Charter For Compassion

[Phatmike]

Hey guys,

I'm not sure how many of you've been following this, but I'm so excited it's about to come, I truly hope this is the continuation of something great, and will begin a massive change.

http://charterforcompassion.org/

http://charterforcompassion.org/video#wish

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Charter-for-...on/163223499166

Keen to know your thoughts.

[idlehans]

Hey guys,

I'm not sure how many of you've been following this, but I'm so excited it's about to come, I truly hope this is the continuation of something great, and will begin a massive change.

http://charterforcompassion.org/

http://charterforcompassion.org/video#wish

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Charter-for-...on/163223499166

Keen to know your thoughts.

Hi Mike,I was interested in the charter for compassion right up to the point when I realised it was a religious thing. There does need to be a lot more compassion in the world but religion is no good for this. I believe religion has caused more pain and suffering than any other single cause I will have nothing to do with it. I definately want a more compassionate world but we have to take it upon ourselves as individuals to be good to each other. We need a massive change in the consiousness of the human race and it won't come from religion. I really do hope things change.

Cheers

Nick

[Phatmike]

Hi Mike,I was interested in the charter for compassion right up to the point when I realised it was a religious thing. There does need to be a lot more compassion in the world but religion is no good for this. I believe religion has caused more pain and suffering than any other single cause I will have nothing to do with it. I definately want a more compassionate world but we have to take it upon ourselves as individuals to be good to each other. We need a massive change in the consiousness of the human race and it won't come from religion. I really do hope things change.

Cheers

Nick

Whilst you're point's valid in the sense that it has been put together by people that include religious leaders, other contributors have included Atheists, Agnositcs, and members from many other belief systems.

The purpose of this charter is not a religious one; it's principles can (and I hope will) apply to politics, businesses, and all aspects of all of our lives. Yes, this is starting from a religious perspective, but as you said - that's a cause of many global issues. If those can be resolved, then this can be the start of a solution to many of the world's problems, such as drastically reducing harmful energy consumption & production to name but one.

It came out today, so I'd urge everyone to have a read of it and see how you can apply it's ideas to your own lives. If there's parts of it you don't agree with, or parts you really agree with, then discuss!

http://charterforcompassion.org/

[JT!]

I have to agree with what he said. They say off the bat "The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions".

Something based around Religion and spiritual traditions isn't something I'm interested in.

Edited November 12, 2009 by JT!

[anzo]

Ive read through the website and all that, I just dont get it at all?

I just don't believe how this can work - the only people who want such a change are the ones contributing and advertising this, you're trying to change the view of the 'everyday person'.

The guy in the street giving out leaflets aways gets ignored.

[MikeCottTrials]

they need to gets some tits on that page

Edited November 12, 2009 by MikeCottTrials

[MadManMike]

Y'a;ll need more titties, aight?

[1a2bcio8]

It's a shame that a prejudice about religion will stop people missing what's most important about the charter. Regardless of what certain religions have done at certain points, regarding certain members of a religion this doesn't mean that in their name they cannot inspire and motivate compassion. And if they do, isn't that what matters? The fact that religions, some of which often see each other as mutually exclusive, in the name of love, have joined to affect positive change proves a capacity of those religions to focus on what's most important. That this religion or that religion is involved is not unimportant. That this or that person is involved is not important. It's just important that people are involved with a consideration of creating love and compassion, and at that point when we are practicing them, all differences in belief are quite insignificant.

It's important not to overgeneralise religions as all bad. There exists a great degree of difference between and within religions in terms of positive and negative contributions to the world. It's not that religions are all bad or all good. They are both utilized for different ends. Although, like the video says, really, they are supposed to be used to produce compassion.

I think continually making efforts toward compassion, predominantly in our own lives on a moment to moment basis, has the effect of perpetuating itself through others. Making a clear comment on the motivation to do so is a worthy act because through knowing that others want this, we find it easier to want it ourselves. We find more confidence. It's not about changing others though but about changing ourselves through which others will change in a secondary sense. When I get angry, others get angry or scared. When I laugh, others laugh or feel good. Compassion and love are no different. We act them and we shape our surroundings with them. It's a psychological cause and effect.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Danny@phatworks]

I have had to watch and read this several times to try and grasp what they are really trying to point out. I would say I agree with the principles of what they are striving for and it is an eye opener on some things going on in life and the world in general. However to build the basis of this through religion or a religious perspective; which fundamentally is the main reason we have wars, hatred, racism and everything else that comes with it (saying that as a generalization) it completely sends off the wrong signals of there quest for more compassion and I don't think that people will necessarily miss the point they are trying to make, they will just completely ignore it. People don't like change, it is a fear for some people as they will just stay in there 'bubble' and be too arrogant to approve or accept anything different.

