Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
The Christian Terrorist label?
Had the Norwegian terrorist been Muslim he would be described as a Muslim terrorist. Since he is doing it for "Christian" reasons he is labeled in other ways. I am looking for empirical research on in group versus out group labels and consequences for communities. Any suggestions on where to look?
Please note that I am not labeling him Christian or non-Christian. My question is on empirical research, an anthropology question. I view him as Christian as bin Laden was a Muslim. He identifies as a Christian and it motivated his action. A simple review of FBI statistics shows that Muslims are a minority in US terrorism incidents in the last 30 years, but a few have killed many. The very fact people cannot think of Christian terror groups in the answers is telling. Think Irish Republican Army or Ku Klux Klan. I am interested in empirical research on group labels, not on this incident.
Just a note, the FBI reports 1,052 people were killed by Christian terror groups in 2009. Muslim groups in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia however led the overall with 9280 deaths by Sunni groups.
4 Answers
- FromafarLv 610 years agoFavorite Answer
If you are interested in labels then you must read Edward Said's book on 'Orientalism' or you could check first his lectures on Youtube.
Source(s): http://www.amazon.com/Orientalism-Edward-W-Said/dp... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwCOSkXR_Cw - 10 years ago
Actually most terrorism is done for political reasons. The reasons Muslims are labelled as terrorists is that their religion is sort of a political system that either they have difficulty separating themselves from, or aids them in committing actions which sometimes only a fanatical religious zealot would do because they are not afraid of death.
Outside of the Norwegian incident, I can only think of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as a major act of terrorism that was done by a person or group not associated with Islam. That was purely political. I believe the motives for the Norwegian action was also anti-government in nature.
Quote:
Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ad2038a-b6f0-11e0-a8b8-...
Mr Breivik’s former membership has ignited debate over whether the tough Progress stance on immigration has helped create the conditions in which far-right extremism can prosper. Similar questions are being asked across a region often associated with tolerance and social democracy as it grapples with the social and political tensions created by rising immigration from the Muslim world.
edit: Sorry I didn't quite answer your question directly. You have to factor in the importance of Islam to Muslims, which is quite different than religion is to modern Christians. Islam is still at the same level of importance to Muslims as Christianity was to the Crusaders.
Until Christian religious fanaticism can reach that level again, then it would be duplicitous to use the label "Christian terrorist" unless the organization or individual specifically states that their actions are for their religious beliefs. You have to discern motives from associations or memberships to organizations.
- JimboLv 410 years ago
"a real truthseeker" said he's not a Christian. Didn't he claim to be one though? Why wouldn't we call him a Christian terrorist? It's a great question.
Most Muslims deplore the extremism committed by those who are terrorists yet we have no problem calling them Muslim terrorists.
