Yesterday, October 9, 2016, Conoly encouraged me to read an interesting article from the Dallas Morning News, entitled, “Why Isolation Won’t Work in Today’s World.” The Catalyst editor William McKenzie asked former President George Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair who were together attending the Little Rock Central High School’s July 2016 graduation ceremony the question, “Nativism, isolationism and protectionism are at play in both the United States and United Kingdom. What impact will those forces have on the capacity of individuals in each country to maximize their freedom?”The bottom line for both former world leaders was simple and I summarize: nativism, isolationism, and protectionism are forces that will degrade current freedoms and will impede further development of individual freedoms. I would say it this way – tribalism, nationalism, and isolationism, including war, will not work now, nor will they work in the future to ensure our freedoms or our survival and the survival of the world. Both gentlemen gave compelling reasons.

Responses by both former leaders included comments about religion – the difference between “religious people who murder the innocent,” (Bush) and true religion. Mr. Blair said, “You’ve got to distinguish between true religion that is, in all of the great faiths, about compassion, treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and belief in God as a universal and compassionate spirit. You distinguish between that and the [abused] religions, those that become abused by people in order to create this ideology….The ideology itself is a totalitarian ideology. Even though it’s got a religious covering to it, it’s very much the same as the totalitarian political, secular ideologies of the 20th century.

Former British Prime Minister Blair’s statement about true religion, compassion, and use of the Golden Rule stood out for Conoly and me. I attended the 2015 Parliament of World Religions in Salt Lake City, Utah, in October 2015. One of the last sessions I experienced was essentially a critique of the Golden Rule by the Reverend Dr. Drake Spaeth. I appreciate what he was saying about Milton Bennett’s modification of the Golden Rule, which Bennett dubbed the “Platinum Rule” : “Do until others what they would have you do unto them.” Dr. Spaeth described the rule a “paradigm shift” from the “I” of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” or, “Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you” to the “Thou” of the Platinum Rule, “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” Dr. Spaeth concluded the latter aspires toward true empathy as opposed to just sympathy, as empathy focuses more on the “Thou” of relationships. Many would argue that both rules foster empathy dynamically between the “I” and the “Thou.” Dr. Spaeth appropriately credited Martin Buber for the “I-Thou” (or “I – You” as most recently translated) inherent in the Platinum Rule.

After a great deal of thought and reflection, it seems to me we don’t need a different label such as “Platinum Rule,” which implies “better,” to capture more fully the “I-Thou” that is actually intended in the traditional Golden Rule. Indeed, with our increasing concerns with the environment, even the “I-Thou” integration in the Golden Rule is insufficient to address the cosmic reality we recognize today. A more fully understood Golden Rule that would more fully capture the reality of our cosmic ethical responsibility might read: “Do unto the other as you would have the other do until you and as the other would have you do unto them.”

Of course this can be stated in the negative as well: “Do not do to the other what you would not want done to yourself and what the other would not want done to them.” “Other” is defined as another human being or other living being, such as animal or plant, or non-living, inanimate being. For, it seems to me, the intent of the “Golden Rule” is to be in conscious relationship with self, with others, with environment, and with universal Spirit, a relationship which is true, loving, good, and beautiful.

I am immediately reminded of “3D Compassion” terminology used by my good colleague, Dr. Lesa Walker of Austin, Texas, as she teaches compassion: Compassion to self, compassion to others, compassion to the environment. Indeed, a worthy pathway for life – a hard one to achieve – one of love, compassion, forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration – a pathway that invariably leads to true peace and healing.

Charles Barker MD