Even as someone who frequently becomes exasperated with Israeli policies, and probably especially as someone who becomes exasperated with the state of Israel, I have a real respect for what you have stated here. I’m not a wiseman, so I’ll be brief. Compassion doesn’t just benefit someone else. Compassion benefits me. Members of my own family have been murdered, both my father and my mother. I have no desire to sing kumbayah with the man who killed them (who is very much alive and out of prison awaiting trial). But I also feel that anger only harms me. Do I forgive? No. But neither is it in me alone to deal out the proper punishment.
There may be those far more advanced than I on this topic. I’ll be glad to be enlightened.

Rudy Giuilani, as mayor of NYC had a policy of getting a broken window pane addressed and fixed ASAP by the owner of said window. His reasoning was that if we allow the broken window, graffiti, garbage or other blight to stay in place, it gives permission to others to add to the mess until it is totally unmanageable.
Karen Armstrong has an idea to get those of us who care even a bit to think about our actions and consequences in terms of compassion. What’s wrong with that?
If we don’t start thinking about the subject, you might not start acting on it. Is your definition of (anything) the same as mine? No. But it’s not so far from it that mine negates yours. Remember, democracy is different in different places too. But it is still democracy.
I would rather have a thousand Karen Armstrongs than one Ahmedinejad. Can we at least do what we can, instead of decrying someone else’s efforts?

If I didn’t believe in karma before, I do now. Just today at lunch, prior to reading this post, I saw a bumper sticker that read, “Those who can get you to believe absurdities can convince you to commit atrocities.”
Is compassion supposed to be subjective? I didn’t think so…

The idea of a grounds up movement for taking back “fundamentalism” to mean “compassion” has merit even if the approach of group writing a charter for compassion is a bit anachronistic and tops down. Social networking on the web, along with neighbor to neighbor action, all linked in to existing social networks and video sites, and a core ground organization was used very effectively in the Obama campaign. A social network approach would engage more people young and old, especially in combination with existing, physical networks of churches, mosques, synagogues, and secular/religious groups
The charter for compassion is not arrogant at all, but a great idea that needs some reconsideration of methods.

The Saudi King just gave a speech at the U.N. where he stated, “The roots of all global crises can be found in human denial of the eternal principle of justice.” Compassion is felt for “the human condition in order to overcome its miseries.”
Sounds good? Not to me. For the King’s statement essentially leaves room for terrorism rationalized as “just revenge” and draws no distinction between compassion for victims and compassion for those motivated to commit terrorism.
The Saudi King thinks the problem is “tolerance”. That’s not enough. What is needed is for humans to accept the need to weigh justice in the humble balance of competing claims and mercy, not absolutes. The proper application of compassion requires context, law, and judgment.
This does not appear to be a step that enough Muslims are willing to take.

sorry, that should read, “mercy, not a single absolute.”

“But the stakes are simply too high to allow ourselves a Kum-ba-yah moment when what we need is something far more sophisticated and powerful. In a world filled with faith-driven hate and violence, simply appealing to something as amorphous as compassion will not do the job.”
A simple approach offers people of many traditions the opportunity to have a dialogue on a topic on which many religious and non-religious people in the world agree. Perhaps there are variations in perception of when it is or is not appropriate to offer compassion. Also, individuals are not always capable of living up to their ideals in this area. But suggesting that a program like this is worthless seems inappropriate today, when so many yearn for an ideal that can be widely shared.
Also, if something “far more sophisticated and powerful” is needed, when will you be implementing such a program? With occasional exceptions, the public moral commentary of religious leaders of all stripes usually seem to focus on sexual and reproductive issues. Meanwhile, school shootings, violent hazings, domestic violence and violent crime go by without comment. We are not publicly challenged by religious leaders to consider the impact of violence even if we are not prone to it – or to consider the inherent selfishness and pointlessness of it if we are. Until religious leaders start doing something big, public and tangible to address violence, you are in no position to criticize anyone who is trying to bring people together to address it.

