Audere

To venture, to dare, to risk! This blog comments on public issues and many more topics... S'aventurer, oser, risquer! Ce blogue commente les questions d'actualité et d'autres sujets...

[audereblog]

Fighting Extremist Recruitment with Education

By André Gagné (24-05-2015)

Here is a short video interview I had with The Canadian Press concerning the recent arrests of 10 Canadian teens who allegedly wanted to travel to Syria to join ISIS:

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/stemming-extremist-recruiting-starts-with-education-prof/vi-BBk4B6I?ocid=sf

[audereblog]

Brief (Additional) Remarks on Loyola High School and the ERC

By André Gagné (03-04-2015)

In a recent episode of the Inquisitive Minds Podcast, Calogero Miceli, Costa Babalis and I discussed Canada’s Supreme Court ruling stating that thegovernment of Quebec had infringed on Loyola High School’s religious freedom, when it forced the institution to teach the Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) course to his students, as is the case in all other primary and secondary schools in the province. Canada’s Supreme Court decision will open the door for other religious groups to ask for similar exemptions, throwing us back into the debate on the place of religion in Quebec’s educational system. Article 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 clearly noted that education is under provincial jurisdiction, while imposing certain conditions to protect religious minorities. But school boards changed from religious to linguistic (French and English) in Quebec through a constitutional amendment recognized by the federal government in 1997. Three years later, all Quebec schools were de-confessionalized, and in 2008 the ERC was implemented in schools. All these changes were brought about to reflect a clear separation between Church and State in Quebec. In several other Canadian provinces such as Saskatchewan, Ontario and Alberta, Catholic schools still have their confessional status.

What is strange about the Supreme Court ruling is that it seems to completely ignore Quebec’s exemption of the “religious minority” clause of Article 93 because of the constitutional amendment of 1997, an amendment granting Quebec the right to transform religious school boards into linguistic ones. There is still, however, the problem of private schools in Quebec which seems to create a loophole for religious schools, giving them the possibility to teach from a faith perspective. Some people argue that the government could resolve this issue by eliminating private schools, as education in Quebec is seen as a two-tiered system deeply affecting the quality of public schools. Quebec needs to counteract against this Supreme Court ruling since education is clearly under provincial jurisdiction. It is not about infringing on religious freedom; rather, it is about having an education system untainted by confessionalism. Secular societies promote the separation of Church and State. People can learn about faith in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other places of worship. Children can learn about the ethical point of views of their faith in “Sunday school”. It is also strange that parents would rely on the school system for the faith education of their children, especially when most people in Quebec are non-practicing Catholics and do not attend church regularly.

This is not to say that the ERC is the perfect model. The idea that ethics and religion are necessarily taught together is clearly problematic; it gives the impression that ethics cannot be independent from religion. Non-religious people can also be ethical! In my opinion, the ERC should be replaced with a course helping students understand the history, beliefs and rituals of the World’s Religions, but not from a faith-based perspective, but rather from a fact-based point of view. In such a context, students can learn about the role Catholicism played in the history of the province of Quebec, but it must be free from any form of religious indoctrination.

[audereblog]

Suitably Dressed? Decisions on Religious Garments in Secular Places

By Calogero A. Miceli (27-02-2015)

In recent months there has been no shortage of news stories that have dealt with, in some form or another, issues surrounding Muslims, be it in relation to terrorism being fought on our borders and abroad, to local issues about wearing hijabs. The problems, concerns and disputes are all leading to what I think will be a breaking point where people will have to decide where to draw the lines.

One recent event that caught my attention, among the many that are transpiring, is a local news story in Montreal concerning proper dress in a courtroom. The story made headlines not only in Québec, but also in news outlets across the globe.

