The myth that all religions are basically the same—and basically benign—is a nonsense that could only flourish in a society that has little knowledge of the past and, for that matter, of the nature of religious belief. Naturally it’s an idea that is being actively peddled in both Europe and America today.
For a truly nauseating example of this phenomenon at work, pour yourself a calming drink and check out former nun Karen Armstrong’s Charter for Compassion (it’s no great surprise to discover that the persistently irritating Ms. Armstrong is behind this venture). On the home page we read:
“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…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…”
And so on.
We also are given the opportunity to watch a video which, as an example of moral preening and smug self-regard really does take some beating. As acerbic British blogger Mr. Eugenides notes:
If you’re not on your knees after that, praying to your God for the cleansing hellfire to engulf all the simpering cretins in that advert, you’re spiritually dead inside.
It’s difficult not to agree.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Compassion is a marvelous thing and it’s splendid if people of different faiths are able to get along together. I’d add that so far as the latter is concerned, I’m profoundly skeptical that the constant ironic references to “the religion of peace” (complete with scare quotes) that we often see elsewhere achieve very much that’s very constructive. That said, the idea that the challenge of Islamic extremism (because that’s what this Charter is really about) can be defused with ahistorical mush of the type that Armstrong is promoting is dishonest, delusional and, I suspect, ultimately very dangerous.
Machiavelli says in the Discourses that societies that do not provide for their own self defense are effeminate and unworthy.
Machiavelli also says (between the lines considering the time that he lived) that Christianity is for the weak-minded because it inhibits heroic behavior and accomplishments because it inhibits individual liberty and the glorification of individual accomplishment.
Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » A Charter of Kumbaya
The problem with Karen Armstrong is that she’s lying. Each and every one of the points you excerpt is repudiated and denied by Islam, her chosen religion. This is nothing more than propaganda intended to lull gullible fools into thinking Islam shares the same values as Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism.
Damn I was just going to write a similar post after seeing one of those horrible “Coexist” bumper stickers a few days ago. The fallacy of this kumbaya rhetoric is so exceedingly obvious and quite nauseating.
Oh, I dunno. I would say that all religions are basically the same, in that they’re all nothing more than whatever the holyman feels is convenient at the moment. There’s only one kind of nothing, after all.
The mush quoted from Karen Armstrong is peddled by some mush-mongers at Secular Right as well – not including Mr. Stuttaford, to his credit. How many times have Secular Right contributors and commenters talked about some vague abstract “principle of compassion” and some abstract and in effect meaningless “Golden Rule” which as part of our so-called human nature inclines us to “treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves”?
The only difference between Armstrong’s quote above and the secular humanism one reads here is in the final moral being preached. Karen Armstrong peddles this mushy nonsense towards the end of some Kumbaya vision of religious humanism. Secular Right contributors peddle the same nonsense towards the end of their faith-based vision of a natural, post-Christian, humanist “morality”. This bowl of mush should be thrown away in disgust, whether it’s offered by sentimental religious humanists like Karen Armstrong or by sentimental secular humanists like some contributors at Secular Right.
@OneSTDV
The problem is, any theist of any stripe who wants to “coexist” is full of crap. Each religion, especially the western varieties, are firmly convinced that anyone who follows another religion is headed to eternal damnation and hellfire or other similar nasty ends. The idea that they can “coexist” with religions they firmly believe are wrong and are dedicated to converting to their “one true faith” is ludicrous. It’s like saying slavery and civil rights advocates can “coexist”. It’s just not going to happen, more often than not it’s a political dodge that they hope will stop the other side from trying to convert them while they step up their own efforts to convert the other guy.
I think that’s unfair. Plenty of theists believe the “coexist” stuff quite sincerely. Religious pluralism is after all taught at divinity schools across the Western world. The contradiction between the “coexist” mantra and monotheism is usually solved by removing the God, holy texts, rules etc. aspect into the abstract and basically reducing religion down to simple feel-good slogans like “love”, “peace” and “brotherhood”. In their view, the true way of serving God is to further love and solidarity everywhere and obviously advancing not just coexistence but co-operation with other faiths in their minds advances understanding and thus “love”.
