Professor of law at S. J. Quinney College of Law at University of Utah and the son of two holocaust survivors, Amos Guiora presented provocative ideas about freedom and religion. In fact, he has authored a book with the provocative title Freedom from Religion. Not mincing words, he said, "The single greatest threat to civil democratic society is posed by religious extremists." In this century, terrorism constitutes one of the gravest threats to democratic societies and national security, in particular, terrorism incited by religion.

Why religion? Religion is a powerful motivator for both positive social change, as well as mass violence, and for many people, religion goes to the core of who they are and defines who they are. When violence is initiated and fueled by religion, governments not only are responsible for protecting civil liberties, like freedom of or from religion, but they also are responsible to protect their citizens from threat and harm.

"As important as freedom of speech is, as important as freedom of religion is, we all have the right to live," Guiora said. Government needs to end religious immunity that is granted to religious extremists, specifically in the three monotheistic faiths of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Certain rights should be limited when they threaten civil society in any way.

Although counterintuitive in a democracy, according to Guiora, limiting the free speech of those inciting violence in the name of religious extremism is legitimate. Naturally constitutional law scholars are extremely uncomfortable with such limitations, but extremists leave us with few choices.

When violence from religious motivations becomes extreme, Guiora believes that religious extremists no longer deserve immunity predicated on faith. Civil societies cannot afford to continue to treat religion as an "untouchable" subject. In fact, when government officials hear any religious leaders calling for violent action in the name of God, that leader should be taken down. Therefore, violence preached in a house of worship should lose any immunity based on freedom of speech. And rather than wait for people to act violently as a result, law enforcement should act on the violent extremist speech alone. An extremist religious leader's power is potentially extraordinary.

To facilitate this proactive approach, we must re-define the limits of clergy speech, such as how often must clergy incite before the law moves in? What words justify such monitoring? To Guiora, we must recognize that religious extremism poses an immediate danger and that religious extremists do not deserve immunity, ideas that he knows are controversial but they may be inevitable--as inevitable as the next religious extremist-induced terrorist attack.

A taped interview of Guiora by Radio West host Doug Fabrizio can be found here.

--Sarah Smith