Is it possible to morality in schools without invoking a religion?

[amrchaos]

Is it possible to 'morality' in schools without invoking a religion?

I think so, and here is why.

In an earlier thread, the op asked a question about the three commandments. What struck me was the fact that 5 of the 10 commandments seemed like regular rules that we abide by despite our beliefs. Thus teaching school kids these rules as rules to live by seemed like a way to teach basic morality in schools without invoking any ones religion.

Of course, the reference of these rules are from a particular religion . So I was beginning to wonder if a pluralistic approach to teaching morality is a feasible concept. Remember--the reasons why these rules should be followed is to teach a form of good conduct that the student can live by for the rest of their lives. The reason why behind these rules, or at least a selection of these rules, can be taught by their parents.

I think this could be a win-win proposition. What do you think?

 

[amrchaos]

The title should have read

"Is it possible to teach 'morality' in schools without invoking a religion?"

Please excuse my mistake

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Religion has nothing to do with morality.

Indeed, some/many/most/all religions teach morals that are repugnant to most people. The bible is loaded with rape, incest, murder and the christian religion is based on infanticide.

Morals should be taught in spite of religion.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Is it possible to 'morality' in schools without invoking a religion?

I think so, and here is why.

In an earlier thread, the op asked a question about the three commandments. What struck me was the fact that 5 of the 10 commandments seemed like regular rules that we abide by despite our beliefs. Thus teaching school kids these rules as rules to live by seemed like a way to teach basic morality in schools without invoking any ones religion.

Of course, the reference of these rules are from a particular religion . So I was beginning to wonder if a pluralistic approach to teaching morality is a feasible concept. Remember--the reasons why these rules should be followed is to teach a form of good conduct that the student can live by for the rest of their lives. The reason why behind these rules, or at least a selection of these rules, can be taught by their parents.

I think this could be a win-win proposition. What do you think?

If any religion ever corners the market on morality, this old atheist dog will become a believer.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUyu5prWjTE]I'm A Believer Shrek Music Video - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

The principle of morality exists independently from religion.

 

[Chuckt]

The principle of morality exists independently from religion.

So if we teach morality in school, whose morality will we teach? Muslim's? Hindu's?

 

[Esmeralda]

Is it possible to 'morality' in schools without invoking a religion?

I think so, and here is why.

In an earlier thread, the op asked a question about the three commandments. What struck me was the fact that 5 of the 10 commandments seemed like regular rules that we abide by despite our beliefs. Thus teaching school kids these rules as rules to live by seemed like a way to teach basic morality in schools without invoking any ones religion.

Of course, the reference of these rules are from a particular religion . So I was beginning to wonder if a pluralistic approach to teaching morality is a feasible concept. Remember--the reasons why these rules should be followed is to teach a form of good conduct that the student can live by for the rest of their lives. The reason why behind these rules, or at least a selection of these rules, can be taught by their parents.

I think this could be a win-win proposition. What do you think?

Just based on the thread title, I find it incredibly offensive and very stupid and narrow minded for anyone to assume religion is the main or or only path to ethics, morality and values. In fact, nearly every 'religious' person I have ever known has weaker ethics, values and morals than I do, and I am not religious. This is just an indication that religion attracts less intelligent people. And, actually, statistics show that people with lower IQs tend to be the most religious. Religion answers all your questions for you and sets all the rules: i.e., you don't have to think for yourselves.

BTW, I think the question in the OP is so stupid, I have no interest in getting involved in a superfluous discussion. Your premise is completely flawed.

 

[HUGGY]

The title should have read

"Is it possible to teach 'morality' in schools without invoking a religion?"

Please excuse my mistake

Do you REALLY believe you can teach young people to be good?

Most bad people are that way before they ever get to school.

I don't believe bad people can be taught to be good people.

It's easier to let them turn into bullies and let their victims go to school armed to the teeth and "teach" them the error of their ways.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The principle of morality exists independently from religion.

So if we teach morality in school, whose morality will we teach? Muslim's? Hindu's?

Christians?

How about none of the above?

Most religions are amoral.

 

[Esmeralda]

The principle of morality exists independently from religion.

So if we teach morality in school, whose morality will we teach? Muslim's? Hindu's?

Christians?

How about none of the above?

Most religions are amoral.

IMO, not amoral but immoral. Most religions promote immoral values that cause harm to individuals and society. For example, most of the mainstream religions today, when a battered woman goes to her priest (or other religious leader) for counseling, they tell her to stick with her husband, who is battering her, stick with her marriage vows, etc. That kind of advice is completely immoral.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The principle of morality exists independently from religion.

So if we teach morality in school, whose morality will we teach? Muslim's? Hindu's?

No, man! Just the basics. Details like those kind of specifics should be taught in the home.

Public Schools in America should teach the morality and tolerance encoded in current Civil Law.

