Religion & Law

Utah law prof Amos Guiora has posted his article, Religious Extremism: A Fundamental Danger.  I do not think religious liberty is Prof. Guiora's primary area of scholarship, but that is no excuse for some of the assertions set forth in the article.  Here is the abstract:

Given that religious violence constitutes such a grave threat to democracies, governments must begin to examine this institution more critically than they have in the past. Governments are charged not only with protecting civil liberties, like freedom of or from religion, but with protecting their citizens from internal and external threats. This Article discusses the framework modern democratic governments must begin to institute if they are to protect freedom of religion and effectively respond to a unique threat to safety. Five countries - the United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Israel and the Netherlands - will be examined. My primary thesis is that civil societies cannot afford to continue to treat religion as an "untouchable" subject - 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.

And from the conclusion:

Discussing the public/private religion question is critical in analyzing the limits of freedom with respect to religious practice. Religious practice, after all, suggests religious conduct as distinct from religious belief alone. Religious practice is how religious belief manifests itself; prayer is the liturgy and manner in which a person of faith communicates with his/her deity; speech is communication by a person of faith or religious leader (priest, imam, rabbi) invoking the deity for the purpose of action in the name of religion with respect to religious and non-religious individuals and groups. Private religion?the manifestation of any of the three above in any combination within the home?is the ideal articulated by the American Founding Fathers. The premise was clear: belief, practice and speech with respect to religion in any manner within the confines of your home most effectively balances between the state and religion. Furthermore, private religion protects non-believers from religion. Public religion, however, not only affects the delicate balance between state and religion (religion used here in the generic rather than ?Church?), it also conceivably endangers the now vulnerable non-believer.

So practicing my faith in public not only upsets the "balance" between state and religion, but it defies the vision of the Founding Fathers?  Who knew?