On the language of debate...

I don't want to start a fight. I'm not detailing a huge shift in my personal perception of the world and our society, I'm simply asking for opinion and input.

We've all spent weeks watching and reading about the terror attacks in Norway, and how these attacks are being understood in the light of European multiculturalism. Many more traditional and conservative pundits have said that this is the clearest evidence that multiculturalism does not work. Many more liberal pundits have said this is evidence that conservative values contribute to and encourage intolerance and hatred.

All language is imperfect, and thus all language is prone to allowing narrow, constrained terms and phrases when trying to detail and categorize events like the Norway attacks. For example, terms that are frequently used in describing Breivik (the alleged and admitted perpetrator) are many and varied, but most are very similar to "right-wing Christian extremist". His views certainly seem ultra-conservative (meaning from the far right of the political spectrum), and no one can deny his extremist views and actions. I can't really speak to his Christianity, since neither his expressed views nor his actions reflect Christian values as I understand them today... but it is how he describes himself, so the label sticks.

My question is: Does associating someone like Breivik, an avowed right-wing extremist, with his traditional Christian background contribute to the problem, or does it help identify it?

No one in the past (that I am aware of) ever referred to the terrorism employed in Northern Ireland by both the IRA and the Protestant groups fighting them as "Christian terrorists", even though they were fighting, bombing and killing in the name of two very distinct Christian denominations. McVeigh was not labelled a "Christian terrorist" even though he was Christian and had a serious issue with the secular society of today's America.

Terms and phrases such as "radical Islam" and "Muslim extremists" might be perfectly accurate terms for people and organizations like bin Laden and Hamas... but do they also contribute to the marginalization of a large (and growing) segment of most Western societies? When such terms become so common and so general, do they actually carry or convey any meaning or substance?

I'm late for work, so I can't continue now... but I'd love to see this thought discussed further.