Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik deludes himself with his Christian claims, writes Ian Harris. Rather, his views are framed by politics and cultural opinions.
There's a common belief the world is changing for the better all the time - and then an Anders Behring Breivik bursts on the scene to massacre 69 young Norwegians enjoying a weekend of political discussion and friendship.
Suddenly bland optimism is confronted with the reality of evil.
In the three weeks since the onslaught on Utoya Island, many searching questions have been raised about the attack. Among them is: how could someone who calls himself Christian perpetrate an act of such cowardice, deception and horror?
The immediate answer has to be that he was not true to label, any more than the Muslims who crashed airliners into the Twin Towers or who blow up women and children indiscriminately in marketplaces are true to the label of Islam.
Secondly, that the actions of such people are inspired by politics, not religion, however they try to lacquer them with a religious veneer.
And thirdly, that the Christian or Muslim motivation they claim for their killings has to be measured against the best of what their religions enjoin on their followers, especially the core value of a compassion that transcends simple allegiance to race, tribe, nation or religion.
Much pious ink has been poured out in speculation on the origin of evil in our world. More to the point is to accept that evil is a fact of human experience, and then take steps, individually and collectively, to negate it.
Yet Breivik claims to be "100% Christian". He deludes himself. A Norwegian minister who studied the references to Christianity in Breivik's 1518-page manifesto concludes that "his view is framed entirely by politics, with strong political and cultural opinions, which also include religious views".
Psycho-analysts have been having a field day. They describe Breivik as a loner obsessed with himself and his self-assigned role of cultural saviour.
Needing to project an image of strength, he fed his fantasies on a cocktail of secret societies, right-wing conspiracy theories, racial superiority and internet war games and laced his concoction with theological illiteracy.
Breivik's religious goal was to save Christian Europe by rolling back multiculturalism, with no room for a Muslim presence undermining it.
In his view, political correctness should be called "cultural Marxism", which he cites as the real reason political leaders allow mass Muslim migration into Europe. And, borrowing from the Free Congress Foundation, a Washington political think-tank described as the epicentre of the Christian right, he advocates fostering a "cultural conservatism" promoting traditional social values to save Western culture.
It helps to have a conspiracy theory, and the foundation finds one in the Frankfurt School of left-wing social thinkers. It believes they are bent on destroying Western culture by encouraging multiculturalism and collectivist economic theories - a strategy that would pitch white people into a "demographic winter".
In other words, Breivik was motivated by the conviction that "they're out to take over from us", and trawls in ancient sewers of denigration and hate to justify his massacre.
The uncomfortable truth, however, is that Breivik is tapping into a widespread unease about the pace and direction of cultural change in Western societies, though anyone in his right mind would totally repudiate his actions.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel pronounces multiculturalism has failed. The Swiss vote to ban minarets. France and Belgium legislate to ban the burqa in public places. There are calls in Australia and New Zealand to do likewise. England has its Defence League.
Unease breeds fear, fear breeds paranoia, paranoia breeds hostility, hostility breeds hatred. It is all depressingly familiar - but religion it is not.
Negating future Breiviks therefore hinges on the answers to questions such as: how do open societies make room for those who are different racially, culturally and religiously? How willing are the newcomers to align themselves with the underlying values of those societies? What will help ensure that the experience is positive all round?
Not surprisingly, good religion can contribute positively to dispelling insecurity, fear, and the irrational anger they can trigger.
For there is no solution which does not include the virtues of getting to know one another, respect and a willingness on all sides to treat the "other" as you, in their situation, would hope to be treated yourself.
This compassion, or "feeling with", is central both to protecting our communities from the rampages of another Breivik and providing a firm foundation for their future wellbeing.
As Dumbledore, of Harry Potter fame, says: "It is not our gifts and talents that make us who we are, but our choices."
- Ian Harris is a journalist and commentator.
