Armstrong Expands on the Theme
by JoyWeek #5
The Guardian yesterday published another opinion piece by religious writer Karen Armstrong, Our Truth is Just a Bit-Player in the Tragic, Conflicted Whole. She establishes the premise in paragraph 1, offering Sophocles' two versions of Oedipus Rex to demonstrate how narratives change according to circumstance and the lesson the author wishes to teach:
At the start of the disastrous Peloponnesian war, Sophocles was trying to make Athens aware that humans can never hope to understand the full significance of their actions; there is usually an aspect of the situation that – sometimes fatally – escapes our grasp.
Armstrong is still rooting for rejection of Judeo-Christian religious narratives so that the west will come to "understand" terrorists and why they feel a need to murder innocents in the name of their Islamic religious narrative. She reminds us that our failure to understand the essential equality of Islamic beliefs arises from our desire to believe that our "scriptural mythology" represents a singular truth which makes all contradicting scriptural mythologies false. In her conclusion she urges once again to consider the counter-narratives:
We must, therefore, make a concerted attempt to listen critically to all the stories out there in order to gain a more panoptic vision. This includes our own cultural narrative. Our modernity has liberated many of us, but it has disenfranchised others. Counter-narratives that question the myth of western freedom must also be heard, because they represent a crucial element in the conflicted, tragic whole.
In the comments to this article Armstrong is taken to task by commenters who note that unlike the Judeo-Christian scriptures, the Qu'ran is quite specific on the limitations of all freedoms, the forced adherence to strict interpretations, and the killing of those foreign and domestic who will not bow to Sharia law or who reject Islam to embrace another tradition.
Even if it were acknowledged by all in the west per the religious dimensions of the struggle that the teachings of Jesus in parable allows for levels of interpretation and a continuing study that will lead to deeper understandings, the teachings of those Armstrong wishes us to embrace unreservedly are not so inclusive. What could she hope to gain by ignoring history and current reality?
Once again I am struck by Armstrong's desire that we submit to fear, then tell us we can overcome it by "understanding" Osama bin Laden's pain and suffering. The message is that WE must change our beliefs and expectations, as if by doing so Islam will lose its reason to murder us. Which, presumably, means Armstrong won't be afraid to fly anymore.
And once again it's total poppycock, almost pitiful in its desire to excuse atrocities. Armstrong – who claims to be an internationally recognized "expert" on fundamentalism – told a bald-faced lie about what "fundamentalist Christians" believe in a column last month, falsely attributing a quote she'd fished from off some obscure internet site to a noted American fundamentalist [Paul Nelson] – betraying Armstrong's significant ignorance of that which she claims to be an "expert" on, as well as a willingness to lie about it blatantly with no apparent expectation of being called to account. There is no "middle ground" to examine when both positions are framed in self-serving lies by She Who Counsels Submission to the fiction she perpetuates.
Armstrong has not apologized or explained the lie she told (that I am aware of). She has simply gone forward with that lie uncorrected, as if it is 'important' to the furtherance of her wish to absolve Islamic terrorists of responsibility for their murderous acts by blaming them on the "arrogance" and "intolerance" of mainstream fundamentalist Christians like Paul Nelson. She's still insisting that Christians admit they're wrong about their cultural "mythology" – so they will come to understand and appreciate the cultural "mythology" of Islam as peaceful and inclusive.
I don't have a religious horse to defend in Armstrong's false-face contest because I don't believe the current conflict between east and west is particularly religious. What I do believe is that there are religious pretenders in both stables stirring up fears – thus feeding hatred and encouraging more atrocities to be committed, the better to extend the conflict and further polarize the antagonists.
It makes me wonder all over again who fed Armstrong the lie she told, and why she remains silent despite having it brought to the attention of her publisher and her agents by at least three individuals, including Paul Nelson and Nick Matzke as well as myself. There are levels of gatekeeping at work here, obviously.
It makes me wonder whether she is even aware that she told a lie.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
To lie is to deliberately tell an untruth. How can anyone not be aware they have told a lie (unless they forget)?
Comment by Mark Frank — August 28, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Hi, Mark. If Armstrong didn't do her own research, and didn't bother to fact-check the material (a spurrious quote put into Paul Nelson's mouth), she might not know it's a lie. She'd have to trust the person who fed it to her, and then she'd have to be insulated from complaints about it (as lodged by Matzke, Nelson and I). I mean, surely if she knew she'd made such a glaring error of fact in one of her articles, she'd want to correct it a.s.a.p. and apologize for any damage to Nelson's reputation it may have caused.
I'm just being charitable. The undercurrent of real fear in Armstrong's repeated theme does seem a bit pitiful to me. I'd like to think that as an ex-nun and contemplative person, she's harboring a hefty submissive streak already as part of her nature. And I'd like to think someone she trusts but who is ultimately untrustworthy fed her this lie, because I can't imagine she's dishonest enough to do it herself on purpose.
