Many Christians cringe when Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik is described as a "Christian terrorist." But that is what he is.
It is true that Breivik was much more concerned about politics and history than about scripture and religious belief. But much the same can be said about Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other Muslim terrorists. Bin Laden was a businessman and engineer, and Zawahiri was a medical doctor; neither were theologians or clergy. Their writings show that they were much more interested in Islamic history than theology or scripture, and imagined themselves as recreating glorious moments in the Muslim past in their own imagined wars.
Breivik, in his manifesto, writes of al Qaeda with admiration, as if he would love to create a Christian version of their religious cadre. Though he only occasionally quotes scripture, and admires the church in Norway largely as a cultural center for Christendom, he is captivated by Christian history. Breivik is fascinated with the Crusades and imagines himself to be a member of the Knights Templar, the crusader army of a thousand years ago. He would like to have a Christian army comparable to al Qaeda's Muslim militia.
So if bin Laden was a Muslim terrorist, Breivik is a Christian terrorist. The symbol that Breivik designed for his movement, and that was made into a medallion in India, portrays a cross penetrating a skull on which are scrawled the crescent symbol of Islam, the Marxist hammer and sickle, and the Nazi swastika. How much more Christian can you get?
Still, no one wants to think of their own religion as capable of horrible acts of violence, which is why most Muslims around the world still question whether a Muslim could possibly have perpetrated 9/11. Conspiracy theories in the Muslim world blame the CIA or the Israeli secret police.
While Muslims shirk at the implication that their religion of peace is identified with terrorism, Christians blame Islam for any terrorist act committed in its name. Why not admit that Christianity is also, alas, at times linked with terrorism?
This question arose after Christian terrorist Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995. At that time and since, many Christians have refused to think of him in Christian terms. The similarities between Breivik and McVeigh are striking.
Both were good-looking young Caucasians, who imagined themselves soldiers in a cosmic war to save Christendom. Both thought their acts of mass destruction would trigger a great battle to rescue society from liberal forces of multiculturalism that allowed non-Christians and non-whites positions of acceptability. Both regretted the loss of life but thought their actions were "necessary." For that, they were staunchly unapologetic.
Their similarities even extend to the kind of explosive used in their actions. Both used a mixture of fuel oil and ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which Breivik said he needed for his farm operations. The farm, it turned out, was rented largely because it was a convenient place to test his car bombs.
And then there is the matter of dates. McVeigh was fixed on the day of April 19, the anniversary of the Waco siege. Breivik chose July 22, which was the day in 1099 that the Kingdom of Jerusalem was established during the First Crusades. The date, 2083, that is the title of his manifesto, is the date of the Battle of Vienna in which the armies of the Ottoman Empire were defeated and Europe was prevented from becoming a Muslim territory.
The threat of Islam is a dominant motif of Breivik's 1500-page manifesto, "2083: A European Declaration of Independence." The writing of a manifesto is a major difference between Breivik and McVeigh, who was not a writer. Instead, McVeigh copied and quoted from his favorite book, the novel "The Turner Diaries," written by neo-Nazi William Pierce and the pseudonym Andrew MacDonald.
But the novel McVeigh loved explains his motives in a matter eerily similar to the writings of Breivik: He thought that liberal politicians had given in to the forces of globalization and multiculturalism, and that the "mudpeople" -- non-White non-Christian non-heterosexual non-patriarchal males -- were trying to take over the country. Sympathetic Whites had to be shocked into reality by the force of an explosion signaled to them that the war had begun. These were McVeigh's ideas from "The Turner Diaries," but they were also Breivik's.
Like the Oklahoma City bombing by America's Christian terrorist, the horrible events of July 22 by Norway's Christian terrorist Anders Breivik were symbolic attempts at empowerment, aimed at showing the world that the imagined war to save Christendom had begun. It is a tragic fantasy -- that Christianity is under siege and needs to be saved -- but one that echoes throughout the world of the Christian right, and sadly erupts, at times, in terrorism.
Follow Mark Juergensmeyer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/juergensmeyer
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: When Murdering Children Becomes Everyday News
Just bolster the minds of the people against Christians, make them the enemy.The enthusiasm of the media in jumping on the christian fundamentalist label, based on this madman's mere assertion is not only unabashedly biased but dangerous. What if he had claimed to be a left wing atheist doing this in the name of secular humanism? We'd be unlikely to hear one mention of it. Those that make these comments don't even have a remote understanding of what christianity is yet they revel in bandying the term about with reckless abandon as soon as it suits their purpose!The world refuses to recognize the differences between self professed religious "Christians" and those born of the spirit, they can't understand the latter and refuse to face it otherwise they would be accountable for what they know.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/28/282174/breivik-gun-clips-united-states/
Breivik's primary motivation was anti-immigrant, anti-multiculturism.
