Karen Armstrong: Let's revive the Golden Rule 

I watching this for school who else

Karen is one of the leading intellectual of our time. May God bless her

Thomas Aquinas, when listing the objections to his arguments in Summa Theologica, included: "Objection 2. Further, he alone is competent to interpret the law who can make the law. But those who are subject to the law cannot make the law. Therefore they have no right to interpret the intention of the lawgiver, but should always act according to the letter of the law. " The power to interpret the law is essential, but the power to interpret it is the power to change it for one's own purposes.

Love, love, love this!

nope, hate or the removal of it was what this talk was about. I think she did well to communicate within the constraints here, and shorter is sometimes better (less is more). You are correct, it's a broad subject... religion, morality, civilizations and societies/cultures. How they can all fit and retain their identity in mutual cooperation and respect. She did well, like the Rabi on one foot. Good talk IMO.

I can accept that religious people believe that without acknowleding that it is the correct or even the moral thing to do, which was what I was trying to get at. You are right about morality not being fixed, but that is a cultural or psycological thing. I think it boils down to good fences make good neighbors or if you wish to be part of a greater collective you have to put aside your difference. I think humanity is already doing a better job of this than they have ever done in history.

I do too. From an eclectic perspective. The writing is on the wall.

A person doesn't have to be a saint to enter into a philosophical discussion about ethics!

It's not just sophistry. The point you're missing is that love is hard work. You can't just say it and make it so. You need to take it seriously (hence rituals), but also be gentle about it... and that itself is hard work. You have to constantly check yourself, whether you are religious or not... and from time to time you're going to fail at love. That's what religion is about. As she said, quoting Hillel, "all the rest is commentary."

This was so boring

Yea folks watch the whole vid, but right about 4:03 is where she starts sounding more "religious neutral". Its not a bad talk.

why so many dislikes this is a good speech

Thank you very much for your clarification and huge efforts in studying religions. Hope someday everyone gets your point to not attack one another based on different beliefs.

It makes me so happy this message is being spread more effectively lately. This should be taught in every home, in every school, compassion should be a core value than doesn't ever get skewed and deformed.

I love Ms. Karen Armstrong. Her books are amazing, and her seminars are just great!! .. God bless her, and may she continue to spread love and light wherever she goes!! .. I'm all for a postive change and will do everything in my power to help spread God's message on earth: Love, mutual respect and peace.

This I think was Karen Armstrong's finest hour. This talk includes the following aphorisms, "Apply it (the Golden Rule), as Confucius said, "All day and every day", not just as your a good deed for the day." "Dethrone yourself from the center of your world" "Compassion lies at the root of all art." "Religious teaching must always lead to action." She resolves to do until her dying day, "two things, to educate and stimulate compassionate thinking. You don't really understand compassion if you just think about it. You also have to do it." The job of the press is to show that compassion demands acute intelligence, not just a gooey feeling. She calls upon scholars to "encourage a sensitivity about uncompassionate speaking, so that because people have this Charter, whatever their beliefs or lack of them, they feel empowered to challenge uncompassionate speech, disdainful remarks from their religious leaders, their political leaders, from the captains of industry." C.S. Lewis wrote one thing that stuck in my mind ever since I read it when I was a schoolgirl. It's in his book "The Four Loves." He said that he distinguished between erotic love, when two people gaze, spellbound, into each other's eyes. And then he compared that to friendship, when two people stand side by side, as it were, shoulder to shoulder, with their eyes fixed on a common goal. We don't have to fall in love with each other, but we can become friends. And I am convinced. I felt it very strongly during our little deliberations at Vevey, that when people of all different persuasions come together, working side by side for a common goal, differences melt away. And we learn amity. And we learn to live together and to get to know one another."

saludos desde clases virtuales

the problem with the golden rule is that it goes against human nature

Yes, placing yourself in anothers position is a great way of connecting to that compassionate place. I also think we need to spend time strengthening our heart by accepting the generosity of others as well. So much is said about how we "do" compassion for others, but I feel we actually lack an ability to do this because we fail to fully enter the space of gratitude that comes from receiving a good deed from another... ie accepting and noticing the grace of God.

