Magic Statistics

In the April issue of Anglican Journal, William Hockin, retired bishop of Fredericton, contrasts two understandings of inclusiveness: that of Jesus and that derived from secular pluralism.

As I read the Gospel texts, I am more and more struck with Jesus’ employment of a “radical inclusiveness.” That is, He targets for redemption those in the margins of society who were excluded from things religious. What strikes me even more is the rationale for that holy embrace. For instance, the Syrio-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24) was celebrated neither because of her gender nor her ethnic origin but because of her “great faith.” Zaccheus, the publican (Luke 19:1) was likewise not celebrated because he was a publican but because he was a repentant human being. As well, the Samaritan, in the “good” parable by the same name (Luke 10:30) was not celebrated because he was a Samaritan but because he “had compassion on him who had fallen among thieves.”

In contrast to this “radical inclusiveness” of Jesus, pluralist or secular inclusiveness seems content with celebrating gender, racial and moral diversity alone, seeing “great faith” as faith in anything, repentance as an option for the pious few and compassion a virtue for those with enough time and money.

Bp Hockin believes that the latter concept of inclusiveness has infiltrated Anglicanism’s “big tent” and is discernible, for example, in the claim that tolerance requires acceptance of all religious expression, whether Christian or not.  

Read the whole thing.

Historian Niall Ferguson was interviewed on Islam and demographics last weekend on Australian radio.  Among the many topics addressed in the wide-ranging discussion was the apparent popularity of radical Islam in the cities of Western Europe.  It seems to have a large following among Muslim immigrants, but Dr Ferguson is not sure that is really the case.  For one thing, most Muslim immigrants are motivated by the desire to improve their material condition.  For them, economic benefit is a higher priority than preserving their religious beliefs and culture.  At the same time, however, some radical Islamists have also moved in.

[L]et’s not forget that in the same period that this was happening, Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes were systematically kicking out Islamist radical clerics, and of course these people found it much easier to get on with the business of proselytizing and radicalising in West European capitals. So we have the sort of paradox of relatively secularised Muslim communities suddenly becoming home to some of the most radical of Islamist zealots, and so it doesn’t really take an awful lot of people to be converted let’s say, rather disillusioned, unemployed, third generation or second generation French or British Muslims to be converted by these radicals for you to have a problem. It’s not as if you need an overwhelming majority of people to be committed to radical terrorist organisations for them to do damage.

At this point, the interviewer said that sounds like the Bolsehviks, who seized power in Russia in 1917 with only a few thousand followers.  Dr Ferguson agreed and said that, in his opinion, “Islamofascism”, a label often applied to extremist Islam, is a misnomer.  al-Qaeda, he thinks, has more affinities with Communism than with Fascism.

Fascism was about the nation-state and nationalism, it was not really a universalist ideology. Communism has a lot more in common with, say, the ideology of al-Qa’eda. Read Osama bin Laden’s statements, his various proclamations, and you hear a sort of Islamic version of Lenin in action, because what he anticipates is an Islamist world revolution overthrowing American capitalism. It’s straight out of 1917, and those movements don’t need to attract huge numbers of supporters to win power. They just need to stage successful coups d’etat.

As such, al Qaeda doesn’t need to attract a majority of Muslims to its cause.  Even a small number of radical followers can foment revolution successfully.

Read the whole thing.

via titusonenine.

Political iconoclast Christopher Hitchens will speak on “The Busybody State” in Winnipeg on 26 April.  The thought-provoking and often-infuriating libertarian/socialist is appearing under the auspices of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

That would be a good reason to visit Winnipeg, if you need one.  Cost is $75, including dinner at the Fairmont Hotel.  Click here for the details and online registration.

I'd attend if I were going to be in the vicinity.  Mr Hitchens is an outspoken atheist, so (surprise!) I don’t agree with him on religion.  His defence of liberal freedoms is second to none, however, and that appears to be the subject of the evening's speech.

The Christopher Hitchens Web page has links to many of his commentaries.