War : Survivors, Memory, and Moral Responsibility (14)

Why the Indonesian Public generally sides with Iran

The question is worth answering with intellectual honesty. It is not merely a matter of politics, but of how identity, history, and the information ecosystem combine to shape collective perception.

There are at least six overlapping layers of causation.

First, Islamic identity as the primary lens.

For the majority of Muslim Indonesians, the Israel-Palestine conflict is read first and foremost not as a geopolitical contest but as a religious one — a struggle between Islam and forces perceived as hostile to it. Iran, with its consistent revolutionary anti-Zionist rhetoric since 1979, has positioned itself with considerable effectiveness as the one state power willing openly to challenge Israel. Within this logic, whoever opposes Israel is understood to be defending Islam, and whoever defends Islam is a moral ally. The denominational distinction — Iran is Shia, Indonesia overwhelmingly Sunni — dissolves beneath a solidarity felt to be larger than sectarian difference, a solidarity rooted in a shared sense of embattlement.

Second, a social media ecosystem that distorts.

Platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and X carry a structural tendency to amplify content that is emotionally charged, morally binary, and readily shareable. The narrative of Iran as defender of Palestine is exceptionally well-suited to this format: it is simple, heroic, and furnished with an unambiguous villain. Content that introduces complexity — that Iran funds its proxies in the service of regional hegemony, that the Axis of Resistance collapsed at the very moment Iran was attacked, that ordinary Iranians have themselves protested against their government's subsidisation of foreign causes at the expense of domestic welfare — does not travel virally, precisely because it is not emotionally legible in thirty seconds.

Third, the historical inheritance of anti-imperialism.

Indonesia was born of resistance to colonialism. Anti-imperialist sentiment flows deeply through the political DNA of the republic since Sukarno. Israel is widely perceived as a Western colonial project on Arab land, and the United States as its indispensable sponsor. Iran, which has positioned itself in open defiance of both, is read through this lens as a fellow nation resisting hegemony — a resonance that reaches across differences of religion and geography and speaks directly to something foundational in the Indonesian national self-understanding.

Fourth, the absence of adequate geopolitical literacy in public discourse.

The analytical work of separating rhetoric from strategic interest, public narrative from behind-the-scenes calculation, genuine solidarity from instrumentalised solidarity, is demanding intellectual labour rarely reached by everyday media consumption. When the narrative of Iran as defender of Palestine has never been seriously challenged in Indonesian public life — not by the mainstream media, not by formal education, not by political discourse — it solidifies into axiom, something received without the need for verification. Unchallenged assumptions do not remain merely assumptions; in time, they become the ground on which all further thinking stands.

Fifth, the influence of transnational Islamic networks.

Some transnational Islamic organisations—some of which maintain significant networks within Indonesia—actively disseminate framings of resistance that are either directly drawn from the Iranian revolutionary tradition or broadly aligned with it. Sermons, devotional content, and religious literature circulating in pesantren and mosques have, in no small measure, framed Iran as the guardian of Al-Quds and of the Palestinian people. This is not a conspiracy; it is the cumulative effect of an Islamic discursive network that has operated patiently and persistently over many decades.

Sixth, a paradox of sectarianism.

What is perhaps most striking is this: a portion of Sunni Indonesian Muslims who, in other contexts, are deeply hostile to Shiism — some going so far as to regard it as theologically deviant — find themselves standing alongside Iran when the subject turns to Palestine. This suggests that solidarity with Palestine, in the Indonesian context, is a force more powerful than sectarian antagonism. Palestine has become, in Indonesian public perception, a cause that transcends the boundaries of denomination — and Iran, having successfully positioned itself as the foremost champion of that cause, is lifted by the same current.

In short: the Indonesian public does not side with Iran out of any deep or considered understanding of Iran itself, but because Iran has managed — with considerable skill over more than four decades — to fuse its own image with that of Palestine in the collective imagination of global Muslims. What is being defended is Palestine; Iran has simply made itself the symbolic vessel of that defence. And it is precisely this that renders the narrative so susceptible to exploitation — both by those who constructed it, and by those who, in good faith, have come to inhabit it.

The killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on 28th February 2026 in coordinated American and Israeli air strikes—an event that sent shockwaves through the Middle East's geopolitical architecture and drew immediate condemnation from leaders across the Muslim world — produced, within Indonesia, a controversy of a rather different and domestically revealing kind. For four days following the Supreme Leader's death, the Presidential Palace in Jakarta maintained what many observers described as a conspicuously cold silence. Indonesia's first official statement stopped short of condemning the strikes, offering only a call for all parties to exercise restraint and to prioritise dialogue and diplomacy. No personal expression of condolence came from President Prabowo Subianto himself — a striking absence, given that Iran and Indonesia maintain longstanding diplomatic relations and cooperate at the international level, and that the custom of extending condolences upon the death of a friendly nation's head of state is, in the ordinary run of diplomacy, entirely uncontroversial. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, by contrast, had already issued a strongly worded statement on the killing within hours, as had several Indonesian civil society figures, Islamic organisations, and senior political figures who moved considerably faster than the state. Islamic organisations, academics, and political parties had already extended their condolences since Monday, 2nd March—two days after Khamenei's passing—and it took a veritable downpour of public criticism before the President finally acted. The formal condolence letter, addressed to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and delivered on 4th March by Foreign Minister Sugiono through the Iranian Ambassador in Jakarta, Mohammad Boroujerdi, arrived only after former President Megawati Soekarnoputri had already sent her own personal letter to Tehran expressing solidarity and rejecting unilateral military aggression—a sequence of events that made the government's eventual gesture appear reactive rather than principled. The PDI-P argued that Indonesia had failed to extend even basic diplomatic courtesy to a close partner, whilst the Indonesian Ulema Council issued a strong condemnation of the American and Israeli attacks and urged the government to review Indonesia's membership of the Board of Peace. Behind this eruption of domestic pressure lay a question more fundamental than the niceties of diplomatic protocol: why did so large a share of the Indonesian public—and so vocal a portion of its netizen community—feel such an acute moral urgency to demand that their government mourn a foreign leader? The answer cannot be separated from the way in which much of Indonesian society has come to understand Iran's role on the world stage—namely, as the foremost champion of the Palestinian cause in its confrontation with Israeli and Western power, a perception so deeply embedded in the Muslim Indonesian collective conscience that it has invested the figure of Khamenei with the aura of a defender of justice, quite irrespective of the complexities and contradictions that, on closer examination, marked his leadership and Iran's strategic conduct in full.

