The virus of religious moderation

Basically religious moderates are a diplomatic face for radicals..

 So...do you think Karen Armstrong is radical? The link it to a speech she gave. You can listen and watch her speak. She has a lot to say and is well worth listening to.

Below is an exerpt of a Bill Moyers interview with Karen Armstrong

MOYERS: What appealed to you about Islam? Because in the context of 9/11 ... there´s so much talk about Islam as a violent religion. We saw those suicide bombers, heard those suicide bombers invoking the name of Allah, saying they were doing this in the name of ... of God, and the name of their own faith. So you´re saying, there are good things about this religion, that helped you rediscover your own spiritual journey.

ARMSTRONG: Ironically, the first thing that appealed to me about Islam was its pluralism. The fact that the Koran praises all the great prophets of the past. That Mohammed didn´t believe he had come to found a new religion to which everybody had to convert, but he was just the prophet sent to the Arabs, who hadn´t had a prophet before, and left out of the divine plan. There´s a story where Mohammed makes a sacred flight from Mecca to Jerusalem, to the Temple Mount. And there he is greeted by all the great prophets of the past. And he ascends to the divine throne, speaking to the prophets like Jesus and Aaron, Moses, he takes advice from Moses, and finally encounters Abraham at the threshold of the divine sphere. This story of the flight of Mohammed and the ascent to the divine throne is the paradigm, the archetype of Muslim spirituality.

The whole transcript can be found here.

I didn´t have anybody specific in mind.. I just said what is the main argument against religious moderates. It´s that they give the nice face to religions and shield the radicals, who simply take the religious scriptures more seriously.

 You know catwoman, you replied so quickly, I know you didn´t have time to read or watch the video. There is a lot of wisdom in what she has to say. I suggest you take the time to actually think about what she says, rather than come back with a response.

Ms Armstrong does none of what you claim. My point here was not to get into a cute clever conversation, but to try to bridge some understanding.

 Well kitty, you have been served!  How DARE you not take the time to actually open one of alameda´s gazillion links and take it seriously!!!!! 

It´s very nice that people want to bild bridges of understanding, but until holy books are re-written and religious dogmas updated to the modern ethical standards and scientific knowledge, no such bridge is possible. As long as there´s one person in the equation thinking that the other person is "wrong" in their beliefs and will go to "hell" , there´s not understanding possible, only, at most, "tolerance", and all too often intolerance, hatered and violence.

Here´s some more reading from Sam Harris - he´s far more eloquent than I am on this topic.

"People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. However, religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.

We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man´s inhumanity to man. This is not surprising, since many of us still believe that faith is an essential component of human life. Two myths now keep faith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to foster religious extremism and religious moderation equally: (i) most of us believe that there are good things that people get from religious faith (e.g., strong communities, ethical behavior, spiritual experience) that cannot be had elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se but of our baser natures-forces like greed, hatred, and fear-for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy. Taken together, these myths seem to have granted us perfect immunity to outbreaks of reasonableness in our public discourse.

Many religious moderates have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each. As long as a Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day of judgment, he cannot possibly "respect" the beliefs of others, for he knows that the flames of hell have been stoked by these very ideas and await their adherents even now. Muslims and Jews generally take the same arrogant view of their own enterprises and have spent millennia passionately reiterating the errors of other faiths. It should go without saying that these rival belief systems are all equally uncontaminated by evidence."

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx?p=1

Alameda, you are insisting that I get into a conversation with you about this person that I´m not interested in at all. I simply explained to you what my earlier post was all about, because I had an impression that I was misunderstood there.

High goals, but politically impossible, until, as Dawkins says, religion loses it´s unearned, undeserved utmost respect and we can actually discuss religions as belief systems, not any different then other ideologies.

Alameda, I suggest you research Richard Dawkins, he has a lot of wisdom that everybody should take the time to think about.

 Of course you have the right not to read the article Alameda provided but all she has done is respond to your original post.  Surely you didn´t expect no response whatsoever? It seems to me you were stirring the pot and hoping someone would season your mix.