In Jesus Name? Not Hardly

OK, it’s been a while since I’ve written a “Wizbang’s resident agnostic explains Christianity” post, so I think I’m a bit overdue.


The Norwegian monster who slaughtered nearly a hundred people is being labeled a “Christian right-wing terrorist,” based largely on his 1500-page manifesto and various other statements he made before and after his rampage. He states he’s a Christian, and was acting in defense of Christianity. So it’s a slam dunk, right?


Not hardly.


When the nutjob (I’m sticking to my long-standing policy of not naming monsters who commit their heinous deeds for publicity) talks about his actions and beliefs, he goes into detail about a great many of them. For example:

Anti-Islam: He’s deeply concerned about the rising numbers and activities of Muslims in Europe. And he doesn’t differentiate much between Muslims and Islamists — the former being the average rank and file Muslim that doesn’t really want trouble, and the fanatics.


Nationalist: He’s a fiercely proud Norwegian, and believes his native land is being invaded and subverted by Muslims.


Westerner: He extends his nationalism to encompass all of Europe and Western civilization, declaring that it is not just Norway, but the entire Western world that is under assault by the Muslims.


Zionist: He sees Israel and the Jews as natural allies, as they’ve been at the forefront of Islamic aggression for decades. Further, he sees Israel as a natural part of the Western world.


Plagiarism: Large portions of his manifesto were lifted and adapted — uncredited, of course — from the manifesto of the Unabomber, the infamous far-left eco-terrorist.


What’s missing from his rantings? Any indicator that he held very devout Christian beliefs.


Look at your average Islamist whackjob. They’re all too eager to talk about how they love Allah, that they’re carrying out Allah’s will, and can spout off countless verses that justify what they do and have done. Verses from the Koran, hadiths, and the words of various influential Islamic leaders all lend themselves to support whatever atrocities they commit. For example, the Muslim who killed two Army soldiers in Little Rock made it clear he was acting in the name of Islam. So did the Fort Hood shooter, the Times Square would-be bomber, the DC snipers, the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, and countless others.


On the other hand, the Norwegian killer didn’t quote the Bible. He didn’t talk about how God or Jesus led him to carry out his deeds. No, to him “Christianity” is simply one aspect of Western culture and society that he feels to defend. It’s not the core of his belief system; it’s simply a way of emphasizing the un-Islamic nature of the West.


Likewise, I’m not too thrilled with the guilt by association game that’s going on. This monster talked about various “right-wing” bloggers, groups, and organizations (“right-wing” tends to lose a lot of coherence when applied to domestic politics, to most Americans, but it kinda fits here) that he liked, admired, and agreed with. This is leading to a lot of people trying to put some of the blame on those people.


Ridiculous. So what if he liked them? That’s hardly their responsibility. Now, I’d be more concerned if there was proof that those folks had supported him. Or even acknowledged him. There’s no sign they even knew he existed, let alone lent him aid and comfort in preparing for his deeds. And they certainly never said anything like “you know what would really strike a blow against the Muslim conquest of Europe? If some non-Muslim were to blow up the non-Muslim prime minister of Norway, then shoot almost a hundred non-Muslim kids! That’ll show them!”


Now, fanatics aren’t known for their logic, and religious ones especially. But the only way this might have advanced this nutjob’s agenda was if he’d concealed his identity and somehow managed to blame Muslims for the attack. And that certainly would have been plausible — as soon as the news broke, several radical Islamist groups first claimed responsibility, then backed down and simply praised it. And it was certainly in line with a lot of other Islamist attacks of recent history. While the main parallel was the Oklahoma City bombing, it was also reminiscent of the African Embassy bombings, the Khobar Towers bombing, and several other attacks. And the targeting of children reminded me of the Beslan school massacre.


But no, he let himself be captured, because he wanted the attention. And that there is the key.


This guy didn’t do this to advance any kind of cause, but himself. He wants the glory and the attention.


Which is why I won’t name him.


And why any attempt to blame any group, or ideology, or religion for his deeds is pointless. His primary motive was glory. He was most interested in promoting himself. And I won’t help him do that.

Who Said That?
Obamacare threatens health insurance for 1 in 8 small businesses