Timothy Stanley

Karen Armstrong, author of books such as A History of God, was awarded the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) $100,000 prize for her work on a charter for compassion. She was interviewed by Bill Moyers on his journal a few weeks ago, and has received a great deal of attention for her work as of late. The main idea is that the golden rule as she puts it, "Do not do to others as you would not have them do to you," is at the heart of all religious traditions. Her idea is that by writing a charter signed by thousands of religious leaders, religious traditions could be saved from their violent hijackers. I've included a video of her speech below.

It's important to note that on her website she is not advocating that all religions are the same or that religion has cornered the market on compassion, but rather that compassion can be found in all religions and should be at the forefront of what we most desire to encourage in religious traditions.

On the one hand, it seems to me that this kind of charter does provide a public political statement about the role of religion in civil society today. It provides a vital political symbol of solidarity which challenges the secularists who just wish religion would go away. The response to religious violence cannot be the rejection of religion itself, but rather, the rejection of those who would hijack it for violent ends. Religion can continue to be a source of cohesion, compassion and global integration. We cannot and should not throw the baby out with the bath water. 

On the other hand, however, I think we should be realistic about the nature of religious violence today and the manner in which religious texts and traditions are co-opted in its favor. Armstrong is absolutely right to focus on the compassionate role religious traditions can and must play today. She is right to make it clear for the irreligious population of the west that the majority of religious people are against extremist violence. But this puts the problem all the more bluntly. If the majority of religious people are already against the violence in their name, then will a charter provide the solidarity to stop the violence? It seems to me we should shy away from suggesting that religious traditions themselves will sign onto such a charter in a contractual way that would actually stop extremists from hijacking religion for their own violent ends. The solution to this kind of violence will require much more full bodied social and political work to resolve. Armstrong herself recognizes this, so I suppose I am just emphasizing her point here. People do not kill each other because the Bible or Qur'an says so. They kill each other because it seems the best way out of their difficult economic and political circumstances. The bombs stopped in Northern Ireland when genuine alternatives were presented and people felt that they could achieve their aims through democratic political processes. Until the folks who have hijacked religion for their violent ends can see similar non-violent political alternatives, then the violence will continue, no matter how much compassion is signed up to elsewhere. 

I do not mean to be crass or antagonistic here. I think Armstrong's charter will help foster inter-religious dialogue and clarify the compassionate aims of the vast majority of religious people. But I would suggest that the presentation of this charter must be tempered with some sobriety and the recognition of a broader panoply of approaches to the problem of religious violence and its solution. In this sense she should be seen in light of a much larger group of people working along similar lines. For starters, Tony Blaire's Faith and Globalization Foundation which coordinated with Miroslav Volf at Yale Divinity School to teach a course and provide some excellent resources for those studying the issue today.