The Face of Christian Terrorism?

[ej510]

Source: Huffington Post

What exactly does a Christian terrorist look like? I know, the question doesn't sound quite right. After all, there's no such thing as a Christian terrorist. The two words don't go together, unlike "Islamic" and "terrorist." This is certainly true in much of the public and political discourse in Europe and North America when it comes to terrorism. The overriding assumption is that Islam has cornered that market.

The revelation over the weekend that Friday's perpetrator of close to one hundred murders in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, identifies as a conservative Christian sent shockwaves throughout many Christian communities. It's not hard to find blog posts, articles in Christian publications and on Christian websites, and Facebook postings, all deploring Breivik's actions and insisting that whatever he thinks he is, in no way can he be considered a true Christian.

>snip

suppose the same applies for any of you with blond hair and blue eyes who looks like you just stepped off a Viking ship. Sure, you might resemble Breivik based on outward appearances, but you will not be subject to increased racial profiling or heightened airport security. Whether you are walking the streets of Oslo, Ottawa or Orlando, few will suspect you of being in cahoots with Breivik, much less of harboring any sympathetic feelings toward his heinous crimes.

If only the millions upon millions of Muslims who deplore the violence committed by radicals in the name of Islam could be given this same benefit of the doubt. Clearly there is a double standard. Muslims who make the same theological point as Christians -- that violence and hatred are not a part of the Islam they know and practice -- are routinely ignored. Their case is not even helped when prominent political leaders with a strong Christian identity voice the same sentiments. When President Bush spoke at the Islamic Center of Washington D.C. the week after 9/11, he insisted that "he face of terror is not the true faith of Islam," that "Islam is peace." But too many in the West, including too many Christians, simply shook their heads and told themselves, "That can't be true." I'll set aside for now the debate over whether President Bush himself fully believed what he said.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-green-phd/anders-behring-breivik-christian-terrorism_b_908163.html

---

It is clear white people cannot be terrorist unless they if they are christian. At least in the MSM in the U.S.

[Bragi]

1. Terrorism is a tactic NOT an ideology or a religion /nt

[cleanhippie]

3. No, but it is a tactic of religion. Has been for a mellenia.

[Bragi]

7. No argument from me on that /nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. So you're saying that 'Christian terrorism' is neither an oxymoron nor a tautology

How does this help the thread? You're just saying that there isn't any obvious mistake in the OP?

[cleanhippie]

2. Why are you persecuting Christians?

Don't you know that saying anything negative about Christians is persecution?

[Taverner]

6. Um, don't be so thin skinned. They aren't prosecuting Christians, but Christian Terrorists

Which, last I checked, was a small minority

[roomfullofmirrors]

4. calling yourself a Christian isn't what makes you a Christian.

that fact is lost on a lot of people.

[Taverner]

8. Who are we to argue with somebody's self idenfication?

If someone calls themselves a Christian, a Muslim, a Manichean - what have you - then they are.

Like I've said, the Norwegian Terrorist has the same right to call himself a Christian as did Martin Luther King Jr

[LanternWaste]

9. Wouldn't evidence based on observation of acts and deeds either strengthen or weaken

Wouldn't evidence based on observation of acts and deeds either strengthen or weaken a claim to be an X or a Y? Does a person who calls themselves a Hedonist whilst practicing Stoicism a Hedonist simply due to the self-made label?

Not disputing the fact the fact he called himself one-- or may even be one, but according to the tenets of traditional Western Christianity, a self-designed label is not indicative of faith... :shrug:

[BigD_95]

15. Have you read any of the Old Testament??

If you weren't running around killing people because of their sins you would be less of a Christian. The Old Testament was always talking about putting people to death. Not to mention God killing the first born, flooding the Earth with only a couple of people surviving.

[Roy Rolling]

10. here's why

I can call myself President of the United States but I would be deluding myself and others. Terrorists are violent people who try to instill fear as a weapon, that is their work. Just because they profess to be of a religious faith doesn't mean they have done actions that are examples of that faith. The Norwegian Christian terrorist is no more a follower of Jesus Christ than Muslim terrorists are followers of Islam.

They can call themselves whatever they want, but that does not mean I accept their self-designations. And in the above two examples, I reject them.

[Taverner]

13. To be a Christian, all you need to do is try to act like Christ

Now, there are many interpretations of that. Since we don't have any TMZ videos of the man at work, he has been said to do everything from miracles, to stone people himselves (gnostic gospels - - although they may have been allegories) to being a man of peace, to a man of war ("I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword") to someone who practiced Civil Disobedience and Tactical Vandalism to the Money Changers at the temple, to actually killing people there (not canonical, but Nikos Kazantzakis has him doing this in the book)

Point is anyone can be a Christian, and people can portray Christ in many different ways. Hitler was a Christian, so was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Labels, when it comes down to it, mean nothing.