Well said, Miss Armstrong. :)

She Never Drunk Her Water 😂

I like reading comments

The golden rule has a nice sentiment but sometimes it becomes ineffective. If 2 people or groups have different standards or cultures then they will both continuously behave a certain way hoping in vain that they will be treated in like fashion. Am I missing something?

some people simply don't agree with the golden rule. Sad but true.

sadly many feel that whoever has the gold makes the rules.

I liked her goal for us to practice the golden rule all day everyday and not just on our good days. I completely agreed with her statement that the golden rule is the true Torah (or whichever religion you follow) and everything else is just commentary and how many religious leaders don’t practice the golden rule because they get so caught up in the dogmatic and intolerant aspects of their faith.

i don't think this was a bad talk. but i have to wonder if avoiding pain and trying to achieve happiness should be our common goal. sometimes we have to make sacrifices and painful decisions, and sometimes we have to put ourselves first. like some users have already said, there's really no such thing as a common goal. but the golden rule is probably the best, and simplest one.

i admire Karen Armstrong she is the pinnacle of religions role in the 21st century. she opened my eyes to the golden rule. i respect Karen, so much so that i have made a shrine of miss Armstrong and every night before i slumber and every morning when i awake i spend my time sharing my feelings with my life size cut out of karen. she calms me down and whenever i start to doubt myself i fall back onto her and she quides me in the right direction. thank you karen i love you xx

Where is heaven and how do you know that anyone has made it there? Do you have a heaven communication device?

wow ... this talked made me cry...

By watching this video I'm losing brain cells by the second.

i zoned out to

Like si lo estás viendo en religión jajaja

Inspiring talk and as a non-theist also encouraging. ***** If I could make an amendment to the golden rule though, I would make it read "Do unto others as THEY would like to be done unto." The egotism of conformity and standardisation to our selfishly held preconceptions also needs to be broken and I feel that this may even be the harder task.

.. It's not gay! If it's in a 3 way

I would call Karen Armstrong a Religious Humanist with her wonderful inclusiveness and all embracing love for all faiths.

muslim :D

To love my neighbor does not mean that I approve of all of his behaviors. This is the opposite of genuine love.

I think this is exactly the message that needs to be spread, Not the message of hell and damnation. In the Bible Jesus said to his followers "Go into all the world and preach the Good News'. He didn't say, confine yourself within your churches and condemn people by telling them they're going to hell for not following you're religion. He also said, "Give hope to the hopeless". Not, tell people who aren't Christians that their life is worthless and meaningless.

Merci Madame Thanks!!!!!!!!! from palestine

Yes,very important is dont do unto others what u dont want others do unto u. This is mire important than do unto others what u like others do unti u. So, do always dont forget that negative ones; this is of course really the key of peace n harmonious livings with all beings n the universe 👍👏💪😍♥️🙏

If we collectively fail to revive the Golden Rule then what happened as recorded in Ezekial 12:1 - 28 in the bible would have to happen on the foundation already created -- All over again.

a very beautiful speech and i hope to see the art of campassion spead :)

Interesting that Jesus would not agree with her and did not practice as she is suggesting. We cannot get rid of dogmas and doctrine. That is a recipe for disaster and for non-compassion. The golden rule is the 2nd most important commandment in Christianity. It can be only be really attempted and practiced if you practice the greatest commandment? What is the first and greatest commandment according to Jesus, Christianity, and even Judaism? The Shema. Love the Lord your god with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. If you are not obeying the first commandment . how can you do the send greatest commandment? Maren Armstrong is speaking a nice sounding lie. Jesus would rebuke her.

This is at least 13 years and 32 books she has written since this speech. People, the world is worse than it ever has been...All civilizations fall, all of them...including this one...

Why are there so many thumbs down? She talking about compassion. Can someone help me understand why there over half thumbs down?