Being open minded though I can see that it has to start with religion as that's the problem! If people could learn to accept and strive towards a more compassionate world and then apply that to all the factors of life i.e business, culture, socializing, friendships, relationships etc etc - The world would be a better place to live in rather then corporate, corrupted, greedy, competitive and selfish which then is portrayed in peoples attitudes, mindsets and way of life. At the same time though how would the world go around its like making the world a communist place to live in. It's catch 22 all around....

So in short, don't really understand.... I am sure we will end up in an in depth conversation about this over a pint sometime Bro, so feel free to try and enlighten me.

[1a2bcio8]

Religion isn't bad within itself. In fact, central to its fundamental teachings is compassion. Rather religion is used as an excuse to behave in bad ways. In its absence, we always pick up some other set of ideas (political ideas for instance) and use them as an excuse for war, poverty, greed, etc. If those who subscribed to most religions, acted in accord with the proper intent of those religions, we would see those people acting compassionately. You'll notice how many people call themselves Christians yet act contradictory to the Christian teachings. This is not the religions fault per se, it is simply the way a religion is utilized by some people. I think it's worth differentiating between what a religion originally intends and how some but not all people have used that religion for means that are different from the original intent. An analogy might be the difference between the usefulness of a nail gun, when used properly to nail objects together and the difference between a nail gun used for murder.

If we make proper reference to religion, it can be a great vehicle for compassion because it typically arises from the great insights of certain individuals regarding how it is good to live our lives for both ourselves and for those around us.

[Danny@phatworks]

Religion isn't bad within itself. In fact, central to its fundamental teachings is compassion. Rather religion is used as an excuse to behave in bad ways. In its absence, we always pick up some other set of ideas (political ideas for instance) and use them as an excuse for war, poverty, greed, etc. If those who subscribed to most religions, acted in accord with the proper intent of those religions, we would see those people acting compassionately. You'll notice how many people call themselves Christians yet act contradictory to the Christian teachings. This is not the religions fault per se, it is simply the way a religion is utilized by some people. I think it's worth differentiating between what a religion originally intends and how some but not all people have used that religion for means that are different from the original intent. An analogy might be the difference between the usefulness of a nail gun, when used properly to nail objects together and the difference between a nail gun used for murder.

If we make proper reference to religion, it can be a great vehicle for compassion because it typically arises from the great insights of certain individuals regarding how it is good to live our lives for both ourselves and for those around us.

Ah, good point Ben. That makes sense but again it is separating people and giving people different opinions and mentality... Which through many levels causes the problems. They say they want everyone to be equal, how can they? if they believe different things? in some ways very con-traversal too. I don't actually see religion as a bad thing at all. People who have nothing in life, religion gives them hope. It can also make people change so is a very powerful tool - just not a tool to be used to try and make everything equal and compassionate as they differ greatly, even if originally that is what they were intended to do.

[1a2bcio8]

I don't get this 'lets all be equal' thing..If we where all equal why would any of us ever feel the need to strive..Why would you even bother getting up in a morning..You NEED inequality..

I think the point is equality in difference, not equality in making everyone the same. A common confusion regarding equality of the sexes is that they should homogenise to achieve this. Really equality of the sexes means respecting the differences that exists between the sexes as equally valuable in their own ways.

Currently we live in a culture whereby your worth amounts to your status (wealth, title, fame, etc.). Yet there is worth in all the types of people that exist, that don't possess those things. We're certainly not going to achieve an equality of difference as long as we apply our degree of worth to factors such as wealth, titles and fame. There's worth in difference which is essentially the spice of life. Difference makes things interesting

edit: Danny, I think this responds to your post as well

Edited November 13, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Danny@phatworks]

I think the point is equality in difference, not equality in making everyone the same. A common confusion regarding equality of the sexes is that they should homogenise to achieve this. Really equality of the sexes means respecting the differences that exists between the sexes as equally valuable in their own ways.

