The news that Anders Behring Breivik has written a letter to the Norwegian media stating his protestations of Christian faith, pro-Israel opinions and anti-Nazi convictions were a calculated lie has left me stunned.<\/p>\n
Breivik now says his manifesto and early statements were a bluff designed to focus public and media outrage on Christians, Jews and conservatives by tainting them with his actions. His early denials of being a racist or hyper-nationalist were false, Breivik writes. He lied in order to protect the good name of the neo-Nazi movement (Yes, I find that to be incredible on several levels, but that is what he said.)<\/p>\n
What is one to believe? It is easy to dismiss this latest prison epistle as the ravings of a madman. Save that he is not mad (according to psychiatrists). Does being merely evil make them less credible?<\/p>\n
On July 22, 2011 the 32-year old Norwegian detonated a bomb outside an Oslo government building killing eight and then proceeded to shoot to death 69 people,\u00a0 mostly teenagers, attending a Worker\u2019s Youth League (AUF) camp on the Island of\u00a0Ut\u00f8ya. The Oslo District Court rejected Breivik\u2019s insanity defense and on August 24, 2012, found him guilty of murdering 77 people. He was sentenced to 21 years imprisonment, but is likely to serve a life term as he can only be released if the courts determine he is no longer a danger to society.<\/p>\n
The narrative adopted by many press outlets<\/a> was to label Breivik a \u201cChristian fundamentalist\u201d terrorist. My colleagues at GetReligion: Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, Terry Mattingly and Arne Fjeldsted questioned this conventional wisdom. And their concerns about the snap judgments made by many news outlets about Breivik have been proven prescient.<\/p>\n In her piece \u201cThe Atlantic <\/a>has this terrorist all figured out\u201d Mollie noted the welter of confusing claims and statements from the shooter, but questioned\u00a0The Atlantic<\/em> for its dogmatic assertion as to the man\u2019s motives. She wrote:<\/p>\n But The Atlantic<\/em> has figured it all out. Turns out the shooter was led to do all this by his fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity. This hasn\u2019t been a good week for The Atlantic<\/em> and religion news, but let\u2019s see. Maybe they have something to teach us.<\/p>\n Note the url: http:\/\/www.theatlanticwire.com\/global\/2011\/07\/christian-fundamentalist-charged-death-toll-norway-soars-past-90\/40321\/<\/a>. The headline? \u201cThe Christian Extremist Suspect in Norway\u2019s Massacre\u201d<\/p>\n Wow! They must really have access to some exclusive information. I can\u2019t wait to find out what it is.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Turns out there wasn\u2019t any.<\/p>\n A week out from the attack, Tmatt noted some newspapers were moving away from the Christian claims.<\/p>\n At this point, I think most journalists have reached the point that they know that Anders Behring Breivik (a) has self-identified as a \u201cChristian,\u201d (b) yet he also made it clear that he is not a Christian believer, in terms of beliefs and practice and (c) that it is bizarre to call him a \u201cfundamentalist,\u201d in any historic sense of the word.<\/p>\n The early facts indicate that this was a political radical committing an act of political terrorism for political motives, motives that happen to include some idealized vision of resurrecting some kind of old, glorified, \u201cChristian\u201d European culture.<\/p>\n Yes, I know plenty of activist and advocate journalists are sticking with the \u201cChristianist\u201d template. Also, there are academics who are sharpening their swords and taking the usual swings at orthodox forms of religion (\u201cWhen Christianity becomes lethal<\/a>\u201c) Nevertheless, most mainstream journalists seem to be staying in the middle of things and, perhaps, waiting for facts about this terrorist and whatever ties he did or did not have to real people and institutions outside of history books and cyberspace.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Tmatt closed his piece by asking reporters to keep digging.<\/p>\n Well, we now know more about what he has said \u2014 the manifesto plugged that hole, for journalists. We know a bit about what he may or may not have been reading. We know nothing whatsoever about his own religious life and the practice of his faith, if he ever did so. There are no signs of institutional links or real, live clergy of any kind. Again I urge journalists to look for financial ties.<\/p>\n The ultimate question, in terms of religion: Was this man truly a loner, a man living out a brand of faith that he created on his own and, in the end, one in which he serves as the prophet who produces the private scriptures that guide his life and work? In other words, if he calls himself a \u201cChristian,\u201d where is his church, his pew, his altar and his pastor-priest?<\/p>\n Journalists must keep looking for the facts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The first explanation by Deputy Police Chief Roger Andresen in Oslo has been quoted by many media: \u201cHe confirmed that Mr. Breivik belongs to a Christian, fundamentalist, extreme-right environment in Norway.\u201d (Source in Norwegian: from the newspaper Aftenposten<\/em><\/a>.)<\/p>\n However, this description may have been largely misunderstood and misinterpreted, if not simply mistaken and false.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nAnd Arne noted <\/a>the initial police statement that Breivik was a Christian fundamentalist did not stand up.<\/p>\n