The question that animates the pages that follow is, at its core, deceptively simple: is Iran's championing of the Palestinian cause what it presents itself to be—a principled, selfless commitment to the liberation of an occupied people—or does it serve ends that are altogether more calculated, more strategic, and considerably less noble than the rhetoric of resistance would have one believe? Is Tehran genuinely the moral vanguard of the Muslim world's most urgent cause, or has Palestine been instrumentalised, decade after decade, as a banner of convenience—a means of projecting regional power, consolidating domestic legitimacy, and positioning Iran as the indispensable leader of an anti-Western bloc whose cohesion owes rather more to shared enmity than to shared values? And where, in all of this, does the question of oil and petrodollar geopolitics fit—not as a conspiracy theory, but as a structural reality that no serious analysis of the Middle East can afford to ignore? The reader is invited to follow the argument that unfolds in the sections below, not in search of comfortable certainties, but in pursuit of the more demanding and ultimately more useful thing: a clearer, more honest account of what is actually at stake, and why it matters—not least to a country like Indonesia, whose foreign policy traditions and whose obligations to its own people demand something more rigorous than the embrace of a narrative, however emotionally compelling, that has not been subjected to the test of evidence.

BEYOND THE RHETORIC OF RESISTANCE

An Anatomy of the US-Israel versus Iran Conflict:

Between the Palestinian Narrative, Petrodollars,

and the Realities of Regional Hegemony

Geopolitical Analysis—March 2026

This essay argues that the protracted conflict between the United States and Israel on one side, and Iran on the other, cannot be adequately explained through any single narrative — whether that of Iranian solidarity with Palestine or of petrodollar rivalry. What is actually unfolding is a multi-layered contest involving nuclear ambitions, regional hegemony, strategic momentum, and ideological-identity competition, in which the Palestinian and oil narratives function as instruments of public discourse rather than as root causes. This analysis traces each of those layers against developments in the region across 2023 to 2026, including the twelve-day war of June 2025, which proved to be the pivotal turning point in the Middle East's security architecture.

I. Introduction: A Conflict That Cannot Be Read Through a Single Lens

When missiles arc across the Strait of Hormuz and nuclear facilities at Natanz are reduced to rubble by air strikes, millions of people around the world reach for an explanation. In Indonesian-language social media, two dominant narratives circulate with particular force: first, that Iran is the defender of Palestine, attacked for its moral courage in standing against the injustice visited upon the people of Gaza; second, that this is all ultimately about oil—that the United States is determined to secure its dominance over the petrodollar system and to ensure Iran cannot threaten the energy flows upon which American hegemony depends.

Neither narrative is entirely wrong. But neither is entirely right—and, more dangerously, both are far too simple for a conflict whose roots run deep into history, whose driving forces are layered upon one another, and which operates within a regional dynamic of extraordinary complexity.

This essay is not written to defend any particular party. It is written to encourage clearer thinking by tracing, layer by layer, the interests that are actually propelling this conflict towards the highest point of escalation witnessed in a generation. By understanding the genuine roots of what is happening, we—Indonesia included, as the world's most populous Muslim democracy and a country committed to an independent and active foreign policy—can respond with wisdom rather than mere reflex.

II. The Palestinian Narrative: Ideological Shield or Genuine Commitment?

Iran is one of very few countries in the world that has formally and consistently refused to recognise Israel as a legitimate entity. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 under Ayatollah Khomeini, Tehran has ideologically positioned itself as the centrepiece of an "Axis of Resistance" against Zionism and Western imperialism. Iran's financial and military support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militias in Iraq all flow beneath the canopy of this ideology.

On the surface, the narrative appears coherent. Iran does indeed pour significant resources — estimates place the figure at roughly 700 million US dollars per year before international sanctions began to erode that capacity — into funding its regional proxy network. It was Iran that furnished Hamas with the weapons, intelligence, and training that formed a significant part of the operational foundation for the 7 October 2023 attacks.

But here is the first critical point of scrutiny: is solidarity with Palestine truly what drives Iran's regional strategy, or is it merely the ideological cloak draped over ambitions that are, at their core, considerably more pragmatic? 

Evidence That Undermines the 'Defender of Palestine' Narrative

Several facts suggest that Iran deploys the Palestinian cause as an instrument rather than as its deepest motivation. First, Hamas is a Sunni movement, whilst Iran is a Shia state. Relations between the two have always been characterised by latent sectarian tension. When Hamas withdrew from Damascus in 2012 and sided with the Sunni opposition in the Syrian Civil War, Iran temporarily curtailed its support. Reconciliation only came in 2022 — and not out of sincere ideological kinship, but because of cold strategic calculation on both sides.

Second, and perhaps most telling: when Israel launched Operation Rising Lion in June 2025 and struck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, virtually the entire Iranian proxy network chose silence. Hezbollah did not respond. Iraqi militias did not stir. Hamas was by that point too shattered to act. The Houthis fired a handful of missiles, easily deflected by Israeli air defences. What had been propagandised for years as a unified front of resistance proved, at the moment of genuine existential test, to be a loose confederation of opportunistic actors, each calculating its own survival.

Third, within Iran itself, the population has repeatedly taken to the streets with slogans that most honestly reflect the underlying reality: "Not Gaza, not Lebanon — my life is for Iran!" This is a direct expression of profound resentment towards a regime that sacrifices domestic welfare — a crisis-ridden economy, rampant inflation, power outages, water scarcity — on the altar of ideological adventurism abroad.

A regime truly driven by solidarity with Palestine would not face cries of 'do not sacrifice us for Gaza' from its own people.

The more accurate conclusion is this: Iran uses the Palestinian cause as a source of Islamic and pan-Arab legitimacy in the region, as a tool for mobilising Muslim global opinion, and as an ideological justification for building its proxy network — which is in truth designed to serve purposes far more pragmatic: projecting power, extending regional influence, and constructing a form of forward defence that displaces threats well away from Iranian soil.

