The idea that right-wing extremists such as Pierce, McVeigh and Breivik are simply the Christian version of Osama bin Laden is entirely wrong, in other words. Islamist terrorists take (misguided) inspiration from their religious texts in the act of slaughter — explicitly linking their motivation to religion. Mass murdering terrorists with a Christian background (and this includes the IRA, incidentally) typically do no such thing, even if the religious-inspired themes of martyrdom and purification tend to animate their doctrines. Not that this makes mass murder any less hideous or destructive — but it does show it to be a different kind of animal.And, as Suzanne rightfully noted, you don't see Christians dancing on the streets, cheering the brutal slaughter of "non-believers" or "apostates". If anything, there is a widespread condemnation of this despicable murder - unequivocally; without trying to justify this atrocity by mentioning poverty, social justice, liberation struggle or any other excuse of that kind. But that's not enough for the mainstream media, whose reaction could be described as nothing less than a "blood libel": Among those that were quick to label the Norwegian mass murderer a "Christian fundamentalist" was the CBC. The very same organization that would never use "Muslim" and "terrorist" in the same sentence, (even when the nature of the violence is self-evident,) keeps repeating "Christian fundamentalist" and "Christian terrorist" over and over. For them, he is a chance to smear legitimate Conservatives by cherry-picking from his 1500-page rant to suit their purpose.
Monday, July 25, 2011
A Freemason, who associates himself with the Knights Templar (not to be confused with the Knights of Columbus,) a "man of logic" (as this nutcase describes himself,) who admits that he is not religious, who hasn't been to church since he was a teenager, who supports eugenic abortions and for whom Jesus is merely a cultural symbol - how could he be a Christian fundamentalist?