Sacred and secular terrorism differ in justification and means
Evidence
In his analysis of terrorism, David Rapoport (1990) distinguishes secular terrorism from sacred terrorism on the grounds that they differ in means and in ends. In sacred terrorism, violence serves religious purposes, so it is justified morally in terms of obedience to God’s will. Secular terrorists are not tightly bound by a particular dogma. For them, violence can serve different purposes, and they justify it in different ways, depending on what rationale is likely to gain the most public support. Nor are secular terrorists restricted to particular means but select them for their utility in promoting desired outcomes. The success of the means to advance one’s cause becomes its own moral justification. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2206 (
#expands, via linked claim)
Violent means present a special moral dilemma for religious terrorists because killing innocent people to advance a cause is sacrilege. However, the notion that religious terrorism differs from secular terrorism in its methods is mistaken. Throughout the long history of sacred terror, religious terrorists have sanctified violence. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2234 (
#contradicts, via linked claim)
While prominent Muslim terrorists like bin Laden often invoke religious language and symbols, it is doubtful that religious ideology is the main driving force behind their violent acts. John Esposito argues that the causes of terrorism are more often than not rooted in political and economic grievances. Statements from bin Laden and other terrorists often refer to the long history of Western interventionism in Muslim-majority regions and to larger political grievances, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the presence of US military troops in the Middle East, US exploitation of the Middle East’s oil and energy resources, and the legacy of European colonialism. Even if we consider the possibility that the religious convictions articulated by Muslim terrorists are genuine, religion alone cannot explain their actions. — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 284 (
#complicates, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Religious and political sacrifice differ as sacrificing ‘to’ versus ‘for’ — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s…, 422; Bin Laden’s terrorism displaced moral agency onto Allah as religious duty; Secular terrorists justify violence by results while sacred terrorists justify it by divine obedience — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2206 (+8 more)
Broader Connections
- Secular terrorists justify violence by results while sacred terrorists justify it by divine obedience
#expands(0.97) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2206 - Religious terrorism does not differ in method from secular terrorism
#contradicts(0.92) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2234 - Political grievances drive terrorism more than religious ideology does
#complicates(0.80) — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 284 - Terrorism is a political act divorced from any religion’s essence
#complicates(0.78) — Hamid Dabashi, Brown Skin, White Masks, 616 - Terrorism is a political act, not a religious one
#complicates(0.78) — Hamid Dabashi, Brown Skin, White Masks, 616 - Terrorists use sacred, utilitarian, and personal grievance justifications to disengage morally.
#complicates(0.74) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2136