To not be surprised that the Norway mass murderer is not being described with terms such as 'Christian Fundamantalist', 'Terrorist' of 'Fanatical Christian'...

[LDNmummy]

.. even though that is exactly the terminology they would be using had it been a Muslim gunman?

I actually sought out the Daily Fail today to see what Its usual readership would have to say about this and was not surprised by the comments.

Somehow a massive focus on Islam as if it is still the fault of Muslim people, and plenty of denial of this man having done this for conservative right wing and CHRISTIAN driven fundamentalist reasoning.

I have seen the terms in the title mentioned a few times in the press but to nowhere near the extent they would have been used had this been a Muslim gunman.

Just my opinion.

Harper how exactly is my concern 'misguided and ignorant'?

If you actually read my posts properly you would see that I have not just been talking about the media but am actually more so focussing on the general publics reaction from what I have seen on social networking sites, general online forums and comments on online news articles.

But I do think a bigger fuss would have been made over his religious affiliation had he been a Muslim. Yes it has been mentioned, I never once denied that, but not pressed upon in the same way as far as I am concerned.

I think you showed your own ignorance in your immediate assumption that I was somehow defending extremist Muslim's and started referring to the 7/7 attacks.

I agree Mumblechum. The work of a nutter/madman. Otherwise I will be looking at people with an Aquiline nose with suspicion.

Well, forehead, I'm not saying that as soon as a building explodes people should go ahead and start abusing the nearest Muslim - that's ridiculous. However, it's unreasonable to expect everyone to pretend the world doesn't have a problem with muslim terrorists. It is only natural, following 9.11 and 7.7, the Bali bombings etc, that people immediately assume muslim terrorists are to blame for a fresh attack. Don't be so naive.

I have heard him described as all of the above on the news today.

I am also not sure that in today's world it is entirely unreasonable to jump to such a conclusion - i.e. when we hear the words 'terrorist attack' we do immediately assume al quaeda etc

Well I think you are ignorant OP, because you started a thread with a premise that has proven to be entirely incorrect.

Statistically, over the last ten years well over 90% of terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by muslims.

Where is this statistic for? It certainly isn't true of the UK.

But this one wasn't mumblechum. that's what we have to remember.

Harper seven ., i despair of people like you.

why?

In what way does killing 92 people make him "a Christian fundamentalist"? I thought a Christian fundamentalist was someone who believed the fundamental tenets of the teaching of Christ? I don't recall him encouraging killing sprees. On the contrary, he was all about loving people, turning the other cheek etc etc.

Also, the guy was a Freemason. That's actively frowned upon in evangelical so called "fundamentalist" churches.

In partial answer to the OP, maybe people aren't referring to him as a "Christian fundamentalist" because they can't really square his actions with the fundamentals of Christian belief?

Just my opinion.

I'm not sure if you are being purposefully dense Harper but I will just copy and paste my last comment again:

*If you actually read my posts properly you would see that I have not just been talking about the media but am actually more so focussing on the general publics reaction from what I have seen on social networking sites, general online forums and comments on online news articles.

But I do think a bigger fuss would have been made over his religious affiliation had he been a Muslim. Yes it has been mentioned, I never once denied that, but not pressed upon in the same way as far as I am concerned.

I think you showed your own ignorance in your immediate assumption that I was somehow defending extremist Muslim's and started referring to the 7/7 attacks.*

The terms I heard this morning were 'a right wing Christian fundamentalist'. I haven't watched news coverage since lunchtime though.

The vast majority of terrorism within the UK has been Christian on Christian. IRA. INLA. And so on.

How quickly we forget.

mumble, what is the source of your statistic? Just interested.

Yes Hope, but again, not really very "Christian" of them to mount terror attacks and stuff, is it? Anyone can do anything in the name of any god. But whether or not it tallies with the main teaching on that faith is an entirely different matter. Why identify someone else with a faith if they do exactly the opposite of what it says on the tin?

TAGD, Christ telling people to turn the other cheek etc is not one of the core principles of fundamentalism. The core beliefs are things like the virgin birth and that Christ's miracles really happened. Obviously fundamentalists have a morality, but their morality is not what defines them as being fundamentalist rather than some other kind of Christian.

Asides from which, it is not the killing of many people that defines him as a fundamentalist. He is both a fundamentalist and a terrorist.

No, Thruaglassdarkly, it isn't really very "Christian". That's my point. Fundamentalists / fanatics of whatever religious persuasion are NOT representative of that religion as a whole.

I would agree the press seem to be down playing use of the word terrorist. This is still terrorism, regardless of faith or looks. I guess the OP is demanding equality for terrorists: that when acts of terrorism etc are described then the same vocab etc are used.

Despite the fact that muslims are not involved, the discussion is still about muslims. Call me cynical but I am waiting for someone to blame this on muslims simply because he had anti Islamic views .

The difference with a Christian fundamentalist/right wing group/individual doing this is that the public is not reacting by beating up anyone who looks like a Christian or verbally abusing people who are Christian or firebombing Christian places of worship.

Exactly- I consider the muslim faith to be as far removed from the terrorists who claim it as a reason as my own faith (catholicism) is remote from the doctrines of the IRA. It is really nothing to do with religion and all about hate and intolerance.

Well said HopeEternal

I consider myself right wing - this conflation of the term right wing for fascist disturbs me greatly.

I agree that the man is a terrorist, the reasons for his actions are the results of his terrorist proclivities rather than the specious reasoning behind them.

Dont you think the reason they are not making a point about him being a Christian is because he has not target specifically Muslim, Buddhis, or Jewish youth, but young norwegian politically minded youth rather than religious youth?

I personally think the Norwegians at least on the surface are actually handling this so that there is minimal back lash on innocent members of the public.

If you heard the first press conference that the Justice Minister and the PM made they both seemed quite contained in terms of laying the blame anywhere. Perhaps they already had information but I do think they acted rather than reacted.

QuintessentialShadow other terrorists have targeted the 'normal' population of various locations killing fellow members of their own faith but their faith is still emphasized. I don't think the target is the emphasis rather the views of the individual/group.

I just listened to a televised debate involving the party leaders of both the Progressive Party and the Conservative party, among others, and so many things in this scenario just does not make sense. I think at the moment one is far from any sense, or perspective.