Pretty weak, Rags. Not you, necessarily, but the article and it's attempt to equate Christian-motivated targeted assassination to that of radical Islamic jihad terrorism, particularly when the article begins by minimalizing the Tsarnaev brothers' influence of radical Islam as being merely "both [are] considered white and appear to have been motivated in part by radical Islam" when the fact is they were motivated virtually 100% by radical Islam. The article then goes on to list mostly targeted assassinations calling them terrorism, as if they are no different than the Islamic terrorism attacks of the recent present.
While Christians are certainly capable of unconscionable evil, as history has recorded, very few if any of the modern examples of "Christian terrorism" can really be characterized the same way as the terrorism of Islamic fundamentalist jihad terrorism. The author of the article is so desperate to make a case of "Well, Christians are terrorists, tooooo!" that he needs to include racists attacks against Sikhs that weren't Christian motivated but were ignorant responses to post-9/11 revenge, and attacks by white supremacists and far-right militia groups as being "Christian terrorism."
Because it's so difficult to find modern equivalents of (domestic) Christian terrorism to Islamic terrorism, the author has to greatly expand the criteria, and then use even the thinnest of tenuous connections to make his case. It's weak and it's lame.