Shouldn't it be a sin to teach children about the Golden Rule, without finding a way to warn them about the people of Golden Rule #2

No hate ... just wondering ~ how in the world did she get on TED talks?

"Submit or burn" is a human distortion of the golden rule. There are influences from human beings who distort the many "golden teachings" for whatever reasons (such as power and control). The key point she is emphasizing is that people need to be able to recognize these influences/distortions and not to get distracted by them. some who propagate certain distortions (

"Dethrone yourself from the center of your world". I love that.

The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules" Hardly needs reviving :-)

on some level i agree, yet i hope that at least SOME people who DO have faith in certain religions pray in the hopes of gaining some power, or positive influence and motivation that will help them to become a compassionate person. As oppose to just thinking if i do THIS (like praying) then the following will definitely occur. religion is just a means to cope with daily life, if it works for them... and it doesn't bring harm to others, i don't see the fault in that.

I had certain feelings about Karen Armstrong's speech and when I read a few comments I noticed I wasn't alone. Basically it is as if she is missing the bigger picture, eg. "Throughout Europe the Muslim communities are holding events and discussions discussing the centrality of compassion in Islam and all faiths." does she honestly believe that Islam allows itself to be broken down to its lowest common denominator for the sake of meshing with all other religions? her belief system is out of touch

I hope this message becomes a dominant force in the ongoing "debate", it certainly deserves to be. What could be a better comeback to all the conservative politics mixed with religion these days than to ask these people who have no empathy whether they believe in the "Golden Rule". It should make them pause at least a minute before they begin back in again with their antagonistic messages.

Stop whining about insults. Your hyper-sensitivity and perceived slights are completely irrelevant to this discussion. It has already been established that I do not live the Golden Rule perfectly. So I'm human. Imagine that! If anything, our exchange has been fairly low-intensity compared to some of the anti-religious hatred oozing from the pores of many of these commenters. For example, the lady's appearance has ZERO to do with her message. (Learned nothing from Susan Boyle, have they?)

Stop trying to misrepresent my words. Like I said, if you want to understand Jewish thinking about how to co-exist with non-Jews, you'll need to start reading actual copies of the Mishnah and Talmud, Maimonides, Rashi, etc. In fact, more accessible would be Flavius Josephus, since he writes from just after 70 C.E. Slavery, rape, war, etc., it was all commonplace in the days of the Torah. The Creator provided commands that worked to restore the dignity of humanity.

No I'm not. I'm saying that "God's command" and "state law" were one and the same. In other words, the Creator dictated national policy for His fledgling nation. Acquaint yourself with the slice and dice nature of existence in the Fertile Crescent at that time (Herodotus on Persia, for example) and ask yourself if a pussified "love your enemies" approach would have worked. Try to apply your enlightenment to Islam and you'll either need a kevlar scarf or a family-size jar of Vaseline.

This is all just common sense, as are all the Christian commandments (mostly), and the beliefs of other faiths.. If you actually have to be taught this stuff more than once as a child, if at all, you are barely human in my view. Do not hurt others, do not steal, help others - this is simple common sense. That said, it IS shocking how morals have degenerated in the last 50 years. We do not need religion to lead a good life, just our brains - the same for having any potential belief in "God".

Please cite for me the passage in the Tanakh where "God" sends "non-believers" to "Hell". (It isn't there.) What you will find is that people die and go to sheol, the abode of the dead, both good ones and bad ones. And I'm not talking about the Christian scriptures. I'm not Christian and the Christian scriptures aren't Jewish, despite what "Jews for Jesus" will try to lead you to believe.

I agree that the Christian scriptures express morality in Hellenistic terms, but there is no denying that many of their observances are an attempt to carry on what was already COMMANDED in the Tanakh, and not by Greeks. I don't agree with your chronologically-clueless simplification of ethics, religion and philosophy.

She barely manages to notice that the Golden Rule is a secular human philosophy for living that has NOTHING to do with religion except this. In religious practice, the Golden Rule only applies to members of your own faith. I guess she earns a living from religion so she needs to see it as a religious thing.

