Jim Hoft has a nice article up about why the Norway shooter was not a Christian. And of course a load of commenters chimed in about Christian compassion.
I will believe in Christian compassion when I see a call for an end to the pogrom on heroin users.
Did you know that about 70% of female heroin users were sexually abused children? (See Dr. Lonnie Shavelson’s book “Heroin”) And of course sexually abused children provide a cohort ready for prostitution.
So where is the compassion? Instead of punishing these people we should be helping them. We should be focusing on child abuse. I don’t see it. Oh. There are individual cases. But where is the social movement? I don’t see it.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
8 responses to “Social Movement”
Simon,
The charity “Stop it Now” has been campaigning to raise awareness and educate people in the US and the UK about the scale of sexual abuse of children and how to prevent it for many years.
The website of the US arm of the charity is at:
http://www.stopitnow.org/
I’m probably biased, but I think it should be required reading for every parent, anyone who works with children, and all law enforcement personnel.
Melvyn
I think it is interesting to note that Breivik defined Christianity in his manifesto as including “Christian atheists” (presumably himself):
***QUOTE***
3.139 Distinguishing between cultural Christendom and religious Christendom – reforming our suicidal Church
A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?
If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.
A majority of Christians, especially liberal, humanist Christians oppose the doctrines of self defence. I believe that self defence is a central part of Christianity as documented in another part of this book. The modern day pacifist Christianity is among other things a result of our current regimes and their deliberate influence of the Church. They castrated and made the Church impotent and irrelevant, we will rejuvenate it by implementing our own reforms. But pragmatism will be the basis for which direction we chose to go. A strong church (on certain areas) is essential for the unity of our European countries.
It is essential that we preserve and even strengthen the Church and European Christendom in general (by awarding it more political influence on certain areas), when it comes to the moral, cultural and social aspects of society. It should even be granted monopoly on certain areas to strengthen European cohesion/unity. This does not mean that we will continue allow the feminist-liberal, humanist faction of the Church to propagate its pacifist-humanist (suicidal) views/anti self defence doctrines. The Church must be anti-pacifist in the manner that it actively preaches self-defence and even support preemptive strikes as a mechanic to safeguard either Christian minorities in Muslim dominated areas or even Europe itself. We must ensure that a sustainable and traditional version of Christendom is propagated. This will involve that we take decisive steps to disallow the liberal leaders of the church to prevent them from committing suicide. We must ensure that the churches of Europe propagate an values that are sustainable and that will even contribute to safeguard Christian European values long term. European Christendom and the cross will be the symbol in which every cultural conservative can unite under in our common defence. It should serve as the uniting symbol for all Europeans whether they are agnostic or atheists.
The pacifist/suicidal Christians must never be allowed to dominate the church again which one of the reasons why I personally believe that the protestant Church in Europe should once again should reform to become Catholic (Nordic countries, the UK, Germany, Benelux etc). Re-introduction of cultural and Church aspects relating to honour should be the core of our objective when reforming the Church. My hope is that the future nationalist leadership in Western European countries will agree. At the very least, we must support the conservative, anti-pacifist cultural Christian leaders and ensure that they are able to influence the European churches. There must however be clear distinctions. The Church must not put any limits whatsoever on issues relating to science, research and development. Europe will continue to be the world’s center for research and development in all areas, strengthened by a predictable and “unchangeable” cultural framework. This again will considerably strengthen European and societal cohesion and therefore contribute to sustainable societies where harmony, progress, freedom and the furtherance of mankind are the primary civilisational pillars.
***END QUOTE***
BTW, there are self-professed “Christians” who think it’s OK to kill Muslims and “Marxist-Sorosists” (defined as atheists, feminists, materialists, hedonists, and homosexuals…)
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2011/04/burning_the_kor.html
A commenter last night saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of “race traitors” (whatever that is).
As long as they don’t start shooting, they can have whatever crackpot views they want, and they have every right to call themselves Christians, regardless of how dishonest it might be.
O’Reilly, BTW, said this:
http://nation.foxnews.com/norway/2011/07/26/oreilly-blasts-media-branding-norwegian-maniac-christian-extremist
“Many Christians oppose abortion. Gay marriage and legalized narcotics, secular left causes. The media understands the opposition is often based on religion.”
Imprisoning people for drugs may be many things, but how is it religious? Am I missing something in the Bible?
Breivik’s actions cannot be defended in Christian terms, because Christianity does not allow preemptive murder (ie, killing persons who have not committed capital crimes, like murder, child molestation in some civilized places, and TREASON, but who might become actual traitors at some future point). Breivik killed persons (not children, but young persons) who were obviously brainwashed fools, but that was all they were. They had not treasonously imposed alien colonization on Norway. They had done nothing wrong, other than hold objectionable opinions. I wish Breivik had not killed them.
