US House Rep Peter King (R-NY) recently held more hearings on “radical Islam,” to which Rep Al Green (D-Tx) wondered out loud why there weren’t hearings on “radical Christianity.”

“I do not, not — N-O-T — oppose hearings on radicalization. I do oppose hearings that don’t focus on the entirety of radicalization.

And if you agree that we have Christians…who become radicalized…why not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?”

He further explained: 

Why don’t we go to the next step and ask, how is that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white female in the United States of America can become radicalized to the point of wanting to do harm to this country?

He’s right, of course.  After the rash of violent attacks on the US and its military by blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white females, Congress should absolutely hold hearings on the matter.

The only person the congressman mentioned during his 5-minute remarks was “Jihad Jane,” who, he accurately conveyed, was blonde haired and blue eyed.  But she wasn’t Christian — thus the “jihad” nickname — so Green’s point seemed to wander.

The congressman had an unusually fatalistic conclusion:

I look forward to the day that we’ll have that hearing that deals with the radicalization of Christians in America.

That would seem to say he looks forward to the day that radicalized Christians commit violent acts against the US, since that is what would precipitate such hearings.  Probably not the best choice of words.

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, is quoted at OneNewsNow saying:

Well, Al Green is nuts.  He [is] talking about something that’s essentially fictional. There are no Christians who are citing the Bible and using it to justify acts of violence and terrorism. There are Muslims all around the world citing the Quran and using it to justify acts of violence and terrorism.

Spencer’s statement that there are “no Christians” using the Bible to justify violence might be too absolute, as someone could probably cite an example.  Michael Griffin and Scott Roeder come to mind, for instance.

That’s about where the similarity ends, however, so there is some validity to the point.  For example, contrary to claims by Michael Weinstein’s MRFF, there does not appear to have ever been a Christian-based violent attack against the US military, or even a publicized investigation of such an event. 

By contrast, there have been attacks and planned attacks on the US military motivated by Islam, even from within the US military.   Likewise, more than 100 potential Islamic threats had been investigated within the military community.

For his part, Michael Weinstein chooses to focus on a faux “weaponized Christianity,” while he has virtually ignored real-life examples of “weaponized Islam” in the US military.