I am delighted to read that others are seeing through Karen Armstrong’s false prophetous ways. She is a very deceptive writer about Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and I pray that people will see the light and not fall for her charisma. I wrote the following summarizing some of her ways:
I am asking news sources to carefully review Karen Armstrong’s books before promoting her or them. Her “History of God” contains numerous factual errors and round distortions of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim beliefs. For instance, in her “History of God” she states that the Eastern Orthodox Bishops do not believe in Original Sin, which is silly and for which she offers no documentary evidence. (See 87, 123-124, etc.) She has also implied repeatedly in “The Great Transformation” that the Hebrew Tanakh is greatly incoherent, for which she offers only suggestive evidence such as her dubious reading of polytheism into even the Torah (e.g. 46, 213), her assumption that justice and mercy are eternally alienated (see. 215), and that the emotion of anger is evil rather than helpful (see 215). In her Bible Biography (2007) she states that the Song of Songs has no apparent place in the Tanakh, implying that man-woman love cannot possibly be a divine sacrament. She continues, stating that even in the Gospels Jesus does not necessarily state that he is the Messiah. But in Jesus’s trial before Sanhedrin in Mark’s Gospel, he is asked point blank: “Are you the Messiah” to which he rejoins, simply “I am, and…” (Mk 14:62). The other Gospels are also clear, as in Mt 16 where Christ approves Peter for calling him “the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”. John’s Gospel is even more explicit, if that is possible. She also aligns herself with authors who make similar mistakes, such as Pagels, Marty, and A.N. Wilson. Therefore she is false and opinionated as a scholar and can find no excuse save divine mercy, especially given the resources and money she must be able to use to check her facts carefully. Another example of her deception is her wanton distortion of the Qur’an and Islam, together with her refusal to debate Robert Spencer, who represents—with Daniel Pipes and others—the counterpoint to her lopsided, flighty promotion of Islam. She even claims (in a Speaking of Faith interview in ‘O8) that Islam is “pluralistic”, when in fact the Qur’an says explicitly and repeatedly that all who deny or “seek to confute” Muhammed’s unattested message will go to hell; and that infidels must be either be converted, killed, or subjugated as specially taxed, second-class citizens. (The Qur’an also states in one place that Christians—“idolators”–cannot be forgiven for their idolatry of Jesus). Yet to many she seems innocuous or praiseworthy because of her emphasis on the universality of the Golden Rule, her commitment to which is entirely private as evidenced by her tendency to poetize religious history. Please do what you can to expose her work to honest critique and protect her own person and the public from lies and the father of lies. Thank you very much and bless you, Dan Schultz, MN

I don’t know. I think it would still be interesting to have a conversation with her. I have heard many different opinions about her, but even so, there are many questions I would like to ask her, just find out more of her thoughts and opinions. I understand researching all religions, for I do it myself, but I can’t say I have formed the same opinions as she has. Like everyone else, there are some things that Karen Armstrong says I agree with and disagree with, but I would like to get further information from her on various subjects. Then again, I too may find the limits of her compassion too, esp if I ask the wrong question. Who knows.

I dunno. I read your article and found it to be highly….soapbox. Compassion seemed to work for Jesus. That’s all I’m saying.

I believe your post about Karen Armstrong is misguided. She is a tremendous theologian and religious historian and she is acting on her beliefs. Instead of criticizing her, please contact her and join the charter. Religions now more than ever need to follow the ideas of compassion.

“And so, what we really need is not a charter about how we ought to feel about others, to which all will attach their names and then begin making exceptions. What we need is an agreement about how we understand our own belief, how to practice the kind of modesty which assures that we not seek the destruction of those with whom we have genuine difference”
I’ve heard and read some of her interviews and she agrees with that statement. As a christian I must strive to honestly “work out my salvation with fear and trembling” in all areas of my faith. And part of that means understanding Jesus’s teaching on compassion and how does that work in our modern world. We could still learn much from Jesus’s stories such as when he answers the question of “who is thy neighbor” and he tells the parable of the Good Samaritan. It realy is an amazing story of compassion. Jesus using a Samaritan and a Jew together in the story. The time, energy, and care the samaritan took.

Folks…please remember that the reason there is such a call for compassion is because our human egos and our active participation in it(and some more than others) has created our worldly experience which right now consists of a lot of greed and war. You forget how powerful we can be…to create such a world. We also have the power to choose peace and compassion. To forgive another for murdering a loved one is the most couragous thing you can do. Can you imagine what that murderer would think if you reacted out of love rather than hate? Where can you REALLY make the difference? When you give an angry person compassion, when you look in their eyes and see God under all the layers of fear, when you break through the wall and see them start to re-think their actions.
Nobody said this would be easy my friends….in fact…it may be the very hardest thing you will ever do!
Think about it.
Blessings to all

This was the first of Rabbi Hirschfield’s commentaries I’ve read, and I’m surprised that he would take such a negative view of another’s efforts to promote justice and healing. I’m beyond taking sides on issues of faith…that is an anachronistic tactic, and what good has it done us in the past? Readers who wish to hear Karen Armstrong make her points should go to The Bill Moyers Journal website
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal
and search for his interview with her. He’s curious, skeptical, and their conversation is enlightening.

