The Double Standard of Christian Terrorism

This article I wrote last year was based on the actions of Anders Breivik in Norway. This is why I put it in the Current Events forum. If it would be more appropriate elsewhere (for instance the Religion forum) then Mods feel free to move it.

On July 22, 2011 a terror attack rocked Oslo, Norway, killing 76 innocent people. The speculation began from the moment it was reported. Everyone was convinced a Muslim was behind it. Then a suspect was captured. He was both white and Christian.

From that moment forward, in typical Western fashion, people came out of the woodwork trying to distance him from Christianity, even though his words said otherwise. There were even some atheists, for whatever reason, attempting to separate Christianity from this act of obvious terrorism.

This highlights a fundamental hypocrisy that we have seen time and time again in the West. Had this man been brown-skinned with an Arabic name, he would have automatically been labeled a Muslim fanatic and a terrorist.


This scene has played out many times before from Timothy McVeigh to Joe Stack to John Bedell to the Hutaree in Michigan to Jared Loughner. When a person is White or Anglo European Christian, he is not labeled a terrorist. Instead, his actions are often dismissed (not justified or excused) as by that of a “mentally disturbed” or “crazy” person. He is never a terrorist and his Christian faith is almost never mentioned. Even the Hutaree, who were investigated by the Anti-terrorism Task Force, were only called a “Christian militia” by the media and their faith was the centerpiece of their actions.

It begs the question, why is this? Why does Western society strive to distance Christianity from these occurrences when it is the first to call Muslims who perpetrate the same acts as terrorists?


For the record, I am not claiming that al-Qa’ida or Richard Reid are not Muslim terrorists. Of course they are. However, in the same breath, the Hutaree and Andres Breivik are Christian terrorists. If you are a Christian, it does not mean you condone his actions and his being a Christian does not reflect on you.


People say that Jesus preached a message of love and tolerance. This is contrary to church tenets which were hardly loving and tolerant of for instance, homosexuals and non-Christians. Fair enough! Let’s say that is 100% accurate. This doesn’t make him not a Christian. He may be a “bad Christian” but he is still a Christian nonetheless.


The “no true Scotsman” argument is one of the biggest Christian hypocrisies in which Christians are judging who is a true Christian and who is not. Many do this whether the person in question is Andres Breivik or a formerly devout Christian-turned-atheist (for example Dan Barker), when Jesus commanded them to not be judgmental. (Matthew 7:1-2; John 8:7)

They do this because they are ashamed that such occurrences can be aligned with their faith, and rightly so. In the same way, many non-extremist Muslims attempt to claim the Taliban are not real Muslims.

Religion has been used to justify violence and bigotry since its earliest incarnations. To try and say it hasn't is doing a giant disservice to all mankind.


In closing, let’s look at an excerpt from Breivik’s manifesto:

“I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed. He further states. “We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once, but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead [sic] by a just and non-suicidal pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities.”

Now let us examine this again with some minor substitutions:

“I trust that the future leadership of a Arab cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Mosque leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed.” Furthermore, “We must have a Mosque leadership who supports a future Jihad with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Islamic states in the Middle East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Shi’a whose members should convert back to Sunnism. The Shi’a had an important role once, but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform Sunni Islam as well. Iran should have a united Khilafah lead [sic] by a just and non-suicidal Imam who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Christian atrocities.”

If a Muslim who wrote the latter statement and then committed acts of violence including a bombing and shooting spree, he would have been labeled an outright Islamic terrorist and rightly so. Look at Nidal Hassan, for example.

The definition of "terrorism" is "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Clearly, based on his manifesto, this is what he was attempting to do.

Let’s stop the hypocrisy and label Breivik what he truly is — a Christian terrorist.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


And its gonna get worse.

The middle east is just like the bible belt. When their economic situations syncronize so will their behavior. It wont be long.now.

all religion must be exterminated.

reply to post by Wertdagf


"Exterminated" how? Because now you sound like you are promoting violence to eradicate a group of people which is very much like Breivik, amongst others.

Religion doesn't need exterminated. Ignorance does. We need to eradicate ignorance amongst the faithful. We must educate the people.

Do you really think violence would disappear if religion did? Absolutely not. There are other things which are equally divisive that can and do lead to violence (politics being one of them). Hell, people riot and fight over Football ("soccer") games.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


I do believe that there are probably Islamic churches distancing themselves from Extremists. However I don't see it. But in the same thought I realize Islam doesn't have a voice in American Media. If they do, it is limited. As where Christians have countless eccentric and out going Church leaders to recognize.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


If you promote the removal of ignorance then you promote the destruction of religion.

