- is really bad. it's more like what dan brown does in his novels, w/basic blunders of mistaken assumptions, omissions /even downright false claims. a few examples: the scientific revolution, which began in the 16. & not 17. century was more rooted in & based on "religious belief" than anything else. greater historians than s. see it even as a philosophical necessity for the rise of science in the 1st place. likewise the idea of liberty in the US constitution is derived directly from the biblical idea of man. his whole contradiction of critical thought vs. revealed thruth is indeed superficial & wrong. he mixes it up w/"dogmatism", which is of course bad. there's no way at arriving at any real thought /inquiry except within a valid theory of knowing (epistemology), which in our post-modern days is as good as dead, so some of s.'s claims are typically just a romantic leap & illusion. but his practical conclusion for isr. politics is great - YES TO A SECULAR CONSTITUTION!
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
France will not take in more than 30,000 refugees, prime minister say (DPA)
from the article: Why Israel must become a secular state: a thought for Yom Kippur 5770