There’s no way around this one, guys. I get that people are eager to have a Christian, or at least non-Muslim terrorist movement example to point to in the decade wake of September 11th and it’s related jihadist bombings around the world, but distortion is never a way to argue a point. This Norway loser said that “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” is “everything we DO NOT want” and a “secular European society” is “what we DO want.” There’s no Christian-terrorism here…

I apologize for my previous comments that took anti-Christian biased reports as fact without checking for myself.

His use of the term is not based on faith but out of collective identification with a notion of “Christian Europe.”

“Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man,” he says in his 1,500-page manifesto. “I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.”

Breivik’s video, in which he blames “cultural Marxists” for supporting a multicultural Europe, is replete with imagery of various sword-wielding and carnage-provoking crusaders and defenders, many of whom sport crosses.

Ironically, anyone who has recently checked the state of deep and abiding faith, or “piety,” in Europe, will find the place is decidedly, and more than ever, secular. In this sense at least Breivik is honest about his brand of Christianity. God-talk hasn’t occupied much of northern Europe for years, and not because bearded jihadists have blocked the entrance to the church.

UPDATE:More info and humorously delivered facts about the killerthat is spot on, but… you’re not gonna like that it’s from Ann Coulter, who titles her piece New York Times Reader Kills Dozens in Norway (a reference to the fact that Breivik cited the NY Times over a dozen times but the bible 0 times):

Breivik says he is “not an excessively religious man,” brags that he is “first and foremost a man of logic,” calls himself “economically liberal” and reveres Darwinism.

But Times reporters had their “Eureka!” moment as soon as they heard Breivik used the word “Christian” someplace to identify himself. No one at the Times bothered to read Breivik’s manifesto to see that he doesn’t use the term the way the rest of us do. That might have interfered with the paper’s obsessive Christian-bashing.

Other famous killers dubbed conservative Christians by the Times include Timothy McVeigh and Jared Loughner.

McVeigh was a pot-smoking atheist who said, “Science is my religion.”

Similarly, Breivik says in his manifesto that “it is essential that science take an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings” –- a statement that would be incomprehensible to all the real scientists, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Planck, Einstein and Pauli, all of whom believed the whole purpose of science was to understand God.

The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, was lyingly described by the Times as a pro-life fanatic. Not only did more honest news outlets, such as ABC News, report exactly the opposite — for example, how Loughner alarmed his classmates by laughing about an aborted baby in class — but Loughner’s friends described him as “left wing,” “a political radical,” “quite liberal” and “a pothead.” Another said Loughner’s mother was Jewish.

The only reason Timothy McVeigh has gone down in history as a right-wing Christian and Jared Loughner has not — despite herculean efforts by much of the mainstream media to convince us otherwise — is that by January 2011 when Loughner went on his murder spree, conservatives had enough media outlets to reveal the truth.

As explained in the smash best-seller “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,” the liberal rule is: Any criminal act committed by a white man with a gun is a right-wing, Christian conspiracy, whereas any criminal act committed by a nonwhite is the government violating someone’s civil liberties.

One year and 2 weeks ago after the 2008 presidential election, the Fox News Channel was duped into reporting that an unnamed McCain campaign figure revealed that failed Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Good thing the media has learned to check its sources more thoroughly before airing these kinds of reports, right? lulz.

Fake “boy trapped in a runaway balloon” controversy fooled every single channel including the BBC.

Phony climate change press conference fools CNBC and Reuters.

Fake quotes of racism attributed to Rush Limbaugh fool NBC & CNN.

Now fake Obama thesis fools Limbaugh.

its a good time to be a hoax…

They work because they act on the principal of truthiness, or the idea that “I want it to be true, so I will choose to believe it IS true”. Dan Rather wanted President Bush to have a shady military record, Sarah Palin critics wanted her to be proved to be the yokel imbecile they assessed her as from day one,  the world wanted a boy named Falcon to be in that balloon flying out of control through the sky, CNBC wanted to hear there would be a change in policy regarding climate change, NBC wanted Limbaugh to be exposed as a filthy racist and Limbaugh wanted Obama to be exposed as a Constitution hater.

Only CNBC and Limbaugh corrected these hoaxes on air within minutes of being fooled by them. All the rest let over 24 hours pass before telling the truth.

Tonight Bernard Goldberg smacked around, without naming any names, Fox News opinion/commentary hosts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity for being even more biased than they should be as opinion/commentary hosts.

I’m less so sure about Beck, but Hannity is unquestionable in the hacktivism department – though its interesting that Bernie appears to have a good relationship with both personalities and went on both Beck and Hannitys shows promoting his book A Slobbering Love Affair about media bias towards Barack Obama when it came out. hmm. Did their relationship sour? Is Goldberg just talkin smack behind their back? or none of the above and he’s fine with both and just giving good natured criticism on a legitimate beef?

The only thing wrong with Bernie’s analysis is the “cross section of Americans” thing since he’s inserting his own meaning into it, causing a strawman fallacy. Political protests are…political. as in, against a policy. So why would Bernie assume that the “cross section” was a reference to opposite political policy endorsers? That makes no sense. If that was the claim made by a host, then THAT makes no sense, but Bernie didn’t give a quote or claim any clarity there. In fact the pictures and video of the protests do show a cross section of Americans: upper class to lower class and in between. There were people in suits and people wearing Wal-Mart wardrobes. The claim was accurate.