Why should people follow the golden rule? This seems to be more of a descriptive moral system than prescriptive.

There is absolutely no doubt that a bible literalist, hell believing Christian would dislike this video. Even more so than any Atheist. Also, open minded is good. But it doesn't mean that one has to ponder the possibility that any and claims might be true. As they say, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, than what is it? If everything points to something being a fiction than what should we assume it is? Anyway, she has the right idea, religion needs to be more moderate and benign.

I cant support dogma in any way, not even the good parts of religion (if any), its time to abolish this poison of the mind, i say no Karen. People have different goals, different priorities, some people want to punish and judge above all things and forget about the golden rule.

I am not unfamiliar with any of its pages. The picture you paint may convince your fellow Bible-illiterate foaming-at-the-mouth religion-haters, but I know better, so puh-lease. And I don't claim the Christian scriptures, so don't lump me with that.

You're talking about a text that is as much about Israelite national policy as Israelite religion. If you want to understand how Jews think when it comes to existing in non-Israelite borders, you must turn to Jewish Oral Tradition.

It's actually the opposite. YOU are taking things out-of-context and single verses saying something objectionable (because you don't understand the context, or simply don't want to hear the context) don't undo the overall theme, which is uplifting.

The English Londeners always have to be the ones who have too keep the world moving faward.

Yes, I agree that she has her work cut out for her, but then, it's the same work that all religions and philosophies that exhault some form of the Golden Rule have always had cut out for them.

i love karen armstrong.. she open my eyes so much ever since i watch her in BBC documentary - life of Muhammad. I need more people like her to look up in life, Amin

Well, as a fellow atheist I can tell you that it looks like and sounds like it's impossible to determine if God is real or imaginary. While there is little evidence to support the claims in religious texts, the idea of a God itself was best said as the following "That you cannot prove God’s nonexistence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the nonexistence of anything" - Richard Dawkins

Seriously doubt Christians would dislike this based on what you said. Ask yourself, honestly, what kind of people would dislike this video by prejudging it? Look at the top comment, he's an atheist and he hit it spot on. Don't think just because you don't believe in a God you aren't biased. There's plenty of bias to go around. Like I said, keep an open mind, and that goes for both religious and atheist people.

Pure science DOES explain the entirety of the human experience. Science is just what we know of reality, and the act to try to understand it, constantly in change. As Reality is all there is, and the human experience, part of reality, science can explain it to some extent today to a bigger extent tomorrow. Science as such can't be "dogmatic" because as said, is in constant change (the understandings, and the reality). Religion, on the other hand, would fill Einstein's description you quoted.

science was originally part of the philosophical & theological teachings! all the original scientists had profound religious or spiritual backgrounds! the world may have many sciences, philosophys and religions but nature has only one truth about what it is and laws which make it what it is! as science says everything is energy then that energy has to have abstract qualities of intelligence, emotion, concioussness! because we are made of that energy & are intelligent, emotional & concious! THINK

It may be a tad naive, but would beenn15 please explain his argument? The argument that religions cannot thrive without conflict and cannot coexist 'peacefully' (peacefully in the normal context, not necessarily without theological debate) is likely nothing more than a canard. Surely you wouldn't claim that working towards a world in which we (agree to disagree/ remain firm in our views while being courteous and kind) is an unworthy cause?

@VulgarityDivine I think it's naive to think religious leaders and believers will agree to follow a charter that they believe is written by men. Different religions exist mostly because there have been disagreements among them. If they were to agree to live peacefully, there wouldn't need to be different religions, one would be enough. Religions cannot thrive without conflict. It's all about who's right, who's going to hell, who's immoral...

@VulgarityDivine No. You said, and I quote: "Honestly I'm an atheist and other atheists aren't fucking listening...lol This has nothing to do with religion what she wants is a world where people are kind to each other no matter how much they hate each other okay? this is a good thing not a bad geez your just as bad as a modern christian if you're prejudging it..." 1. It has very much to do with religion, despite the fact that the golden rule has nothing to do with religion. 2. Prejudging? No.

