Versions of the golden rule can be found in a variety of iterations around the world, and among a variety of cultures, yes? Are we making it harder than we should?
Versions of the golden rule can be found in a variety of iterations around the world, and among a variety of cultures, yes? Are we making it harder than we should?
It's one thing to write the rule down. It's another thing to follow it. And at what depth?
The really hard thing with rules, I suspect, is how you deal with failure. Maybe that's where the community has to come in.
I feel like I could write an essay on that thesis.
Versions of the golden rule can be found in a variety of iterations around the world, and among a variety of cultures, yes? Are we making it harder than we should?
Quite a lot of them express it in the negative - don't do to others what you don't want done to you - which makes more sense to me.
I accept that this does change the emphasis, along the lines of: promote human flourishing v don't prevent human flourishing. I can see why people / religions / cultures would want to stress the positive, but also how presenting a more positive injunction as a pithy maxim unhelpfully introduces uncertainties.
I would be very cautious with making broad conclusions from amateur knowledge of comparative religions.
The reality is that any system of belief that has survived for thousands of years started from a particular place and mutated into other things. Superficially phrases taken out of context might look similar but without the context this is reducing them to nonsense.
According to Simon Blackburn, the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition". A multi-faith poster showing the Golden Rule in sacred writings from 13 faith traditions (designed by Paul McKenna of Scarboro Missions, 2000) has been on permanent display at the Headquarters of the United Nations since 4 January 2002. Creating the poster "took five years of research that included consultations with experts in each of the 13 faith groups."
I think the golden rule is useful heuristic when one is unsure or teaching children. Attempts to turn it into a foundational principle of all ethics run into the problems aforementioned.
I would be very cautious with making broad conclusions from amateur knowledge of comparative religions.
The reality is that any system of belief that has survived for thousands of years started from a particular place and mutated into other things. Superficially phrases taken out of context might look similar but without the context this is reducing them to nonsense.
I agree completely, though rather than say it reduces phrases to nonsense, I’d say it typically involves imposing our own lenses on other faiths rather than considering them through their own lenses.
According to Simon Blackburn, the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition". A multi-faith poster showing the Golden Rule in sacred writings from 13 faith traditions (designed by Paul McKenna of Scarboro Missions, 2000) has been on permanent display at the Headquarters of the United Nations since 4 January 2002. Creating the poster "took five years of research that included consultations with experts in each of the 13 faith groups."
Which is the poster @LatchKeyKid linked to earlier in this thread.
But one of the “13 faith traditions” shown on that poster is “Native Spirituality.” I think, based on the symbol attached to it and the fact that the attribution is to Chief Dan George (are Chief Dan George’s writings “sacred writings” in “Native Spirituality”), that “Native Spirituality” is supposed to mean Native American—specifically Native North American/US and Canadian—spirituality. Attempting to find the Golden Rule everywhere by reducing the varied beliefs of varied colonized people—potentially colonized people all around the world—to “Native Spirituality” strikes me as very problematic. It’s one reason I dislike posters like this one.
Which is the poster @LatchKeyKid linked to earlier in this thread.
Ah - apologies, LatchKeyKid.
But one of the “13 faith traditions” shown on that poster is “Native Spirituality.” I think, based on the symbol attached to it and the fact that the attribution is to Chief Dan George (are Chief Dan George’s writings “sacred writings” in “Native Spirituality”), that “Native Spirituality” is supposed to mean Native American—specifically Native North American/US and Canadian—spirituality. Attempting to find the Golden Rule everywhere by reducing the varied beliefs of varied colonized people—potentially colonized people all around the world—to “Native Spirituality” strikes me as very problematic. It’s one reason I dislike posters like this one.
It does raise a number of questions. There's also the equivalence it depicts, and the idea that it expresses a (singular) faith position is somewhat in keeping with the spirit of the age, in which the boundaries of faith are clearly delimited. But possibly no more so than a multi-faith room in a hospital.
