More More On God and Values, Courtesy Of Albert Schweitzer

We received an email earlier today, from a regular reader, Mango, discussing our post below, Schools And God: An SC&A Proposal.

Sometimes I swear you include extraneous phrases in your posts to get everyone all riled up. In fact, I'm positive you do. As promised, I wanted to respond, after taking some time to think about this.

This post wasn't about God at all.

Or, at least, I didn't take it that way. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment.

You raise an excellent point. I also believe that the function of schools should be to furnish children with the necessary skills to function in society.

Given what has transpired over the past few years, the situation appears to be deteriorating. Now, I don't have facts and figures to support this assertion, but it clearly does appear to be deteriorating. I come from a long line of educators, and they all point out the same thing. Children today are disrepectful (children were back in the day, as well), but what is scary is the increased violence shown towards teachers and other students.

This increased willingness towards violence appears to point to a lack of moral behavior.

The question becomes, who's job is it to instill these morals?

I don't necessarily agree that they should be taught in school, or that the lack of moral education in school is the cause for this behavior.

In this case, you are attempting to put a band-aid on a broken arm.

In many instances, parents are to blame for their bastard children. For many reasons, and I don't need to necessarily point them out to you.

If we don't fix the root of the problem, it will not go away.

Schools are supposed to teach children how to function in society, but they are not supposed to be the only voice. Parents (should) shoulder a good portion of the responsibility as well. Parents need to take an active role in their children's development, and they need to show interest in their child's growth. All the teaching in the world will not help these children, if they aren't encouraged to continue their moral education at home.

We can't have parents take an aptitude test prior to conception, nor can we regulate how they raise their children. But, we have to give them tools, support and encouragement. Money, time and other resources would be better spent on teaching parents how to be good parents.

But, you and I both know that this will not happen.

So, we are left with doing the best we can with what we have.

I don't necessarily agree that using religion in school will help build a stronger moral character, nor do I agree that private schools that are religiously based do a better job of teaching children than other private schools. But, you raise an interesting question.

It is a question that I think was lost due to your inclusion of God and creationism.

Exactly HOW do we teach these children to behave responsibly?

We responded in part, as follows:

You're right- it was never about God or Creationism. The post was about something far more important.

While we may disagree on a few issues, I believe that if the shortest distance between 2 points is straight line, then so be it. If it takes teaching religious values, then thats what we do.

Boomr (a reader whom we respect enomously), in a recent comment to our post below stated,

...why does this discussion need to occur in public schools? Such exposure can come from so many different places outside of school, subject to the parents' and the kids' personal desires and beliefs. There's no need to homogenize these beliefs in teaching for everyone in public school. We say that in principle, he is right. Teaching values should be done at home and outside the school.

However, as Mango says, it just isn't going to happen.

Albert Schweitzer said that the 'principle of of reverence for life rejects relativism.' That is to say that only good preserves and benefits life. He goes on to clearly say that there is indeed evil. Schweitzer further says that there are not a lot of compromises between ethics and necessity and says rather succinctly,

In every case we must decide ourselves to what extent we may remain ethical and to what extent we have to bow to the necessity of harming and destroying life, and thereby incurring the guilt of such actions. The more we act in accordance with the principle of of reverance for life, the more we are gripped by the desire to preserve life.

These are moral matters and truths. Reverance for life is reverance for society- that is, the way we interact with each other- and as any educator will tell you, can also be defined by how well we pass these values on. Finally, Schwitzer says,

Three kinds of progress are significant for culture: progress in knowledge and technology; progress in the socialization of man; progress in spirituality. The last is the most important.

When it came to values, morals and ethics, one would be hard pressed to find anyone of late more qualified to speak on the subject than Albert Schweitzer.