Anders Breivik: CHRISTIAN TERRORIST?

Christian terrorists are just as despicable as any other religious terrorist.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/is-anders-behring-breivik-a-christian-terrorist-lets-not-mince-words/2011/07/26/gIQAOwpPbI_blog.html

The bottom line is, terrorism is bad no matter who does it. But Christians cannot charge Muslims with committing terrorists acts while ignoring/denying the label of "Christian terrorist" when a Christian commits a terrorist act. It's a double-standard.

Was there some debate on the matter? All terrorists are despicable.

apply the same standard to Christians when Christians commit mass murder as they do terrorists who also happen to be Muslim.

I'm simply putting the fact on record.

That he claimed the label for himself, or is there some independent objective measure that made him specifically Christian?

You do understand that an 'objective measure' of faith in invisible beings is impossible, don't you? That is a hilarious thought.

It's a reasonable question, despite your attempt to dodge it. For example, some folks like to claim they're "patriots" while acting in the most unpatriotic manner. Just because someone claims a label for himself doesn't make it so. What about Breivik - other than his personal claim - makes him specifically Christian? And would other Christians recognize those specific deeds or words as Christian?

in his manifesto. http://lostbibletruth.blogspot.com/2011/07/norway-terrorist-claims-christianity.html?spref=tw But he also like Darwinism in it's twisted "social" Darwinism form that distorts evolution and is used by racists and white supremacists of all stripes.

The manifesto is a jumbled mix of ideologies and I have yet to look at all but the highlights and quotes from it.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Right?

LIke "Christian" terrorist one could argue that he wasn't following the true teachings of Darwin.

However, unlike Christianity, there have been no crusades and other wars (or killings of Jews, or shootings at family planning clinics, or burning of churches) to defend Darwinism. So the comparison is a not valid.


Peace,
Tex Shelters

That he claimed the label for himself, or is there some independent objective measure that made him specifically Moslem?

Christian - read the 1500 pages

that you're somehow leveling things instead of simply participating in the error?

Bad logic.

Replicating what error?

Where the religion of a Muslim terrorist is emphasized by conservatives (I presume you mean conservatives, though you use 'Christians' in a sloppy, unqualified manner.)

If I'm wrong and you aren't trying to make that point, then this thread is more dumb than I thought.

I'm simply stating that when brown people who happen to Muslim commit a terrorist act, they're considered by some to be "Muslim terrorists". But those very same people who call it "Muslim terrorism" cannot handle it when someone who describes themselves as a Christian commits a terrorist act - they can't handle the same labeling standard being applied to Christians who commit a terrorist act.

It's a double standard. How hard is that to understand?

If you find it wrong, I do, to emphasize the religion of Muslim terrorists, then it is also wrong to emphasize the religion of Christian or Jew or Hindu terrorists.

*I* get that it's a double standard, I also get that *you're* simply copying bad logic for the sake of an obvious and trite point.

Have fun with it though. I look forward to your future tautologies posing as arguments. May I suggest "The ATLANTIC OCEAN is wet, NOT JUST THE PACIFIC!"

aka the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. From now on, I'm going to tell the Christian fundies I consider a terrorist to be WHATEVER religion he identifies with, and Breivik identifies himself as a Christian. I'm tired of getting into pointless whitewashing theological debates with them. The same goes for Jews and Muslims, of course. If that embarrasses or outrages self-proclaimed "real Christians," maybe they need to do a little housecleaning.

What about Breivik - other than his claim for himself - is "Christian," and would other Christians recognize his words or actions as Christian? It's not up to Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or anyone to "do a little housecleaning" and police every utterance of every madman on the planet. If you're fooled by the rantings of a murderous nincompoop like Mr. Breivik, I see that as really more your problem.

Is there a qualifying procedure?