III. The Petrodollar Narrative: A Real Dimension, But Not the Root

The petrodollar narrative — the claim that this conflict is fundamentally about the United States maintaining dollar dominance in global oil trade and eliminating any actor bold enough to challenge that system — holds a certain appeal, particularly amongst those inclined to read geopolitics through the lens of political economy.

It is not entirely mistaken. There is a real energy dimension that cannot be dismissed. The Strait of Hormuz — the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman — is one of the most critical energy chokepoints in the world. Nearly one fifth of the global oil supply passes through it daily. Every time Iran threatens to close the Strait, the price of Brent crude leaps past the psychological threshold of one hundred dollars per barrel and global energy markets convulse.

There is also a dimension of Saudi-Iranian rivalry that cannot be separated from the dynamics of the oil market. Saudi Arabia and Iran are longstanding petro-regional competitors — not only ideologically (Sunni monarchy versus Shia Islamic Republic), but economically, as fellow major OPEC producers whose interests have frequently clashed.

B. Why the Petrodollar Narrative Falls Short

Yet there are several reasons why the petrodollar narrative — particularly in its most popular circulating form — is insufficient as a primary explanation. First, if this conflict were chiefly about oil, the United States would be far more cautious about disturbing the region's energy production and distribution. In practice, the American military operation in June 2025 — known as Operation Midnight Hammer — targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and immediately triggered a sharp rise in oil prices and renewed threats to close the Strait. This is not the behaviour of a power motivated primarily by a desire to stabilise energy markets.

Second, if the principal American objective were to secure petrodollar dominance, a diplomatic accord with Iran — such as the one Obama very nearly achieved through the JCPOA in 2015 — would be a far more rational vehicle for doing so than a military confrontation that destabilises the region and renders energy markets thoroughly unpredictable.

The energy dimension is real, but it is best understood as a consequence and a side-wager of this conflict, not as its cause. Oil is a card that Iran plays in order to raise the cost of opposition — it is not the heart of the matter.

IV. The Layers of Genuine Causation

If the conflict is not principally about Palestine, and not principally about oil, then what is actually driving it to the boiling point we are witnessing? The answer is composed of at least four layers that sit upon one another and mutually reinforce each other.

A. Nuclear Ambitions: The Most Concrete and Most Persistent Issue

Iran's nuclear programme is the single issue that has appeared consistently at the centre of every cycle of escalation over the past two decades. It is no coincidence that Operation Midnight Hammer targeted Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — Iran's three principal nuclear facilities. Nor is it coincidental that the immediate trigger for the twelve-day war was the IAEA's finding that Iran had violated its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

From Israel's perspective, this is an existential matter. The Begin Doctrine — named for the 1981 Israeli air strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor — holds that Israel will never permit an enemy state to acquire nuclear weapons. In Tel Aviv's calculus, a nuclear-armed Iran would fundamentally alter the regional balance of power and threaten Israel's very survival as a state.

From Washington's perspective, the dimensions are broader still. A nuclear-armed Iran would not merely threaten Israel; it would likely trigger a cascade of proliferation across the region — Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt each having their own incentives to develop equivalent capabilities. A Middle East populated by multiple nuclear actors is the worst-case scenario for global stability.

B. Regional Hegemony: A Contest Over Competing Visions of Order

Beneath the nuclear issue lies a more fundamental rivalry: who will dominate the order of the Middle East in the post-Cold War era? Iran's ambitions are clear and have been stated openly by its leadership — to become the region's dominant power, leading an Axis of Resistance against American and Israeli hegemony.

These ambitions are not empty rhetoric. Over two decades, Iran systematically constructed what strategists call a forward defence posture — establishing proxy networks in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Gaza, such that any conflict with Iran would first be felt by its enemies long before it reached Iranian soil.

Israel, for its part, holds a diametrically opposed vision. Tel Aviv has consistently worked to ensure that no other regional power can match it militarily. Iran was the one actor that had been building asymmetric capabilities — through ballistic missiles, drones, and proxy networks — capable of challenging Israeli military supremacy.

What is unfolding is not merely a bilateral conflict. It is a contest between two visions of regional order that cannot coexist: Iran's vision of an Axis of Resistance grounded in Shia-revolutionary ideology, against the Israeli and American vision of a region that accepts Western and Israeli primacy.

 

C. Strategic Momentum: A Calculated Opportunity

There is a third dimension that often escapes popular analysis: the factor of momentum and strategic calculation. The twelve-day war of June 2025 did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred at the precise moment when Iran found itself in its weakest position in a generation.

Since 7 October 2023, Iran has haemorrhaged strategic assets: the fighting capacity of Hamas, largely dismantled by IDF operations; Hezbollah, stripped of its leader Hassan Nasrallah (killed in September 2024) and much of its command structure; Syria under Assad, fallen in December 2024 — severing the land bridge that for years served as Iran's crucial logistical corridor to the Mediterranean; and its significant influence in Iraq, where Prime Minister Sudani has been moving progressively closer to Washington.

At the same time, Iran confronted a severe domestic economic crisis compounded by cascading sanctions, high inflation, and intense social and political pressure from within. In these circumstances, Israel and the United States performed a calculation that was simple but merciless: if not now, when?

 

D. American Domestic Politics: Israel, Lobbying, and Trump

The fourth layer is the factor of American domestic politics. The US-Israel relationship is not a conventional strategic alliance. It is a political, cultural, and ideological symbiosis of exceptional depth, reinforced by powerful pro-Israel lobbying in Washington, by Trump's evangelical Christian support base — which views Israel through a theological lens — and by the personal relationship between Trump and Netanyahu.

Reports indicate that Trump's decision to authorise Operation Midnight Hammer came after sustained pressure from the governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman actively pushed for military action against Iran — not out of any sympathy for Palestine (Saudi Arabia's own record on the Palestinian cause is far from distinguished), but because a weakened Iran serves Saudi strategic interests directly.

V. The Collapse of the Axis of Resistance: When Rhetoric Meets Reality

One of the sharpest ironies in this entire conflict is the fate of the proxy network that Iran spent decades constructing at enormous cost. The Axis of Resistance — always presented as a consolidated force ready to stand shoulder to shoulder against a common enemy — collapsed at precisely the moment it was most needed.

