Every religion knows the rule, meaning it came from a long time ago and is more a measure of secularism (or common sense) than religious beliefs (maybe that's why I like Sir Arthur so much).

You may notice that the Christian Golden rule is a positive, while the Judaic Golden rule is a negative.
The negative rule is much more realistic.
But one wonders why Israel isn't applying its own Golden rule (Israel being a religious-based country) to its immediate neighbours.
As Art writes, The Golden Rule and a strong knowledge of history tells us that killing others, except in self-defense , increases the possibility that the family and friends of those we kill are more likely to end our lives early.; this is why the war in Iraq will only make things worse.
An answer to 9/11 was very difficult, indeed, as the perpetrators died in the event. So do the human bombs all over the world.
The problem is that attacking a country that is not responsible for the terrorist attack, won't solve the problem especially if the root cause for terrorism isn't understood or dealt with.

Carl Sagan has something else too: The Prisoners' dilemna:
If you deny committing the crime and (unknown to you) your friend also denies it, the case might be hard to prove. In the plea bargain, both your sentences will be very light.
If you confess, and your friend does likewise, then the effort the State had to expend to solve the crime was small. In exchange you both may be given a fairly light sentence, although not so light as if you both had asserted your innocence.
But if you plead innocent, and your friend confesses, the State will ask for the maximum sentence for you and minimal punishment (maybe none) for your friend. Uh-oh. You are very vulnerable to a kind of double cross, what game theorists call "defection." So's he.
So, if you and your friend "cooperate" with one another—both pleading innocent (or both pleading guilty)—you both escape the worst. Should you play it safe and guarantee no worse than a middle range of punishment by confessing? Then, if your friend pleads innocent while you plead guilty, well, too bad for him, and you might get off scot- free.
When you think it through, you realize that, whatever your friend does you're better off defecting than cooperating. Maddeningly, the same holds true for your friend. But if you both defect, you are both worse off than if you had both cooperated. This is the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Applying this to the war in Iraq:
The Court is the UN, one of the prisoners is the US, the other, the ROW....No wonder the US is so mad at France!

It's also the silver christian rule that prevents me from replying to mr Nelson and Baikie, as I refuse to make things worse and they inevitably become so, with those two. Certainly in CE, OT, FL.

Raoul