It was not necessary for Andres to be a very infused with theology, nor did he need to even care much about actual relgious belief in order to want to be a "Knights Templar".
The religion aspect did not need to be related to theology...as religion is so tied up in tribalism.
McVeigh however, was not a christian terrorist. Not in a no true scotsman way, but in a he said he wasnt a christian kind of way.
"So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious ChristiansÂ? If you have a personal relationshÂip with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarilÂy have a personal relationshÂip with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in ChristianiÂty as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian"
Brevik uses Christian HISTORY as a justification for his violent acts,not the teachings of Christ. There is nothing in the New Testament that can reasonably interpreted as justification for the horror of the crusades.
Anyone wearing a cross, a religious collar, or nun's habit must be not be allowed on an airplane unless stripsearched, body cavities included.
Fair is fair.
Breivik and McVeigh are caucasian christian terrorists saving christendom from muslims ?
Bin Laden and Zawahiri are arab muslim professional people recreating muslim glory ?
But:
Breivik and McVeigh were killing their own people and Bin Laden and Zawahire were also killing Breivik and McVeigh's people? This cant be good news for this christendom place. Does the recreation of muslim glory require the taking over of, and the submission of, the entire world to, islam ? (if allah wills it)
http://heterodoxology.com/2011/08/07/terror-in-the-mind-of-who-a-response-to-mark-juergensmeyer-on-breiviks-christianity-and-much-besides/#more-858
Because the article is suggesting that Christianity can be directly blamed for this attack, it is tacitly suggesting that the current realm of Islamophobia is somewhat justified.
No more miracles; no second coming, so "true believers" keep pushing the issue by evangelism, political pressure, and occasionally, violence.
But there faith is hollow, and their actions prove it. Many of these extremists, deep down, don't do this stuff for any reason other than the power it gives them to feel superior to their fellow men and women. Brevik was one extreme, Christo-Fascists like Bachmann are another. Can't you envision her waking up at 2:00am in the White House, activating the nuclear football, and telling her advisors that "The eagles are flying, glory hallelujah!" (With apologizes to Stephen King, I am paraphrasing Greg Stillson in The Dead Zone)
T.'.
We were just as responsible for Osama Bin laden's actions as you are to Anders Breivik's actions. Everyone represents their own self. It is ridiculous to associate terrorism to one religion or ideology and call it "an act of violence" otherwise. Any crime done in the name of ANY religion or ideology is terrorism.
They recognize the sabbath on the wrong day and pick apart the scriptures that fit their personal feelings with the least reistance. Most have never read the Bible and even fewer have actually taken the time to study the history of the religion. They lack education in the most fundamental areas of life including their own beliefs... and yet they feel like they can judge who "is Christian" and who is not.
Maybe you can enlighten us quickly... what was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II? announced by Pope Eugene III in 1145? what happened in 1692? Something easier... who wrote Mark or Genesis?
Blind following the blind... and pointing fingers all along the way.
Breivik identified with the history and culture of the religion. He didn't quite agree on all of the principles but what part of your religion actually does? What denomination would you conclude is the correct form of Christianity? Your argument echoes that of a debate I recently heard where a radio host defended that Mormonism was in no way a form of Christianity.
Human are humans and all are flawed. Not because of a "fallen nature" but because we are from an imperfect nature to begin with. Even by your admission judgment is left to your God alone... I have personally read a good deal of the manifesto by Andrew Berwick and it struck me as incredibly similar to many emails chains I have been sent by Christian relatives who feared Muslim neighbors. Much of the exact same wording.
Christians have jumped on the Q&A section of the document where he answers that belief in Jesus wasn't necessary to become a Justicair Knight and fight for the "Christian cultural heritage" in Europe. Never once did he write that he didn't personally believe in Yeshua. He simply stated that he didn't have a personal relationship. In fact he criticises certain people in the manifesto who believe they can just accept Jesus before dying and be forgiven. He preaches more from the Bible in that document than most Sunday sermons i have heard. It may do you well to read it yourself and not just take second hand information from the Christian "experts".
Perhaps more interesting would be to ask, "why do we care?" Christians will be eager to disavow him, not wanting their religion besmirched. Anti-Christians (sceptic, atheist, Muslim, or whatever) will want to define him as Christian to bolster their own opinions. Most non-religious people simply won't care, or will sensibly label him "an evil human being" and leave religion and non-religion out of it.
Whatever your opinion, I think humility will require that each of us do a motive-check and realize that, whatever Breivik believes, he doesn't believe in humility or tolerance or love of neighbor. Let's not follow him down this road, at least.