Terror Of The Mind Of God

Everybody that works with freaks becomes a suspect. Scully and Mulder approach the “Tabernacle of Terror”. The dark room covered with dusk, the light only entering in from the entrance and exit. The art manager was working at his workbench on a head with a screaming face. He is killed in his storage room by a slithering figure with the face of a monster. Blood is everywhere. Each time a murder occurs they make you believe that the freaks are responsible. They set the scene in a frightening space to pull the view in and make you think it must be the freaks. What this is saying is that even if you work in a horrible place such as the “Tabernacle of Terror” that it doesn’t make you a terrifying person. That often people who look different are

In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards, fear is being used in order to try and scare the reader into becoming a better person and religious.

The basic argument that Juergensmeyer makes is that religious terrorism differs from other kinds of terrorism, and does religion plays the justification role in introducing terrorism to the ‘evils’ of the world. At first glance, the wealth of information, and sources that are presented, such as the one-on-one interview with Mike Bray and Rev. Paul Hill. Throughout the book he makes different points differentiating between political terrorism and religious terrorism. For instance,

Obviously, to not believe in what Christ’s taught and fought against, inevitably becomes the same thing as not believing in Him.

Religious terrorism is regularly portrayed as demonstrations of unreasonable, silly and indiscriminate violence, along these lines offering few, if any what really spur religious terrorism measures. This presumption about religious terrorism comes from different nations, groups and individual’s. Unbalanced regard for prophetically catastrophic terrorism, and an absence of qualification between religious terrorism and its mainstream partner. This article, in this manner, expects to do four things: characterize and separate religiously inspired terrorism, confidence, and activism along the lines of faith and violence. Furthermore, prescribe a scope of religion, confidence, and terrorism systems in view of these perceptions.

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

This paper will discuss religious terrorism in particular. Religious terrorism can be defined as “the terrorism [is] carried out based on motivations and goals that have a predominantly religious character or influences.” (“Religious Terrorism”) An example of this will be the 9/11 attacks. It was “a series of four coordinated terrorist attack launched by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.”(“September 11 attacks”) This attack had led to a serious causality, “almost 3000 people dies in the attacks.” (“September 11 attacks”) Osama Bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, declared a “holy war against the United States” (“September 11 attacks”) In his “letter to America”, he stated the motives as follows: In opposition to western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia; supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir; the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon; the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia; U.S support of Israel and the sanction against Iraq. (“September 11 attacks”) The disastrous attack leads to a serious attention of re-constructing the old version of counter terrorism strategy, which had failed to protect the citizens against terrorism. However, ‘terrorism is far to complex for one solution to be effective in dealing with all the possible threats.” (Lygutas 146) Therefore, some of the measures have difficulties in balancing the rights of

“In addition to communicating messages of fear to the mass audience, terrorists also may polarize public opinion, make converts, mislead the enemy by spreading false information, win publicity, advertise causes and movement, and discredit victim(s), to name just a few (Denton, 2004, p. 3)”. These terrorists wanted to get across this message that they wanted the United States citizens to stay out of the Middle East and to destroy or corrupt Christianity. Their main tactic in accomplishing their goals, was to scare off whoever they thought were intruding on their customs and country.

In the event of the terrorist attack on the newspaper Charlie Hebdo, instead of protesting or taking legal action some decided to kill innocent people to get revenge. It was religion based and when they started killing all those people, it made what they stood for look ludicrous. We are seeing this happen in our own country as well. I think about all of the shootings that have been arising and about innocent lives being taken, most of which have occurred recently because of a group of Islamists. This doesn’t mean that every person who is involved with the religion of Islam is that way, but it makes a lot of people skeptical and judgmental because that is what the media highlights, focusing on the fact that it is indeed about religion.