Dear Rabbi
I am surprised in this day when any learned man demeans the intelligence of
a woman with a word like “silly” and makes light of a call to compassion.
I have been told that one of the world’s
greatest rabbis has said “compassion is the subject and all the rest is
commentary.”
I write to you from Chautauqua were thousands of all faiths and of none are
gathered for a week dedicated to the study of compassion and where Karen
Armstrong will deliver an address on Friday that will be seen by folks around
the world.
This is deeply ecumenical. It is a call to contemplation and action, to justice and to peace making, to deeds not just creeds,
to live passionately with compassion for all. It is a call to “do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with
God.” (Micah 6:8) This Charter for Compassion has received input from people all around the world,
from all faith traditions, nationalities and backgrounds.
TED is supporting this international project. On September 27 Karen Armstrong will be joined by
Desmond Tutu and by the Dalai Lama to discuss the Charter of Compassion at an international peace summit.
There will be a global celebration on Nov 12. It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Peace to all–Live passionately with compassion for all,
Robert

Rabbi,
I think you have made an common mistake – confusing compassion for its ugly cousins, pity, greed and ego, and religiosity. Compassion is not ‘feeling sorry’ for someone, but truly feeling their suffering. Pity is to compassion what desire and greed are to love, what indifference is to balance and equanimity. There are superficial similarities, but that is all.

If we want anything in return for a kind act, it is not compassion, but is tainted with greed. If we give because we feel above another, rather than unconditionally sharing their humanity, it is not compassion, but pity. If we feel sorry for someone because our holy books tell us we should we are arrogant and, ultimately, divisive. If you remove these and other impostors, you can find compassion. To do so takes great attention to our motives and intentions, something most of us find hard to do.

Compassion is not kum-ba-ya, as you say; it requires the courage to be open to the suffering of the world – and there is a lot of it. It requires not turning away from all of the pain that we would rather not look at, including the pain we cause. To be compassionate to others requires that we be compassionate to ourselves; This requires that we be able to see our weaknesses and failing – all of the things that might make us tempted to feel pity. It takes courage and balance to be compassionate.

You recommend adding the sacredness of modesty, humility, questioning and doubt to give compassion more ‘heft’. Indeed, one cannot have compassion without these things – and if one truly has these things, compassion is a natural result.

I submit that compassion is not, as you say, amorphous and unsophisticated. True compassion is one-pointed and breathtakingly subtle.

Dear Rabbi Hirschfield:
I’m attempting to be compassionate in my reading of your article about Karen Armstrong’s movement toward a world-wide mantle of compassion. What you have said in the above article is part of what she is talking about. So, I guess you might be seen as part of the problem and not part of the solution. You wrote (and I paraphrase) that what is not needed is this “kum-ba-yah” moment, but rather some other commitment, which you spelled out quite eloquently. The problem is the “either/or” approach; that we don’t need “this” approach, but rather “that” approach. Why not both approaches? Why not many different approaches? Let’s get rid of the reptilian brain that uses the fight or flight mechanism. Your article just recapitulates the “us vs. them” way of seeing. Why not enter into a new era where you take Karen Armstrong’s hand (metaphorically) and hand-in-hand with her and millions of others you practice compassion and all that you espouse. It seems like a modern approach to modern times. Ben

Rabbi,
Your response to some of these letters would be interesting. Do you read what people write here?

…That’s what I thought. I though “rabbi” meant teacher, not “preacher”.

To be sure, cultural definitions and understandings of Ms. Armstrong’s term of art are a sine qua non in any attempt to practice compassion. I don’t mean to be condescending myself, as I’m responding to what I would call a superficial and condescending understanding of Armstrong’s notions. On my first reading I understood that one would need to nuance her term in culturally appropriate and specific ways…that’s the job of a clear-headed practitioner who aspires to help create common ground across perceived differences.