Would the world be more peaceful without religions? This was the rather hypothetical question posed by Maybrit Illner following the attacks on Christians in Sri Lanka and Muslims in New Zealand. Since billions of people are not asking themselves this question and simply will continue to believe anyway, one could just as well have asked whether the world would be more beautiful without gravity.
But then, within an hour, it became clear that the program's approach was not that bad. The discussion led at least to one point: that religion and identity were understandably placed in a relationship that furthered the debate.
The terrorism expert Peter Neumann, for example, attested to the identities of the right-wing extremist, Christchurch assassin in New Zealand who saw themselves in the tradition of the Crusades and the Islamist perpetrators of Sri Lanka: both were concerned with a "form of extreme identity reduction," he said, because of the restriction on a single property. Anyone who was obsessed by the idea of the Crusades, it was "not about Christianity in the sense of theology, but about the Christian identity" - including in the sense of: non-Muslim identity. That was not a bad answer to the broadcasting question as to whether the world would be more peaceful without religions: in any case, it would be more peaceful without religious identities.
The Islamic scholar Mürvet Öztürk provided a similarly significant contribution when she said that she saw her role as a supposedly religiously motivated terrorist attack: "advocating for a diverse, multi-ethnic society", even if that sounds "trite". This was the remedy for the attempts of the bombers who only wanted to "provoke counter-reactions with outrageous arguments".
The ambivalence of the religious
But is religion itself the cause of discord? Aiman Mazyek, the chairman of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, denied this, already job-related. The language of religions is not a "language of revenge, but a language of reconciliation," he preached. Philipp Möller, who has written a popular non-fiction book, "why we would be better off without religion" and sailed on the atheist's ticket, did not let him go through that. If anything, then religion is "multilingual," he said. Of course she also speaks the "language of hatred".
The ambivalence of religion occupied the circle for a while. Humanistic core - yes. Easy way to get lost - even that. Religions would also be instrumentalized by criminals - that anyway.
Öztürk complained that the practice of religion had been interpreted in the past 25 to 30 years increasingly stricter and "very conservative". That also weighed on "the associations". So that went to Mazyek, who of course did not want to know about it: If Muslims retreated into their communities, he said, it was also a reaction to a perceptible Islamophobia. Maybe both had a point.
Mazyek also emphasized his argument elsewhere when he complained that now, after the Islamist attacks in Sri Lanka, a talk show titled "Terror in Sri Lanka - War of Religions?" while no one was scheduled after the attack on the New Zealand mosques. What are we sending for a signal ?, he asked: "that Muslims do not give a damn?"
Maybrit Illner fought only tentatively, his criticism remained so. If they had continued on the spot, maybe someone would have thought that a talk show after the Christchurch terror might have been a strange format. What should have been discussed there, without slipping into the completely speculative and well-being? Would you have liked to do the perpetrator a chance to analyze his manifesto that he has written so that the world's television stations report on it? Of course, Mazyek's criticism was not entirely wrong: of course, Peter Neumann said, attacks on Christians, as in Sri Lanka, were perceived more strongly in Germany "because we feel closer."
The CDU politician Wolfgang Bosbach, it was who summarized this feeling in a sentence: "I would be very happy if the Christians in the minority in Muslim countries would experience just as much tolerance, as the Muslims with us." The Christians. The Muslims. The others. And we , the good guys. Had he emphasized at the beginning that one should "not fall into the trap of terrorists" - so not force the split - he was in the moment already a hair in it in the trap. He also did not forget to mention the obligatory comparison variable Saudi Arabia.
Opposition came from Mürvet Öztürk: "Thank God we are not in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Bosbach!" But of course you can forget that because of your pride in religious freedom in Germany.