Tomorrow, the University of Utah College of Law will host a symposium about Freedom from Religion. Based on Professor Amos N. Guiora’s new book, Freedom from Religion: Rights and National Security (Oxford University Press, 2009), this Symposium will explore the limits of tolerance of religious extremism in five countries and its impact on the current terrorism threat our world faces. By drawing on varied perspectives and disciplines — religion, cognitive science, history, philosophy, and law — the panelists will challenge conventional wisdom by asking whether the threat of future terrorism might be lessened by government’s curtailing religious extremism.
The symposium will be held here at the College of Law in Salt Lake City at 8:30 to 11:00 a.m. mountain daylight time tomorrow, Friday, October 23. It can also be viewed lived on line at dashboard.law.utah.edu/freedomfromreligion. More information can be found here.
Participants include, in addition to Professor Guiora:
|
|
|
 Terry S. KoganProfessor of LawUniversity of Utah |
Steve says:
I assume we are not talking about curtailing any of the good religions, only the bad ones.
October 22, 2009, 3:14 pmMoiz says:
I am writing in from India. Can you make it available for later viewing?
October 22, 2009, 3:15 pmyankee says:
Obviously. As the OP says, we’re only going to curtail “extreme” religions, as defined by Professor Guiora.
October 22, 2009, 3:55 pmPaul Cassell says:
Yes, the program will be archived on the University of Utah College of Law website, and you can view it there.
October 22, 2009, 3:57 pmDave N says:
As a U. alum, I wish I could be there for it.
On a side note, Terry Kogan is both greyer and balder than I remember — but then again, it’s been almost 20 years since I last saw him.
October 22, 2009, 3:58 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Seems to me that the best thing to do would be to curtail people who plant bombs, no matter what their motivation.
October 22, 2009, 4:06 pmFub says:
From the links above:
I think it depends on the nature of the “extremism”.
If a religious leader incites followers to kill (or otherwise harm) nonbelievers within the Brandenburg imminent lawlessness test, he doesn’t get a free pass just because he’s a “religious” leader.
October 22, 2009, 4:07 pmptt says:
Uh… what “conventional wisdom” is challenged by that idea?
October 22, 2009, 4:11 pmOhgoodgrief says:
I hope they will first define religion, extremism, spirituality, faith, etc.
October 22, 2009, 4:16 pmDoc Merlin says:
This is absurd!
October 22, 2009, 4:35 pmSigh…
Its not as if this hasn’t been tried and failed thousands of times thought history. You can’t easily squash an idea through force, you have to use proselytization and argument… and some mechanism so people who behave according to the theory do worse than those who don’t (yay, for theory being forced to meet the real world).
Steve says:
It seems to me that if there are extremist varieties of religion that, for example, cut people’s heads off in the name of their deity, I fully support the right of government to stop them from cutting people’s heads off in the name of their deity. If that makes me an enemy of the conventional wisdom, I’ll just have to live with that.
October 22, 2009, 4:38 pmray_g says:
What I find amusing and somewhat ironic is the location of the symposium. IIRC Utah was settled by folks who were fleeing from groups and governments who claimed they were engaged in curtailing religious extremism.
And, BTW, isn’t that what China claims they are doing with respect to the Falun Gong?
I’m an atheist, but this talk of “curtainling religious extremism” makes me a little nervous. I’m more with comment #5.
October 22, 2009, 4:45 pmJonathan D. Abolins says:
Some activities, such as honour killings and violent attacks, could fit examples of religious extremism. But things get more challenging with religious speech & conduct that, in itself, is not violent or criminal but may serve to bolster the extremists.
You can get get a glimpse of Prof. Guiora’s views concerning religious freedom, extremism, and challenges for societies by reading his paper “Religious Extremism: A Fundamental Danger”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1427998
October 22, 2009, 5:13 pmThe Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Freedom from Religion says:
[...] Volokh Conspiracy mentions a symposium taking place tomorrow morning at the College of Law in Salt Lake City from 8:30 to [...]
