Whether the man is an atheist or a Christian, I would judge him by his fruits, and I have therefore many agnostic friends.

I wouldn't judge a man by the presuppositions of his life, but only by the fruits of his life. And the fruits - the relevant fruits - are, I'd say, a sense of charity, a sense of proportion, a sense of justice.

There must be a realm of truth beyond political competence, that's why there must be a separation of churches, but if religion is bad and a bad religion is one that gives an ultimate sanctity to some particular cause.

That's why history is not an answer to our problem, because history complicates, enlarges every problem of human existence. Now, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries didn't believe this.

To be religious is not to feel, but to be.

All social cooperation on a larger scale than the most intimate social group requires a measure of coercion.

Politics deals with a common-sense approach to the imponderables of history, that I think are obscured by a certain kind of rationalism.