By David Gibson
c. 2011 Religion News Service

(RNS) The mass murders in Oslo have raised a host of agonizing questions, but few have such an ancient lineage and contemporary resonance as whether Anders Behring Breivik, the right-wing extremist behind the attacks that killed 76 Norwegians last Friday (July 22), is a Christian.

Breivik claimed that he is a Christian in various forums, but most explicitly and in greatest detail in the 1,500-page manifesto he compiled over several months and posted on the Internet.

"At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised [sic] and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church," the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. "I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian."

But he also fiercely disagrees with the politics of most Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church.

"Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man," he writes. "I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

Breivik fashions himself a "cultural Christian" and a modern-day crusader in a resurrected order of the medieval Knights Templar, riding out to do battle against squishy "multiculturalism" and the onslaught of "Islamization" -- and to suffer the glory of Christian martyrdom in the process.

Not surprisingly, conservative pundits who share some of Breivik's views and also consider themselves Christians quickly sought to distance themselves from Breivik by declaring, as Bill O'Reilly did on Fox News, that "Breivik is not a Christian."

"That's impossible," O'Reilly said Tuesday. "No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the 'net, but he is certainly not of that faith."

O'Reilly blamed the "liberal media" for "pushing the Christian angle" in order to demean Christians like himself. But O'Reilly's point was taken up by any number of commentators and religion scholars.

Mathew N. Schmalz, a professor of religious studies at the College of the Holy Cross, wrote in a Washington Post column that Breivik's vision "is a Christianity without Christ" because the attacker rejected a personal relationship with Jesus.

Writing in The Guardian, Andrew Brown wrote that "even in his saner moments (Breivik's) ideology had nothing to do with Christianity but was based on an atavistic horror of Muslims and a loathing of 'Marxists,' by which he meant anyone to the left of Genghis Khan."

Arne H. Fjeldstad, a longtime Norwegian journalist and Lutheran minister of the Church of Norway, wrote a lengthy analysis of Breivik's references to Christianity and also concluded that "his view is framed entirely by politics, with strong political and cultural opinions, which also include religious views."

"Breivik's religious position is rather distant from any Christian faith commitment," Fjeldstad wrote.

But others pushed back against such a carefully cordoned-off interpretation of Breivik's faith, or Christianity itself.

"If he did what he has alleged to have done, Anders Breivik is a Christian terrorist," Boston University religion scholar Stephen Prothero wrote on CNN.com.

"Yes, he twisted the Christian tradition in directions most Christians would not countenance. But he rooted his hate and his terrorism in Christian thought and Christian history, particularly the history of the medieval Crusades against Muslims, and current efforts to renew that clash."

"So Christians have a responsibility to speak out forcefully against him, and to look hard at the resources in the Christian tradition that can be used to such murderous ends."

Andrew Sullivan, the popular blogger and Catholic, also expounded on that point, writing that "it is obvious that Christians can commit murder, assault, etc. They do so every day. Because, as Christian orthodoxy tells us, we are all sinners. To say that no Christian can ever commit murder is a sophist's piffle. ... Do the countless criminals who have gone to church or believe in Jesus immediately not count as Christians the minute they commit the crime? Of course not."

Sullivan said Bill O'Reilly's argument "is complete heresy in terms of the most basic Christian orthodoxy."

And Sullivan is right, though for some 2,000 years Christians have still battled fiercely over who is a "real" Christian and who is not, or who is a "good" Christian and who is a "bad" Christian.

Is Christianity about being baptized or joining a particular church? Is faith a matter of true belief (orthodoxy) or just actions (orthopraxy)? Or some alchemical combination of the two? And what is the right belief? Or the right thing to do?

Many argue today that President Obama, for example, can't be a true Christian despite his profession of faith because of the liberal policies he proposes. Or that Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, a Tea Party favorite, can't be a real Catholic because he embraces the atheistic libertarianism of Ayn Rand in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Yet as far back as the fourth century, Saint Ambrose spoke of the church as a "casta meretrix" -- the "chaste harlot" who welcomes all comers while remaining pure herself in order to sanctify her members. That analogy still holds true.

Anders Breivik may have been a bad Christian, perhaps the worst one can imagine, as well as a confused man who cherry-picked from Scripture and history to justify his un-Christian form of Christianity.

