Is it too much to ask that people set aside differences long enough to objectively assess a tragedy? Maybe, just maybe we can prevent a few.
I was fed up with all the contortions the media has been so good at in their coverage of the Oslo attack. So when I read:
I thought I would comment. Consortium news tends to be pretty liberal. I thought there might be a chance of sensible commentary. Apparently not. The David Smith in the comments is me.
Why do people jump to conclusion or feel the need to distort arguments?
I have to take issue with the whole notion of a "proper" Christian. He believed in God which makes him a theist. He believed in Jesus which makes him a Christian.
The idea that you can claim someone isn't a "proper" or "true" whatever is bullshit. There are atheists I don't agree with or like but if they don't believe in God they are atheists. Reality does not cater to our likes and dislikes.
He was a right-wing Christian. How much that plays into what he did is debatable but not that he was a conservative Christian.
You also don't have to be crazy to do horrible things. Just saying
Yeah, his actions were really well thought out and executed. His narrative, while built on false premises, is at least on the surface fairly coherent. Socialists are flooding the country with Muslims, so kill the Socialists so they won't control the immigration gates anymore.