Compassion Does Not Demonize 'Fundamentalism'

" Being right about some religious idea does not mean that a man or woman is right about everything else. A Christian may rightly see the centrality of the Cross of Christ, but then fail to love his neighbor properly."

Possibly, by thinking your savior there had something other than not-being-attached to self (or himself) in mind when he went to all that trouble, there.

"That is certainly true of me. I grieve that my life has not always been true to my best aspirations."

Frankly, I think you Christians are so spooled up about the big pop quiz after but one lifetime, you freak out and think the class is all about the test.

"Fatuous calls to a false commonality are not the pathway to world peace. "

Fatuous, well, that's thinking we can keep screwing up the world and expecting not to choke on the fumes as long as we pretend one day everyone's gonna have the same religion to be afraid of being wrong about.

Commonality is our common humanity. Agreeing about religious words is optional. And we're out of time on any such illusions. Actually, unless someone gets really creative in a *good* way, we're about six years past making this comfy. While you were busy being 'absolutely right' about how the US government should punish me and my dear one over snuggling with each other, well, you ran out of time for expecting religion to sort out the world.

That's where 'wrong' counts.

When your boot of self-righteous denial meets the puppy, kind of wrong.

Wrong? You're *always* wrong.

You got Bush 'elected.' Twice.

Is there something about the world he *didn't* screw up? Cause I'm pretty sure he didn't botch the Easter Egg roll, but that's hopeful thinking.

Get used to 'wrong.' You're on a streak.

Stop taking it out on the living. Poisoning the future in hopes of a 'righteous end.' Any God who that would please is no friend of humanity.

Aaaanyway, Mr. Reynolds, if you say this:

"Many non-Christians have served as moral examples and guides."

Then be guided by *this:*

(sorry if it's scary)

The Universe, never mind planet Earth, *does not revolve around whether or not you're 'right.' *

Never mind who you try to control over it.

Seriously.

"Being wrong about something, even something as important as religion, does not mean a man or woman is wrong about everything else."

Funny thing about actually being smart... or even 'wise.' You can't do it if you're too afraid of being stupid or a fool to sorta step up to the plate and actually have a swing.

The reason Fundamentalism of all stripes hurts *so many people,* probably most especially its adherents, is because the *absolute terror of being 'wrong'* is made bigger than the lives and liberties of others. Regardless of real pains and injustices.

Speaking to Abrahamics, it's clear that often they can't even *imagine* a world, never mind 'God' ...in a way that doesn't involve *abject terror of being Wrong in yer mortal lil brain.*

That's why you monotheists and atheists are always at each other, and why you pretty much look the same to the rest of the world.

"Opposing a call to compassion feels like kicking a puppy with a broken paw, but it isn't. A call to compassion is not actually compassion."

Holy Mother of Punk.

I take a week off from this place, feel like the world is fairly sane, have a peek, and someone goes and reconfirms my Orwellian Cassandra complex.

Do you *read* what you write, Mr. Reynolds?

My. Gods.

Talk about your double-binds.

"It may *feel* like kicking a crippled puppy to demand what I demand but actually, up is down, black is white, and hurting people is compassionate, whereas compassion isn't."

*spit.*

Ever consider that sometimes a puppy is just a puppy, and the boot is on your actual foot?

Appalling.

Well, I think her call is "fatuous," too. I do wish you wouldn't go on so about your way being the right way and everyone else being wrong, though.

As soon as I read about Karen Armstrong's plan for formulating a charter of compassion, I was reminded instantly of the work of Professor Hans Kueng at the Global Ethic Foundation and its comprehensive document accepted at the World Parliament of Religions: Declaration Toward a Global Ethic. (Aside: I had mentioned that document and posted a link to it on this forum over 18 months ago when an atheist blogger, with the username, Acrapist, and I managed to finally agree - it goes without saying we disagreed on every other point all the time - even though God is taken for a completely dispensable entity by all atheists, ethics is not. Since 6 billion people with 6 billion + 1 different ideas of right and wrong cannot not build any kind of international society, there was a need for global ethics in an ever more interdependent world.)

http://www.global-ethic.org/dat-english/index.htm

http://www.global-ethic.org/pdf_decl/Decl_english.pdf

Although the comprehensive document was accepted the World Parliament of Religions fifteen years ago, it would seem that its existence is little known. In my personal opinion there is an urgent need to disseminate that comprehensive document, which has covered every aspect of ethics based on all religions and has been accepted unanimously at the World Parliament. Through the United Nations, it could be distributed to all the religious and secular authorities in all member countries. The religious groups and religious leaders reading this forum could do their part in spreading the good word to their own religious communities.

