Tough Love

The Almighty

Take God's love for example . Most love is a two way street . God's is.

God's love is definitely tough love , it's long range , big picture love . If God loves you , you had better pay attention - he has his way of getting to the point ! God's love - biblically speaking is about ( blessings , warnings and curses ) sort of the carrot and stick approach .

Look ...Jericho wanted more time ( who doesn' t ) they were warned. Nope , no answer.

Ka-Boom , was God's response . No Jericho no problemo . By the way , airbags do not really seem to help with God , as Churchill said " it's the kind of mistake you only make once " .

I think the hard thing for me about this story is , I wonder how God feels after the wipe-out .

Me , I'd kinda feel bad actually for the people , but then , I'd think well maybe the next group will have a bit more sense . Hey , who am I to question the big guy. My puny mind against the Creators mind , I may get it wrong then you know , Ka-boom .

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

http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Love/Love017.html

Love & Discipline

Hebrews 12:4-13

One of the most powerful verses in the Bible is listed in Hebrews chapter 12.

"FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES." (Hebrews 12:6).

We have a very difficult time connecting love and discipline. We have a more difficult time with the way it is asserted that every son must be scourged. There are lots of lessons to be learned here as parents and pastors but also for each individual Christian. Let's cover several of these points.

• "My son" (Hebrews 12:5)
  God deals with His own children different than those who are not His children. A parent only has jurisdiction over his own children. This is true partly because of his intimate concern and understanding of that child. Genuine Christians are His sons. Each of them are brought through a time of discipline.
  
  
• "Those whom the Lord loves." (Hebrews 12:6)
  The Lord loves His children in a different way than He loves those who do not know Him. From this teaching we gather there are two kinds of love: a general love in which His general goodness is displayed and a specific love for His children. God's actions are different toward His children. If they are unconscious of the way God deals with them, then they will not understand God's actions with them.
  
  
• "He disciplines." (Hebrews 12:6)
  We might wonder why it is the Christian He disciplines rather than the non-Christian. "Is not the Christian better?" The question is wrongly asked. We are better because we are disciplined but still have a long way to go! Discipline is the means that we are better able to do His will. We are deceived to think that His children do not need discipline. Have we found a child among us who needs not discipline? Is your child naturally bent to do good? Doing good is something that we are trained to do.
  
  
• "He scourges." (Hebrews 12:6)
  The Lord gets rough with His discipline. He does not just let us sit idly in a corner. Scourging has the idea of an actual beating with some object. There is no question that no one likes getting a scourging, but it is this actual fact that makes it useful in keeping us from doing foolish things again. If we had not done it in the first place, we would not have received a scourging. In actual fact, a quick and patient spanking can change a child's attitude from haughty to humble in just moments. We will not find this true of 'non-aggressive' means. The purpose is to keep the child from greater foolishness in the future.
  
  
• "Every son whom He receives." (Hebrews 12:6)
  We like to think that not every Christian faces these reproving scourgings. We think they are only necessary once in a great while. Only the most naughty need the scourging. Surely not the refined and learned ones. However, we are totally wrong. If we are God's child, He would scourge us. God in the end is in charge of each of His children's discipline. I have numerous times asked God to discipline His child because I couldn't appropriately deal with a certain offending brother.

Here are a few summary statements:

• Each Christian is enlisted in God's training program. Non-Christians are excluded.
  
  
• God uses discipline and scourging as part of His training process.
  
  
• Love is God's reason for disciplining each of His children.
  
  
• Scourgings are purposeful and not mean or violent.
  ... "That we may share His holiness."
  
  
• A Christian on his own will not do His best. He needs training.
  
  
• The Lord pays close attention to our needs and knows best how to handle us.

The Lord is asking us not to lose sight of God's purpose through our times of discipline. It will hurt. We will be tempted to get bitter against God. We will be given plenty of tinder to start a fire of doubt that will last our lifetime. But we are admonished,

"MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;

God has his purpose in chastising us. We will be tempted to respond in two wrong ways:

1) Regard lightly.
In other words, we do not profit from the discipline. We don't get the point of it. This means that we will need to go through more rigorous discipline in the future.

2) Faint.
The other response is to give up. We are overwhelmed by God's hand against us. This is another way to avoid the lesson of discipline. Instead of getting more serious about improving a certain area of our life, we just give up. Often we disguise this with a veil of criticism against God.

