Ending Religious Terror and Violence by L.C.

My plan to end religious terror and violence and achieve lasting peace involves incorporating three concepts: limiting marginality, promoting religious integration and diversity, and limiting military influence and increasing the use of diplomatic solutions. My solution to religious terrorism and violence is a multifaceted approach because terrorism is a highly complicated matter that deals with political, social, and psychological constructs. I believe my approach perceives terrorism as consisting of many factors to its cause and therefore makes an attempt to combat it as a comprehensive “culture of violence”.
Limit Marginality
     The first element that must be attacked in order to resolve terrorism is marginality; the socially marginal individual tends to attach himself to a lifestyle to that which seeks an enemy and lives to defeat it: “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. The imagined wars identify the enemy, the imputed source of their personal and political failures…  they give them a sense of their own potential for power” (J, pg. 193). The idea of marginality is that the individual tends to be on the edge of society due to either his social standing, economic status, economic frustrations, or political opposition. J (2003) states that these socially marginal individuals are more prone to seek comfort within a group that identifies with he/she’s feelings: “These activists youths are family members without a family, for whom religious movements provide a home and an extended kinship… vulnerable to the voices of powerful leaders and images of glory in a cosmic war” (pg. 194).
     Moreover, J (2003) gives an example of how a group or individual’s fear of marginality may encourage violence as a means of prevention: “Although they are white Protestant males and currently members of a privileged class, they perceive American society to be moving in a direction that would make this class increasingly peripheral. They are terrified at statistical projections, based on the rise of Asian and Hispanic immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s, that put Caucasians in the minority in California and other West Coast states some time in the twenty-first century” (pg. 195).
Limiting marginality is the first step involved within my solution to generating world peace; “Colin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State, spoke the necessity of dealing with social and economic grievances that fueled the anti-American disaffection in the Middle East and elsewhere as a way of undercutting al Qaeda support” (J, pg. 234). The socially marginal person is one who feels rejected by society, therefore in order to limit and decrease these feelings existing in a society a nation should seek assistance in improving their education to the youth and general public, services to communities, outreach programs to the youth, jobs, and general enhancements involved in improving one’s socioeconomic standing to which their social status is not seen as a government, economic, or community induced vulnerability that they themselves cannot overcome. J (2003) states, “In 1990 President Ranasinghe Premadasa provided a fund for the financial support of Buddhist schools and social services” (pg. 244); it is important to provide support, services, and funding to the public and communities in order to prevent the socially marginal individual who might resort to irrational means to empower himself where he believes his society has failed him.  
Promote Integration and Diversity
     “The most successful solutions are those that have been forged on a moral plane- those that have required the opponents in the conflict to summon at least a minimal level of mutual trust and respect” (J, pg. 243). In order for a balance to be remotely present within a society, habitat, or community there must reside a mutual understanding and respect of the responsibilities, importance, and interests of each group or citizens living within the society from the government and vice versa. The government must be perceived to have respect for the religions, ideas, or beliefs of its people; it is necessary because individuals identify strongly with their religion: it is a deeply rooted entity of the average man’s life that defines him, this applied to the socially marginal activist is compounded when he feels ignored by his peers or government. A nation where the individual respects and feels respected will divert his aggression away from the government (which are innocent people); this socially marginal individual will not blame his marginality on government faults or conspiracy, nor on any particular religious group. The idea of integration and diversity is to assist groups and people to think “outside the box”; that the world is multicultural, dynamic, and complicated and therefore your way of processing information concerning the world should be broad.  
Promoting integration and diversity is the second element of my solution for world peace; it involves improving a nation’s economy and rebuilding infrastructure (communications, technology, transportation) in order to create a nation that is more appealing to other nations (on a global scale). The belief is that a nation that is internationally competitive and attracting business from other markets will nonetheless encourage its own citizens to excel in education, capital, and socialization thus diverting them from terrorist acts; through a nation encouraging interaction with other countries and educating its citizens on the existence and value of these other nation’s resources, religions, economy, social and political culture we would be opening individuals to a new world. In addition, this notion is stating the importance of recognizing and understanding that other religions and groups exist outside of one’s own and embracing the differences is the best way for a society to move forward.  
Limit Military Influence and Increase Diplomatic Solutions
The third element within my solution for world peace is ridding nations of having the “crackdown” or “war” mentality and increasing or developing a means to have compromise and diplomacy between nations, not people. The fact that nations have sanctioned terrorism, housed terrorists, or even themselves been accused of such acts begs one to look at how countries are approaching the situation of terrorism. In addition, the idea of war being an solution to terrorism is unrealistic; wars will only fuel further terrorist acts in return, elevating the cycle of violence. We must approach terrorism with a desire to end such acts with the least amount of force and conflict as possible, this being through exercising diplomatic resources available.
     Terrorism is looked at as a violent act against a religious institution, belief, or nation and through combating terrorism, as this tangible enemy with the goal to defeat it is reasonable. The response of violence to terrorism by some nations seems logical because they see a violent response or threatening one as leveling the playing field, however terrorism is a battle that cannot be won on the battlefield but in the minds of the men who commit these acts: “The U.S. military response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings [was to]… embark on a multifaceted “war on terrorism”. It involved both political alliances and military encounters, including an intensive campaign to search for and destroy the headquarters of the al Quad network in Afghanistan…… Although the American military actions crippled some aspects of the al Qaeda organization’s ability to launch terrorist assaults against the U.S., the negative publicity garnered by the military attacks was counterproductive. The U.S. military assault may therefore have elevated the possibility of more terrorist acts in reprisal… American reprisals had made recruitment to the al Qaeda cause easier ” (J, 234-235).
     Regarding military crackdowns as deterrents to terrorism: condoning military occupation and stricter law enforcement as a hopeful means of a deterring terrorism will neither neutralize or elevate the terrorist acts of violence. J (2003) states, “In the view of most of them, the world is already at war, and they have always expected the enemy to act harshly. So the threat of an additional increment of penalty to be meted out for their actions has had little if any deterrent effect… a harsh response from the government might actually encourage the activists, since it helps to confirm their own perception of the world at war between secular and sacred forces” (J, 237).
     If a nation is going to allow war or any other form of violence to combat terrorism it is wiser to be done in limited use and through incremental means; declaring an all out war is a radical approach to violence, violence itself being chaotic and extreme.  War should always be seen as the last possible solution not as a deterrent, form of discipline, of primary solution to political or social problems between or within nations. Military crackdowns, war, or violence in response to terrorist acts are not reasonable or workable solutions; solutions should come in the form of diplomatic means. Nations should develop ideas that will work best for them when approaching how to rid their nation of terrorist violence and groups; all nations are different and therefore diplomatic plans should be unique to each nation’s social and political situations.  
     Limiting marginality, promoting integration and diversity, and limiting military influence and increasing diplomatic solutions must be seen as three equal steps in an complex strategy to end terrorism and religious violence; world peace is a comprehensive notion, as well are these three components in my solution and one must want to actively be working in each element in order to find themselves reaching “peace”. Meaning, that a world combating terrorism must not just work on marginality and leave educating people on the importance of diversity and economy integration and decreasing military occupation to the side; this solution with its three elements is an all inclusive system and I believe is a rather workable notion to peace, seeing how a world of lasting peace is a difficult concept to even contemplate.