There is no moral equivalence between the Islamic State and Putin’s Russia—the first is a genocidal totalitarianism while the second is brutally authoritarian, but not genocidal. But both want to carve out new or enlarged states across internationally recognized borders, both threaten international stability, and both ultimately legitimate themselves in religious terms.
There is an underlying assumption shared by both religious conservatives and their progressive antagonists (they just differ on what to do about it): that modernity means a decline of religion and its concomitant morality. That’s not exactly right, however.
If you want to get businesses to support your cause, appeal to their interests rather than moral principles.
Though the official guardians of religious tradition have typically looked askance at the idea of interreligious dialogue, the practice of coming to terms intellectually with other faiths has a long and rich history.
America’s cultural left and right have globalized the battle over questions of sexuality.
There is something attractive about a group that calls itself “a community of seekers.” The term nicely fits most of us today.
We are in effect at war with Islamist radicalism. It is very unhelpful if this reality is denied, as the Obama administration has tried to do.
It is believed by many that the only alternative to natural law is moral relativism. This a misleading idea. One may acknowledge the empirical fact that all moral judgments are relative in that they are determined by location in time and place. Nevertheless, this does not mean that moral judgments cannot themselves attain a certainty which surpasses science itself.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s strong support for the recently announced measure to allow women to become bishops in the Church of England may have been an astute political move.
Pluralism, and not secularization, is the major contemporary challenge to religious faith.