A woman by the name of Rania El-Alloul made her way into a courtroom on February 24th, 2015 in order to retrieve her vehicle after is was seized. In the end, her case was not heard and postponed by judge Marengo because El-Alloul refused to remove her headscarf. During the proceeding, El-Alloul made the statement that she was wearing the headscarf as a religious symbol. The court audio of the judge’s comments to El-Alloul were as follows:

“…In my opinion the courtroom is a secular place and a secular space. There are no religious symbols in this room; not on the walls and not on the persons. Article 13 of the regulation of the Court of Québec states, ‘Any person appearing before the court must be suitably dressed.’ In my opinion, you are not suitably dressed. Decorum is important. Hats and sunglasses, for example, are not allowed and I don’t see why scarves on the head would be either. The same rules need to be applied to everyone. I will therefore not hear you if you are wearing a scarf on your head just as I would not allow a person to appear before me wearing a hat or sunglasses on his/her head or any other garment not suitable for a court proceeding.”

Ultimately, El-Alloul did not agree to remove the scarf stating that she has been wearing it for many years. As a result, the judge reiterated that the rules and regulations must be applied to everybody. In the aftermath of the event many news outlets picked up the story. In interviews, El-Alloul has stated that the event in court left her feeling less like a Canadian citizen. A board member of the Canadian Muslim Forum sided with her and believes that the judge should have known better since it is not the first time a person has walked into a courtroom wearing religious dress. Even Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, took to Twitter to denounce the judge’s refusal to hear the woman’s case while wearing a hijab. Many others have also criticized the judge; among them Quebec's premier, Philippe Couillard, law professors and civil rights groups.

In hearing about the event I was reminded of a story about a friend who, last summer, was summoned to court over a speeding ticket. When he arrived wearing shorts and a t-shirt the judge refused to hear the case citing his clothing as inappropriate. When he explained that he worked as a lifeguard and came to court as soon as he had finished work, the excuse did not buy him any leeway. This anecdotal account is similar, in my mind, to the explanation that the judge Marengo offered to the woman. The same rules that would apply to someone wearing a hat or sunglasses (or shorts) should apply to someone wearing a hijab. Should the person with a hijab receive more freedom than the person wearing shorts?

Judge Marengo cited Article 13 of the rules of Québec court, which states that, “any person appearing before the court must be suitably dressed.” As a judge, Marengo has the right to interpret this law and set the rules for the court in the way that she sees best. There is no specific definition for decorum in place. However, some would argue that if the garment does not cover one’s face then it should be tolerated.

There have been a number of comments made by people on online websites where the story has been published and also on social media outlets. The responses are varied; some are siding with the judge and others with the woman. The supporters of the judge’s decision argue that the woman is not actually wearing a required religious symbol (it is a cultural choice) and that allowing her to wear a scarf on her head would be the same as allowing anyone else to wear a hat or a Sikh to bring a dagger into court. On the other hand, many people see this event as a violation of freedom of religion and as a form of islamophobia.  

In light of this and other events a number of important questions arise (which need to be answered). What is the limit to the extent that we can accommodate religion? Where do we draw the line? These are recurring questions that, in my mind, have not been resolved with any satisfaction. A decision needs to be made about the place of religious garments in government spaces. While we all remember the problems and debates that arose with the Québec Charter of Values, the limitations of religious dress in secular spaces must be decided upon. Otherwise, we risk running into the problems of interpretation such as this court case has brought about.

It seems to me that the general public is undecided about whether or not religious dress, such as this case presented, should be tolerated or banned. There seems to be a good case on either side of the debate, but a resolution is direly needed. Will Québec and Canada accept that people wear religious clothing in secular spaces or will they put a stop to it?

While I personally think that the judge in this case made the correct decision in asking the woman to remove her headscarf and applied the law fairly since the same request would have been made to a person wearing sunglasses or a hat on their head, my feeling is that the majority of people (or those most vocal on social media sites) would side with the woman’s right to freedom of religion. But what about freedom from religion? As the judge pointed out, there are no other religious symbols in the courtroom. The courtroom is a secular place and has every right to be secular. Freedom of religion should also allow room for the freedom from religion in some cases, especially those that involve secular places.

But religious ideas and vocabulary are already deeply integrated into secular places as a result of the nation’s history. We have religious oaths in the courtroom (see an article for abolishing the religious oath here) and also in the Canadian national anthem (see an opinion piece about changing the words of the anthem here). As a result, the removal of religion from secular spaces may never come to fruition.

