Tags
Anders Behring Breivik, bigot, Christian, Christianity, Christophobia, church, extremist, Freemason, Global Jihad, Islamophobia, Jens Stoltenberg, Jesus Christ, killing, multiculturalism, murder, nationalism, Nazi, Norway, Oslo, peace, politics, progressive, rabbi, racism, religion, right-wing, sensationalism, teaching, terrorsim
Unless you have been living under a rock, you have probably heard about the recent terrorist attack in Oslo, Norway.
It was first reported that an Islamic terror group called “Helpers of Global Jihad” took responsibility for the attack, but police arrested a right-wing political extremist later.
On Friday, July 22nd, a bomb was detonated in the Norwegian government’s headquarters, probably targeting the office of Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. Later, a 32-year-old man named Anders Behring Breivik entered a youth camp disguised as a police officer and opened fire, killing 85 people. The combined death toll of the bombing and the shooting was 92 people, and more are expected to die.
Since the attack, a lot of people have made statements like this one on twitter:
Christian Fundamentalist responsible for Oslo terror attack. More evidence that ‘Christianity’ is a dangerous religion. http://t.co/ktXRHd0
It is clear from the cited article that Breivik frequented Christian fundamentalist and right-wing websites. The article states:
But the man who listed Kafka and George Orwell’s 1984 as his favourite books on Facebook made little secret to friends and others who frequented Christian fundamentalist and far-right websites of his racist views. A member of an Oslo Masonic lodge, reportedly a body builder and a hunter with two registered weapons – a Glock pistol and an automatic rifle – it has been Breivik’s online profile that has, so far supplied the most public information.
Breivik was clearly an extreme racist, nationalist, Freemason, and a professing Christian. The question is whether or not he is the exception or the norm for Christians. If he is the norm, then Christianity is truly a dangerous religion. If he is the exception, then the author of the above tweet–and others like him–are hypocrites who are every bit as bigoted (though maybe not as dangerous as) Breivik.
We ought to judge Christianity, not according to extremists like Breivik, but according to its founder Jesus Christ and His fundamental teachings.
Jesus Christ was a Jewish rabbi, who was not violent, nationalistic, or political. He was not an extremist of any stripe, he never murdered anyone, and He never taught His followers to do such things.
Jesus taught His followers Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God (Matthew 5:9), and You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well (Matthew 5:38-40). He angered His fellow Jews by praising the faith of non-Jews (Matthew 8:5-10, Luke 11:29-32). The Jews of Jesus’s time rejected Him because they were waiting for a Messiah that would lead a military revolt against the Roman occupiers, but Jesus refused to do any such thing (John 6:15, John 18:33-36).
Clearly, none of the actions of Anders Behring Breivik on Friday had anything to do with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Breivik’s actions were not praised, or even condoned by the Christian Church. In fact, many Christian leaders have openly condemned Breivik’s actions.
The charges that the Oslo terrorist attack is an act of “Christian terrorism” or that the event is proof Christianity is dangerous is at best sensationalism, at worst outright Christophobia.
People who make such claims are every bit as bigoted as Anders Behring Breivik.
+Jared+
The Oslo bombing was an act of a crazy man. This doesn’t have anything to do with christianity. This is a crazy man, who have disturbed views on what’s right and what’s not. It hurts to hear that so many people judge christianity because of this.
Norway haven’t seen anything like this since WW2. I hope from the deepest of my heart, that my country can rise up from this tragedy. We are a people of peace, not war. (I apologize for my English. Norwegian is my native language.)
Thanks for the comment! I’m glad to hear from an actual Norwegian! By the way, your English is excellent. This is such a horrific tragedy. My prayer is that God would grant the people of Norway His grace to deal with such a great loss and wisdom to handle this situation, and hopefully prevent further atrocities like this.
As you can see, he already did. Have you seen the bed of roses in our capital, Oslo? It such a wonderful sight. They belive there were 1 million people going in torchlight all over Norway in memory of the lost ones. There are only 5 million people living in Norway, so that’s quite good. Our country has proven that we will stand together, both ethnic Norwegians and foreigners, in contrast to what he wanted to achieve.
Some people means that he has wraped himself in an ideology to justify what he has done, but the truth is that he only wants attention. Don’t know if that’s true or not, but it makes sense in some terrible way. Therefore, many Norwegians, including me, refuses to say his name aload.
The man’s 1500 page manifesto is widely available online now (http://www.mediafire.com/?1khq2dp93obby2v) I’ve been poking through it and he actually classifies his religious views on page 1373:
“Religion: Christian, Protestant but I support a reformation of Protestantism leading to it being absorbed by Catholisism. The typical “Protestant Labour Church” has to be deconstructed as its creation was an attempt to abolish the Church.
Religious: I went from moderately to agnostic to moderately religious.”
The document is certainly not the work of a man of any strong religious conviction, let along a fundamentalist. He never tries to justify his actions in a religious manner; he never cites scripture. It’s a quite secular argument he’s making (crazy though it is). He objects to Islam because he views it as inherently violent, not because it constitutes a heresy. He would identify as a Christian the way many people in the Euro far-right do, because they view it as part of an ethnic – not confessional – identity.
Of course many of his views about Islam, as well as about women, about progressive politics, about sexuality, would fit neatly into the equally paranoid and reactionary world of fundamentalist Christianity.
Excellent point, Berlusconi Youth! Breivik was clearly motivated by his political, rather than religious views; even his religious views were politically based rather than based on Scripture or orthodox Christian tradition.
I do agree that the religious affiliation should not be linked to someone who commits terroristic acts. Let me make that clear – NO religious affiliation need be attached to a terrorist. Since Breivik’s act of terrorism I have seen numerous people take issue with him being referred to as a “Christian extremist” or “Fundamentalist Christian” or “Christian terrorist” – a very understandable thing to take issue with and as a Christian I too would argue that this man is no follower of Christ. However, what has really irked me is that for years Muslims have been saying the same thing, Muslims have denounced terrorism in the the name of Islam, have argued that the Quran does not support this kind of senseless violence against others and a very vocal faction of Christianity has refused to listen. I know this for a fact, because I know people who are “devout, God fearing, Gospel believing, born again Christians” and also speak of Muslims in a frighteningly similar manner as Breivik. The anti-Muslim rhetoric that has been spoken by the likes of Herman Cain, Allen West, Bryan Fischer, Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller and numerous others has been practically adopted as Gospel by many “good Christians.” The tables are now turned and apparently the Christians don’t like it. I ask, how many stood up for the Muslims and Islam when they were ALL falsely blamed for few that twisted their faith into something it is not?
We’re mainly agreed, Tina B. No religious affiliation need be attached to a terrorist, but in cases where the religion (or distortion of it) was the motivation, I have no issue attaching the religious view to the act. I think it’s pretty clear that this case was not religiously motivated, although religion was mentioned by Breivik as sort of an afterthought. However, if Breivik had been yelling, “Jesus is Lord!”, or demonstrated that his attack was motivated by Christianity, I wouldn’t necessarily have an issue with him being labeled a Christian Terrorist. I would still make it clear that his view is heretical, and distance myself from that sort of Christianity, but I would concede that he would be some sort of Christian Terrorist in such a case. Similarly, if a Muslim cries out “Allahu Akbar!” while committing or terrorist act, or otherwise demonstrates that his attack is motivated by Islam, I don’t have an issue calling him/her a Muslim Terrorist.
As for Herman Cain, I think a lot of his comments on Islam have been blown out of proportion by the media. I used to listen to conservative talk radio, and he’s not against Islam in general, just the extremists. He’s comments about the Murfreesboro mosque, for one example, are motivated by his belief that the leaders of that particular mosque have ties to terrorist organizations. I’m still researching that myself, but other than the fact that Imam Osama Bahloul graduated from an Egyptian university with historic ties to militant Islam (which doesn’t really tell me anything about his personal views), I don’t see anything suspicious about the mosque myself. What does alarm me is that Herman Cain believes that local and state communities have a right to keep mosques from being built. Still, I think Cain’s heart is in the right place, even if his intel is bad.
The others you mentioned, I don’t know enough about to comment on.
The bottom line is, we need to ditch the bigotry, and I think on that point you and I are fully agreed.
You seem to really want to have your cake and eat it to. He is a Christian who hates Muslims, it was his primary motivation, attacking a political party he thought was contributing to the dilution of the Christian majority in his country. His religion was definitely a big part of his motivation for his actions. At least as much as any Muslim terrorist. So either your message calling for people to not judge a religion based on the actions of individuals must apply equally to Christianity and Islam or you are a hypocrite.
Let me make myself perfectly clear.
1) Breivik’s actions go completely against the teachings of Jesus Christ, Christianity’s author and founder.
2) Breivik’s actions are contrary to orthodox Christian tradition, and his views and actions are not those of the average Christian.
3) Breivik makes statements in his manifesto like, “I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment,” and “Religion is a crutch for weak people.”
This guy is NOT a Christian. A Christian would not do or say the things Breivik has done. Frequenting Christian fundamentalist websites, being baptized, and going to church does not make one a Christian, any more than being in a garage makes one a car. A Christian is someone who has faith in Jesus Christ for their salvation and follows His teachings.
Where is the faith in statements such as “Religion is a crutch for weak people”? Which teaching of Christ was Breivik fulfilling when he bombed government offices and gunned down innocent children? Can you explain this to me, please?
Why are you so hellbent on placing the blame on Christianity? This guy was a lone nut. He doesn’t speak for Christians, or even the average political conservative.