Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RussBLib

(9,693 posts)
26. to me, Karen Armstrong does not simply analyze religious thought
Sun Feb 28, 2016, 07:43 PM
Feb 2016

She is one of the primary apologists on the scene today. She is so prolific that I'm afraid people confuse quantity with quality.

To say that violence is caused by multiple factors is a no-brainer to most people, but Armstrong strives to exonerate religion from any culpability. It's always something else, like nationalism, or colonialism, or religious members not even fully understanding their own religion.

I remember that she claimed that the 9/11 attackers didn't even understand their own religion. Ah, of course, they were not "truly Islamic" according to Armstrong. She's one of the biggest defenders of Islam around. If only people really took the time to study their religions more deeply, we'd be better off. Well, probably.

I've studied them long enough to realize they are mostly all based on bullshit, and all the scholarship in the world exploring the contributions of religion to society and the intricate interactions between a government, a church and their members isn't going to change that fact. Study it all you want.

My time is much better spent elsewhere.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Never heard of it Cartoonist Feb 2016 #1
Karen Armstrong is a notable exponent of it muriel_volestrangler Feb 2016 #2
Armstrong = the Kim Kardashian of theology onager Feb 2016 #4
Onager, I beg to differ. Nitram Feb 2016 #7
Well, differ away! onager Feb 2016 #9
OK, onager, I get it. Analysis of religious thought makes you very, very angry. Nitram Feb 2016 #10
Actually, it makes me LMAO. onager Feb 2016 #15
You're use of language does not indicate amusement. It suggests deep anger. Nitram Feb 2016 #17
Anyone who says this: muriel_volestrangler Feb 2016 #18
Hi Muriel. Tell me what do you make of onager's language in regard to Armstrong: Nitram Feb 2016 #19
Don't quit your day job. onager Feb 2016 #25
So posting on DU is your day job onager? Figures. nt Nitram Feb 2016 #29
And your use of language indicates projection. cleanhippie Feb 2016 #27
Using words like "puke" to describe a respected author's writing is projection? Nitram Feb 2016 #28
Yes. You should do that. cleanhippie Feb 2016 #30
This is the atheist and agnostic group awoke_in_2003 Feb 2016 #20
There is a difference between belief in God and the study of religious thought. Nitram Feb 2016 #24
to me, Karen Armstrong does not simply analyze religious thought RussBLib Feb 2016 #26
That's just the kind of doublethink that annoys me about Armstrong muriel_volestrangler Feb 2016 #13
Have you ever read E.M. Forster on Plotinus? onager Feb 2016 #16
"...just another guess..." Iggo Feb 2016 #12
Exactly. Iggo Feb 2016 #11
you're making him nonexistent. AlbertCat Feb 2016 #14
It's both sensible and silly whatthehey Feb 2016 #3
grasping at straws? RussBLib Feb 2016 #5
Isn't this already written into the rules of their game?... NeoGreen Feb 2016 #6
Great post! mountain grammy Feb 2016 #8
What is SITC? nt awoke_in_2003 Feb 2016 #21
stay in the closet (nt) NeoGreen Feb 2016 #22
Ah, thank you. nt awoke_in_2003 Feb 2016 #23
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Atheists & Agnostics»What's your opinion on ap...»Reply #26