October 22, 2009, 5:28 pmray_g says:
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that there is religious extremism, and it is a problem, but it is way too easy for governments to use fighting extremism as an excuse to crack down on groups who’s only harm is disagreeing with the government’s policies. And I assume the symposium will discuss this aspect of the problem. At least I hope so.
October 22, 2009, 5:44 pmAnatid says:
Wait, which one is the cognitive scientist?
October 22, 2009, 5:45 pmJimmy S. says:
Why would Kogan–who specializes in gay rights and whose U of U profile fails to demonstrate any experience with either foreign policy or terrorism issues–be participating in a symposium about “Freedom from religion”?
I doubt this will be so much about terrorism per se, as it will be about trying to make a subtle case that Christianity = terrorism.
That has been done earlier, and better, elsewhere.
October 22, 2009, 6:08 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Symposium on Freedom from Religion -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jane Brain and andrew, Sean. Sean said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Symposium on Freedom from … http://bit.ly/2zpTu4 [...]
October 22, 2009, 7:08 pmEinhverfr says:
Steve:
Certainly some rules have to be enforced regardless of religious motivation. I can’t start robbing my neighbors and claiming free exercise protections. Presumably killing one’s spouse is another example of a rule which if given free exercise exceptions would cause society to break down rather fast.
However, defining religious extremism becomes more difficult. Would you be in favor of banning ADVOCACY (i.e. pure speech in favor of) of honor killings? What about advocacy of terrorist attacks? Here, if we see religion as a system of morals and/or beliefs, we have extremism but I would not be in favor of banning such mere advocacy.
Similarly, you have many other issues. Does advocating polygamy make a religion extremist? What about engaging in de facto plural marriage (legal in some states provided no party purports to be legally married, but not in others)? What about furnishing moderate quantities of alcohol to underage participants of rites which involve ritual drinking (legal in my state AFAIK, but not in many others)? What about a religion which does not respect property rights of others as inviolable (for example, historically robbing slave owners of their lawful property) and urges civil disobedience any time one’s conscience demands it? Certainly these are unusual and pose a number of more difficult social issues but I would be concerned about targetting religion in this area rather than simply excluding a minimal set of rules from free exercise exemptions. At that point it needs to be against the specific actions, not against ideas or advocacy.
I get nervous when folks talk about going after religious extremism because that seems like a very slippery slope.
October 22, 2009, 7:35 pmreadery says:
Will there be follow-up symposia on freedom from speech and freedom from the press?
Doubtless government could better protect us even better from extremism if only those pesky freedoms were also relaxed.
October 22, 2009, 7:46 pmNorthern Dave says:
“we must begin to understand what religion is in order to know when and how it may be appropriately limited for the benefit of society. ”
- from the Abstract Jonathan D. Ablons linked to….
This is both extremely paternalistic and very, very dangerous. This sort of reasoning led to the abuses in Communist Romania.
Crimes ought to be dealt with as crimes. When holding the wrong worldview by itself is a crime one is in diametric opposition to what the Founders of America brought into being in response to the centuries of abuses they were heirs to.
October 22, 2009, 9:17 pmEcon_Scott says:
It is interesting that A “Law Symposium” would invite a “Pastor” in active support of the “Covenant Network”. This is most interesting indeed.
http://www.fhcpresb.org/social-justice-outreach/
http://www.covenantnetwork.org/events06.htm
Not that there’s anything wrong with Sexually Active Gay men and Sexually Active Lesbian Women, wanting to become “Preachers” wrapped in the cloak of the legitimacy of the church and it’s trappings. Nope, don’t see any problems ever arising from that, no sir.
And have worked every angle to administratively ignore the Presbyterian Constitution, agreements, of their “Presbyterian Faith” — doomed denomination by the way. Yea will be happy to ignore the 11 parts of Scripture they purport or rather kind of sort of believe in, — well some of it, but a lot of it well you know poetic and not literal or anything, if it keeps the offering plate full and the widows donating chunks of their estates.