In the end, I think the time for a clear and concise decision on the issue of religious clothing in secular spaces is necessary. It is time to decide.

[audereblog]

Defeating Religious Obscurantism

By André Gagné (26-02-2015)

In early February, I wrote a piece in the Montreal Gazette on the importance of providing a counter-ideology to one proposed by religious extremists:

“As a secular society, we have to denounce radicalization. The way to go about this is through a counter-ideology, one that helps people to create their own meaningful life and sense of worth, in line with humanistic and liberal values. Fighting terrorism also means promoting better ideas than those who seek to extinguish freedom and life.”

More than ever, I am convinced that the best way to counter the current and prevailing religious obscurantism we are witnessing is by deconstructing literal interpretations of the Qur’an and the other teachings of Mohammad proclaimed by groups such as ISIS. The conflict with ISIS cannot only be resolved through military means, for the battle is mainly an ideological one. What is winning the hearts of this young generation? Why young men and women would leave countries are like Canada, the US, Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, and France, just to name a few, to join the ranks of ISIS is difficult to understand. In most cases these are not poor, disenfranchised, or uneducated individuals. The only explanation is that the ideology propagated by ISIS has made an inroad into the minds of these individuals. We need to take heed of Graeme Wood’s piece in the March edition of The Atlantic about the importance of knowing the ideology of those who become your enemies. If people understand the theological motivations behind the actions of ISIS, they will be better equipped to recognize and counter the group’s extremist propaganda. The West can dissuade more young people from joining ISIS by supporting think-tanks, human-rights organizations, and other counter-radicalization groups in their actions to debunk fundamentalist interpretations of the Islamic tradition. This can be done by providing resources (financial, logistics, etc.) which will help them education people, be it online or in universities and mosques.

Isis' five-year plan to expand its caliphate

From a military perspective, the West can also concretely discredit ISIS’ self-perception as a legitimate caliphate. Here the US and its allies should adopt a strategy of containment as proposed by Audrey Kurth Cronin, Distinguished Professor and Director of the International Security Program at George Mason University. She clearly believes that ISIS will eventually lose the battle if the US relies on its Arab allies to prevent the group from expanding. For example, the courageous Peshmerga fighters have been quite successful against ISIS. As part of their containment plan, the US could provide more military aid to the Kurds. Potential consequence could be that ISIS followers, becoming more and more disillusioned with a caliphate that is losing ground instead of expanding, would start questioning the legitimacy of their self-proclaimed caliph.

As with the many millenarist groups which died throughout the centuries because of unfulfilled predictions and failed promises of self-realization, ISIS is also facing a similar outcome. Some of their own followers have already started to become disenchanted; the adventure is clearly not what they expected. Knowing and critiquing ISIS’ religious ideology is the first step in preventing more people from joining their ranks. On the ground, however, a strategy of containment could have a devastating effect on the group's own legitimacy.

[audereblog]

Haven’t We Had Enough?

By Costa Babalis (16-02-2015)

It is with great sadness that the world received the news of another hostage killing by ISIL. Kayla Mueller, a young humanitarian aid worker and non-combatant, whose efforts in the region provided some hint of comfort to the people in the war-ravaged region, should not fade into obscurity. It is exactly at moments like this that her death and the murder of the many hostages by ISIL should rally the civilized world towards the ultimate demise of illegitimate religiously indoctrinated groups, spoon fed with sectarian dogma, that incites the atrocities seen in the conflict engulfing Syria and Iraq.

We have seen the failed results of western governments policies that have led to the terrible murders and displacement of populations in Iraq and in the region. We cannot dismiss or condone what U.S policy in Iraq and those of its coalition partners have created. I do not want to flaunt statistics at this point. Many an article has more aptly provided, and will continue to provide, for the arithmetic of death and misery.

