English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article is about the nature of religious radicalism and whether this necessitates a rethinking of the classical models about state and religion. The author discerns five models: (1) political atheism, (2) the religiously neutral or secular state, (3) multiculturalism, (4) state church, and (5) theocracy. Political atheism and theocracy are both rejected because they violate the basic principles of liberal-democratic society. A state church and its concomitant plea for a revitalization of Judeo-Christian culture are not likely to be successful in an increasingly pluralist society. The debate concentrates on the comparison of multiculturalism and the religiously neutral state (laicite). Under the present conditions of religious radicalism, this article contends, multiculturalism is more likely to fissure society than provide a real common basis for national social cohesion. The model of the religiously neutral state (secular state) has better prospects. The author also evaluates two common objections to the religiously neutral state.

State and religion against the backdrop of religious radicalism