... and God have mercy on those who (proudly and adamantly proclaiming their christianity and conservatism) make life living hell for the young lesbians and gays and people who think and at different in our churches (adventist and other).

Thanks for a timely and thoughtful article. You conspicuously avoided naming names of individuals who represent that ethos. Here are a few: Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Jan Brewer....

Don Tucie
Testing the proud mantra

We don't need to see his picture, simply look in the mirror and see a mixture of Christianity: piety, guardian of "truth," preserver of the past, and fear, even loathing of the future. Such Christianity is the greatest and most fertile ground of agnosticism.

Sadly, an example of the "ends justify the means" in destroying lives.

This is an example of what happens when ideology overtakes care for human life, protection for human live, no matter what the beliefs are of the individual victims. This man's actions are only the tip of the iceberg. We've seen this same mentality with the shootings of doctors who perform abortions. Hate crimes against gays, women, people of other cultures and religions.

This particular mass murderer is a pawn of evil. He made deliberate decisions to create a manifesto based on an intellectual point of view that went into an extreme action. Murder was his way to make his point. Mass murder of innocent children at camp. This is sick.

Is the Holy Spirit being withdrawn from our planet?

When our own church administrators whack off employment of long-time valued employees and beloved professors without a "let us come together and reason," and individuals with a keyboard can create websites to assassinate the reputations of those who have dedicated their lives to service just because of an ideological disagreement, something different is happening. In the name of purity.

Like the Nazi mission for only people who had "pure" blood of a particular race. It became the driving intellectual argument for mass murder of a hated race.

This is a wake-up call for Christians to look at where extreme "Ann Coulter" hatred (remember her "liberals should die" verbiage) takes someone. Could she or others like her and their powerful language of hate have inspired such actions? In the name of Christianity?

Now in the name of "pure Adventism" are we destroying our own institutions by demanding pure conformity with pre-determined, a priori conclusions about truth? Universities are to be safe places for ideas to percolate, research designed and carried out to explore truth, and for methodology and techniques for searching for answers and truth to be taught. Many ideas may be examined but not all hold up. Why assassinate, professionally, those who examine ideas for truth? Is it a true university that has the final answer before the experiment begins? Is truth progressive? Are Adventist honest searchers?

Unfortunately, we have just seen where extreme ideology has found action this week.

This man's sickening zeal for his truth has created a tragedy of enormous proportions and deep grief for so many families whose lives have been permanently broken.

Where is Adventism going? Did our church release a statement about our sadness and sympathy for the victims? Where is our vioce? Who are we, really? Is this perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, our brother?

". . . like many on the right, fear the loss of power. One sees this phobia expressed in the rhetoric opposing gay marriage, women ministers, or the scientific pedagogy of origins. And while those who wish to conserve a more capitalist, closeted, male dominant, creationist past are not responsible for this violence; fundamentally, Breivik is us.

This is becoming typical of what passes for argument on the Left: "If you oppose our socialist, pro-gay rights, feminist, Darwinist agenda, you are phobic, and you're right on the edge of going on a murder spree." Such is the liberal's stunned incomprehension of anyone who opposes his agenda. Nice touch adding the "scientific pedagogy of origins"; it echoes Lee Grismers opinion that those who oppose Darwinism are the same ones "who fly planes into buildings."

The Left examines the ranting of each new murderous psychopath in the hopes of finding some lever to stifle the political speech of its opponents. The Left tried this with the nut in Arizona who shot the congresswoman, even though he had no discernible ideology.

The irony is that while the Left hopes to blame the atrocities of anyone who can be portrayed as Christian or conservative on the ideology, it always gives its own ideology a free pass. Darwinism led to eugenics and the Nazi ideology of a "Master Race"? No problem, don't blame good science for the acts of bad people. Socialism led to the murder of untold millions of human beings in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia? No problem, they just didn't implement it properly; we will do it right the next time around. The atrocities of societies organized around left-wing principles are never blamed on those left-wing principles (at least not by the Left).

The endless, daily stream of Muslim atrocities are never the fault of the politico-religious ideology of Islam, but always the result of ignorance, poverty, or Western colonialism of Islamic countries (even though that ended long before the current wave of terrorism). In the case of the Oslo bombing, when it was reasonably suspected of being Muslim terrorism (and one Muslim group was even claiming "credit") the Norwegians were already being blamed for re-publishing the Muhammad cartoons. It was going to be their fault, not the Muslim terrorist's fault. In the mind of a Leftist, and in the narrative of the Leftist-dominated media, Muslim terrorism is always perpetrated by an extremist who "misunderstood" his own religious tradition. The actual religio-political ideology of Islam is never, ever to blame, even though its source writings and traditions commit the pious, believing Muslim either to fight, or to support with zakat, endless Jihad warfare against the infidel until all the world is either dead, in dhimmitude, or has acknowledged that there is no God but Allah, and converted to Islam.

But God forbid that some deluded, homicidal, psychopath ever claim--in contradiction of every biblical principle--the mantle of Christianity, or worse, conservatism or anti-jihadism. If that happens, he was himself a joint victim of Christianity or the conservative ideology, which is all about hate, control, power and murder.

With the Left constantly resorting to this type of argumentation, is it any wonder that this country, and for that matter the SDA Church, are more ideologically divided than they have ever been?

Rich, if you don't share these leftist tendency that I describe, please feel free to denounce them. Or, in your mind, you can just insert "many on the" before each time I used the term "Left."

This homicidal maniac goes on a killing spree, and only Spectrum could find a way to link it to Adventists who believe in a literal 6-day creation or who believe the Bible sanctions sex only between a man and a woman in marriage!