I would like for now to consider the idea, of which I am more and more convinced, that the underlying belligerence of sectarian inspired groups and the romanticized juvenile propensity for power irresistibly inspires the unstable mindset of fundamentalists. Swathed in the paper and glitter of divine sanction and promise of everlasting reward, the indoctrinated cannot resist the temptation that faulty reasoning embeds in the oblivious attitude of victimizing humanity. In rising their own stature jihadists require what Phil Zuckerman calls the “outsourcing” of their own morality to that of a supernatural being.[1] Responsibility is in god’s hands not theirs. Edicts are blindly followed and bloodily enforced. In other words, the god of any competing scripture sanctifies immoral and unethical acts that no real secularist/humanist condones under any circumstances.

Until we come to expect and demand humanist values to dominate the political arena, until we – including people of all faiths, background and political stripe – agree to disentangle the respective functions of “throne and alter”, and until we infuse our children with empathy and responsibility for humanity, we can expect hostage taking, horrific murders, and belligerence contrary to the common good of all to persist.

I’m not sure about you, dear reader, but “haven’t we had enough?”

---

[1] Phil Zuckerman, Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions (New York: Penguin Press, 2014), 16.

[audereblog]

The Chapel Hill Murders and the Role of Atheism

By André Gagné (15-02-2015)

Wehave witnessed in the past week violent events which remind us of the climate ofterror experienced in North America. Last Tuesday, three Muslims, Deah Shaddy Barakat; his wife, Yusor Abu-Salha; and her sister, Razan Abu-Salha, were killed in Chapel Hill, North Carolina over what some have reported to be a dispute concerning a parking space. Other news outlets have hinted at the possibility that the suspected killer, Craig Stephen Hicks, had specifically targeted Muslims as a result of his atheism. Many atheist organizations and prominent figures of what some call “New Atheism”, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, immediately and unequivocally condemned this brutal act, stating that the murders had nothing to do with atheism. 

Without diminishing the grave nature of this violent action committed against Muslims, we can say this has indeed nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is not a religion; rather, it is simply a lack of belief in any god(s). Everyone is an atheist with respect to someone else’s religious beliefs. For example, Christians usually do not believe in the god(s) of other religions, and the same goes for believers of other religious traditions: they have no faith in the Christian god. Atheism does not have any sacred books containing creeds or sets of rules which people need to believe or follow. There is nothing in books, videos, or blogs produced by atheists that call people to commit violent actions or kill people because of their religious beliefs. Therefore, violence in the name of atheism is completely unwarranted. As we know, this is not the case of some religious traditions, since portions of sacred texts do call for the extermination of infidels and apostates. Atheists, on the other hand, embrace secular humanistic values; they criticize ideas, not people. One way atheism undermines religion is through rational discourse, by pointing out its inconsistencies in thinking, as well as by speaking out against religious violence throughout history.

No one should be killed for their beliefs or non-beliefs. Muslim lives matter; Christian lives matter; Atheist lives matter; people matter! Secular humanistic values do not take away the rights of people to believe; rather, they are against damageable ideas such as those which give people the license to kill in the name of any god(s) and/or ideology.

[audereblog]

Educational Policies and Religion: What Can We Do in the Case of Self-Appointed Religious Leaders?

By André Gagné (12-02-2015)

The city of Montreal recently decided to not issue a certificate of occupancy for a future Muslim community center. This move specifically targeted the religious activities of imam Hamza Chaoui. But modifying a municipal law to prevent the establishment of a potential breeding space for the radicalization of individuals is not the only way to solve the problem. As we know, the Charter of rights guarantees freedom of religion, and people can also be radicalized in other places of worship. Freedom of expression is also at the heart of this debate; can we truly prevent a person from uttering archaic nonsense? That being said, is it not ironic for Chaoui to state that Islam is against democracy, but uses freedom of expression to promote his own ideology which is perceived by most as potentially dangerous? As with Judaism and Christianity, Islam was not constituted at a time and place where democracy prevailed, but this fact did not prevent members of a Muslim community in Anjou to reject the teachings of this so-called imam showing that, for their part, they do not adhere a rigorous reading of the Qur’an.