FTR, I don't call the Norwegian Terrorist a Christian Terrorist but more of a Reactionary or Right Wing Terrorist. Everything about his manifesto was about Pan-European Traditionalism rooted in a (1) hate for Islam and (2) a hate for Marxism. He used Christianity to justify his acts, but as you know, you can use Christianity to justify anything.

[ej510]

21. Lol!

:rofl:

[roomfullofmirrors]

12. do you think MLK and Anders Behring Breivik served the same master then?

typo

[Taverner]

14. I think they both believed they were doing God, and thus Jesus' work

Were they really? Jesus is not around to ask, so we'll have to leave that one unanswered.

[roomfullofmirrors]

16. so, men should be judged by their facebook accounts, not by their actions according to you.

as Bob Dylan has said many times: "you gotta serve somebody. It might be the devil or it might the lord but you're gonna have to serve somebody". Truer words may never have been spoken. MLK and Brevik obviously were not serving the same deity. Brevik was obviously nuts and obviously twisted and evil. The greatest evils are frequently done in the name of one god or another. Christ made it clear that you can not serve him in such a manner. To quote another American legend, James Taylor, "you just can't kill for Jesus".

[Taverner]

19. That's not what I was saying at all

If someone wants to call themselves a Christian - more power to them

In the end it means nothing

And no, I disagree with Bob on that one. You DON'T have to serve somebody.

As for Jesus - yes, the Gospel of John's Jesus would have him taking offense to serving him that way. Gospel of Matthew's Jesus - not so much. He did say he came to break up families, pit brother against brother, etc...

I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree: you would say (and correct me if I'm wrong) that there is an authority above all authorities by which all acts of good or evil can be judged.

I do not think such a thing exists, and instead would say that good and evil are our own creations, and are just as vulnerable to our flaws as anything else.

[roomfullofmirrors]

22. ............

"I disagree with Bob on that one. You DON'T have to serve somebody."
be that as it may, you will still serve one or the other through everything you say and/or do on this earth. It can not be avoided even if you disagree with it. neutrality only exists until your actions affect any aspect of the environment around you at which point, you have served somebody. we are both serving somebody right now. some of us know who we serve, some of us don't. some of us think we know who we serve but, in actuality, do not. Some claim to serve one knowing full well that they serve the other. some are just chaotic souls oblivious to their own service. They blissfully serve both sides with equal ignorance.

"you would say (and correct me if I'm wrong) that there is an authority above all authorities by which all acts of good or evil can be judged.
I do not think such a thing exists, and instead would say that good and evil are our own creations, and are just as vulnerable to our flaws as anything else."

I'm saying that Christ would obviously be unsupportive of Anders Breivik and no sane person would suggest otherwise.

[Taverner]

23. "Christ would obviously be unsupportive of Anders Breivik" Which Christ?

You do know there are more than one interpretations of him - and since he is not around to answer this question, we leave it up to those who say they follow him

The Synoptic Gospels paint Jesus one way...the Gnostic Gospels yet another way...The Book of Mormon yet another way, and the Catholic Liturgy paints him in yet another way.

Will the real Jesus Christ please stand up...

I hope you get my point, and I would be willing to take it offline if you wish

[gratuitous]

17. Indeed!

I'm sure Mr. Breivik also self-identifies as a responsible gun owner. But for some reason, that part of his identity doesn't seem to get a whole lot of attention in the reports from the United States media or at DU. A puzzlement, to be sure.

[Taverner]

20. That part we can check with though...

Although he DID use a gun as it was intended, and I doubt he fired it off randomly into the air.

This is what is most scary: everyone he shot at he WANTED to kill.

[ej510]

11. The guy killed in the name of Christianity. He started his own holy war.

[NOLALady]

5. How true.

"But for all of the Christians who have expressed outrage in recent days over Breivik's identification with the Christian faith, you need not worry. You're safe. You will not be implicated in Breivik's crimes. You will be acquitted in the eyes of the media and the broader public. Better yet, you won't even go on trial as suspected accomplices in Friday's killing rampage. No, the guilt-by-association principle does not apply to you when unspeakable violence is carried out in the name of Christianity, even if historically there is a track record of such violence from the Crusades to the Atlantic slave trade and European colonial enterprises to the lynching of African Americans. Rest assured that you can go about your day-to-day business, attend worship services and live out your religious convictions without any fear of reprisals from politicians or the larger public. You're off the hook."

[Dawson Leery]

18. The structural prejudice is that light skinned "Christians" can never

be terrorists.

[ej510]

24. Nailed it!