When Israel struck 27 Iranian provinces with approximately 360 air sorties during the twelve-day war, killing 30 senior IRGC commanders and 11 nuclear scientists, and destroying Iranian air defence systems to the point of achieving air superiority even over Tehran, the entire proxy network was effectively silent. A senior Iranian official reportedly acknowledged to a journalist from The Telegraph: "The Houthis are out of control... and some of the Iraqi groups are acting as though we never had a relationship with them."

Hezbollah did not respond. The Iraqi militias did not move. Hamas was too broken to act. The Houthis fired a handful of missiles that were easily intercepted. What had for years been propagandised as a unified front of resistance proved to be a loose confederation of opportunistic actors, each prioritising its own narrow interests when the stakes became genuinely high.

This failure confirms what analysts had long suspected: the resistance narrative that Iran constructed is an ideological edifice that works well in rhetoric and propaganda, but proves brittle when subjected to a genuine existential test. Every member of the Axis weighed its own risks and chose self-preservation.

This also dismantles a fundamental error in the narrative of Iran as defender of Palestine: if Iran were truly committed to Palestine as an end rather than an instrument, the Axis of Resistance should have staked everything when Iran itself was attacked. What happened was precisely the opposite.

VI. The Global Dimension: A Contest Over World Order

The US-Israel versus Iran conflict cannot be fully understood without situating it within the broader contest over the international order. This is not only a regional conflict — it is one of the theatres of a fundamental shift in international relations that is presently underway.

On one side, the United States and Israel sit within a bloc seeking to preserve the liberal international order under Western leadership, in which Israel functions — in the view of Western-aligned analysts — as a forward defence node for American interests in a volatile region. Israel's military operations against Iranian nuclear infrastructure and proxy networks are not solely about Israeli security; in Washington's framing, they serve to disrupt the formation of a coherent anti-Western network across the Middle East.

On the other side, Russia, China, and Iran — though ideologically divergent — converge in their interest in eroding American hegemony. Both Russia and China have supported Iran in diplomatic forums and provided Tehran with the breathing room to circumvent the effectiveness of Western sanctions. The oil price surge triggered by Operation Rising Lion delivered a windfall for the Russian war economy, which is heavily dependent on energy exports.

Here we encounter one of the conflict's greatest paradoxes: Iran, which has always positioned itself as the champion of the oppressed, has in practice become a partner of Russia — a country engaged in the systematic destruction of Ukraine — by supplying drones and ammunition. Solidarity with the oppressed, it turns out, is highly selective.

VII. Implications for Indonesia

Indonesia, as the world's most populous Muslim country, its third-largest democracy, and a member of the G20, cannot afford to take a position based solely on religious solidarity or to follow the currents of simplified narrative. The principle of an independent and active foreign policy demands rather more than that: it demands a clear-eyed assessment of Indonesia's own national interests amidst this turbulence.

There are at least three concrete interests to be weighed. First, energy stability: as a net oil-importing country, any surge in energy prices caused by disruption to the Strait of Hormuz directly affects Indonesia's domestic economy, its inflation rate, and its cost of production. Second, trade stability: disruption to Red Sea shipping lanes — exacerbated by Houthi attacks sponsored by Iran — also affects Indonesian supply chains. Third, diplomatic posture: Indonesia has a significant interest in maintaining its credibility as an actor that can be trusted by all parties, rather than being perceived as a mouthpiece for any one bloc.

This means Indonesia ought to condemn military escalation — from whichever quarter — not out of ideological sympathy with Iran or antipathy towards the United States, but because uncontrolled military escalation threatens Indonesia's concrete national interests. At the same time, Indonesia need not uncritically swallow the narrative of Iran as defender of Palestine — a narrative that, as this essay has set out to demonstrate, functions more as propaganda than as an accurate account of Iranian motivation.

VIII. Conclusion: Beyond the Narratives That Oversimplify

The conflict between the United States and Israel on one side, and Iran on the other, cannot be read through a single lens. The narrative of Iran as defender of Palestine contains a grain of truth but, taken whole, functions more as ideological legitimation than as causal explanation. The petrodollar narrative captures one real dimension but fails to explain why the conflict has grown more rather than less escalatory at precisely those moments when escalation damages global energy interests.

What is genuinely driving the conflict is a complex accumulation of interests: Iran's nuclear ambitions, which provoke existential anxiety in Israel; the rivalry between two visions of regional order that cannot coexist; the strategic calculation that sees a weakened Iran as a rare opportunity to resolve a longstanding problem; the dynamics of American domestic politics inseparable from its special relationship with Israel; and the broader contest over international order, in which Iran, Russia, and China share an interest in wearing down Western hegemony.

Palestine is genuinely suffering amidst all of this. But Palestinian suffering has been exploited by every party — by Iran for legitimacy, by the United States and Israel for counter-narrative framing, by Saudi Arabia to play both sides. The painful truth is that the interests of the Palestinian people are no one's primary concern in this conflict.

Understanding this is not an act of cynicism or a surrender of empathy. On the contrary, by understanding the interests actually at play, we can distinguish between genuine solidarity and instrumental solidarity, between policies that truly advance peace and those that merely exploit suffering as a political commodity.

Therein lies the value of honest geopolitical analysis: not to render us passive, but to make us harder to manipulate.

"Of all the forms that solidarity may take, none is more honest than a clear and undeceived mind." 

NOTE ON SOURCES

This analysis draws upon primary and secondary sources published between 2023 and March 2026, including reports from the Council on Foreign Relations, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), The Soufan Centre, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Gulf International Forum, and Small Wars Journal, as well as reportage from The Hill, the Jerusalem Post, Middle East Eye, and interviews with senior Iranian officials as reported by The Daily Telegraph. All factual claims reference sources that are independently verifiable.

[Part 15]

[Part 13]

Bahasa

History and Disbelieve

Why do many Western artists and philosophers reject or hate religion? This question touches on a very rich undercurrent in the intellectual and cultural history of the West—and much of the rest of the world.

Many artists and philosophers occupied quite different points along this spectrum. Some, like Nietzsche, were genuinely hostile; others, like Albert Camus, inhabited a kind of tragic indifference; still others, like Rabindranath Tagore, sought to construct an alternative spirituality entirely outside the confines of formal religious institutions.