For the Quebec government, education is a major key in limiting the influence of self-appointed imams. It is the most effective way to counter outdated religious ideas. Education is a weapon against fundamentalism; the Peshawar school attack last December clearly shows how extremists are terrified by the prospect of widespread education among women and children. After hearing the words of Chaoui, have we asked ourselves if whether or not this individual had the adequate training to take on such a role? The only thing we know is that this imam holds a Bachelor degree in electrical engineering from l’Université Laval; this is not useful for such a “profession.” In France, anthropologist and philosopher Malek Chebel, in his most recent book entitled, “Changer Islam” (Changing Islam), stresses on the importance of training for the “profession” of imam. Just as any other member of the clergy associated to Judaism and Christianity, the imam is not only involved in fieldwork; he must also have certified knowledge and skills! Many religious groups already require their leaders to earn a university degree related to their field of work. A person cannot simply proclaim himself to be an imam, priest, pastor or rabbi solely on the basis of “God’s calling.” To be a leader of a recognized religious community, the Quebec government should require a university degree recognized by the Ministry of Education. Without training, no certification or recognition should be granted. In short, a person should not be a member of the clergy without the required skills. Is this not what is expected for most other professions in our society? Why should it be different for leaders of religious groups?

But what might such training look like? First, it should be given in the context of secular universities, since the education provided cannot be sectarian or promote any particular religious point of view. The formation should also be multidisciplinary in nature, meaning that the curriculum must include courses in history, science, anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and philosophy. As for the “religious” aspect of this training, it should be given by specialists in the field of religion or religious studies, where experts teach from a critical perspective and value the advancement of modern research concerning religious beliefs and practices. For example, it is unthinkable that a university – or at any other level of person’s education for that matter – would promote creationism or intelligent design, since this belief is out of touch with modern scientific evidence. Moreover, one needs to learn about the history of all religious traditions; it is the only effective remedy against the myopic view people have of their own religion.

In today’s world, politicians need the courage to work in establishing policies which will hold leaders of mosques, churches and synagogues accountable, and education can play a significant role in this task. This is a concrete way to protect ourselves from sectarian ideologies which can also be harmful to our children and to Quebec society as a whole.

[audereblog]

Que faire contre les imams autoproclamés ? - La Presse+

par André Gagné (05-02-2015)

La Ville de Montréal ne délivrera pas de certification d’occupation permettant des activités religieuses dans un centre communautaire musulman par l’« imam » Hamza Chaoui. Mais modifier une loi municipale pouvant empêcher l’établissement d’un lieu potentiel en vue de la radicalisation d’individus...

[audereblog]

Islamic Extremism in Montreal: The Place of Religious Scholars in the Discussions and Decisions of Society

Post by Calogero A. Miceli (02-02-2015)

In recent news, an imam by the name of Hamza Chaoui has applied for a city permit to open an Islamic community centre in the east end of Montreal. What makes this problematic? Chaoui is associated with radical Islamists and has professed some of his fundamentalist interpretations of Islam on social media through Facebook and YouTube (the videos and Facebook pages have since been made private). The following is part of what Chaoui had to say regarding Sharia law: “There are non-Muslims who come to our home and tell us, ‘Really, you cut off heads, you cut off hands?’ But that’s religion. It’s our religion in our own country. We decide how we implement it.”

Since the story broke last week the city of Montreal has denied the imam his permit out of fear that he would spread his views and radicalize youth in the city (see the interview here).

While much can and has been said about the issues of free speech and the city’s jurisdiction in the matter – for the record I think that the city has made the right decision and that there must be interference of freedom of speech when it calls for or incites violence – the question that comes to my mind concerns the place of academics, particularly scholars of religion, in these discussions. 

On January 28th, 2015 the mayor of Montreal Denis Coderre met with a group of religious leaders for a discussion on democratic freedoms and religion. The invitees included a number of Jewish, Christian and Islamic community leaders. During the meeting of divergent faiths, there was much talk on the issues of terrorism and the growing number of discontented youths. While the meeting is a positive step in the right direction, I wondered… where are the scholars? Should not a discussion on such topics include not just religious leaders, but also scholars of religion? There is need for representation from the men and women who have studied and earned degrees in various areas of religious study. The scholars employed by academic institutions and funded with taxpayer dollars by the province and state… these people need to have a say. 

