Christian Terrorism and Fear Mongering

Well said Skip! I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Personally, I was always against wars and saw warring other nations as a way for some to feel safe from the prospect of death.

Things like nukes are terrifying and I wished there was a Superman who would grab them all and toss them into the sun.

One of the excuses for the deaths of innocents in war was that "that's part of war, we have to make due". I think we could do without any of that.

I remember when water boarding was still a new concept to Americans and many were saying that it wasn't true torture; It just seemed to go against a bit of common sense and a little bit of imagining. I'm glad they test it out on the populace to prove that it is indeed torture.

I always thought that the Patriot Act and laws like it and what lead to the other things like airport invasion was totally unnecessary. The way I see it, if someone is that determined to kill us they WILL find a way. In the meantime, our basic liberties are being pushed aside all because people FEAR so much the prospect of dying even though terrorism accounts for less deaths per year than car accidents. Seems a bit silly to me that we have to give up some liberties to feel safe and that the 'safety' procedures may not even make us even safer so it's all a waste produced by paranoia.

 

I barely know where or how to begin; I will try...

I am not sure what your definition of a Christian is, or if you just in general mean Western European/American based society. As we have seen in the past, Christians of various sorts are often the targets of coordinated and systematic purging of human life (French Revolution, Gulags and illegal Christianity under the USSR and other communist regimes, Concentration camps in WWII for those who opposed nationalism and racism and eugenics...)

What is clear here is the equating by outsiders of religion and politics. Some may have religious motives for these acts of violence, but what is clear to me is that terrorism as a modern act is a political act, rather than a religious one. Yes, I will grant that religious imagery is used and that some at the bottom level are being coerced by religious feelings, but it is for political reasons that these acts are committed. Can you tell me with a straight face that France's anti-Mulsim laws are Christian based, and not political and xenophobic?

I would equate American Christian with American Political Protestant. We also know that since its inception America has had a distinctive Anglo infused bias against the Catholic Church and its undesirable national members. This again is not entirely religiously based, but politically. The fears were that Italian, Irish, Ukrainian, Polish, etc immigrants would be loyal to the Papacy rather than to the president. The marginalization and demonization of these groups was based on a national political fear rather than personal religious fear.

Yet with increasing and increasing secularization and limited religious influence. Ireland first proposed a law forcing priest to break the seal of the confessional in cases of child abuse (Australia is close behind). Besides this proposed law not being at all feasible (what child abuser would confess to a priest knowing he'd have to report it legally?) it signifies a wider European disgust at the Church, and Christianity in general.

Again, many of the things you cite are nationalist based, rather than religious. I find it very amusing that people charge Bush Jr with oil based terror and then turn around and charge him with being a religious fanatic--which is it?

Also, the Spanish Inquisition was a minor Inquisition when compared to the secular trials of France. Pick up Michael Coren's Why Catholics Are Right

the real issue, not religion.

So do you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1539093/France-no-longer-a-Catholic-country.html

Apparently 56% of France is atheist. I bet they put that in their xenophobic pipes and smoke it.

Freedom is a tricky word: what is freedom? Does it mean its very extreme that we are completely free to do anything, or should there only be restrictions to protect other people from harm? Or should there also be restrictions to protect ourselves? Does true freedom mean being able to harm ourselves without societal consequence, or does being free come with responsibility too?

I would assume you are Libertarian (possibly socialist, though likely more so than a centrist like myself--further left than the Democrats more align with the Canadian Liberals). Wouldn't Libertarian values suggest that Christians are free to do as they will in liberty? Or, as I suggested earlier, does true liberty come with certain responsibilities as well?

So what is central here is not Christianity in general, just like it is not Islam in general that causes violence, or Buddhism that causes violence, or Hinduism that causes violence--but radicalized, politicized, nationalized caricatures of the authentic message of each group.

You may not think there is Hindu violence, or Buddhist violence, but there is, and not admitting it shows you bias. If you look closely at modern religious violence, you will see that fear of opposing politics is the real trigger.



Skip, I admire the time it must have taken to compose this post, and I am sure we all know the events which I am sure was a catalyst for this post.

What I think you may find interesting, as I have stated numerous times, is you equating of Christianity and religion with nationalism and terror. If this were true, Norway would be the last place this would occur as only 2% of the population who identify with Christianity (which many do because of childhood baptism into the state religion) attend Church weekly. This is a European low. It may be that the few who do attend extreme-right-wing factions, but this seems to be, again, filled up with few religious messages (though this man does not see himself as anything more than a cultural Christian) and mostly nationalist and xenophobic sentiments.

 

Well put. As I've said often enough, most Christian groups have no history of violence at all. Some, notably the Quakers, have a long history of Pacifism. Mainline Protestant groups like the Methodists, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, etc., don't support violence. There are also atheist governments on the Left that have a history of violence, notably the USSR under Stalin, Communist China, and North Korea. The terrorist in Norway was a Christian fundamentalist, and I agree with Skip that fundamentalist Christianity, at least in some variants, can and has supported violence. It's particularly disturbing that fundamentalists have made headway in our armed forces. I was at a Christian discussion group last night in which the topic of discussion was what to do about Christians who promote intolerance. The precipitating event was Governor Perry's prayer gathering in which non-Christians were excluded while many of the speakers were virulently anti-gay, anti-Catholic, and anti-Muslim. Islamophobia is a very real phenomenon in our part of the country. We didn't come up with a solution, but the approach I advocated is just to speak out in as calm and informative a manner as we can to point out how hate is inconsistent with Christianity and the Bible. It's unlikely that this will cut any ice at all with the self-styled Christians who are pushing the intolerance, since they're essentially Latter Day Pharisees in Christian clothing. But we need to do it anyhow to dissociate ourselves from the fanatics who have hijacked our religion.

