I think there is a communism that will not fail to deliver. The Israelites in the desert, or Jesus with his disciples, or the community of the Spirit (for they were all filled by the Spirit) in Acts 4:31ff – are all examples of classless societies (in the guise of first feudalism-God the suzerain, then a monarchy-Christ the King, and then ?-the Spirit the ?). And why they worked, I think was because the principal of justice was in their midst. But they all appear to have been temporary societies, they appear to have failed in time. Or did they? What do you think?

- something I posted on Jono’s blog that I had just that day developed a little more extensively in my head, but not yet in writing. The musing continues:

Of course everything I’m saying is debatable – but that’s part of the point – it is being debated, which means there is something there. The Levites, a class, but potentially a misappropriation of the word. [1 In addition there are some interesting discussions out there (Gottwald, Bloch) that’d suggest so much as that the ancient Israelites in Egypt ran a sort of ‘peasants revolt’ against the Egyptians with revolutionary focus and unity on YHWH and his promised city. Appropriating that thought to the Jews at the time of Jesus – that is Jesus and his coup of Jerusalem. And then for the folks in Acts – the revolutionary focus is on the Spirit and the Coming Kingdom.

… none of God’s social experiments ‘worked’ or at least had staying power. The desert community that together ate the same meal over and over again soon forgot their YHWH, his political system not practical or enlightened enough or something. Thus more practical gods, say the fertility inducing Baal, and more human leadership, say that one would have in a king, were sought after.

Christ’s little order of merry disciples didn’t have much staying power either – donkey riding, palm leaves, and miracle menus didn’t keep the disciples from packing it in and going back to fishing.

And the little community in acts – their spirit centeredness quickly seems to fade into the “larger political system” – note how by the end a Levite (!) sold some property and brought the money to the feet of the apostles. Difference established that seems out of kilter to verses prior.

… there is a curious progression here … . An evolving relationship to an incarnation of god and a morphing notion of the coming city/community are both at the centre of these revolutionary-like groupings of people.

An atheist who sued a small-town priest for saying that Jesus Christ existed has had his case thrown out of court.

The judge said Luigi Cascioli should himself face charges for slandering Father Enrico Righi. – BBC NEWS

It’s kinda cute. The small-town septuagenarian priest and his accuser were both schoolmates.

The point is – here you’ve got Cascioli. He’s quite a motivated fellow. And what by? A passion against a religion. What would he be without irksome Christianity?

Of course, I do think his argument is interesting and I wouldn’t necessarily put it down (I’ve not read anything of it past this news article): all evidence of Christ is anecodotal. A line of argument that runs into the problem of what does anecdotal evidence precisely mean. I think I get some support for my sense of ambiguity for the word from wikipedia.
How would you define anecdotal evidence and distinguish it from another form of evidence?

For most of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin, and it still shows. – Hitchens, The case for mocking religion

Of course I find it rather ironic that for all his accusing religion Hitchens forgets that people putting together anti-muslim illustrations are not expressly religious which would suggest that bigotry, religion, and secularism are all going to be somewhere together on that coin of his.

Still, religious things do give a group of people something in their relation to another group of people to be upset about. Cartoonist Doug Marlette recounts his experience with religious groups:

I have outraged Christians by skewering Jerry Falwell, Catholics by needling the pope, and Jews by criticizing Israel. Those who rise up against the expression of ideas are strikingly similar. No one is less tolerant than those demanding tolerance. Despite differences of culture and creed, they all seem to share the notion that there is only one way of looking at things, their way. What I have learned from years of this is one of the great lessons of all the world’s religions: we are all one in our humanness. – Marlette, I Was a Tool of Satan

That’s a victory for secular humanism against religion.

But then we come back to Denmark, a country that the Spiegel’s Jürgen Gottschlich says has Europe’s most xenophobic government. There Danish voters, perceiving Muslim immigrants as social welfare freeloaders, elected a government to impose stricter immigration controls. This isn’t religious bigotry, this is secular bigotry.

Jurgen goes on to consider the bankruptcy of secular values,

Instead of participating in a disingenuous battle for free speech, it is high time for some in Europe to return to the virtues of Enlightenment to help them find reason. The situation is difficult enough already and there are idiots on all sides. Indeed, neither is free of guilt.

The Telegraph’s John Casey hasn’t forgot history nor the culpability of the Enlightenment’s nation states in today’s violence.

Have we in the West become so historically ignorant that we forget how closely, within living memory, Christian attitudes to the sacred resembled those of Muslims? … There is little doubt that only a generation ago the blasphemy laws would have been used against Jerry Springer, the Opera. They would certainly have been used against Gibbon had he not concealed his assault on Christianity in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire under layers of irony.

The current political violence by Muslims can be traced to two quite clear events. The first was the fatal decision of President Sadat of Egypt to bring the Islamists into politics as a weapon against the Left. The second was the creation by the Americans of the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. This Frankenstein’s monster has stalked the world ever since. – Casey, This is folly, not a clash of civilisations

Give Islam some time to evolve, says John Casey, accusing the badly drawn cartoons as inhibitors of progress.

But where are we going, Casey? That’s the question progress poses. And that may only be a question that religion can answer, unless we start to claim that secularism actually has an eschatology other than that day when religions will exist no more. Because that would just be intolerant and bigotted.

Casey mentions Gibbon. To what end did he work? I know a little about Gibbon and his sense of “irony”. Joseph Levine in his Autonomy of History draws a number of similarities in his comparisons of Gibbon’s historical method with that of Erasmus. Erasmus came to similar conclusions as Gibbon (centuries before) and was considered by many blasphemous for chopping off the Johannine Comma and for also his satirical depictions in such works as The Praise of Folly.

But we know what end Erasmus worked for.

Yet from the comments I’ve received I’m coming to suspect that there are several deeply significant issues taking place here:

• There’s the matter of european solidarity (via Michael). Non-muslim europeans have probably been looking for something worthwhile to unite them on and I think the loss of Spirit non-muslim europeans have in contrast to their muslim counter parts could be an effective motivator. This interpretation quite strongly suggests that jealousy is the motivator. Are europeans jealous of the muslim spirit?
• There’s the matter of christians comparing their reactions to insulting depictions of their God in a freedom of speech society to the reaction of some in the muslim world (via DP). Christians can look at a people who are burning Danish flags and boycotting Danish goods and too easily say that they’re not capable of the same thing. Christians believe strongly in consciencious freedoms. But I think this is the part of the truth that will be emphasised to the point of becoming a myth. Christians may not burn flags, but they sure do enjoy reacting. Christians love to react to images insulting their values. It thrills them to be insulted. Can’t have evolution taught in school, insulted. Homosexual cowboys in the movies, insulted. Sharon pulls out of Gaza, insulted. Jesus Christ Superstar, insulted. Britney Spears mocking Christ, insulted. Of course there are many Christians who are on the opposite coin of all these offensive ideas and images, but I don’t know if it is a complete picture to focus on just those that don’t get insulted.
• The west’s religious history of iconoclasm has reduced the value of images for them and therefore makes them insensitive to peoples who do not share that same history (via Anastasia). “I seriously think that Christians in the West having been the predominant religion for centuries have completely forgotten what it’s like to be persecuted for your beliefs the way that Muslims have been lately,” says Anastasia.
• Many in the west are confusing this matter with the war on terrorism (via Anastasia). I agree, but I think it will be too easily done. Apart from telling people that these are two different matters, I do not know how to substantiate it.
• Should good manners trump rights. Michael procured two interesting quotes: “Kofi Annan said freedom of the press should not be an excuse for insulting religions. The French interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, said he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censure”.”