Mika Luoma-aho (University of Lapland, Finland) delivered a public lecture at the Department of International Studies on May 6. The lecture 'Renegotiating Politics and Religion' referred to an ongoing research on how to apply Alvin Plantinga's reformed epistemology to the topic of political theology, with special regard to the problem of political evil, and the nation-state as the alleged redeemer from this evil. The lecture, accompanied by video presentations (e.g. the trailer of Werner Herzog's 'Into the Abyss') generated an exciting discussion with the audience on the possibility of separating moral and political issues from religious ones.

Emilia Palonen (University of Helsinki, Finland) joined the discussion with a question about religion and revolutions, which was to be continued two days later at a special seminar at the Department of Political Science. As both participants agreed, 'revolution' was a sort of ideal typical concept, a matter of either rhetoric or political eschatology. Historical singularity, social equality, or national unity, which the term supposes are either rhetorical or theological in nature; in an actual political setting, repetition, hierarchy, and division are more characteristic of so-called 'revolutions'.

It was especially revealing, how different terms (the Finnish 'vallankumous' or toppling of powers – the Hungarian 'forradalom' or boiling over – and the Latin 'revolutio' or cyclical return) refer to completely different ideas. And, as some highly interesting remarks by students made it clear: 'revolution' is no longer just an ambiguous term for them, but also something which is treated with much more skepticism than in earlier generations.

Or are we still stuck in a (r)evolutionary rhetoric?