Charter for Compassion

[ornamentalmind]

A call to bring the world together…

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

http://charterforcompassion.org/

Thoughts, observations?

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - while I agree with the sentiment, the premise that
compassion lies at the heart of all religious traditions is false.

[ornamentalmind]

HeHe…a wonderful truth by fiat Clog!...just wonderful. : - )

As an aside, a review of the original site for the charter might be of
interest. Areas covered there include:
The history of how it came about
How and from where the contributions came from including examples
Some news clips about it
An enormous list of partners involved
An insightful coverage of the council that synthesized the final
product
And some talks by well known speakers including an old friend of mine,
Bob Thurman

http://charterforcompassion.org/learn

> > Thoughts, observations?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - FIAT is an Italian car - it stands for Fix It Again
Tomorrow!

[Jason]

Orn:

I have several comments:

1. The suggestion that the "Golden Rule" defined as on this website
(charterforcompasion.org/learn) "requires that we use empathy -- moral
imagination -- to put ourselves in others' shoes. We should act toward
them as we would want them to act toward us. We should refuse, under
any circumstance, to carry out actions which would cause them harm" is
false. Not every religion follows the "Golden Rule" and especially
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I cannot speak for other religions
but I do not know that these three do not follow the "Golden Rule"
especially toward members outside their faith.


2. I totally disagree with that that concept as defined. Some people
want to commit suicide, and I don't want to be killed. So I do not
want them to kill me as they want to killed. Pass. Instead of the
Golden Rule, I would rather have people treated me how I, PERSONALLY,
want to be treated instead of having someone do onto me as THEY would
have done unto THEMSELVES. Screw that! I am me not them. In other
words, I 100% disagree with the Golden Rule as defined on this
website, which is hateful of my preferences and utterly disrespectful
of my personal freedoms, not to mention morally offensive to me
personally...to state it in the most gentle and mild manner.

3. One of the UU Churches in Memphis want to put up a "wall of
tolerance" and the Christian groups were the most strident opponents
of this wall, claiming that it was giving into "morally relativity"
and "immoral" so I don't buy this organization's false premise.

Jason

On Nov 13, 4:43 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Liz Purkrabek]

I suggest that anyone who believes the golden rule is universal among
cultures read Renato Rosaldo’s Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage.

[ornamentalmind]

J:

I have several responses:

1. The Golden Rule as presented there in fact is true in that that is
what it is! It is a tenet in itself, not a ‘suggestion’ about how
“every religion follows” it nor how the adherents in fact act. I’ll
let you look up the fallacy, ok?

2. As an atheist, one would expect you to reject most theologically
based tenets. At least, one would expect you to twist their intention
to support your view. This is fine. As an act of tolerating a fellow
atheist, I accept your freedom to believe what you want to.
You kept using “as defined on this website”. Is there a golden rule
that you in fact embrace?

3. Uhhh, what ‘false premise’ are you rejecting? As I see it, this
global group is well aware of intolerance. They are primarily if not
entirely addressing theological intolerance. As I’ve said before, they
are attempting to police themselves. The fact, as I interpret your
post, that there are groups that reject tolerance is exactly why they
created the charter!


OM

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Jason]

Orn,

1. What are you saying with #1? The Golden Rule is a tenet of itself
but religions don't necessarily follow it or have the Golden Rule in
their doctrine. If so, yes, I agree.

2. The website describes some concept that it refers to as the "Golden
Rule". I think that concept is bunk as defined on the website. I
would think that the rejecting this definition of the "Golden Rule"
would create a more compassion, tolerant, and caring world. Contrary
to the mistreatment advocated by the "Golden Rule," why can't people
be treated like they want to be treated instead how other people think
they should be treated (as long as civil rights are violated). People
have different preferences. Furthermore, I am not twisting anything
but you seem to be falsely suggesting that I am. You gave me link to
the website with the definition of this Golden Rule thing. Plus, I
don't reject BS because it is religious but rather because it is BS.

3. Many of the organizations that support this charter of compassion
are not religious organizations (some are). Plus, these are self
selecting religious organizations that already accept this sort of
unitarian universalist or interfaith mentality. If you read the
religious doctrines, tolerance is not part of those doctrines
overall. Many religions organizations DO NOT want tolerance. By
contrast, these religious organizations want everyone (with some
exceptions) to convert to their religion. Lastly, none of that
philosophy on that website is knew to secularism or humanism or
doctrines of toleration.

