Living in the Hell of White Male Terrorism in America

Living in the Hell of White Male Terrorism in America October 27, 2018
Owen Ross via Facebook

This week has been a deadly one in America:

A white male domestic terrorist whose truck is covered window-to-window in Trump worship sent pipe bombs to a long list of Trump’s most outspoken Democratic challengers (including Obama, Clinton, Biden, Soros, and Maxine Walters who ain’t scared).

A white male domestic terrorist opened fire at a Kroger grocery story in Louisville, KY, killing two black people while screaming racial slurs, after first attempting (and failing) to gain entry to an historically black church nearby.

Just this morning, a white male domestic terrorist opened fire at Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, resulting in multiple fatalities.

And reports of a white male domestic terrorist derailed after the mother of the biracial kids he threatened via Facebook reported his hate to police who apprehended him in his driveway, strapped with weapons, 200 rounds of ammunition, a kevlar vest, and detailed plans to massacre two schools.

I’m not going to spend this piece discussing the fact that each man white male domestic terrorist was apprehended alive and unharmed while Black men are killed by police for having broken tail lights and wide-set noses, though I feel it’s incumbent upon me to note that contrast in how our justice system treats unarmed innocent Black men and white male domestic terrorists.

I’m not going to dive into how this administration’s and its hypnotized disciples’ cis-het white supremacy has demonized, criminalized, and now wants to erase Trans people out of existence.

Nor am I going to spend my time today discussing the demonization of a caravan of refugees who are fleeing the domestic terrorism of Honduras in search of safety and hope here, or the fact that our self-proclaimed Nationalist president believes these people will bring terrorism to our nation, or the disheartening percentage of American Christians who seem to have forgotten that our Christ was himself a refugee fleeing state violence, and descended from a nation who fled state terror and crossed the Red Sea on dry land as a caravan of refugees..

What I want to discuss is hope.

Specifically, how little I have on days like today when I take inventory of a week’s terrors.

Because America does indeed have a terrorism problem, but as we keep finding, it’s not a Muslim extremist problem or an infiltrated refugee problem or a Black problem.

It’s a white male domestic terrorism problem. 

And it’s being fostered and empowered by our president who perpetually Others people and encourages and defends violence against them.

So what do we do?

Well first of all, GET OUT AND VOTE.

Secondly, it’s helpful for me to remember that hope is hiding where I least expect to find it.

It’s hiding in the grief we carry together over the loss of life in Pittsburgh and Louisville, in our commitment to solidarity, in our renewed dedication to dismantle white supremacy, in our steadfast faithfulness to cast out darkness by shedding light on truth, in our daily choice to take care of ourselves and each other when we have nothing but hurt, and to celebrate together where we find bursts of Light.

Hope is hiding and salvation is swelling in the middle of all the suffering and hurt. As Elie Wiesel so famously wrote, God is in the Gallows suffering with the oppressed. God’s Godness is on full display in suffering.

A couple weeks ago I wrote a paper for my Thinking Theologically seminary course, about my confusion over what is meant by the confession we recite in the Apostle’s Creed that Christ “descended into hell.”

I’m coming to see that Hell is just the belly of death, the Deep Dark, the hidden, secret place Isaiah talks about in chapter 45 where God transforms the finality of the tomb into a generative womb.

Hell is the place where Life literally comes from Death. 

We’re drowning in death lately. So much death and destruction. Death of the earth. Death of bodies. Death of relationships. Constant war, both on international and interpersonal and internal levels.

Truly, we have made and are living in hell.

But it doesn’t have to be scary and hopeless if we rest in the promise that even in the bed of hell, the tomb will be made a womb, and Life will somehow grow in this belly too.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Scott

    “Because America does indeed have a terrorism problem, but as we keep finding, it’s not a Muslim extremist problem or an infiltrated refugee problem or a Black problem.

    It’s a white male domestic terrorism problem.”

    Really??? Let the ideologues start their rant. There were 9,374 homicides in the US in 2016. African Americans, which make up 12.3% of the population committed 52.6% of them. We have a violence problem and if you want to make this about race, the facts are just not on your side. Let’s have a little intellectual honesty. Until we do, none of these problems are going to be solved.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    There is no god, no god whatsoever.
    And churches are boring and should lose their tax status.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    This article is about terrorism, not homicide generally, as you are perfectly well aware, and that there is a high murder rate among black people in the US (for all sorts of complicated reasons) has zero connection with terrorism, as you are also perfectly well aware. The article is completely correct in pointing out that in respect of terrorism in the US, it is white males who are overwhelmingly responsible.