Thank you Spectrum blog for keeping the left- wing agenda out front before all the church to see. You truly the best thing to happen to moderate to conservative Adventism in decades

I find the dovetailing of David Read's ideological manifestos and those of the alleged perpetrator of these crimes to be disturbing. Highly disturbing.

No the killer is not a Christian. Jesus never taught that. True disciples of Jesus do not do that.

http://news.adventist.org/2011/07/norwegian-adventist.html

Breivik is a terrorist. The motive that drove him to do these horrible acts is the same motive that drove many other terrorists that did the 9/11 or bombing US embassies or subways in London, Madrid, etc.

Do we assume that all (or most) Christians share this same sentiments and belief as Breivik? Do we think that the Norwegian people are same as Breivik? Do we pick passages in the Bible that condone the killings of ancient time as proof that God’s chosen people are taught that way?

We do not.

But there have been people who tend to categorize all Muslims are terrorist or terrorist sympathizers since 9/11. About time people learn to put themselves in other people's shoes.

I am Asian American. To tell the truth, the day after 9/11, I knew it did go through my mind the thought that, "good" thing that these terrorists were not Asians, otherwise I would be so scared and knowing that somehow, a piece of my citizen rights had been taken away from me. 55+ years before that, Japanese Americans were robbed a large chunk of their citizen rights after Pearl Harbor; half a century later, we were still behaving the same way.

Rachel

Alex----I am one that dosen't find much of any place in Adventism. Gaging from Spectrum and the what seems to be the preponderance of commenters I don"t find a place. Yet I also do not find a place in David Read's SDA community.
Yet now I find myself repulsed at your comment regarding Mr. Read. It seems to me that your invective is precisely the type that Jim Coffen rightfully chastised Cliff Goldstein for this spring and negatively conflats your desire for community
I respectfully call upon you to remove your comment above . Respectfully submitted---John

I couldn't disagree more completely. There was no comparison of one individual to another, merely a comparison of ideas posted in public forums. A comparison of ideas written for all to consume is fair game. Alex makes a strong point and those who object to his making it would do themselves benefit to actually read it carefully again and think through the points. There are both great truths and significant warnings in what Alex penned (OK, keyed).

"Rather than responding to the substance of Reads assertions Alex spins them as "terrorist" like-mindedness.
Pretty much confirms Reads point. Anyone who dares question a liberal will be labeled with various phobias etc."

Right on, Michael. Libs have one objective, it appears, to make everyone like them! Conformity to political correctness. Scorn constructive statements by those not in the liberal fold. I don't recall ever seeing the liberal fable so clearly exposed as it has been in this particular blog. Heaven help us.

Because they've cocooned themselves in their own ideologically pure enclaves in academia and media, liberals can no longer engage with conservatives on the level of ideas. They've lost the capacity to do that. They can only label conservative ideas as "phobias" and conservatives as "phobic." (By the way, this tactic was used in Leftist paradises like the late Soviet Union, where if you disagreed with the party line, you had mental health issues.)

Concerned about resurgent jihadism? You're Islamophobic. Don't want to abandon the scriptural standard on homosexual practice? You're homophobic. Don't agree with having Darwinian professors evangelizing for the atheist origins narrative in Adventist colleges? You have a phobia of scientific pedagogy.

This labeling of their ideological opponents as having psychological problems relieves them of the need to engage with ideas, and make actual arguments based upon facts and reason. It's actually very lazy. Maybe they have thinking phobia.

"Just relieved that the perpetrator wasn't an Adventist . . . (hopefully) . . . even though both events took place in the shadow of Adventist property."

Fundamentalist sects attract people with inflexible worldviews in the spectrum of fanaticism. Those who merely write there rigid manifestos and those who become a Koresh or Breivik (just like those who think God talks to them and Sybil) are separated by a thin veil. Those who would provide spiritual leadership through the spectrum of fanaticism are like those would be criminals who chose to become cops instead. It doesn't take much to set them off.

Tolerate everything but intolerance.

David & Cliff... I have just one question. Why do you keep coming back here if you hate what is said so much?
Do you think we need to be monitored by self appointed thought police? (or were you sent here by some higher power?)
Are you trying to save us from Apostasy? (to call us out of Babylon as it were)
Do you see yourselves as the devil's advocate?

Surely it is better to spend your time connecting with communities that are intended to minister to you, and leave ministries that were set up to minister to the needs of others to find their own way through the black night. These are dark enough times without you coming here trying to snuff our candles every chance you get...

The Norwegian terrorist who murdered these ninety-plus innocent civilians - many of whom were teenagers - did not act alone. Or rather, he acted within a religious, cultural and political context that legitimizes his rigid, entitled, fearful and hate-infested worldview. It is now clear that Anders Behring Breivik was exposed to large amounts of religious and cultural right-wing propaganda. This tragedy underlines the urgency with which normal people around the world must combat the religious fundamentalist, nationalists and chauvinists wherever they may be. But it also demonstrates the extent to which reactionary bigotry, but it religious or cultural, has infected mainstream thought.

odysseusonthestyx

The answer is obvious--they enjoy the spankings.

Thank you, Atle Haugen, for providing some first hand perspective!
Blessings and peace to Tyrifjord.

I happened to be visiting my daughter in Norway when this nightmare happened 60 miles away. As pastor Haugen says, the island where this took place is so close to the SDA academy that everybody from such a background knows exactly where it is. The shock of these events has cut across every political and ideological barrier. The perpetrator's religion has not been much of an issue here, because they instinctively understand that his Christian faith, although real enough for him to write about praying for God to bless his jihad, is more cultural than religious. He is Christian in the mold of Ronald Reagan and Bill O'Reille: strong on rhetoric but weak on practice. Like them, he apparently was not a church-goer. Of course, he added more to the equation than political conservativism and religion. Like the Baptist preachers of the old South who served as chaplains for the KKK, the US's oldest terrorist group, he bridged the gap between rhetoric and action.

