1 1/2 paper

Terror in the Mind of God 

Terrorism is meant to terrify. It comes from the Latin terrere and it is "to cause to tremble ''.  The definition of a terrorist act is provided by us, the witnesses because we are the ones  who are terrified. The fear that we feel is often turned to anger, why is religion providing  terror and not tranquility and peace? In most acts, the primary reason for terrorism has been  religion, it sometimes has combination with other factors. The logic conclude that terrorism  exists because terrorists exist, if we got rid of them then the world be a more pleasant and  peaceful world. "Although such a solution is enticing, the fact is that the line is very thin  between "terrorists'' and their "nonterrorist" supporters. It is also not clear that there is such  a thing as a "terrorist" before someone conspires to perpetrate a terrorist act"  (Juergensmeyer 8). The studies of psychology of terrorism related with social psychology  because they are concerned with the way people respond to certain group situations that  make violent public acts possible. Nobody is a terrorist by nature, it involves people who get  caught up in extraordinary communities and share extreme world views according to Mark.  

"Terrorism is a seldom a lone act". For example, when Rev. Paul Hill stepped from a  sidewalk in Pensacola, Florida, and then shot Dr. John Birtton and hist security escort as  they were preparing to enter their clinic, Hill was cheered by a certain circle of militant  Christian anti-abortion activists all around the country. It takes a community of support and  a large organizational network for an act of terrorism to succeed. It also takes a lot of moral  presumption for the perpetrators of those acts to actually justify the destruction of property  "on a massive scale or to condone a brutal attack on another life, especially the life of  someone one scarcely knows and against whom one bears no personal enmity. And it  requires a great deal of internal conviction, social acknowledgment, and the stamp of  approval from a legitimizing ideology or authority one respects" (Juergensmeyer 11).   

A society has provided a social role for their citizens who participate in great struggles and  have been given the moral license to kill. These are soldiers. People can view soldiers in  different ways, for example, Sheik Abdul Rahman described himself as a "soldier and  servant in the cause of Allah". Rev. Micheal Bray, called himself a "soldier for Christ''.  Soldiers have found new battles. " the grand spiritual and political struggles in which their  movements envision themselves to be engaged. These cosmic wars impart a sense of  importance and destiny to men who find the modern world to be stifling, chaotic, and  dangerously out of control" (Juergensmeyer 190). The imagined wars identified the enemy.  The imagined soldiers of the cosmic wars were usually young and male and they were  members of financially and socially marginal groups in which there was a great need for  empowerment. The youth of most members of the movements makes them socially 

marginal. The fears of the impending marginality have helped to fuel racism of many of the  religious movements. Mark asks himself what connection should be made between  marginality and the propensity for violent action. He states that he does not think that  economic or social despair leads automatically to violence. The combination of the factors  has made a difference, "as has the intensity with which these factors are experienced and  the availability of a religious and political vocabulary with which the frustrations can be  articulated" (Juergensmeyer 195). It can create conditions for a desperate need for  empowerment, when no other option appears to be available, they are symbolically and  violently expressed.  

There have been women who have played active roles in terrorist movements as well. For  example, the assassin who in the 1991 killed Rajiv Gandhi, was a female suicide bomber.  When the Tupac Amaru movement invaded the Japanese embassy in Peru in 1996, several  young women were prominent among the cadres, who held the diplomats hostage. In these  two examples provided, the young terrorist women groups were motivated by secular  political ideologies or ethnic separatism; they were not religious according to Mark.  However, terrorism is "primarily a male occupation" (197). The gender specificity of their  involvements suggests that some aspect of male sexuality is a factor in the attitude of  these "urban males in their teens''. Sexual power for most men does not just involve their  sexual competence but also their sexual control. Basically saying, knowing when not to  have sex and putting sex in its place. There are misplaced gander roles, as women  assuming dominant positions in the public arena- these are examples of sex out of control.  Sex is a social problem.  

