REBRANDED

 Anders Behring Breivik posted 1,516 pages to explain his motive for killing 76 of his Norwegian countrymen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018198/Norway-massacre-Killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-privileged-son-diplomat.html

Breivik's tank must have been topped off and brimming over with evil on Friday.  He had no room for conscience or reason or compassion or love or mercy.  


How does a person pull the trigger against a living being...not only the first time, but over and over and over and OVER for 90 minutes?  


Breivik said steroids helped him.  And he listened to music from Lord of the Rings at full volume to "suppress fear".  This man was a toxic mix of abandonment (a father who left him as a baby) and disillusionment with life...mixed with narcism (having plastic surgery in his 20's, going to a tanning booth and applying makeup before his spree)...with being obsessive and paranoid.  He had trouble with women and lived with his mother until he was 30.  He needed to be important and he believed his deeds could cleanse Europe.  Doesn't this all sound very Hitler-esque? 

Surely, the mass murder ITSELF is a window into this man's soul.  Breivik acted out rage that knew no limits.  His post was the rant of a madman and it took him nine years to write it. He said he filled exploding bullets with drops of nicotine for optimum killing ability.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018748/Norway-massacre-Anders-Behring-Breivik-Dum-dum-bullets-injected-poision.html  He left a cowardly bomb to terrorize innocents.  Yet he was a warrior who gave up without a fight when the police arrived.  

Breivik knows his motives and seems to want to share them.  His posting suggests political motives, but his grasp on reality was tenuous.  His animosity toward his father and stepmother was palpable.  It was revealing today to hear the elder Breivik say his son should have committed suicide and now he was going to always have to live with his son's notoriety.  Those two Breiviks must be a pair.   


But now, incredibly, there is another angle on this case.  Above the fold in the New York Times, we read the big headline that Breivik was a Christian fundamentalist. What would make the NYTimes PRINT such a thing? Considering the shooter was a mass murderer, what was the basis for that assessment?  

The Times might argue that Breivik wrote "Christian" on his Facebook info page.  Well, he's insane, right?  He could have called himself a giraffe.  Can we agree that journalism with a big voice should have used extra discretion in branding?  The Times has  responsibility for accuracy as all the smaller papers will follow suit.


Which of Christ's qualities did Breivik exemplify?  His thoughts and actions had political and cultural overtones, but barely had religious ones.  He didn't kill those people for Jesus' sake; he killed to do something important.  His guns didn't target the Muslims that he hated.  He targeted the establishment which embodied his father's belief system.  He wanted to take out the Prime Minister (the one he saw as responsible for Norwegian policy toward Muslims) and the teens (whose liberal views would affect the country's future).  Was Breivik's a hate crime against Muslims?  Indirectly.


Remember Major Hasan @Ft. Hood?  Now THERE'S a direct hate crime.  He stood on a table screaming "Allahu Akbar" and gunned down thirteen people while the media bent over backward to not attribute the crime to his religious beliefs.  So was Hasan crazy...or faithful?  Here are comments from Anwar al-Awlkaki, Hasan's former imam:

"The fact that fighting against the US Army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed.  No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right - rather the duty - to fight against American Tyranny.  Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims.  The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy...may Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance, and steadfastness, and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act.  Ameen."


Hasan was motivated by RELIGIOUS ISSUES in his beliefs of Muslim fundamentalism.  On the other hand Breivik was a child of privilege and concerned about POLITICAL ISSUES which were fueled by his seething fury against his family.  He ranted on about a litany of things that were "wrong", including multi-culturalism and feminism and neo-Nazi issues.  Video games may have influenced him.  They didn't make him a killer, but they may have "trained" him to make the multiple kills.  


Jesus said we would know his followers by their fruit.  I cannot tell you Breivik's heart, but I can easily see his deeds do not match Christ.  I would call him neither a Christian nor a fundamentalist.

The media would have us believe that Christianity has splintered in two.  They see "regular believers" and "Christian fundamentalists".   Since I see myself as a Christian fundamentalist, I would beg to differ.


Fundamentalist believers adhere to the fundamentals of the faith (since 33AD) and truth as proclaimed in the Apostles Creed (which has been around since the 5th century). 


In some places around the world, Christianity has grown cold and church attendance has declined.  That is especially true in Europe.  Christ followers may look out of step in a pagan culture, but it is not Christians who moved.


Is Breivik in the looney fringe of conservative issues?  Yes.  Is he a looney on religious issues?  Yes.  He said he was a crusader for Christendom.  We don't have to have a psychology degree to know how weird that was.  Unbalanced folks are unbalanced in all areas, but if unbalanced in matters of Christ...they do two things:

 they profane Christ's name 

and 

  they make it hard for Christians

What about Breivik's hatred of Muslims?  


The same media who believe Christianity has splintered - also think Islam has splintered.  People see Muslims as either "regular believers" or "Muslim fundamentalists".  Al-Awlaki would be an example of an extreme, Sharia-promoting fundamentalist...and peace-loving Muslims would be the regular believers.  Are "peace-loving" Muslims and Muslim fundamentalists split?  THAT is the $64,000 question.

Consider the smirk on the shooter's face in this picture.  He seems content to be the center of the media attention.  


This poor man is deranged and is a right-wing extremist.  He has turned into the very people he purports to despise.


But is Breivik a Christian fundamentalist?  Shame on the New York Times for their lack of objective, responsible reporting.