The Clever Badger I'm not dead yet!

Do Unto Others

The Governer of Kentucky, Steve Beshear, signed the so-called Bullying Bill on April 15. The intent of this bill is to provide some measure of legal recourse for kids that are subjected to bullying at school. (This is, of course, a noble cause - kids shouldn't be afraid to go to school.)

The bill, in part, reads thus:

Amend KRS 158.440 to identify the Golden Rule as the model for improving attitude and the rule for conduct for all public school students; require school districts to have plans, policies, and procedures dealing with measures for assisting students who are engaging in disruptive and disorderly behavior, including harassment, intimidation, or bullying of another student; amend KRS 158.441 to define "harassment, intimidation, or bullying"; allow civil exchange of opinions or debate or cultural practices protected under the state or federal Constitution to be included in areas exempt from definition of "harassment, intimidation, or bullying"; amend KRS 158.148 to require school districts to formulate a code of acceptable behavior and discipline that embraces the Golden Rule as the model for improving attitude and the rule for conduct for students;

Apart from being unenforceably vague, (or perhaps omni-enforcably vague?), the use of the term "Golden Rule" is interesting.

In a brief discussion of this bill the other day, a good friend raised the question of whether this could be challenged as being based on a Biblical verse. That's an interesting question, but the answer is more complicated than it might seem at first blush.

Most folks associate the Golden Rule with Mt 7:12 :

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

or Lk 6:35a:

But love your enemies, do [what is] good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.

Most folks thus assume that the Golden Rule is a unique Biblical precept.

It isn't, and that's why a challenge to the Bullying Bill on the grounds of church/state separation should fail.

The Golden Rule is known in ethical studies as The Ethic of Reciprocity, or The Reciprocal Ethic, and it had a long and noble history before the authors of GMt and GLk¹ employed it.

As early as the 7^th Century BCE, the Greek philosopher PIttacus invoked the Golden Rule:

Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.

Earlier still, the Ethic of Reciprocity was employed in Babylonian Law, and is reflected throughout the Code Of Hammurabi, which dates to around 1760 BCE.

So, back to the Bullying Bill. A challenge to the bill on the grounds of church/state separation would depend on proving that the state was attempting to establish one religion over another. The Golden Rule is so broadly incorporated into ethical codes that it shows up in no less than four² world religions - ancient Babylonian, ancient Greek, ancient Judaism, and Christianity. (Indeed, one could argue that the Ethic of Reciprocity is present in any society that has a penal code.) The Bullying Bill's reliance on the Golden Rule is just far too generic to be overturned on the basis of the Establishment Clause.

Peace

NOoC

--------------------------------

¹A comment on notation: GMk, GMt, GLk, and GJn refer to the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, respectively. The notation is fairly standard, but not universal. Hopefully it won't cause undue confusion.

² I didn't mention Judaism earlier. I was saving that for last, since it's part of an interesting situation. The Ethic of Reciprocity, in the Hebrew Bible, is most famously represented by Ex 21:23-25 :

²³If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, ²⁴eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

In context, this is just a more graphic statement of the thesis of Mt 7:12. However, earlier, in Mt 5:38-42, we have:

38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” ³⁹But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; ⁴⁰and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; ⁴¹and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. ⁴²Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

The issue is subtle. In Exodus, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" means "if you harm someone, do whatever you need to do to make it right." In other words, the intent is for people to take responsibility for their actions.

In Mt 5, though, the author of GMt misunderstands the point of the Exodus passage, incorrectly interpretting "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as indicating revenge, not responsibility, and advocates a stoic acceptance of whatever situation one finds oneself in. (Mt 7:12 echoes Lev 19:18,34 :

Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

and

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

The author of GMt got the intent right this time.)

Be Sociable, Share!

•