This terrorist attack on America could have been because of the islamic religious beliefs in contrast to America’s. 9/11 has not been the only attack that has happened from Islam due to religious beliefs. “Islam’s war involves attacks on sacred symbols of other faiths.” (William, Mary E, pg. 22). These terrorists are known for destroying churches and burning down other sacred symbols and later replacing them with mosques because they don’t have the same beliefs that they follow. “Any evidence that there once was another religion on islamic soil must be effaced,” (Williams, Mary E, pg. 22). Islam did not want any other beliefs other than their own on their soil. Islam was willing to destroy anything against their beliefs in hopes of imposing a threat and gaining followers. “...Al-Qaeda is shorthand for a much larger religious phenomena-militant islamic fundamentalism that has spawned violence and terrorism against

In Alison M. Jaggar’s paper “What is Terrorism, Why is it Wrong, and Could it Ever be Morally Permissible?”, she takes the topic of terrorism and tries to bring up information about it in a way to where terrorism can be discussed fairly and examined critically. Terrorism has been defined differently by various people, but many have voiced their concerns about this type of violence. Jaggar tried to develop an account (i.e., in-depth definition) of terrorism that would be consistent, precise, and impartial (Jaggar Pg. 205). For an account to be impartial, there must be a separation of the moral assessment of terrorists’ ends from the moral assessment of the ways or strategies used by them (Jaggar Pg. 206). Jaggar’s proposed account of terrorism is as follows: Terrorism is the use of extreme threats or violence designed to intimidate or subjugate governments, groups, or individuals. It is a tactic of coercion intended to promote further ends that in themselves may be good, bad or indifferent. Terrorism may be practiced by governments or international bodies or forces, substate groups or even individuals. It 's threats or violence are aimed directly or immediately at the bodies or belongings of innocent civilians but these are typically terrorists’ secondary targets; the primary targets of terrorists are the governments, groups or individuals that they wish to intimidate. (Jaggar Pg 209) Her description of terrorism is very comprehensive or inclusive. Furthermore, her

Religious terrorism is "inspired violence that is a type of political violence that is motivated by an absolute belief that an otherworldly power has sanctioned and commanded the application of terrorist violence for the greater glory of the faith." (Martin 134) These acts of terrorism are committed in the name of faith because it is what they are told to do and then are promised gifts in the afterlife. As it is thought Tamerlan’s individual radicalization was most likely connected Al-Qa'ida's Religious Foundation, in which to unite Muslims in a holy war. In the reading The Road to Boston it was stated that Tamerlan was connected to the Islamic groups in Dagestan (an area known for violent islamists). It is thought that Tamerlan had dreamed of taking part in the global jihad through the association with the Caucasus Emirate, in which he had gained his religious extremist faith following the values and beliefs of Al-Qa'ida. As it was shown

In 1742, Jonathan Edwards undertook the task of crafting a sermon that would be powerful in the eyes of both believers and unbelievers. The result exists today as his sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” The sermon differs from traditional sermons both of his time and in modern times. Rather than depicting the merciful and loving God of the Christian faith, Edwards brings to light a wrathful and angry God. He takes a look into the human condition while justifying the wrath of God. However, this is not the image of God that one is intended to take away from this message. While the language and imagery of the sermon were intended to cause feelings of hopelessness and fear, these are not the emotions that Edwards intended his audience to leave with. In his sermon, Edwards identifies the human condition and man’s depravity while justifying the building wrath of God only to use such harsh and violent imagery to paint a picture of a merciful and just God.

Elshtain, professor of ethics at the University of Chicago, argues for a set of positions that may startle some intellectuals: Good and evil exist; they can be defined within reasonably stable standards and norms; and individuals or states acting in pursuit of the good have, again under defined conditions, not just the right to struggle against evil, but the responsibility to do so. Within this framework, Elshtain (without apparent effort) identifies terrorists and terrorism

Religion teaches goodness and violence is rarely found, if ever, within the teachings (Winchester, 1). Terrorists, though, need a justification for their actions and so they must dig through scriptures to find a reason (Gibson, 2). Religion and terrorism is a major controversy because of all the different opinions and facts.