But nobody pays me for psychoanalysis and I claim no expertise. I've just been quite stumped about why she has not yet apologized. That would certainly seem to be well within character, don't you think?
Comment by Joy — August 28, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Given my Judeo/Christian upbringing, it's important to me to know who to blame here: The Guardian, the publisher, or Armstrong. At least one of these parties is going to Hell…eternal, lake of fire…no 70 virgins…the whole 9 yards.
Comment by Bilbo — August 28, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Maybe I better add that I was just kidding. I forget that not everybody knows me.
Comment by Bilbo — August 28, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Really? On what rational grounds do you believe "that there are religious pretenders in both stables stirring up fears – thus feeding hatred and encouraging more atrocities to be committed …." On what grounds should we see this statement as other than reflecting a milder version of Miss Armstrong's position?
This is quite the bizarre statement: as Mark Frank has pointed out, one cannot unawaredly tell a lie: one cannot accidentally lie.
Bilbo:""¦no 70 virgins"¦"
I thought it was 72.
Comment by Ilion — August 28, 2006 @ 7:38 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
You need not see anything as I do, Ilion. I don't expect you to. Ms. Armstrong can tell a lie if she was passed a lie, as easily as she could have gone hunting for it herself. I don't know what's true apart from the falsehood published under her byline, since she has not deigned to speak on the subject. I'm just noticing she's still expounding on the theme, and is nowhere near the "expert" she claims to be so long as that lie is still out there unexplained.
I never said she told it by "accident." It's sheer, unadulterated incompetence at best. At worst, it's deliberate. Are you willing to make an accusation stronger than that? And if not, don't bug me with your nit-picking. I'm not playing that game.
Comment by Joy — August 28, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
So often — more often than not — accusations of "nitpicking" and "playing word games" and "mere semantics" are tossed around by those know themselves to be in the wrong, semantically speaking, but have decided to refuse to acknowledge it.
I think you may be aware of another, terser, way of saying that.
Comment by Ilion — August 28, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
And that means… what? Call her a liar if that's what you believe, Ilion. The word has been bandied some, and appears to be an accurate statement. The attribution in that column to Paul Nelson was wrong. Flat-out, unequivocably wrong. Thus a lie, and one that 5 weeks later is still unacknowledged despite direct communications with Armstrong's gatekeepers about it. Matzke said The Guardian claimed it was "opinion," and they don't care about lies expressed as opinion. I informed her agents that more was at stake.
I do not really presume she doesn't know. I'm mostly just wondering why she thinks it will be forgotten.
Comment by Joy — August 28, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
The attribution was false and the failure to take corrective measures is morally wrong. Misquoting is not an opinion. The writer and her publication keep spinning themselves ever more deeply into trouble.
Comment by Bradford — August 28, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
The human beings in this case are Karen Armstrong and those responsible for the publication that hosts her stories. Accusations impugning their integrity can be made based on the facts of the case. What is most disturbing to me is not the initial quote as bad as that was. The failure to acknowledge the problem and take corrective action compounds the initial incident. This failure is an ongoing process that will remain an albatross around Armstrong's neck untill she does something about it. The ball is in her court.
Comment by Bradford — August 28, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
August 29th, 2006 at 8:01 am
I have to agree with Joy and Bradford. I became a fan of Armstrong's after reading The Sprial Staircase. Now I'm not so sure.
I'm quite puzzled as to why she hasn't addressed this.
Comment by Lutepisc — August 29, 2006 @ 8:01 am
August 29th, 2006 at 10:53 am
I know this will probably consign me to eternal perdition, but I saw a T-shirt the other day and, unbidden, the name "Ilion" flashed in my head the instant I saw it:
JESUS LOVES YOU
(The rest of us think you're an a**hole)
Lord help me.
Comment by takuan — August 29, 2006 @ 10:53 am
August 29th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Hi, Lutespic. I haven't read Armstrong's books, but have heard that she's a good writer. We could use more interfaith dialogue in this shrinking world, so I'm glad there are writers and thinkers and journalists encouraging that. What we don't need from such people are lies and deception. There's enough of that in regular politics to tide us all over for a lifetime.
There are several scenarios we could imagine that might explain how the misquote found its way into the published essay. Nelson's a notable figure in the ID vs. NDE debates, which is not an area of Armstrong's expertise. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that an EA ideologue passed the fake quote to Armstrong at a seminar or such, hoping to later capitalize on it (even if just to discredit Armstong herself as a popular apologist for theism). I would expect that she knows – and trusts – the source quite well, since she didn't feel a need to check authenticity.
There are radical elements of Christianity, but how often do they detonate themselves in a crowded marketplace or blow up public transportation or fly hijacked airliners into buildings? Falsely attributing the words of a radical fringe website to Paul Nelson was bound to be caught, so I doubt a careful scholar like Armstrong would knowingly publish such a lie or expect to get away with it.