The story behind the poster starts thus:
On the morning of September 11th 2001 I was driving north from Toronto to Tottenham , Ontario to interview Paul McKenna about the colourful Golden Rule Poster he created, with sacred writings from 13 faith traditions, representing the overwhelming majority of the world’s peoples and cultures. As the horrible news came blaring from the radio…
And ends:
Transcending cultures, nations, and religions, the Golden Rule poster is a fitting declaration of the yearning of many to eliminate the rhetoric of racial, cultural and religious bigotry and the practice of violent attack and retribution. What we need is an ethic of generosity, peace and love in all interactions among nations, communities and individual members within our whole human family.
By which point faith itself seems to have been transcended.
Imagine being a faith leader in the aftermath of an event which has shaken the foundations of a nation. Imagine being that leader and being asked for a snapshot of your religion to be printed on a tea-towel.
With all due respect to Orthodox Judaism it looks more 'closed' to me than the average RC parish.
Maybe I am reading this the wrong way. Are you suggesting Orthodox Judaism is closed to converts?
You might want to check out Mayim Bialik who appeared in The Big Bang Theory. She is a recent convert to Orthodox Judaism. Also, novelist Faye Kellerman.
Anecdotes are not data. Your argument is equivalent to:
Bullfrog: The fellowship of the world's astronauts aren't particularly open to new members.
You: Not true. My cousin's uncle became an astronaut.
Knowing someone who converted into X religion doesn't mean it's a common thing, or an easy one to do.
You want meaningful data? Okay, I will lay it one ya:
Evidence shows that Orthodox Judaism in the U.S. is growing through conversions, and that this growth has accelerated recently.
A study of 20 Orthodox parishes in 15 states found that conversions increased sharply from 2022 to 2023, rising from an average of 89 per year (2013–2021) to 155 per year in the 2022–2023 period.
Most converts were ages 30–39, unmarried, and came from Protestant backgrounds.
Imagine being a faith leader in the aftermath of an event which has shaken the foundations of a nation. Imagine being that leader and being asked for a snapshot of your religion to be printed on a tea-towel.
No joke. Also, simple statements create ridiculously complex permutations.
I had a hypothesis that there's a conservation of complexity in social situations. You can have simple rules that require very sophisticated implementation, or you can have really complex rules that are very simple to implement.
Just look at how people have tortured the definition of the word "love" over the years.
Which is the poster @LatchKeyKid linked to earlier in this thread.
But one of the “13 faith traditions” shown on that poster is “Native Spirituality.” I think, based on the symbol attached to it and the fact that the attribution is to Chief Dan George (are Chief Dan George’s writings “sacred writings” in “Native Spirituality”), that “Native Spirituality” is supposed to mean Native American—specifically Native North American/US and Canadian—spirituality. Attempting to find the Golden Rule everywhere by reducing the varied beliefs of varied colonized people—potentially colonized people all around the world—to “Native Spirituality” strikes me as very problematic. It’s one reason I dislike posters like this one.
From an Australian perspective I find the poster does not reflect how Aboriginal first nations people would express a similar concept.
On Sunday I happened to come across a booklet by Susannah Brindle developed under the guidance of an Aboriginal elder which used the phrase "Coming Right Way" in its title as a way to understand a similar concept. (We would probably say it is about coming the right way when you meet other people.)
It is not a poster for people who want to get into a theological debate about the finer points of other's beliefs. It is there for people of good will with an inclusive approach who want to get along with and work along with people of different belief systems, including non-theistic and non-religious beliefs.
It is not a poster for people who want to get into a theological debate about the finer points of other's beliefs. It is there for people of good will with an inclusive approach who want to get along with and work along with people of different belief systems, including non-theistic and non-religious beliefs.
My problem with that is I think some people of good will find such an approach is only inclusive up to a point or that it’s only superficially inclusive, and that the inclusiveness comes at the expense of truly respecting and honoring other people and their traditions.
It has nothing to do with wanting to get into theological debate about the finer points of other’s beliefs. Rather, It’s a sense that attempting to reduce beliefs of others to the lowest common denominator just so we can say we’re inclusive is fundamentally disrespectful and and actually hinders mutual understanding rather than fostering it.
It's not to do with reducing beliefs to a common denominator, rather it's to do with a Samaritan helping anyone who needs it. Being inclusive like that is in no way fundamentally disrespectful.
