Bonnoe says: "The folks at the TED Prize have been working with partners around the world to fulfill the wish of best-selling author and former nun, Karen Armstrong – the Charter for Compassion. The Charter is a document collaboratively written with contributions from thousands of people from more than 100 countries. With a sense of urgency, the Charter is a call to action for all of us to live more compassionately with each other in the hopes of ending global suffering. People from every corner of the world – including Oslo, Buenos Aires, Vancouver, Tehran, Capetown, Sydney, San Francisco, Mumbai and more - have embraced the Charter’s inclusive message by affirming the Charter at the Charter for Compassion website and posting the official widget on their blogs in a show of solidarity (see below). It’s a powerful message and one that we wanted to share."
Karen Armstrong's TED Prize: Charter for Compassion
Leave a comment
More items
Two-thirds of cocaine in US is cut with veterinary deworming drug
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug, and even more so when laced with another drug that's commonly used to deworm opossums." DEA agents report that some 69% of cocaine seized en route to US market is cut with levamisole, a veterinary drug believed to weaken the human immune system. In other news, wait: peop... More.
Advisor: Was it cruel to let poor kids in India play with my iPod?
A few years ago, I went on a trip to northern India to see the Dalai Lama. I traveled with a lawyer, a politician, a publicist, and a translator. One of the places we visited on the way up from Delhi was called Jalandhar — it's in the Punjab region and is home to a lot of sweatshops. While we ... More.
America can't make things because managers all learn finance instead of production
In a provocative New Republic article, Noam Scheiber proposes that the collapse of American manufacturing is due to a general shift in management to people who have MBAs, and to a shift in MBA programs to an emphasis on finance instead of production: Since 1965, the percentage of graduates of ... More.
Toys R Us puts elf toys in the science section
Madeline Ashby sends us this photo of "Elf" toys filed away in the Toys "R" Us "Science" section, noting, "My husband and I braved Toys R' Us on the final Sunday before Christmas to bring the happy mutants this FAIL. Our theory is that Toys R' Us committed a classic logic fallacy: science = ner... More.
100-word fiction contest: Vote for the winner!
Response to our 100-word fiction contest, "Found in Space," was overwelming: some 80,000 words of entries! Having gone through them as best we can, we've whittled it down to a handful of finalists. Forgive us if we've missed something magical: With such a vast number of entries, it's easy to miss ... More.
RSS Feed
"to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate"
I'm all in favor of compassion, but I'm not sure they have their facts in order, history-wise. What religion does this refer to, with the possible exception of Buddhism and Jainism? Certainly none of the Abrahamic religions!
Yeah, but as long as the "charter" is based on
religions it might as well be based on
Nancy Drew books.
Until humans can come to grips with the fact we
should be compassionate because its just the nice thing to do and without any god/jesus/satan/thatbeardedguyoverthere to scare us into action.
However compassionate she wants us to be she's still basing it on God.
Still b%%#%##t.
I'm not sure I get the hate towards religion. That's not very.. compassionate.
Pragmatically, anything that increases worldwide compassion is a good idea. I'll go out on a limb and say that compassion dissolves fundamentalism, because it encourages seeing the world from other people's points of view.
Sure, it would be great if everyone were rational and compassionate for compassion's sake, but considering how powerful the world's religions still are, and how encouraging compassion could greatly improve millions of lives, I'd say it's worth a shot.
she is a pretty neat researcher of the history of religion and some of her basic distillations are useful without getting all 'god-ish' or too hippy-dippy.
but this charter makes a bunch of assumptions that won't help anyone.
ever since TED had tony robbins on -- preaching to the TED audience including al gore -- well, it's just not the show whurman put together anymore. this "charter" is in-line with robbins magical thinking woo.
how about getting FDR's "second bill of rights" put together? that would be a worthy thing for TED and it's band of merry billionaires to get behind.
This is boingboing, you didn't expect the red mist to fall when religion is mentioned?
Yeah - I don't get it either. Most of the religions I've come across (including the "Abrahamic" ones) seem to me to be based around getting a largely illiterate group of people to behave in a way that works for society as a whole (and often "society as a whole" includes people outside that religion).
But there's a big difference between saying "the world would be a better place if everyone was more compassionate, the way that legitimate interpretations of scripture would teach" and saying "be good because The Big Guy said so".
The way that I read this charter seemed much more like the former - ie. have respect and compassion for everyone, and don't let your narrow interpretations of religious teachings get in your way.
Bungo writes: Most of the religions I've come across (including the "Abrahamic" ones) seem to me to be based around getting a largely illiterate group of people to behave in a way that works for society as a whole (and often "society as a whole" includes people outside that religion)."
Well, no, actually. Religions that work get a large group of people to behave in a way that promotes and spreads that religion. These behaviors are not necessarily beneficial to society as a whole. Often behaviors based on religion are harmful to the members of that religion and to society as a whole.
cratermoon, You don't get the hate toward religion? HELLO, religions hurt a lot of people. We aren't allowed to talk about it. We have social conventions such that it is considered taboo to discuss this. Religions are allowed to target certain people, to exploit, brainwash and abuse them, and it is described as moral. Religions are allowed to fight against human rights and call it morality. It's double-plus ungood manipulation worthy of Big Brother.
"Religion" is assumed to be a synonym for moral good. This is not the reality. Often when there are social problems, we hand them over to religious figures to guide us. So you get a situation of, say, family violence, and some preacher whose training consists of a lot of scholarly claptrap about a bronze-age story collection is the one who is supposed to advise the battered wife or whomever. The ministers aren't properly trained for the task and they have an agenda that has nothing to do with GOOD. (Because if you want to have a purpose-driven life, you need to stay with your husband even if he is knocking your teeth out, day after day, one after another...because that's what god wants.). Even if they get some kind of social work training in the seminary, the priority is elsewhere. They've a different sort of agenda.
