by Paul R. Lehto
Reflecting on our noble and flawed history, and also reflecting on the present "debate" on "separation" of church and state has led me to realize that America is founded upon deeply and broadly shared, even universally shared, principles and spiritual insights, the most fundamental of which is the Golden Rule. I'd like to introduce you all to what I call "The Golden Rule of Democracy" -- to be used as a guidestar for what is truly in the spirit of our American Revolutionary War and what is not.
The formulation of the classic Golden Rule (found in various forms in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism, and many other spiritual traditions) can be stated as follows:
"Love others as you love yourself," or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In fact, Galatians 5 and Leviticus 19 both recite that this command is akin to or equivalent to and sums up "the whole of the Law."
(NOTE: if you'd like the formulation of the Golden Rule for another tradition, PM me as I may already have it and can give it to you, or if you have one PM and send it to me!)
The Golden Rule is even solidly based in completely "rational" secular philosophy. For example, starting from the self-evident proposition that we ALL think our own lives have some significance or importance as evidenced by our continual attempts to stay alive and/or prosper, legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin writes in "Law's Empire:"
"The objective importance of our own life can not reasonably be thought to exist without recognizing that every other human being feels similarly and has a similar objective importance."
This, too, is a philosophical basis for the Golden Rule, as well as the equality principle. Thus, regardless of whether one considers oneself a believer in any faith tradition or not, the Golden Rule's application is inclusive of ALL. In fact, especially for faith believers, they must by definition treat ALL as they would wish themselves treated, so the spiritual content of this post need not make atheists fear for their rights or freedom of thought.
Now, please examine below some of what I assert are hundreds of examples of important principles and quotes in American history that can be understood as practical applications of the Golden Rule, thus creating the overarching term I believe I'm coining (in the sense I use it here) of "The Golden Rule of Democracy:"
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the differences, is no democracy."
Note, that from the above we see the
equality principle as the basis for TRUE democracy. The reciprocity, or the "do unto others" principle is in the quote very clearly.
In the interest of not bouncing around too much and, instead of that, showing some of the depth of penetration of the Golden Rule into American history and principles, I'll mostly stick with Lincoln quotes here. How about this:
This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
As applied the Golden Rule of Democracy has a bit of a sword to it as well, at least the sword of wit, which Lincoln certainly had:
I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should first be those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others. Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.--Abraham Lincoln, Address to Indiana Regiment, March 17, 1865
and, it is applied to ALL LAWS:
We lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience. --Thomas Jefferson
THIS PARAGRAPH FOR THOSE WHO THINK AMERICAN HISTORY "TOO FLAWED": Too many people get sidetracked by others' violations of core American principles, but for now, since the messenger does not and can not discredit or make "impure" the principle (though you, dear reader, might be fooled into this state) I'm ignoring for reasons of length all the "hypocrisy" attacks on core American principles. I'll only add the very important fact that, since the Founders of this country consciously intended and wrote that they were fighting for the freedom of all humanity, and for all posterity (i.e. for "all time") they NECESSARILY had to set forth principles that were not achieved or achievable during THEIR TIME. So yes, some held slaves, but they were from young age to old age trying to rid the country of the whole system. At the end of the Revolutionary War the country was armed to the teeth, and it ultimately took 650,000 American dead to settle the slavery question. to expect it to be magically settled around the time of 1776 of the 1789 Constitution is, to say the least, asking quite a bit. In defense of Jefferson in particular, he was in deep debt lifelong due to public service, and if you think you can let your major "property" go free or sell it without paying off the banks and without their consent, you are in for a surprise my friend -- it is the workers (slaves) who make all the money in an enterprise so no bank was going to allow Jefferson to follow his principles, the slaves being far more valuable for years of work than sold as chattel slaves.)
Finally, though, one reason we get so confused about church and state issues is that there's lots of evidence that this is a SPIRITUAL NATION, but some want to make it a specifically Christian nation -- a thing FOunders wanted to avoid in the interests of both avoiding sectarian warfare, as well as making the churches free of the government...
It also follows, as a "negative corollary", that
"If he who has the gold rules, then it ain't no democracy!" --Paul R Lehto
--------------------------------------------------
In any event, I could, and am, writing a book on the Golden Rule of Democracy, so I had better stop here. Just ya'll to know that this is a very rich vein of analysis, and perhaps some of you can ask questions, add quotes, or otherwise respond with pointers or even critiques that may help clarify the thinking here. Feel free to post your thoughts, even if you don't consider them fully developed. I'm interested in any responses, by PM or via reply below. THanks.