That is the biggest difference between Breivik, the mass-murdering jihadist and those of his ideological comrades of the paranoid Right--moving from metaphor to action.

It's troubling when people are crazy in your name. That's what happened in this case. A cold-blooded killer massacred scores of young people in the name of thousands who'd never themselves even think of perpetrating such crimes. That, however, doesn't mean that they didn't share a common rhetoric and a common enemy.

The killer is a human. Like every other killer on the planet. Some kill for socially acceptable reasons, others for not socially acceptable reasons.

Some kill in the name of governments. Others against governments (local or foreign).

Some are killers indirectly through participating in the production or benefits of that which kills (quickly or slowly, directly or through injustices and inequities).

Some kill in the name of religion. Others kill in spite of religion.

Some kill humans. Others kill nature (individual or small aspects through to ecological death). Some kill both.

We live in a time and culture of much death and destruction but many of us only notice when it is the most obvious violent acts and are horrified.

Yet if we opened our eyes and hearts to the death, violence and destruction that constantly plays out in the world as part of "the way things are'' we would be shocked and would strive, hopefully, for massive change in our world.

One can only hope.

There still is a difference, Aage. War, murder and abuse of women can hardly be justified by any word of Jesus, nor his actions and example. Mohammad, on the other hand, clearly has a more dubious track record...

The main point, however, is that people has USED religion as ideology for violence in all ages. Wheteher it is Christian or Muslim doesn't justify it.

Hey, according to the OSAS crowd, if he EVER claimed the blood of JESUS, he is saved and will just lose some of his reward in heaven.

Cliff
Darwinism has serious and disastrous consequences if its description of the evolutionary process--the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest--is used as political imperative, but that's mostly been a preoccupation among politicians on the extreme Right, such as currently run the Republican party. Liberals want to confine Darwin to biology. To liberals evolution is descriptive, to way too many conservatives, it's prescriptive.

Muslim terrorists act within a religious cultural and political context that legitimizes their rigid, entitled, fearful and hate-infested worldview--but no more so that Christian or Jewish terrorists. The problem isn't Christian,Muslim or Jew. It is rigid, entitled, fearful and hate-infested worldviews, like examples of which we see promulgated by a few on this forum.

Come on, Alex, don't take it so personal, or get so hot under the collar. I think you just stretched things a bit much. I saw your nuances in there, and they weren't so nuanced, though. Why didnt you include something in there about those in academia who are fanatical anti creationsists or anti religionists? Or does the dangerous link exist only with those who take firm stands on positions you don't agree with?

"rescued", we're making progress. I'm pleased by your admission.

Now, do you think there might be anything to learn from the fact that the ratio of Muslim terrorists to Christian terrorists is about 500 to 1? And might there be anything to learn from the fact that Christian terrorists are always cultural Christians, whereas Muslim terrorists are typically quite fervent, committed, believing, active, participating Muslims who unquestioningly believe that those 72 houri are waiting for them in paradise? And might there be anything to learn from the fact that Christian terrorists never quote the Bible or call on the name of Jesus while they are killing people, whereas Muslims usually shout "Allahu Akbar" (God is greater) while in the act of terror?

Just points to ponder.

Are the Christians who have bombed abortion clinics merely cultural, or are they, in their own minds, acting out their fervent belief by going to extreme measures to protect the unborn? Just a question...

Thanks...

Frank

Actually, the last significant anti-abortion violence, the murder of Dr. Tiller, was done by a cultural Christian with mental health problems. He was also an anti-governmental activist, which is an non-Christian position very contrary to Jesus' and the apostle Paul's explicit instruction.

Whenever you mention Jihad terror, you can always count on some liberal to mention abortion clinic bombings (even though there hasn't been one in a decade). But every significant Christian church and church official condemns such violence. It has zero support from any organized branch of Christianity. By contrast, Muslim terror exploits a universal Muslim duty to fight or support jihad, and has significant organizational, monetary, and religious support.

Anonymous1, I can tell by your comments that you don't really understand what "multiculturism" means in the European context.

Multi-culturalism is to be contrasted with the American ideal of a melting pot, or e pluribus unum. The American attitude has been, at least historically, "we don't care where you came from or what your original culture was, we're going to turn you into Americans." We're going to take the many and turn them into one American culture--out of many, one. The downside is that you're going to have to leave your culture, to the extent it conflicts with American culture, behind. The upside is that once you learn our language and adopt the key aspects of Americanism, you'll be just as much an American, just as much one of us, as someone whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower. It doesn't matter if your father was a black African lapsed Muslim intellectual, you can be one of us, and even be our president.

European multiculturalism means something completely different. It means we won't try to make you adopt our culture--you can hang onto your own culture and practice it just as you did in the old country--but you'll never be one of us. You'll never be one of us, because you'll never be of our race. Hence, we don't even want you to conform to our culture, because that would just make us feel guilty about excluding you from our in-group because of your racial and ethnic heritage. Frankly, we let you come over here just to do our scut work. So go cut on your daughters' genitals to your heart's content--we won't try to stop you--but don't ever think you're going to be one of us.

Now, which is really more racist, the American melting pot--the e pluribus unum model--or the European multicultural model?

You may not want to hear this from me, but it is a fact, and you can learn it from many others sources, including the liberal, homosexual activist Bruce Bawer, in his book, "While Europe Slept" and also his more recent book.

