The attempt to argue that the evil sides of religion are simply “not religious” is not convincing. Religion has to be subjected to criticism.
What should be the state and society’s reaction to these assaults on the principle of freedom of speech by religiously motivated zealots?
In our ideologically divided world, there seems to be one conviction that atheists and believers subscribe: religion is back on the agenda.
It seems that the nature of the rejection of atheism has changed, but there still is, so it seems, a widespread condemnation of it.
Rushdie was targeted not only by terrorists who wanted to punish him for his blasphemous novel, but also by public intellectuals.
Judaism, Christendom, and Islam differ in some aspects. But none of these differences can hide the similarity in their understanding of God.
Moral autonomy and the rejection of divine command ethics are possible within the framework of a religious worldview.
That there is a “religion per se” apart from the social manifestations of that religion is simply presupposed by many people active in this debate.
Should artists and public intellectuals sometimes restrain themselves in criticizing religion, in particular radical Islam?
Under the present conditions of religious radicalism, the religiously neutral or secular state has better prospects than multiculturalism.