Tag Archives: Gabrielle Giffords

Is Anders Breivik a Christian? Does he even believe in God?

I also found this article posted on Evolution News.


To be sure, Breivik identifies himself as “100% Christian” in his manifesto (p. 1403), and he certainly talks incessantly about defending “Christian” civilization. But he also makes clear that his Christianity is a simply pose adopted for political reasons. Answering why he chose to align himself with a group supposedly espousing “Christian values,” he states: “My choice was based purely [on] pragmatism.” (p. 1380) He goes on to explain that “Christianity” has far more “mass appeal” than nationalism, white supremacy, or a revival of paganism, and so it is a more effective “banner” under which to build his movement. (p. 1381) In sum, Breivik views religion like Machiavelli viewed religion–as a political tool. It’s worth noting that Machiavelli’s The Princeis listed by Breivik as one of his favorite books. (p. 1407)

As for his own religious beliefs and practices, Breivik frankly admits: “I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment.” (p. 1344, emphasis added) Indeed, Breivik acknowledges that he used to believe that “Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic.” He continues: “Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f[or] example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well.” (p. 1344, emphasis added) In other words, at best he views his embrace of religion as a psychological crutch to give him strength for his horrific activities. Although he adds that he has not yet actually prayed to God for strength, he expects that he may do so when he goes on his murderous rampage: “If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out… If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past.” (p. 1345) Note the “if” in his statement about whether God exists. Breivik himself doesn’t even appear to believe in God. He frequently identifies himself as a “cultural Christian,” a term which he defines at one point as the same thing as a “Christian atheist.” (p. 1360)

Unsurprisingly, Breivik’s idea of “cultural Christianity” has little to do with Christianity as most people would understand that term. For example, Breivik makes clear that to join his movement for cultural Christianity “[i]t is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.” (p. 1361) Indeed, Breivik would like to expand “Christianity” to include those who worship the Norse pagan god Odin. Breivik calls for the Christian church to be “re-create[d]… as a nationalistic Church which will tolerate and allow (to a very large degree) native cultures/heritage/thought systems such as Odinism.” (p. 1361) And despite using the adjective “cultural,” Breivik’s “cultural Christianity” doesn’t leave much room for Christians to actually influence society apart from social rituals. Indeed, Breivik emphasizes that he wants a secular European state where “[t]he Church and church leaders will not be allowed to influence non-cultural political matters in any way. This includes science, research and development and all non-cultural areas which will benefit Europe in the future. This will also include all areas relating to procreation/birth/fertility policies and related issues of scientific importance (reprogenetics).” (p. 1137, emphasis added)

As can be seen, Breivik harbors a special concern that Christians not be able to influence issues related to science and pubic policy “in any way.” Why?

Because he sees biological science–not traditional religion–as the ultimate savior of society. In his view, advances in biology will makes possible a vigorous new form of Social Darwinism that will save the Nordic race through positive eugenics.

I’m a fairly serious evangelical Christian, and I disagree with everything this madman believes. I wonder why the media was so anxious to paint him as some sort of authentic Christian, when he isn’t one? Authentic Christians take seriously Jesus’ command to “love your enemies”, but I guess that’s not something that people in the media would know about. There is a double standard in the secular left media. They certainly were not willing to label Major Nidal Malik Hasan as an authentic Muslim, even though he was shouting “Allahu Akbar!” as he shot down American troops.

I wonder what God thinks about people in the mainstream media who slam Christians by distorting facts? I’m guessing that he doesn’t like them. I’m guessing that he doesn’t like the way they gloss over the persecution of Christians, either. But that’s a decision they seem willing to make. Just because a mouse is in the cookie jar, it doesn’t make that mouse a cookie.

And one last point. I take it personally when this nut runs around smearing the word knight with his crazy rantings. Last week, I had the pleasure of ordering a lovely bouquet of white roses for a young lady I admire very much. I cleaned up my sports car and put the flowers carefully into the trunk, then drove over there at top speed to present the flowers to her with some other gifts. I wanted to encourage her for doing the many good things that she does. The word “knight” refers to someone who acts chivalrously, gently, mercifully and gallantly. Knights protect and nurture innocent people.