What unites them is not, in the end, a hatred of the sacred, but a resistance to religion as an instrument of power, as dogma, and as a constraint upon human freedom—a critique which, with considerable irony, finds its echo within the mystical traditions of those very religions themselves.

Let's explore its roots.

When John Lennon wrote the lines “and no religion too” in his song “Imagine” (1971), he was not simply voicing a personal eccentricity. He was giving melodic form to a current of thought that had been building in the Western intellectual tradition for at least three centuries—a current fed by reason, by rage, by sorrow, and, ultimately, by the unspeakable evidence of history itself. This article traces the current from its origins in the Enlightenment, through the catastrophe of the Holocaust, and into the generations of artists, philosophers, and ordinary people whose relationship with religion was altered, sometimes beyond repair, by what the twentieth century had shown them.

A note of analytical precision is warranted at the outset. “Religion” in this context refers almost exclusively to organised, institutional Christianity in its Western forms—principally Roman Catholicism and the mainline Protestant churches. This is not, as we shall see, because other religious traditions are beyond criticism, but because the tradition of secular critique examined here was born within Western civilisation and directed, with the intimacy of the insider, at the faith that had shaped it.

The Long Reckoning Between Western Christianity and the Intellectual Tradition

From the Enlightenment to the Holocaust and Beyond

Part I: The Enlightenment and the Assault on Ecclesiastical Authority
1.1 — The Birth of Secular Reason

The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe witnessed a transformation in the very grammar of intellectual authority. Where Scripture and the pronouncements of the Church had once served as the final court of appeal in matters of truth, a new tribunal was erected in their place: the tribunal of reason. This was not an overnight revolution but a gradual, often dangerous, process of repositioning — one in which philosophers, natural scientists, and men of letters risked social ostracism, imprisonment, and occasionally worse.

René Descartes, though himself a Catholic, helped lay the groundwork by insisting that the only reliable starting point for knowledge was the thinking, doubting self — not tradition, not authority, not Scripture. Baruch Spinoza, excommunicated by his own Jewish community and viewed with deep suspicion by Christian authorities, took the argument further: God and Nature were one and the same, and the Bible was a human document requiring interpretation like any other. These were not merely academic positions. They were acts of intellectual insurrection.

It was the French philosophes of the eighteenth century who carried the assault most loudly into public life. Voltaire — françois-Marie Arouet — devoted much of his formidable satirical energy to the Roman Catholic Church, which he famously urged his correspondents to “écrasez l’infâme”: crush the infamous thing. For Voltaire, the Church was not an institution of moral uplift but of organised obscurantism, buttressed by the torture chambers of the Inquisition and the complacency of a clergy more interested in wealth and power than in truth or charity.

David Hume, writing in Scotland, brought a colder and more systematic scepticism to bear. His Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (posthumously published in 1779) dismantled, with surgical patience, the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d’Alembert, through the Encyclopédie, sought to organise all human knowledge on rational principles, implicitly rendering revelation unnecessary. The project of the Enlightenment, in its most radical form, was to complete what it saw as the unfinished business of the Renaissance: to free the human mind from the tutelage of the Church.

1.2 — The Church’s Record: Science, Power, and Violence

The Enlightenment critique was not purely philosophical. It was also historical, and the history the philosophes rehearsed was damning. The condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Inquisition in 1633 — for maintaining that the Earth moved around the Sun — became the defining symbol of the conflict between ecclesiastical authority and the empirical investigation of nature. That the Church eventually, and belatedly, acknowledged its error did little to erase the memory.

The Inquisition itself, in its various national manifestations, cast a long shadow. The Spanish Inquisition, established in 1478, subjected thousands to interrogation, torture, and execution in the name of doctrinal purity. The expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 — carried out under a decree signed by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella and blessed by the Church — was among the largest forced displacements in medieval European history. The burning of heretics at the stake, the persecution of Protestants and Catholics in turn depending on who held power, the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) which devastated Central Europe along confessional lines — all of this accumulated into an indictment that secular thinkers would cite for generations.

What made the indictment particularly powerful was its ironic quality. Christianity proclaimed itself a religion of love, forgiveness, and brotherhood. Its institutional record suggested something rather different. For the philosophes, this gap between profession and practice was not an accident or a corruption of an otherwise pure ideal: it was evidence that the authority of the Church rested on foundations of coercion rather than truth.

Part II: The Nineteenth Century — From Critique to Diagnosis

2.1 — Marx: Religion as the Opium of the People

Karl Marx inherited the Enlightenment critique and radicalised it. For Marx, the question was not simply whether religion was true (it was not), but what social function it served. His answer, formulated most memorably in the introduction to his 1844 Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, was that religion functioned as “the opium of the people.” It was a painkiller for social misery — a fantastical compensation for a world in which the many were exploited by the few. In offering the labouring poor the consolation of heaven, religion made their earthly condition more bearable and, in doing so, made it more durable. It was, in this analysis, not merely false but actively complicit in oppression.

This was a critique that went far beyond the Enlightenment’s concern with intellectual error. Marx was arguing that religion was a structural feature of class society, produced by misery and serving to perpetuate it. The solution was not better philosophy but social revolution. When the conditions that generated religion were abolished, religion itself would wither away. Marx had little interest in anti-clerical polemic for its own sake — what mattered was the transformation of the material conditions of human life.

The Marxist critique proved extraordinarily influential, not only in revolutionary politics but in the cultural and intellectual life of the twentieth century. Its echoes can be heard in the scepticism of artists who saw organised religion as an instrument of the ruling class, a means of keeping the poor docile and the powerful unchallenged.

2.2 — Nietzsche: The Death of God and the Slave Morality

Friedrich Nietzsche approached the question from an entirely different direction. Where Marx was primarily interested in religion’s social function, Nietzsche was concerned with its psychological and cultural consequences. His declaration, in The Gay Science (1882) and later works, that “God is dead” was not a triumphant atheist proclamation but a diagnosis of a cultural crisis. European civilisation had been sustained for centuries by a Christian moral framework. Now that framework was crumbling — not because of external attack but because of internal contradictions, and because the intellectual honesty that Christianity itself had cultivated had turned against Christianity’s own foundations.

Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity was simultaneously more radical and more personal than Marx’s. In The Genealogy of Morality (1887) and The Antichrist (1895), he argued that Christian ethics represented what he called “slave morality” — a value system born of ressentiment, of the impotent revenge of the weak against the strong. Christian virtues — humility, meekness, compassion, self-denial — were, in his analysis, not genuine virtues at all but the sublimated envy of those too feeble to assert themselves. In teaching people to prize suffering and submission, Christianity had produced a civilisation characterised by what Nietzsche saw as a life-denying nihilism.

Nietzsche did not offer Marx’s political solution. His response to the death of God was the vision of the “Übermensch” — the individual who creates his own values in the absence of divine sanction — and a thoroughgoing “revaluation of all values.” The influence of this vision on twentieth-century artists, writers, and intellectuals was immense, if often misunderstood. The existentialist tradition — from Sartre and Camus to the wider culture of post-war bohemianism — drew deeply from Nietzsche’s insistence that in a world without God, the individual must assume total responsibility for the meaning of his own existence.

2.3 — Freud: Religion as Illusion and Neurosis

Sigmund Freud added a third dimension to the nineteenth-century critique of religion. In The Future of an Illusion (1927) and Civilisation and Its Discontents (1930), he argued that religion was a product of the unconscious — specifically, a collective neurosis rooted in the helplessness of childhood and the terrifying contingency of adult life. The belief in a benevolent God was, in Freudian terms, the projection of the idealised father onto the cosmos: an infantile wish-fulfilment that civilised adults would, in time, be obliged to relinquish.

Freud’s analysis was typically reductive — he had a genius for explaining away the transcendent — but it proved enormously influential in the cultural circles of the early twentieth century, particularly among artists and writers who were already inclined towards scepticism. If religion was a neurosis, then the task of the secular intellectual was therapeutic: to help humanity grow out of its dependence on comforting fictions and to face reality with adult courage.

Part III: The Holocaust — The Wound That Would Not Heal 

3.1 — The Theological Roots of European Antisemitism

To understand the relationship between the Holocaust and the subsequent crisis of religious faith in the West, one must begin with an uncomfortable historical truth: the antisemitism that the Nazi regime exploited and radicalised had deep roots in Christian theology. For nearly two millennia, the Church had taught that the Jewish people bore collective responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This charge of deicide — the killing of God — was used to justify discrimination, exclusion, forced conversion, and periodic episodes of mass violence against Jewish communities throughout Europe.

The theological architecture of Christian anti-Judaism was elaborate. Jews were depicted as the children of the devil, as agents of Satan, as a people cursed by God for their rejection of the Messiah. These tropes permeated medieval iconography, sermons, mystery plays, and popular culture. They shaped legal structures that confined Jews to ghettos, prohibited them from owning land, and barred them from most professions. They underwrote the Crusader massacres of Rhineland Jewish communities in 1096, the expulsion of Jews from England in 1290, from France in 1306, from Spain in 1492, and from dozens of other territories across the medieval period.

Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, was a virulent antisemite. His 1543 tract On the Jews and Their Lies called for the burning of Jewish synagogues and schools, the confiscation of Jewish property, and the forced labour of Jewish people. Nazi propagandists would later cite Luther approvingly. The point is not that medieval Christian theology caused the Holocaust — the relationship is far more complex and contested than that — but that centuries of Church-sponsored anti-Jewish hatred had prepared the cultural soil in which Nazi racial ideology could take root and flourish. 

3.2 — The Holocaust: Six Million, and the Silence of God

Between 1941 and 1945, the Nazi regime and its collaborators murdered approximately six million Jews — two-thirds of the entire Jewish population of Europe. They were shot in mass executions by mobile killing units (the Einsatzgruppen) in the forests and ravines of Eastern Europe; they were gassed in extermination camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Sobibór, Bełżec, Chełmno, and Majdanek; they were starved, worked to death, subjected to grotesque medical experiments, and systematically dehumanised before they were killed.

This was not a natural catastrophe. It was a human enterprise, carried out with industrial efficiency in the heart of Christian Europe, in a country that had produced Kant, Hegel, Beethoven, and Schiller — a country whose population was overwhelmingly Christian. The perpetrators were not pagans from the steppes but Germans: educated, culturally sophisticated, shaped by centuries of Christian civilisation. Many of them were baptised Christians. Some were regular churchgoers. A number of SS officers received the sacraments.

For those who survived — and for those who came after and tried to make sense of what had happened — the theological questions were inescapable. Where had God been? How could an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God have permitted this? The Jewish tradition has a name for this problem: theodicy — the attempt to justify the ways of God to man in the face of radical evil. The Holocaust did not merely challenge theodicy; it seemed, to many, to make the exercise itself obscene.

Elie Wiesel, who survived Auschwitz and Buchenwald and went on to become perhaps the most important literary witness to the Holocaust, described in his memoir Night (1958) a scene of devastating symbolic power. Three prisoners — one of them a young boy — were hanged in front of the assembled camp. As the boy, too light to die quickly, hung strangling on the rope, a man behind Wiesel asked, “Where is God? Where is He?” And Wiesel heard a voice within him answer: “Here He is — He is hanging here on this gallows.” This was not atheism but something worse — a faith that had survived by passing through the fire and emerged, barely recognisable, on the other side.

3.3 — The Church’s Conduct During the Holocaust

The moral standing of the institutional churches during the Holocaust is a matter of historical record that admits of little comfortable interpretation. Pope Pius XII, who led the Roman Catholic Church from 1939 until 1958, has been the subject of sustained historical controversy. The evidence indicates that he possessed detailed knowledge of the extermination of European Jews and chose, for reasons that historians continue to debate, not to issue an explicit public condemnation. His defenders argue that private diplomatic efforts saved lives; his critics contend that a direct and unambiguous papal denunciation — morally authoritative in a way that no other pronouncement could have been — might have given many Catholics pause before participation in atrocities, and might have saved lives that were lost in silence.

At the local level, the record was mixed. There were priests, pastors, and ordinary Christians who risked their lives to shelter Jewish families and individuals — the Righteous Among the Nations recognised by Yad Vashem include thousands of Christians. But there were also clergy who blessed Nazi soldiers, who preached indifference or worse from their pulpits, and who participated in the betrayal of their Jewish neighbours. The German Protestant churches, with honourable exceptions — most notably the Confessing Church and figures such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer — largely accommodated themselves to the Nazi regime.

The institutional failure was not merely moral but theological. Christianity had proclaimed, for two thousand years, that it was the custodian of universal human dignity and the voice of the divine conscience in history. When the greatest crime in recorded history was being committed in its midst, that voice was, at best, muffled. The gap between Christianity’s self-understanding and its actual conduct in the face of evil was, for many observers, simply too large to bridge.

3.4 — Post-War Theology: Attempting the Impossible

The theological community was not blind to the enormity of what had occurred. In the decades following the war, Jewish and Christian theologians alike struggled to respond. Jewish thinkers such as Emil Fackenheim argued that after Auschwitz, Jews were under a moral obligation to survive and to refuse to grant Hitler posthumous victories, even the victory of their abandonment of faith. Others, such as Richard Rubenstein, concluded that the traditional God of history — the God who acts in time, who rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked — was simply incompatible with the reality of the death camps. In his After Auschwitz (1966), Rubenstein argued that the Holocaust had made classical theism untenable and that Jewish identity would have to be reconstructed on different foundations.

Christian theologians, for their part, were compelled to reckon with their own tradition’s complicity in the conditions that made the Holocaust possible. The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) produced the declaration Nostra Aetate, which formally repudiated the charge of collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion — a theological position that had been sustaining anti-Jewish hatred for nineteen centuries. It was a significant, if belated, act of self-correction. It could not undo the centuries; it could not restore the dead. 

Part IV: The Artistic and Cultural Inheritance 

4.1 — Existentialism and the Post-War Generation

The philosophical response to the catastrophes of the twentieth century — the First World War, the rise of totalitarianism, the Holocaust, the atomic bomb — was existentialism. Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, writing in the shadow of the German occupation of France and the revelations of the death camps, articulated a vision of the human condition in which there was no God, no inherent meaning in the universe, and no guarantee that history moved in any direction other than the one that human beings, by their choices, imposed upon it.

For Sartre, existence preceded essence: human beings were not created for any purpose, were not stamped with a divine image, and were therefore terrifyingly free. For Camus, the central problem of philosophy was the absurd — the collision between the human longing for meaning and the universe’s utter indifference to that longing. Camus was not a militant atheist; he was something more melancholy — a man who could not believe in God but who felt the absence as a wound. His essay The Myth of Sisyphus (1942) proposed that the only honest response to the absurd was to revolt against it — to insist on living fully in the face of meaninglessness.

This existentialist sensibility saturated the culture of the 1950s and 1960s — in literature, in cinema, in the emerging world of rock and roll. The Beat Generation in America — Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs — absorbed it and transmuted it into a specifically American idiom of rebellion against conformity, consumerism, and the spiritual emptiness of post-war prosperity. The counterculture of the 1960s, in which John Lennon and the Beatles were central figures, was the popular expression of this deeper intellectual current.

4.2 — John Lennon and “Imagine”: A Cultural Synthesis

John Lennon was born in Liverpool in 1940, the year after the outbreak of the Second World War, and grew up in a Britain scarred by bombing, rationing, and the long psychic aftermath of a conflict that had shaken every certainty. He came of age in the 1950s in a country that was simultaneously rebuilding itself and losing its empire — a country whose confidence in its institutions, including its churches, had been quietly eroded by what the war had revealed about the limits of civilisation.

The Beatles, as they rose to global prominence in the early 1960s, were not an explicitly political or philosophical band — but they were keenly sensitive to the cultural atmosphere. Lennon’s famous remark in 1966, in an interview with the journalist Maureen Cleave, that the Beatles were “more popular than Jesus,” caused an international furore — particularly in the American South, where records were publicly burnt and radio stations banned their music. Yet the remark, stripped of its provocative framing, was an observation about the declining authority of institutional religion in modern Western life, particularly among the young.

By the time Lennon recorded “Imagine” in 1971, he had passed through the counterculture’s fascination with Eastern spirituality (his study with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in India in 1968), through the political radicalism of the late 1960s, and through the dissolution of the Beatles. The song was, as he himself acknowledged, essentially a sugar-coated version of the Communist Manifesto — a utopian vision of a world without the three great sources of human division as he understood them: nations, private property, and religion.

The line “and no religion too” has often been misread as simple atheism. It is more accurately understood as anti-institutionalism. Lennon was not a thoroughgoing atheist; under the influence of Yoko Ono, he remained drawn to forms of Eastern spirituality that resisted doctrinal definition. What he opposed was organised religion as a machine for division — for sorting humanity into competing confessional identities prepared to fight and die in defence of their particular version of the sacred. In this, he was the inheritor of a tradition that ran from Voltaire through Marx, through the existentialists, through the traumatic lessons of the Holocaust.

4.3 — The Broader Artistic Tradition

Lennon was, of course, only one figure in a vast artistic tradition of religious scepticism and anti-clericalism. In literature, the lineage runs through Shelley — who was expelled from Oxford for writing a pamphlet on the necessity of atheism — through Thomas Hardy, whose novels are saturated with a sense of cosmic indifference, through D.H. Lawrence, who sought to replace the Christian God with the vital energies of nature and sexuality, through James Joyce, whose Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is a sustained reckoning with the psychological damage inflicted by a Catholic education.

In France, the tradition of anti-clericalism was woven into the very fabric of republican political culture. The separation of Church and State in France (laïcité), formalised in the law of 1905, was not merely a political arrangement but an expression of a deep cultural conviction that institutional religion was incompatible with human freedom and rational governance. This tradition produced writers such as Anatole France, whose ironic fictions deflated religious pretension with relentless wit, and later Albert Camus, whose novels explored the human condition without recourse to divine consolation.

In music, the tradition of challenging religious authority stretches from the folk traditions of protest song through the blues (with its roots in a Black American experience of suffering that was too raw to be contained within the pieties of official Christianity) to the rock and roll revolution of the 1950s and its successors. The very performance of rock and roll was, for many conservative Christians, an act of religious transgression — a bodily, sexual, Dionysian assault on the Apollonian restraint that Protestant Christianity had long demanded of its adherents.

