How we Reacted

(The Reactions to Oslo)

Enough time has passed since this summer's events in Oslo to give an opportunity to reflect.  The way we reacted says much about what we believe about ourselves, one other, and humanity at large.

In Oslo, Norway, "one man with a belief" (a quote the killer used) murdered nearly 100 strangers in cold blood  [I will not use his name.  He is unworthy of the attention.]

Reaction to the slaughter was predictable.  It was denounced and called tragic, and rightly so.

Assumptions and accusations abounded.

First, there was an expectation that it was a violent Islamist.  With the trends in such events since 9/11, this should come as no great surprise.

Next, Muslim groups were outraged that people made the assumption that Islamists were responsible.  Implication: only an anti-Muslim bigot would assume that Islamists were connected to such an act of violence.  No.  Wait.  Only an anti-Muslim racist, or this one Islamist who tried to claim responsibility for it, but retracted the claim when it turned out to be some blond local.  It seems al-Nasser didn't get the talking points.

One scapegoat down.  Three to go.

The (not-so) New Atheism has taught us to believe that the religion is the source of all the world's ills.  They apply some classic Monty Python logic:

"If she weighs the same as a duck... she's made of wood... and therefore ... a witch!"

And so... *drum roll*...  he must be a Christian extremist! 

Of course the killer is a Christian.  He even said so in his Manifesto!  (right?)

He writes on page 1307 of his online manifesto:
“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.  -- [red text / Underline is mine.] (source)

That statement's author cannot distinguish between affinity for the cultural trappings of Christian influence, and True faith in Christ.  Sadly, neither can many self-styled pastors.

Jesus himself teaches that it takes more than a *claim* of faith to actually *have* it.  People today are offended when someone asks them to authenticate their claims of Christian faith and practice.  But it needs to be done.  (Matt 7; Matt 23)  We're even taught to test *ourselves* to see whether we are in the faith.

Fortunately, the "Militant Christian" angle didn't gather very much momentum.  His association with the political right was either accepted without comment, or considered tangential to his motives, because that angle was quickly ignored, as well.  They soon went looking elsewhere.

The really interesting part is where people went next.

It was almost universally assumed that he was a "sick individual", he was "mentally ill", he was "troubled" or some other term that would identify him as having acted by reason of being mentally unfit to make a rational decision.

The nearly universal reaction could be summed up with the phrase "rational people don't do such things."

Mental illness is used as the last scapegoat, which is pretty unfair to all of those who, while suffering from mental illness do not endanger themselves or others.

It lead me to consider why so many commentators felt obliged to make that point.  Ultimately, if a monster of his magnitude is found to be "sane", it would have some very unsettling implications:

1. If  he's an otherwise rational person, these heinous actions would have been performed by man with a rational mind.
1. This would clash with our cherished belief in the basic 'goodness' of humanity.
1. If *not all* people are good,  then I am no longer *automatically* justified as good.
2. This would clash with our popular (idolatrous) belief in the supremacy of Reason.
2. If an otherwise rational person can commit atrocities, then the link between convictions and behavior proves that some belief really *is* objectively wrong, however 'sincerely' it may be held.  
1. This clashes with Post-Modern Pluralism and cultural Relativism.
3. If no clinical/biological explanation exists to distinguish him as being "inhuman" and "other"...
1. The gap between what he is, and who we are grows uncomfortably small.  It opens the possibility that we might (under some very rare and specific circumstances) be capable of making the same cold-blooded choices that he did. 
1.  ( And which of us wants to seriously consider ourselves capable of such dark motives 
4. If we cannot blame his actions on some medical or mental deficiency, we are left with the one explanation we have being trying to rule out and suppress since the Enlightenment
1. The Existence of Moral Evil.