“The so-called harassment of students who are (or are assumed to be) LGBT is not contrary to the Golden Rule. On the contrary, it is fully in accord with the spirit of the Golden Rule realistically and authentically understood.”

I do not follow that thinking.

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs…. But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition [sic] is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

The above passages are excerpted from the so-called Hallowe’en Letter which the then Cardinal Ratzinger addressed to the Catholic bishops in 1986.

You see the tactic that is being used here? (No wonder that Timothy F. Murphy commented in Christopher Street: “I find it difficult to see here that the Catholic Church has learned more from Jesus than from Pontius Pilate.”)

Now let us see how a similar mentality can use the Golden Rule Day proposal:

“The so-called harassment of students who are (or are assumed to be) LGBT is not contrary to the Golden Rule. On the contrary, it is fully in accord with the spirit of the Golden Rule realistically and authentically understood.”

“It is deplorable that LGBT students have been and are the objects of violent malice in speech or action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from teachers and school administrators wherever it occurs. But the proper reaction to the bullying of LGBT students should not be to claim that such students should be accepted as normal and that they have the right to be treated exactly like everyone else. When such a claim is made, neither the schools nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

Wow, I’ve changed my view on this event. I wasn’t even thinking about how divisive this stunt really is.

Now that I think about it, isn’t pushing this event to supplant a pre-existing one that others find meaningful and important a violation of the Golden Rule in and of itself?

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

but they’re reading it

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, if they had your values and belief system”

The idea is “would you want to be on the receiving end of what you’re doing?”

Don’t kill people because you would not want to be killed.

Don’t persecute someone for their beliefs because you wouldn’t want that either.

Don’t tell someone their relationship is a sham, because you would not appreciate being told the same thing.

“But I would want someone to point out that I’m doing something immoral!”

Really, you would appreciate total strangers telling you what to do? You’d appreciate people who don’t know you and don’t know your situation telling you you’re wrong, your beliefs are wrong, and that you’re going to hell for not agreeing with them? You’d appreciate someone perpetuating unfair stereotypes about you and people like you in order to get you to change? You’d appreciate someone telling you change is possible, when they’re not being entirely truthful? You’d appreciate someone calling you “worse than a terrorist” even though you’ve never so much as been in a fight? You’d appreciate someone calling you names? You’d appreciate someone threatening to hurt you?

Really, because that’s what it’s like to be in my shoes, that’s what it’s like to be me. I don’t appreciate any of those things, yet you would, if you were me?

Somehow I doubt that.