Fact is, NCSE publicist Nick Matzke was on it as soon as it appeared on The Guardian's website. He noted the error in The Guardian comments, complained directly to their editors, publicized it on Panda's Thumb, and participated in several threads to the topic here at Telic Thoughts. I do not presume that defending Nelson's sterling reputation was his motivation.
I disagree with Armstrong's opinions about terrorism, but I've no personal animosity to pursue. I don't mind if Armstrong tries to meditate up some peace-of-mind about being a target of the terrorists she claims to understand so well. What she can't do is libel Paul Nelson and expect not to have to explain herself.
She's got a good handle on the whole victimization excuse ("it's not my fault!"). Let's hear it.
Comment by Joy — August 29, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
August 29th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
If Armstrong is such an expert on "Christian fundamentalism", then what's her explanation for not being a Christian fundamentalist?
Comment by Douglas — August 29, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 1:04 am
First:
Others don't act that way. Jonathan Wells is still out flacking his calumnous claims against Bernard Kettlewell's work.
I suppose we should expect higher ethics from scholars who understand evolution than from creationists and IDists — it's a double-standard, but a good one. Still, without anyone on the other side leading the way, how's Armstrong to know which way to go?
Comment by edarrell — August 30, 2006 @ 1:04 am
August 30th, 2006 at 1:33 am
"I know this will probably consign me to eternal perdition, but …"
Then it would seem to me that you reasonably believe you ought not do something you're apparently about to do. If you are determined to to what you reasonably believe will consign you to eternal perdition, the only advice I can offer is: "Take it like a man." That is, if/when you do find yourself consigned to eternal perdition, there really will be no point, nor possibility of good coming from it, to whine about how "unfair" it all is. And, such whining would be so indicative of immaturity, and worse, perhaps.
I must admit to *extreme* confusion here. While it is doubtless true that it wouldn't take a great deal of cajoling on your part to convince me to say to you "JESUS LOVES YOU," I honestly can't think of any inducement that could possibly convince me to tell you that I "think you're an a**hole" (nor to assert that everyone else does, also).
"Lord help me."
Recognizing that you need the Lord's help is the first step to recovery … and de-consignment from eternal perdition.
Comment by Ilion — August 30, 2006 @ 1:33 am
August 30th, 2006 at 1:57 am
Once again, we see that Joy is well aware — she *knows* — that she herself is in the wrong in accusing Armstrong of being a "liar."
As I made clear in posts yesterday — which posts were first tossed down the "memory hole" and have since been totally deleted, apparently by Joy herself — not one of us *knows* that Armstrong lied in making the false attribution to Paul Nelson. Not one of us *knows* that Armstrong is even yet aware of the false nature of what she wrote.
But we all do know that *Joy* is making accusations about Armstrong that she knows to be false. And we do have good reason to believe that *Joy* has intentionally deleted posts calling her to task for her intentional spreading of falsehood.
Comment by Ilion — August 30, 2006 @ 1:57 am
August 30th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Hi Ilion. If lying includes intention then you have a point albeit a technical one. The common useage of lie equates to untruth. I'm aware that there are actual differences in meaning but I've also observed that when people claim that a lie was told their intention is focused on the untruth rather than the secondary intention (in a grammatical sense) of the conveyor of the untruth. Were this a court case I can readily envision an attorney making the case that intent is not necessarily confined to a speaker or writer of the words in question. One can be logically consistent in arguing that intent was undeniably present in the Armstrong case even if the intent was not with Armstrong herself. It would have then be attributable to her source. In any case the real harm continues to accrue not just to the victim of Armstrong's untruth but to Armstrong herself.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2006 @ 10:56 am
August 30th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Strange, Joy's other post, in which she explained that the purpose of this thread was to get Armstrong to retract her comment but that effort was derailed by a certain poster, disappeared almost before I had a chance to read it. It was very interesting; I wonder if Joy is still leaving TT?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 30, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 11:16 am
"(yada,yada)… if/when you do find yourself consigned to eternal perdition, there really will be no point, nor possibility of good coming from it, to whine about how "unfair" it all is."
Um, Ilion… Who's whining?
Comment by takuan — August 31, 2006 @ 11:16 am
August 31st, 2006 at 6:35 pm
"(yada, yada, yada)"
Did I say *anyone* is whinning at this moment-in-time?
So, how is the tee-shirt business going? Have you learned any smart, new phrases recently.
Comment by Ilion — August 31, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
September 1st, 2006 at 9:09 am
Well, my favorite post-K T at the moment is probably "FEMA: Find Every Mexican Available."
I don't know, but the T-shirt biz is probably pretty slow… even in a normal year, this is the slow season for tourists.
Comment by takuan — September 1, 2006 @ 9:09 am