. They all seemed to be Muslims. That is simply a fact.

    I examined Anders Behring Breivik in an article I wrote. I didn’t merely dismiss him as a nut; I demonstrated theologically that the man was very clearly NOT a “Christian.” Breivik identified himself in Christian terms, and so the prima facia case was that he was a Christian. I documented how in fact that he was NOT a Christian by examining his beliefs in light of the life and teachings of the founder of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth.

    I challenge you to do the same with Osama bin Laden. I challenge you to explore Muhammad’s life and show me how he was actually a man of peace who would turn the other cheek, who would never pick up a scimitar, who would never attack his enemies.

    The fact of the matter is that Muhammad was a man of incredible violence and the founder of a violent religion. By the time of Muhammad’s death, he had already been in about 30 military campaigns – including acts of genocide – and had another 30 planned at the time of his death. Interestingly, one of those campaigns that he planned at the time of his death was the conquest of Christian Europe. That was carried out within one hundred years of his death, and was only stopped in France – ALL THE WAY ACROSS EUROPE – at the Battle of Tours.

    By that time, for what it’s worth, Islam had already violently poured across Africa. They eradicated by violence the Christianized region that had been made famous by St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in Africa.

    Muslims also attacked Christianity in Spain (“El Cid”) and the Crusades started in reaction to the incessant attacks by Muslisms against the Byzantine Empire – which called upon the Pope in Rome for aid.

    If you think in terms of paradigms, Jesus and ONLY Jesus lived and taught peace. Only Jesus taught, “Put away your sword, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” Muhammad most certainly didn’t live that way.

    Rather than attack me for what adherents of your religion is doing, it is a shame that you do not confront those adherents who are carrying out all of this violence in the name of Islam, in the name of Allah and in the name of Muhammad. Because there are WAAAAAY too many terrorist attacks from Muslims to merely label the attackers “nuts.”

  5. reener Says:

    I think it’s funny that christians definitely want it known that there can be no christian terrorists. You pull your excerpts then state definitively ‘because you know from your compiled research’ that someone is definitely not christian. And by the way don’t Muslim believe in the same God that christians do? I find many of the statements here can just as easily be shown to be false as true depending on who is reading it.
    Oh, also hasn’t Obama been attending a christian church for years and years? Apparently some people think it’s a ruse because somehow he knew he would be president someday and had this elaborate plan in place. Are we Mulim yet?
    My parents raised me as a catholic but you know as a child I didn’t have a choice I guess people think as a child Obama should have known better. Once I became a teenage I knew better and walked away from catholicism but remain a christian believing that God has truly created everything even science.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Reener,

    Nothing annoys me more than when someone states something like “I find many of the statements here can just as easily be shown to be false as true depending on who is reading it” without having either the moral or intellectual courage to PROVIDE A SINGLE EXAMPLE. You are a coward for doing that. I block people who do that because they are a complete waste of time.

    For the official record, NO, Muslims do NOT believe in the same God that Christians do.

    The God of Christianity as revealed in Scripture is Triune, such that the God of the Bible is Father, Son and Holy Spirit – with all three Persons equally sharing in and participating in the divine nature.

    The God of Islam is strictly unitarian; God cannot have a Son. In fact it is blasphemy to declare that God has a Son.

    Ergo sum, this cannot be the same God. Unless you can figure out a way to demonstrate that God MUST have a Son and must NOT have a Son simultaneously. I doubt very much you can do that.

    Second, orthodox Christianity is a very particular thing. By “orthodox” I refer to what the universal Christian Church declared in its first Seven Ecumenical Councils. These councils were unique in that the entire Christian church (both east and west) gathered together and declared what the faith was and was not. And I am referring to what ALL Christians must affirm according to that very specific and very historic criteria when I make the “statements” that I make. This notion that you can somehow just as easily show that to be false is simply baloney.

    Timothy McVeigh in particular is not a Christian because following his arrest HE DECLARED HE WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN AND IN FACT DECLARED THAT HE WAS AN AGNOSTIC. That is a fact. I provided that statement and the link to document it. Later in McVeigh’s life (AFTER his heinous crime and AFTER his arrest and conviction) McVeigh began to rethink the previous belief system that led him to become a terrorist. But it is simply a fact that it was an agnostic who committed that terrorist act and NOT a “Christian.”

