By DONALD DeMARCO
The great moral maxim, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” from a historical perspective, is perhaps the most highly respected of all moral maxims. It did not originate with Christianity, as some may believe, but was a component of Greek philosophy, Judaism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. Its equally binding corollary is “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.”
Underlying this honored principle is the notion of human equality. No person should arrogate to himself the right to do something to another person that he would not have that person do to him.
Religion reinforces this notion since all human beings are created by the same God, no one person being more human than any other.
Abraham Lincoln exemplified the Golden Rule when he remarked: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” In making this enunciation, America’s 16th president was also underscoring his belief in democracy. Both slavery and the ownership of a person are clearly incompatible with the Gold Rule. So, too, is political despotism.
Bassanio, in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, demonstrated wisdom when he stated: “All that glitters is not gold.” Glitter made him suspicious. He would have no reason, however, to be suspicious about the proposition “All that is gold glitters.” The Golden Rule, being of a golden kind, does glitter, as does any moral truth. St. John Paul II used the expression “Splendor of Truth” as the title of the encyclical in which he devoted his most concerted attention to moral principles. Gold should glitter, and truth should radiate a certain splendor. A serious moral problem arises when their shine and splendor, respectively, are not perceived as such.
The word “glitterati,” refers to glamorous people who attend fashionable events. It is a hybrid of “glitter” and “literati” and is usually used pejoratively, although in a sophisticated way, to describe people who are all show and little substance. The glitterati, in other words, are not gold. They do not personify the “gold” of the Golden Rule. They presume to be superior to others the way the ancient sophists presumed to be wise.
Hollie McKay, writing for FoxNews.com, claims that in order to be pro-life, one must “go against the grain of the glitterati.” It is hardly a secret, she states, concerning abortion, that “the majority of Hollywood stars are strong advocates of a woman’s right to choose.”
Advocates of abortion, however, are not ambassadors of the Golden Rule. Glitter alone does not serve the real character needs of the denizens of Tinsel Town. The Greek playwright Aeschylus said it well long ago: “Ah, lives of men! When prosperous they glitter — Like a fair picture; when misfortune comes — A wet sponge at one blow has blurred the painting.”
Just as Abraham Lincoln would neither be a slave nor a master, so, too, no one should want to be a killer or be killed. Abortion, therefore, has removed the glitter from the Golden Rule. The abortionist does not view the unborn in an egalitarian spirit. He does not see the child in the womb as another human being who, because of his common humanity, stands against being executed. He sees his victim not as a neighbor but as a complete stranger.
Philosopher/theologian Paul Tillich, in his thoughtful book, Love, Power, and Justice, argues: “The absolutely strange cannot enter into communion. But the estranged is striving for reunion.” By making the unborn a completely “strange” entity, its communion with the mother is greatly attenuated. The unborn, in Tillich’s language, has become “estranged,” as have so many others who are not perceived to exist within the ambit of the Golden Rule.
Therefore, Tillich can say that love is “the reunion of the estranged.” Love invites the estranged, the abandoned, and the despised back into the equality that the Golden Rule demands.
By practicing the Golden Rule, a woman can say, “Since I am glad that I was not aborted by my mother, I cannot abort my own child. I was once a child in the womb. It is precisely because I rejoice in not having been aborted that I cannot deprive my own child in the womb of its opportunity for a fuller life. The Golden Rule unites me with my child and I would not do to that other what I would not want to have been done to me.”
The Golden Rule has lost much of its glitter, which is to say, its compelling attractiveness. We still have glitter, but it is the glitter than has been separated from gold.
The Golden Rule, therefore, has been replaced by the “Glitter Rule”: Do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you. Glitter can be seductive, but it can never serve as a guide for loving human relationships.
Finally, if we understand “gold” in its deeper sense as something that does not necessarily glitter, but is worthwhile and highly to be prized, we can agree with J.R.R. Tolkien who, in The Fellowship of the Ring, offers us the following sample of his poetic imagination:
“All that is gold does not glitter,/ Not all those who wander are lost;/ The old that is strong does not wither,/ Deep roots are not reached by the frost.”
+ + +
(Dr. Donald DeMarco is a senior fellow of Human Life International. He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College in Cromwell, Conn., and a regular columnist for St. Austin Review. His latest works, How to Remain Sane in a World That Is Going Mad; Ten Major Moral Mistakes and How They Are Destroying Society; and How to Flourish in a Fallen World are available through Amazon.com. Some of his recent writings may be found at Human Life International’s Truth and Charity Forum.
(He is the 2015 Catholic Civil Rights League recipient of the prestigious Exner Award.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress