This article provides both a good introductory survey to approaches to counter-radicalisation and, in its second half, an interesting discussion of ways in which current US counter-radicalisation practices may infringe the Establishment Clause, the US Constitution’s guarantee of a secular state and of religious freedom. The article is of general relevance, because Rascoff places US efforts in the context of European practices (remarking on the influence that British models, especially, have had on the US), and because the legal issues raised in a US context are much the same as the ethical issues raised by much the same practices in a European context.
In the survey part of the article, Rascoff makes interesting distinctions between “behavioral” and “ideological” counter-radicalisation theories and between “secular methods” of counter-radicalisation and “proselytisation.” He also draws attention to what he calls “bureaucratic entrenchment,” “the various ways in which counter-radicalisation has changed the structure of government.”
The article is not as long as it looks, since many pages contain more footnotes than text. But the footnotes are often interesting too.
- Journal : Stanford Law Review
- Author : Samuel J. Rascoff
- Date : 2012
- Volume : 64 (1)
- Pages : 125-90
- Reviewer : Mark Sedgwick
- Link : http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/establishing-official-islam