You'd think that even screeching Catholic loon and pathological liar Kathy Shaidle would have the sense not to publish something this deranged:
"Let's see. 10,380 violent attacks since 9/11 by Islamic jihadists who justify their actions on the basis of Islamic texts and teachings.
"How many violent attacks since 9/11 by Christian zealots who justify their actions on the basis of Christian texts and teachings? Uh, none.
Here, let me start things off. And feel free to play along at home. It's fun for the whole family.
LET'S BE CAREFUL OUT THERE, KIDS. You'll notice how carefully Kathy phrases her claim above so as to disqualify numerous apparent examples of Christian, anti-abortion violence. First, it must have happened since 9/11, so any unfortunate murders of abortion providers before then aren't relevant. How convenient.
Next, they must be "violent" attacks, but who defines "violent?" Does it necessarily involve violence against people? What about my example, where the clinic just happened to be empty so no one was actually hurt?
Must the attack have been successful? What if it was only an attempted attack that didn't actually kill or injure anyone, like this? I'm guessing things like that don't count in Kathy's world, either.
And, finally, notice how the act of violence must clearly be perpetrated by "Christian zealots who justify their actions on the basis of Christian texts and teachings." Is it incumbent on us to prove the religious provocation when someone, say, attacks an abortion clinic? Or is it just as reasonable to think that that sort of thing might be done just as equally by a raging atheist and that Christian fundamentalist lunacy has nothing to do with it?
Yes, Kathy does like her conditions, doesn't she? It certainly makes her job easy.