  • Scott

    I disagree. I’d say there are thousands in Chicago who feel terrorized every day.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    There have been 448 homicides in Chicago so far this year, mostly young black men in poor urban neighborhoods being shot by other young black men. Again, the connection between this and anything said in the article completely escapes me.
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-homicides-data-tracker-htmlstory.html

  • Scott

    Then you aren’t thinking deeply about the problem or reading into the authors intent. I’m not interested in who shot whom. The author specifically states “it’s not a Muslim extremist problem or an infiltrated refugee problem or a Black problem.” This is missing the forest for the trees. We have a violence problem. I’m guessing the author has never addressed how African Americans commit over 50% of all homicides. It’s much more politically correct to spout off when a tragedy such as we just had occurs.
    I agree it is a serious issue that most of the mass shootings are perpetrated by white males. But why is it that this is the only time authors on the Progressive Christian channel get worked up? I’m quite certain we’ll also have a plethora of posts regarding banning AK assault rifles, which I have no issue with but it’s just political posturing.

  • Scott

    Not that facts matter but Cesar Sayoc is Filipino and 41% of all mass shootings have been committed by non-whites. We have a violence issue.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    The pronoun “it” in the sentence “it’s not a Muslim extremist problem or an infiltrated refugee problem or a Black problem.” is standing in for the word “terrorism” as you perfectly well know. That there is also a problem of gun violence in America’s cities is perfectly true, but, again, has nothing whatsoever to do with the above article, which is about terrorism, which, again, you know perfectly well but are trying to deflect by changing to a completely different, unrelated topic. Yes, the number of homicides in the US are far higher than the number of terrorist deaths. Many things cause many more deaths than terrorism. There were 37,000 road deaths in the USA in 2017, for example, but that, like the number of homicides unrelated to terrorism, has got absolutely nothing to do with the above article.

  • Scott

    41% of all mass shooting are committed by non- whites. Cesar Sayoc is Filipino. We don’t have a white male terrorist issue. We have a violence issue.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    His father was Filipino, his mother Italian. He called himself a “white supremacist”.

  • Scott

    What’s your point? The author used Sayoc as an example of a white male terrorist. He’s not white.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    Nope. His father was Filipino, his mother Italian and he called himself a “white supremacist”. Also, once again, the article is specifically about terrorism, not mass shootings.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    Nice one. He calls himself a “white supremacist” but doesn’t count as white? You really are a piece of work.

  • Scott

    What I am is truthful and correct. This is freaking bizarre. All I wanted to do is point out is that we have an all encompassing violence issue in America. When it comes to the topic of violence, it’s sophistry to say we have a white male terrorist issue.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    Yeah. Except the topic of the article is terrorism, not the overall level of violence in America, as you are perfectly well aware and don’t like, so keep trying to change it.

  • Scott

    I’m not trying to change anything. For the record, the topic isn’t terrorism, it’s white male domestic terrorism. If it were terrorism there would be no need to interject race into the post. Out of the four examples used by the author, two were mass shootings and one was a potential mass shooting. Obviously she equates mass shootings as terrorism so I’m fairly certain it’s fair to discuss mass shootings in the context she puts it. All mass shootings are a form of terrorism.

  • Jonathan M

    Once again a severe intense case of “selective outrage”!! I do find it ironic the only time the left mentions the word terrorists is when they are referring to white people or Americans, but you can cut people’s heads off while making a video and if you call them terrorist your xenophobic.

  • Adrian

    So let’s see. When Muslims committed an act of violence on 9/11, we weren’t supposed to condemn all Muslims. Which would be the sensible and correct answer.

    But when a few nuts, one of whom is half-Filipino, go on a murder rampage, it’s OK to condemn all straight white males.

    Sorry to say, but this is why the left will continue to lose elections.

  • Liberalism is a mental disorder and never was it any clearer than in this blog.

  • David Cohen

    And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
    – Acts 2:44-45 (KJV)

    So, according to you, the first Christians were mentally disordered.

  • Not me. Rush:
    Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday explained why the left creates movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, and why they attack Supreme Court nominees like Brett Kavanaugh.
    Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/09/rush-limbaugh-democrats-infected-by-mental-problems/#ed6fqqYpor298h0R.99

    As to giving money to those in need, it is a good lesson for everyone.

  • David Cohen

    Ah, so you didn’t create the idea, you just mindlessly parroted it.

  • David Cohen

    Oh, and what Acts describes is more than just giving to people in need. It describes the creation of a classless micro-society without private property. The fact that the participants were Christians does not make it any less liberal and left-wing.

    Or, as you have mindlessly parroted, it was made up of mentally ill persons guided by the Apostles of Jesus.

  • And who did you mindlessly parrot that absurd conjecture from?

  • David Cohen

    I got the description of the community founded by the Apostles from the Book of Acts.

    I got that they were mentally ill from you.

    Not hard, really.

  • Vlacka2

    It’s not selective outrage. It’s about what’s the biggest threat. And the biggest threat to Americans is that perpetrated by feral crakkker thugs.