Jason

[Jason]

Also, if these religions had Holy doctrines of compassion and
toleration, this new "charter of compassion" would NOT be necessary.
What makes this new "charter of compassion" really, really necessary
is that many of the Holy doctrines (not all the churches though) are
intolerant and extraordinarily divisive. Often modern churches do not
follow their intolerant Holy doctrines, which is a good thing--in my
opinion.

[Jason]

If you click on this book by John Henderson's "Fear, Faith, Fact,
Fantasy", then go to the front and back flaps. I think that this is a
reasonable "A Religious Bill of Rights" from 5 years ago (similar
statements have been written before).


http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Faith-Fact-Fantasy-Henderson/dp/1887905774/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258196752&sr=8-1

here are some of the atheists suggestions for "A Religious Bill of
Rights" from Henderson...the problem is that these atheistic
suggestions are too extraordinarily radical and will unlikely be
publicly accepted by many faiths.

1. All persons shall have the right to hold diverse religious and
intellectual beliefs.

2. Church and state will remain separate and distinct, each free to
work within their own spheres.

3. Organized religions must denounce, repudiate, and condemn those
who engage in hateful, harmful, violent or illegal activities in the
names of their dieties and scriptures

4. Promulgation and implementation of rules, regulations, and laws
are human activities and they will be enacted, implemented, modified,
and abandoned solely for the welfare of humanity without consideration
of god's desires.

5. etc, etc


Jason

[ornamentalmind]

I only respond to your comments with the intention of pointing out
inconsistencies as well as outright fallacies Jason. Do not mistake my
criticism of your words as being that of an apologist for any
organization(s) nor anything else other than knowledge.

1. What I said about your #1 was that you use a hypothesis contrary to
fact and drag a red herring across the road. You made the claim that “…

Not every religion follows the "Golden Rule" and especially Judaism,

Christianity, and Islam….” OK, I challenge that.

Expanding and adding to my challenge, their ‘claim’ that “The Charter
will proclaim a principle embraced by every faith, and by every moral
code. It is often referred to as The Golden Rule.”, has not been
demonstrated to be false by you. When they say “The Golden Rule
requires that we use empathy…”, if you are saying in rebuttal that
they (every member of every faith and moral code) do not adhere *by
action* to this code every moment of their lives, you know this line
of argumentation is a fallacy. Of course, it is impossible to know for
sure what you meant by: “… I cannot speak for other religions but I do

not know that these three do not follow the "Golden Rule" especially

toward members outside their faith.”

Overall, you have made an ambiguous assertion. A fallacy. And, you
have apparently changed the subject. . . another fallacy.

2. You can’t both claim ignorance about the golden rule (“some concept
that..”) and then refute it. Further, you did twist the meaning. The
specific fallacy is least possible hypothesis. This is what you used
when you brought in the notion of suicide. You then fail to state by
asking a rhetorical question “why can’t people be treated like they
want to be treated…”. And, again your meaning becomes inscrutable when
you say “(as long as civil rights are violated)”.

Of course, you have every right to blithely say that the golden rule
is bunk. That may in fact be your opinion. You have just not succeeded
with your argument.

3. Your original claim with #3 used an argument from small numbers.
Now you continue with changing the subject followed by a failure to
claim. Next you just throw out a claim that “tolerance is not part of
those doctrines” followed by the weasel word “overall” with absolutely
no evidence at all. Of course, you again drag a fish across the path
by moving to ‘doctrines’ without clearly connecting this thought with
the charter at hand. You continue on your track by saying ‘many
religious organizations do not want tolerance’, apparently by fiat,
without any examples. Such argument by generalization just doesn’t cut
it if you are meaning to make your point.

And, as a final thought you add “Lastly, none of that philosophy on
that website is knew (sic.) to secularism or humanism or doctrines of
toleration.”

OK. Is that your entire point? I know that the philosophy is nothing
new. I feel confident that those who offered as well as those who
collected and compiled it know this too. Perhaps you weren’t
attempting to add anything other than the obvious?