@VulgarityDivine "a world without hate is a world of indoctrination with no politics no religion no free will" True, but I didn't mean that we should get rid of hate, completely (I may have been a little unclear ...though not as unclear as you, what with your complete lack of punctuation. I'm bad at it, but at least I try) "I'm saying she has good intentions but is grossly mislead" No. You basicly said disagreeing with her good speech is not listening and prejudging. That's irrational.

@VulgarityDivine "a world where people are kind to each other no matter how much they hate each other okay?" Would it not be better to get rid of the hate as well? Religion divides. Religion creates differences, magnify them and breeds hatred towards them. Yes, she's well meaning. Yes the golden rule is good (though the extreme absolute compliance to it, that she advocates is lunacy), and should be followed more. ...but if you think that the speech isn't crap, just because of that...

the best way of living your life is living it based on facts. period. the same fact that you exist does not make it a fact that god exists. you are a fact; god is not, it's a speculation but nothing more. live your life based on facts and not idea's and speculations but rather proof it instead. (if you can't proof it then work towards proving it until you one day can) If that's not a reason to live life for i don't know what is.

whats she is saying all faiths advocate this one good idea (the golden rule) and therefore if we only look at that value then religion is great. the prolem is that hitler said we should be "good to our neighors" and therefore if we only look at that aspect of nazism then nazism is a great way to build a peacefull and tolerant world. of course this one verse y hitler does not compel thinking people that nazi ideology is a tool of tolerance, and our faiths are as divisive as nazism.

Well, we can only ever reject a concept of God (unless you believe in a God which you know through the 5 senses and therefore your brain). If you disagree with me about God, remember, thats your idea of God you are disagreeing with, not mine:). I accept what I call the Love of God that fills my heart because it is filled with meaning that is beyond those 5 senses. Who knows anything about that?

Doing good deeds all day and every day will only help you "find Nirvana" if you do that from your heart. We need to look into our hearts and find Love FIRST... that's where good deeds will come from.. compassionate action only ever comes from Love. You wont find Love or compassion by "looking into your own heart and discover what it is that causes you pain". Where is the logic in being motivated from what we SHOULDNT do?! Even dog trainers know that doesnt work!

I disagree in saying the church is good for morality. I can't over generalize, but it has been scientific progress which appears to shake faith, mainly because it isn't just the physical or biological sciences that have progressed, but also the social ones. The results of those studies can also be contradictory the th laws of the Bible for allowing humanity to progress. I will agree that the Bible did lay a framework for comparison throughout history, but it didn't always go well.

Africa is a great example. Science has alleviated hunger, while Christianity has done a fabulous job of claiming the credit. Perhaps the reason the Christian Children Fund changed it's name was to appeal to the larger base of those who donate and are tired of the effects of Christianity in Africa. Like the continued proliferation of AIDS and teen pregancy with the infallible words of the Pope saying condoms are bad. It's causing and continues to cause gret harm.

Repeated studies show higher levels of education, particularly in the sciences, correlate directly with atheism. Education levels also correlate with lower teen pregnancy and other factors. Right or wrong, atheism is skyrocketing, particulaly in the United States, with religious dogma being at the center of it. People are turning away from moderate religion, not just extreme religion, because of the association. watch?v=QCNftnJZX1Y

But I'm still not certain how you can generalize and speak for an entire society. America for instance is primarily Christian (I beleive from what I read) but that gives me no understanding of the morality of the individual, Christian or Not. There are moral atheists and immoral Christians. And from the research I've seen, It appears that secular humanists are the most moral based on the function od their society. The United States blew the world away with secularism, now they're falling back.

Quote"If you lived in 12th century Germania, you would have believed that mugging old ladies is immoral not because of an external empathy for the pain you would put the woman in, but out of an internal safeguarding of your warrior status and warrior ethic." You admit that they knew what was immoral. No Bible required. Societies morals are not written by religion, I am an Atheist with morals that affect society. There were many moral people long before the Bible was thought of.