 

Disassociate yourself if you wish, everyone else will have a hard time with it. Look at how simpletons judged Muslims after 9/11. I didn't but a whole lot of other people did.

I would call this man a 'Christian extremist' not a terrorist. A man so right wing he actually couldn't help but shoot a bunch of people who didn't agree with him. He did what he did to instill fear yes...but how many will follow in his foot steps? 1? 2? Or a dozen, it doesn't matter. The more we give them attention by changing our definition of others who are involved in that particular religion, the more they get what they want. Al-quieda (hope im spelling that right) probably relished in our constantly changing definitions and warning levels. Its the ATTENTION that gives them the MOTIVATION to commit these crimes.

Regardless of what we call who or who we call what, it was still a violent act that has no rationalization what so ever. Maybe to the accused, but not to the families of those who were slaughtered. Honestly, how many people do you think are going to take a personal stance against Christians...and in Norway no less. They are one of the most peaceful countries on the planet. 21 years is honestly the best they might be able to do for this kind of atrocity. Sweet people. It seems nice there despite this horrible act.

I say we lock him up and let him out when he's barely got any breath left in him, see if he still feels like the Muslims need to burn and if he does, he can take his last gasps of our air in a jail. I hope it smells funny and he has to die to the sound of leaky pipes. He deserves no sympathy, or second thought on what we define him/Christians as, he is already dead to me.

 

I'd argue he was a fundamentalist cultural Christian, i.e. classical "European", however he has little intrest in any typical attributes of religious Christianity.

http://www.cesnur.org/2011/mi-oslo-en.html
http://randallmelchert.com/2011/07/24/anders-behring-berivik-is-not-a-christian-fundamentalist/

Although he says he hates Hitler, he used Christianity is a similar way. It becomes a culture or heritage to be protected from them (Skips title), rather and a religion or even a philosphy of morals and standards.


As I stated before, he uses Christianity but he is entirely political.

 

Hate causes these tragedies. People who blame large groups of people for the actions of a few and stir up ill feeling against them are responsible, whether Christian, Muslim, or atheist.

 

You gotta be kiddin'. You think that just because somebody thinks he's a Knight Templar that makes him a "true Christian"? I'd say it makes him a true nutcase. (I put Michelle Bachmann in the same category.) Jesus is about peace, unconditional love, turning the other cheek. Did the "Templar" say anything about that in his 1,500 page manifesto? Most of the Bible thumpers using the Christian label in Washington today are true Pharisees who wouldn't let a radical commie liberal hippie troublemaking Jew like Jesus, who hung out with lowlifes and said rich people will have trouble getting into heaven, through the door of their churches. He was the true Christian.

 

Just because someone calls themselves a Christian does that make them one.

If someone called themselves a hippie, promotes peace, love, understanding, pacifism, yet does neither or these then what's the point in the hippie label? To me, anyone trying to use such a label is doing so to try to gain some political momentum and has no interest in the principals themselves. It's the same way for the one that forfeited his life.

I read parts of his manifesto and watched part of his 2083 documentary and it's complete rubbish and completely incoherent. Supposedly, he stole much of the ideas from an anarchist so in essence he plagiarized 'his' manifesto.

And no, I don't give a rats tail about the Knight's Templars. Why should I?

Here's the article about him stealing ideas from the 'Unabomber': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rs-Behring-Breivik-plagiarised-Unabomber.html

 

Muslims say the same thing about Islamic terrorists. They aren't real Muslims...
Yet that meant nothing to the American/UK masses as they jumped upon racial profiling and other dubious tactics to lump everybody under the same umbrella.

 

True, maybe it should have meant something to American and UK masses. I think a person should be judged based on their own merits instead of the merits of those they are scarcely connected to.

 

I whole-heartedly agree.

 

The Muslims who say that are right. The "Christians" who did that were wrong. But speaking of profiling, I think I got profiled as a terrorist by you and the OP.

 

:2thumbsup:

 

What? Wow...I don't know how you read that into my post.

I can perhaps see how you can get that out of Skips post. But damn...that was one big jump to get it out of mine.

 

Sure it does, or at least historical significance . In the Fourteenth century, the Templars were charged with heresy, apostasy, idolatry, worshipping a human head, homosexuality, fraud, corruption, practicing obscene rituals, and spitting on the cross. After confessing to the charges under torture, many were burned at the stake. The Pope absolved them of the heresy charges, but not the others.

 

Sorry if I inferred too much. I think you were responding to def's post in which he said not all Christians were to blame for the Oslo terrorism. Your reply, as I interpreted it, was (I'm paraphrasing), lots of Muslims say that too, but it doesn't cut much ice with Christians. I took this to mean either that Christians deserve no slack on the terrorism issue or if they do, they're a mean spirited lot who won't grant Muslims the same slack. Again, the problem is in overgeneralizing. Every time some Muslim terrorist incident arises against the U.S., some hapless Sikh's get accosted, because they wear beards and turbans like Bin Laden, even though they're neither Muslim nor Arab. That's just dumb. But the perpetrators are dummies, not "Christians". The remedy is better education.