A new Charter on Compassion should cover new ground, areas that have not been yet covered by the document that already exists, without repeating what has been already accepted by an international body, The World Parliament of Religions.

Compassion is a state of mind and heart which reflects a certain level of consciousness. Unless there are clear instructions for action, those who are not at the same level of consciousness would not automatically act in compassionate ways. The parable of the Good Samaritan by Jesus in answer to the question: who is my neighbor and how should I love him? is a perfect example of how religious leaders taught compassion.

The document prepared by the Global Ethic Institute and adopted by the World Parliament of religions can be used not only by people of all religions but also equally well by atheists.

DanielintheLionsDen:

"In this type of simple-minded religious belief, there is a sort of childishness, that seeks to block the progress and happiness of other people, and always promote control of other people's lives and even their thoughts. There is alot of peculiar stuff going on in the heads of people like this."

I agree. I think it is normal though in a strange way, and becomes all the more entrenched and fortified in those that put themselves up as role models. Preachers and other religious authority figures are all the more vulnerable to both the ego mask of religiosity and also to the fall from grace that is inevitable...
We all have ego personas that we are invested in. It is arguably the intention of real spiritual practice to strip away that false personality and become more what we truly are. When the persona is a public figure then we all share in looking and watching and judging if that person lives up to the PR. It is impossible enough to live a pure and dedicated spiritual discipline in private, much more in the public eye. We will always have times that we do not live up to standards we feel God have required of us... Mostly we live well below that mark.
It is obvious to me that there is at least as much resistance in the leadership of religions to good evolutionary inter-faith change as in the pews of churches. The amount of resistance by the panelists is disturbing.
Peace. Justin

Sparrow used the word "condescension" to describe Reynolds, and that is exactly the right word. This attitude of condescension is very off-putting and repulsive and amount of courtesy or good manngers, which Reynolds seems to have, will ever make it right. This attitude immediately preempts sincere intellectual exchanges with anyone who is thoughtful and self-confident.

Also, Terra says

"DR. Reynolds, you are the poster child for why Christians are seen as small minded and hard hearted(though I know loving and large hearted ones). You can feed all the hungry you want...you can put roofs over the homeless...But your heart is not Compassionate, your mind is not filled with Wisdom...and all your actions are to glorify, not your god, but your own ego. Your Jesus taught tolerance and love...you, by your own words do not represent that."

In this type of simple-minded religious belief, there is a sort of childishness, that seeks to block the progress and happiness of other people, and always promote control of other people's lives and even their thoughts. There is alot of peculiar stuff going on in the heads of people like this.

LocalCrank:

"Only fundamentalism demonizes fundamentalism."

And fundamentalism demonizes compassion...

Do think of it... At least in this era of the world, the religious expressions that are fundamentalized are all lacking of compassion. Not for their own, as that is conditional for acceptance. Outside of their own, that is, they demonize. Demonize and then evangelize.
Those that do not convert and are conditioned remain demons.

Is that about right, Mr. Reynolds?

You are indeed correct: compassion does not demonize fundamentalism. Only fundamentalism demonizes fundamentalism.

Dr. Reynolds,

There is no god but God, and you are not her Prophet.

What does fundamentalism demonize?

- gays
- Mexicans
- Muslims
- Democrats
- health care
- education
- tolerance
- diversity
- peace

What goes around comes around and evangelical fundamentalism is the Devils dance floor and you, John Mark Reynolds, are a part of the band.

Dr.Reynolds,

Where to start?
I do not believe that my faith is "truth" for you or anyone but me. But I do believe that Compassion...having empathy for others, should be a universal link to all religions. I do not believe that careing about others is a farflung fantasy of some utopia. It is the way I strive to live...but living a Compassionate life does not mean that I have to be tolerant of those who are hurting others with their intolerance.

('An do what ye will, but harm none".)

I do lose my patience...which I did rant a little at Starhawk's page. I am sick at heart at the hypocracy of those who preach that they Know the Truth while spitting on Jesus who they claim to be their savior. This question is about Compassion...so where is it? Is it in the Church that preaches exclusion of those that their bigotries demand are less then themselves? Is it among those who teach their children to hate? Dr.Reynolds, is it in your words toward Mrs. Armstrong? were your words anything but egotistical and prideful? Are you the Creator that you Know the Truth? Its the truth because that is what you were told? And those that told you were told that same "truth", And on and on and on... Again Dr. Reynolds...your truth is true for you..I have my own. My faith feeds my soul and I gain humility and rest from it, yet I also see myself as the reflection of my Gods...I am the representative to others. As imperfect and human as I am...I can strive to be more, to be that loving friend and that understanding neighbor...to be that compassionate soul to those who need compassion...because one day I will be the one to need compassion from others.

