The thing is that on the level of abstraction where 'religion' prompts someone to kill people, it really is rather facetious to consider Breivik any different.

As far as I'm concerned (and others too, judging by the downvotes), his concoction of 'Western-european culture', Christian or not, that led to his actions, is on the same level as this particular case.

Singling out 'religion' as somehow a differentiating factor is like trying to differentiate between Hitler's eradication of gypsies and homosexuals. It serves no purpose other than raising the suspicion that one particularly hates gypsies or homosexuals.

No? He himself claims that it does, in the sense that he sees himself as a Christian crusader defending the european christian monoculture against an islamic invasion. His reason for killing social democrats was that he feels that the party is too supportive of a multicultural society.

That was xenophobia, naionalism, traditionalism, etc.

Those are all aspects of his acts, and the acts of the Islamic State as well. You can't separate religion cleanly from traditionalism for example, because religion is to a large part tradition - it is not a coincidence that sons commonly have the religion of their fathers. The acts of Breivik definitely have a religious component. He dresses like a Knight Templar, he speaks of a crusade, these are all religious in nature.

Upvoted because you have the right to think this, even if is wrong. That is how freedom of speech works...

Downvoting is also an expression of freedom speech. It's quite different from censorship.

I really don't understand the downvotes.