So why are they not in the discussions?

One of the important issues discussed by the mayor during the meeting was the issue of peace. He requested that the religious leaders advance the message of peace within their communities. Similarly, I believe that one of the roles of religious scholars is, among others, to promote peace. Like religious leaders, scholars have roots in society and many people attentively listen to them. They should be involved in discussions as much as anybody else. But the reality is that they often are not and this meeting was a reminder of that.

Perhaps, the problem does not lie with officials who are not calling on scholars, but that a good number of academics do not voice their opinions or directly involve themselves in current debates and discussions. There is need to bridge the gap and scholars of religion (and in other fields) should start to think more actively about their roles in the society that they live in and the decisions that are being made.

There is a place for religious scholars to participate in the discussions and decisions of society… it is a matter of stepping up and getting involved

[audereblog]

Opening Remarks at the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (MIGS)

Post by André Gagné (01-24-2015)

On January 20, 2015, I was invited by Kyle Matthews of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (MIGS) for a discussion on the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks, freedom of expression and religious violence. I read the following text as my opening statement:

The cowardly and brutal murder of 12 people in the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015 should set the record straight: religious ideologies can incite individuals to commit violent acts. Let’s stop ignoring the elephant in the room in the name of political correctness! It’s time to admit that many aspects of such worldviews are a hindrance to human progress and harmony, as well as incompatible with our modern ways of life in the 21st century.

When the perpetrators of this despicable deed cried out “Allahu akbar, the Prophet is avenged,” it became clear that this was done in retaliation to satirical comments and caricatures of the prophet Mohammad; actions which were deemed insulting toward Islam. But as we know, Charlie Hebdo had not only been critical of Islam, it also decried the abuses of other religious traditions such as Catholicism and Judaism, and spoken out against right-wing politicians and many other aspects of French culture.

But why haven’t there been any murderous acts committed by other religious groups or targeted individuals?

Maybe it’s because Islam is still at a place where it is unable to cope with criticism. Are we not witnessing this throughout several countries where large numbers of Muslims burn and stampede on the French flag in protest against last Wednesday’s issue of the Charlie Hebdo? When one thinks that these horrific murders were in retaliation to “caricatures” of Mohammad, it is sad to see that there is actually little justification for such crimes in the Qur’an, apart from the command against idolatry. There is more evidence, even though ambiguous, in the hadiths, a series of secondary texts containing teachings of Mohammad, and in later Islamic art where Mohammad is represented with a veil over his face. Were radicals aware of these ambiguous interpretations and the existence of images of Mohammad in Islamic material culture; interpretations for which people are fighting to the point of death, as we are currently seeing in the Middle-East? Most probably not! When it comes to religious ideologies, people like to pick and choose from their holy books what fits their own needs and justifies their ways of living. For example, people who say that the Bible or the Qur’an do not contain violent commands or narratives, have not carefully read them or are simply deluding themselves. It is therefore not surprising for someone to say that their religion is “peaceful” and label all who act violently as not representing the “true” essence of their tradition. Either way, holy books do contain both the good and the bad. It is then incorrect to say that all of this is not representative of “true” Islam. There is no such thing as a “true” or “false” Islam. Scholarship has abandoned the categories of orthodoxy and heresy; what we see are simply the various manifestations or facets of a religion. Therefore, as there are peaceful verses in the Qur’an, there are also texts which order the killing of those who wage war against Allah and his prophet. It is surprising, then, that some read the Charlie Hebdo caricatures as an attack toward Islam; this is exactly what led radical extremists to take matters into their own hands to defend the honour of the prophet. Again, we need to remember that Muslims fighting each other in the Middle East all claim to represent and act according to the “true” Islam, even though they belong to competing factions of the tradition! It is strange how we are quick to say that the perpetrators of the Paris attacks do not represent “true” Islam, but rarely say the same thing when the attacks are far from home.