A post above mentions that Breivik also claimed to be a Darwinist. Could he be properly described as a Darwinian Terrorist? If not, why not, since Breivik claimed for himself to be Darwinian?

with self-proclaimed Christians who deny any and all responsibility for Christian anti-Semitism and other forms of Christian terrorism to have ANY patience for this kind of crap. I've seen way too much of it. Christianity created a climate of hostility toward Jews--consistently, relentlessly, for hundreds of years, that eventually culminated in the Holocaust. Yet Christian apologists tell me over and over again that there's no such thing as Christian anti-Semitism. In fact, many of them are absolutely outraged at the idea and accuse the accuser of being "anti-Christian." Never mind that the almost all the historic atrocities against the Jews were committed in the name of Christianity.

Usually it's the fundamentalist Bible-banger conservative Christians who pull this kind of crap, and their ilk are the ones MOST likely to go off the deep end and turn violent. When that happens, their fellow believers are the ones most likely to pull out the "No true Scotsman" fallacy: "Oh, but he wasn't a REAL Christian, that proves he was never really a Christian," blah blah blah. They have it all neatly worked out so that Christianity never has to take responsibility for the crimes committed in its name. I don't know who they think they're kidding, but it certainly isn't any Jew. We've been on the receiving end of Christian anti-Semitism practically since there was such a thing as Christianity.

Breivik was unusual in that he describes himself as a "cultural Christian." Mostly Christian terrorists are more fanatical and conservative, and there is usually a strong theocratic element in their belief system. In that way they are very similar to Muslim terrorists.

He is not a real Christian. Real Christians do not do such things and stuff. <——— for the sarcasm impaired, this is suppose to be a joke.

To wit: The Crusades.

Sorry!

there are political one too

are terrorists when a Muslim commits a terrorist act but Christians are not terrorists when a Christian commits a terrorist act.

The hypocrisy is crystal clear. But, the Michael Savages of the world (soon to be followed by Popeferatu, no doubt), will be eager to portray this individual as an atheist, or a marxist, or some other "ist" that leaves their ideology blameless.

Cognitive dissonance is alive and thriving in the hives of the right wing.

Not exactly a subtle distinction.

But he sure as shit isn't crazy. He doesn't appear disconnected from reality. In fact, he appears chillingly in control of his actions and responses. He spent more than a decade planning this incident.

He knows what he did and why he did it. And he subscribes to a world view shared by many. I imagine he'll expect no leniency and be given none.

"Breivik talks about the need for a new cultural crusade to rid Europe of creeping “Islamitization.” He reportedly refers three times to the “Lord Jesus Christ,” and though he admits he is “not going to pretend I’m a very religious person,” he calls himself a “cultural Christian.”

Guy's straight out of the 1100s playbook. Probably fantasizes about fighting Saladin, saving Europe from the "infidel." If only he had joined SCA instead of mowing down children.

Not to make light. But seems to me he hearkens back to a very old conception of "Christianity." Still, if he professes a belief in the Christian trinity, I guess that makes him technically a Christian.

For the Dominionists, Christianity is very much about politics, and being a warrior.

I had to look that one up...

------------------

"Dominionists" -- looks like that originates in the US:

In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:<22>Wiki

1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.<22>

What's Breivik's connection to Dominionism?

http://www.politicususa.com/en/norway-terrorist-dominionist

IMO, he fits the bill.

I had to look up NAR Church, the org that the article keeps referring to.

Apparently it stands for "New Apostolic Reformation" and promotes Christian Dominionism, and has as many members as Southern Baptist.

Right, it seems irrefutable that Breivik has ties to Dominionists.

The comments afterward were just as interesting and enlightening as the article, since many of the posters were "walkaways" from Dominionist cults.

thanks, but no thanks. Really, we have enough odd people as it is without adding this nutjob to the mix. And yes, if he identifies as a Knight Templar, I'd say he considers himself Christian.

Maybe running around on a fantasy Crusade with a sword would have soothed some of his blood lust.

some other RW nutjobs?

He's a Christian (a disturbed and psychotic one, as are Islamic terrorists); he's obviously a terrorist; and deserves to have his Christianity emphasized since the target of his terrorist act was a government policy that he felt was too lenient with another religion.