What does God think of terrorism? " Regardless of what Mike Bray thinks God thinks, not  everyone—not all Christians, not all Lutherans, not even all members of Bray's church or the  culture of violence with which he has been associated— would agree" (Juergensmeyer 218).  There are many interpretations of scripture and much of the controversy within religious  traditions has been over the issue of God's will. The discipline of theology emerged as a  human attempt to try to construe the knowledge related to God. Rarely does this type of  thinking justify acts of violence, yet the rare occasions have appeared in every religious  tradition. The Christian, Jewish Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist, rely on these precedents  and justifications for their own acts of religious violence. With the justifications, religious  activists have been able to go about their business of killing with the certainty that they  were following the logic of God. However, other members of their traditions have strongly  disagreed. Their violence has been a part in a "counterbalance to their marginality" which  was a war of empowering them within their own religious communities. Marginality often  preceded their acts of violence, and it also became more extreme afterward. According to 

Mark, " In some cases the movements were proudly peripheral, and the disdain that the  wider religious community displayed toward them was reciprocated (Juergensmeyer 218).  

The postmodern religious rebels that Mark examined throughout the book have “therefore  been neither anomalies nor anachronisms". Small but potent groups of violent activists  have represented the growing masses of supporters. According to Mark, they have  exemplified currents of thinking and cultures of commitment that have risen to counter the  prevailing modernism. Which is the ideology of individualism and skepticism. It has  emerged from the past- three centuries from the European Enlightenment and then spread  throughout the world. "The logic of this kind of militant religiosity has therefore been  difficult for many people to comprehend. Yet its challenge has been profound, for it has  contained a fundamental critique of the world's post-Enlightenment secular culture and  politics" (Juergensmeyer 228).  

How will this all end? When the United States responded to attacks in 1998, it was  proclaimed that American was at war with religious terrorists. This would be a long-term  struggle and that unfortunately this is the war of the future. It is also true that all war  eventually end, even the long-term ones. The war with religious terrorism have been from  the point of military and diplomatic leaders. It has been difficult to fight with weapons  designed for conventional and technological warfare. It is a war that can be won. It can be  described as a war that must be won for civilization as the modern West has known it to  survive. What can be the possible out comes of the war. Here are five according to Mark.  

1. Destroying Violence- Instances in which terrorists have been killed off or have been 

forcibly controlled. "The war-against-terrorism strategy can be dangerous, in that it  can play into the scenario that religious terrorists themselves have fostered: the  image of a world at war between secular and religious forces" (230). A secular  government must be willing to declare total war against religious terrorism and wage  it over many years from this strategy to work. It will be difficult for the government's  military power to obliterate a terrorist band, but sometimes its own "internal tensions  can accomplish the task".  

2. Terrifying Terrorists. This would include the threat of violent reprisals on 

imprisonment so it frightens religious activists that hesitate to act. This was adopted  by many law enforcement agencies to crack down on terrorists: "even if the  authorities cannot eliminate the terrorists completely, they can at least frighten them  by raising the stakes associated with involvement in terrorist activity" (231).  

3. Violence wins. It is a reverse of those cases in which terrorism is defeated or 

diffused; it is when terrorism wins according to Mark. This is the outcome for which  every "religious activist, understandable, has yearned" Mark states.  

4. Separating Religion from politics. This includes when religion is taken out of politics 

and retired to the moral and metaphysical planes. "As long as images of spiritual  warfare remain strong in the minds of religious activists and are linked with  struggles in the social world around them, the scenarios we have just  discussed—achieving an easy victory over religious activists, intimidating them into  submission, or forging a compromise with them—are problematic at best"  (Juergensmeyer 235).   

5. Healing politics with religion. Required the opponents in the conflict to summon at 

least a minimal level of mutual trust and respect. The respect has been enhanced  and the possibilities of a compromised solution "strengthened when religious  activists have perceived governmental authorities as having a moral integrity in  keeping with, or accommodating, religious values" (Juergensmeyer 238). Secular  authorities embrace moral values including those associated with religion.  