Related posts

Wisconsin Democrat makes death threat against Republican Assemblywoman

From Newsbusters: Wisconsin Dem Assemblyman Tells GOP Assemblywoman ‘You Are F–king Dead’.


Despite the following report from the Northwestern at 12:53 PM Monday, no major media outlet other than Fox News has covered this disgusting story:

Rep. Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, called Rep. Michelle Litjens, R-Winneconne, Monday morning to apologize for his comments that Litjens described as containing an obscenity and the words “you’re dead.” Last week, he accepted responsibility for being issued an ordinance violation for visiting a massage parlor in Appleton that was the subject of a prostitution sting.

In this post-Gabrielle Giffords world, with calls for a new civility, a man that was just busted in the middle of a prostitution sting says “You are f–king dead” to a woman on the floor of the Wisconsin assembly, and America’s media couldn’t care less.

Despite this being reported no later than 10:43 AM, a Google news search identified that apart from Wisconsin outlets, only Fox and conservative websites thought this was at all newsworthy.

As of 12:30 AM Tuesday, according to LexisNexis, no major news outlets reported this event. Closed-caption records for ABC’s “World News,” CBS’s “Evening News,” and NBC’s “Night News” also found no coverage of this issue.

More union thuggery that you’ll probably never hear about in the mainstream media:

Zeitgeist conspiracy movie had profound impact on Jared Loughner

Robert Stacy McCain is ALL OVER this story. Let’s get caught up.

Here’s Zach Osler, a friend of the Tucson murderer.

That’s an Associated Press video.

Transcript excerpt:

“There was a lot of talk about lucid dreaming and understanding reality. . . . And there were a lot of books and movies . . . things that I never would have heard about or watched — things like Loose Change about the 9/11 conspiracy . . . He watched things like that. . . . He had basically nothing going for him, and I think he just couldn’t deal with reality anymore. . . . I know that he was experimenting with the drug, or herb or whatever it is, salvia divinorum. And from what I hear, he used it quite frequently. . . . It’s like a hallucinogenic type of effect.”

McCain also links to more interesting stuff:

Loughner, now 22, would come over several times a week from 2007 to 2008, the Oslers said.

The boys listened to the heavy-metal band Slipknot and progressive rockers the Mars Volta, studied the form of meditative movement called tai chi and watched and discussed movies.

Loughner’s favorites included little-known conspiracy theory documentaries such as “Zeitgeist” and “Loose Change” as well as bigger studio productions with cult followings and themes of brainwashing, science fiction and altered states of consciousness, including “Donnie Darko” and “A Scanner Darkly.” . . .

Roxanne Osler [said]: “Jared struck me as a young man who craved attention and acceptance.”

In another post McCain summarizes a conspiracy theory movie called “Zeitgeist” in another post.

PART I: Attacking Christianity as a ‘Myth’

This segment has been called “The Da Vinci Code on steroids.” Toward the end, the narrator says, “Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It serves to detach the species from the natural world and likewise, from each other. It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that God controls everything.”

PART II: 9/11 Was a Conspiracy

Not much to say here. You’ve seen one 9/11 “Truther” documentary, you’ve seen ‘em all. But the guys at Loose Change can’t sue for copyright infringement because, hey, it’s a “documentary,” and you can’t copyright crazy.


This is the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test of Zeitgeist where, if you’ve gone along with the Jesus-Was-a-Myth stuff and the 9/11-Was-a-U.S.-Plot stuff, you’re going to find yourself throbbing helplessly in spasms of conspiratorial ecstasy, covered in kook-splooge. The U.S. government and “international bankers” scheme behind the scenes to control every damned thing in the world — and plant computer chips in your brain, to boot!

Guess who liked Zeitgeist? Jared Loughner. He liked Zeitgeist a whole lot.

