Among people who know nothing about religion and don’t care much about factual information (an unfortunately large demographic), Karen Armstrong has become something of a sensation. But for those who think that claims about religion, ethics, or history should have some grounding in reality, Armstrong is considered an embarrassment.
Armstrong has been criticized by Christians for her ignorance of Christianity, from Jews about her ignorance of Judaism, from Muslims for her ignorance of Islam, and from historians for her ignorance of history. As Hugh Fitzgerald wrote in the New English Review:
For Karen Armstrong history does not exist. It is putty in the hands of the person who writes about history. You use it to make a point, to do good as you see it. And whatever you need to twist or omit is justified by the purity of your intentions—and Karen Armstrong always has the purest of intentions.
Unfortunately, good intentions trumps ignorance, which is why Armstrong was awarded the 2008 TED prize and granted “One Wish to Change the World.” Her TED Prize “wish”, to initiate an international Charter for Compassion that helps restore the Golden Rule as central to religious practice and daily life throughout the world, was unveiled last week.
Promoting compassion and the Golden Rule are certainly noble efforts. It would seem to be an easy task, then, to create a charter with which most people could agree. But Armstrong naturally fails in the effort, failing to get even the most liberal bandwagon jumpers to sign on. Yet it does includes some notable names. The primary affirmers of the statement include the Dalai Lama, Queen Noor of Jordan, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, Deepak Chopra, and Goldie Hawn. From that august list you can probably guess at the type of content the document contains.
Here is the full text of the Charter for Compassion (including my comments on the document):
The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves.
Perhaps this is true if we define “all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions” as (a) only those practiced today, (b) those whose basic texts and beliefs can be interpreted—or reinterpreted—in the most liberal manner possible, and (c) necessarily excluding all examples that contradict our feel-good definition (e.g., Wahhabism).
Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.
What is remarkable about this statement is the careless use of language—even by Armstrong’s lax standard. The wording is clearly pro-life (savvy abortion supporters know to use the phrase “persons” since it is inarguable that fetuses are, biologically speaking, human beings). But Armstrong is neither savvy, nor logically consistent. As she wrote in 2003 after President Bush signed a law outlawing partial-birth abortions:
[W]hile it may be religiously impossible to sanction abortion undertaken for trivial reasons – for mere social or professional convenience – it may be tragically necessary to sacrifice a potential life to nurture the life we have already. This is also a sacred requirement. The foetus may have to die for the sake of its mother’s physical or psychological health, for the economic survival of the family, or to prevent a marital breakdown that would damage its siblings. And that is why the woman has to make this painful choice, as only she can evaluate her circumstances. But we should never lose our sense of the awful gravity of the procedure, because – as in ancient religion – therein lies our sense of life’s sacred value.
Referring to a fetus as “potential life” is—scientifically speaking—nonsense. It might be fine for, say, a superstitious Amazonian tribesman to speak this way. But any educated person should be embarrassed to publicly make a claim that is so irresponsible and contrary to basic biological fact.
It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.
Armstrong respects “all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions” because she believes (wrongly) that “All the great traditions are saying the same thing in much the same way, despite their surface differences.” But will she still respect these traditions when they hold positions that conflict with her own views of “chavinism?” Of course not. For her, religions is only legitimate when it supports what she already believes.
We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.
Where exactly is this “ancient principle” to be found? Isn’t it the case that this principle is a modern invention, often used to provide a less embarrassing interpretation for religious claims that have been held for millennia?
How does Armstrong square this idea with her claim that “No religion has in practice been good for women, and in adopting a pro-choice position, some liberal Christians are beginning to redress centuries of oppression by taking women’s rights seriously.”
We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries.
Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.
Armstrong believes that compassion can break down down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries by reducing all views to the same incoherent spiritual mush that she herself believes, an ideology that allows you to justify the slaughter of millions of babies in the name of being compassionate.
But what if the most weak and innocent of humans have be die? Sometimes its just a sacred requirement, right?
If this is what Armstrong means by compassion, perhaps the world is better off without it.
November 16th, 2009 | 9:41 am
My goodness, how cynical can you be? The world is being torn apart, driven to a near abyss because folks nitpick over doctrinal purity to the extent that they are willing to kill for it. And you spent thousands of words in this article to say what exactly? What have you done lately in the compassion department Mr Carter? I would suggest charity in thought especially for such a laudable aim that Ms Armstrong is tyring to spearhead. The “ancient principle” is something so inherent and so obvious to us human beings for millenia, I am shocked that you even feign ignorance. It is the Golden Rule and do we need it to be written down anywhere? With cynical folks like you, who needs suicide bombers.
November 16th, 2009 | 10:00 am
first time ever to your site .. christian agenda?
November 16th, 2009 | 10:19 am
She says:
the “principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves.”
While that may be a good myth, it is absolute, complete and utter nonsense.
Two examples ethical or religious traditions come to mind:
1) Ancient Roman religion. This was certainly a great ethical system but had not concern for treating others as yourself.
…more relevant today…
2) Hinduism- one of the largest religions in the word is completely opposed to that principle, unless you limit it to treating people of the same caste with compassion. If Hinduism really believed that, there wouldn’t be so many untouchables trying to convert to Christianity.
This is probably the biggest possible insult to her, but it seems that Armstrong is being a little ethnocentric and assuming that peculiarly Christian or at least Abrahamic religious and ethical ideas are indeed shared by all religions.
November 16th, 2009 | 12:52 pm
TJ, read the statement yourself. It’s full of so many platitudes that it is as meaningless as something coming out of a Dilbert mission statement generator.