Our Disaster Recovery Chaplaincy Network includes people of many different faith traditions working together.
It's not to do with reducing beliefs to a common denominator, rather it's to do with a Samaritan helping anyone who needs it. Being inclusive like that is in no way fundamentally disrespectful.
Our Disaster Recovery Chaplaincy Network includes people of many different faith traditions working together.
Comments
But yes, we all of us need to work towards achieving and maintaining that Rule irrespective of our particular religious affiliation.
And theists don't have a monopoly on good 'praxis' either.
If anything there's a dearth of it.
It's one thing to write the rule down. It's another thing to follow it. And at what depth?
The really hard thing with rules, I suspect, is how you deal with failure. Maybe that's where the community has to come in.
I feel like I could write an essay on that thesis.
I accept that this does change the emphasis, along the lines of: promote human flourishing v don't prevent human flourishing. I can see why people / religions / cultures would want to stress the positive, but also how presenting a more positive injunction as a pithy maxim unhelpfully introduces uncertainties.
The reality is that any system of belief that has survived for thousands of years started from a particular place and mutated into other things. Superficially phrases taken out of context might look similar but without the context this is reducing them to nonsense.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230611203800/https://www.scarboromissions.ca/golden-rule/the-golden-rule-poster-a-history
And see the poster itself here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230612095325/http://www.scarboromissions.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/item_34_lg.jpg
Which is the poster @LatchKeyKid linked to earlier in this thread.
But one of the “13 faith traditions” shown on that poster is “Native Spirituality.” I think, based on the symbol attached to it and the fact that the attribution is to Chief Dan George (are Chief Dan George’s writings “sacred writings” in “Native Spirituality”), that “Native Spirituality” is supposed to mean Native American—specifically Native North American/US and Canadian—spirituality. Attempting to find the Golden Rule everywhere by reducing the varied beliefs of varied colonized people—potentially colonized people all around the world—to “Native Spirituality” strikes me as very problematic. It’s one reason I dislike posters like this one.
It does raise a number of questions. There's also the equivalence it depicts, and the idea that it expresses a (singular) faith position is somewhat in keeping with the spirit of the age, in which the boundaries of faith are clearly delimited. But possibly no more so than a multi-faith room in a hospital.
The story behind the poster starts thus: And ends: By which point faith itself seems to have been transcended.
You want meaningful data? Okay, I will lay it one ya:
Evidence shows that Orthodox Judaism in the U.S. is growing through conversions, and that this growth has accelerated recently.
A study of 20 Orthodox parishes in 15 states found that conversions increased sharply from 2022 to 2023, rising from an average of 89 per year (2013–2021) to 155 per year in the 2022–2023 period.
Most converts were ages 30–39, unmarried, and came from Protestant backgrounds.
https://orthodoxtimes.com/increase-in-orthodox-conversions-in-the-usa-from-2022-to-2023/
No joke. Also, simple statements create ridiculously complex permutations.
I had a hypothesis that there's a conservation of complexity in social situations. You can have simple rules that require very sophisticated implementation, or you can have really complex rules that are very simple to implement.
Just look at how people have tortured the definition of the word "love" over the years.
From an Australian perspective I find the poster does not reflect how Aboriginal first nations people would express a similar concept.
On Sunday I happened to come across a booklet by Susannah Brindle developed under the guidance of an Aboriginal elder which used the phrase "Coming Right Way" in its title as a way to understand a similar concept. (We would probably say it is about coming the right way when you meet other people.)
It is not a poster for people who want to get into a theological debate about the finer points of other's beliefs. It is there for people of good will with an inclusive approach who want to get along with and work along with people of different belief systems, including non-theistic and non-religious beliefs.
It has nothing to do with wanting to get into theological debate about the finer points of other’s beliefs. Rather, It’s a sense that attempting to reduce beliefs of others to the lowest common denominator just so we can say we’re inclusive is fundamentally disrespectful and and actually hinders mutual understanding rather than fostering it.
Our Disaster Recovery Chaplaincy Network includes people of many different faith traditions working together.