Fundamentalism isn’t too violent, it isn’t violent enough.

His primary thought is “fundamentalism is an impotent movement”, and compares it to war. For the truly radically violent, those that are “violent enough”, those that accurately expresses the violence that is Christianity, he proposes Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa. That is the violence that is worth committing, the true church militant.

Go read the post! My regulars might see why I like him so much: might complain of an inversion of the typical understanding of words, to dig at deeper concepts and ideas those same words “ought” to refer to! The comment thread touches on similar arguments as well, “what is a fundamentalist, anyway?”, and a little bit of struggling to direct the discussion towards what Peter meant, as opposed to the understandings that people take issue with. Consider this comment, which mentions Rosa Parks as another example.