Hopeful, if you're trying to say that it is even more important (and perhaps even definitional), in terms of Christian behavior, to not commit murder than it is to submit to the lawful authorities, then I agree. They're both important points of Christian doctrine and deportment, but not committing murder is the more crucial.

Perhaps it would be relevant to point out that the LSU Biology Department, as well as individual faculty members, have received multiple confirmed death threats over the past 2 1/2 years, the latest coming less than one month ago (against the whole department). These threats have of course been turned over to law enforcement. I think it's safe to say the police are taking the threats of these nutjobs seriously. Thank goodness the et boys have nothing to do with inciting any of this disturbing behavior . . .

R.E.O.

Good point; probably not all the bodies are in the grave yet, and Spectrum finds a way to take a shot (however cheap, and far fetched) at Adventists who haven't bought into its far-left agenda. To pull out a famous quote from recent history, "Have you no sense of shame, sir?"

Whoa. Anonymous7 shared something even more disturbing:

Perhaps it would be relevant to point out that the LSU Biology Department, as well as individual faculty members, have received multiple confirmed death threats over the past 2 1/2 years, the latest coming less than one month ago (against the whole department).

I completely fail to understand why the General Conference has not distanced itself from ET. Is there one GC employee to date who has publicly stated disagreement with ET's tactics?

I have found violence by antiabortionist quite interesting. If you have a group teaching that fetuses are the same as children you then have to believe that there are clinics where children are being brought in and systematically being torn apart and disposed of. Now to have a whole body of believes in the sanctity of life and not a one of them willing to step in and volunteer his or her life to save others from mutilation and death speaks of a not very firm conviction.

David
You exemplify a long-standing American problem, that of understanding the world outside the borders of the US. To those of us who grew up in Europe and to those still living there, internal American debates about socialism and health care--and in your case, multiculturalism--makes it clear that many Americans have only vague ideas about what the continent is all about.

You wrote:"European multiculturalism means something completely different. It means we won't try to make you adopt our culture--you can hang onto your own culture and practice it just as you did in the old country--but you'll never be one of us. You'll never be one of us, because you'll never be of our race (David Read). People have accused you of finding your information on cereal boxes, and this quote makes me wonder. Just because Fox News doesn't know any better, is no excuse for well-educated people such as yourself.

The reality of the matter is that integration is not an easy matter anywhere, and especially not when differences in religion are part of the equation. There are and have always been pockets of immigrants who've never fully integrated into the American mainstream. The Amish and the Hasidim are only the most noticeable examples. We have China-towns in many cities with thousands who still don't speak functional English. We have clusters of Somalis and Arabs who subsist in geographical enclaves which only partially overlap mainstream America. And what about African-Americans, who were denied the privilege of integration until the 1960s. Many of them still are not part of the American mainstream, either geographically or culturally.

Academics have long suggested that the old metaphor of the melting pot be replaced by that of the salad bowl. We come in many colors and many flavors. A tomato will never become a lettuce, and that is something to be appreciated, not deplored.

Experts debate who's better at managing multi-culturalism, the US or Europe. That's a legitimate question, and people of good will may and will disagree. Norway was attacked by Breivik because of its perceived success. Immigrants are highly visible on national TV and in the media in general. Most of them are very supportive of Norway. In Breivik's twisted mind the immigrant bridgehead could only be wiped out by a massive insurrection of right-wing nationalists who would have to be prepared to wage 70 years of of guerilla warfare.

Goodgod
Isn't that also the case with religion?

Aage and Elaine, unfortunately your usage of "religion" here is very problematic. Yes, "religion" can certainly motivate terrible actions...and also extraordinarily heroic actions. To repeat what I said earlier, there is simply no such thing as "religion" in the sense of some kind of timeless, transhistorical essence that underlies all particular expressions of religion. To say that "religion" makes people do bad things is therefore as meaningful as saying "politics" makes people do bad things. The trouble remains even if we try to specify a broad tradition such as "Christianity" or "Islam". Christianity inspired arguments for slavery in the Americas (by, for example, Juan Gines de Sepulveda). It also inspired the first human rights campaign to end genocidal violence in the Americas (by Bartolome de las Casas). Arguably, las Casas was far more devout than Sepulveda, basing his arguments upon the New Testament where Sepulveda based his largely on Aristotle. It would therefore make much more sense to talk of "Christianities" and "Islams" (plural) that are often in tension with each other. This point has been made by scholars like Talal Asad, Russell McCutcheon, Timothy Fitzgerald, and Bill Cavanaugh.

There are governments of the world who we would consider terrorists of the world for their abusive (foreign policy, military and otherwise) behavior if they were doing it to us and if they weren't on our side.

The phrase "melting pot" hasn't been considered an accurate or current concept/goal in the U.S. in a long time.

REO,

I didn't clarify "religion" but it still stands: while good people to be good is what is expected; for good people it takes religion to do bad things. Certainly, it is an abuse of religion, but surely, the Crusades were one example where religion, on both the part of Christians and Muslims, was the instigating force for recruiting: to take back the Holy City.

It is well recognized that religion has been both abused as excuses, as well as abusing. History has demonstrated that religion is a very effective tool to recruit by leaders who understand humans reverence for religion. It is even seen today in many TV preachers: in the name of religion people will give money they need for food; they will have faith that miracles will be performed, and the money rolls in!

In the Norwegian massacre, this appears to have been the plan of a very radical, even cruel individual who valued no lives but his own. All who claim to be Christians do not live by its principles.