Overall I am surprised at your apparent opposition to an (or even any)
attempt at cleaning up the behavior of any group of human beings. The
only possible alternative you have even suggested is some vague
rhetorical question asking why everyone just can’t know what you think
and want. Perhaps you could present a counter charter/suggestion/
proposal? What little you have suggested is beyond BS. It is vapid and
sophomoric.

Of course, I did ask for comments. You commented.

[ornamentalmind]

Now I see that you are for the charter. OK.

[ornamentalmind]

Jason, do you agree with these 4 as they stand here as well as the
other points on the front and back flaps of the book?

1. All persons shall have the right to hold diverse religious and
intellectual beliefs.
2. Church and state will remain separate and distinct, each free to
work within their own spheres.
3. Organized religions must denounce, repudiate, and condemn those
who engage in hateful, harmful, violent or illegal activities in the
names of their dieties and scriptures
4. Promulgation and implementation of rules, regulations, and laws
are human activities and they will be enacted, implemented, modified,
and abandoned solely for the welfare of humanity without
consideration
of god's desires.






On Nov 14, 3:17 am, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you click on this book by John Henderson's "Fear, Faith, Fact,
> Fantasy", then go to the front and back flaps.  I think that this is a
> reasonable "A Religious Bill of Rights" from 5 years ago (similar
> statements have been written before).
>

> http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Faith-Fact-Fantasy-Henderson/dp/1887905774...

> > > > > > > > ideological- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

...comic relief...

http://network.news.com.au/image/0,10114,5247882,00.jpg

> > > > > > > > > humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately- Hide quoted text -

[Aaron]

I'm not totally comfortable with the claim that compassion as at the
"heart" of all religions. What does that even mean? The requirement
to act with compassion in at least some situations is *included* in
all major religions, but is it at their "hearts"? Other features of
these religions seem to be at least as important.

For example, one could argue that the heart of Judaism is obedience to
God. If God tells you to care for the widow, the orphan and the
stranger, then you must obey. If God tells you to climb a mountain
and kill your child on an altar, then you must obey that, too. This
may be an unsettling interpretation, but how is it "illegitimate?"
Similar arguments can be made with the other religions. Perhaps the
charter should say, "We think compassion *should* be at the heart of
all religions and ethical systems."

But I suppose that *is* what the Charter is ultimately trying to say,
so I shouldn't quibble too much. Compassion is definitely important to
all major religions. Since they are not going away, I support any
effort to make them more tolerant in practice. The charitable
language of the Charter is sure to appeal to a larger audience than a
bare list of rights and duties would. Also, the charter's inclusive,
positive tone may give religious people the cognitive permission to
interpret their various faiths in terms of tolerance and compassion.
That would be a good thing.

So, despite its problems, the Charter for Compassion is better than an
insulting, pep-rally stunt like the blasphemy challenge or a de-
baptism. Sure, there are some psychological benefits to nurturing
"team spirit," but that benefit does not justify the dangers of
promoting a tribal, us-versus-them mentality. Do we really think the
world needs more tribal posturing and stone throwing?

Aaron

[Aaron]

A fun read, Jason, but I don't find your criticism of the "golden
rule" very convincing. For one thing, no thinking Christian above the
age of 13 would take seriously such a naive interpretation of it.
Neither, I think, would serious adherents of the other enduring
religions. The authors of the Charter for Compassion certainly
don't. So you are, in effect, attacking a straw man.

The so-called "platinum rule" (treat others as they want to be
treated) has just as many practical problems as the golden rule if it
is applied with equal rigidity or naivete. Besides, the platinum rule
can be easily derived from the golden. (I want others to treat me as
I want to be treated, so per the golden rule, I should treat others as
they want to be treated.)

Applying the golden rule does not guarantee that a person will behave
ethically in a given situation. But it is a good place to start
because it is an expression of the kind of empathy (putting yourself
in another's place) that is so important to all widely accepted
ethical systems. It's hard to imagine how the world would not be
improved if more people took it seriously.

Aaron

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

For those who didn’t drill down at the original site (http://
charterforcompassion.org/ ) one can find that the 150,000 global
contributions to the charter came in from all sources, religious and
nonreligous. The categories were:

Abrahamic Faiths

Other Faiths

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist

So, for atheists (and others in the 3rd group), one can see some of
these contributions and see how fellow atheists approach the notion of
compassion here:

http://charterforcompassion.org/learn/contributions/secular