In my faith we ask for peace, harmony and balance. We know that we only have power over ourselves, if we can control our own actions and if we care how our actions affect others...then we can make better the world, at least a little.

DR. Reynolds, you are the poster child for why Christians are seen as small minded and hard hearted(though I know loving and large hearted ones). You can feed all the hungry you want...you can put roofs over the homeless...But your heart is not Compassionate, your mind is not filled with Wisdom...and all your actions are to glorify, not your god, but your own ego. Your Jesus taught tolerance and love...you, by your own words do not represent that.

terra

Mr. Reynolds,
I must try to be a bit more caring, particularly on a forum for compassion. I know this about me that I am repulsed by the arrogant spiritual stance of any religion when it postulates it alone is in alignment with Gods absolutes and truths. Adherents of these religions are to me voices supporting pain in the world. Hiding behind assumed veracy of divine origin in their, and only their, human written tomes is spiritual apathy, to me, lacking aliveness in preference for conditioned dogma.

Your three ways that can lead to dialogue and education deserve applause. We could all use these and grow. Application of them could help further harmony.

You recognized, as we all must, that you do not always follow the higher principles of your faith. There is honesty and humility in that.
It is a shame that you digress from commonality from there.
"Fatuous calls to a false commonality are not the pathway to world peace."
If nothing else, are we not commonly children of God? Do we not have common lineage, even if we perceive that lineage differently?

"Dialogue between people who think they have found the truth does not deny what they have found..."
Who "think" they have found? That then must include you as you repeatedly claim in your essay. Perhaps I could learn something even from you...
"Religious scholars strongly disagree every day without resorting to illegitimate force. Karen Armstrong would know this if she were open minded enough to listen."
Please look in the mirror, Mr. Reynolds. This mirror. Mrs. Anderson did not seem to use any "illegitimate force" in her essay, and did not even appear to be disagreeing with YOU. And her mind 'appeared' to be far more open than yours.
Consider following your own words. That or they are meaningless hypocracy. Which is what I suspect.
Please forgive my sarcasm. I have my own reasons for being overly sensitive around christian absolutism and know that I must forgive myself and those I might call abusive with their faith...

fundmentalism vs delusionism.

one of the first fundmentalism of this life is the factism and realism of the creator and the perfect wisdom of the creator.

to delve into the delusion that the all perfect creator begotten a son and he nailed his only begotten son on the cross for the sin sake love and compassion of mankind ?

this is not only a serious contradiction to the wisdom and perfectness of this universe but also a serious violation to baisc compassion and sound mature reason let alone basic wisdom.

you wonder why people are turning their cheeks and runing to secularism and liberalism !!!!!!!!!

I agree with one of sparrows comments in particular. Mr. Reynolds has no interest in interfaith understanding. Indeed he seems to have little interest in an opportunity for growth of interfaith compassion. Perhaps (?) that means that in the end he has little interest in compassion, and so in one of his Saviors primary teachings.
Jesus did not practice compassion selectively, from what I know.

I was personally disgusted by the darkness of Mr. Reynolds' attack on Mrs. Armstrongs call for interfaith compassion. What in the name of anything descent does he have to gain, but protecting his vulnerable myth? Mr. Reynolds speaks more as the Fallen than a voice of Love.

"Armstrong, who has never met a religious idea so complex that she could not over-simplify it in a bestseller, has issued a call for religion to be recaptured from "fundamentalism.""
She never used the word "fundamentalism" in her essay, Mr. Reynolds. You did.
There was little to have issue with, except perhaps to vested Absolutists as you. You and your insistance on Absolutism in this utterly Diverse Creation is the reason your Fallen One holds such sway. Ignorance, brother, and hatred. Elitism, and the arrogance of believing that you understand the Unknowable.
It disgusts me, and I am clear that I need to find compassion and forgiveness for the darkness that you daily encourage and support by supporting the vile and ignorant belief that only you are saved and blessed....

"Traditional Christianity is true. Pope Benedict, Billy Graham, and the Ecumenical Patriarch are right when they affirm that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. People who deny this fact are wrong."

When you can validate that man made myth as fact, then we all can. It will all become clear, and the heavens will shine down upon us. I am guessing that you are looking forward to the End Times though, and can't wait to see the unbelievers of this fallacy burn...
Your dark heart, cloaked in false piety, becomes all the more clear when you oppose ANY call for compassion.
I recognize that I need to renew compassion for the spiritually arrogant. Please forgive me, even as I hate you for your support of separation and ignorance.