Frank, there's no question that people often self segregate, but that doesn't vitiate the melting pot ideal. It's always been true that first generation immigrants flock to the same neighborhoods, for reasons of comfort and convenience, but they don't expect their children to stay in those neighborhoods, and wouldn't like it if they thought the larger society expected or demanded that. For many, it would stymie their main reason for coming here: to give their children a better life with more opportunities.

It's also true that for many on the Left, and in the governing and intellectual class, the melting pot or "e pluribus unum" model is no longer the ideal. They follow the European model in this as in so many other areas (and we conservatives oppose them in this as in so many other areas). Again the key to understanding liberalism is to understand the self-loathing and uncritical exaltation of the Other. It is inconceivable that our ruling elites would want or expect immigrants to conform to a culture that the ruling elites themseves despise, or at least have been taught to despise by their professors at university. And whatever the immigrant group's culture, even if it involves female genital mutilation and honor killing, it is certainly better than our culture. Any University educated person understands that right down to his marrow. So multiculturalism is the model for at least the left-leaning portion of
America's opinion leaders.

In Europe, it's even worse, since the european political spectrum doesn't even have the conservative half of the American political spectrum, but is composed entirely of the liberal half (with some communist groups and racist neo-fascist or neo-nazi groups thrown in for spice). Melanie Phillips has written about the active obliteration of Britain's remarkable heritage, carried out by a ruling class that
has been taught to despise the history of what was really a great nation and a great, and wonderfully
civilizing empire.

Many predict that the combination of ruling-elite self loathing, multi-culturalism, and large scale Muslim immigration is going to cause serious problems in Europe, sooner rather than later. As Mark Steyn has pointed out, Muslim are having large families whereas native Europeans can't be bothered to breed. But remember that when Constantine converted to christanity in the early fourth century and made it the official religion of the empire, Christians were only ten percent of the population. A small, dynamic group of believers can control a much larger population of decadent, self-absorbed, culturally self-doubting non-believers. True then, and true now.

Aage - I agree with your take on liberalism. Am proud to declare myself as a liberal according to your understanding!

Whose definition of Christian is Spectrum going to accept? The "Moral Majority"?, The "Religious Right"? Those that cry out "Lord, Lord"? Or those who will not a brusied reed brake or a smoderling flax quench?

The Gospel Commission is: "Go ye therefore and teach!" Not "Go ye therefore and kill1"

A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ--even to Golgotha's hill. James, Stephan, Paul, Peter and thousands of others.

The militancy of Adventism since WWII is shocking.

The very words Revival and Reformation smack of a militancy of purge dimensions.

Chrstianity is invitational, winsone, Christians, plant, water, till, and hedge about. God does the harvesting. "Wait I say, Wait upon the Lord!" Tom Z

Read the commencement speech that was never given. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/boortz.asp

Sounds like the author has really pegged the liberals. Take note, Alex.

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[an Aramaic term of contempt] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. - Matt 5:21-22

Are we not all murderers?

And, Dr. Pitman, but you are foremost among those who public declare "You fool" to those whom you disagree with. There is no excuse for anyone threatening you physically, if that is what you are claiming, but apparently you have reaped that which you have sown. You have orchestrated more hatred toward your brethren in Christ (i.e., murder) than any SDA in recent history--and you revel in it.

Sorry, David Read, I don't buy it.

Your response and spin to the Norwegian tragedy is patronizing and offensive, a little on the I-know-more-than-you-do side.

I'm sorry my comments comparing the perpetrator's motivations as flat-out racism and hatred of diversity offended you.

As one whose doctoral work includes international studies, I recognize anti-diversity and racism in this raw form, regardless of country or "melting pot" mottos. Just because you believe a particular spin or viewpoint does not necessarily make your theory so, just true for you.

The perpetrator was possessed with an out-and-out hatred for those with differences. His anti-diversity beliefs (which I believe to be totally opposed to Christ's inclusiveness) included attending to websites that fueled this hatred and culminated in horrendous violence. Tragic violence. Hatred in his heart fueled this crime. Hatred like the Jews' hatred of Samaritans in Christ's day, for example.

Alex's (warning) point in a nutshell is that this anti-brother/sister, anti-diversity, anti-immigration, anti inclusiveness verbiage and stance can be found in the very rhetoric of the American political (and some on the religious) extreme right. (See Glen Beck's outrageous comments today comparing the Norwegian young victims with Hitler youth.)

Those who embrace and are sympathetic to anti-immigration extreme views are the most offended by Alex's astute observations.

Is it really so controversial to acknowledge that there are a small number of people out there who can be pushed over the edge by those who are highly invested in fanning the flames of fear unnecessarily?

If you describe a group of people as a much greater threat then they really are, and then someone decides to protect themselves against that threat using violence, I'm sorry but you share at least part of the blame.

I don't know much about Norway (reading The Snowman doesn't count.) But right now in our country we have prominent people who are gaining power by whipping people's fears up beyond what is necessary. And yes, they share a small part of the responsibility when some shattered soul decides to follow their rantings out to the logical end.

Are gay men really barbarians that have no sexual ethics and mostly want access to your 12 year old son? Well then if one happens to dare talk to your boy, wouldn't you be justified in protecting your son physically, teaching that monster a lesson in the process?

If Muslims really can't assimilate and are intent on destroying a nation's way of life, wouldn't it make sense for someone who really loves his country to sacrifice himself and destroy those who are blindly letting the Muslims in?

When groups of people are described using extreme language, no one should be surprised when someone uses extreme behavior in response.

"Regarding how American liberals love their country, it is sort of like how a man loves his petite blond wife, but secretly wishes she was a large black man. Liberals don't love the Christian, capitalist American that actually exists, they love the secular, socialistic American that they would like to "totally transform" it into." --David Read

Whaaat?!

