Under the present conditions of religious radicalism, the religiously neutral or secular state has better prospects than multiculturalism.
The fact that Abraham could have made a different choice from the one he actually made does not exculpate the tradition itself.
The two elements of critique of religion and predilection for free speech adequately sum up the movement for freethought.
To understand religious terrorism we first have to listen to what the terrorists themselves are saying. Not many people are prepared to do this.
Contemporary political leaders all seem to give the same advice to citizens in western states, viz. not to provoke the terrorists.
Should artists and public intellectuals sometimes restrain themselves in criticizing religion, in particular radical Islam?
We hear it said we are witnessing a “clash of civilizations”. The most important question, however, is the following: can the problem be solved?
The doctrine of moral autonomy is described as the main contribution of the Enlightenment to the cultural heritage of mankind.
It seems that the nature of the rejection of atheism has changed, but there still is, so it seems, a widespread condemnation of it.
The postmodern relativistic – or nihilistic – position makes Western societies easy prey for the ideology of radical Islamism.