But proof-texting the Bible and using faith to rationalize one's favorite political and cultural views is something most believers -- Jewish, Muslim and Christian -- are guilty of at one time or another. So kicking Breivik out of Christianity in the end might be an ominous sign for all Christians.


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


Is it an attack on Christianity if we identify Anders as a mad Christian terrorist??

Is it an attack on Islam if we identify Osama as a mad Islamic terrorist??

What's your view??

Yeah right. If he knew anything about logic he would not have killed. Not if what he wants is to make the world a better place. Christians might want to burn him for calling himself a christian, but I want to burn him for calling himself a man of logic.


No, it is not automatically an attack on christianity to acknowledge that Breivik is christian. Not as long as we emphasize the terror part instead of the christian part. Same goes for islamic terrorists.

Edit: And Breivik isn't mad or crazy or mentally ill. He's just stupid as fu-k.

Today I read in the newspaper that Breivik is a big WoW ("World of Warcraft") fan. So, I whant to ask: Is it an attack on WoW Gaming Community if we identify Anders as a mad WoW fan terrorist??

I think it's perfectly normal to react in wanting to disassociate with mass murderer who belongs to a specific religion, nationality, race, and/or political party, whether you are Muslim or Christian, both religions have been criticized for lack of condemnation for child molestations and terrorism.

To me, this has become another politicizing of a terrible tragedy. If you look at it though, he does fit in that typical gun totting, homosexual/immigrant/Muslim hating fundamental right wing Christians. But seemingly the label that this guy is a Right wing Christian terrorist is not sticking to the majority of people, at least not in the political sense, and everyone recognizes he's an evil bastard no matter who he is.

PS btw demeaning one group of race/religion is working so well against Arabs/Muslims is that it's the war effort by Western power spending billions to stabilize the oil rich regions.
Since we are not at war with Christians, this news story will die down eventually.

^ Yes. The news may die down, and while Norway's politicos claim that "The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation", it remains to be seen if they would allow Anders to exploit his trial as a soapbox to spout his rightwing fundamentalist views to the rest of Europe and the world.

btw, what are u saying here??



Do u mean the blogosphere and fundamentalist websites that demean Islam and the muslim bloc have really worked better than the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan?

I was referring to War propaganda.

Demeaning your enemy makes it easier to hate or to kill them - gives them support for those wars.

Since post 9/11, Right Wing media has never ceased to talk about how evil Muslims are and it just escalated from there.

The US (and Western allies) are now at war with five Arab/Muslim countries and I don't think it'll stop any time soon, and neither with war propaganda against Islam while war-torn Muslim immigrants are flooding into their countries, Europe especially.

So J, do you think the US think thanks are paying retired old folks like elleXO and housewives like Chutzpah to launch a soft war on the internet to demonize their opponents?? Otherwise, why are we seeing them swamping the forum threads with one agenda only?? And we are all sucked into this whole scheme to educate the people on Islam's evil intent to dominate the world and subjugate everyone on the planet?

^ I don't speak for them. And if you don't like them, you can simply ignore them. And if your question is genuine, why don't you ask them instead?

But as I have mentioned this before in other thread..can't find it where now..but massive campaign against Islam makes this agenda counterproductive (either be for war propaganda or simply hate/fear). Thanks to internet and their personal encounters with Muslims, average Joes and Janes can google and pull up strings of articles that can be either for or against Islam - which begets millions of Muslim haters AND Muslim sympathizers / converters. So far tens of thousands of Americans convert to Islam each year since 9/11 from over exposure by media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25-o9OYrrVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFGjCeabJb0

Breivik is said to be influenced by Right Wing War-mongering American Zionist fundamentalists. That's only One. But as I easily predicted, the story disappeared because suicide bombings never cease to stop in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

America has 800+ military bases all over the world. We all know who wants to be dominate, not Islam alone. But don't get me wrong. Muslim sympathizers annoy me too as if Muslims can do nothing wrong no matter what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaP_sGRs2JQ...27144A3DDF6C197
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbtT8oHuap4

I saw this letter from a Chinese to Breivik

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/08/03/a...rwegian-killer/

Its written from a satirical perspective of a chinese comparing life in China with that in Norway. The entire letter does not even mention the word "terrorist" nor "islam" nor "christianity". It's just about her comparison of the normal day-to-day moment-to-moment living in China as compared with Norway. Reading her letter makes one grateful to be alive and realise how futile and irrelevant the political causes of religion really are.

