- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Once again, the phrase “Christian fundamentalist” is being hurled about by a media woefully ignorant about religion – particularly the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
In this case, the appellation is being applied to Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian accused of mass murder.
Never mind that Breivik himself, in a meticulously crafted 1,500-page manifesto, specifically rejects Christian fundamentalism. That was hardly enough to persuade the Los Angeles Times and other media institutions to portray Breivik as one. (By the way, that same newspaper couldn’t bring itself to characterize Nidal Hasan, the mass murderer at Fort Hood, as a Muslim fundamentalist or an Islamic terrorist.)
Breivik has never been a part of a Christian fundamentalist church or faith. Instead, he casts himself as not very religious, and the only church he ever attended regularly was the state church. And while he considers himself at war with Islam and multiculturalism in Europe, he seriously considered an alliance with radical Muslims to wreak mayhem, havoc and bloodshed in his perverted cause.
In fact, ABC News noted, he considered a plan to obtain a weapon of mass destruction through a truce with radical Islamists – in a plot very similar to the one in which Timothy McVeigh acted in Oklahoma City.
“We both share one common goal,” wrote Breivik. “They want control over their own countries in the Middle East, and we want control of our own countries in Western Europe. An Islamic Caliphate is a useful enemy to all Europeans as it will ensure European unity under Christian cultural conservative leadership.”
Note that term “Christian cultural conservative leadership.” Breivik uses it and variations of it frequently through his maniacal tome – making the important distinction between true believing Christians and those who are part of a less defined “Christian culture.” Breivik makes clear he is not a Christian believer, with a personal relationship with the God of the Bible. Instead, he is a part of the Christian cultural legacy of Europe.
Like many extremists before him, Breivik’s goal was to kill as many people as possible to set off a wider conflagration that could and would only be settled by violence.
Breivik demonstrates his lack of understanding of the most basic Christian principles, like Jesus’ warning to Peter in the Gospel of Matthew (26:52): “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
What does Breivik make of this clear warning? Amazingly, he sees it as a command by Jesus to use the sword against His enemies when it was just the opposite.
Thus, Breivik investigated the possibility of working with Islamic terrorists to obtain $1 million worth of anthrax for use on the general population.
“Hamas and several Jihadi groups have labs and they have the potential to provide such substances,” he wrote. “Their problem is finding suitable martyrs who can pass ‘screenings’ in Western Europe. This is where we come in.”
In other words, he was considering offering himself or his co-conspirators up as, as the Islamic terrorists call them, “lily whites,” who would not raise the suspicions of law enforcement authorities.
“Cultural conservatives” in Europe would carry out the attack, possibly in England, the manifesto says, claiming, “Both groups win if the attacks are successful.”
Why was the idea discarded? Only for pragmatic reasons.
“An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties but will simply be too dangerous (and might prove to be ideologically counter-productive),” the manifesto says.
Only a media obsessed with the multiculturalist creed yet antagonistic to anything “Christian” could possibly conclude that “fundamentalist Christian” beliefs could possibly been a motivator for a monster like Breivik.
In fact, what Solomon wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was very simple – “all they that hate me love death.”