- Series: TERRORISM DOC OF INT & LOCAL CONTROL 2ND
- Hardcover: 174 pages
- Publisher: Oxford University Press (October 29, 2009)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0195389255
- ISBN-13: 978-0195389258
- Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 0.8 x 6.1 inches
- Shipping Weight: 1 pounds
- Average Customer Review: 4 customer reviews
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #4,137,601 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Freedom from Religion (TERRORISM DOC OF INT & LOCAL CONTROL 2ND)
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
There is a newer edition of this item:
Garth Brooks: The Anthology Part 1 | Limited Edition
A great gift for country music fans, The Anthology Part 1 includes CDs containing the music of Garth's first five years, and behind-the-scenes photographs and stories never before made public. Learn more
"Guiora's book distinguishes itself from much of what has been written in the field by a realistic estimate of the threat which terrorism poses. It is also the first book that convincingly tackles the problem of how freedom of speech and terrorism are related. Guiora's expert knowledge makes him an ideal guide through this subject. He gives a vivid impression of the way many policy makers, politicians, and civil servants think about the problem of terrorism." -Professor Paul Cliteur, University of Leiden, Netherlands "This book will provoke much debate in the legal community and far beyond. While I disagree with Amos Guiora's conclusions, I applaud his candid and compelling discussion of a challenging question that should certainly be forthrightly debated: whether legal protections for religious speech and conduct should be reduced in order to counter the threat posed by religiously motivated terrorists. Even for those of us who urge that the answer should be 'No, ' Guiora's impassioned work must be reckoned with." -Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, New York Law School Former President, American Civil Liberties Union (1991-2008) Recommended by Larry Solum's Legal Theory Blog. "The book is readable and engaging, and perhaps most of all very provocative...Guiora's book FREEDOM FROM RELIGION is part of Oxford University Press's Terrorism and Global Justice series, which the press bills on the book jacket as publising 'thought provoking and topical monographs.' Guiora's book is that -- though provoking and topical...The book is useful for a wide range of upper level undergraduate and graduate courses. It can fit in with courses on civil rights and civil liberties, religion and politics, terrorism, and comparative constitutional law." --John C. Blakeman, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point The Law and Politics Book Review"Whatever one thinks of Guiora's sugg
About the Author
Amos N. Guiora is professor of law at S. J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah where he teaches Criminal Law, Global Perspectives on Counter-terrorism, Religion and Terrorism, and National Security Law. In addition, Guiora incorporates innovative scenario-based instruction to address national and international security issues. At the S.J. Quinney College of Law, Guiora, in collaboration with other leading experts, helps lead the school's efforts to provide cutting-edge research, innovative training, and public service initiatives in the prevention and mitigation of global conflict.
Professor Guiora has also served in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the Israel Defense Forces as a Lieutenant Colonel. His senior command postings in the IDF were Commandant of the IDF School of Military Law, Judge Advocate of the Navy and Home Front Command, and Legal Advisor to the IDF's Gaza Strip operations.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
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.
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.