    I most definitely do not believe that Barack Obama is a Christian – again by both what the Holy Bible says and by the first seven universal councils of the Christian Church declare. Barack Obama has publicly stated that he does not believe that one is individually saved by grace through faith (contra Ephesians 2:8) – but rather Obama believes in the Marxist “liberation theology” view of “collective salvation.” Obama is not a Christian. But you completely missed my point in bringing Obama up in this article. What I am doing is refuting the notion that if one was “raised” as a “Christian,” – as McVeigh was – that he is therefore a “Christian.” I cite Obama – who was raised as a Muslim. Which is to state that if you regard Timothy McVeigh as a “Christian,” then you must also declare that Barack Obama is a Muslim. And you yourself affirm that you were “raised a Catholic” but you are not a Catholic.

    One cannot be “born” a Christian; one cannot be “raised” as a Christian; and one cannot even become a Christian by “going to church.” Rather, John chapter 3 makes it crystal clear through Jesus’ own words (also affirmed by the councils) that a “born again” experience in which the believer personally chooses Jesus as his/her Savior and Lord is essential. John 3:3 (“I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again”) can’t be more clear.

    Osama bin Laden was a Muslim because he devoutly followed the Five Pillars of Islam, according to which by Islam one is a Muslim. Timothy McVeigh was NOT a Christian. And it’s not my “compiled research” (you put that phrase in quotes as if I had said anything even CLOSE to that) that makes that a fact; it is rather Timothy McVeigh’s own words after his arrest as well as the clear teaching of the New Testament and the declaration of the universal Christian Church as declared in the first seven historic ecumenical councils that declares it.

  7. Yehōshu'a Says:

    christians ARE terrorists. doesn’t mean they blow shit up. But, there is hate. (There ARE some good christians too. They’re out there. Non-terrorist types. Kind. Loving of all mankind. accepting.)

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Yehōshu’a,

    I find it rather hateful that you would use as your name for yourself the name of Jesus while demonizing His followers. So I mean, I suppose you’re a pot calling a kettle black.

    You say that “non-terrorist types of Christians are loving of all mankind, accepting,” and very clearly YOU are not accepting or loving to “all mankind.” You hate most Christians.

    The notion that it’s okay to label groups of people as “intolerant” and then feel entitled to be entitled to be intolerant to those groups/people who don’t agree with you is not merely hypocritical but entirely self-refuting.

    You remind me of the childhood response to name-calling: “I know you are but what am I?”

    “Christians” are the ONLY group of people on earth in which the primary condition of joining them is to admit you are imperfect (sinners). A lot of proverbs apply here: if you ever find a perfect Church don’t go because you’d ruin it, etc.

    I don’t defend all “Christians” or the actions of all “Christians.” I merely believe what the Bible teaches. And when the Bible denounces sin, I believe the Bible and I DON’T believe your intolerant “tolerance.”

    George W. Bush was routinely demonized as a “hater.” But he did more for people with AIDS than ANY president or leader has EVER done. Not that it matters; you STILL call him a “hater.”

  9. Shayn Roby Says:

    Reblogged this on shaynroby and commented:
    Those who like to refer to Timothy McVeigh as a “Christian terrorist” are revisionist historians. McVeigh was quoted as saying, “I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.” Furthermore, the attack on the Murrah building could be fairly charecterized as another ISLAMIC attack on America for the following reason, Investigative journalist Jayna Davis of KFOR-TV identified “John Doe #2″ who accompanied McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing as Hussain Hashem al-Hussaini, who had a previous arrest record. Davis submitted twenty-two witness affidavits to the FBI containing sworn statements that al Hussaini was in the company of McVeigh prior to the bombing, exiting the Ryder truck that was used for the bombing, and speeding away from the area just prior to the blast. Hussaini worked for a property management company owned by a Middle Eastern businessman who had ties to the Palestine Liberization Organization. That is a part of the history of the Oklahoma City bombing that liberals conveniently forget to mention.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    Those who like to refer to Timothy McVeigh as a “Christian terrorist” are revisionist historians. McVeigh was quoted as saying, “I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up

    Shayn Roby,

    You are completely correct.