It is no surprise that such understanding of theism will also often come down on the side of the welfare state, illegal immigrants etc. and that many practitioners of that sort of theism tend to fall at least into the center-left part of the political spectrum. Those kinds of influences are strong in most mainline protestant churches, the more liberal sections of the R.C. church and also reform Judaism. Hence the popularity of ecumenism in those circles, an invitation that extends even to Islam. Amongst the official mainstream churches in Europe the accepted line of thought is that all “men of faith” whether they are ministers, priests, rabbis or imams basically do the same job with the same purpose.
In my mind it’s the natural progression of religion in the West after the 1960s. The real objection of modern Western populations to religion wasn’t to the spiritual, utopian aspect of religion but rather the rigid demands made and services required from the believers which contradicted the personal happiness-oriented worldview of the new generations. So they kept all the vague spiritual stuff, put it into terms that don’t really sound all that different from what liberal humanists will say and started to downplay and ignore all the nasty-sounding stuff. The fact that Christianity and Islam should be opposed to each other based on their respective writings and that at least one side in that equation actually does oppose the other is one of those brutish realities that obviously appears to be terribly unattractive to Westerners raised after the 1960s.
Liberal religion is really just another part of the overall liberal ideology of la-la-land in which unpleasant, brutal realities which require not-so-nice or even brutal responses are made to disappear through sophistry and ignorance. Needless to say, the realities they do acknowledge and hype as unpleasant and brutal are coincidentally those which in their minds require responses that are desirable to them. Of course that just shows how even the most idealistic utopians can’t escape basic human selfishness ironically even in their self-proclaimed pursuit of boundless human solidarity.
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 1/17/2010, at The Unreligious Right
Just found this website, I like it alot, glad to see other like minded people, hope you stay the course.
The topic confuses me, I believe in treating people like I want to be treated, until I know them at least. I dont see a problem with that. Once I know them, and find out they are very religious, then I usually avoid them. I also dont believe that religions can coexist, history has proven that much.
But all the labels you guys use confuse the hell out of me. I see myself as very spiritual, I believe people are more connected than they realize. And I treat people how I want to be treated, unless they violate my freedom in some way, or try to convince me that I am somehow wrong and will burn in hell, then I will fight them tooth and nail. I beleive in common sense and reason. I try very hard not to make emotional decisions.
So am I not a Secular Right person?
I wonder what Karen Armstrong would make of some of the more marginal religious and spiritual movements, like Esoteric Hitlerism.
@Aaron – There is lots of scientific evidence for morality as a cultural survival trait. There is also lots of evidence for us/them thinking as a cultural survival trait, and you exemplify it perfectly.
You are missing the point.
This is part of the diversify the West agenda. Ie deEuropeanize it. It’s not some act of random stupidity. The West is being redefined as non-west or as open to everything. Which ultimately means open to everything else. I am open to other things too, and I love diversity, just not all in the West. It should be obvious that a diverse West is a non-West and that this means that the world just lost some diversity.
“There is lots of scientific evidence for morality as a cultural survival trait. There is also lots of evidence for us/them thinking as a cultural survival trait, and you exemplify it perfectly.”
It should be obvious that a society needs an opposition and a morality. In a ‘open society’ which is tolerant to everything other, where do we suppose this will come from?
It’s time you people started waking up.
Pingback: The White Peril 白禍 » Blog Archive » Love makes the world go ’round
…meaningless “Golden Rule” which as part of our so-called human nature…
I think it is part of (evolved) human nature, and that it is because it’s a very efficient “game strategy” for groups of people if enough of them (in the group) go along with it. In the real world it should be tempered by the likelyhood of reciprocity, and unfortunately it seems that a fairly small percentage of bad actors can make the idea unworkable beause of the potentially high cost of non-reciprocity. Small groups, common goals and dealing with known people help, of course. Along those lines, I’d never donate money to Haiti for several reasons: ‘helping’ doesn’t actually help; they caused their own problems a la “ant and grasshopper” (which is why the first reason is true); and I doubt if Haiti or Haitians in general would ever make any effort to help me in any way for any reason even if it were possible to do so. And I’m a curmudgeon.
In my mind it’s the natural progression of religion in the West after the 1960s.
Part of the general tendency of any organization to become socialist (liberal, whatever) over time …