Any morality beyond that is optional, otherwise The Constitution is pointless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The principle of morality exists independently from religion.

So if we teach morality in school, whose morality will we teach? Muslim's? Hindu's?

The principle of morality exists independently from religion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So if we teach morality in school, whose morality will we teach? Muslim's? Hindu's?

Christians?

How about none of the above?

Most religions are amoral.

IMO, not amoral but immoral. Most religions promote immoral values that cause harm to individuals and society. For example, most of the mainstream religions today, when a battered woman goes to her priest (or other religious leader) for counseling, they tell her to stick with her husband, who is battering her, stick with her marriage vows, etc. That kind of advice is completely immoral.

You do know that in the military that the majority of sexu.al assaults are against males

 

[Esmeralda]

Christians?

How about none of the above?

Most religions are amoral.

IMO, not amoral but immoral. Most religions promote immoral values that cause harm to individuals and society. For example, most of the mainstream religions today, when a battered woman goes to her priest (or other religious leader) for counseling, they tell her to stick with her husband, who is battering her, stick with her marriage vows, etc. That kind of advice is completely immoral.

You do know that in the military that the majority of sexu.al assaults are against males

I don't understand what that has to do with my post, unless you are saying I'm assuming that most spousal battering is against women? Despite the fact that assault in the military is mostly against men, overall, in society, most spousal battering is against women; but, my point would be that any spousal battering taken to a family religious leader would usually be a situation where the religious leader would recommend the spouse stay in the marriage and adhere to their marriage vows, despite the battering. However, by far, it is women who go to their priests to ask for advice on this issue. Men tend not to tell anyone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is it possible to teach 'morality' in schools without invoking a religion?

Of course it is, religion has no ‘monopoly’ on morally; in fact, there are aspects of religion which are immoral – the arrogance, the intolerance, and the propensity to seek to disadvantage those perceived to be ‘sinners.’

 

[PostmodernProph]

The bible is loaded with rape, incest, murder and the christian religion is based on infanticide.

those that have read the Bible are aware that it teaches those are the things we AREN'T supposed to do.....

those who haven't read it haven't grasped that part yet......

 

[thebrucebeat]

The bible is loaded with rape, incest, murder and the christian religion is based on infanticide.

those that have read the Bible are aware that it teaches those are the things we AREN'T supposed to do.....

those who haven't read it haven't grasped that part yet......

Abraham married his half-sister.

 

[JakeStarkey]

IMO, not amoral but immoral. Most religions promote immoral values that cause harm to individuals and society. For example, most of the mainstream religions today, when a battered woman goes to her priest (or other religious leader) for counseling, they tell her to stick with her husband, who is battering her, stick with her marriage vows, etc. That kind of advice is completely immoral.

You do know that in the military that the majority of sexu.al assaults are against males

I don't understand what that has to do with my post, unless you are saying I'm assuming that most spousal battering is against women? Despite the fact that assault in the military is mostly against men, overall, in society, most spousal battering is against women; but, my point would be that any spousal battering taken to a family religious leader would usually be a situation where the religious leader would recommend the spouse stay in the marriage and adhere to their marriage vows, despite the battering. However, by far, it is women who go to their priests to ask for advice on this issue. Men tend not to tell anyone.

You assume that as the majority of cases. Your opinion is all you have. Run with it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The bible is loaded with rape, incest, murder and the christian religion is based on infanticide.

those that have read the Bible are aware that it teaches those are the things we AREN'T supposed to do.....

those who haven't read it haven't grasped that part yet......

The bible is part of the problem, but the larger problem are the many Christians who are incapable – or unwilling – to abide by the ‘morality’ their religion teaches, whether they've read the bible or not.

 

[Esmeralda]

Is it possible to teach 'morality' in schools without invoking a religion?

Of course it is, religion has no ‘monopoly’ on morally; in fact, there are aspects of religion which are immoral – the arrogance, the intolerance, and the propensity to seek to disadvantage those perceived to be ‘sinners.’

You do know that in the military that the majority of sexu.al assaults are against males

I don't understand what that has to do with my post, unless you are saying I'm assuming that most spousal battering is against women? Despite the fact that assault in the military is mostly against men, overall, in society, most spousal battering is against women; but, my point would be that any spousal battering taken to a family religious leader would usually be a situation where the religious leader would recommend the spouse stay in the marriage and adhere to their marriage vows, despite the battering. However, by far, it is women who go to their priests to ask for advice on this issue. Men tend not to tell anyone.

You assume that as the majority of cases. Your opinion is all you have. Run with it.

It's not actually just my opinion. I did refer specifically in my post to spousal abuse, within a marriage. My post had nothing to do with abuse among unmarried people, nothing to do with men in the military abusing other men. But, statistically, spousal or domestic abuse in this country is, at least as reported, mostly against women. That's common knowledge, not something I have to prove, but if you do look it up, you will find I am correct, overwhelmingly.