    Blaming Christianity for Timothy McVeigh – who was raised as a nominal Catholic by his parents but was never a believer himself as he pointed out – is similar to what atheists did with Joseph Stalin. Stalin’s mother was a devout Catholic and tried to influence her wicked son to become a priest. But Stalin hated his religion and dropped out of seminary as soon as he could. And if there was any doubt about Stalin’s brutally indifferent attitude toward his Catholic mother, he shunned her for the rest of his life and didn’t bother to show up for her funeral – only to later try to transform her into some kind of Marxist “saint” for propaganda purposes.

    Joseph Stalin was a self-avowed atheist. His ideology was atheist. And atheism is reponsible for his worldview and for his brutal murders of as many as 60 million of his own people during peacetime.

    Liberals love to decry “fascism” as being “right wing.” That is a lie. Fascism is SOCIALISM. And socialism is inherently a leftest phemonenon. At worst, you could label “fascism” as “the extrem right of the very farthest and most radical left.” That said, liberals want to claim that Timothy McVeigh was “right wing” because he had served in the military – as though no liberal somehow ever served in the military. They are even more laughably and stupidly deceptive when you consider that the most militaristic societies on EARTH have all been COMMUNIST. In the same veing, the left says that McVeigh was “right wing” because he was a racist. I have on numerous occasions in my articles documented the long history of the Democrat Party and hard core racism.

    Thanks for your comments. Thanks particularly for pointing out that McVeigh was ultimately a patsy and useful idiot for radical Islam.

  11. Muhammad A. Says:

    Michael,

    I have pasted your comment below as I don’t know how to write a reply here, but have a very simple question for you. If Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) was a violent man who created a violent religion, AND if the Muslims conquered all of Europe except when they were stopped in France, then

    You and all the current Christians MUST be of French origin right?

    You see, violence has no boundaries. If Islam is a violent religion and Muslims are a violent people then I see no reason for the Muslims to keep the Christians alive after taking over their land. The simple fact that a Christian king was able to overthrow the Muslim government in Spain is evidence that Muslims did not go around killing just for the sake of killing.

    Believe me, you would have been born Muslim if that were the case!

    Michael Eden Says:
    December 4, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    I challenge you to explore Muhammad’s life and show me how he was actually a man of peace who would turn the other cheek, who would never pick up a scimitar, who would never attack his enemies.

    The fact of the matter is that Muhammad was a man of incredible violence and the founder of a violent religion. By the time of Muhammad’s death, he had already been in about 30 military campaigns – including acts of genocide – and had another 30 planned at the time of his death. Interestingly, one of those campaigns that he planned at the time of his death was the conquest of Christian Europe. That was carried out within one hundred years of his death, and was only stopped in France – ALL THE WAY ACROSS EUROPE – at the Battle of Tours.

    By that time, for what it’s worth, Islam had already violently poured across Africa. They eradicated by violence the Christianized region that had been made famous by St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in Africa.

    Muslims also attacked Christianity in Spain (“El Cid”) and the Crusades started in reaction to the incessant attacks by Muslisms against the Byzantine Empire – which called upon the Pope in Rome for aid.

    If you think in terms of paradigms, Jesus and ONLY Jesus lived and taught peace. Only Jesus taught, “Put away your sword, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” Muhammad most certainly didn’t live that way.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    You and all the current Christians MUST be of French origin right?

    Muhammad A.,

    Your question is simply non-sequitur.

    What I claim is a simple fact of history. Muhammad began his religious system by practicing war and violence. It is a documented historic fact that Muslims DID IN FACT pour across Africa and across Europe. They were stopped after their vicious military conquest in Africa by El Cid. That is a fact. They were stopped in Europe – yes, in FRANCE – by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours.

    Then you proceed to ask me a question that simply has nothing to do with those facts.

    Unless you can show me where I assert that Muslims killed every single human being between Saudi Arabia and France. Which I never do.