There is certainly a culture of fear within our church and some others when members and employees are controlled by fear. The Bible says "perfect love casts out fear." What can we conclude?

Thugs control by heavy-handed domination. God offers love.

Rene Girard has addressed the "scapegoating" that humans have engaged in since the beginning of time:

""Human culture is predisposed to the permanent concealment of its origins in collective violence." This is exactly what politicians, scholars, and the press have been doing in regard to early Islam."

There is the tendency within all humans to scapegoat those who they do not understand, nor attempt to engage in communication to be better informed of those who are different. Underneath each of us is a propensity to reject what we do not understand. And few want to initiate the understanding that would bring the realization that we all want the same things: necessities of life for our families and the freedom to work and produce and to practice life as we choose. Only a very minute few resort to violence to gain what they want.

Aage Rendalen - Wed, 07/27/2011 - 02:36:

"The Muslims of Europe feel extremely vulnerable because liberal Europe is converting their kids to secular humanism, the religion of the continent."

Aage Rendalen - Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:23:

You speak of liberals as if they were monsters out to destroy Western culture. They are people without morals, "secular hedonists."

Aage, you said that the religion of the continent was secular humanism. You said that. Then I responded by saying, in effect, assuming that's true, it still won't help with the Muslims. Now, for playing along with your assertion that the religion of Europe is secular humanism, you accuse me of saying that liberals are monsters out to destroy Western culture. That's just mind bending.

Nowhere did I say that secularists were "without morals"; that's just something you made up out of whole cloth in a fit of hysteria. It is true that I added the term "hedonist;" I guess I did that because I've heard versions of your argument--that European Muslims will become secularists--that say that the sexual freedom of Western societies will seduce young Muslims away from Islam. You didn't make that argument, but it is associated with the argument you made, so I responded to it.

". . . the only logical Breivik conclusion would be that such people should not be allowed to run for office, or to be recognized for what they are when elected, and that whoever exterminated them would do the world a great favor."

No, that isn't a logical conclusion, it is an insane conclusion. A logical conclusion is that you should make your arguments, try to influence as many as you can, vote and urge like-minded people to vote, and if you lose, then grumble about how your country is going to hell. That's what those of us who are sane do. Those of us who are insane starting shooting their neighbors.

"You're dabbling in hate speech, and the fact that you yourself will never lift your hand against anybody, is no excuse."

No, I'm not engaging in hate speech. I'm engaging in reasoned argument, supported by facts and logic. You're reacting like anyone who is losing an argument reacts--you start hurling invective, insults, ad hominem, and hysterics.

RE: The difference between the American melting pot philosophy and European multi-culturalism that I argued to Anonymous1 and that Aage took issue with, please consider the thoughts of Bruce Bawer, a liberal homosexual activists who has spent several years in Europe, including living in the Netherlands and in Norway:

"In America, immigrants tend to make the switch to English relatively quickly; by contrast, many European children of immigrants are barely able to speak the language of the country in which they were born. Immigrants to the United States are, moreover, far more likely to enter the workforce--and are better paid--than are immigrants to Europe. Indeed, while immigrants to America are encouraged to become full members of society--and are rewarded for doing so--in Europe (where the native-born children and grandchildren of immigrants are actually called "second- and third-generation immigrants") the establishment prefers its minorities unintegrated. Why? The supposed reason is that it respects the differences; the real reason, as I gradually came to understand, was a profound discomfort with the idea of "them" becoming "us." Immigrants to Europe are allowed to perpetuate even the most atrocious aspects of their cultures, but the price for this is that no one, including themselves, will ever think of them as Dutch or German or Swedish. Most Americans, I think, would be shocked to realize how far short of America Europe falls in this regard." Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept, pp. 55-56.

"Americans think of Europeans as being cosmopolitan, sophisticated, international-minded. Certainly, Europeans see themselves that way. In fact, they're far more traditionalist and nativist than we are. Mauricio Rojas, a Chilean-Swedish economic historian, has described his adopted country as "a tribal society . . . a good tribe! Very peaceful and nice! But a tribe." I would say exactly the same thing about Norway: despite the high level of Americanization . . . tribal customs predominate to an extent I never would have imagined before moving here. For example, though the great majority of Norwegians have stopped going to church or believing in anything in particular, confirmation remains a beloved universal rite of passage * * * all these things are aspects of the experience of being Norwegian, and they're all things that Norwegians plainly don't want to change, and that they can't easily imagine immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, becoming a part of. Indeed, they don't really want outsiders to take part in these traditions. Yet at the same time they think they believe in integration. The truths is that they don't understand the radical process that is true integration--a process that's been a part of American life for generations." (pp. 73-74)

David
Bruce Bawker is no loon. I grant you that but the fact that he makes unsubstantiated claims about Europeans and their attitudes to integration doesn't mean he is right.

Fact or opinion:"in Europe (where the native-born children and grandchildren of immigrants are actually called "second- and third-generation immigrants") the establishment prefers its minorities unintegrated."

Fact or opinion: "....Indeed, they don't really want outsiders to take part in these traditions [confirmation]."

Fact or opinion:" Immigrants to Europe are allowed to perpetuate even the most atrocious aspects of their cultures, but the price for this is that no one, including themselves, will ever think of them as Dutch or German or Swedish."

Breivik the killer not only lived in Norway, he was ethnic Norwegian, yet he drew even more warped conclusions than Bawker from what he observed. Going with your gut can sometimes lead you in the right direction; generally, though, it helps to base your conclusions on facts.