I think a story about Mother Teresa is applicable here. One day, Mother Teresa attended a theological conference. She was later asked, “What did you think of the conference?”
“Too many words” was her reply.
“But Mother, they are theologians….all they have is words.” was the response.
Mother Teresa quibbed, “I would be more impressed if they picked up a broom and swept the place”.
Academics love creating committees, coming up with high minding sounding statements which they trumpet as being significant. History is littered with such ideologist statements. They have no backbone. They have no passion. They have followup. They’re just words which disappear into the wind.
True compassion happens outside the ivory walls. It was recorded in “Man’s Search for meaning” by Holocaust survivor Vicktor Frankl. It’s recorded in the work of Mother Teresa. I’m sure that one can find an Islamic example.
IMO, their time would have been much better spent coming up with a collect of such real-life examples which can serve as role models and bridges between the faiths. But that, of course, would put the limelight away from the academics…you can’t have that.
November 16th, 2009 | 1:21 pm
gregorylent November 16th,09 (asked)
first time ever to your site .. christian agenda?
Do you not see how your judgmental and critical statements are seen as “christian agenda” – which has become the call to arms to persecute the very Christ you claim to follow. Tell me Sir, where is His Love in you? You have a rule book and sharp words to defend something that you don’t know – that is to say, Christ! May He find you, the lost sheep today!
November 16th, 2009 | 2:04 pm
Hey, Joe. “Commentary” has done away with its Comments feature. Maybe you guys might want to consider it. Or at least require commenters to register, as Father Z. does.
November 16th, 2009 | 6:49 pm
Well said TJ and hooray for Karen Armstrong and her Charter.
Me thinks that the Pope would be very supportive of this Charter.
Some sentences in support of her calling.
The negative exploitation and killing of human beings by human beings violates the heart of one and all.
The negative exploitation and killing of non-human beings by human beings violates the heart of one and all.
The negative exploitation, and progressive degradation and potential destruction of the fundamental order of the natural environment on which all of Earth-life depends violates the heart and directly threatens the life of one and all.
The positive moral rightening of ALL human activity would, if everywhere exercised, become the universal demonstration of a right and true human disposition, that altogether, and in general, self-disciplines the tendency to physically, politically, socially, culturally, and environmentally toxify, harm, and,altogether, negatively affect the human and natural world–by not only physical means, but,altogether, by bodiiy, mental, verbal,emotional, and generally psychic, or psychological, and even every kind of energy manipulating means.
The positive moral rightening of ALL human activity must always concentrate on, and proceed on the basis of, the disciplining of the human self (itself), and in all of its relations, and in the context of a social order of mutual cooperative pacification of human patterns that are self destructive, and other destructive, and world destructive.
November 16th, 2009 | 9:34 pm
Yeah, Joe, stop stooping to (below?) the level of suicide bombers by demanding simple logic and coherence. How intolerant.
While the “ancient principle” that she’s referring to seems to be Augustine’s hermeneutic of charity (but why couldn’t she have said so?), I’m kind of confused about how “disdain” can enter into the picture. Shouldn’t one have disdain for falsehood, evil, etc.? Or, like the early Christians did, for idolatry, prostitution, abortion, and gladiatorial games? St. Augustine surely didn’t believe that he was prohibited by his own rule from criticizing views that were wrong, and he was entirely consistent in this.
November 16th, 2009 | 11:22 pm
Why is it that opinions offered by the academe so often sound like they are being uttered from the stage of a beauty pageant during the swimsuit segment?
November 17th, 2009 | 3:47 am
Sue (November 16th, 2009 | 6:49 pm)
Congratulations, in a few short lines you have managed to satirise yourself perfectly. I couldn’t have written such drivel if I had a year to do it! Your penultimate paragraph had me laughing out loud.
Who is going to do this “positive moral rightening of ALL (sic) human activity”? You, Karen Armstrong, Al Gore, Barack Obama, abortionists, Iranian mullahs, the Chinese Government, a bunch of drugged-up hippies?
In life there are spiritial battles to be fought but need to know which side you are on. You say without a trace of irony: “The negative exploitation and killing of human beings by human beings violates the heart of one and all.” Rather depends on who is truly a “human being” then, doesn’t it? If you are an upper caste Hindu, it isn’t a Dalit, if a Nazi, it isn’t a Jew, if an abortionist about to perform a “procedure” … oh sorry, how very inconvenient for your argument.
You say: “Me thinks that the Pope would be very supportive of this Charter.” Come off it. It may have escaped your notice that the Pope utterly opposes abortion and does not ally himself with those who support it. By all means oppose those who disagree with you but please don’t pretend to yourself and the world that right-thinking people approve of your views.
November 18th, 2009 | 9:33 am
What she says is simply not true. “To honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect” is a Judeo-Christian principal, not a universal principal, and anyone who thinks it’s universal does not know what he is talking about.
Many other religions and philosophical systems do teach kindness and respect to others of the same religion and philosophical system, as well as a limited version of it toward others. But to say all of them do is simply nonsense.
The standard line taught in schools these days is that all people are pretty much the same and that all religions are pretty much the same. But this is not true. It would be nice if it were true, but it’s not. And people (like some of the commenters here) who believe it is true and act as if it were true are in for a harsh awakening. Real respect means seeing the other as he really is, not as you wish him to be. Much of what is called respect today is really ignoring other people and hoping for the best.
November 19th, 2009 | 2:36 pm
[...] First Things: The Selective Compassion of Karen Armstrong Monday, November 16, 2009, 9:00 AM Joe Carter Among people who know nothing about religion and [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact