Defining Terrorism Down

I sometimes listen to Mike Gallagher in the evenings, and I have been listening to him discuss the reaction to his turning over an hour of his show to the lunatics from Westboro Baptist Church in order to keep them away from the funerals of the Amish girls in Pennsylvania. I caught the last 15 minutes or so of their appearance, and it was surreal. The two ladies who appeared on the show were humorless, joyless, and angry.

I think Mr. Gallagher did a good and decent and noble thing. Others disagree. One of those is Richard Roeper, who referred to the Westboro idiots in his column as "spiritual terrorists".

I have a problem with Roeper's use of the word "terrorist". Let's be clear: the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are vile, hateful, and despicable. Anyone who would even consider demonstrating at the funeral of a murdered child is monstrous.

But let's also be clear about what they are not: they are not strapping suicide belts to themselves and blowing themselves up in restaurants and bus stations; they are not flying airplanes into buildings; they are not beheading people in front of a video camera and posting the video on the web. Call them what you want, but they are not terrorists. And this is where the problem comes in.

Language is important. Language matters. Words, as they say, mean things. To call someone a "terrorist" because they espouse a despicable point of view is to cheapen the definition a terrorist. When "terrorist" becomes the latest easy pejorative for the intellecutally lazy writer, then we are on our way to losing sight of what a real terrorist is.