In violation of the Presbyterian Church Constitution or; interested in administratively marginalizing, and ignoring that which is inconvenient to them in the Constitution .
So why is anyone ever surprised with violations of the Bill of Rights, Of egregious eminent domain takings in New London, violating Bond Convenants with GM bondholders when the clergy condone and promote the same behavior within their own ranks ?
When the clergy actively support ignoring laws, constitutions, contracts they deem incovenientm, why should any of us be bound to any laws other than the power of the state to enforce at the point of a gun ?
I’m all for ignoring laws, administrative manipulation, lying cheating, all with an “air of respectablitiy” regarding anything restricting my desire to do to anyone and anybody anything I damn well please … and wrap myself in a cloak of legitimacy while I’m at it. Hmmmmm, ah the life of a Seminarian.
But then I’ve always admired tribalism and all the many roads to serfdom.
Social Justice, hold hands and sing Kumbayah …
—————————————
In other News
” New Orleans church disaffiliates from PCUSA
By a 93 percent majority, the congregation of Woodland Presbyterian Church in New Orleans voted June 8 to disaffiliate from the Presbyterian Church (USA).
The ballot was 150-6 with six abstentions.
Attorneys for the Presbytery of South Louisiana had sought a temporary restraining order from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans to ban Woodland from holding a meeting to vote on disaffiliation. Judge Michael Bagneris denied the presbytery’s petition on grounds that it sought to deny the congregation a constitutionally protected freedom of assembly.
In addition to its June 6 petition for a temporary restraining order, which would have been in effect for only 10 days, the presbytery’s suit also sought a preliminary injunction and in due course a permanent injunction. The end result would be to keep Woodland from ever meeting to vote on whether to disaffiliate. The court set a hearing on the preliminary injunction for June 16, but because it denied the temporary restraining order, the congregation proceeded with its June 8 meeting and vote. ”
“The court’s ruling would appear to make moot further attempts by the presbytery to obtain a preliminary or permanent injunction against Woodland. However, at press time it was not known whether the presbytery would now amend or dismiss its suit.
The presbytery’s petition before a civil court carried ongoing disputes between the denomination and departing congregations to a new level, reminiscent of practices in the Middle Ages when bishops asked kings to enforce ecclesiastical edicts and punish errant clergy and their congregations.
‘Improper conduct’
October 23, 2009, 1:31 amAnticipating the congregation’s decision, the presbytery told the court that such a vote to disaffiliate would constitute “improper conduct,” because it would violate “guidelines” that had been adopted by the presbytery and imposed on its congregations. Those guidelines, titled “A Pastoral Response to a Potential Consideration of Request for Dismissal” but renamed “Administrative Procedure” by the presbytery when referring to them in civil court, claim that “only the presbytery has the power to sever the relationship of any particular church with the PCUSA.”
Einhverfr says:
Northern Dave wrote:
Not to mention approached from entirely the wrong angle……..
If you want to understand what religion is, you bring in anthropologists, not Law Profs, ministers of churches, or history profs. What do you bet the definition is based on what Christianity is?
October 23, 2009, 11:10 amEinhverfr says:
(I actually thought Steve’s initial post was sarcastic. Reading other posts though I am not sure….)
October 23, 2009, 11:11 amsubpatre says:
To remove any doubt,
October 23, 2009, 12:15 pmreadscan over Amos Guiora’s shorter piece in which he doesn’t shirk from the concept of regulating “public religion” (his term) for society’s good.Laura(southernxyl) says:
Because IANAL, I have the luxury of not considering far-reaching constitutional issues here. My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that we should ban advocacy of things that we really, really don’t want to countenance, that are actually happening. Are girls being “honor killed” b/c they want to act like typical teenagers in the culture they find themselves living in? Fortunately this is a very rare occurance, but unfortunately the short answer is “yes”. If we define a maximum number of girls whose shootings or throat slittings in the name of religious teachings we can tolerate, then when we pass that number we ought to ban such teaching. My personal vote, based on the value I personally put on the lives of teenage girls, would be “less than two”.
