The phrase in the OP is what I said it was in the OP. The notion in this subthread is a separate matter and doesn't diminish the OP's intent.

We can talk about LOTS of things the Catholic Church does that are in opposition to our views as liberals. What we shouldn't do is condemn on a blanket basis.

And when the church is in the midst of a massive change for the better, when it is reaching it's olive branch and when it has a leader who is working to bring his church into the 21st century, I think we should accept this in the spirit it is given. Work for change, but when you are seeing real progress right in front of your eyes, believe in the change. Accept the change. Welcome the change. Then fight for more change.

I'm former Catholic turned atheist with a bisexual daughter. All I am seeing out of this pope is progress, humility, and a willingness to go further.

former catholic here,too. he is moving at breakneck speed in an institution that normally moves in geological time. perhaps people not as familiar with the faith do not appreciate this.

kudos to him.

From there flow the others.

Exactly!!! THIS is what I think, as well. Francis is a beginning, and we should embrace him and be grateful for him for standing up to the establishment that is and has been the Catholic doctrine. Change is always slow to come, but as you so eloquently stated, welcome the little that flows and fight for more.

Great post! Thank you!

In fact, VERY well said!

There is so much anti-catholic fervor on this board, that we fail to recognize someone trying to reform when we see it. Yes, the Pope fails many litmus tests we have. But he is moving his organization in a better direction. And like it or not, that is a good thing, because that organization has enormous influence.

Taoism

Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss" (T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien).

As does Judaism, Hinduism, and any other "ism".

“In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.”
Lord Mahavir 24th Tirthankara

jainism

Also a completely and totally secular message.

Does not require anything supernatural, or spiritual. No gods or goddesses or rituals required.

Read Anton LaVay's material...or the Virtues of Selfness by Ayn Rand.
Or examine the sociopath's belief system.
They are a faith too...and they have their gods and goddesses too.

What ARE you talking about?

To follow the "golden rule" still requires no gods or goddesses or anything supernatural.

We all have faith in something whether a god is involved or not.
But not all believe in the golden rule gods or not...and in fact reject it gods or not.
That is my point.

No, but just like in real life, they are superfluous.

It probably predates most of them.

Confucianism (a secular ethical system). Taoism, Buddhism, Baha'i, Hinduism and probably other philosophies with which I am unacquainted.

Ain't need no pope for that.

more dense individuals in congress.

Good starting point, but there are situations in which it doesn't work. Take, for example, piecework rates: if I am a highly-productive worker, I might well want "others" to pay me piecework rates, yet unions have always denounced them as hurting the average worker.

-- Mal

Your hypothetical goal is to obtain a benefit for yourself, but The Rule's intent is to get you to share benefits with others without expectation of reward.

Instead of saying "I'm not paid what I think I deserve because others won't let me be paid that way," you should instead say "I pay that person what she believes she's worth because that's how I would want to be paid."


Sure, you can lawyer-ize anything and make it fail, but your formulation is incompatible with essence of The Golden Rule, so it's not a good example.

"Don't punch down."

I haven't heard it put this way. So simple. I'm thinking of a way it fails yet it seems like an excellent rule of thumb. Once again, I appreciate you sharing this. Short phrases like this seem to stick with me.

But it's so succinct and elegant that I can't help thinking of it.

Billions around the world are far ahead of him in this way. Time for him to catch up so we can add another billions to the fight for equality. That is how powerful he can be. With his words alone he can add a billion to the fight for equality overnight. He chooses not to.

Do NOT do unto others what you would not want done unto you. (Or as in the Jewish Talmud, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.&quot

"Do unto others" is a little too active and presumptuous for my taste. Maybe the other person doesn't want done to them what you would want done to you. For example, a devout Christian might say, "If I did not know Jesus, I would want someone to show me." Apply the traditional Golden Rule to that, and you have proselytization. But unlike that person, I don't want to be Saved, thank you very much.

Wow! I thought I was, but you beat me by a mile!

He was very pragmatic. If we could just get people to always be polite...that would be good enough. And if you really think about it...he was on to something.

Personally I've always found the golden rule to be terribly flawed, and a cause of many problems. I get that it's about compassion...

But it's far better to ascertain what the other person wants, not what we would want. We're treating others the way we would want to be treated, rather than checking in to see how they want to be treated. Different people, different wants. It generalizes, and can be seen as a source of many problems between different peoples.

Can I sum that up for a bumper sticker? Not sure. Maybe someone else can. I've seriously seen this as a huge foundational problem for a long time now, we need The Golden Rule II, or better yet a different name that is more organic.

I'd suggest Do Unto Others As They Want, but I guess the problem there is they don't necessarily want something they should have. That's also a problem with the original, though, doing for them what we would want done to us, we don't always want done to us what should be dones to us. So maybe this revision works a little better than the old one, though I don't think it's the perfect phrasing by any means.