Push, using the golden rule as an axiom about which your actions are determined is great, until you look at subjects like child molestation and incest. Then consider that it may have been axiomatic in those actions too.
What sayeth yee to that?
Any rule is only as good as the intention it is applied with, and the action carried out with its use.
Let’s use child molestation for the sake of continuity- let’s say he’s an average guy of good standing in his community. By all accounts a good person who goes to church, work, and has a decent family. But the guy was taught long ago by one of his elders(whom he respected very much) that there was a special little something that guys can do with kids. That something is what we now call molestation. So off he goes into life- sharing the joy and propagating this philosophy- which he knows is right and good, because he learned it from a very respected man of his community. And he feels good about it! He is doing to others what he would have others do unto him!
See how that works?
No. I’m pointing out that someone can apply the golden rule with the intention of doing something good, and with no malice what so ever, do something very bad, because what they learned to be good and bad was faulty from the get go.
As has been amply demonstrated (vis a vis appallingly firm convictions concerning slavery, racial inferiority, the subjugation of women, etc), the fact that a conviction ‘stood the test of time’ is not in and of itself evidence that said conviction is a “good thing.” You need a ‘good thing’ theory that does not rely on durability alone, because durability clearly does not distinguish between good and bad cultural traditions.
Then let’s look at it metaphorically. My convictions are set in stone, but even stone can be cut and shaped (refined, if you will) by skilled hands.
I have many, many firm convictions. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that my set of firm convictions and your set of firm convictions overlapped by 90%+.
Not the case. To be honest, I am confident I am 100% right about the fundamental flaw in your logic, and feel it is you who is defending an obviously indefensible argument. So respectfully, again I ask: On what basis will you distinguish between longstanding cultural practices that are good (and thus should be maintained), and longstanding practices that are evil (and thus should be jettisoned)? Because clearly, longstanding-ness itself cannot serve as the basis for such decisions.
I am a Christian as well. In that regard, and getting back to the specific subject we were discussing: I believe the admonition to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ suggests we should err on the side of inclusivity with respect to our trans brothers and sisters, which means (to me) allowing them to use the facilities in which they feel most comfortable.
When Ogre brought up potential future issues, I didn’t want to put words in his mouth. I wasn’t sure if he was talking about the TG bathrooms in specific, or LGBT rights in general, or something else.
My 2 cents. Restroom use aside.
Most of the rub seems to revolve around issues of religious freedom, or concerns about the fear of potential harm in young people who are not yet mature. Personally, I think the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to be in keeping with best practices, with the exception that I personally would have difficulty assisting in a gender reassignment in an adolescent for religious reasons. The link Eye Dentist put up earlier in the thread. Gender-Diverse & Transgender Children - HealthyChildren.org
My religious tradition specifically addresses gender identity in this way.
“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
You can see where TG reassignment might be problematic for an LDS pediatrician, and how they might choose to refer that family out to another physician. Perhaps the ACLU will see that as “discriminatory.” I think that’s something conservatives justifiably fear.
Professional licensing and credentialing boards for mental health professionals do not allow discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender. There was a case where a graduate student in a counseling training program declined to provide marriage counseling to a gay couple as part of her training, citing religious reasons. We can all imagine how some religious groups might feel that they were violating some religious code by getting deep into issues like sexual practices with a gay couple. Picture some of your Muslim, or Orthodox Jewish friends. For me, it seems substantially different than a dentist filling a cavity in a gay person, or a mechanic fixing an engine for a TG car owner. When someone works as a counselor in a public high school, they need to be able to work with ALL the kids, their accreditation as a counselor requires it. Personally, I have zero issue with making flowers for a gay couple, signing a marriage license, or doing counseling with a gay high school student, BUT I’d like to think that we might be able to have some tolerance, (love each other enough), to see that some religious people might run into some ethical issues. Tolerance runs both ways. I’m loath to tell another religious person that “they’re doing it wrong” and that they “don’t understand their own religion.” It seems that a counselor in private practice might refer the gay couple to a partner who is comfortable/ specializes in same-sex couples. Some of the rub comes from anti-religious bias from people who see religion as a mind virus that should be eliminated and overcome, not accommodated. They believe that religious people, with the notable exceptions of the Reverend Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa, are a lot like the Taliban, oppressing and dominating, or using religion as thinly veiled bigotry. The ACLU is not the least bit concerned with the civil liberties of the religious graduate student who feels uncomfortable, in fact they sued her.
We all remember the clerk who refused to sign marriage licenses, and that case seemed more clear because she worked for a government agency which needed to comply with the law regarding same-sex marriage. It becomes a little less clear when cases involve a florist who feels that they would be violating their religious code when making flowers for a gay wedding. There will continue to be some bumps and bruises as this kind of thing gets worked out through the courts.
@anon71262119, if I may: In your religious tradition, is God gendered? I ask because, taken literally, the statement “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God” suggests God is both male and female. But that leads to a paradox in that, if true, it follows that male and female humans are, at best, only partially created in the image of God (because male humans are missing the female aspects of God, and female humans are missing the male aspects).
The issue of God and gender is something my church (I am an Episcopalian) has been wrestling with for some time now. It’s proven to be a sticky wicket, to put it mildly.