Currently we live in a culture whereby your worth amounts to your status (wealth, title, fame, etc.). Yet there is worth in all the types of people that exist, that don't possess those things. We're certainly not going to achieve an equality of difference as long as we apply our degree of worth to factors such as wealth, titles and fame. There's worth in difference which is essentially the spice of life. Difference makes things interesting

edit: Danny, I think this responds to your post as well

Well put! I can kind of make sense of that now, thanks Ben. Referring to your original post now: "It's a shame that a prejudice about religion will stop people missing what's most important about the charter." Think that sums it up nicely for me. This has required some serious outside of the box thinking (for me anyway ha) to get to grips with - or maybe thats the heart and soul of the charter? and that the reference to religion is a subject that is so powerful because of the positives and negatives to it, it could enforce a more compassionate world.

[1a2bcio8]

Well put! I can kind of make sense of that now, thanks Ben. Referring to your original post now: "It's a shame that a prejudice about religion will stop people missing what's most important about the charter." Think that sums it up nicely for me. This has required some serious outside of the box thinking (for me anyway ha) to get to grips with - or maybe thats the heart and soul of the charter? and that the reference to religion is a subject that is so powerful because of the positives and negatives to it, it could enforce a more compassionate world.

Yeah, I think from our general position, the effort of developing compassion requires a lot from us. Love and compassion is unfortunately not the norm in our culture or at least they are not strong characteristics. I know I often struggle to make the intellectual and moral efforts to think and be a way that is healthy for myself and others because I'm going against deepy ingrained attitudes that I have developed through life.

"the reference to religion is a subject that is so powerful because of the positives and negatives to it, it could enforce a more compassionate world." - I think this is a good point. In the sense of what religion can potentially teach (compassion) and where religion can be said to have gone wrong or been used wrong. The teaching and history of religion can indicate a lot about human nature and its potential for and against compassion. Whatever it is that gets us to a more compassionate world is worth using I think.

[MikeCottTrials]

Religion makes me sick

For the reason that its simply myths that where told a couple thousand (or more) years ago. They have then been told to generation after generation with parents inadvertently or on purpose indoctrinating their children in to believing myths that are quite frankly ridiculous.

For me there is no argument over this, it simply is

Therefore anything with any kind of religious twist, whether it is doing good or not, is of no importance to me

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Ive read through the website and all that, I just dont get it at all?

Ditto. Compassion to whom? To the knife carrying teenage murderers out there? The paedophiles and rapists? The suicide bombers? The Muslims who follow sharia law ensuring that a woman who is gang raped is then stoned or flogged for adultery?

As has been said, anything with links to religion is almost certainly set for failure. People are different. Unfortunately religion only helps to pinpoint those differences and drive a wedge between people of different faiths... it's basically unavoidable so long as religion exists. Even people of the same religion tend to want to murder each other (think Catholics vs. Protestants in Ireland, Shiites vs. Sunni's in wherever they happen to want to kill each other).

As has been said, I don't get it I'm afraid, Mike!

Edit: Before Ben reads this and reiterates that religion itself isn't evil... for sure, but it's definitely the best excuse people have used over the years for being f**king terrible to each other isn't it?!

Also amusing that the spellchecker wants to change anzo to Nazi!!

[1a2bcio8]

Ditto. Compassion to whom? To the knife carrying teenage murderers out there? The paedophiles and rapists? The suicide bombers? The Muslims who follow sharia law ensuring that a woman who is gang raped is then stoned or flogged for adultery?

As has been said, anything with links to religion is almost certainly set for failure. People are different. Unfortunately religion only helps to pinpoint those differences and drive a wedge between people of different faiths... it's basically unavoidable so long as religion exists. Even people of the same religion tend to want to murder each other (think Catholics vs. Protestants in Ireland, Shiites vs. Sunni's in wherever they happen to want to kill each other).

As has been said, I don't get it I'm afraid, Mike!

Edit: Before Ben reads this and reiterates that religion itself isn't evil... for sure, but it's definitely the best excuse people have used over the years for being f**king terrible to each other isn't it?!

Also amusing that the spellchecker wants to change anzo to Nazi!!

HELLO DAVE!