Kick the puppy, hypocrite.

testing

fredsndrs:

I have to assume that you did not really read the essay by Mrs. Armstrong. That or you did and made some sweeping and incorrect generalizations from it. Please read again with a more open mind. I believe that you will find that she is not saying that all religions are the same. Clearly they are not. She IS suggesting that there is a common thread, perhaps one of many, and the thread is called compassion... She suggests that compsassion is a common denominator in religions, is fundamental to religions, and could be a point to find commonality in. Commonality can support alignment and a place to be in agreement. That can nurture positive movement toward growth. Perhaps peace.
Perhaps you would prefer to burn her at your alter of political correctness first, before being willing to hear more. How common of you...
There is no wrong going toward a central tenet of Jesus, with whoever looks to get closer to that light, no. Even if they see the Light in a different ... Light.

John Mark Reynolds wrote: "humility demands that we be open to the possibility of being wrong or having misunderstood what we have found"

I think that this is all that Ms. Armstrong is asking of you. The "fundamentalists" she is concerned about are those who are unable to admit their own fallibility.

It seems he has- first, i am surprised at the diatribe against Ms. Armstrong. It sounded like the hissy fit of a 10 year old. Or maybe a spate of jealousy (one of the 7 deadly sins, Mr. Reynolds).

But there are other things in this essay that disturb me much more- the insistance on christianity being the one true way, and the idea that the rest of us should be tolerated only for purposes of education and teaching so that we may also be brought into the fold.

And of all the comments he makes, this one is the most forboding:"Best reason and best human experience demonstrate that the life and message of Jesus Christ are the solution to the problems the world faces. Denying it for the sake of a false harmony is not only a betrayal of intellectual integrity, but it is not the basis for a firm friendship!"

In other words, he really has no interest in interfaith understanding. the world outside his narrow religious set is "libertine." and he defines libertine as left of center- a political concept, not a religious.

A more useless, damaging and futile point of view I can't imagine.

"Fatuous calls to a false commonality are not the pathway to world peace."

Yet Reynolds makes fatuous calls for humility. when one can state: "Second, just because Christianity is true does not mean that other religions and philosophies have nothing to teach Christians." what he's really saying, and in a very condescending way is, I'll listen to you because I think I have to give an appearance of wanting to work with you, but your religion is nothing, only mine is the "real" one. Yes-that's such a great attitude for outreach.

Ms. Anderson, whether or not you think her charter for Compassion is a good idea or, at least starts from the premise that we are all valid in our beliefs and equal in our voices. Mr. Reynolds is so far to the right of that position he is standing on the planet Zenu.

Hey Daniel- I'm wondering if Mr. Reynolds will finally let me post or is he still blocking comments?

Thought his essay was a perfect example of everything wrong with fundamentalism. Compassion only when it suits you and only related to your own brand of faith.

"That fact that is true does not have to lead to intolerance or hatred of those who disagree--it can lead to dialogue and education".

Your three ways, if followed, would not lead someone to be intolerant of another.

I find people on the internet more intolerant than the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and non-believers that I work with in an international company where we must work together. I think this is because of the anonymity of this forum.

As a non-believer, I want to tell you a story of Evangelicals being tolerant.

Many years ago, I transferred from a Catholic High School to a Public High School because I began to question what I was being taught, although I didn't tell my parents that was the reason. I did feel alienated in this period of my youth. If I did bring up how I felt to someone, I would be avoided by that person in the future. So I shut up about it...

I met a girl who was "fallen" in a way I will not describe. We began to date and I found her family was from what I would describe as an "Evangelical" church. In fact, her family had several ministers in it.

What I could not discuss with my family, I sat around the kitchen table with her family and openly discussed my beliefs. While they always said I would change my beliefs when I got older, they also accepted me as worthy boyfriend to thier daughter. Most of all, they liked that I actually read the Bible and was interested in it.

The problem we face is the legislation of our beliefs. How do we allow tolerance in our country and still publicly discuss those life lessons that are so beautifully layed out in Bibical (all the Holy books and great literature in the world) writings? My family has Jesus in the manger near the Christmas tree.

Obviously, I don't know the answer but know that it is a razor's edge that we walk.

Since I am raising my children to be non-believers (but well aware of the Bible's and other religions teachings), I ask that you help stop people from using non-believers as an example of a bad person.

Athiests and agnostics are hard-working, moral, and patriotic families who love their children.

Love and peace to you, brother, and thank you for the 3 points to tolerance.

