Customer Reviews

Freedom from Religion (Terrorism and Global Justice)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.