Posted on 07/23/2011 11:40:56 AM PDT by Starman417
The moral equivalence apologists (and Chris Matthews) for Islamic terrorism who have long cited Timothy McVeigh, Jared Loughner, abortion bombers, the Spanish Inquisition, Crusaders, Nazis as somehow examples of right-wing Christian fanaticism and hate-mongering have finally got an actual real example of it:
“What we know is that he is right wing and he is Christian fundamentalist,” deputy police chief Roger Andresen said Saturday morning at a televised news conference. “We have not been able to link him up to an anti-Islamic group.” He said that the suspect had not been arrested before, and that police were unsure if he had acted alone.“We find him responsible for both of the attacks,” Andresen said. “At the moment we have no other people to arrest.”
Norwegian media identified the suspect as Anders Behring Breivik and posted pictures of the blond and blue-eyed Norwegian. A security official speaking on the condition of anonymity because the official was not allowed to release the name publicly said that the name was correct.
~~~ He said that police were still trying to piece together the suspect’s motives.
“The politically motivated violence that Norway has seen in the modern age has come from the extreme rightist side,” Stoere said. “This is a phenomenon that we have addressed very seriously.”
So not all the facts are in, yet there's no apparent rush to judgment here is there? I'm not questioning that the facts thus far are wrong here- just the double-standard in how whenever it is an Islamic extremist or homegrown terrorist involved, we are cautioned not to jump to conclusions.
For those who initially suspected Islamic terror and "Norway's 9/11", it sounds as though they weren't alone: Jihadi forums also jumped at the thought of claiming attaboy responsibility, in glee:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Go back and read 1 John chapter 3, and get back to me.A hooker with a cross around her neck doesn't make her a Christian either.
They are all SOCIALIST in philosophy and all are closely related to ONLY what is considered liberal socialist left wing in America.
They have no relationship whatsoever to the conservative right in America.
Then why did the early reports yesterday say that “Helpers of Jihad” had claimed responsibility for the explosion??
Reports do not add up.
In a gun-free society, the person with murder on his mind, can always acquire a gun.
Would it not have been better if some of the older kids on that island had guns? Even a .22 rifle would have saved a lot of kids.
The gunman was shooting fish in a barrel. That’s what we will become without the 2nd Amendment — fish.
Notice how all the political clowns who propose a gun-free society, have armed bodyguards to protect them.
I am not sure if or how much a part of a church he was, or what kind of church it was. But those who assert that the terrorist was acting consistent with the Bible are potentially as dangerous as he is, and historically, rather than religious violence, many Christian Evangelical fundamentalist have chosen to be complete pacifists.
In contrast, the Qur’an does promote religious violence (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html), and its monologue of theology lacks the context and clarity needed to restrict what “war” against Islam is, and religious violence to simply being in a defensive context, while physical retaliation and fighting is clearly sanctioned and commanded, such as until all the religion of the land be of Allah. (Qur’an:8:39) While religious violence was sanctioned for Israel in a limited context, under the New Testament the Bible does not offer any sanction for physical religious violence, such as,
1. killing others due to their contrary views.
2. the church correcting false beliefs among church members
3. the church exercising such to rule over those without (1Cor. 5:12)
4. to expand the church
A possible exception might be in order to save others from being hurt in an immediate situation, but that is hardly a religious context.
While the aforementioned violence has happened in history (Crusades, etc) , that was the result of men assuming superior authority over Scripture, with ignorance of the latter among the laity. The early church and its individual in the New Testament, being under the New Covenant (which Jesus instituted at His death), never used violence. Rather, “we do not war after the flesh, For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,” “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against..spiritual wickedness..” (2Cor. 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12) Thus “the weapons of our warfare” spiritual, “By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left..” (2Cor. 6:7)
The same N.T. does sanction the just use of the sword by the civil government, which is based upon moral views in any country, but the N.T. itself separates the powers.
As for the atheists who love to lump all religions together as blood thirsty, know that more killing and oppression has been done under the recent rise of atheism than by religion, from Mao to PolPot to Communism, as its objectively baseless moral reasoning can easily sanction anything as reasonable to achieve its ends.
Also, “Liberal Violence: Five Names You Should Know” http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2010/03/16/liberal_violence_five_names_you_should_know/page/full/
The fact that Christ rebuked Peter for cutting off the ear of the High Priest tells me all I need to know about Christianity vs. say, Islam.
They want so much to believe he is a Christian fundamentalist. I invite them to prove it. Our own pathetic government and press refuse to label Nidal Hassan a Muslim radical terrorist though the proof is everywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.