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
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
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.
edit on 10-7-2012 by CoolerAbdullah786 because: (no