When alleged Olympic Centennial Park bomber Eric Rudolph was captured in early June, media consumers should have expected a quick examination of his motives and religious beliefs.
That is what we got and most journalists I read handled it the best way they could, but the Washington Post‘s article on this subject was misleading and clearly agenda-driven.
Monday’s story about Rudolph’s background, the Christian Identity movement, and other similar white supremacist religious groups was belied by its lead and following five paragraphs. Instead of launching into a look at his influences, reporter Alan Cooperman considered Rudolph’s suspected crimes in the light of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 and asked, “Is he a ‘Christian terrorist?'”
Cooperman’s second paragraph suggested a larger movement might be simmering beyond Rudolph:
The question is not just whether Rudolph is a terrorist, or whether he considers himself a Christian. It is whether he planted bombs at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, two abortion clinics and a gay nightclub to advance a religious ideology — and how numerous, organized and violent others who share that ideology may be.
The article eventually explored Rudolph’s beliefs and various sects within the Christian Identity movement. However, Cooperman chose to lead with a sensational theme that implied equivalence between Islamic terrorists and what is behind the “Christian” actions of Rudolph. The author approached the subject with a preconceived idea that information in the article didn’t justify.
How did Cooperman confirm his assumption? He found a source that gave him a quote to support his “Christian terrorist” theory. Michael Barkun, a professor of political science at Syracuse University who has been a consultant to the FBI on “Christian” extremist groups, told the Post, “Based on what we know of Rudolph so far, and admittedly it’s fragmentary, there seems to be a fairly high likelihood that he can legitimately be called a ‘Christian terrorist.'”
In other words, “Sure, I’ll go along with that.”
Clearly Cooperman’s goal was to create the impression of a Christian counterpart to Islamic terrorism. After all, in order to be fair (according to journalists) we can’t attribute violent tendencies to one religious group without doing so to others — namely Christianity.
I’ve never before seen Rudolph’s crimes discussed in the light of the 9/11 Islamist terror attacks, although it’s probably happened somewhere. But it’s not a reasonable comparison. Cooperman ignores the fact that Rudolph was a loner and was dormant for five years. And where is the evidence of organized, extensive planning by “Christians” to co-opt airplanes, bomb buildings, and use chemical and biological weapons?
What does Rudolph have in common with Islamic terrorists? Both like to blow up people. Both had an agenda (don’t all murderers?). Rudolph could be characterized as a terrorist, I suppose, but then so would all serial killers.
Apparently Cooperman ran the “Christian terrorist” theory by another “expert” (not until the 7th paragraph), but the idea didn’t fly as high as it did with Barkun. Idaho State University sociology professor James A. Aho told Cooperman he is reluctant to use the phrase “Christian terrorist,” because it is “sort of an oxymoron.”
“I would prefer to say that Rudolph is a religiously inspired terrorist,” Aho said, “because most mainstream Christians consider Christian Identity to be a heresy.”
But preserving his “Christian terrorist” theme, in the following excerpt Cooperman carved up another of Aho’s comments to make a point:
If Christians take umbrage at the juxtaposition of the words ‘Christian’ and ‘terrorist,’ [Aho] added, ‘that may give them some idea of how Muslims feel’ when they constantly hear the term ‘Islamic terrorism,’ especially since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Or, “how do you like it when you’re called terrorists, Christians?”
To the undiscerning eye, unfortunately, Cooperman probably makes the moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity stick. But throughout the Muslim world there has been shockingly little denunciation of those who carried out terrorist attacks in the name of their religion. To a significant percentage of Muslims, terrorist attacks are justified.
The same cannot be said for Christianity. It is difficult for reporters like Cooperman to understand, but the biggest flaw in his theory is to call violent supremacist groups Christian in the first place. Just because they are labeled as part of a “Christian Identity” movement doesn’t make them Christian — just like there’s nothing from a horse in horseradish.
The comparison breaks down because supremacist groups who use the Bible to justify their violence and beliefs fail to follow Christ. They misinterpret and twist Scripture to fit their preconceived ideas. Supremacists may be categorized as extreme rightists, but they can’t be called Christians because they don’t follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Religion-inspired violence is a newsworthy topic to study in stories like Rudolph’s, but in this case a Washington Post reporter did violence to the subject matter. Call Rudolph a terrorist if you must, but don’t call him a Christian.
Paul Chesser is associate editor of Carolina Journal, a publication of the John Locke Foundation.