As for your labeling "secular humanism"--which is what I subscribe to--as 'hedonism', I do indeed take offense at that. 'Secular' means simply that you lead your life without reference to a god. 'Humanism' refers to a philosophy perhaps best summed up in the Golden Rule. Hedonism means putting personal pleasure above any and all moral obligations. To you and your am-radio friends it probably goes without saying that liberals and humanists also are hedonists, since they're rotten through and through, by definition. The reality is that hedonism is as much a problem for Christians as it is for anybody else, just ask Doctor Pippim.

Aage,

Did Alex note any similarities at the time. This is not a new policy of Alex...to draw correlations when beneficial to progessive thought vs the fanactical "right.".

I am merely pointing out this Norway guy also used some unibomber material...so it is relative to this discussion implicating by "correlation" supposed "progressives" and "conservative" political thought.

regards,
pat

In the photo above, his eyes are dilated in bright light - drugged with something, my guess.

Perhaps we're arguing about irrelevant things?

David Read,

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Aage born and raised in Norway? Didn't he spend most of his career there?

Perhaps you put a lot of stock in Bawer's anecdotes, but Aage has a great deal of credibility as a Norwegian native.

David,
Why should the views of other Europeans be an embarrassment to him personally? He is not responsible for their views...

Alrighty then. We've descended to ad hominem, & nothing but. EDITORS?!

Look at his face; look at his eyes - he's on some kind of substance - I'd bet on it!

Look at his expression in the police van - he has the look of the insane, but I can't make a case of that, of course.

I'm curious about his drug history: street drugs? psychiatric drugs?

I'm curious to know if he's had a traumatic brain injury.

I want to know his childhood history. His father has disowned him now - that is information.

I'm not saying that Michael Moore is "revealing" the cause of Columbine, but I think we should get very, very curious when things like this happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04UqzYOdGNs

If a person is possibly insane, our moralizing about his belief system, in itself, sounds out of touch with reality, it seems to me.

This has to be a very complex story; it will not yield itself to simple explanations. All such acts are overdetermined, surely. (Overdetermined: vulnerable to a traumatic accumulation of factors.)

I agree with Beth that a polarizing environment can push vulnerable people over the edge.

And we know next to nothing about him as a human being.

It has to bother him a lot for me to expose what multiculturalism really is.

*************

David...

Now you assume what Aage's emotional responses and reactions are? It just seems from the tone of your posts, that people are simply classified by their political and religious beliefs...not as complex beings with a complexity of views. Very few people can be classified in a monolithic way as liberal or conservative. So many have a mixture of attitudes on a variety of issues. And even if there are those come down on the "conservative" or "liberal" side of most things, tossing out labels becomes an easy way to discount, to pigeon-hole, and to not engage with a person...just to talk at a caricature with a label you've placed upon them. You have mastered this skill.

It just seems that it's all about winning the argument and annilhating your opposition...not about respectfully engaging in a give and take.

Frank

Frank
You're exactly right. I, like most people, hold both liberal and conservative points of view. I prefer to identify as liberal, but I don't believe that all religions are equal, that all points of view and all cultural practices are equally good. The traditional Muslim way of treating women is indefensible. Genital mutilation is abominable. I call myself liberal mostly to make it clear that I'm not a social Darwinist and that I'm open to evidence-based truth.

As for Bawer's contention (via David) that immigrants to Norway face prejudice in the job market, I don't know anybody who disagrees. I'm sure--in fact, I know for a fact-- that African-Americans here in the US could relate very similar stories. Norway has managed to wipe out poverty, but while it is working on original sin, it isn't quite there yet.

David Read,

"I stand by my description of European "multi-culturalism." It means do our scut work and stick to your own neighborhoods, and in return we won't hassle you about female genital mutilation."

That's definitely not true, you cannot generalize this way! I was born in Romania and later came to Germany - and with my certainly foreign-sounding name attended medical school, got good jobs, got a raise in the clinic hierarchy. After marrying my German husband, I chose to keep my foreign-sounding name - only when our baby daughter was born, I gave it up for a family name. One of the best dermatology practices in town is owned by a guy with a Pakistani name and a foreign-looking face, the leader of a political party in our part of Germany has Turkish roots and a Turkish name- and I could give you lots of other examples from friends and collegues. So please stop generalizing - while there may be cases of prejudice everywhere, European multi-culturalism is something I really value from first-hand experience. Maybe instead of just reading Brawer's or whoever's experience, just come over and see for yourself!

Right on Nic! The only response to armchair know-it-alls is to laugh at the ignorance and paucity of reasonable thought (and weep that such arrogance and blindness is so widespread - and has repercussions that are sad and even disturbing).

The place to start with is with a definition of a Christin.A Christian is a fallen human being who has a confident belief faith) that the Christ Event is historically true and the effective means of rescue and restoration to wholeness and life everlasting.

That faith accepts that Jesus of nazareth was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, without sin, yet with the form and substance of mankind from the creative act in the formation of Adam the federal man of planet Earth.

That faith accepts Jesus was co-existent with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

That faith accepts that Jesus was the member of the Godhead that created the earth and subsequently it's bio-mass including Adam, whole without blemish or sin to the the Federal man of earth.

That faith accepts the Everlasting Covenant between the members of the Godhead that if man was deceived by the fallen Angel (known as the devil, Satan, Lucifer, the dragon of the Book of Revelation).) Christ would become the surety--become man, confront the devil, suffer the "second" death --as a substitute, rise again as the New Adam, the New Federal Man and redeem believing man and recover the dominion lost by Adam.

That faith accepts the Character of God, as revealed in the life of Christ. That revelation displays God as a God of love, compassion, healing, and redemption.

That fath understands that the human condition is the result of sin, disodedience, and rebellion--like rain, it falls upon all mankind not just those who opening reject the Christ Event as being theologically an historically true.