Terror in The Mind of God  

Terrorism plays a large threat in modern-day society as it involves mysterious plots  of events people usually fret over. People normally involved in these movements have a  history of present attributes that lead to these types of behaviors. Mark Juergensmeyer in  this book, takes those attributes and applies it to delving into the minds of these  participants. He digs deep into scrutinizing the people who have been taught these  behaviors and how it has been incorporated in their religious beliefs, as well as  incorporating many examples analogically whether if it has to do with their religion, general  politics, or their feeling of purpose. 

This essay is generally on Chapters 1, 10 and 11 of his book called, “Terror in the  Mind of God.” Chapter 1 introduces what he goes over in the rest of his book, which are the  different men that are involved in these terrorist acts. 10 and 11, however, go over both  power and symbolic religious causes of how these men precipitate to war. The author 

introduces readers to in the beginning of his book in Terror in the mind of God on the  similarities within these terrorist’s contributing acts. On page 3 of his book, the author  implies that, “In addition to their contemporaneity, all these instances share two striking  characteristics. First, they have been violent---even vicious---in a manner calculated to be  terrifying. And, second, they have been linked in some way to religion.” These  characteristics both address the outcomes of terrorist involvement and how they use their  perpetrators to signify their meaning by these instances. 

The author stresses the importance of understanding whether religion serves a  purpose in the way terrorist acts are perpetrated. On page 5, of his book, Mark  Juergensmeyer states that: “Rather, I look for explanations in the current forces of  geopolitics enhanced by a strain of violence that may be found at the deepest levels of  religious imagination. Religion may not be the cause of the anger that leads to violence in  most places around the world, but it can vastly complicate the way that anger is expressed.”  Religion in his case in this text, may most likely be more of the effect rather than the cause.  He addresses here that it’s pretty much both religions intertwined with psychological  tendencies and other areas as well. This makes the author more inclined to demonstrating  throughout his book what causes these tendencies and what the backgrounds of these men  are, to better understand what’s basically, in the mind of these terrorists’ individuals. Mark  Juergensmeyer addresses in page six of his book and says that, “What puzzles me is not  why bad things are done by bad people, but rather why bad things are done by people who  otherwise appear to be good---in cases of religious terrorism.” Religion can be the  justification to people’s actions and beliefs. According to the author’s understanding, these  men appear to be good because their pious dedications, but when you have men strapping  weights of bombs to their chests and blowing up cars in front of buildings, the scenario can  be more inclined by social impacts as well. The author wants to make it clear that religion is  generally one of the outcomes that engage men into these terrorist acts as it motivates  them to fight in battles or struggles, along with social order and political causes as well. 

When dealing with terrorist acts and these major individuals, many are hard to  distinguish what thoughts are fluctuating through the minds of these people. Mark  Juergensmeyer delivers descriptive analyses of men he’s interviewed that have taken part  of these organizations and movements. One example of someone’s experience is what the  author brings up on page. 230. This is about the radical terrorist involvement of ISIS and  how their point was not about power of controlling land, but it was about power in general.  He writes about a message of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi which explaining that,  conducting acts of terrorism on the movement’s behalf were empowering. “Terrorism is to  refuse humiliation, subjugation, and subordination.” The author then moves on in his book  on the bottom of page 231, and describes how the Hamas movement carries a similar  perspective stating: “To die in this way” ---through suicide bombings, is better to die daily in  frustration and humiliation.” The outcome of the war on terror here is that, these groups 

who participate in these things are less likely to be able to participate in their government  municipalities and usually become noted as a radical terrorist. On page 263, the author  states that: “In fact, despite their bravado, most groups associated with terrorism have  largely shied from politics and eschewed elections. When given the opportunity to run for  office, they have usually rejected it, as radical Sikhs did in Punjab in 1992.” Overall, it seems  like these terrorist organizations remain stagnant in these criminal actions, as it  consistently makes them stay in these organizations, unless excelled to a morally-bound  transition to become better people. Just like stated above, this however, whatever country it  can be, can disperse as a criminal record, which then leads to this outcome being affected  to their reputation in the long run.  