  • Vlacka2

    I agree with you. Italians aren’t white, and they know it. It’s why they’ve all got such a big chip on their shoulders. A little bit farther south and they’d be Africans.

  • ounbbl

    Like North Korea when there is no, none, of gun-related crimes. O Gun-free country!

  • David, as I have mentioned to you before, you do not understand the bible well enough to make these conjectures.

    There are many who understand the Left and its mental illness.

  • David Cohen

    And as I have mentioned to you before Bob, “you don’t understand” is your standard response when you realize you have talked yourself into a corner and made an assertion which you cannot defend. It stems from the fact that you are either too arrogant to admit when you are wrong or you are desperate to defend your job posting nonsense on progressive websites. There is still some discussion on that subject.

    “There are many who understand the Left and its mental illness.”
    – None of whom understand either left wing politics or what constitutes mental illness. But then, as we know from your copious posts, you are only interested in advancing The Party’s agenda. The only facts you have any use for are “alternative facts” (i.e. The Party’s lies.)

  • David, it was your conjecture not mine. You said you got it from a description in Acts. Where is your analysis? Where is your proof of what you said? Tell us if you can. Let’s see some scriptures to back up Your assertion that ” It describes the creation of a classless micro-society without private property.” Acts 2:45 does not even suggest your conjecture.

    There are many on this site who reject Progressives like yourself. But your conduct and others on this site does illustrate that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. The author of this blog is a prime example.

  • David Cohen

    Conjecture? Bob, anyone who reads the passage knows that it and its companion verse, Acts 4:32 (“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”) are saying EXACTLY what I said they did. You can play dumb all you want, but the rest of us do not need The Party to explain to us what “held all things in common” means.

    But this is how The Party commands its slaves to view the Bible. When the literal texts agrees with the The Party’s platform (such as Leviticus 18:22) it is to be taken literally. However, when the Bible does not agree with The Party’s platform, as the verses I cited from Acts do not, then all of a sudden the literal text is not good enough and it needs specialized interpretation. Its all further evidence (as if aby was needed) that Evangelical Christians have no desire or need for truth: expediency is the only virtue they recognize.

    And whenever someone points that out, just call them mentally ill, preferably with a snide, haughty voice like yours so no one will question your lack of qualifications. After all, since truth is of no concern to Evangelicals, why not go all the way?

  • And yet not everyone agrees. See Matthew Henry’s commentary: “They did not take away others’ property, but they were indifferent to it. They did not call it their own; because they had, in affection, forsaken all for Christ, and were expecting to be stripped of all for cleaving to him”

    Not sure why you would think a political party controls a person’s understanding of the bible? They are largely incompatible; but where they intersect is a possibility

    So the Disciples were “liberal and left-wing.” That made me laugh!

  • David Cohen

    “And yet not everyone agrees.”
    – Of course not. When what the Bible says does not agree with what one wants it to say, they declare that the literal word doesn’t really mean what it says, and that interpretation is needed. The difference is that progressives admit they do this, conservatives do not. That is because expediency is the only value which conservative Christians recognize.

    “Not sure why you would think a political party controls a person’s understanding of the bible?”
    – It was the only conclusion that I and a growing number of Americans could logically reach after more than 80% of White Evangelicals voted for, and continue to support, a president who violates nearly every value they claim to stand for.

    “So the Disciples were “liberal and left-wing.” That made me laugh!”
    – Because you do not know what those terms mean. “Liberal” means open to new ideas. Rejecting the ancient teachings of the Sadducees and the legalism of he Pharisees demonstrates how liberal the apostles were. “Left-wing” is a sociopolitical philosophy which opposes social and power-related hierarchies in favor of greater equality (as opposed to right wing theory which favors hierarchy, ideally with the most capable people having the most say in a society.) A society like the one the apostles are described as creating in Acts is as non-hierarchical as a society can get, and thus is, by definition, left wing.

  • You missed all the points:
    1. Matthew Henry is not just every guy.
    2. President Trump does not violate nearly every values Christians stand for.
    3.The context of Liberal in your replies was not the definition but the current political context.

  • David Cohen

    1. No, he is not just every guy. He is an apologist whom The Party has cherry picked and approved of to give what they consider the official word on biblical apologetics. I can see why that would be impressive to you and those who share your bubble. I am not sure how that should be impressive to those of us who live in the real world.
    2. Really? Greed does not violate everything Christian stand for? Adultery is not a problem for Christians? Mocking a disabled reporter was something Jesus would approve of? Serial lying would not be a problem for Jesus?
    Give it up Bob. You and yours are not going to win this one. The devotion which Dolt 45 has inspired in Evangelicals has convinced the rest of us that you are all hypocrites motivated by expediency rather than the love of truth.
    3. Ah yes, when all else fails (and in your case, t has) deny all definitions. You never think of anything original do you Bob? But then The Party does not encourage original thought, and you are a goodthinker.

