Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Good and Truth

Home
Progressive Christian
In Defense of Religious Extremism

In Defense of Religious Extremism

Last updated on: April 25, 2017 at 2:04 pm by Coleman Glenn

In Defense of Religious Extremism 2017-04-25T14:04:13-07:00 Coleman Glenn

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Last Thursday, Russia’s Supreme Court banned the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization on the grounds that they were an “extremist” organization.

It’s not completely clear what their precise violations were, but the state-owned TASS news agency reports that prosecutors cited Jehovah’s Witnesses for opposing blood transfusions, “controlling” their members, and “insisting on their own exclusiveness, which … contradicts the law on resistance to extremist activity.” A Law Library of Congress report explains the law that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were prosecuted under:

“Extremist activities as they are listed in the Extremism Law are subject to prosecution regardless of their consequences and the level of public danger. This allows for the application of restrictive measures to relatively insignificant offenses.”

Bipartisan Opposition to Extremist Religion

Russia’s decision has been condemned by many in the west. But in recent years, even in the west there have been many voices that call for more restriction of “extremist” religion. From some on the left there is support for expansive laws against “hate speech” that would criminalize any language deemed as hateful against given groups of people. The Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia are accused of violating this kind of law by insisting on their own exclusive access to truth in a way that is “insulting” to other religions.

From some on the right, on the other hand, there is support for restrictions on “extremist” religion stemming from concerns about radical Islamic terrorism. In a speech last August, Donald Trump spoke against radical Islamic terrorism – but his remarks actually went beyond terrorism to condemn “radical Islam”:

Nor can we let the hateful ideology of Radical Islam – its oppression of women, gays, children, and nonbelievers – be allowed to reside or spread within our own countries.

Note that it is not the ideology of terrorism or violence that is being condemned here, but the ideology of “oppression.” The call is for restrictions on extremist religion.

So what’s the problem?

The case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia illustrates the problem with making laws against “extremist” religions – “extremism” is in the eye of the beholder, and any religion that is worth anything will appear as “extremist” to some people who oppose it. In short: if you want religious liberty at all, you have to tolerate religious extremism, even if you don’t like it.

But doesn’t that let extremists off the hook for hurting other people? This has been an objection to the concept of religious liberty since at least the seventeenth century, and it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what religious liberty entails. Religious liberty does not mean that people can break whatever laws they like in the name of religion. It means that actions that are allowable when done for non-religious reasons should also be legal when done for religious reasons or by a religious community.

So, for example, defending religious liberty does not mean that someone who fervently believes in human sacrifice ought to be free to kill and sacrifice someone – the laws against murder still stand. From John Locke’s 1689 “Letter Concerning Toleration”:

You will say, by this rule, if some congregations should have a mind to sacrifice infants… is the magistrate obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a religious assembly? I answer: No. These things are not lawful in the ordinary course of life, nor in any private house; and therefore neither are they so in the worship of God, or in any religious meeting.

But, on the other hand, things that are legal in other circumstances ought to be legal for any religious congregation to do, even if they seem odd or “extreme”:

But, indeed, if any people congregated upon account of religion should be desirous to sacrifice a calf, I deny that that ought to be prohibited by a law. Meliboeus, whose calf it is, may lawfully kill his calf at home, and burn any part of it that he thinks fit. For no injury is thereby done to any one, no prejudice to another man’s goods. And for the same reason he may kill his calf also in a religious meeting. Whether the doing so be well-pleasing to God or no, it is their part to consider that do it. The part of the magistrate is only to take care that the commonwealth receive no prejudice, and that there be no injury done to any man, either in life or estate.

What can and what can’t be tolerated

Where I think people begin to feel uncomfortable about religious organizations and call for restrictions on them is when they sense that the organization controls its members. This is a valid and understandable concern. But again, whether someone is being “controlled” is a subjective judgment. To some hardened atheists, any religion at all looks like control. In the zeal to “free” believers, they might actually be trampling on something the believers have genuinely chosen. Every organization, including every religious organization, has standards and rules. If an organization threatens physical harm or involuntary financial punishment for those who violate those expectations, that’s a violation of the law – no one is allowed to threaten or enact those things against another person. That can justly be prosecuted.

But if the tools of enforcing those standards are within the realms of the law – inclusion or exclusion from the group, communication or lack thereof with an excommunicated member, etc. – then I think it does far more harm than good for a government to step in and try to regulate that religion. That’s true even when I think a religion really is harmful and oppressive (and I say this as someone deeply opposed to any kind of coercion in worship or religion). Once we say “extremist views will not be tolerated,” we set up government as an arbiter of what falls within the realm of acceptable faith. In effect, we set up a new state religion, and we lose religious liberty. In the U.S., I don’t think we’re anywhere near to that yet – but I don’t want to take any steps in that direction. I think the decision in Russia shows what can happen if we do.

(Image copyright: yuliang11 / 123RF Stock Photo)

Politics

religious liberty

Previous Post

April 20, 2017

Faith & Fidelity: Part 5, The Purpose of Faith

Next Post

May 1, 2017 Does God Harden Hearts?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Art Books Culture Humor Miscellany Morality Movies Music Personal Politics Religion Science Sermons The Best Things Theatre Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2019 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 May 2018 April 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 November 2016 July 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 September 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 November 2014 October 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 October 2012 September 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 January 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

"For all have sinned, and all have fallen short of the ______ of God."

Select your answer to see how you score.

Expectations Sight Standards Glory