A follow up, since a separate thread for this would be spam. I started to comment on Breiviks self identifying with Christianity just as strongly as he does conservatism, partly because he does so just as copiously, and partly to address the fact his grasp of Christianity is as warped as his grasp of conservatism. I'll go down the line:
BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: "Impact" segment tonight: mass murder in Norway. A vicious killer, Anders Breivik, has murdered at least 76 people in the Scandinavian nation of Norway. Breivik is a brutal fanatic who apparently objects to the presence of Muslims in Europe.

Last Friday he bombed buildings in Oslo and then took an automatic weapon to an island a few miles away gunning down 68 people. Norwegian authorities couldn't get to the island because they didn't have a helicopter, if you can believe it.

Now, on Sunday, the "New York Times" headlined "As Horrors Emerged, Norway Charges Christian extremist". A number of other news organizations like the "LA Times" and Reuters also played up the Christian angle. But Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.

Jesus and His Disciples certainly condemn murder in no uncertain terms, but Christians remain capable of the full gamut of sins even after they accept Christ; we don't BECOME Christ and accepting Christianity doesn't automatically preclude any subsequent act from being sinful. According to Breiviks diary he prayed to SOMETHING shortly before the attacks. He also noted that he hadn't done so in some time; the diary seems to say he bought prostitutes far more often than he prayes, which is hardly Christian behavior anymore than mass murder. The fact remains, however, that no matter how insanely inaccurate his understanding of Christianity was, he did proudly profess Christianity as such. As a Christian that disgusts and horrifies me because his behavior repudiates everything Christ is, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend he didn't consider himself a "Christian soldier" because that flies in the face of things like declaring himself a modern Knight Templar.

Also Breivik is not attached to any church, and in fact has criticized the Protestant belief system in general. The Christian angle came from a Norwegian policeman not from any fact finding. Once again, we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way.

No evidence, none--except calling himself a Knight Templar, engaging in prayer, however irregularly, and frequent references to being a defender of Christianity and Judeo-Christian Europe, no. Unfortunately, it's O'Reilly who (typically) either did no fact finding or simply ignored what he found, yet he makes that very accusation against a police investigator with full access to what facts have emerged.

So why is the angle being played up? Two reasons: First, the liberal media wants to make an equivalency between the actions of Breivik and the Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh and al Qaeda. The left wants you to believe that fundamentalists Christians are a threat just like crazy jihadists are.

No, responsible journalists want you to know that Christian fanatics are every bit as dangerous as those of any other religion. I'm sorry, that's just a fact; that "God is love" doesn't change it any more than the fact that "Islam means 'peace'". That kind of "our side is above reproach, theirs is above excuse" thinking is what leads to excusing massacres of ones innocent foes on the grounds that they were subhuman anyway.

In fact, in the "New York Times" today an analysis piece says that some believe we have overreacted to the Muslim threat in the world. Of course, that's absurd. Jihadists have killed tens of thousands of people all over the world. The Taliban, Iran and elements in Pakistan use governmental power to support terrorism by Muslims. But the left-wing press wants to compare nuts like Breivik and McVeigh to state-sponsored terrorism and worldwide jihad.

That's a critically important and valid point: Islamic motivated terror, at least in modern times, murders on a FAR greater scale than Christian based terror because it has far more acolytes, and it has so many more acolytes because it has been allowed to take control of entire governments, mercilessly silence all opposition, indoctrinate thousands with its sociopathic propaganda, and unleash them on the world. That's a FINE argument for not allowing that to happen in America or any other country, nor allowing those with that goal to pretend being Christian rather than Muslim makes it OK.

Again, dishonest and insane.

Self diagnosing, apparently.

The second reason the liberal media is pushing the Christian angle is they don't like Christians very much because we are too judgmental. Many Christians oppose abortion. Gay marriage and legalized narcotics, secular left causes. The media understands the opposition is often based on religion. So they want to diminish Christianity and highlighting so-called Christian-based terror is a way to do that.

I'll give Bill a pass on the "judgemental" comment because Christians are obviously obligated to judge sinful ACTS despite prohibitions against judging PEOPLE; his language is more easily read to urge the former than the latter, though it IS ambiguous.

To be COMPLETELY fair, Breivik seems to often use "Christian" in the same sense that he uses "Marxist", more of an associative term to convey complex cultural identity rather than a specific ideology; he references "Judeo-Christian Europe" in a similar way. Still and so, while his actions are an insult and mockery of everything Christianity promotes, the same could be said of Mohammed Atta and Islam. The only real difference is, as O'Reilly said, that the latter was the product of an organization that was part of a national government. The lesson, therefore, is not to allow ANY such organization to spread their violence to new recruits, and take every precaution to exclude them from government office, simply as a matter of protecting the public from mass slaughter.