The Moral Atheist And His Message

Jeckles Geek Blog has an interesting critique of our post, Schools and God: An SC&A proposal. We found his critique to have merit, mostly because we believe he understood the point of the post- that it was not about religion, but rather, about values. We would encourage you to read his thoughts on the matter.

In his post, Jeckles says:

Let's clear the air. I'm an atheist. Sometimes, I soften that statement by saying that I'm agnostic, but the truth is I don't believe. Sorry. I really am. I've looked hard and long at the concept of god and at various religions. I just don't see it. SC&A implied that secularism/atheism is a religion in its own right. I could not disagree more. If you believe in God, I not only have no problem with that. I envy you. I really do. I know people whose faith is deep and that seems to make them very happy. I do not wish sway anyone from their beliefs. Believe what you want.

We stand by what we wrote, that secularism/atheism is as much a religion as anything else. Their adherents cling to their beliefs with same tenacity as believers. As many believers want to see their beliefs in the public square, secularists, too, want to see their beliefs in the public square.

Now, where Jeckles makes a valid point:

Morals and Religion are not the same. We can all agree on that I think. Why then do morals and religion get all tied together. It is because Morals are not black and white. Oh sure, don't kill, don't steal, don't lie --- those must be universal morals. I think not. I see plenty of killing being done in the name of God or Allah theses days. Is it moral to steal to feed your family. If you knew your mother had one year to live, but she would feel no pain during that time and would die in he sleep. Would you hide that truth from her? Would it be moral?

We agree with Jeckles, that morals and religion are not necessarily the same. Nevertheless, western society is predicated on the Judeo-Christian ethic- an ethic that at times is derived from a morality that is culturally based. This is an important distinction, as Jeckles goes on to say,

No, my friends, morality is not black and white. But if we agreed on Christian Morals, then we could look to the bible, the pastor, the Pope for clarification on these issues. I teach my children morals. My morals. Sometimes I use Jesus as an example. Sometimes the Buddha. Other times I use Cal Ripken or Miguel Tejada.

We take no issue with that. Further, that there are choices involved as to what ethics one can choose from is also part of the Judeo-Christian ethic we refer to. Cal Ripkin and Miguel Tejada as object lessons are fine- but they are no better than religious ethics. It boils down to choice- and religious ethics are as valid as any other, as we said.

There can be no denying that religious values have played a huge role in defining this nation. In fact, it was religious values upon which this nation was founded. Our forefathers chose religious values that elevated man, offering him freedoms theretofore unknown. Were they perfect men? No. Was the nation they founde without flaw? No. Did they create a nation, this altar of freedom, as Lincoln referred to this country, as one that was self correcting and ever bettering itself? Yes, they did- and all that stemmed from religious values that demanded the best of us- and still does.

In the end, Jeckles speaks to the truth- the one truth that predicated this conversation.

...even if we could all agree on the curriculum, they'd screw it up. Remember the New Math? My brother was taught the New Math. Poor guy is thirty years old and cannot do long division.

The schools would be well served to focus on teaching kids Math, English, History. Teach them. Set expectations. Hold them to those expectations. You don't need to teach them about character. You need to demand it. You do not need to teach morality. You do not need to teach Creationism. Hell, you don't need to teach evolution.

Jeckles is absolutely right. If that were being done, there would be no need for this conversation. He knows that- and he recognizes the problem for what it is. It is to his credit that he recognizes that issues aren't creationism vs evolution, but rather, far more important. We are discussing the fabric of our society and culture- and what kind of stitch needs to be used in the mending of this fabric.

Notwithstanding no doubt, Jeckles protests to the contrary, we submit that many people of faith would refer to his ideals as 'righteous.'