Does Zeitgeist sound like right-wing Tea Party material? It’s an atheistic, anti-American, anti-capitalist movie. And that’s what Jared believed. That’s why he favorited flag-burning videos. He is the complete opposite of a Tea Party conservative.

I wonder why the left-wing mainstream news media isn’t reporting on what Jared’s friends are saying about his views?

In fact, I wonder what the left-wing media thinks of Zeitgeist? I wonder what the left-wing media thinks of Loose Change? I wonder what the left-wing media thinks of capitalism? I wonder what the left-wing media thinks on the war against Islamic extremism? I wonder what the left-wing media thinks of American exceptionalism? I wonder what the left-wing media thinks of Christian theism?

Can they afford to tell the truth about this story?

What was the context of Michele Bachmann’s “armed and dangerous” comment?

Rep. Michele Bachmann
Rep. Michele Bachmann

Recently, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote a column blaming conservatives for creating a “climate of hate”.


The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

So what he is saying is that Michele Bachmann wants conservatives to arm themselves and eliminate their opponents violently. This was in the New York Times.

So, let’s take a look at what Michele Bachmann actually said.


Really now in Washington, I’m a foreign correspondent behind enemy lines. And I try to let everyone back here in Minnesota know exactly the nefarious activities that are taking place in Washington.

But you can get all the latest information on this event. This is a must-go-to event with [the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s] Chris Horner. People will learn. It will be fascinating.

We met with Chris Horner last week, 20 members of Congress. It takes a lot to wow members of Congress after a while. This wows them.

And I am going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax: because we need to fight back.

Thomas Jefferson told us, “Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing.” And we the people are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.

And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of changing freedom forever in the United States. And that’s why I want everyone to come out and hear [Chris Horner]. So go to Bachmann.house.gov and you can get all [of] the information.

See, in context, it’s quite clear that by armed, she means armed with material from Chris Horner on energy taxes (e.g. – the cap and trade bill) and by dangerous she means winning arguments using “all the information”.

If you do a search for “armed and dangerous” and “michele bachmann”, you will find that everybody and their mother on the left is taking the quote out of context in order to smear Michele Bachmann. And I hope that will be a lesson to you about dealing with the claims of people on the left. They hear these things on talk radio or MSNBC and they take them uncritically.

John Hinderaker at Powerline explains the problem with taking Michele Bachmann’s “armed and dangerous” quote out of context. (H/T Hyscience)


Here is a rule of thumb: any time a liberal quotes a fragment of a sentence, or, as in this case, a three-word phrase, a red flag should go up. When liberals quote sentence fragments, they are usually misleading when they aren’t out-and-out fabricated.

My guess is that Krugman has no idea when Michele referred to being “armed and dangerous,” or why, or what the rest of the sentence was. Krugman’s biggest problem isn’t that he is stupid. His biggest problem is that he is lazy. He is incapable of doing even the most rudimentary research, which is why his columns rarely contain many facts, and when they do, his “facts” are often wrong.

As it happens, I–unlike Krugman–know all about Michele’s “armed and dangerous” quote, because she said it in an interview with Brian Ward and me, on our radio show. It was on March 21, 2009. The subject was the Obama administration’s cap and trade proposal. Michele organized a couple of informational meetings in her district with an expert on global warming and cap and trade, and she came on our show to promote those meetings. She wanted her constituents to be armed with information on cap and trade so that they would understand how unnecessary, and how damaging to our economy, the Obama administration’s proposal was. That would make them dangerous to the administration’s left-wing plans.

The interview illustrates quite well the difference between Michele Bachmann and Paul Krugman. Krugman is a vicious hater. He rarely argues any issue on the merits, but prefers to smear those who disagree with him. Bachmann is infinitely better informed than Krugman. All she wants to do is debate her opponents on the facts. Unlike Krugman, she doesn’t hate anyone; her irrepressible good humor is considered a marvel by everyone who knows her.

You can listen to the whole interview at that post on Powerline. I do occasionally listen to the Northern Alliance Radio show.

Is Paul Krugman civil with his opponents?

Of course not!

He writes:

A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy.