    You dishonestly assert that I claim that “all Muslims … go around killing just for the sake of killing.” And unless you can show me where I asserted that, I am rightly calling you out as a liar and a slanderer.

    On your clearly ridiculous view, if I were to attack the Muslims with nuclear weapons and then enslave those who survived and turn you all into beasts, then I could still praise myself as “peaceful” because, after all, I didn’t kill every last one of you, did I? Your logic is as frightening as the jihadists who own your religion today.

    Further, you post a block of my words – which NO WHERE argues that “Muslims … go around killing just for the sake of killing, for the factual record – without bothering to try to refute with historical facts that Muhammad WAS in fact a man of violence who DID in historical fact participate in 30 military campaigns with still another round of military conquest planned at the time of his death.

    If your going to quote me, at least have the integrity to either agree with what you quote or specifically state what part of it you disagree with and why you disagree with it.

  13. Shayn Roby Says:

    The NRA was founded by Republicans to protect freed slaves from racist Democrats. True history, at the risk of quoting the moron Al Gore is “an inconvenient truth” for the Democrats.

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    Shayn Roby,

    If Al Gore said it, it pretty much has to be true. After all, he’s the guy who claimed credit for having invented the internet.

  15. Ludwig von Drake Says:

    Michael:

    Your article on Timothy McVeigh is very helpful. I received the accusation of McVeigh as an example of a Christian terrorist from an Islamic apologist at a corporate function that I attended recently. I was naturally offended at the suggestion but unprepared to respond with any facts. Now, thanks to you I am prepared. In particular, I like how you crafted the following sentence: “There is absolutely no reason whatsoever save anti-Christian bigotry and profound religious intolerance to suggest that he did.”
    Very well said. Keep up the good work. BTW, If you haven’t done so already, check out to website called “Answering Muslims” overseen by Mr. David Wood. I get their email updates. Terrific stuff that the MSM won’t disclose.

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    Ludwig von Drake,

    Basically, the only people who ARE citing Timothy McVeigh as a “Christian” are Muslims and atheists.

    Both are as warped and as biased as they come.

    I did the research after finding myself in a similar situation where a Muslim blindsided me with this lie. I think they literally assume that if you’re American, you are clearly a “Christian.” And then atheists picked up on it (apparently no atheist qualifying as “American”) and ran with it.

    Atheists of course did the same thing with Stalin. His mother was a devout Catholic, so that made him a Christian. His mother wanted him to go to seminary and it didn’t matter than he didn’t want to and that he ultimately refused to. It didn’t matter that Karl Marx said, “Communism begins from the outset with atheism” and Stalin was a communist. It really didn’t matter that he SAID he was an atheist who said things like, “You know, they are fooling us, there is no God…all this talk about God is sheer nonsense” and therefore that “I believe in one thing only, the power of human will.” It didn’t matter that Stalin closely followed the Soviet position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. It didn’t matter that his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. And it didn’t matter that by the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion in Stalin’s regime.

    Atheists do the same thing with Hitler. They point to a few of Hitler’s speeches in which he makes claims that would lead one to believe that Hitler was “Christian.” As long as you believe Hitler was an honest man. What you find (and I document at length here: https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/hitler-wasnt-right-wing-wasnt-christian-and-nazism-was-applied-darwinism/) was that Hitler’s inner circle wrote things in their journals/diaries such as:

    From Joseph Goebbels’ diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tue):

    “The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

    Hitler described his feelings to his inner circle, saying that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

    Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

    Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler's Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

    Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

    Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

    “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

    So, what we have are atheists who trust implicitly what Hitler said in his speeches because they clearly believe he was a good and virtuous man who wouldn’t lie to his people. And of course we have to therefore believe that Hitler lied to his inner circle – because they were Nazis, after all, and you must remember that atheists believe Hitler was a good and honest man and you would expect such a decent fellow as Hitler to lie to Goebbels, right???

    What I’m saying is it really is no surprise that liars would turn their lies on a creep like Timothy McVeigh. What you can count on them never to do is tell the TRUTH.

    I’m familiar with David Wood and appreciate your suggestion.

    Thanks for your comment!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers

%d bloggers like this: