I've been pondering the topic of terrorism and have not yet arrived at what strikes me as an effective definition. In the current context, there seems to be a presumption that it must necessarily involve the violence of arms in at least a quasi-military context. But that strikes me as an inadequate definition. If it is accurate to view terrorism as an assault on the life and culture of a target people, then is it not rational to consider religious zealotry, whether "armed" or not, a form of terrorism? There is no question that "christianizing" afforts among native American peoples were as devastating to their cultures as guns and microbes. It continues today in the efforts of some groups to "convert" Mayans to christianity, and in other forms as well. Seems as though I read that the Taliban rather severely "punished" some westerners for "preaching christianity" to Afghan people. The issue, I think, is not whether one person's beliefs are more or less meritorious than another's, but whether any group can ever be justified in seeking to "impose" or "convert" another to their system of beliefs. The core rationale is that a people's system of spiritual beliefs is a major element in defining who and what that group is, and any attempt to influence either the direction or rate of development in that system amounts to an attack on that culture. Knowing that most 'Catters are thoughtful folk, I'm interested in learning the diversity of views on the topic.