I found the below article on Facebook, posted by an organization called "People Against the Tea Party." It was written by a man named Joshua Stewart. You can click the title to read it in it's original website.
On July 23, 2011 a terror attack rocked Oslo, Norway, killing 93 innocent people. The speculation began from the moment it was reported. Everyone was convinced a Muslim was behind it. Then a suspect was captured. He was both white and Christian.
From that moment forward, in typical Western fashion, people came out of the woodwork trying to distance him from Christianity, even though his words said otherwise. Even some atheists, for whatever reason, were trying to separate Christianity from this act of obvious terrorism.
This highlights a fundamental hypocrisy that we have seen time and time again in the West. Had this man been brown-skinned with an Arabic name, he would have automatically been labeled a Muslim fanatic and a terrorist.
This scene has played out many times before from Tim McVeigh to Joe Stack to John Bedell to the Hutaree in Michigan to Jared Loughner. When a person is a White or Anglo European Christian, he is not labeled a terrorist. Instead, he his actions are often dismissed (not justified or excused) as by that of a “mentally disturbed” or “crazy” person. He is never a terrorist, nor is his Christian faith ever mentioned. Even the Hutaree, who were investigated by the Anti-terrorism Task Force, were only called a “Christian militia” by the media, and their faith was the centerpiece of their actions.
It begs the question: why is this? Why does Western society strive to distance Christianity from these occurrences, when they also are the first to call Muslims who perpetrate the same acts as terrorists?
Let it be stated that I am not saying that al-Qa’ida or Richard Reid are not Islamic terrorists. Of course they are. But, in the same breath, the Hutaree and Andres Breivik are Christian terrorists. If you are a Christian, it does not mean you condone his actions and his being a Christian does not reflect on you.
The problem is, with religion it’s not difficult to find scriptures to justify these actions, whether it be in the Qur’an or the Bible.
In the Bible, God commands the decimation of entire cities, and Psalm 137:8-9 reads, “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
People say that Jesus preached a message of love and tolerance (even as many of these same people are hardly loving and tolerant of, for instance, homosexuals and atheists). Fair enough. Let’s say that is 100% accurate. That doesn’t make him not a Christian. He may be a “bad Christian” but he is still a Christian nonetheless.
The “no true Scotsman” argument is one of the biggest Christian hypocrisies in which Christians are judging who is a true Christian and who is not. Many do this whether the person in question be Andres Breivik or a formerly devout Christian-turned-atheist (like Dan Barker, for instance), when Jesus commanded them to not be judgmental. (Matthew 7:1-2; John 8:7)
They do this because they are ashamed that such occurrences can be aligned with their faith, and rightly so. In the same way, many non-extremist Muslims try and claim the Taliban are not real Muslims.
Whether they are distorting scriptures or not, the fact remains that they do not have to look far to do so. And that’s frightening. Religion has inspired violence and bigotry since its earliest incarnations. To try and say it doesn’t, or that religious extremists aren’t real adherents of said faith is doing a giant disservice to all mankind.
In closing, let’s look at an excerpt from Breivik’s manifesto:
“I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed.” He further states. “We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once, but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead [sic] by a just and non-suicidal pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities.”
Now let us examine this again with some minor substitutions:
“I trust that the future leadership of a Arab cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Mosque leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed.” Furthermore, “We must have a Mosque leadership who supports a future Jihad with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Islamic states in the Middle East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Shi’a whose members should convert back to Sunnism. The Shi’a had an important role once, but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform Sunni Islam as well. Iran should have a united Khilafah lead [sic] by a just and non-suicidal Imam who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Christian atrocities.”
If it was a Muslim who wrote the latter statement and then committed acts of violence including a bombing and shooting spree, he’d be labeled an Islamic terrorist hands-down and rightly so. Look at Nidal Hassan, for example. Let’s stop the hypocrisy and label Breivik what he is — a Christian terrorist.
Let me add, though many people think I am, I am not an Aetheist.