  • 1. You are embarrassing yourself David: “Matthew Henry (18 October 1662 – 22 June 1714) was a nonconformist minister and author, born in Wales but spending much of his life in England. He is best known for the six-volume biblical commentary Exposition of the Old and New Testaments.” People who actually study the bible use his accounts as one of many helps to understand the scripture

    2. No it does not. No it is not. No he wouldn’t; but no he didn’t. Sin is common to all men including you. Judgment is not yours either. Serial lying is your judgment based on what you are given to see and read. Your comments are is completely disingenuous and simply lies from your Party.

    3. The disciples were not Liberals in any sense of the world today. If you think your definition is unique you delude yourself.

  • David Cohen

    1. Pointing out that The Party has carefully chosen an apologist to support their agenda for you is not embarrassing. Cutting and pasting a description from Wikipedia will not change that. The fact is that all kinds of people study the Bible, and all kinds of people cite all kinds of other people to support their prejudices.

    My point, which you continue to gloss over, is that a literal reading of the verses I cited from Acts speak for themselves. You, of course, cannot allow that because what the verses say is incompatible with The Party’s platform, which is the true rubric through which you cite scripture. Of course, no one expect modern day conservatives to be honest, given how dishonest your messiah in the White House is.

    2. Strange that we did not hear any of that when Bill Clinton was in office. And, no serial lying by your presidential messiah is a documented fact.
    https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

    3. Ah yes, another Bob Shiloh standard, when confronted with opposing evidence, simply say “no” in your haughtiest and most self-assured voice. Tighten that blindfold Bob: precedent makes it clear that claiming the moral high ground as a conservative is going to get A LOT harder in the future.

  • Jonathan M

    LMAO!!! The biggest threat is crazy fanatics, not white people, BTW if I said all (fill in the blank with a minority group) were this or that wouldn’t that be hmmmm whats the word oh racist.

  • Nimblewill

    Where exactly do you live? I would love to know whether or not you live in a mostly white neighborhood or community? If so I bet you are terrified every night.

  • Nimblewill

    You’re missing an key element. If done voluntarily its called love. If it’s forced on you its called communism.

  • David Cohen

    Actually, it is you who is missing the point, The followers of the Apostles could have created any kind of micro-society they wished. They could have created one with a definite social hierarchy in which private property was secured. They chose, instead, to create a society of social equals with no private property, i.e. they chose to live out the left wing ideal.

    From this, we can draw one of three conclusions:
    1) The followers of Jesus’ apostles were all mentally ill
    2) The author of Acts was lying when he described the society created by the followers of the Apostles
    3) Bob Shiloh was laughably wrong when he equated liberalism and left wing politics with mental illness

    Oh, and as far as this system being forced on someone, I remind you of Ananias and his wife. They attempted to join the community, but they kept some of the proceeds hidden away for themselves after they sold their property. When confronted about this, they lied, and were promptly struck dead. No, they were not ejected from the community: they were struck dead. Evidently, God had some strong opinions on this subject.

  • Eyedre

    Homeland Security Ignores Domestic White Terrorism…….Many U.S. law enforcement and security officials now believe that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has its priorities wrong…….According to these highly-experienced professionals DHS resources are being wasted on the so-called “threat” posed to our southern border by the caravan of poor refugees making its way north through Mexico from Central America……experts believe, more resources should be deployed to fight the growing threat to our country posed by white nationalism and white supremacist groups. It is these groups of U.S. citizens within our own borders who have grown increasingly violent and have started to threaten more and more Americans in different racial and religious groups…..

  • Eyedre

    In the world of homeland security, the common practice is to focus on those threats that present the greatest risk. So it’s disconcerting that in a call with national law enforcement and homeland security experts, the focus would be on the caravan versus the increasing number of mass casualty attacks the country’s experiencing, including by white extremists.

  • Eyedre

    while the United States is in shock from the latest white supremacist attacks, top security officials are saying that fighting violent white supremacy isn’t a primary focus. In effect, domestic white terrorism is being ignored.

  • Eyedre

    You won’t be able to use that weak lying a** statistical Chicago argument any longer man…….Its like you mofos use it to justify white makes terrorist in America…..You been to Chicago?

  • Eyedre

    Doesn’t negate the FACT white male terrorism in America is the Threat we all should be worried about…

  • Vlacka2

    It’s a popular country with the delusional moron illegally occupying the White House.

  • Vlacka2

    Absolutely. Being a white male myself, the feral crakkker thugs think I must be one of them and don’t bother trying to hide their beliefs from me. It’s fun to spit in a moron’s face.

  • Scott

    Logan Square. I’m not justifying anything. I think we have a ton of issues in the US. Just dont think white terrorism is near the top of the list.

  • Brandon Roberts

    terrorists are scumbags.