They are two sides of the same coin.... its just that the religious cant see that. All the better for the rest of us that such a day should come as a supprise. It will give them less time to spite the world for not being the childish dream they had hoped for. AKA the murder of all the infedels and eternal damnation for not believing in their deity of choice.

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.it seems he has good reason to be a terrorist judging by the Muslim terrorists caught trying to kill e.d.l. members in England.almost prophetic.I notice it's been awful quite on this subject on a.t.s.

reply to post by Miraj


Indeed, Miraj. The protests against terrorism committed in the name of Islam is largely ignored by Western media. Why is that? Because it doesn't serve the Western agenda. They want us all to think that all Muslims are evil and out to get us.

You can honestly do a Google search for things like "Islam fatwa against terrorism" and you get a lot of good results back.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
Why does Western society strive to distance Christianity from these occurrences when it is the first to call Muslims who perpetrate the same acts as terrorists?

Answer: Because "western society" is more Christian than Muslim.

But it goes both ways, and we've seen it even here on ATS. There have been many occasions when other Muslims say "They're not acting correctly according to the Mulim faith. No real Mulim would do that."

Much the same as the old "They're not acting correctly according to the Christian faith. No real Christian would do that."

See also No True Scotsman.

reply to post by glen200376


"Good reason to be a terrorist"? So you are supporting his actions? Terrorism, no matter who engages in it, is reprehensible. There is never a "good reason to be a terrorist."

reply to post by glen200376


He killed a bunch of children, yeah he was really a freedom fighter.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


So strange you brought this up as I've been wondering if terrorism would actually be a lucrative career choice. But woe is me....so many choices. I mean one can be a muslim terrorist, a christian terrorist, a jewish opressor, a masonic illuminati terrorist, a chemtrail pilot terrorist, a 1 percenter banker terrorist, a police officer terrorizing the 99 percent or just a suicide bomber terrorist. And then I suppose that atheists could also be terrorists if they so choose, oh yeah and some school teachers have actually terrorized me in the past. It seems the type of terrorist one would choose to be sems to depend on ones geographical area. You might actually be able to help me with my career decision. Where are you located?

reply to post by Wertdagf

If you promote the removal of ignorance then you promote the destruction of religion.

They are two sides of the same coin.... its just that the religious cant see that.

I don't entirely disagree, but the problem is not religion per se, but rather religious extremism.

However, extremism can be practiced with or without religion because it's emotion based - and of course, you can't do away with human emotion, which is the real source of the extreme behavior.

reply to post by Wertdagf


So again you are promoting not only the mass extermination and murder of religious people but also doing it by surprise so that they can't defend themselves?

Wow.

reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy


Religious extremeism is just a religious person trying to alter reality to justify his beliefs. Thats all it is.

We all know religious beliefs are idiotic.... its only when people try to manifest these idiotic ideas into our society that we call it extremist.

The old testament is filled with god commanding to pillage and murder whole towns, and jesus doesnt disagre with the old testament. So chirstians going around murdering gays because its gods will arent losing sleep at night.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


So you think the only way for religious people to die is to murder them?

Not only that but you assume that the death of the belief in god wont be a supprise? WOW.

reply to post by Wertdagf



Quit twisting my words. You are the one promoting exterminating religion. I am merely curious as to how you wish to achieve it.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
Do you really think violence would disappear if religion did? Absolutely not. There are other things which are equally divisive that can and do lead to violence (politics being one of them). Hell, people riot and fight over Football ("soccer") games.

In many parts of the world religion oppresses millions of people every day, silently.

Every day, of every year, for their entire life.

You MUST do this, or else! You MUST NOT do that, or else! You must believe in this, or else!

Football doesn't do that. Don't be silly.

Violence is temporary, fleeting. Psychological slavery is for life.

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


"Violence is temporary, fleeting. Psychological slavery is for life."

I can agree with that. I'm just saying that people will always find reasons to fight and kill. But, I don't think religion is synonymous with "psychological slavery." I do acknowledge that it can be abused and used as that, though.

Breivik is a terrorist who happens to be of the Christian faith. Does this necessarily mean that his church was supporting his plans or assisting in moving them forward? There are those that say a Muslim terrorists actions speak for the entire religion. Is that method of reasoning any different than what you are putting forward here?

If an invading army was to bomb and terrorize the U.S. for years, then you would probably see a very large uprising in christian extremist groups fighting to protect their lives based on their religious beliefs, as you see in the M.E..it's quite possible that if those countries weren't being continually warred against, and their people persistently slaughtered, hostility towards the U.S. would possibly decrease.

I wouldn't be very happy either if my religion was demonized to promote political and military agendas.