I cannot say the same re what he tried to do to the government. That particular government is trying to destroy Norway through abetting an alien invasion and colonization. It is a treasonous government fomenting demographic warfare against its own people. If that is not treason, I’m not sure what is.
I condemn Breivik for the murder of the young people. I would not have condemned him for executing any treasonous government official.
If there are any future nationalist fanatics willing to wreck their own lives in terrorist actions done in pursuit of political goals, PLEASE DO NOT KILL INNOCENTS. It only harms the larger cause of European and white survival.
We must be patient, and organize politically. When we are in power, then justice will be meted out.
I don’t see the connection between anti-drug laws and Christianity. Laws addressing drug use get passed in legislatures, not by ecclessiastic fiat.
While I think that most Christian Americans don’t have a problem with drug laws, I think that may have less to do with their professed religion than seeing the effects of drug use in their day-to-day lives. Whether and how the personal assessment of the validity of the drug wars contravenes the libertarian take on it is another question entirely, and it isn’t the subject of my response.
Look, I’m Catholic and I can’t think of a single official pronouncement on the part of the Church advocating legislation calling for jail sentences for drug use or trafficking. I do know that the Church regards man’s ability to reason as the greatest gift from God, and as such shouldn’t be impaired –through the abuse of alcohol or drugs — to the point where one loses one’s ability to employ it. I think the Church would also stress compassion for those who find themselves at the mercy of substance abuse. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Anyway, love your blog: visit daily. Just wanted to chip in my two cents.
OK Russ. I see you need an education:
People in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers.
It is amazing what people will do to get relief from pain.
So “what drugs do” is provide pain relief. Why exactly isn’t the Christian community up in arms about government restrictions on pain relief? I was under the impression that compassion was the hall mark of Christianity. At least according to the commenters at Hoft’s.
Only “authorized” pain counts. If you have severe PTSD we put you at the mercy of the gypsy drug store. Because PTSD is not “real” pain.
So if drugs are a problem why not go after the root cause? The pain that causes drug taking for relief?
I see two choices here. Either the Christian community is ignorant or they like punishing Jews (uh, I mean dopers). Neither one is something to be proud of.
BTW how come Christians don’t balance the coin by looking at all the damage Prohibition does? We even have an earlier example to study.
I don’t see the connection between anti-drug laws and Christianity. Laws addressing drug use get passed in legislatures, not by ecclessiastic fiat.
I guess you haven’t noticed, but very large numbers of Christians share a common belief that some vices should be punished as crimes, including recreational drug use. Christian arguments in support of this notion come in all sorts of flavors and are not mutually exclusive of one another. Here are just a few:
1.No one should be allowed to break God’s laws and not be punished.
2.Would you want your son/daughter to be able to legally {insert vice here}?
3.Pot leads to cocaine, leads to heroin, leads to death (criminalizing risk).
4.How else will people know how God wants them to live unless we show them what’s wrong by criminalizing {insert vice here}?
Politicians need votes to win elections. Politicians that don’t, at the very least, pay lip service to Christian moral sensibilities don’t get elected.
Do you see the connection now?
Christians typically believe that it’s God’s desire for everyone to choose God and walk the “narrow” path. In pursuit of that end, Christians have used their political clout over the centuries to essentially criminalize the “wider” path so that everyone will stay on the “narrow” path. Of course, this flies in the face of Biblical teaching in that walking the “narrow” path only has meaning when it is freely chosen, not coerced. It’s no longer the “narrow path” if everyone is forced to walk it in the face criminal punishments when they “stray” from that path and are caught.
Christians believe in freedom of conscience and therefore understand that it is wrong to coerce people into believing in God. OTOH, the vast majority of Christians do not support freedom of action for those who reject Christianity and/or Christian moral norms.
In these modern times, the essence of the Christian message to non-believers with regards to freedom of conscience and freedom of action is this: Don’t believe the Gospel, that’s your business; want to live an un-Christian life, well, you better think that one over or suffer the consequences.
A few years ago, I discussed all this with my devoutly Christian father and told him that I would not attend another Christian worship service until Christians actually started practicing Jesus’ teachings and quit acting like Pharisees. He actually agreed with my criticisms.
Being all too familiar with the self-righteousness of Bible believing Christians, chances are I won’t be attending another worship service in my lifetime.
[…] is an interesting discussion going on at my recent article Social Movement. Commenter Russ was saying that Christians might favor prohibition because they “see what […]