Do you consider him to be representative? Nominal?

How about bin Ladin? Lots of people had trouble with him being a "Muslim" (or even worse, "Islamic") terrorist.

Then there's the question of "his" Christianity. If he shares his Xianity with nobody else, then we dwell on the views that diverged from mainstream, not the adjective that would seem to make the mainstream complicit. This was the basis for having a problem with bin Ladin called "Muslim," esp. in the US.

Many of those having no problem calling Breivik "Xian" really disliked calling bin Ladin Muslim. Domestic politics and Kulturkampf tends to make being intellectually consistent. Consistency isn't the hobgoblin of small minds any more than inconsistency is the angel of great minds. *Foolish* consistency is bad; foolish inconsistency is no less bad. This consistency isn't foolish; it's merely rising above self-bias to view things abstractly and see how they lay.

Part of it involves setting up two contrary definitions and alternating between them.

Claim: "Breivik was a Xian terrorist."
Verdict: Yes.
Justification: Because he said so. All that matters is self-identification, implying that Xianity is an entirely atomistic, individualistic sort of endeavor.

Claim: "Muhammed Atta was a Muslim terrorist."
Verdict: No.
Justiciation: That's a conservative delusion. This implies that in Islam self-identification is meaningless.

That lets the argument go round and round. It shouldn't, even on its own terms.

Think of it as a Photoshop document with multiple layers. When you flatten them, you have to be specific about the traits for each layer. For each religion, there's at least
--compliance with most standard interpretations of the main text,
--the body of exegetical works,
--the views of the majority of the group he claims to be part of
--the question as to what percentage of the group supports his views (not necessarily his acts)
--what his self-identification is.

Yes, it means that there are people who call themselves "Xian" that I think aren't mostly. But for purposes of saying, "No, you're not," I insist on all the metrics being violated. If somebody calls themselves a good Xian, I'm more likely to insist on most or all metrics being met. Same for Muslims. Or Buddhists. I know people who say they're good Xians but sound Buddhist and quote Buddhist sorces to override normal interpretations of the Bible, that think little existing Xian exegesis is worth being spared from being composted, who disagree with 99.9% of living Xians (and more dead ones), get virtually no support from other Xians. I smile and nod.

Try applying this fairly consistently. Did bin Ladin's views of the Qur'aan, his acts to one side, comport with an accepted interpretation of the work among Muslims worldwide? With a body of exegetical works still considered valid support for argumentation? Was his view a majority view? Did it command agreement from more than a fraction of a percent of the worldwide Muslim population, esp. in his own country? (Whatever "home country" means, Pakhtunwha or Sa'udiyya.) Did he self-identify as Muslim?

Then apply it to Breivik.

If you decide that self-identification is the only important thing, I'd still think you're wrong but at least you'd be consistent. My view means that there are people that fit in the "Xian" or "Muslim" category better or worse. In this, it's like things that are sweet, or blue, or hot, or edible, or round, or ethnically Chinese. Sweet tea could be more or less sweet; there a blue we all agree on, blues few agree on; "hot" is a matter of opinion or degree; I've eaten things my wife considered inedible, and vice-versa; a circle doesn't have to be 100.000000% round to be round; not all Chinese have the exact same grammar, set of cultural norms and traits, beliefs, or genes. The more prototypical something is, the better it meets the definition. It's the edges that provoke the problems. ("Look at my blue shirt." "No, that's teal." "Teal's blue." "No, teal's teal." "Okay, how about this blue shirt." "That's aquamarine." Sigh.)

I admire your logic and consistency.

Brevik:
1. Self definition.
2. Applies knowledge of exegetical work to justify action. Cherry picker, but most are.
3. Belief system can be ascribed to a broader segment of the identified group: Dominionists.

Twisted? Certainly. As twisted as Bin Laden, but with an underlying (twisted) logic and ideological infrastructure that invested his belief system and behavior.

Otherwise, it sounds like you decide people like Orielly speak for all Christians.