Love will always bring us into numerous encounters with God who is training us. We should not be surprised. Instead, we should be more expectant of what God is bringing. Love is tough because the stakes are high. Give up and the child has no respect for your own ways and habits. Give up and the child will barely tolerate you. But discipline him, and you will find great training from Him.

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

http://www.christianindex.org/988.article

God's Tough Love: If God Really Loves Me ...

By Larry S. McDonald, Assistant Professor of Christian Studies, Truett-McConnell College

Published January 20, 2005

Hosea 1:2-11; 3:1-5
Related Sunday School Lesson, Family Bible Series, Feb. 6

When individuals are asked to describe God, often they describe a "Santa Claus" type of figure or a grandfatherly individual. Usually these descriptions highlight the qualities of God's kindness and gentleness, which surely do exist. But while God is kind and gentle, He is also much more. His personality and character go far deeper than these qualities alone.

Too often we describe God as we would like for Him to be, and we do not allow the Bible to fully define for us who God really is. The Bible clearly identifies God as loving. And we generally think of this love as soft and cuddly, like a teddy bear. Yet the Bible also portrays God's love as powerful and dynamic. His love is often evidenced by strength and toughness.

As we study the book of Hosea over these next few weeks, we will especially see God's tough love. Although Hosea offers passages which are difficult to interpret, we must not let these challenges sidetrack us from the obviously clear message of God's tough love.

Love's Discipline (Hosea 1:2-9)

"On that day I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel" (Hosea 1:5 NAS).

God's tough love is first seen as He disciplines His people. Hosea's wife, Gomer, represents the unfaithfulness of Israel to God. Just as Gomer committed adultery against her husband, Israel was committing spiritual adultery against God.

Using the names of his children, Hosea pronounces judgment upon the nation of Israel. The names of the three children communicate the strong correction of God: Jezreel (God scatters), Lo-ruhamah (not loved), and Lo-ammi (not my people).

Just as God disciplined the nation of Israel, He disciplines His children today. When we stray from walking with Him, He works to get our attention and to bring us back to Himself. At times God's discipline may seem severe, but in reality it stems from His deep love for us (Hebrews 12:6). God's discipline is as gentle as it can be, but as harsh as it needs to be.

Think About It ... What would be more loving: For a parent to allow a child to continue in behavior the parent knows to be dangerous, or to discipline that child as necessary in order to teach and protect the child?

Love's Promise, (Hosea 1:10-11)

"Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered . . . You are the sons of the living God" (Hosea 1:10 NAS).

Even in the midst of announcing God's discipline, the promise of Israel's future was declared. The discipline would only be temporary, and then the promise of God's blessings would be realized. These blessings included the multiplying of Israel's population and the reuniting of Israel's divided kingdoms.

It goes without saying that discipline is never enjoyable. In fact, often we doubt God's love for us when He corrects us. Besides the assurance in Hebrews 12 that He disciplines us because He loves us, we must also realize that God's love is not based upon our "feeling loved." Instead it is based upon God's unwavering character and His never-ending promises: He will never leave or forsake us (Hebrews 13:5). Great is His faithfulness (Lamentations 3:23)! He has loved us with an everlasting love (Jeremiah 31:3).

Think About It ... In your relationship with God, would you describe yourself as having responded faithfully to His love for you? Or, like Gomer, are you still chasing after things with greater passion and desire than your love for Him?

Love's Redemption, (Hosea 3:1-5)

"Then the Lord said to me, 'Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods'" (Hosea 3:1).

God directs Hosea to faithfully love his wife even when she is not deserving of his love. In so doing, Hosea illustrated God's love for His undeserving people, Israel.

Redemption is beautifully portrayed by Hosea's anomalous marriage. We stand aghast at a woman so openly unfaithful to a man so fully committed to loving her. Yet we see in Gomer a picture of Israel and, indeed, of ourselves.

Mankind has never been deserving of God's love. But God does not love us because we are good: God loves us while we are still sinners, and He demonstrates that love through Christ dying for our sins (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ redeemed us by paying the penalty for our sins. And by receiving the gift of eternal life through Christ's work on the cross, we truly realize love's redemption.