Why would 20,000 Americans a year convert to Islam from media exposure? Failure to make it to the cheerleading team perhaps?

"Why would 20,000 Americans a year convert to Islam from media exposure? Failure to make it to the cheerleading team perhaps?"

^ If only everyone's life was so perfect, and be just contend with their lives, wouldn't that be wonderful? People don't have to turn to drugs, sex, or religion and everybody can just be happy and love each other. But life is more complicated than what that satirical letter try to make it out to be.

I don't know what screwed the mind of Breivic, but what I read about Breikic is that he was estranged from his father since he was young and his step father often traveled to Thailand for prostitution. That could be a start for his hatred for foreigners. Not that it justifies what he had done in anyway but you just don't know what goes through one person's heart..or his head in this case. Even his biological father wished his son should be dead instead of those innocents that he had killed. Where is that unconditional love that parents should have for their children?

Aside from that, forget about religion and crazy assholes like Breivic (maybe he is a just pure evil narcissistic Christian who knows) for a second. Why do people, even with access to these basic luxuries like free education, food and water, commit suicide in so many countries? Are they not grateful? Are they not contend? Somehow can these clean food and water, and political and religious asylum protect, them from mental, physical, and sexual abuse that they endured? Are those 20,000 Americans per year seeking relief in religion immune to whatever the pain they are going through? Are they somehow mentally and physically superior than those poor stricken Chinese?

Recently I saw a tribute to a young American transgender woman who committed suicide on YT and couldn't help myself feeling really bad for her. In her vblog she was so proud that she had two daughters and that she was going to start a new life with her new job and location and everything. But in comparison to that Chinese woman's letter, she had the whole world under her thumb (meaning she could have or do whatever she wanted to), and yet she killed herself b/c she wasn't happy that she wasn't born as a biological woman. And that's just mere one story out of billions. You know..I don't know..I don't know about life that billions of people have to go through - economic/spiritual circumstances whatever that may be. It does suck that everyone's life is not same and not treated fairly. Everyone's life is so complicated and so difficult. Some may have it easy, given everything to them with silver platters, or you are just contend with your life with what you have, then congratulations; but I'd think that's a very rare thing and shouldn't judge others for their spiritual journey whether it be Islam or other mainstream religion that you (in general) may dislike.

Demonized? Let's see some of the current and past WHYs:

1. Asia Bibi: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=280582

2. Al Shahaab's created Famine in Somalia: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=278923

3. Why the rampant slaughter of the Copts in Iraq and Egypt.

4. Why the imminent demise of the Coptic Church in Islamic Turkey after over 1400 years, yes even before Islam came to Turkey.

5. Why there is zero tolerance towards all non Islamic faiths in every Islamic State, yet Muslims are FREE to worship and build mosques in Christian Majority countries.

There are more but 5 should be enough for now. Remember these are facts. They are not lies such as the one Tanga is pushing that the Oslo killer Breviek killed because he was heavily influenced by Christianity.

I guess Tanga is so wrapped up in her own lies that she develops selective amnesia. That is what you must develop and suffer if you want to be an Islamic apologist just like her. It is part and parcel of the systematic Taqiya and in order to further advance the cause of Dhimmitude amongst non Muslims.

I wish Tanga could explain away the cause(s) for the 5 points above. Shouldn't be that difficult right?

No one is immune from pain. Not even a religious convert. They may achieve some form of bliss and ecstasy for a while feeling as if at one with the other fellow believers, but they eventually suffer pains, physical and mental. The worse pains are the mental ones. Feelings of being lost, unloved, lonely, cheated, humiliated and desperately wanting to find some anchor to replace these mental pains. When they act out of these mental pains, they hurt all those around them. Including people they don't know, nor care.

Life is a constant chase for status and acceptance by your family n peers. If that's not possible, most people turn to religion for some kinda unconditional love. Others to drugs or money or some kinda hip groupie thingey.

Breivik went through a whole gamut, from God to Marx and finally found acceptance by peers in right wing fundamentalists who tout the playstation medieval crusaders as their heroes. I am sure his mental pains before the massacre were the same as any in the streets we meet. But his actions, they were of massive implications, cuz most of us don't take the steps to stand out from the crowd. He took steps to stand out, just so he could get a leg up in the status chase.

