So the New York Times described Norway’s mass murderer with its headline: “Christian Extremist is Charged in Norway.”
Does the fact that Breivik said he was a Christian make him one? Does the fact that he dressed in a police uniform make him a police officer?
We shall know they are Christians, the song tells us, by their love.
Is there anything in Breivik’s actions that suggests love?
A minimal requirement of a Christian is that one be a follower of Christ. Christ’s two commands were to love God with all our heart, mind, and soul, and to love our neighbor.
Anders Breivik admits that he has no relationship with Christ and that he does not pray. Neither, does it seem, that he participated in any kind of formal, communal Christian worship.
Breivik’s actions display nothing but hatred.
Describing Breivik as a “Christian” is more a sign of the animus of the NY Times than the allegiance of Anders Breivik.
The Times, for instance, could have just as easily used the headline “Norwegian Extremist Charged in Killings.” But that headline doesn’t carry quite the same message does it?
Breivik is free to put on whatever garb he wants – that of a “knight,” a “policeman,” or a “Christian,” but it doesn’t make him one. It’s a macabre masquerade – a kind of Halloween costume gone terribly wrong.
Breivik is no Christian. He’s no knight, and he’s no policeman. He’s a type of poser.
When Breivik entered the Workers’ Youth League camp, he did so by posing as a police officer, with an evil intent. He entered the camp as a predator posing as a protector.
Knights and police officers don’t kill the people they’re called to protect.
True Christians recognize that they are born into the world at war with someone. That someone is the devil. Breivik, however, since he was not an authentic Christian, had no devil to hate. Instead, he leveled his hatred toward the Muslims and the Euro politicians who support them.
The Jihadist is our enemy. Islam is not.
Planning mass murder, hiring prostitutes, detonating bombs, and killing youth…. These are neither the actions of a Christian, nor a knight.
There is such a thing as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and then there’s something far worse – a wolf in shepherd’s clothing.
As we well know, there’s nothing worse than a predator priest or a rogue cop. Breivik is just such a type of poser.
Use the word “quisling” today, and most young people will probably incorrectly think that you’re making some obscure reference to something from “Harry Potter.” It’s not a word that’s commonly known today.
During World War II, Norwegian politician Vidkun Quisling assisted Nazi Germany as it conquered his own country, so that he could rule as a collaborationist himself. He became one of the country’s most infamous traitors.
Just four days later, the Daily Mail used the term “Quisling” as a synonym for traitor. The name became a noun and stuck.
“To writers, the word Quisling is a gift from the gods,” said The Times, April 19, 1940 editorial. “If they had been ordered to invent a new word for traitor… they could hardly have hit upon a more brilliant combination of letters. Actually it contrives to suggest something at once slippery and tortuous.”
And so, in that vein, I propose that another Norwegian name become a noun.
A “Breivik,” meaning a predator who poses as a protector.
If writers had been ordered to invent a new word for such a poser… they could hardly have hit upon a more brilliant combination of letters. Actually it contrives to suggest something at once predatory and despicable, and… not at all Christian.
Comments
Post a Comment
I feel the media propagates hatred and divisions by their wrong headline and wrong reporting. Most of their captions are very misleading So extremism is nourished by them to some extent
Our young people have been brought up by the Far Left infiltration of our schools to believe that religion has caused more wars than any other institution, all the while they were kept in the dark of the massive pogroms in the last century.
I was watching EWTN last night with a priest from England who is working to provide the public with understanding of just how much the Catholic Church has contributed to society.
This is needed not only for the seculars, but for Christians who have been brought up in negative Catholic teachings or sentiments.
The Far Left is already putting out little blurps that society may have to do away with Christians. Our young people and society in general have been gradually dehumanized with no sense of identity.
Is it correct to say that we are entering into the New Evangelization, and that it begins with the truth about our Church and who we are?
The premise of Islamic violence is voluntarism that makes their view of God as one of action rather than reason.
In Exodus 3:14 God revealed his name. It was not a voluntarist reply of “ I am what I will” or “ I am absolute liberty” . What was said was “ I am who am” which is the God of eternal existence, the perfection of all things in the Divine simplicity in which there cannot be the contradiction of willing violence.
In the case of Breivik he recognised the dilution of reason with multiculturalism but he went on to be seduced by a violent way to deal with it.
The mechanism of seduction into evil was outlined by Benedict xvi in his book Jesus of Nazareth
vol 1 page 28
“ Moral posturing is part and parcel of temptation. It does not invite us directly to do evil- no that would be too blatant. It pretends to show us a better way, where we actually abandon our illusions and throw ourselves into the work of actually making the world a better place. It claims moreover to speak for true realism : what is real is what is right there in front of us – power and bread. By comparison the things of God fade into unreality, into a secondary world that no one really needs.”.
Who Is Gonna Answer Millions Of Muslims Of The World Who Are Everyday Addressed With Same Names “Muslim Terrorist Or Extremist” By Your Government Which Backs Its Crusade War Against Muslims Around The World ?????
Does Ur Justice Say To Name Others With Names you Hate?? .. Who Is Gonna Answer Those Millions Hurted Hearts ???
