Freedom from Religion (Terrorism and Global Justice) Rating :
Customer Reviews
Most helpful customer reviews
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful.
Flat thinking
By Aldo Matteucci
In the Japanese game of janken (scissors/paper/stone) the hard stone is defeated by the supple paper. Against the certainty of revealed truths reason can win out by subtly exposing the flaws in the arguments: it is a corrosive effect, and takes time, patience, and the use of social instruments like shaming - in short, it is a "soft" instrument. The law is more akin to scissors, and likely to break against the hard stone. In dealing with religious extremism one is best served by a judicious use of all available tools: analysis, and only in some (carefully chosen) instances, the law.
The author refuses to define "religion". In so doing, he deprives himself of important analytical tools. Thus there are basic differences between religions that proclaim preternatural beliefs and those aspiring to regulate (or influence) either individual or social conduct - trending toward theocracy (if given a chance). Whether a religion perceives itself as universal, or exclusivist, also makes a basic difference.
Another example of "flat thinking" is the indiscriminate use of the term "threat". Threats to the state, its regime, or individual citizens are qualitatively different. Even 9/11 posed no credible threat to the US state: it is widely recognized now that the term "war on terror" was a misnomer leading to fateful overreactions.
Terrorism, as despicable as it is, is foremost a symbolic act aimed at swaying or cowering public opinion. It is a political tool - whether the law is the appropriate instrument to deal with a political problem is a matter that cannot be decided by looking at it through the narrow lens of (American) law. This applies even more to civil disobedience, which might run afoul of Brandenburg vs. Ohio.
The author starts from the general premise "religion is central to human experience" (pg. 1) and "for people of faith it is the core of who they are" (pg. 10). This is an oversimplification redolent of the late Samuel P. HUNTINGTON (but even he in the end did not identify American "identity" with religion Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity). Religion has emerged from the mists of human pre-history in an agricultural setting (see GELLNER Nations and Nationalism (New Perspectives on the Past)), where roles were few and essentially local. Whether in an urban and industrial society religion is "identity forming" is an open question. Amartya SEN Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny would tend to disagree.
To conclude: the discussion this important subject is flat, fragmentary, contradictory, and in the end little more than legal veneer for throwing the book at political opponents, who happen to argue from religious, rather than a totalitarian angle. As much as I would like to see religion on the dust heap of history, I'd would be wary of using this overexpensive legal dust pan to achieve it.
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful.
Religious Freedom or the Slippery Slope
By Mark D. Woodbury
Amos Guiora, former Israel Defense Force Judge and current law professor at the University of Utah's School of Law, makes his case for the need to infringe on religious liberties (in extreme cases) in the interest of national security. While he makes as good a case as can be made, his reasoning is both flawed and dangerous (to all religious liberty). He argues that the power wielded by religious fanatics exceeds that of secular fanatics because their followers ascribe to them the backing of God. This, he believes, warrants an exceptional need to restrict religious "free speech" rights beyond those of secular persons. The more I read, the more it appeared to me that Guiora would like to ban what he calls "extremist religion" altogether, but based on whose definition of extremist? A very slippery slope indeed.
He writes, "While it is reasonable to assume that the person of moderate faith places civil law "above" religious law, the believer in religious extremism arguably has an alternative worldview. That alternative worldview presents the most palpable danger to contemporary, civil democratic society as religious extremists challenge the legitimacy of the state's power over them" (86). Well, then, by his definition I am an extremist, as were the Founding Fathers who "appeal[ed] to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions" to commit treason against their government, based on what they believed to be a violation of their God-given "inalienable rights!" Religious fanatics all!
Later he notes that, "While previous secular leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have led their followers to do brutal and unimaginable acts, the present threat is different. Today's greatest threat is violent religious extremists" (119-20). No kidding the present threat is different! Hitler & listed company were far, far worse! They killed many millions rather than thousands. And what allowed them the ability to slaughter so many? That they were backed by the power of Government, which is the very power Guiora is suggesting should have greater discretionary power in limiting the rights of "extremist religions." Does anyone else see a problem here?
Are extremist religions potentially dangerous? Yes! And when they break the law, they should be prosecuted. But should we preemptively curtail their religious freedom because of what they MIGHT possibly do? There is a dangerously slippery slope, my friends!
And by the way, Utah State University bookstore has a pile of these (Amazon priced) $80 books in paperback for $6.
Product Description
Although many books on terrorism and religious extremism have been published in the years since 9/11, none of them written by Western authors call for the curtailment of religious freedom and freedom of expression for the sake of greater security. Rather, those terror-related debates have addressed what other civil liberties should be honored. Issues like torture, domestic surveillance, and unlawful detentions have dominated the literature in this area, but few, if any, major scholars have questioned the vast allowances made by Western nations for the freedoms of religion and speech.
Freedom from Religion challenges the almost sacrosanct inviolability of these two civil liberties. By drawing the connection between politically-correct tolerance of extremist speech and the rise of terrorist activity, this book sets the context for its unique proposal that governments should introduce new limits on religious practice within their borders. To demonstrate the wisdom of this course, the author presents the disparate policies and security circumstances of five countries: the U.S., the UK, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Israel. The book benefits not just from the author's own counter-terrorism experience in Israel and the U.S. but also from an international advisory group of leading scholars from all five of the countries under review.
Product Details
- Amazon Sales Rank: #2384904 in Books
- Published on: 2009-10-29
- Original language:English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 9.15" h x6.10" w x.59" l,1.00 pounds
- Binding: Hardcover
- 174 pages
No comments :
Post a Comment