How to use this Page

Tweet

By Amos N. Guiora

Religious extremism poses the greatest danger to contemporary civil society.  The threat comes from religious extremists, not people of moderate faith. The recent suicide bombing by Islamic extremists killing 21 Copts in Egypt is a prime example.

Decision makers, the general public and people of moderate faith – whose faith does not lead them to kill others in the name of their god – must address how to minimize this palpable threat. Step one is recognizing the threat, although it may make us uncomfortable. Step two is involves proactive, concrete measures to protect society.  Society can say a collective “woe is me” or take aggressive proactive measures. The former is defeatist; the latter protects the innocent.

Religious extremist incitement is the primary source of this danger and the danger is clear: religious extremist inciters have done extraordinary harm to society.  Underage girls – in an internal community shockingly unprotected by government – are forced to marry and have sexual relations with adult males in the name of religious extremism pronounced by the Prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints.  A religious Jewish extremist assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Rabin after extremist rabbis placed a curse on Rabin, directly inciting the violent murder.  An extremist imam placed a fatwa on an Islamic Dutch politician who said Islam must come to grips with homosexuality.

Needless to say, multiple other examples abound, from right-wing extremist Christians killing abortion-performing physicians to extremist Jews burning mosques in the West Bank to Islamic terrorists committing suicide bombings targeting innocent civilians. All result from religious extremist incitement.

Limiting the ability of extremist faith leaders to incite their parishioners is the critical step.  Simply put, unabated incitement endangers society.  Monitoring and surveillance are effective, essential and lawful measures to negate the power of religious extremist speech to which society and law enforcement have largely granted immunity.

Nevertheless, these measures are problematic because of the potential to chill participation in religion.  Potential members may hesitate to join a congregation under surveillance and existing members may shy away from attending services.   Preachers, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders may not feel free to fully express their messages.

However, the clear and present danger religious extremist faith leaders pose demands an effective response.  Resolving the tension between justified surveillance and the cost associated with such surveillance is difficult, but it is essential to adequately protect the community. To that end, I recommend the following:

*Articulate clear guidelines for monitoring
*Enhance cooperation between law enforcement and clergy
*Adopt a heightened probable cause standard for monitoring Houses of Worship
*Articulate and enforce limits of free speech with respect to religious extremism

The monitoring and surveillance must not be arbitrary or capricious, but rather initiated narrowly and specifically in response to compelling evidence, including intelligence information, suggesting that a particular faith leader is inciting in the House of Worship.  This cautiousness will ensure that due process and equal protection standards and obligations are met.

Without this sober analysis, the inevitable chilling effect will be unwarranted and therefore unconstitutional.  

The Fundamentalist Mindset sheds light on the psychology of fundamentalism, with a particular focus on those who become extremists and fanatics.  The collection is edited by Charles B. Strozier, a Professor of History at John Jay College, CUNY, and a practicing psychoanalyst, David M. Terman, Director of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis, James W. Jones, a Professor of Religion and adjunct Professor of Clinical Psychology at Rutgers University and Katharine A. Boyd a doctoral student at John Jay College, CUNY.  In the excerpt below, taken from an essay entitled “The Social Psychology of Humiliation and Revenge: The Origins of the Fundamentalist Mindset” by Bettina Muenster and David Lotto, we learn about what drove one young man to extremism.

In April 2007, on a seemingly normal day for college students at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, a young man of Asian descent, Cho Seung-Hui, decided to kill as many people on campus as he could.  He was determined, fully prepared, and utterly devoid of doubt about the moral implications of his actions.  In fact the slaughter was so calculated that the twenty-three-year-old scheduled time to videotape himself for forty-five minutes in a van outside the shooting range when he practiced there a month before the shootings.  After killing two students on the early morning of April 19 he returned to his room to access some photo files, then decided to walk to the local post office to overnight a rather comprehensive package of videos, photographs, and statements to the NBC news network.  About two and half hours later he resumed his rampage.  In four classrooms he killed another twenty-five students and five teachers, firing 175 rounds of ammunition.

The costs of the murders to Cho were high: he spent thousands of dollars, according to the New York Times, and sacrificed much of his time and finally his own life.  But to him it was all worth it.  Consumed by rage over the way society treated him and evidently feeling like an outsider who did not get the respect he deserved, he chose solitude and seemed invisible for most of his life.  In fact he had no social bonds whatsoever-no friends, no girlfriend, or close connection with relatives.  The statements he sent to the media and the world are particularly disturbing:

I didn’t have to do this.  I could have left.  I could have fled.  But no, I will no longer run….You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul, and torched my conscience….You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today.  But you decided to spill my blood.  You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option.  The decision was yours.  Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off.

How can someone who callously killed thirty-two innocent people claim that others are at fault?  In terms of blame attribution, Cho’s rationalization of his actions sounds exactly like that of the terrorist Osama bin Laden, who justified the September 11 killing of some three thousand civilians by arguing that he felt similarly cornered: “The Western regimes and the government of the United States of America bear the blame for what might happen.”  Recent studies on school shootings reveal some astonishingly common characteristics: excerpt for one of fifteen investigated, all shooters were male; a majority experienced chronic or