Breivik's slaughter was done in order to stand out from his peers, that was his achievement in life.

If you contemplate life, there is just one simple constant to it, our minds are fluctuating from craving one state of mind, thing, person or situation, or averse to another state of mind, thing, person or situation. I don't see life as complicated. It's very predictable.

My view is that what we call "terrorism" is a tactic and can be used by any NGO (non-governmental organization) or any government regardless of their ideology or professed religious beliefs.

Allied Forces used "terrorism" during WWII when they fired bombed cities like Dresden and Tokyo and when the United States dropped two atomic bombs on a civilian population.

Today we throw the term around loosely. The United States has had its fair share of mass killers for many decades. A sniper in a tower killing fellow Americans. A young man walks into Virginia Tech and guns down fellow college class mates. A gay man runs around the country on a spree killing until killing himself.





I would confine the term "terrorism" to NGO's. Al Qaida today and the KKK during Reconstruction and Jim Crow would be or have been respectively, terrorist organizations.

I see where the KKK was a Christian terrorist organization (and once listed so by the U.S. Government - when I guarded tactical nukes in the early 1990's the U.S. Government had the KKK listed as a domestic terrorist organization and enemy of the U.S. Government) but I fail to see where this connection is drawn so clear with Breivik. His motivation seems to have been political and cultural and not doctrinal.



My understanding is that most Norwegians even if they're atheist are members of the Norwegian State Church because it gives them benefits like free burial.



This statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Any Christian not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant, and Protestant denominations last I read some years ago numbered 30,000 (as opposed to most Muslims belonging to one of the 2 major Muslim faiths: Sunni and Shi'ite). And within that 30,000 of denominations are beliefs as far stretching in doctrinal differences from Puritans (Calvinists usually) to Anglicans that will ordain lesbian women.





He's a logician terrorist? That does not make academia and the field of philosophy (to which logic is a branch of) look good.

I would also press him and inquire of him as to what a "monocultural Christian Europe" is? The Flamenco? (which has Moorish and gypsy influences) Blood pudding? Is it the Spanish, German, French, Italian, or the English language?

During the 19th century in the City of Milwaukee you had Irish Catholic Priests that refused to allow Italian Catholics enter or become parishioners of their Church. The Irish did not like the Italians culturally. So, even within one stream of Christianity you had different ethnic cultures and ethnic cultural tensions.

Cultural and ethnic conflicts are nothing new. When different ethnic groups tend to have have different religions those that are anti-religion will point out "religion" as the sole factor, when in fact it is not.

Religion can play a part or it can be the major part depending on the motives. If a Muslim Turks hates a Muslim Kurd then religion is probably not the primary motivator. If someone joins Al Qaida to overthrow both the secular and the Christian West then religion is probably the prime motivator.

But one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The 1/3 colonists that fought the British during the Revolutionary War were terrorist in the eyes of the British loyalist and crown. In fact they were treasonous criminals.

And while Christians in the U.S. largely support no state religion, Buddhist societies elsewhere, like Thailand, support state religion.






Hindus and Buddhist in conflict with one another. Two ethnic groups in conflict with one another.

Tamil Tigers

So you reckon Breivik is a freedom fighter, extrahour?

No. I regard him as more akin to the young college student that gunned down many of his fellow students at Virginia Tech some years back. Or Columbine shooters. Or even those two black guys that were sniping people on the U.S. highway.


Columbine

Virginia Tech



This below is news today in the United States.

Police Foil Plot to Shoot Students in Louisiana

This is the most sensible post I have read re Breivik so far.


I have no problem with what you said. However we must also bear in mind that those mentioned in my list are minorities (apart from Somalia) in an ocean of the followers of a religion which has zero tolerance towards any other faiths. The hatreds and contempt towards the people of the book ie. the Jews (in particular) and Christians are rife in the Quran.

The battle between the Sinhalese and the Tamil are well publicised and documented, it has been going on for so long. Buddhist against Hindus. We also have Hindus attacking and killing Christians and burning their churches in part of India with the authority turning a blind eye.

He is a looney just like you, so there is really no point for you to label him or pose any more trick question.

Terrorist=Terrorist
Christians or Muslims, it is the same thing

Is that a Taiwanese symbol on your headband?