Many on the right are claiming that Breivik could not be a Christian terrorist, because what he did was not a Christian act. In a way I agree with them, in spite of their complete hypocrisy, but it’s not that simple.
In the wake of mass murder in Norway by a young man who hearkened to the Christian crusades and calls himself a cultural Christian – many ordinary people of faith were horrified to find Anders Behring Breivik described as a “Christian terrorist.”
Whether that title applies to Mr. Breivik is a suddenly awkward issue – partly lembecause it raises the question about a fast and loose use of “Muslim” or “Islamic” to name those who commit violence in the name of their faith.
While European media seem disinterested in Breivik’s Christian self-definition or the terminology used to describe him, in the US and Muslim media worlds it is a sprawling debate. It was hyped by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News who found it an “outrage” to call Breivik a Christian terrorist; Mr. O’Reilly responded to some reports that early on took Breivik’s statements about his Christianity at face value.
But the Fox talk show host and some others have denied that Muslims who commit violence should be treated by the same rules… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Christian Science Monitor>
The problem here is not Christianity or Islam, as both religions condemn killing the innocent. The problem is that right-wing extremists have abused both religions to further their political agendas. Breivik is no more Christian than the Republican Supply-side pseudo Christians here.
Because of his racist beliefs, and his group’s connections to the Koch-funded AFP, perhaps he should be called the Teabagger Terrorist.
7 Responses to “Is Breivik a Christian Terrorist?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Breivik-is an extremist who claims to be Christian , as such he does represent the Christian Taliban -Extreme radical views are not confined to Islam -We need to look at this ,And I think name it for what it is-; Distortion of Religious belief—Using religion , or perhaps abusing religion might be more apt , to justify terrorist acts .
I agree Teabagger Terrorist –Seems to fit
Exactly!
It’s easy to find multiple sites documenting Anders Breivik and his Manifesto connecting with right-wing Talibangelical christianists here – but I was hoping to find a different viewpoint rather than just proving he’s a terrorist with links to our homegrown terrorists. I think this may be it. It’s quite long, but honestly the whole thing is worth a read.
It details the viewpoints from two friends – one a liberal who sounds like us – and the other his childhood best friend who grew into what I’d call a Talibangelical christianist. The turning point was a conversation between the christianist and his wife at a barbecue following Brevik’s right-wing rampage. (Sorry, but to keep within Fair Use Doctrine, the editing leaves something to be desired):
“Norway Was A Breakthrough”
Wife: But he (Breivik) identified himself as a Christian.
My friend: Nope, he couldn’t be a Christian.
Wife: I know, not any Christian we know or could identify with.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/norway-was-a-breakthrough.html
Excellent piece, Nameless. Sullivan is one of very few conservatives I respect.
As we’ve heard so many times before, “More people have been killed in the name of Jesus/Christianity than anything else.” Then, to me, that says something different from what I’ve heard here, most of which seems to be saying that it’s a small minority who are the lunatic fringe/religious extremists is the reality of this issue. It seems to me that with most organized religions, but especially in Christianity and Islam, a basic tenet of the religion is such things as: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. That and other edicts mean that there is one one way to believe, one way to be “true” to God; one way to be righteous… and each religion believes theirs is “the only way to get to God.” I think this is where the problem lies. It isn’t just the lunatic fanatics, it’s the religions themselves that create the concept that to annilhilate “the infidel” is not so bad. It may be picked up for action by the fringe element, but I think if the religion didn’t carry this thought as a valuable tenet, there would not be so many who would be willing to take drastic action because someone else disagrees with them. If only people could have their beliefs without thinking they have to convince others that they are “right.” I do have a belief and I “know” I’m right, too. The basic tenet of my belief I’ll express this way: All roads lead to Rome! No matter what our individual beliefs on how to get there, we’re all in the same basket, and headed for the same outcome. Can’t we all just get along???
Welcome Caitlin. 🙂
As a Christian, I agree with you that my faith is not superior to others’. I believe that God honors any faith, including the atheist faith, as long as that faith is authentic. Authentic faith does not foster hatred. Authentic faith coexists with others.