October 23, 2009, 12:18 pmChrisTS says:
The one next to the philosopher.
October 23, 2009, 1:26 pmEinhverfr says:
Laura:
So do you think Brandenburg v. Ohio was wrongly decided? After all what could be better than banning advocacy of killing black folk, etc. since the KKK had a well established history of doing just that?
October 23, 2009, 2:59 pmEinhverfr says:
Subpater:
Nice avatar btw :-) I like old Germanic helmets.
Seriously that is a scary article you point to and it is also generally incorrect in a number of places. As I have said, I have known Quakers to make Freedom of Conscience/Religion defences against a number of different generally applicable laws, and many states allow such a defence to go to the jury (i.e. the jury in many states can determine whether or not an otherwise illegal action is protected under freedom of religion or conscience guarantees). In one case, I know of a woman who was acquitted in Utah of trespassing (in protest, openly) on a military installation site in accordance with her freedom of conscience. So the article is wrong that such a defence is not often available.
He also does a great deal to point out what is wrong with his proposal. If Pres. Eisenhower is to be criticized for not rebutting McCarthy then what sort of restrictions on religious belief and speech (separated from conduct) are possible that won’t just degenerate into witch hunts?
October 23, 2009, 3:23 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Einhverfr (what a weird name): Now I have been forced to look up Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Can’t find the text of the problematic speech, but what I’ve found indicates that Brandenburg made some garbled statements about “revengeance”. This is not the same as “you all need to go out and hang black folks”. Unless he specifically advocated the killing of black people, then no, I don’t think the case was wrongly decided.
In the same way, if the religious leader says, “You need to control your teenage daughters and make sure they aren’t showing off their hair or having unauthorized contact with males” that’s one thing. If the leader says, “In order to be a righteous person, you must kill your daughter if her purity is in doubt” that is a horse of a different color altogether.
IMO.
October 23, 2009, 4:40 pmEinhverfr says:
Lara:
See footnote 1 in the Majority opinion. Quotes include:
“Kill the niggers… We intend to do our part.” That seems pretty clear to what you are advocating banning right?
October 24, 2009, 12:45 amtraveler496 says:
Ogoodgrief:
I’ll presume to take a shot at one of them:
faith, n. Superstition of which the speaker approves.
..which is a fair indication of my level of respect for religions generally. That said, I too am concerned about the notion of going after religious extremism per se.
I instead believe that behavior should be legal or not (and, while we’re on the topic, ideas given credence and respect or not) on their own merits, quite independently of whether someone has slapped the label ‘religious’ on them. FWIW (apparently precious little at present), the previous sentence, w/o the parenthetical remark, is essentially my layperson’s reading of the Establishment Clause.
October 24, 2009, 2:04 amtraveler496 says:
Ogoodgrief:
I’ll presume to take a shot at one of them:
faith, n. Superstition of which the speaker approves.
..which is a fair indication of my level of respect for religions generally. That said, I too am concerned about the notion of going after religious extremism per se.
I instead believe that behaviors should be legal or not (and, while we’re on the topic, ideas given credence and respect or not) on their merits, independently of whether someone has slapped the label ‘religious’ on them.
And FWIW (I know, precious little), the previous sentence, w/o the parenthetical remark, is essentially my layperson’s reading of the Establishment Clause.
October 24, 2009, 2:13 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Einhverfr: Yes.
October 24, 2009, 11:57 amDaveR says:
It seems certain that the tact of this group will be condemnation of Christianity. After all, condemnation of Islam, which really does kill people who disagree with its precepts, will get you killed. These guys just want to go on record, not on the morgue slab.
Why should Eisenhower critcize MaCarthy? He was right.
October 25, 2009, 8:53 pm