<div>Kai et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I've already explained why, from a legal and law enforcement perspective, not a common dictionary definition perspective (there is major difference), the sort of definition of terrorism you just quoted is problematic. I could quote the scholars and legal experts I have studied on this issue...
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But this is all besides the point... A diversion from the main issue of this thread.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>From Paul R.'s post:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2007-September/048201.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2007-September/048201.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>For example, a well-mannered person of faith might raise a child into that faith that becomes an extremist. The danger as he sees it is that faith allows any act to be justified, no matter how cruel or how evil an act it is. If you think God is telling you to do it, then, by God, you'd better do it. This, of course, is not helped by the fact that the holy books of the most common
<br>Western religions contain passages that can be rationalized as a reason for murder, among other crimes. For example, my favorite, "you must not suffer a witch to live".<br>---------------------</div>
<div>You have not addressed the central point of Paul's original post in this thread, that of the widespread promotion by religion of incredible propostions, central to a person's ethical outlook, that are not based on reasonable evidence; and how this can contribute to a climate in society that fosters extremism, which does not mean only terrorism. It means denial of critical scientific findings, oppression of women, persecution of gays, politicians using religion to manipulate the faithful, and viewing those of other faiths as "damned," thus fostering religious prejudice, etc.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You claimed that environmentally friendly people might be linked to promoting eco-terrorism, in some way similar to how those who follow religion might be linked to religious extremism. But the question remains, what incredible propositions that are not based on reasonable evidence do the environmentally friendly people promote, that the eco-terrorists then use to justify committing terrorism?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Millions of people in the world believe the Bible or the Koran is the literal absolute word of the one creator of the universe. Millions of people believe this is the absolute truth, and many think they can prove this with evidence. One way or the other, this is an incredible claim, that can be taken to extremes rather easily, given the quotes from these books that can be interpreted in extreme ways... Homosexuals might be exiled, rather than stoned, and adulterers executed, in some cases, to quote a prominent local minister, referencing the Bible:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."</em> (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)</div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.</em> (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)</div>
<div>--------</div>
<div>Maybe friendly environmentalists promote the idea that if you save the whales, you will become a billionaire and live in paradise on Earth till you are 120? Or do they claim that those who pollute the Earth should be burned at the stake, like witches? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The 9/11 hijackers believed they would be guaranteed a place in heaven in their martyrdom, based on their religion, and quotes from the Koran. Those who promoted the idea that the Koran is the absolute literal word of the one true creator of the universe, thus promoted a belief that was involved in justifying the 9/11 attacks. To make your comparison carry the same weight, environmentally friendly people would need to promote the belief of some sort of equally incredible proposition. And since you were looking for a non-religious example, the incredible belief can't be a religious one.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I don't buy the idea that environmentally friendly people are a threat to society based on the promotion of incredible beliefs not supported by reasonable evidence, that carry the power of commands from God. But the argument is that religion is a major threat to society by widespread promotion of incredible improbable beliefs that can easily justify extremism.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/2/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kai Eiselein</b> <<a href="mailto:fotopro63@hotmail.com">fotopro63@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>>From Dictionarydotcom:<br>Terrorism: <br>1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.<br>2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
<br>3. A terroristtic method of governing or resisting a government.<br>I believe that describes rather well what ELF, ALF and Earth First! do.<br><em><strong></strong></em> <br><br> </div></blockquote></div>