Religious Fundamentalism, Radicalism and Terrorism

Last Friday, 32-year old Anders Behring Breivik orchestrated one of the most heinous atrocities in Europe since World War II in coordinated attacks on both a government building in Oslo and a youth summer camp, killing 76 people. In the investigation since the attacks, Breivik has allegedly confessed that he was motivated in his hatred of multiculturalism, convinced that his actions were necessary in the face of what he believed was the "colonization" by Muslims. For a country largely known for its peace and serenity, Breivik's actions has shaken the core of of a people who have largely been free from large-scale attacks foreign or domestic.

When news of the attacks first emerged and Breivik was apprehended, the media was quick to label Breivik as "a Christian fundamentalist". As a person of the Christian faith, I was initially both shocked and dumbfounded at Breivik's reprehensible and illogical doctrinal logic that led him to massacre 76 people. When it later came to light that the "Christian fundamentalist" label was way off base, I found myself more than a little irked at the media's ineptitude and irresponsibility.

The truth of the matter is the Breivik is no more of a Christian fundamentalist than, let's say, Saddam Hussein was an Islamic fundamentalist. The evidence for both is that their motives were secular and political, not religious or faith-driven. There's nothing that speaks to Breivik's devout Christian faith or how he was motivated from his diligent Bible study. There's no evidence that he was an active parishioner in his local church and played guitar on the praise band while serving as a deacon, caring for the elderly members of the congregation, and in the course of a Bible study, decided that God wanted him to kill 76 of his own countrymen. I suspect that for the media, it was just easier to slap the "Christian fundamentalist" label on Breivik to provide a sense of balance after too many media outlets initially theorized that "Islamic fundamentalists" were behind the attacks.

And let's be clear that not all religious fundamentalists are terrorists, either. If we define a fundamentalist a strict adherence to a belief or doctrine, can we agree that people are entitled to have these until they start bombing buildings or hijacking planes? The terrorists who are indeed religious radicals are those who believe and adhere strongly in their faith or doctrine where that faith or doctrine is the key driving force - not a peripheral justification - behind violent acts.

For the the 9/11 terrorists, referring to Westerners as "Crusader infidels" while flying a plane into a skyscraper alone doesn't make one a radical Islamic terrorist. A life lived in devotion to Sharia law while attending a mosque which has cultivated a belief that it would please Allah to kill those who did not share a believe in Allah and His prophet, Mohammed - and ultimately carries out those beliefs in the killing of others... that's an Islamic terrorist.

I find that the distinction is important. I get that people like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris would like everyone to believe that religion is the root of all evil, and their ilk wrings their hands when meaty tid-bits like this can give proof to their cause. Are there religious radicals that commit terrorism? Absolutely. But let's not make false stereotypes and generalizations which are both lazy, incorrect and more ultimately more polarizing. Not every atrocity committed by a Middle-Easterner who happens to be Muslim is an act of an "Islamic terrorist" and not every atrocity committed by a Gentile Caucasian is a "Christian terrorist".