Part V: The Legacy and the Continuing Conversation 

5.1 — The New Atheism and Its Discontents

The tradition examined in this article found a new and particularly strident expression in the early twenty-first century, in the movement that came to be known as the New Atheism. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett — the so-called four horsemen — brought the secular critique of religion to mass audiences through a series of bestselling books that combined scientific argumentation with a polemical vigour reminiscent of the Enlightenment philosophes.

Hitchens’s God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) was the most historically-minded of these works, drawing on the full range of religious atrocities from the Crusades to the modern religious violence of the Middle East to argue that faith, as such, was not a benign or neutral phenomenon but an active cause of human suffering. Dawkins’s The God Delusion (2006) approached the question from evolutionary biology, arguing that belief in God was an illusion explicable by the mechanisms of natural selection, and that it was time for the world to grow out of it.

These works provoked fierce responses from religious thinkers, philosophers of religion, and even from secular intellectuals who found the New Atheism philosophically crude and culturally tone-deaf. Critics such as Terry Eagleton argued that Dawkins and Hitchens fundamentally misunderstood what religion was and what it did — that they were attacking a caricature of belief rather than its most sophisticated forms. The debate continues, and it is a debate that shows no sign of reaching a resolution.

5.2 — The Question of the Non-Western Other

Throughout this article, the focus has remained firmly on the Western, primarily Christian, context. This is historically justified — the tradition of secular critique examined here is a Western tradition directed at Western religion. But it is important, in conclusion, to register the limitations of this perspective.

The assumption, common among certain Western secularists, that the critique of institutional Christianity can be extended without modification to all religious traditions, is both intellectually lazy and culturally imperialist. Other religious traditions have their own internal critical and reformist movements, their own reckoning with the relationship between spiritual authority and political power, their own theodicies. The Islamic tradition of criticism of corrupt ulema (scholars), the Hindu reformism of Rammohan Roy and Swami Vivekananda, the Buddhist movements for social engagement associated with figures such as Thich Nhat Hanh — all of these represent sophisticated internal conversations that do not map neatly onto the Western narrative of religion versus reason.

Moreover, the romantic idealisation of Eastern spirituality by Western intellectuals and artists — from Schopenhauer’s fascination with the Upanishads to Lennon’s sojourn in India — is itself a form of Orientalism: a projection onto the exotic Other of qualities that the Western tradition could not find at home. Eastern religions, viewed from a sufficient distance, appeared to offer wisdom without institution, spirituality without dogma, transcendence without guilt. These appearances, needless to say, are largely illusory.

5.3 — Where We Stand

The twenty-first century has not resolved the tensions mapped in this article. Western societies have, in varying degrees, become more secular — church attendance has declined precipitously across Northern and Western Europe, and the proportion of people identifying as having no religious affiliation has grown substantially in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States. And yet religious belief has not disappeared. It has diversified, fragmented, and in many parts of the world — particularly in the Global South — grown vigorously.

The intellectual tradition of scepticism and anti-clericalism has not triumphed; it has, rather, contributed to a cultural landscape of plurality and uncertainty in which no single account of the sacred — or of its absence — commands universal assent. The questions raised by Voltaire, by Marx, by Nietzsche, by Freud, by the Holocaust, by Lennon, and by all the others examined in this article remain open. They are, perhaps, constitutively open: questions that the human condition poses, to which it is not clear that a final answer is either possible or, perhaps, desirable.

What is clear is that the sceptical tradition examined here was not born of frivolity or fashion. It was born of a genuine and often anguished encounter with the gap between what religion professed and what it did — between the God of love proclaimed from pulpits and the inquisitors, the ghettos, the silence over Auschwitz, the wars waged in His name. To take that tradition seriously is not necessarily to endorse it in its entirety, but it is to understand that the question it raises is one of the most serious questions that human beings can ask.

Select Bibliography

The following works have informed the arguments and historical claims of this article. Readers wishing to pursue any of these themes further are directed to these texts as primary points of departure.

On the Enlightenment and the Origins of Secular Thought

Gay, Peter. The Enlightenment: An Interpretation. 2 vols. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966–1969.

Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. London: 1779 (posthumous). [Modern ed.: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.]

Israel, Jonathan. Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650–1750. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Voltaire. Philosophical Dictionary. Geneva: 1764. [Modern ed.: London: Penguin Books, 1972.]

On Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud

Freud, Sigmund. The Future of an Illusion. Leipzig: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag, 1927. [Modern ed.: New York: W.W. Norton, 1989.]

Marx, Karl. A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction. Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morality. Leipzig: C.G. Naumann, 1887. [Modern ed.: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.]

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Antichrist. Leipzig: C.G. Naumann, 1895. [Modern ed.: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.]

On Christian Antisemitism and Its History

Carroll, James. Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews — A History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.

Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism. New York: Macmillan, 1965. [Rev. ed.: New York: Paulist Press, 1985.]

Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism. New York: Seabury Press, 1974.

On the Holocaust and Its Theological Aftermath

Fackenheim, Emil L. God’s Presence in History: Jewish Affirmations and Philosophical Reflections. New York: New York University Press, 1970.

Hilberg, Raul. The Destruction of the European Jews. 3 vols. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961. [Rev. ed.: New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.]

Phayer, Michael. The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000.

Rubenstein, Richard L. After Auschwitz: Radical Theology and Contemporary Judaism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.

Wiesel, Elie. Night. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1958. [English ed.: New York: Hill and Wang, 1960.]

On Existentialism and Post-War Thought

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus. Paris: Gallimard, 1942. [English ed.: London: Hamish Hamilton, 1955.]

Camus, Albert. The Rebel. Paris: Gallimard, 1951. [English ed.: London: Hamish Hamilton, 1953.]

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism Is a Humanism. Paris: Nagel, 1946. [English ed.: New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.]

On Religion, Secularism, and the Arts

Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press, 2006.

Eagleton, Terry. Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve Books, 2007.

Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.

On John Lennon and the Cultural Context

Coleman, Ray. Lennon. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.

Norman, Philip. John Lennon: The Life. London: HarperCollins, 2008.

Turner, Steve. The Gospel According to the Beatles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Bahasa