@ Kate: I think you may have misunderstood the intent of my post - it was largely designed to address what I perceived to be the narrow and ignorant arguments of another. However, I am happy to engage you in the points you bring up.
I think you may misunderstand the bigger point at hand. Yes there are many faces of terrorism as we all are aware but I think the message trying to be sent is that the central front against terror is Islamic fundamentalism taken to the extreme. I concede that there are terrorist of every faith, but it quickly becomes irrelevant to bring them up when we are looking at the grander scope of things, wouldn't you say?
I respectfully disagree. If you want to look at the 'grander scope' then terrorism is much, much bigger than just the modern Islamic extremist version of it. Actually, your argument, if I'm reading it correctly, seems to contradict itself - if the context of this debate is about terrorism stemming from "Islamic fundamentalism taken to the extreme", then my point that terrorism is not merely an "Islamic fundamentalism taken to the extreme" phenomenon, but rather one which pervades our history and works through various ideological group, then I
am in fact looking at the "grander scope of things". In this case, I believe it is this entire debate that lacks the 'grander scope' by merely concentrating on the modern phenomenon of terrorist acts by extreme Islamic groups.
I feel that again, the point is being missed. Yes there are many different faces of terrorism but we aren't speaking of anything likened to Spanish inquisition or the Salem witchhunts. Terrorism in todays context would be outward violence meant to cause social disorder and chaos. The Spanish inquisition or the Salem witchhunts while horrible periods in human history, can't be used as examples in regards to terrorism in this day and age.
I think you are, again, misunderstanding my intent in my post. In the passage which you refute with this statement I was addressing specific comments made about Christianity and how 'Christianity is victimized by not being allowed to speak out without being accused of "intolerance" '. In this case, as with the majority of my post, I was refuting the comments of a specific person. I was, however, also speaking to the "grander scope" of terrorism in the world by taking an historic look at the use of terrorism by religious institutions, like the Catholic Church, thus supporting my line of argumentation that terrorism is not a new phenomenon by any standards, and further that the member I was responding to was erroneous in implying that all terrorism stems from "Islamic fundamentalism taken to the extreme".
A doctrine is not defined by the actions of its followers but by its teachings alone.
I think Randomspot covered this fairly well, but I'd just like to disagree with it myself. Just take Catholicism alone; Jesus directly preaches in the bible that we should basically love everybody and do for them as we would have them do to us. He's basically calling for universal human equality right? Now look at the *******ized version of this that exists today (as interpreted by the Catholic clergy): according to them women can't be priests and gay people can't get married (NOTE: this is not meant to open a discussion on either of these topics, so please no one take it as an invitation to do so). Do you
really think that this is the original intent of Jesus's message?
What I'm getting at here is that religion evolves just like everything else. In the process of that evolution, the principle message gets distorted and misinterpreted. The actions of those that practice a religion are therefore those who determine what the religion actually stands for at any given time, not the primary doctrine which, as I've said, can become distorted as the religion itself 'evolves'.
See what you fail to understand is that not all terrorists are groomed in radical mosques or grown like plants in the mountains of Afghanistan. Many terrorists are groomed by poor families and psychotic parents who use their children to kill to either advance their beliefs or to gain financial aid.
What does it matter where terrorists come from in this case? I think the bigger issue is that killing the families of terrorists just perpetuates the cycle of violence that feeds terrorist activities - it also creates martyrs of those killed in retaliation. I've never said or implied that people who are accessories to, or profit from, murder, rape, or terrorism shouldn't be punished, all I'm saying is, simply, retaliatory violence isn't the answer. Lock them up, try them for their involvement and diffuse the problem instead of adding gas to it.