Speaking on the issue of attacks at home, last week, the French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, started to announce new security measures in the wake of the attacks. President Obama, who has been severely criticized for not attending the Paris march on January 11 – while ironically, representatives from several countries which usually act against the freedom of expression were paving the streets of Paris alongside President Holland – has nonetheless summoned an international meeting in Washington in February, to discuss ways to counter the rising threat of global terrorism. Here in Canada, Premier Stephen Harper has tackled head-on what he sees as a war on terrorism, and is clearly gaining momentum in the opinion polls, as people are clearly concerned for their security. In Québec, Prime Minister Couillard stated that his government will form a committee to fight against radicalization, but only in a few weeks. Couillard believes that actions leading to radicalization are not in any way linked to Islam.

With all these proposed actions, especially those which focus on intensifying security measures, will governments be able to prevent attacks on their territories? Is it truly realistic to believe that everyone will be protected at all times? Of course not! These measures will certainly help, but will they be sufficient to reverse the mechanisms leading to radicalization and dissuade people from committing terror attacks?

Another noteworthy approach to this crisis would be to wage war against the ideology that feeds such violent actions.  This is why I believe education is the first step to de-radicalization in this war against terrorism. Education is clearly an enemy of radicalization; just remember the Peshawar attack last December.

How does one go about educating people? The first step is to target potential radicals, by informing them of the costs of radicalization. For example, many people are unaware that ISIS recently executed 200 fighters who had joined their ranks, but wanted to return home after being disillusioned with the whole enterprise. People become radicalized because they experience some sense of personal or collective injustice, while others are simply seeking meaning in their lives. This is can often be the result of various social and economic ills, where people will seek answers to the hopelessness they experience. This is exactly when someone feels most vulnerable to radical religious ideologies which can lead to a destructive path.

As a secular society, we have to provide hope and denounce radicalization; the way to go about this is through a counter-ideology, one that helps and equips people to create their own meaningful life and sense of worth, in line with humanistic and liberal values. Fighting terrorism is not only done through better security measures, but through better ideas than those which seek to extinguish freedom and life.

But modern secular societies also have a responsibility to adopt and uphold a critical perspective toward all oppressive religious ideologies and political systems. Humanistic values should be at the core of pluralistic societies, and ideas that promote violence should be denounced and resisted. This is why Islam, or any other religious tradition that stifles human dignity, should be critiqued. Strangely enough, people have little problem with critically assessing the value of political decisions, scientific discoveries, artistic expression, or any other aspect of culture. But religion – and these days, the Islamic tradition – seems to be off limits. Muslims can surely disagree with the assessment people make of their tradition; but the best way to state their case is with ink and paper. This is what freedom of speech is all about. However, people who choose otherwise may perhaps be confirming their lack of valid arguments in the face of reasonable objections. They simply shut out competing worldviews and suppress freedom of thought and expression by violently silencing those who oppose their ideology.

With all this being said, religion cannot be blamed for every violent action in the world; there are other factors at work. But secular societies clearly need to position themselves regarding sacred texts and the religions that uphold them.

My aim here is not to criticize people, but rather to expose ideas that are dangerous to our society. Ultimately, we should be guided by humanistic values and resist all forms of violence.

[audereblog]

Welcome to Audere! Bienvenue sur Audere!

Welcome to Audere! The Latin word "Audere" means: to venture, to dare, to risk! This new bilingual blog is dedicated to current public issues of all sorts. The opinions expressed on this site are solely those of the authors. Please stay in touch with us, as we dare to offer our thoughts on various issues such as culture, religion, science, history, public policy and many more! Note that our posts may be published in English and / or in French.

Bienvenue sur Audere! En Latin, le verbe "Audere" signifie: s'aventurer, oser, risquer! Ce nouveau blogue bilingue s'intéresse aux questions d'actualité. Les opinions exprimées sont strictement celles des auteurs. Suivez-nous alors que nous osons commenter les évènements reliés à la culture, la religion, les sciences, l'histoire et les politiques publique, et sur bien d'autres sujets! Prenez note que les commentaires peuvent être rédigés en anglais et / ou en français.