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.
This, of course, is a theological point, and one with which I fully sympathize. I don't blame any Christian for wanting to obliterate all ties, in this case religious ones, with a person as full of hatred and bloodthirstiness as Breivik. The man from Nazareth who preached and lived a message of nonviolence could not be further removed from Breivik. What's more, given that Muslims are among the poorest and most marginalized people in Europe, it seems to me that Breivik's attack was motivated by animosity toward some of the very types of people that Jesus identified with the most.
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.
I 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 "[t]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.
Had Muslims carried out Friday's attacks (and the earliest media reports assumed as much), once again, we would be debating the face of Islamic terrorism. And once again, the religion of Islam and anyone connected with it would be on trial as suspected accomplices. As it happens, what we have is a Christian, not a Muslim, who is responsible for the attacks. What we don't have is a corresponding vocabulary and a set of unquestionable assumptions about some inherent relationship between Christianity and terrorism. That's as it should be. It was a self-proclaimed Christian, not Christianity, that committed these violent acts in Norway, and the majority of Christians and indeed Westerners certainly recognize the difference. If only this same courtesy could be extended to Islam.
"Christian terrorism" is an historical fact... pogroms, inquisitions and crusades aside, the KKK and Knights of the White Camelia, who burned black Americans out of schools and into share-cropping — out of voting booths and into chain-gangs — were and are explicitly "Christian," by self-description.
While I'd be the first to say: "Those who despise the terrible things that are done in the name of their religions should do more to stop them." The fact is that only the guilty are guilty while the bigotry of painting people by race or religion expresses only intellectual weakness and moral cowardice.
I wish that injustice bothered people as much when bigotry is applied to others, as when it is aimed at them, but that may be too much to ask of humans.
"Christian terrorist" has a long and dishonorable history... pogroms, inquisitions and crusades aside, the KKK and Knights of the White Camelia, who terrorized black Americans out of schools and into share-cropping — out of voting booths and into chain gangs, were and ARE explicitly "Christian."
While I'd be the first to say: "Those that despise the terrible things that are done in the names of their religions should do more to stop them." The fact is that only the guilty are guilty while the bigotry or painting people by race or religion is an intellectual weakness and a moral cowardice.
I wish that injustice bothered people as much when bigotry is applied to others, as when it is aimed at them, but maybe that's too much to ask of humans.
""It is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence OVER BIBLICAL TEACHINGS." Anders Breivik Manifesto (p. 1403)
Believing science over the Holy Bible is NOT Christian.
Ever wonder why it's called the Red Cross? Ever wonder why hospitals have a cross as the symbol. Because real Christians are the ones who show up to clean up after guys like this & try to bring in some love where the hate came down heavy. Christians have donated more dollars & man hours than anyone else.
Dr. Green is simply highlighting the fact that individuals and groups of self-defined Christians have misused the Bible as justification to commit horrific acts of mass murder, terrorism, slavery, and genocide for hundreds of years. However, most people do not rush to condemn the entire Christian religion the same way they do when a Muslim person commits a similar act by misusing the Koran.
Before Anders was identified as the terrorist, it was instantly assumed that Islamic terrorists committed the attack, and people were ranting about "those awful Muslims". Once the real terrorist was identified, no one ranted about "those terrible Christians" or "those terrible Christians with blonde hair".
People make up excuses by saying, "well he wasn't a real Christian" or "he wasn't really following the teachings of Jesus". Somehow, people are able to make a distinction between the individual who committed the act and the actual religion when it comes to Christianity, but they are unwilling/unable to do the same regarding Islamic beliefs (which, by the way, are largely based upon the Old Testament).
Who are you to determine whether someone is a "real" Christian?
There are over a billion Catholics in the world, and Catholic people are Christians (whether you believe it or not).
Why don't you all say the same thing when misguided people misuse the Koran to create havoc upon the world? Why don't you recognize that they are not "real" Muslims?
The Christian Bible is composed of the Old and the New Testament (not just the teachings of Christ), and there are dozens of stories that can be used or misused to justify anything anything a person wants to do.
Christ himself established the Church, and its authority:
Matthew 16:
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
TYP I CAL
Well actually I will explain the difference:
- It is because Islam, taken to 'extreme' dedication does lead to Al Quaida. Because beheading Jews actually does mirror the actions of Mohammad.
versus
- Radical Christianity, taken to its extreme logical conclusions results in what we saw this week - all-night prayer vigils where Radical Christian Extremists give up food and sleep believing they can pray peace and forgiveness to families of murdered Jews, Muslims and Christians.
- Because Radical 'Extreme Christian Fundamentalists' will, in extreme logical conclusions pray for Anders to be saved, refuse any violent retribution and even plead for mercy on his guilty soul.
- Because, taken to its logical extremes 'Radical Christianity' drives a boat back and forth the shores of Utoya rescuing young people from the waters.
- Radical Christians in Norway going to extreme levels of Christianity by pledging to show even more cheek-turning and kindness to radical Muslims.
So that is the difference and why the entire twist of this not-so-secretly gleeful article doesn't work.
"Martyrdom is the only path to immortality that requires no talent whatsoever."
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/23/article-2017709-0D1F33FB00000578-704_306x512.jpg
for you scrabble enthusiasts, 'forenames'
Anders Breivik Manifesto.
"it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings." (p. 1403)
Anders Breivik Manifesto.
Does he seem to be religious to you?
Are you willingly decieving?
Both Christianity and Islam have that. I realize most Christian denominations had stopped converting people by force by the early 19th Century. And I realize most of my Christian friends don't actually believe those parts of Jesus's teachings where he said that his was the only valid path to God, and non-believers are fools or wicked. But you can't go blithely ignoring the historical context like a foreign policy analyst in a mainstream American newspaper.
When someone like Breivik murders a bunch of people and gives a religious motivation for it, go ahead and denounce him and give reasons why you think it's not compatible with Christianity. But don't try to pretend he is some kind of aberration. *You* are the aberration. In the history of your faith, you are the new trend still battling against the old way of doing things. If change from the inside is still possible, you're not going to do it by pretending the other side doesn't exist.
For something to be classified as "Christian", it must have its basis in the teachings of Christ.
No such basis exists.
NOT CHRISTIAN!
Is this not teaching in your opinion? I hope not ..I hope you see it as merely historical reference...
Was put together by Emperor Constantine of Rome who murdered his brothers.
It is the cause of genocide,suicide,teaching Hate, persecutions,school bullying,and spilling the blood of the innocents.Hitler became a Christian and this is what fueled his Hate!
The fact that it is not complete and who put it together could very well make it evil.
All religions are broken and the only way to learn the science of the Soul is through the oldest writings in the World the Veda's. here you will find real answers to life's questions!
Nothing to do with blind faith.
Here is a Free Educational site to study from.
http://www.esotericteaching.org/
I do believe that many so called evangelical christians come off as terrorists when they harass gays, illegal immigrants, liberals, etc, they are NOT very nice about it. This is the fundamental (no pun intended) problem with the evangelical community. They blather on about being christians and "God's people" but they are NOTHING like Him in their lack of charity, compassion, acceptance, tolerance etc. HE never turned anyone away from following Him. Even Judas had a front row seat.
Until they can understand that He was nonviolent and taught charity, they will continue to be that clanging gong and tinkling cymbal and the world will continue to say, with their fingers in their collective ears, "LaLaLa we can't hear you"...
Anything that causes division among humankind is most certainly not of god.
No matter what those voices in your head tell you.
---
It is the out-of-balance focus on the outer forms of religions that causes division among humankind.
The more we turn inward and look at religions esoterically, the more we discover how similar they are.
Nothing wrong with that.