Another given outcome towards men being more involved in terrorism is that they  feel the opportunity to feel “heroic” towards their community. On page 232, it talks about  marginalists and how they are empowered to fight. Going onto page 234, it describes that,  “Many ISIS followers, whether or not they were on the battlefield, called themselves,  mujahideen, literally, a fighter, “engaged in jihad.” Many of these men feel like they’re  empowered to war on terror because they feel like they’re doing it for a sense of their  communities. This helps them caption a war-like mentality and even acclaim the title as a  soldier. There are several factors that also describe why men join acts of terrorism.  Economic, social influence, and unemployment reasons can mostly be the dramatic causes  that cause these men to engage in such movements. On pages 235-237 the book highlights  areas where men join these organizations because of their environments. In their regions,  many of these men feel empowered to join because they have been, “marginalized,” and  have lost a sense of dignity and self-esteem to their natures. They become entitled to  joining such acts of power, to self-boost their egos. Such entitlements they may also feel  like they face as the book states in page 235, are their: “Concerns over careers, social  location, and sexual relationships;” And that these things have been “exacerbated to them.”  In the book it states that “In Palestine, where the unemployment rate among young men in  their late teens and early twenties hovered around 50 percent, economic frustration led to  sexual frustration.” (235). High unemployment rates can be one outcome of stress for these  individuals to engage in on wars of terrorism. Another set example of a group of terrorists  being involved in movements similar to others, is that they all share a feeling of a fret of  being peripheralized. On pages 236-237 Mark Juergensmeyer speaks about how most of  the terrorists all had the same issue in common and that was being at an inferior state to  others in their society. One idea is that this brought to them marginalization which caused  them to act on war. The author clarifies this in his book on page 237 by saying that: “What  most of these men had in common was a sad tale of failed promise in their professional  lives, and a fear of even greater social marginality in the future. Although many were white  protestant males and members of the middle class, they perceived European and American  society to be moving in a direction that would make this class increasingly peripheral. The  white militants were terrified at statistical projections, based on the rise of Middle Eastern 

immigrants in Europe and Asian and Hispanic immigrants in the United States that would  increasingly marginalize Caucasians. (237). As the book states these fears helped  undoubtedly fuel racism and have given these men the urge to develop these radical  religious movements. These men who feel being marginalized are more likely to join these  movements for a state of power that they feel like they must position themselves or regain  with to feel more dignified in their places.  

Men who join these religious movements, as the book states form a state of  brotherhood. They are persuaded to feel a sense of affection between these other men  relationally. The book addresses these men as the ones who fall into a position, as stated  above as being the minorities of a country. Other men join for the thrill, and other causes as  well. On page 239, the author states that: “In my discussion in the earlier chapter of this  book, the Twitter accounts of volunteers that my research assistants have monitored  revealed a consistent theme---the creation of a sense of community---that strikingly  illustrated the degree to which these young people have felt alienated and marginalized in  their home societies. Men who join these religious movements, as stated in the book, need  a desire to achieve that togetherness they weren’t able to achieve because of their  differences. They use these involvements as ways to join a pact that can fulfill those needs  on an emotional level. That being said, this is one of the outcomes that cause men to act to  war on terror, which is there need to fulfill their own social interactions and worship it  through those given areas. 

