Original_To:  BITNET%"edpolyan@asuacad"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:12:00 MDT
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         ADAVIS@CUDENVER.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Morality and Spirituality

I must say I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion of the
nature of morality and its place in education, beginning
with Ken Doherty's posting on the need to re-introduce
Christian morality into Russian schools.  I agree with John
Covaleskie and John Gallagher that it is important that we
teach moral precepts, and that teaching these is distinct
from teaching religion.  The distinction I would stress is
between the view that morality is essentially divine law,
handed down in Scripture, and the view that morality is
essentially an ethical system based upon fundamental notions
of community and relationship.  The latter view does not
require one to separate morality from religion, but it
involves a different understanding of what religion is.

The Old Testament describes a covenant between Yahweh and
the Jews based upon divine law.  God requires that the Jews
do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not eat pork, and
circumsize their male children.  The supreme moral
obligation is to obey the Law because the Law is the word of
God.  Similarly, the Koran requires the followers of Islam
to refrain from charging interest or drinking alcohol, and,
if they are women, from going in public with arms and legs
exposed to view.  To do otherwise would be immoral -- that
is, in violation of the law of God.  In Orthodox Judaism, as
in Orthodox Islam, morality involves subjugating one's own
desires to the law of God.

Alternatively, morality may be based upon principle.  When
Jesus taught to "do unto others as you would have them do
unto you" and to "love thy neighbor as thyself," he was
replacing divine edict with ethical principle as the basis
of moral behavior.  In this light, we understand that
killing and stealing are immoral because they violate
fundamental principles of community, not because they are
listed in Exodus as part of a codification of Divine Law.
Some will maintain that Divine Authority is still at
the heart of the matter -- that these teachings of Jesus are
the basis of morality because they are in the Bible and are
the words of God, replacing Old Law with New Law.  But these
principles are on a completely different plane than "Thou
shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife."  They imply the
essential worth of every human being, and the essential
importance of love and forgiveness in maintaining community.
These are profound ideas, and societies that cherish these
ideas are better to live in than ones that do not.  We
protect ourselves from those who would harm us, without
losing sight of their fundamental humanity.

The distinction between moral principle and Divine Law has
come to the fore in Colorado recently in respect to our
passage of an amendment to the state constitution preventing
local communities from passing ordinances protecting
homosexuals from discrimination.  Barbara Streisand called
for a boycott of Colorado last week, saying that the
amendment represented an "unacceptable moral climate."  Some
supporters of the amendment argued that homosexuality was an
immoral lifestyle, suggesting that there was a moral basis
for the amendment.  The Bible condemns homosexuality,
although Jesus never mentioned it.  I understand why
homosexual behavior seems perverse to many people, but I see
no basis in principle for declaring such behavior "immoral."
On the other hand, it is quite clear that we heterosexuals
must treat homosexuals as we would have them treat us.

I agree with John Gallagher that we should teach the
underlying principles of morality in schools.  We should not
teach religious law.

Alan Davis
University of Colorado at Denver
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU