Talk:Christian terrorism

Lambs of Christ

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)

Ku Klux Klan

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)

Explaining my revert

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)

Retrospective classification as religious terrorism

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)

Slovenian Black Hand

It says in the article this outfit was a Catholic terrorist group. There are four sources, all in Slovenian. I looked at the translation of ref 59. The word Catholic is mentioned once. The source is full of words like 'presumed' and 'supposed'. No actual evidence of any Christian connection, let alone Catholic. The accusations seem to come from one author named Mlakar (not a wiki author), who wrote a book. At best, source 59 says there may have been Church collusion by not intervening in what they probably knew was happening, thereby, it is assumed, participating in the terrorism. This is not evidence to say the Black Hand was a Catholic terrorist group. This section should be removed because it is unsupported. I came across this invention by looking at the photo added today. After changing what was written to what the image notes actually said (in wiki commons) I wondered why the Catholic Church would have anything to do with the murder of two nuns?? Such an absurd claim demands very, very, strong evidence, which of cource does not exist. This whole section should be re-written. user:RKT7789, just because this wiki article mentions Catholic Black Hand does not make it true - never use WP as a source! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I did some digging, "The Partisans and War By Jože Pirjevec" describes them as "pro-catholic" and Slovene Studies Journal of the Society for Slovene Studies · Volume 29 as a "catholic death squad", BUT, you might be right, I just saw Catholic church mentioned and skimmed the sources, if you have delved into them deeper then I defer to your judgement. RKT7789 (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way about Black Hand, and I don't know much about it. But as a long-time watcher of this page, I'll point out that the consensus has generally been against having this page try to name specific examples of Christian terrorist groups, unless they are historic rather than recent and have very solid secondary source sourcing for both "Christian" and "terrorist". Instead, the consensus has been to focus on what sources say about the phenomenon of Christian terrorism, as opposed to giving examples. (One can see all this in the talk page archives.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, now that I took another look at it, I think the women in the picture are biological sisters, if they have the same surname, rather than nuns. Not ultimately very relevant, I know. RKT7789 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Good point - my mistake in assuming they were nuns. I think an option is to keep the current text but to water it down considerably to make it clear the Black Hand was not Catholic despite some indirect connections being made, especially by some authors. I don't know enough to know for certain, but this Catholic might possibly be wp:fringe. Wasn't the Black Hand mainly a WW1 group that a few people resumed calling itself in WW2? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Serbian and Slovenian Black Hand have other connection than the name, which the Slovenians picked because it meant, to them, a militant, sort of secret society, if I've understood it correctly.RKT7789 (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You need to show that there is a consensus in terrorism studies that they were a "Christian terrorist" group, not just that they were Christians AND terrorists, which would be original research. Religious terrorists carry out acts of terrorism on the basis of religious motivation and in order to achieve religious objectives, which is clearly not the case here. TFD (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, the source behind the paywall allegedly states they did commit terrorism in "defense of the faith", according to the Black Hand article. But it's kind of hard to verify, I doubt very many people have subscription to Slovenia's newspapers of record... RKT7789 (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)