Secular terrorists justify violence by results while sacred terrorists justify it by divine obedience

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

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the sacred-versus-secular terrorism distinction as two different moral justificatory regimes.
• XREF: The ‘success justifies means’ logic parallels the vault’s claims about how ordinary people normalize harmful policy by outcome framing.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2206