“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” in the most basic terms means to treat others the way we want them to treat us. That’s the Golden Rule from the Bible, Luke 6:31. Most scholars date the composition of the work to sometime in the first century, 80 – 90 AD. However, after some 2,000 years, the application of that rule seems to have become somewhat different, more in line with current times.

For instance, let’s take a look at the hush money trial of Donald Trump where the jury found him guilty. The jurors did their civic duty by serving on the jury. Judge Juan Merchan interpreted the laws to determine how the trial would proceed to ensure fairness so that the parties legal rights are protected. But for just doing their jobs, death threats were made against the judge, his family and the jurors.

For supporters of Trump, this has become a common practice against anyone who opposes Trump for any reason. Those carrying out such threats include gangs like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. In today’s times, how should applying the Golden Rule be different from its original interpretation? Do unto others as they do unto you. This suggests a form of equality. Could this be interpreted to mean negative as well as positive, such as to reciprocate against those who made threats and actions against you because they opposed what you believed to be right.

Realistically, those injured parties have been hurt by policies made by Trump and his gangs of enforcers, by the Supreme Court justices who favored the Dobbs v. Jackson decision and by those representatives from the states who took abortion-denying even further: denying remedy to women whose lives were in danger that eventually led to injury or death.

Do unto others can also apply in a legalistic manner. Trump’s gang of lawyers have prevented or delayed him from going to trial regarding his three legal cases as follows:

1-Being accused of keeping classified documents, for reasons unknown. Speculation includes using  them as a bargaining chip with the Russians to help him win re-election, perhaps even to the point of becoming treasonous.

2-Election interference regarding the peaceful transfer of power that led to insurrection, the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

3-Election interference to thwart proper certification of Georgia’s presidential election result.

Will the above cases ever go to trial? Can other cases be made that can bring about satisfaction? Can reciprocation based on the principle of the Golden Rule, do unto others, be interpreted more in line with current times? Let’s switch to legal and talk homicide, defined as an act in which a human causes the death of another human.

Once again, let’s look at the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision denying the woman’s right to abortion together with the states that took it even further, denying abortions even when a woman’s life was in danger and where such lack of action led to death. The justices of the Supreme Court who supported the decision and the individuals in states who passed legislation that went even further, should all be held responsible for such a woman’s death.

An act in which a human causes the death of another human fits precisely the definition of homicide and all should be charged. Don’t just scare them. Send them all to jail. Do unto others! It sounds so legal.

Alvin Goldberg

Great Neck