Think About It ... Can you recall the moment when you accepted Jesus' death as the payment for your sins? If so, would you rate your love and zeal for Him now as great or greater than it was then?

Biblical Truth: Because God loves His people, He responds to their unfaithfulness with disciplinary actions.

Do the ends justify the means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ends_justify_the_means

The ends justify the means
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The ends justify the means" is a phrase encompassing two beliefs:

Morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes.
Actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morality of the outcome.
Conversely, people who believe that the consequences of an immoral action are greater than those of the expected outcome will often say that the ends do not justify the means.

Morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes
The implication is that good ends justify questionable means. Though such a view is implicit in many moral philosophies (especially utilitarianism), and almost all persons would be willing to commit small moral transgressions in the service of a greater good, the phrase is most often used to denote the much stronger view that any action in the service of an important enough cause is justified. This view is found in many radical political ideologies, and the atrocities committed by Jacobins, communists, capitalists, fascists, and others are often attributed to a form of moral blindness in which a powerful ultimate goal becomes an excuse to ignore ordinary moral considerations.

George Washington's family motto, "Exitus acta probat," roughly translates as "the end justifies the means" (literally, it means "the end proves action").

In some applications at least, this argument is related to the question of serving the greater good in which the means is detrimental to an individual or a small (i.e., minority) group while appearing to benefit the majority or the vaguely defined society. For example, faced with a bomb hidden in a metropolitan area, it could be considered morally justifiable to torture the person who knows where it is (assuming that under torture he would truthfully reveal information which saved the citizens). Given the belief that torture is wrong, one could consider it moral to commit that wrong in the interests of saving thousands of lives. As is often, but certainly not always, the case with this dilemma, this is a Lesser of two evils principle situation.

Utilitarian use of the ends justify the means must consider the ends to include all outcomes from the means, not just the goal outcomes; in the above dilemma, the ends would include one tortured culprit and a thousand saved civilians.

Few people will use the ends justify the means to describe their own views; instead, the phrase is often used to cast suspicion on the actions or motivations of others.

Some free-market libertarians, following Robert Nozick, characterize their views using the reversed slogan the means justify the ends.

This phrase the ends justify the means is closely associated with Machiavelli and The Prince, credited with helping to advance the colonial and modern forms of imperialism .

Most religions do not endorse the utilitarian philosophy. For example, the golden rule, held by Jesus, and the Hindu doctrine of karma would both discourage actions based on a purely utilitarian justification. The rationale behind this is the doctrine that all will come to light (all will be known, discovered) in the end and that good begets good, and also the doctrine stating that this life on earth is not the primary life, but may be called the Shadowlands.

-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.goenglish.com/TheEndsJustifyTheMeans.asp

The Ends Justify The Means ( our actions are called for by this situation ... )

"the ends justify the means"

The "ends" are our end goals and the "means" are the specific actions we take to achieve those goals. "The ends justify the means" when the actions we take are considered acceptable because of the specific end results we want to achieve. Example: "I would prefer to do things differently, but in this situation, the ends justify the means." This saying is often used in the negative: "I agree with your goal, but the ends do not justify the means."

-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.obmnetwork.com/resources/articles/Abernathy_MeansEnds/

Performance Management: Do the Means Justify the Ends
by William B. Abernathy, Ph.D. Abernathy & Associates

-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-endmeans.htm

Myth: The end doesn't justify the means.

Fact: Life would come to a stop if people tried to obey this rule.
Summary

It is virtually impossible to go through a day without using a negative mean to achieve a positive end.

Argument

This is one of the worst pieces of logic you'll find anywhere, in this debate or any other. In reality, the end frequently justifies the means.

Normally we would be opposed to cutting up someone with a knife. Yet we condone the goals of a surgeon who does exactly that.

Normally we would be opposed to killing a person. Yet we condone the goals of a self-defender who does exactly that.

Normally we would be opposed to poisoning someone with a deadly virus. Yet we condone the goals of a vaccination nurse who does exactly that.

Similar examples gleaned from real life are too numerous to mention. Opposed to inflicting pain on anyone? Then your aerobics instructor is guilty of sin. Opposed to depriving anyone of their freedom? Then your county jailer is a tyrant. Opposed to lying to anyone? Then you can never bluff in poker.

