Unlike in applying the term “Muslim” or “Islamic” terrorist, mainstream media has almost totally resisted to use the term “Christian” to identify the Norwegian terrorist or his ideological motives. The Norwegian police accurately cited Anders B. Breivik as a “Christian fundamentalist,” and not just as a far right extremist. He was driven by anti-Muslim and anti-immigration ideology, but his choice of targets was what he considered anti-Christian secularism - Norway’s Labor Party and particularly it’s youth wing and activities. Breivik saw and expressed himself as a Crusader defending Christianity against the infidel and the domestic non-believer and secularist. Norway’s “Christian” terrorist Breivik mirrored “Muslim” terrorists in philosophy and choice of targets: not only striking against the “outsider” but particularly those from within who are not Muslim or Christian enough and vigilant in the war against the other. Double Standards & Hypocrisy: The double standard employed in identifying terrorists as “Muslim” but not as “Christian” by much of mainstream media is self-evident. I could continue to grumble about this hypocrisy, but more relevantly is to ask why and what consequences. Let me just focus on two points, although considerably more can be stated on this double standard. Media in Europe and the United States appears concerned not to offend all Christians in a way that it does not fear in insulting all Muslims. To the contrary, all Muslims are called upon to somehow explain Islam and themselves in a way that Christians, Jews, Hindus and others are not in the face of terror committed presumably “by one of their own”. The theory implicitly or even explicitly promoted is that Islam carries a faulty gene that triggers killers and terrorists within its midst. In effect, without basis in theology, media becomes an accessory in theological war. “While all Muslims are Not Terrorists, All Terrorists are Muslims”: Muslims undoubtedly have experienced a recent sharp rise in terror from within a highly diverse population, directed at “outsiders” but even more so at those within. However, terror has been committed by Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc, and in a historical context such may have been as or more intense. And for those who would simply stop at condemning all religions, indiscriminate terror has been committed in the name of no god or gods but in the context of atheist ideology, from Stalin to the leftist militants of more modern Europe. However, it has become an acceptable rationalization to explain, “While all Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists are Muslims.” (Some Americans have expressed to me this view actually to exhibit their tolerance, as they see themselves not condemning all Muslims, including me). There is though a considerably more dangerous side to this hypocrisy: Some Europeans and Americans may be inclined to seek rationalization for Norway’s, Breivik’s terror by blaming again Muslims. They may come to sympathize with the terrorist’s own explanation that this was an “atrocious but necessary,” act in his war against secularism as well as Islam and Muslim immigrants. (Breivik had sought to make his own Court appearance as “suspect” in murdering almost 100 into a type of neo-Christian hate manifesto and some other extremist groups, nationalist, Christian, and Muslim have sought to redefine and exploit his deeds). Rationalizing the Terror: Some may want to conveniently see “homegrown” European and/or American terrorists as having been infected or contaminated with “Islamic philosophy” in resorting to terror. Again history and theology would be ignored. The Crusades were one of the most brutal actions of indiscriminate murder and terror. (Pope John Paul II made a huge stride in reconciliation as well as historical justice in the apology for the Crusades). Hitler’s Holocaust and “pogroms” were driven by a neo-Christian motives. More recently, in Bosnia & Herzegovina, genocide and ethnic cleansing was directed at Bosniaks or “Muslims” as they were characterized by the perpetrators as either not belonging to Europe on basis of their religion or to have betrayed presumably their Christian origins. Most people, including Muslim, Christian and Jewish, are inclined to seek fault beyond their own circle of people, ideas and religion. By employing this double-standard, there is a real risk that people will strike out against the other (not necessarily by physical violence) rather than taking a more critical look at the universal we. Extremism and terror excludes no one as a potential victim, but it also does not by virtue of ideology or theology make anyone immune either of becoming a perpetrator. Personally, I tend to see the ideas and methodologies of the secular, libertarian, open and democratic state as being most nurturing for the modern society. However, secularism is not about promoting a monolithic non-religious philosophy. Secularism incorporates the non-believer, the religious and the agnostic. Multiculturalism is dominant on the global level and the virtual world, and within our domestic societies increasingly. Faith is not an enemy, but must be stressed in the more positive light to promote tolerance and especially shared values. The first step though is avoiding hypocrisy and prejudice in seeking out the way forward. LAST REPORTS: “UN Security Council Condemns Norway terror” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/norway-un-security-council-condemns-terror-by-ambassador-mo/32484 By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey Facebook Become a Fan at “Diplomatically Incorrect” Twitter – Follow at DiplomaticallyX Related Reports – “War Crimes Justice” Channel - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/c/war-crimes-justice