The Gentler Gamester is the Soonest Winner

From a new commentator, but appreciative reader of the online Sojourners that I receive:
Coincidentally, I had just read and forwarded the current occasional op/ed "Sightings" put out by Martin Marty from U of Chi, with my own intro, including this:

This fascinating article of the gradual shift toward religious inclusivity and interfaith activity on campuses (yes, and here and there in the general society)should be read against the background of a remarkable footnote in the horrific stories coming out of Mumbai (formerly Bombay). I refer to the REFUSAL TO BURY THE TERRORIST YOUNG MEN WHO WERE KILLED because they "were not true Muslims", having committed such heinous and brutal acts. Set that alongside this insight from said article--
A 2007 Pew Survey found that twice the number of respondents had a negative view of Muslims than a positive view. If the color line was the problem of the twentieth century, as DuBois famously observed, it appears that the faith line will be the challenge of the twenty-first. (ed. note, rdh-- does the Obama landslide show a sudden shift from that, given that fully a third of voters are said to have clung to the notion that Barack Hussein Obama was a 'closet Muslim' ?)
But I am puzzled that these Intelligence agencies seem to see Terrorism and Al Quaida as being on the wane! Tell that to the most recent victims and their families anywhere in the world, whose pain and losses receive momentary attention from us who are far away and immediately recede into the haze of our economy pre-occupations (which will also spawn new recruits for Terrorism as the disproportionate consumption of the USA and other industrial powers becomes more and more painful to the underdeveloped nations and to the masses in the Middle East and Asia.
from Rod Hokenson, retired Lutheran clergy in Adrian MI.

It is always wrong when people resort to killing others, regardless of whether they have had their resentments manipulated until they believe they are doing it in support of a justified cause.

The moral clarity with which we observe the violent and cruel actions of others should teach us this universal, which applies to us as well, that the end does not justify the means. If one attempts to reach a good end by bad means, one ends up only at a bad end. Means and ends become indistinguishable. Evil begets further evil. Violence does not make an end but a cycle. Violence is never redemptive.

Nevertheless, a bad means does not mean that there could not, given other means, be a good end.

We are not hated because we are free and violence does not occur completely irrationally, that is, without any cause at all, for no reason. By its nature, terrorism, as an act of war, is political in nature. It seeks to achieve political ends.

Terrorist movements thrive as parasites when the host they feed on, the body politic it attaches itself to, is not healthy and is too weakened to resist the infection. The parasite will seek to delude the host that the infection is even in its interest, if the weakness is at all attributable to genuine oppression by political opponents and their allies.

It is in our interest, if we are pro-life, to make sure other populations are not suffering from anything we have done to them and to support them in their genuine goals to health.

Please define terrorism. Maybe we are misspeaking in the Oceanian Orwellian sense.

go to webster. then answer my questions. please.

go to webster. then answer my questions. please.

So true. It's not enough to be against something -- folks need to be for something else. Spending all our time defeating perceived enemies will eventually leave us defeated.

From a new commentator, but appreciative reader of the online Sojourners that I receive:
Coincidentally, I had just read and forwarded the current occasional op/ed "Sightings" put out by Martin Marty from U of Chi, with my own intro, including this:

This fascinating article of the gradual shift toward religious inclusivity and interfaith activity on campuses (yes, and here and there in the general society)should be read against the background of a remarkable footnote in the horrific stories coming out of Mumbai (formerly Bombay). I refer to the REFUSAL TO BURY THE TERRORIST YOUNG MEN WHO WERE KILLED because they "were not true Muslims", having committed such heinous and brutal acts. Set that alongside this insight from said article--
A 2007 Pew Survey found that twice the number of respondents had a negative view of Muslims than a positive view. If the color line was the problem of the twentieth century, as DuBois famously observed, it appears that the faith line will be the challenge of the twenty-first. (ed. note, rdh-- does the Obama landslide show a sudden shift from that, given that fully a third of voters are said to have clung to the notion that Barack Hussein Obama was a 'closet Muslim' ?)
But I am puzzled that these Intelligence agencies seem to see Terrorism and Al Quaida as being on the wane! Tell that to the most recent victims and their families anywhere in the world, whose pain and losses receive momentary attention from us who are far away and immediately recede into the haze of our economy pre-occupations (which will also spawn new recruits for Terrorism as the disproportionate consumption of the USA and other industrial powers becomes more and more painful to the underdeveloped nations and to the masses in the Middle East and Asia.
from Rod Hokenson, retired Lutheran clergy in Adrian MI.

It is always wrong when people resort to killing others, regardless of whether they have had their resentments manipulated until they believe they are doing it in support of a justified cause.

The moral clarity with which we observe the violent and cruel actions of others should teach us this universal, which applies to us as well, that the end does not justify the means. If one attempts to reach a good end by bad means, one ends up only at a bad end. Means and ends become indistinguishable. Evil begets further evil. Violence does not make an end but a cycle. Violence is never redemptive.

Nevertheless, a bad means does not mean that there could not, given other means, be a good end.

We are not hated because we are free and violence does not occur completely irrationally, that is, without any cause at all, for no reason. By its nature, terrorism, as an act of war, is political in nature. It seeks to achieve political ends.

Terrorist movements thrive as parasites when the host they feed on, the body politic it attaches itself to, is not healthy and is too weakened to resist the infection. The parasite will seek to delude the host that the infection is even in its interest, if the weakness is at all attributable to genuine oppression by political opponents and their allies.

It is in our interest, if we are pro-life, to make sure other populations are not suffering from anything we have done to them and to support them in their genuine goals to health.

Please define terrorism. Maybe we are misspeaking in the Oceanian Orwellian sense.