As far as affirmative action goes, most liberals justify the means (affirmative action goals) to achieve a desirable end (justice for harmful racial discrimination). Conservatives might argue that hiring goals are the wrong way to go about correcting racial discrimination, or that such discrimination doesn't exist, or at least is not harmful. But what they can't argue is that the end doesn't justify the means.


-----------------------------------------
http://radicalacademy.com/adlerendsmeans.htm

Does The End Justify The Means?
by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.

Does the end justify the means? Can it sometimes be right to use a bad means to achieve a good end? Don't the conditions of human life require some shadiness and deceit to achieve security and success?

First, let's try to understand the sense in which the word "justifies" is used in the familiar statement that "the end justifies the means." After that we can consider the problem you raise about whether it is all right to employ any means - good or bad - so long as the end is good.

When we say that something is "justified," we are simply saying that it is right. Thus, for example, when we say that a college is justified in expelling a student who falls below a passing mark, we are acknowledging that the college has a right to set certain standards of performance and to require its students to meet them. Hence, the college is right in expelling the student who doesn't.

Or, to take another example, if a man refuses to pay a bill for merchandise he did not receive, we would say that he is justified. He is in the right. But if a signed receipt can be offered to show that someone in his family received the merchandise without informing him, the store would be justified in demanding payment.

Now, nothing in the world can justify a means except the end which it is intended to serve. A means can be right only in relation to an end, and only by serving that end. The first question to be asked about something proposed as a way of achieving any objective whatsoever is always the same. Will it work? Will this means, if employed, accomplish the purpose we have in mind? If not, it is certainly not the right means to use.

But the purpose a man has in mind may be something as plainly wrong as stealing or murder. With such an end in view, he may decide that certain things will help him succeed and others won't. While he would be right, from the point of view of mere expediency, in using the former and not the latter, is he right morally in taking whatever steps might serve as means to his end? If not, then he is not morally justified in employing such means.

This brings us to the heart of the matter. Since a bad end is one that we are not morally justified in seeking, we are not morally justified in taking any steps whatsoever toward its accomplishment. Hence, no means can be justified - that is, made morally right - by a bad end.

But how about good ends? We are always morally justified in working for their accomplishment. Are we, then, also morally justified in using any means which will work? The answer to that question is plainly Yes; for if the end is really good, and if the means really serves the end and does not defeat it in any way, then there can be nothing wrong with the means. It is justified by the end, and we are justified in using it.

People who are shocked by this statement overlook one thing: If an action is morally bad in itself, it cannot really serve a good end, even though it may on the surface appear to do so. Men in power have often tried to condone their use of violence or fraud by making it appear that their injustice to individuals was for the social good and was, therefore, justified. But since the good society involves justice for all, a government which employs unjust means defeats the end it pretends to serve. You cannot use bad means for a good end any more than you can build a good house out of bad materials.

It is only when we do not look too closely into the matter that we can be fooled by the statement that the end justifies the means. We fail to ask whether the end in view is really good, or we fail to examine carefully how the means will affect the end. This happens most frequently in the game of power politics or in war, where the only criterion is success and anything which contributes to success is thought to be justified. Success may be the standard by which we measure the expediency of the means, but expediency is one thing and moral justification is another.

The Serenity Prayer

The Serenity Prayer

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.

--Reinhold Niebuhr

Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will direct your paths.

Proverbs 3, 5-6

The Golden Rule or the Ethics of Reciprocity

http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm

World Scripture

THE GOLDEN RULE

The Golden Rule or the ethic of reciprocity is found in the scriptures of nearly every religion. It is often regarded as the most concise and general principle of ethics. It is a condensation in one principle of all longer lists of ordinances such as the Decalogue. See also texts on Loving Kindness, pp. 967-73.

You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

1. Judaism and Christianity. Bible, Leviticus 19.18

Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.

2. Christianity. Bible, Matthew 7.12

Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.

3. Islam. Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 13

A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.

4. Jainism. Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.

5. Confucianism. Mencius VII.A.4

One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire.

6. Hinduism. Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8

Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."

7. Confucianism. Analects 15.23

Leviticus 19.18: Quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22.36-40 (below). Mencius VII.A.4 and Analects 15.23: Cf. Analects 6.28.2, p. 975.

Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.

8. Buddhism. Sutta Nipata 705

One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.