You're right, it has been a quite awesome excuse for a range of awful activities. However, this isn't the case for all religions such as Buddhism (for the most part), so it's not a given. Additionally, it's not a given in the sense that at any time that some people were using it for undesirable ends, others were using it for desirable ones. Also, certain views of religion like the one I support can render any attempts to utilize it in horrific ways, based on crazed confusion, rather meaningless and pointless. I'm also curious if religion had never existed, perhaps some other ideological practice would have simply taken its place? If the underlying motives remain the same any ideology can be called to use? Again, political ideology as a potential springs to mind especially with reference to the last century and this one thus far (Cold War, Middle East, etc.). I see where you are coming from though but I don't think it's set in stone that religion will only fudge everything up. There are variables that, if present, would better avoid the confused craziness and shrewd utilization of religion for ends such as power, profit, etc. Religion properly understood and properly practiced is perhaps the best variable for religion not going against what it most fundamentally stands for. Perhaps that doesn't even really need to be said though. I strongly believe though that in terms of our potential health we'd be a lot poorer if religion wasn't there. That doesn't neccesarily mean mass organised religion which isn't important but religion in the sense of a system which teaches us to come to terms with our siutation regarding the differing dimensions of our existence (which includes love, compassion, understanding, etc.). I've learnt a much healthier attitude to life through considering religion than I previously had from the secular world.

Regarding compassion and where we should place it, the idea is to give it to all that we can. Even those that you might call your enemy. I for one support this idea because I strongly believe it will contribute to a better world. I would prefer my approach to people to be motivated by love and understanding, regardless of whoever is on the receiving end. That doesn't mean I can't stand up for myself, it's just that I can do so whilst love and understanding are present. Their presence also makes me a happier person that the presence of hate, fear, etc. which will dominate in absence of the former qualities.

Anyway, it's good to get back the circular debate, eh? I'm willing to repeat myself though because I think these are incredibly important points regarding where we are going as a people on this planet. You may hate that it might be so, but religion (with some being better than others) offers a great method of cultivating attitudes which would allow for a healthier species and as a consequence a healthier planet. I guess though that you feel it's incredibly important that religion should be derailed given its potential for harm. Just remember the car analogy of healthy and unhealthy use. Perhaps a more salient analogy is the penis however. It can be used for great awesomeness or great harm. Given the awesomeness, I vote to keep the penis whilst instead emphasising the approach to penis usage, to cultivate more widespread awesomeness.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Regarding compassion and where we should place it, the idea is to give it to all that we can. Even those that you might call your enemy. I for one support this idea because I strongly believe it will contribute to a better world. I would prefer my approach to people to be motivated by love and understanding, regardless of whoever is on the receiving end. That doesn't mean I can't stand up for myself, it's just that I can do so whilst love and understanding are present. Their presence also makes me a happier person that the presence of hate, fear, etc. which will dominate in absence of the former qualities.

Spreading compassion and love is all very well for intelligent, rational, fairly well educated people like you and I but I think falls apart when you consider wider society and the sort of sickos out there (completely forgetting the religion thing) such as the knife carrying retards, child abuser, animal cruelty proponents and even chavs who have zero respect for anything or anyone. These sort of people need less compassion shown towards them, not more...

[1a2bcio8]

Spreading compassion and love is all very well for intelligent, rational, fairly well educated people like you and I but I think falls apart when you consider wider society and the sort of sickos out there (completely forgetting the religion thing) such as the knife carrying retards, child abuser, animal cruelty proponents and even chavs who have zero respect for anything or anyone. These sort of people need less compassion shown towards them, not more...

The appropriate question here is what differences arise between showing compassion and not showing compassion to such individuals? Each choice in that regard has consequences. I really subscribe to the idea that our contribution in terms of emotional behaviour (love or hate as a basic exmaple) have differing consequences in a broad socio-psychological sense. How am I most likely to establish strong communication and influence others with regards to creating better human health and sanity? When somebody approaches you from the position of hate, what's your more common response? Likewise, if somebody approaches you from a position of love, what's your more common response? We have a lot less control over ourselves when we are immersed in hate which is like a tunnel vision. I feel most sane when I'm engaged in love in the sense of wanting to give my understanding and concern for others. This mostly excludes romantic "love" which often relates to infatuation, lust and a game of sorts. Intellect is predominently unimportant in this sense, in the way that intellect is irrelevant to the contagiousness of laughter. We are emotional beings that innately respond to the emotional states of others. Thus, the more each of us works on our healthy emotional states and repsonses to others, the more we can cultivate a better, general socio-psychological health founded on emotions and behaviours such as love, compassion, understanding, selflessness, etc. I certainly feel at my most healthy when I'm engaged in those states and behaviours. Unfortunately, it's not easy given the general theme of the cultures we currently live in, and the states of others and my current self (selfish, delluded, hating, etc.) which means frequent failure. Socio-psychological cause and effect.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[anzo]

