Can you believe that some people have focused on President Obama’s use of the Golden Rule as evidence of an underlying natural law and used it to criticize him and to disparage Muslims?
You would think these are antichrists incognito since their purpose must surely be either to undermine belief in creation or to undermine the moral leadership of the president. There can only be a natural moral law — “the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together” — if there is no creator. Without a creator every apparent “law” is simply happenstance and depends on the perspective of the perceiver. That is why science can only claim to have verified hypotheses to varying degrees of certainty, but can never lay claim to absolute truth.
Those in the theistic traditions usually support the role of leaders in encouraging moral leadership, and most others also support them as well because it makes good sense.
But it is not the atheists that seem to be complaining about Obama’s use of the Golden Rule. It seems to be either disaffected Christians or right wing fundamentalists who argue that Obama shows that he does not understand Islam because Islam does not have a Golden Rule tradition. That was claimed again on a talk show on WPIT following the president’s Notre Dame speech.
Here is what President Obama actually said at the
For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It's no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule — the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.
So many of you at Notre Dame — by the last count, upwards of 80 percent — have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities.
I’ve added the highlights because they show how Obama is defining his understanding of the Golden Rule. He understands and applies it in a very general and practical way, not in an interior and deeply spiritual manner. He is appealing to action and not to internal reflection. Neither is he defining it in a technical and rationalistic manner for a debate. He is sketching it for the moral imagination, much more like Jesus did than like the legalistic accusers then and now.
Obama’s remarks at Notre Dame are similar to those he made at the National Prayer Breakfast in February, where he was apparently more detailed concerning his reference to Islam.
A Jewish blogger gives the details but then goes on to rant, much of which is excluded here--
"We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together... In Islam, there is a hadith that reads “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” -- from Obama's remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast
Here is the Hadith in full and uncensored. -- "Abu Hamzah Anas bin Maalik who was the servant of the Messenger of Allaah reported that the Prophet said: "None of you truly believes (in Allah and in His religion) until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself."
While Obama might try to pass this off as the Golden Rule, the Hadith mentions "Brother", which means fellow Muslim. Infidels not included…. Mohammed's remarks as contained in this Hadith is limited strictly to Muslims.
Without even doing much research on the matter, it seems to me that until specialized knowledge is uncovered, it is reasonable to assume at least the following:
(1) Islam’s all-encompassing worldview of loving for one’s brother what one loves for oneself is no less incoherent than loving a God who plans to torture people forever if they reject him before they die. I put it that way because that is the way the doctrine of hell has been understood by many until quite recently, and perhaps still continues to be understood by many Christians. Let’s face it, the truth about worship is that you become like what you worship, and we will become like the God we worship. That is why the biblical God demands that we have no other Gods before him. My point here is not that Christians are becoming cruel because their doctrine of God proves it, but that if Christianity’s view of hell can change, then so also can Islam’s view of love. Islam is much more flexible than we outsiders give it credit for, and we should not demonize it.
(2) Islam does accept that Jesus was a legitimate prophet from God. It seems reasonable to assume therefore that they would accept his teaching of the Golden Rule. Why do Christians seem to think that Muslims can’t claim Jesus? After all, Christians claim Abraham, David, Jeremiah and Isaiah without claiming to be Jews. It is not legitimate to say Muslims do not have the Golden Rule in their tradition when they acknowledge Jesus as a prophet from God. They do believe many of the biblical manuscripts are corrupt, but some Christians and scholars also believe that.