9. African Traditional Religions. Yoruba Proverb (Nigeria)

One who you think should be hit is none else but you. One who you think should be governed is none else but you. One who you think should be tortured is none else but you. One who you think should be enslaved is none else but you. One who you think should be killed is none else but you. A sage is ingenuous and leads his life after comprehending the parity of the killed and the killer. Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so.

10. Jainism. Acarangasutra 5.101-2

The Ariyan disciple thus reflects, Here am I, fond of my life, not wanting to die, fond of pleasure and averse from pain. Suppose someone should rob me of my life... it would not be a thing pleasing and delightful to me. If I, in my turn, should rob of his life one fond of his life, not wanting to die, one fond of pleasure and averse from pain, it would not be a thing pleasing or delightful to him. For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must also be to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?

As a result of such reflection he himself abstains from taking the life of creatures and he encourages others so to abstain, and speaks in praise of so abstaining.

11. Buddhism. Samyutta Nikaya v.353

A certain heathen came to Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Thereupon he repulsed him with the rod which was in his hand. When he went to Hillel, he said to him, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary; go and learn."

12. Judaism. Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Sutta Nipata 705: Cf. Dhammapada 129-130, p. 478. Acarangasutra 5.101-2: Cf. Dhammapada 129-130, p. 478. Samyutta Nikaya v.353: The passage gives a similar reflection about abstaining from other types of immoral behavior: theft, adultery, etc. To identify oneself with others is also a corollary to the Mahayana insight that all reality is interdependent and mutually related; cf. Guide to a Bodhisattva's Way of Life 8.112-16, p. 181; Majjhima Nikaya i.415, p. 465.

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

13. Christianity. Bible, Matthew 22.36-40

Matthew 22.36-40: Cf. Deuteronomy 6.4-9, p. 55; Leviticus 19.18, p. 173; Luke 10.25-37, p. 971; Galatians 6.2, p. 974; Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 5.2.2, p. 972; Sun Myung Moon, 9-30-79, p. 150.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_Reciprocity

Ethic of reciprocity

The ethic of reciprocity is a general philosophical principle found in virtually all religions and moral codes, often as a fundamental rule. In Western culture, the most common formulation is known as The Golden Rule -- "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" -- based on the Sermon on the Mount, Gospel of Matthew 7:12 of the Christian Bible. However, similar injunctions can be found in virtually all cultures and societies. Comparisons have been drawn between the principle of reciprocal ethics and karma, a concept in Hinduism.

The ethic of reciprocity should not be confused with tit for tat, revenge, an eye for an eye, retributive justice or the law of retaliation. The ethic of reciprocity is not about retaliation; it is about treating others with the same respect and consideration as one wishes to be treated. A key element of the ethic of reciprocity is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group, with consideration.

History

~1970-1640 BCE "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.

~1280 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Tanakh, new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.

~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5, Zoroastrianism.

? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.

~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.

~500 BCE "The Sage...makes the self of the people his self." Tao Te Ching Ch 49, tr. Ch'u Ta-Kao, Unwin Paperbacks, 1976. Daoism

~500 BCE "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." Analects of Confucius 15:24, Confucianism, tr. James Legge.[1]

~500 BCE "Now the man of perfect virtue, wishing to be established himself, seeks also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he seeks also to enlarge others. To be able to judge of others by what is nigh in ourselves;? this may be called the art of virtue." Analects of Confucius 6:30, Confucianism, tr. James Legge. [2]

~500 BCE "one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life [is] reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire." - Doctrine of the Mean 13.3, Confucianism.

~500 BCE "Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." - Acarangasutra 5.101-2, Jainism.

~200 BCE "What you hate, do not do to anyone." - Deuterocanonical Bible, NRSV, Tobit 4:15, Roman Catholic Church and Judaism.

~150 BCE "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." - Mahabharata 5:1517, Brahmanism and Hinduism.

~100 CE "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." - Hillel the Elder; Talmud, Shabbat 31a, Judaism.

~100 CE "In everything, do unto others as you would like them to do unto you; that is the meaning of the law and the prophets." - Sermon on the Mount, NRSV, Gospel of Matthew 7:12, Christianity

~100 CE "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." - Epictetus.

~7th century "Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself." - Hadith, Islam.

? CE "And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." - Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, 30, Bahá'í Faith.

