Watch LIVE

Why Does the Left Seem Determined to Call Anders Breivik a 'Christian Terrorist'?

News

"the violent, bloodlusty religion it was under the crusades"

A flurry of leftist media analysts over the weekend continued to pound on the same question: Is Oslo gunman Anders Breivik a Christian terrorist? Predictably, most responded with a resounding "yes."

Why are so many liberal news outlets hellbent on implicating Christian beliefs in Breivik's Norwegian mass murdering spree? We at the Blaze have covered some of the early campaign to implicate both conservatism and Christianity in the killings here, but more and more leftists are piling on now to propagate the "Christian Terrorist" narrative of the Norway killings.

Alex Pareene wrote for Salon.com that Breivik is not what American Evangelicals would consider Christian, but laid out a case about Breivik's ideology and summed it up with "all of this says `Christian terrorist.'"  A Washington Post contributor adds that Breivik is not really a "Christian terrorist" per se, but goes on to warn about Christianity's historical connections and constant readiness as a tool of terror.

This AP story cites a number of experts to make the "Christian terrorist" linkage, including religion professor Mark Juergensmeyer, who put his moral equivalency stamp on the Norway attacks in this Huffington Post blog:

"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."

The AP article citing the Juergensmeyer blog finishes with this closing paragraph, making the Muslim-Christian terrorism equivalency explicit:

"Sadly, the last ten years, the term [terrorist] has been co-opted in public discourse and only applies to Muslims," he said. "Now here we have a right-wing Christian extremist who has committed an act of terror, and many people don't know how to react."

None on the Left appear willing to tackle some obvious questions that would arise from this recognition. Have any churches or clergymen openly celebrated Breivik's slaughter of innocents? Are young Christian children dancing in the streets anywhere in Europe, as young Muslims did in Gaza on September 11, 2001? Could any honest observer of the world over the past 30 years believe that Christianity and Islam have played equal parts in terrorist attacks?

Bill Maher seems to think so. Maher said on Friday that the media was all too quick to label the second Fort Hood attacker a "Muslim Terrorist," but refuses to call the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik what he is -- a "Christian terrorist."

His guests tried to moderate his comments, which turned to a condemnation of all religion (except atheism, which he holds blameless) but Maher was undeterred. He then made the sweeping claim that "Christianity is perfectly capable of coming out of its dormant phase and once again becoming the violent, bloodlusty religion it was under the crusades"

Watch the video here:

Your thoughts?

Most recent
All Articles