In a part of the book, the author interviews one of the men who have been involved in  terrorists acts at some point in their life. On page 240, he describes his interview with  Muhammad Salamanca. Muhammad is a good example of what the author presents to his  readers to why men are more statistically apt to being drawn into terrorism. For M.  Salamanca, here is a checklist of his background which exemplifies his aptness to be bribed  into more of a position of terrorism. 1) He was a refugee in the Middle East and in America.  2) He exemplified several aspects of marginality. 3) He came from poverty as a man of  lesser skills and no hope for a developing career, and 4) He was a bachelor. An example of  this type of character has helped men all over the world generalize the aspects of how  many men of several countries are involved in a plot with terrorist acts or involvement,  adding together their need for power in their daily lives. On page 242, the book talks about  women and their involvements in terrorist acts as well. In the section of his book titled,  “Why Guys throw Bombs,” the author describes analogies and differences between the  women who join these forces, and how men apply terrorism as a suitable act to their lives.  Mark Juergensmeyer states that in this chapter that, “Ten percent of the international  volunteers who joined ISIS were women, and though many came to provide sexual and  support for the male fighters, some have played strategic roles in terrorist acts.” He also  states, that “However women have not played a prominent role in militant religious  movements.” Men still take charge in these movements because their more able to achieve 

these authorities as men, as they are to be more strong and able to accomplish the tasks of  these events. That in my opinion is a reason how men are very dominant in these terrorist’s  act and positions. An interesting part of the book involves a young Sikh woman who was  involved in terrorist acts, once murdered a Hindu shopkeeper and by doing this, her  intentions was to “spur men on” (Pg. 243). This was the inclination for her to make men  look like ordinary boys and belittle their self-esteems. It also was to challenge them to do  better. Men are normally the dominant force when being involved in these movements, as it  portrays a better response to a difficult task, such as these terrorist involvements. 

In Conclusion, men who plot these terrorists’ events all portray something in  common. The book, “Terror in the Mind of God,” demonstrates the ability to scrutinize the  following men in this world to speak out on their experiences. He jumps into what makes  them stand out as they all possess similar backgrounds and come from similar origins.  Terrorism is an act of power; a state of following ones belief by the persuasiveness of their  satisfied acts. Religion itself is a position that can bribe a person to act, in my belief, religion  is one way to overthrow one’s belief to act on these cosmic events. At the end of the day,  religion and these acts of violence to these individuals engage them to believe their own  considerable understandings of what to do on what they consider in which is just and  appropriate of terrorism acts, in the mind of God. 

Tristan Calamita 

Dr. Charles Mabee 

Religion in the Modern World 

Tuesday 5th April 2020 

The Peculiar Earmarks and Core Dynamic of Acts of Religious Terrorism: Terror in the Mind  of God Essay (part 2) 

In the first chapter of his novel, ​Terror in the Mind of God,​ Mark Juergensmeyer introduces  us to the concept of terrorism, defining it “as an assault on civil order” (Juergensmeyer 22).  It stems from the latin word ​terrere,​ a verb meaning to tremble, a reflection of the reaction  acts of terrorism are intended to instill within their witnesses. He continues on to extend  this definition of terrorism to not only include the acts themself, but also the chain of events  following the event that occur within the affected society. First, as news spreads and the 

initial shock of the horrific happening is felt by many, there is an initial reaction of fear. Over  time, after the initial emotion subsides and we learn that the intentional nature of the attack,  the fear turns into anger. By this definition, acts of terrorism are are calculated acts of  violence enacted on a specific group of people to provoke a desired emotional/political  response from the public. 

As a society that is continuously exposed to acts of terrorism through media, we are very  familiar with the general reaction of disgust and connotation of immorality that is  associated with an outside view of religious terrorism. However, we are much less  accustomed to the way that these acts are perceived by the perpetrators, and the  motivations and attitudes that they are regarded with within the in-group. Analysis of the  recent history of terror attacks supports the idea that terrorist attacks are successful only  when they are backed by “a community of support and, in some cases, a large  organizational network” (Juergensmeyer 29). In this respect, terrorist attacks are seldom a  lone act of violence. They are usually coordinated by a group, bound by religion, political  affiliation, or some other common motivating factor. Typically these groups are operated  under some form of leadership, which can come in the form of high-ranking religious  officials or political leaders, and are justified using a legitimate organization or theologies  belief system (Juergensmeyer 29). It is worth noting that even the small portion of religious  terrorist attacks that do appear to be “solo ventures” are typically executed using the  ideology of one of these larger more organized terrorist factions (Juergensmeyer 30). 

