Muslim Terrorists and Christian Terrorists?
Damien, how do you feel about Muslims, with beheading anyone who isn’t a Muslim?
My response, I am against violence in general unless it is for self-defense or other-defense. I think beheading anyone is barbaric and unethical.
Damien, especially in purpose of one’s religion right?
My response, religion is nothing special to me, as always religion is a set of nonsense beliefs and yes I am profoundly against harming anyone for or because of nonsense beliefs.
Damien, I (christian) personally think Muslims should be eradicated for what they believe in.
My response, defense is a reasonable justification for violence but violence not for defense is hardly ever reasonable. Your thinking about “eradicated people for what they believe in” is similar to the radicalized thinking of the terrorists you despise. Such errors in thinking are nothing new as the idea of “eradicating people for what they believe in” is by and large a constant recurring theme of religions. And this has been a favorite excuse for harming others religious thinkers run to. I think religions in general as all lies should be eradicated not people. There is equal threat in this country from the christian terrorists and right wing terrorists than islamic terrorists. I am against terrorists in general and the belief in or support for terrorism should be eradicated not people.
Secular education with real histories, sciences and critical as well as analytical thinking is needed to amend the problem not just more violence. Speaking of real histories “eradicated people for what they believe in” is similar to why millions of Native Peoples of the Americas were slaughtered. But some think even though sad at the harm experienced by American Indians still the colonization of Americas (and the ensuing slaughter of natives) was NOT religion based (it was a purely economic endeavour). To such thinking I disagree.
From the beginning the Spanish, English, Dutch, and French all viewed Native Peoples of the Americas as Uneducated Pagans and all professed their desire to teach Native Americans the gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, spreading Christianity to the benighted peoples of the New World was a prime rationale for European colonization. However, propagating the faith always took place within a broader cultural context peculiar to the nationality of the colonists involved.
Both the Spanish and the English thought in terms of transforming the Indians’ way of life, but only the Spanish pursued that goal rigorously and made it the foundation upon which much of Spanish American culture was based. Of course it was arguably much more the result of European and Indian sexual intermingling than the monumental educational efforts jointly undertaken by the Catholic Church and the Spanish Crown. Moreover, in the borderlands of Florida, Texas, and New Mexico, Spanish success at acculturating the Indians was limited at best.
The British too aimed at civilizing as well as Christianizing the Indians, but compared to the Spanish, whose mighty missionary efforts were driven by the powerful Catholic Church, the British commitment to propagating their faith and culture among Native Americans was desultory. Also bringing together the resources of their Catholic Church and Crown, the French missionary adventure in North America was extensively pursued through the Saint Lawrence River valley, the Illinois country, and down the Mississippi River valley to Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico.
Less intrusive and generally more accommodating than Spanish clerics, French priests nevertheless garnered thousands of converts and played a crucial role in forging a Franco-Indian alliance that dominated much of North America. The European missions to the Indians aside, the most fascinating educational story regarding the Indians concerned their adjustments to the European invasion of America that began with Columbus’s arrival in 1492. Ref
Even in the initial stages of contact between European Christians and Native Indian people the stage was set for ethnocentrism, and the Attitude towards the Indians was that of Christian superiority. The Indians were read a proclamation in Spanish which they had no hope of understanding, they had no hope of understanding the death sentence they were being read, and it went something like this:
“We ask and require you to acknowledge the church as the ruler and Superior of the whole world and the high priest called pope and in his Name the king of Spain as lords of this land. If you submit we shall Receive you in all love and charity and shall leave you, your wives and Children and your lands free without servitude, but if you do not submit
We shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against You, we shall take you and your wives and your children and shall make Slaves of them and we shall take away your goods and shall do you all The harm and damage we can.” This proclamation was use standard until around 1860! Ref
Moreover, an article in 1839 not using the term “manifest destiny”, did predict a “divine destiny” for the United States and an article in 1845 issued an unmistakable call for American expansionism. Focusing mainly on bringing the Republic of Texas into the union, it declared that expansion represented “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” Thus a powerful American slogan was born. “Manifest Destiny” became first and foremost a call and justification for an American form of imperialism, and neatly summarized the goals of the Mexican War. It claimed that America had a destiny, manifest, i.e., self-evident, from God to occupy the North American continent south of Canada (it also claimed the right to the Oregon territory including the Canadian portion). “Manifest Destiny” was also clearly a racial doctrine of white supremacy that granted no native American or nonwhite claims to any permanent possession of the lands on the North American continent and justified white American expropriation of Indian lands. (“Manifest Destiny” was also a key slogan deployed in the United States’ imperial ventures in the 1890s and early years of the twentieth century that led to U.S. possession or control of Hawaii and the Philippine Islands.) But Manifest Destiny was not simply a cloak for American imperialism and a justification for America’s territorial ambitions. It also was firmly anchored in a long standing and deep sense of a special and unique American Destiny, the belief that in the words of historian Conrad Cherry, “America is a nation called to a special destiny by God.” Ref
What is My Definition of a Terrorist?
To me a terrorist is one who is involved in violent acts, acts dangerous to human life or that violate the safety and dignity of people that are not done in direct self-defense or other-defense; with the appeared intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to intimidate or coerce the larger society to influence ideologies by means of mass destruction, kidnapping, torture, murder, assassination, etc.
Here is a definition of a terrorism: Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled “Terrorism”:
“International terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines “international terrorism” in a nearly identical way, replacing “primarily” outside the U.S. with “totally” outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c). Ref