[Ichneumon]

But I freely admit, that one's world view or religious persuasion effects their definition of morality. So the elephant in the room is which is right.

Define "right" as you are using it in this sentence. Be specific and precise. If you can clarify the exact nature of your question better, I'll be glad to address it.

If there is a right answer, then there MUST be a standard that makes it so.

What's wrong with the ones I listed?

What makes your definition or standard of morality right and that of the terrorist wrong?

I asked you first -- try answering it. Furthermore, it appears that you have more necessity of answering that question, since *you're* the one with the morality based on the same standard as that of the terroists. Mine has far less need to distance itself from that of the terrorist, since mine is based on different foundations entirely.

[JohnnyM]

"since *you're* the one with the morality based on the same standard as that of the terroists"

I disagree wholeheartedly.

By right, I mean the correct answer or, in our case, the correct morality, which of course implies an objective source to determine rightness or wrongness. I beleive this source to be the God of the Bible. If we say there is not an objective source, than my morality, or the morality of the terrorist, has just as much value as yours. Rightness and wrongness is then defined by sticking to the principles of your brand of morality. So you would be immoral if you practiced things which go against your morality. Conversely, a terrorist would be a moral person by killing the infidel, because he is living in accordance with his morality.

JM