That faith understands that Redemption is an invitational gift. Any and all who accept the "Finished work of Christ" will be covered with His Righteousnes known Biblically as the wedding garment the sum of the faithful as the Bride of Christ.

That faith understands that in the fullness of time Christ came as man. Lifewise in the fullness of time, Christ will return as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

In the meantime, God, in Christ, has shown us what is good. "To do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God" Mich 6:8

That faith understands:

"To do Justly"--means to live an ethical life of service to one's fellow man.

To Love mercy"----means to deal in fairness and in a forgiving manner towards all regardless of real or apparent injustce by others.

To Walk humbly with thy God"--means to remain teachable growing in Grace, Gratitude, and Generosity.

That Faith readily accepts the commission--that while life shall last and/or until the Return of Christ as Lord of Lords: withness to the Christ Event as the defining moment of human history.

The risk of unbelief is oblivion. Hell is separation from God which means death and a return to dust from which man was first formed.

Thus, to me. God in Christ is my Maker, my Example, my Assurance, My Redeemer, My Coming King, and Eternal Father. Tom Z.

David...

Now this just sounds like, what I do to everyone else isn't as bad as what Alex and Aage have done to me. So, instead of maybe really taking a look at and possibly owning what has been brought to your attention, you now shift to comparing yourself to others.

I never got the idea that Alex thinks you're about to go out on some sort of murderous rampage. As far as what Aage said, I simply see you and others throwing out labels like liberals or "our lib friends," as Bob Ryan used to do, as a way of setting up a caricature that you can annilhate with argumentation, rather than in respectfully listening and exchanging views with real people, who come from different places not only geographically, but also emotionally, spiritually, relationally, politically, etc. The idea behind that is maybe there is something that we can learn from those with whom we disagree.

The problem with our country, and with our church today, is that no one wants to truly listen, engage, deal with the complexity of bringing together people with divergent views, and attempt to solve problems together anymore. It's all about lobbing bombs across the great divide in order to win the ideological warfare, whether it's in the political or religious arenas.

Ronald Reagan has become the patron saint of the new right. The irony is, that Reagan's governing style was far more pragmatic and about building coalition and consensus across the aisle than his political rhetoric was. Would that we would see the wisdom in that, no matter what our political or religious ideals may be.

Thanks...

Frank

Anonymous 1 criticized me for not doing my research because I actually had listened to Glenn Becks show as opposed to him who had so called news reports of the show. So since it has some farther reaching implications I did more research including transcribing sections of the show and posted them in my article http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2011/07/media-plays-us-for-fools-and-fools.html

Posted by Anonymous1 - Tue, 07/26/2011 - 10:59
"Anti-multiculturalism seems completely un-Christian."

I completely understand that sentiment, Anonymous1, and I don't disagree in substance.

But, as I said earlier, simple answers are not likely to suffice here, I think.

Perhaps as a kid you never witnessed what happens when you dump a scoop of black ants on a red ant hill. (If so, you were a nicer kid than I was.)

I think it's a realistic question to ask cui bono, who benefits in such a situation? Certainly not the ants, possibly the now somewhat gratified, mean wittle bored kid, you could say, but really, no one, IMO.

Multiculturalism as a result of a smaller world via communication and transportation is an evolutionary outcome, and a messy if positive process, certainly an inescapable process, it seems to me.

However, some people say there is social engineering at work here similar in character to the disastrous social engineering I performed as a kid. I really don't know if that's true or not, but as the saying goes, nothing is ever so bad that it cannot be made worse.

So, whatever is causing the turmoil - natural processes, social engineering, the devil, whatever - I hope we can all take responsibility, as the peacemaker children of God, for smoothing out the polarizations, or possibly God will truly have to intervene for any "flesh to be left alive."

My Muslim friend completely agrees.

Maggie asked about the drugs Breivik used.

In net and in newspapers drugs such as "anabolic steroids and testosterone" have been mentioned.
But of course there may be other chemicals he avoided mentioning?

BTW, in his 1500 pages Manifesto Breivik mentioned, so I believe, three Finnish names. Two of them with positive attitude (Hannu Takkula and Jussi Halla-aho).

The former is ex-member of Parlament of Finland and a current member of European Parliament. He has been an Adventist for a long time, but as regards his religious affiliation in recent years, I do not know exactly.

He (= Takkula) has been quite active in pro-Israel circles, the reason Breivik approvingly mentioned his name.

As many of you may know, the majority of Finnish SDA's harbor negative feelings about Jews and Israel.

The explaining factors IMO being writings by EGW and the fact that some of the prominent figures of Adventism in Finland attended the seminary in Germany (Friedensau ??) prior WW2.

What you may not know is the fact that German was THE language of sciences prior WW2.

So when began my studies of medicine in 1960, most of the textbooks I had to read were written in German, my 3rd language.
The balance in the faculty tilted to English books sometime 1963 - 1966. So when preparing myself to the examination in gynecology and obstetrics in 1967, the textbook for gynecology was written in English and the textbook for obstetrics was in German language. Both about equally thick.

Jussi Halla-aho is a critic of immigration, especially when the immigrants/refugees are moslems (sp.?).

Breivik detested the 3rd Finn he mentioned, namely our ex-president Mr. Ahtisaari (the winner of Nobel peace prize) for his role in ending the slaughter in Balkan states. Breiviks wished that the Serbs had been allowed to continue killing Albans (most Albans being of Islamic persuasion).

According to newspapers Breivik recommended killing 5353 Finns. Some maintain that of those he had a list with about 50 names, but those names have not released to publicity.

Pauli