Hmmm, seems to me like some world peace speech - world peace, as nice as it sounds, can't work.

Fair enough, you can write out this charter but the only people who actually care about it are the once who are 'compassionate' regardless, so its basically preaching to the choir.

People won't hear of this and personally make the change; its not powerful, influentual or strong enough to make any change at all...in my opinion anyway.

For compassion you require tolerance and understanding; something which cannot be forced or encouraged.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Unfortunately I think Nazi's right.

[anzo]

Unfortunately I think Nazi's right.

Eh?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Eh?

Also amusing that the spellchecker wants to change anzo to Nazi!!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[1a2bcio8]

Hmmm, seems to me like some world peace speech - world peace, as nice as it sounds, can't work.

Fair enough, you can write out this charter but the only people who actually care about it are the once who are 'compassionate' regardless, so its basically preaching to the choir.

People won't hear of this and personally make the change; its not powerful, influentual or strong enough to make any change at all...in my opinion anyway.

For compassion you require tolerance and understanding; something which cannot be forced or encouraged.

It's self fulfilling when you say it can't work, you don't try and then it obviously doesn't happen. The point is, you're now heard about it and it offers the chance for you to change yourself. It's about what you do yourself that matters because that has secondary consequences with regards to other people.

The only constant is change. The cultural condition has differed across the time of civilization, which is linked to the changing of ideas and emotional conditions of people, amongst other things. If we begin to adopt idea of compassion, then we begin to become more compassionate. This doesn't neccesarily mean world peace, which may or may not be possible, but it could very easily mean a better world condition. This is especially in the sense of how selfishly we are raping the world for our present time, with little or no consideration of other species and the humans that will follow us. We're hurtling toward destruction and compassion, love, etc. offer potential solutions. Ultimately it's a choice. We all contribute with respect to our ideas and emotional conditions/behaviour.

Life has so much potential when we realise how ideas of what is and what is not possible, held before even properly trying on a personal level, cause us to become stuck in the situation that we currently reside. It's amusing for me as well because it's the mentality that I adopt when I'm suffering from depression where I decide I am stuck in this situation and that's that. Despite glaring evidence to the contrary that I do experience states of happiness and contentment. The glaring evidence of the potential for broad societal compassion is evidenced by the fact that some people do practice and suceed in compassion, love, etc. This obviously relates to what is possible as a human being. In that sense, we all have the potential to cultivate healthier lifestyles for ourselves and consequently for others. But saying something is not possible before trying and then not trying is simply acting in the way that creates the evidence for what you think. rather than offering evidence through actual testing (which relates to a more scientific mentality). I do not definitely know what is possible but I'd at least like to try and attempt making the world a more pleasant and healthy place for myself and those around me.

It seems to me at the moment that we are all quite mentally ill. One of the strongest drives we possess, survival, we are ignoring for short lived gains. The trouble is, when everyone is mentally ill it all seems normal and not really a problem.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[anzo]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Ahhh, haha.

It's self fulfilling when you say it can't work, you don't try and then it obviously doesn't happen. The point is, you're now heard about it and it offers the chance for you to change yourself.

Its the whole 'one man can change the world' thing though. I don't want to change the world.

I'm happy, I don't intentially seek out to upset people, nore do I really get offended by many things I hear about. In a rather selfish way I don't care about racists, murders, peadophiles, religion or anything like that because it hasn't directly influenced my life; at least not in any way I can tell. I couldn't point out one of those things thats made my life take a different course of action or has held me back in anyway.

Although surely some people don't want compassion?

Perhaps a bit of a silly comparison, but for me, it details why this will not make a difference.

Edited November 16, 2009 by anzo