And you don't see a lot of the contents of offering baskets going towards serious research that might shed some light on why people beat their spouses or kill or whatever. That's so not the point. If we could use science to understand and treat the problems, why would people need religion? What're you nuts? You wanna wreck this cushy gig in which they get the bucks and the praise and don't really have to show results?
Just because you say you are doing good, doesn't mean you are doing good. Just because you say you teach love, doesn't mean you love. It's spin, spin, spin.
So a lot of us do roll our eyes at the thought of a face-based initiative to find world peace or whatever. Historically, religions try to destroy each other. This whole project is delusional.
Question is WombatSam, will the existence of this Charter actually increase worldwide compassion? When an individual or organization issues a 'call to action' on a problem described as 'global suffering' does anything effective actually happen in this regard? Should we regard it any differently than the target goals set at every G8, G12 meeting which are never met? At least in that case a few million dollars are rounded up and in theory might reach someone who needs the help. How much money do you think has been spent on this good faith gesture? Wiki says TED prize winners receive $100,000; Karen Armstrong won a pile of money for saying, "We should be nicer to each other." Well great. Of course we should. Global suffering isn't an obscure condition which no one knows about; you don't need to 'raise awareness' about it like you might with the cobalt mines in DRC or something. Why doesn't TED spend the money they used for this campaign (advertising, solicitation, design, etc.) on actually alleviating global suffering? Isn't that more productive than a feel-good campaign for relatively wealthy people?
@Pipenta
The opinion that religion is responsible for the choices individuals make seems a tad elitist. You are able to clearly see 'right and wrong' and decide for yourself, but the poor sheep in that other flock can only be led. This kind of Objectivist thinking is exactly what Karen Armstrong is calling on us to question and hopefully replace with compassion and introspection. She rightfully points out that this is the core of most faiths, even the Abrahamic ones.
There are problems within religious institutions just as there are problems within political and secular institutions. It seems especially cynical to hold those failings up as an argument against a call for increased compassion in the world.
Sorry, you don't get to label all criticism as "hate" and just expect to win. There are a lot of people with complex, informed opinions against religion.
If there are others who need to believe in the divinity of Jesus or YHWH or Gandalf before they can bring themselves to act compassionately toward others, well, they can go ahead and believe, but respect is not one of the feelings that that situation fills me with.
From the info on the site linked, this charter seems to be an appeal to rise above our differences and become better people.
The response to this in the comments here are hilariously ironic. All anyone above has yet done is reinforce barriers and recount religious divides. Really, I don't know why anyone would have a problem with Armstong's plan, but all I'm seeing is hatred.
I don't know what's wrong with the internet, the word "religion" comes up and everyone starts screaming.
I would amend your last sentence - when religion is the subject, many people start labeling perfectly healthy, normal criticism as "hatred" and "screaming".
I am of the opinion that undue respect for religion is one of the things standing in the way of increased compassion in the world. So my reaction to this Charter is very skeptical. On balance I wish them well, but I won't be adopting it myself.
My comment was directed towards both sides, everyone seems to be a fanatic when it comes to religion.
As for your statement, the only thing that less respect for religion produces is less respect for religion. The only way to increase compassion in the world is to be more compassionate. This is something that has to come from the individual. If you think the aims of the charter are good, then follow them - it would be an exercise in putting prejudice aside.
If this charter makes any practical difference to improve the lives of any people who are seriously oppressed, I'll be pretty amazed. If we could get the Burmese junta taking it seriously, maybe such a thing could occur, but how likely is that?
I don't count myself as a cynic or even a pessimist, but how can this charter be viewed as anything more than a way for people who feel extremely good about themselves to affirm how wonderful they are by signing a pledge that demonstrates just how wonderful they are? The intellectual dishonesty about religion is just the icing on the cake (who is anyone to say what the core of any religion is? Religious thinkers have argued over that crap for centuries, and managed to justify or condemen every conceivable behaviour in the process).
Pipenta "religions hurt a lot of people."
If you changed "religions" to something "human social institutions", I'd agree with you. Governments. Cartels. Political parties. Gangs. Singling out religion is disingenuous at best.
lawman, the comments here are beyond hilariously ironic, they are reactionary and bigoted.
Consider, "I wish them well, but I won't be adopting it myself."
Really? The charter asks us to not "incite hatred by denigrating others", but that hatred and denigration is in full force here. Refusing to adopt it implies not wanting to "encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity"? Are those condemning the charter really rejecting the necessity to "work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures"
The kind of monstrous divisiveness preached by these opposing comments is something I'd expect to see on Fox News, not BoingBoing.
I have a problem with the emphasis on religion and its leaders that Armstrong bases her project on. These are the folks who have claimed a lock on the idea of compassion for the last 5 millennia, give or take, and where have they gotten us? All of a sudden they're going to do it right?
Compassion is a practice, and that's all it is. It's recognition: seeing that you are me in every important way, and vice versa. In that procedure religion is utterly irrelevant, or worse: It's an impediment. I don't care which one it is.
Ms A. clearly suffers from the hammer problem: everything looks a whole lot like a nail, to her. Still, the bloviation and endorsement of the WRLs she's invited into her club will move money and ink, the lifeblood of any movement. What's needed here is us, to do the hard thing and to hold the WRLs feet to the fires they light to toast their opponents.