This is the first sentence in one of his New York Times columns. I put the link for context, so you can check it out yourself. If I were a leftist journalist, I would have left out the “in effigy” and then spread all over the Internet and on MSNBC. MSNBC edits the news to suit their narrative all the time – it’s not really a news channel at all, it’s just propaganda for the far-left fringe.

Is Paul Krugman seen as reliable?

Not by a bunch of non-conservatives:

Always read the New York Times with a skeptical eye.

You need to watch Fox News and listen to Hugh Hewitt

I really recommend that if any of you who are watching MSNBC and listening to NPR stop that and try an experiment. Switch to watching Special Report on Fox News at 6 PM Eastern every day for an hour. Bret Baier is fair, and you will see him do an amazing thing. The entire second half of the show is a panel discussion with people on the left present, and they get equal time. And if you can watch Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace on Sundays, you get another panel discussion with TWO leftists, usually Juan Williams and Mara Liasson – who work for NPR!!!! (Yes, I know NPR fired Juan) Neither Juan nor Mara are insane – in fact they are quite sensible leftists. Sometimes Bret will have other leftists on, but even they are not too crazy. Do you know why? Because they can’t be crazy when there are conservatives on the panel who get to hold them to account. And the conservatives can’t be crazy, either. That’s how you get the truth – each side corrects the other, and they all get along well – laughing and joking. That’s what Fox News is famous for – fair and balanced. Balanced means you get BOTH sides. Fair means both sides get equal time to talk. It’s a debate every night.

I do not recommend watching the O’Reilly Factor or even Sean Hannity, and especially not Shepherd Smith, who is a radical left wing extremist.

Are people on the political left more civil than those on the right?

Gateway Pundit finds that the ultra-leftist Daily Kos web site put a bulls-eye on Gabriell Giffords for being too conservative.

The Daily Kos post says:

Who to primary? Well, I’d argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I’ve bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis.

[…]Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. If we can field enough serious challengers, and if we repeat the Donna Edwards and Joe Lieberman stories a few more times, well then, our elected officials might have no choice but to be more responsive. Because if we show them that their AT&T lobbyist buddies can’t save their jobs, they’ll pay more attention to those who can.

p.s. Four Blue Dogs voted to protect the Constitution — Baron Hill (IN-09), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), and Mike Thompson (CA-01). They apparently realized that being supposed “moderates” didn’t necessitate selling out to Constitution for George Bush’s imperial presidency.

Guess whose name appears in bold in the list of people with bulls-eyes on their districts? Gabrielle Giffords.

A screenshot of the original post is here. I expect it will be pulled soon, like the other Daily Kos post about Gabrielle Giffords being “dead” to the author after voting against Nancy Pelosi.

What about target maps?

Liberty Pundits found that the Democrats also use maps with targets on them.

This is spite of the fact that Paul Krugman says that the left never uses maps with targets on them. (H/T Nice Deb)

In the past, have people on the left been civil?

Consider this post from Michelle Malkin that is a HUGE collection of tons of hateful, threatening and/or violent things that the left has done in the last 10 years. (H/T Mary)

Here’s the table of contents of the post:

  • V. LEFT-WING MOB HATE — campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists, & unions
  • VIII. HATE: CRIMES — the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection

I caution you about looking at Michelle’s post, although I would call it a must-read if you can handle it. It is all death threats, vulgarity and vitriol from top to bottom. I am talking about guns pointed at the heads of Sarah Palin and George W. Bush, violence, fake blood, signs with death threats. Really sick stuff.

What about Obama? Isn’t he civil?

And more from the Blog Prof.


“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama in July 2008

“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” Obama to Latinos, October 2010

“I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed,” Obama on keeping taxes from increasing, December 6, 2010

“A Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy,” Obama, October 6, 2010

“Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.”  Obama on banks, March 2009

“I want you to argue with them and get in their face!” Barack Obama, September 2008

I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“ Obama on the private sector, June 2010

Do you ever remember Bush using rhetoric like that? Me neither. Because he wasn’t that kind of guy.

Related posts