Isn’t There Extremist In Christians ???
Isn’t There Terrorist In Christians ??
I Don’t Think You Can Find Another Good Example Of Terror Than Americans And Other Christ Followers Who Write The Slogan As Christ’s Love On Their Foreheads And Killing Innocent Children/Women And Men ...
Here is my take…The NY Times has used the term “Muslim extremist” in the past…and noe of us were uncomfortable with that…we didn’t complain. Tying the term “Muslim” with the term “extremist”, we argued, was necessary, because, we said, they were after all, Muslim, and they were extremists. In the same way Beivik did the same thing. Those who cloak themselves in the mantle of religion to perpetrate evil, are not religious. We however, must be as uncomfortable with tying someone else’s religion to terrorism and extremism, as we were when it happened to us. We must call people to account for their acts, and not defend them because they might be “one of us”...because if we truly follow our faith traditions, those who kill cloaked in sheep’s clothing are as far from us as possible.
Just because the N.Y.Times calls itself a newspaper does not mean that it is, in the srtict definition of a news organization that reports as objectively as possible and gives a full report of the issues it covers without over-sensationalizing them.
Newspapers and other media organizations should be fined for misleading people and giving out improper anti-Christian hate propaganda.
Zahin, please note that Breivik clearly states that he is not a believing Christian, does not pray, does not believe in God or in Jesus Christ, does not keep the Commandments, and has gotten no support for his campaign of murder from any Church, Protestant or Catholic.
He represents no faith or sect whatsoever: he does not claim them, and they do not claim him.
Moreover, the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ our Lord, never called for the blood of any person He encountered in His life. He did not urge the killing of the enemy, the apostate, nor the infidel, nor even the men who nailed Him to the cross.
That’s what makes it a plain falsehood to call Breivik a “Christian extremist.” It would be just as absurd to name him the head the “Pork-Eating Mujahideen.”
Breivik said he was a Darwinist,he said he was a Humanist, he said he was most of the time an Atheist, that he admire Christianity because of their roll in the Crusades and so on. Furthermore he said he did not consider himself a christian. Can we said that all those millions of peoples mention above are terrorists. Why solely take the opportunity to smear Chistianity and not the other different concepts Breivik believed in ?. What is very clever of this propaganda machine is only to mention the “christian” word. Ah, but what about the rest of secular beliefs and values this criminal mind have? they’ll totally ignored.Clever indeed.
This is just another of media, ideological indoctrination. It is so humerous that our media makes such a big deal about freedom of speech and freedom of the press when in fact they behave as though they are part of a State run media, as if they had no choice but toe the ” party line.” When this society finally falls apart we can give credit largely to intellectual, moral slaves in the media.
Does he love God above all things? Does he love his neighbor as himself? If the answer is no, than this man has said no to the commandments of Jesus. He may be baptized but he has chosen a dark path for his life. Kyrie Elieson.
It is time for us all to wake up… Our Planet is controlled by Satan whose agenda is to steal, kill and destroy!!!! Thank God for Jesus who has come to give us life and that life ABUNDANTLY!!!!!!!! John Ch 10 verse 10…
Our leaders and our media is not CHRISTIAN,,,,, REPEAT NOT CHRISTIAN.. We must wake up!!
It is definitely disturbing to see the media use yet another headline to build a negative stereotype of “Christian,” AT the same time I find it saddening to hear Christians judge a man they have never met (his act was evil but we disobey Christ if we judge him) and fail to turn the other cheek in the face of insult (the media is not putting down Christ just His followers: Christians). Does judgment, insult and anger correct that negative image? The most upsetting part of this tragedy for me was reading an interview with Ander’s father, who stated he was “embarrassed” to be his father, apparently a long held feeling because he also stated that he disowned his son at the age of 16. I ask myself where were all the Christians around this family? Was there no one in Ander’s life who could give him some small experience of love. Are we possibly part of the problem so that he failed to hope in others and developed a need to personally eradicate his experience of social evil? Was his evil act truly from an evil heart or from one of despair? God alone knows; He commands us to be aware of other’s needs, to love them, and to turn the other cheek.
I do appreciate Ann Coulter’s clever take on the headline, which she says could have just as easily read “New York Times Reader Kills Dozens in Norway.” You can find it here: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-07-27.html Such a headline would be just as accurate, actually probably more accurate than the one that was used.
She goes on to point out the Times’ hypocrisy that only one of seven of their articles on the Fort Hood shooting suspect mentioned that he was a Muslim. The Times could at least be an equal opportunity offender.
I must attempt to correct this; where the article says “jihadists are the enemy not Islam.” I am sorry but Islam is of the Devil, to say that it is not is likened to saying that God created man for the purpose of casting him into Hell. God did not create Islam; it’s true founder is Satan and its intent was to confound and confuse the wicked into waging war with the followers of Christ.
Chris,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 841) clearly states that: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
See Ann Coulter’s article on this subject
@Chris Adams: Mr. Adams, where are you getting your talking points from, Robert Spencer, Fox News, Frank Gaffney, Cliff Kincade, Bill O’Reilly. Oh, and how could I leave out Glenn Beck who slandered the dead children as members of some neo-Hitler youth group just because they were the children of Norwegian Labor Party members?
