Breivik the Christian

Andrew Sullivan: The difference is not in ideology, but in the move to violence. That move is, of course, a central, profound and vital one, and [Bill] O'Reilly's views of the world are in no way responsible for what just happened in Norway. But it is hard to see where O'Reilly would disagree with vast tracts of Breivik's ideology - except the resort to violence. Ideologically, there is scarcely any difference at all.


Damn.

Sullivan's critique (please read the whole thing!) begins from this Bill O'Reilly quote: Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.


It is interesting what we are willing to attribute to an ideology or religion in relation to one's actions in the name of said ideology or religion. Was Stalin actually a communist? The history books certainly label him as such, but would Marx have agreed?  Sullivan brings up Bin Laden, whom certainly is painted at the very least as an Muslim extremist, but do all Muslims claim him as one of them?  


And what do we do when this question is posed for that which we one cannot renounce?  I have had more than a few people look at my ID card and comment that I look like Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech killer (I swear I do not look like him...), but it would make no sense for me to say something like, "Well there is no way that he is a true Asian.  Asians don't do that."  Wouldn't that be convenient Mr. O'Reilly?


-Tim