~1870 CE "He should not wish for others what he does not wish for himself." - Bahá'u'lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf Bahá'í Faith.

1999 CE "don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you." - British Humanist society, Humanism.

Criticism
The affirmative version of the rule in the Egyptian, Leviticus, Confucian (art of virtue), Christian, Bahá'í, and Muslim versions call for active interactions; a logical loophole of which would allow a masochist to harm others without their consent. This differs from the negative/passive version of the rule, sometimes called the silver rule. George Bernard Shaw said that "The golden rule is that there are no golden rules". However it is clear that most religious understandings of the principle imply its use as a virtue toward greater love for one's neighbour rather than as a deontological or consequentialist rule.

-----------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule_(ethics)

Golden Rule (ethics)
The Golden Rule is: "Treat others as you want to be treated."

This traditional guiding rule was so highly valued that it became known in English at least since the mid-16th century as the "golden" rule.

Level Playing Field in Education, Workplace and Information

Maximizing Opportunities for Deserving Students

We all know that education paves the way on that road to success. The problem? Not all of us get to walk that same road, or start at the same point. There's widespread disparity between those students that "have" and those that "have-not" in our educational system. We believe we can make a positive change.

Revealing and Removing Barriers to a Fair Workplace

Does getting a college degree open doors for everyone? And once employees are through the door, does work reward and advance people based on talent and hard work alone? Unfortunately, not.

The reality is that education is a crucial - but merely first - step in achieving 'success.' The rest of life is spent at work, within the structure and culture of workplaces, putting our plans into action, and achieving our dreams. Unfortunately, both obvious obstacles and hidden barriers stop many people from achieving their dreams. With barriers in the way, good people are kept down, and everyone loses - individuals, organizations, and society.

Information, Resources, and the Research That Supports Our Cause

By always staying informed of what's happening in our educational system, the workplace, and in our society, we can continually fine-tune our thinking on fairness.

At Level Playing Field Institute, we routinely review the latest findings, conduct our own primary research and/or work with various partners to leverage the information to a broader audience.

What we've learned has resulted in many innovative new programs, and the programs themselves generate new sets of questions. We see this as a work in progress.

Throughout this section, you'll find content on three areas critical to Level Playing Field Institute's mission:

Research

Includes original research, such as national surveys, as well as environmental scans and other secondary research

Resource Library

Includes browsable and/or downloadable reports and toolkits on education, the workplace, and life issues.

Fairness Fund

Provides small, one-time grants to organizations that share our commitment to fairness and inclusion.

(reference: http://www.lpfi.org/)

Internet: The Level Playing Field

level playing field

Definition

Environment in which all companies in a given market must follow the same rules and are given an equal ability to compete

(reference: http://www.investorwords.com/2783/level_playing_field.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
imagine...
... a world where "economically poor" does not mean "educationally disadvantaged."

(reference: http://www.lpfi.org/)
-------------------------------_
Level Playing Field, Fairness (in Politics)

In practice, 'fairness' may have a variety of different, contradictory meanings.

Fairness as Equality of Outcome

Arguably, one way to ensure that each party and each candidate is treated fairly is to provide precisely the same opportunities and financial resources to each, irrespective of their size and popularity. The argument for giving all parties and all candidates an equal share of free television time, or financial grants, is that they all require an equal opportunity to put their case to the voters.

Positive Discrimination

It may be argued that 'fairness' demands positive discrimination in favour of new or small parties. According to this interpretation, the major political forces in any society already have ample chances to express themselves. Extra opportunities need, therefore, to be provided to the political outsiders to organize themselves and to put forward their views to the voters.

Fairness Based on Political Support

This involves the principle that small parties and fringe candidates should receive less support than the main ones. This idea may apply to the allocation of time for free electoral broadcasts on television and radio. It may apply also to financial subsidies. For example, it may be argued that only the principal candidates in a presidential election should be expected to debate with each other on national television, or that the large parties should be given more time slots for party political broadcasts than small ones.

(reference: http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/pc/pc21.htm)
----------------------------------------------------------------

Information is Power!

How about equal access to information?

Through the internet, one has an access to vast information.

But not all have internet access due to digital divide.

The 'digital divide' is a phrase commonly used to describe the disparity in computer access and use between various social, economic, and racial groups within Philippines.

So the rich becomes richer and the poor poorer?