Breivik’s sick contorted views certainly clashed with those of our Christian faith. But it’s not for us as individuals to judge whether or not he was or wasn’t a Christian. Once you start going down that path, it’s real easy to start picking and choosing whom you (writing generally, to all here) determine to be 100 percent Christian, not so Christian or an outright heathen. I’ve seen this done in practice and it’s very ugly. Ever hear somebody in your local church say about someone, “Oh, he’s only a part-time Christian…”?
After all, didn’t Jesus tell us to let him do the judging?
It’s right to call out the hypocrites using “Christian” in their respective groups or cults’ weird titles ... and their hypocrisy and shame should be exposed and called out. But let’s leave out the individual judging, lest we want to be put under somebody eles’ spotlight.
The sickest irony to consider in all this is this simple fact: Breivik’s actions gave European Muslims even more reasons to fear and even demonize the vast majority of Europe’s (Christian) population.
Just a few “corrections” (if I dare, but I’m no scholar / theologian / priest):
“with an evil intent”
We don’t know the intent or especially the circumstances, only the object of what he accomplished. We don’t know much about his life or what he’s going through (mentally, physically) that would (mis)lead him into this.
“True Christians recognize that they are born into the world at war with
someone. That someone is the devil.”
There is more than one devil just as there are more than one levels of Hell. So we have many enemies. But they can’t hurt our souls, only we, with consent to sin, can do so. So, in a way, each of us is our own worst enemy.
“The Jihadist is our enemy. Islam is not.”
False teaching is false teaching (and if you believe in Christ, as I do, you must disregard Islam). But people who follow it out of tradition or habit or misguided zeal are not our enemies (see above). Also, even to such “enemies”, Jesus tells us to love them (Luke 6): “bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who mistreat you”.
“there’s nothing worse than a predator priest or a rogue cop.”
I thought we already established that man is not intrinsically evil himself, he is made in God’s image. Only with a full life of unrepentance can man fully reject God and abandon all goodness. Hence there is nothing worse than a devil (evil spirit). Judging some (popular) sins like this is a bit biased, as if some sins are unforgivable (wrong), or that some sins are worse than others (true, but any serious break of the Ten Commandments is seriously “bad” and soul-killing, not just the aforementioned two).
“And so, in that vein, I propose that another Norwegian name become a noun.”
This borders on blasphemy, so I would avoid it, esp. since there are others (e.g. his family, presumably innocent) who share the name. Just because one guy (allegedly) betrayed his country (and we don’t know his circumstances or intent either) back in the 1940s doesn’t give us carte blanche to be insulting and slandering others. (And I’m sure you know about detraction, which applies even if it’s true.)
even Michael Savage admitted this guy WAS a christian terrorist. We can’t have double standard. How come when a muslim lunatic does it, he is portrayed as true scholar of islam!?? this guy qouted more bible than osama did. get real and avoid this whole war of Neo-con war of civilizations.
@h.d.: If Benedict Arnold popped out of his grave and gave a ringing testimony to his love of the American cause, I’d put more credence on the (thankfully still-late) Arnold than anything Savage had to say.
If another Arnold proclaimed his undying fidelity to Maria Shriver, I’d put more credence on that Arnold’s proclamation than anything coming out of Savage’s mouth.
If James aka “Whitey” Bulger promised to lead a nice genteel life in his remaining years, I’d put more trust in Whitey’s promises than whatever Michael Savage had to say on anything.
h.d., certainly, you can find better sources for your “talking points.” Granted, it won’t take a lot of stair-climbing to reach the levels of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, FL Congressman Allen West, Fox & Friends, et al.
In fact, Michael Savage is so radioactive that even Rush Limbaugh and some other right wing heavies wouldn’t come to his help when he got into trouble with the British. Given what Murdoch’s empire did to the once-justifiably-proud British press, Savage’s inability to find a friend on the other side of the pond is telling.
“True Christians recognize that they are born into the world at war with someone. That someone is the devil. Breivik, however, since he was not an authentic Christian, had no devil to hate. Instead, he leveled his hatred toward the Muslims and the Euro politicians who support them.”
Exactly the kind of pablum we’ve come to expect from AmChurch. Thankfully, real Catholics (especially ones in Europe) know better.
Reply to h.d. Posted on Friday, Jul 29, 2011 12:32 PM (EDT)
Distinction should be made between premise and the followers of a premise.
A bad Christian does not invalidate Christianity. Jesus said love your enemies.
Islam is different because at its core Muslims have a view of the person they call Allah to be unrestricted in action and that includes the principle of contradiction. In the West this is called, in philosophical terms, voluntarism. It is the premise of action rather than reason and consistency.
Islamic scriptures make contradictory statements on different pages. “ Peaceful” Muslims reject violence by quoting peaceful passages but never reject or engage the violent passages.
This Islamic voluntarism enables them to simultaneously proclaims Islam as a religion of peace while at the same time being missionaries of violence whose approach is to threaten in seeking to conquer.
Truly “peaceful” Muslims are closer to the God of Reason, the Logos, than to a one of sola voluntas.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.