JMR
You and people like you are very dangerous.
You spew intolerance and sugar coat it with talk of educating the ignorant(people who disagree with your fantasies).If you want to live in the middle ages, go ahead. Just please don't "educate" me.
Denying jesus, a betrayal of intellectual integrity!?!
Give me a break

Mr. Reynolds -
I've never read anything else by Ms. Armstrong. But, after she wrote a very simple, non-polemic call for compassion, you responded with what I can only describe as an attack diatribe; while at the same time proclaiming your Christianity (only) as 'true'. Attacks such as yours will probably lead me to start reading her stuff in the future.

I believe it was people like you whom Ghandi had in mind when he said to an American journalist: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ".

I am curious as to what exactly the problem is. Armstrong is not making any assertions about compassion that are untrue. And why exactly is it so unreasonable to hope for a unified world. Your statements about Christianity were rather generalized, and do not come close to reflecting the full spectrum of Christian thought. I would suggest that before you engage in a dialogue about faith that you engage in further study. Armstrong is not incorrect when she says that compassion is central to the major world religions. Although the Christian doctrine centers on the salvific sacrifice of Christ, the purpose of Jesus' ministry was in effect a similar call for compassion. All of his teachings require that we give up the tenets of the old world and work toward a system of social justice that is, in its very essence, utopian. Why then is it so impossible to concieve of such a world? And why is it so dangerous for someone to center their efforts upon supporting compassion. Armstrong's political agendas aside, there is nothing inherently dangerous about calling upon the world to work toward unity. And I am curious as to what you mean by "false" unity. What is false about living one's life solely with compassion for others in mind. I don't need to remind you that the essence of Judeo-Christian doctrine is centered around the belief that the truest way to honor God is by honoring and loving our neighbors. For without this radical form of charity, then true fealty to God cannot be expressed according to the scriptures.
(Thoughts of a student, Lexington Theological Seminary).

I read your essay, but it did not make sense. Where you are coming from is, as usual, beyond my comprehension.

Fundamentalist relgious people are typically cold and without compassion. That is a fact. So I agree, Armstong's call for a charter of compassion is not very workable, given the meanness inherent in most religion.

To me, compassion is sorrow for the suffering or trouble of another. It is a personal trait that is independent of religion. In fact, it is not uncommon to find religious peopole who have none at all.

I guess that my problems with your argument begins with the logical fallacy embedded in the statement: "That fact that Christianity is true." Christianity is not a fact, Christianity is a religion. The "Life of Christ" is not a fact, the life of Christ is collection of dissimilar myths, patched together by the crazy glue of oppressive dogma, a dogma that seems to have been created in opposition to the precepts of this mythical figure. The myth of "the life" of Jesus Christ owes as much to the the decidedly pagan Cynic school of Greek philosophy as to the obviously local political concerns of the retributive and vindictive [and probably sexually confused] Paul. If Christianity is "true", that "truth" is in no way anywhere near universal. There are many other myths to be found in the world we live in that have as much claim to being "fact" as your beliefs.

"That fact that Christianity is true does not have to lead to intolerance or hatred of those who disagree--it can lead to dialogue and education, in three ways."

Mr. Reynolds, let's make this very clear, first. Christianity is true for only Christians, as that is required of them to accept in faith. Second, Christians can't even agree on how to interpret the teachings of the Bible, so they are splintered into different denominations that compete and bicker among themselves.

You are nuts. When you make statements like that you alienate those who have different beliefs than you (which, unless you are truly stupid, you know that they have just as much of a chance of being correct as you do). Jesus didn't die for that!You first say that there must be humility in faith; the understanding that no matter how sure your are of your own BELIEFS that there is a very good chance that you are wrong. That is the human condition, and denying that fact is just ludicrous. Maybe Jesus did die for our sins, I know I believe that he did. But I don't think for one second that Jesus would support the Pope and the Church in the decisions they have made. Jesus taught tollerance and it is very apparent that the church does not. Look at abortion, gay rights, drugs, the importance of baptism (rediculous), etc. Tollerance is accepting people for who they are and what they believe. Understanding the fact that everyone has the right to make their own decisions pertaining to sexual orientation and ever aspect of their lifestyle. I feel sorry for someone who blindly believes what the church says. I feel sorry for someone who ironically displays qualities that Jesus was against. If he were in charge their would be no separation created by the church, and the belief that kindness and acceptance are the most important concepts for us to adhere to would tie us together. Saying that a religious theology is true makes you sound stupid. You may believe it's true, but you don't know, just like I don't know. When you make statements like that you alienate those who have different beliefs than you (which, unless you are truly stupid, you know that they have just as much of a chance of being correct as you do). Jesus didn't die for that!

Armstrong has the mistaken idea that all religions are the same with the same beliefs and goals for humanity.She is wrong and has prostituted herself at the altar of political correctness.