Blood That Cries Out From the Earth: The Psychology of Religious Terrorism by James W. Jones is an interesting discussion, the link providing a couple essays that provides its core aspects in short essay form. I really liked the first couple chapters that provides a summary of religious terrorism after a personal statement from the author. He is not just an expert in religion, one who has done casework with those in prison, but who had an eyewitness view of 9/11. This adds force to such comments as:
Understanding an action in no way means excusing it; explaining an action in no way means condoning it. ...
Must we resort to the same tactic [demonization of the other] -- which is so costly psychologically and spiritually -- in order to oppose terrorism? Or can we counter religiously motivated terrorism without becoming like them?
Noting that both words are so disputed that it results in a situation of "combining the unknown with the obscure," the author does provide a thumbnail definition of "religious terrorism" -- use of violence, often in symbolic but deadly actions, in the service of sacred goals or values. The author is careful to note that terrorism is a complex matter (involving psychology, politics, economics, religion, and culture) that should not be examined in a simplistic matter. A summary:
[1] Profound experiences of shame and humiliation from outside or inside group [stunted childhood development discussed as one aspect here ... failure to form a realistic perspective of the world]
[2] Splitting of humanity into black/white camps, demonizing other/"social death"
[3] Wrathful, punitive idealized deity or leader (self or other demonized to encourage this) ... see John Dean on authoritarian personality?
[4] Conviction that purification is needed / shedding of blood ... sacrifice
[5] Fascination of violence [Left Behind series discussed]
Three case models are provided: Islamic terrorism, Aum Shinrikyo (thus Buddhism also has violent tendencies), and American Apocalyptic Christianity (a somewhat disconcerting discussion of how this influenced Bush policy is included here; it seems somewhat out of place). A somewhat tedious psychological discussion of how stunted development can lead to a terrorist mind-set follows. The book does underline early that the terrorist is not a monster, but are quite ordinary when looked upon from afar. And, the conclusion argues that a different view of religion, focusing on peace, non-violence,* not a stereotypical view of others and ultimately "tolerating ambiguity."
After all, terrorism, an acceptance of "social death" necessary for the violence involved, requires a self-assurance that ultimately can be deemed blasphemy -- a belief that imperfect humans can know the divine enough to justify such a path.
---
* For instance, the Hebrew prophets often denounced use of sacrifice, a type of scapegoating which terrorism is but an exaggerated form of, used over good works. Also, "Islam" means "peace" ... but notice how close that is to "Shalom" and "Jerusalem" (City of Peace).