There are some peculiar aspects common throughout the varies cultures of groups that are  prone to religious violence. First, they typically exist within a country that is already prone to  violence and political unrest, and very often countries that are largely undeveloped and  poor. These qualities lend something to the mindset of the terrorist that is absolutely crucial  in developing justification for their heinous acts of violence, which Juergensmeyer  describes as “the perception that their communities are already under attack-are being  violated-and that their acts are simply therefore a response to the violence.” (30). Terrorists  do not act alone, at least not on a psychosocial level. Their justification and motivations lie  not only within their personal/group belief systems, but within their perceived support of  their societies. One of the basic concepts foundational to sociology is that of the in- and  outgroup, or the tendency that humans have to label (& identify with) others that share  similar beliefs, and assume that those individuals are either similar to them (the ingroup) or  dissimilar (the outgroup). In this way, I believe that a defining sociological quality of  religious terrorist groups is that they have a tendency to vastly overestimate the size of their  ingroup, extending it out into larger portions of their society as well as overestimating the  similarity within belief systems of these individuals. This gives them the illusion that their 

acts of violence will be regarded as more heroic than they actually are, furthering their  justification under their delusional belief systems. Juergensmeyer seems to validate these  conclusions when he says “whether or not outsiders regard these perceptions of  oppression as legitimate, they are certainly considered valid by those communities.”  (Juergensmeyer 31). 

Another one of these aspects is the tendency to err on the side of delusion and conspiracy  as the foundation for these arguments of oppression are concerned. Violence in the face of  genuine oppression is typically not regarded as terrorism. However, the fine line that  separates necessary violence in the face of oppression from terrorist attacks is the way  that the oppression is presented and justified. In groups where delusion & conspiracy are, in  fact, the motivational forces, the enemy is invisible and the solution is unattainable. The  concept of an invisible enemy is highlighted when Juergensmeyer describes “pious Muslim  communities around the world where Islam is felt to be under siege by the secular forces of  modern society.” (31), amongst descriptions of very similar ideologies in other extremist  groups. The invisible enemy in this case is modernity, and the unattainable solution is  preventing the world from progressing. Although many followers of Islam do hold their own  reservations on the current state of the world, Islamic terrorists perceive western culture to  be a direct insult/attack on their faith, and assume that most other followers of Islam would  support their acts of violence for exactly this reason. Fighting such impossible or cosmic  fights ensures that the terrorists viewpoint cannot be challenged, the war can never be won,  and that they will have an ongoing pool of justification to draw from to continue attacking.  As Juergensmeyer puts it at the beginning of chapter 10, “the struggles in which most  members of terrorist groups see themselves engaged appear to be of such cosmic  proportion that they cannot conceivably be won.” (265). 

As previously mentioned, terrorist groups seem to come into existence in much higher rates  in impoverished countries, particularly within the disadvantaged or marginalized subgroups  that exist within them. This can be another contributing factor to acts of violence, as “the  countering of dishonor with piety and struggle is a theme that runs through many of the  incidents of religious violence in the last decades of the twentieth century and the first  decades of the twenty-first.” (Juergensmeyer 267). Disadvantaged groups of men find an  easy elevation of social standing in joining these fights, as “society provides an  accepted-even heroic-social role for its citizens who participate in great struggles and have  been given the moral license to kill.” (Juergensmeyer 268). For many living in less than ideal  situations, the instant elevation to the status of a noble soldier provides plenty motivation  for joining these immoral causes. Propaganda sent out by these groups greatly influences  their perception, and increases recruitment rates greatly. Additionally, many acts of 

Christian religious terrorism in the United States are carried out by previous members of the  military, which also seems to support the idea that terrorists believe that acts of violence  are a means obtaining a status of nobility (268). 

