challenging religious privilege in public life

Judaism, Christendom, and Islam differ in some aspects. But none of these differences can hide the similarity in their understanding of God.

The ultimate goal in the process of trying to understand what people believe is to make fruitful communication possible.

The critic must be able to place himself or herself over against the religious tradition. That presupposes what may be called moral autonomy.

Many people (including the Pope) think that if speech is left free, false views will generally be more easily adopted than true ones.

We all think – at least most of us – that Darwin had to publish the Origin in spite of “sorrow” or “pain” or “hurt…

If, under the mantle of political correctness, it were possible to dispose of religious criticism, the social costs would be enormous.

In the 1960s and 1970s many people seemed inclined to think that freedom of speech was vitally important. Nowadays, it is less popular.

What should be the state and society’s reaction to these assaults on the principle of freedom of speech by religiously motivated zealots?

Countless books now considered indispensable works of the Western tradition were for a long time suppressed by the Catholic Church.

All new ideas were, in a way, won over hurt feelings, shattered worldviews – all new ideas generated resistance and opposition.