The Bible condones slavery - However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you live in Chistian America pre 1885 you could have thought slavery is okay, like it says in the Bible. Humanity has existed long before the church and there is evidence of humans caring for infirm humans in prehistoric times. Your argument for morality being the property of the church is wrong. And also is your morality reflected in a public code? Why would you think that was true for 12th century Germania, are you a Necromantic mind reader.

(Lenin and Khomeini didn't FORCE everyone to share their religion, but they made it very disadvantageous not to.) 4. Old leader dies and worse leader succeeds him (StalinKhamenei). 5. New leader allegedly follows principles of old leader, but since he is now in charge of interpreting them, he really doesn't have to. 6. Tremendous limitations are placed on ideological and social freedom and freedom of speech. 7. Dissenters are persecuted and punished. That's the problem with absolutism.

The problem with those regimes was less that they were atheist, and more that the leaders had so much power that a single person had the authority to change the entire society's ethics within a few years to suit their own purposes. What happened with the atheistic communist revolutions in Asia is the same thing that happened with the secular revolution of Robespierre, the Christian communist revolutions in Latin America, and the deeply religious Iranian revolution in 1979.

What is the purpose of God? The theistic view does diminish everything, the value of human life, the truth about the universe, the morality that exists within humanity. It is all severely diminished by believing that we accomplished none of it ourselves but rather it was bestowed by a divine. The theistic view is that our whole purpose is to serve God, mine is to make humanity better than it is now. To do that, I try to improve myself, I push my own boundaries and I challenge what we accept.

Seven traits characterize a learned person. A learned one doesnt begin speaking before one who is greater than he in wisdom or in years; he doesnt interrupt the words of his fellow; he doesnt answer impetuously; he questions with relevance to the subject and replies accurately; he says first things first and last things last; about something he hasnt heard he says, 'i havent heard'; and he acknowledges the truth. the reverse characterize an unlearned person. all quotes from Pirkei Avos. goodbye

Elazar HaKappar says: against your will your were created, against your will you were born, against your will you live, and against your will you die. Yehoshua says: an evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred of other people remove a person from the world. Hillel says: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if i am for myself, what am i? And if not now, when? Shammai says: Make your Torah study a fixed practice, say little and do much, and receive everyone with a cheerful face.

There is things contained in scrripture which can be revered. But much that is also to be ignored. I can wonder and be amazed without the supernatural. You haven't even proven that there is anything after this life. You can't destroy what isn't there. To quote Dawkins," Isn't it enough that the garden is beautiful, does there have to be fairies there too." If you revere scripture with wonder and amazement your mind is small, the universe holds more to explore.

So if generation has a dual meaning, why say "THIS" generation, isn't there only one human race? I have come to the conclusion that you will say anything to defend your fairytale and not look at the language or the context except in a manner which defends scripture. What makes you think your holy book is infallible when there are many others. The majority of the world believes something else. If there were a God, why needlessly divide evryone into warring factions. Why not provide for all?

Your understanding of prayer is not what the Bible says. The Bible and Jesus, if real flat out lied about the power of prayer. If God really has a plan why are people praying to change that. Real faith would mean that you didn't pray and accepted God's plan. I don't have this problem, I'm not a believer. I wish for things to change but I understand that change is only affected by action, not wishing.

So you agree that the first gospel written was 30 years after the alleged time of Jesus, and that there are no contemporary writings about Jesus or his resurrected followers or his miracles which sound strangely like previously held miracles by other Gods. But mostly, do you believe, and this is really hard to deny, that when Jesus supposedly said the world would end by the time witnesses to Jesus were still alive according to the Bible never happened.

Or this: And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB) Praying is a waste of time to produce anything but psycological results. The gospels say it will be done. Not that God will think about it, but that it will happen. Does it, I say no given the success rates of cancer patients and lottery winners are the same whether you pray or not.