Juergensmeyer claims that the war on terror has 5 discrete possible outcomes. They are as  follows: 

1. Destroying Violence: the keyword of this first solution is “destroying”. The gut  reaction of many to acts of religious terrorism is that of an-eye-for-an-eye, or fighting  fire with fire, meaning of course to meet their violence with more violence. The most  classic example of this tactic in modern times is the response of the Bush & Obama  administrations to 9/11 through military force. However, the major drawback of this  is the risk of fanning the flames of the previously discussed terrorist viewpoint. In  meeting their violence with more violence, we are validating their delusions of an  “image of a world at war between secular and religious forces” (Juergensmeyer  321). Juergensmeyer goes on to add that this response may even be preferable to  terrorists, in that “a belligerent secular enemy has often been just what religious  activists have hoped for”. 

2. Terrifying Terrorists: this approach is very similar to the aforementioned one, but  with the hope that threats of counterviolence or imprisonment are enough to  pre-empt future terrorist attacks. Juergensmeyer admits right off the bat that the  benefits of this tactic are likely minimal at best, as “though some fringe members of  activist groups may be sobered by such threats, it is doubtful that the “get tough with  terrorists” strategy has had much of an impact on the more dedicated members”  (323). It seems fairly obvious to me that this would be the case: I would assume it is  nearly impossible to scare a group of individuals who are so justified in their own  mindset that they believe mass-murder & suicide are effective solutions to a problem  that cannot be solved. I do find it extremely interesting towards the end of this  subsection, when Juergensmeyer notes that in some cases extreme acts of violence  may have dissuaded terrorist groups from WITHIN, as in the case of the Oklahoma  City federal building bombing. He writes that after the attack occurred, “violent  incidents from Christian militia members in the United States diminished.” (324). 

3. Seeking Accommodation: third solution serves to use the power accrued by terror  organizations as a “bargaining chip” in political negotiations. (Juergensmeyer 325).  Under most circumstances, this proves difficult if not impossible, as the motivation  of cosmic war doesn’t easily cave under the promise of compromise. However, if the  country the terrorist organization existed within did have the power to control the  group/persuade them to legitimize themself into “effective political parties”  (Juergensmeyer 326), it can be effective. 

4. Defusing Cosmic War/Desacralization: this tactic aims to defuse terrorist groups by  driving a stake through their ideological heart: by shifting their cause from the  metaphysical realm to the real-world, where a real-world solution becomes  obtainable. The challenge of this tactic lies in the fact that “most religious activists  regard the social manifestation of cosmic struggle to be at the very heart of their  faith and dream of restoring religion to what they regard as its rightful position at the  center of public consciousness.” (Juergensmeyer 328). One of the first steps in  desacralization is to stop “acting as enemies”, or not responding to the terrorist  attacks with military force. Given the current political unrest present within the  United States (and most of the world presently), this would be a feat in itself.  However, as in the case of the British & Israeli conflict, this seems to have a long  term peaceful payoff that outweighs violence in the long run. 

5. Taking the Moral High Ground: for the most part, this solution is self-explanatory. To  take the moral high ground is to justly punish those who have committed acts of  terrorism in accordance with pre-existing laws, in an effort not to further escalate the  situation. The major benefit provided by a more sensible reaction to terrorism is that  we avoid validating “the religious’ activists most devastating critique…that secular  politics are devoid of morality.” (Juergensmeyer 332). 

A theme that I see common to a few of these solutions is that it is important not to validate  the terrorists ideology, to avoid further inflating the unrealistic proportions of their so-called  “cosmic war”. In this sense, the war on terrorism exists much more within the social  sciences than it does in the physical world: it is a war of psychology and sociology. With  terrorists, we are not fighting people. We are fighting a toxic mindset that is propagating  within a community of individuals that identify with each other and their own delusions.