LAST month, John McCann warned against teaching morality in our schools in a non religious context. He was referring to the new Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) programme which many people wish to see taught outside the confines of the religion class.
Some people do not see why anyone would object to the RSE programme being taught within a religion class. Were not most of us educated in schools where the Catholic Church's notions of morality were drummed into us from a very early age? That is precisely why many people do not want morality and particularly sexual morality taught in a religion class any more. The church's disinclination toward any independence of mind, its ambivalent attitude toward women and its subversion of the whole area of human sexuality have all failed society abysmally.
Yet the church still insists on its moral authority to teach an RSE programme within religion class. However, many educationalists recognise that the State itself is a valid source of moral authority and has a duty to provide a responsible RSE programme in its schools.
Of course, some of the subject matter will overlap with religion classes, where the churches may instruct their own flock. However, unlike the churches, the State must provide for all its peoples, including its Protestant minority, and for its non religious minority.
Mr McCann argues that young people would be confused if they had to make up their own minds on moral issues, and that "secular liberal educationalists" refuse guidance to young people because their morality "lacks criteria". Certainly those with a liberal approach do not insist on moral absolutes with all the fears and guilt which that engenders. Liberals offer very firm and well thought out guidelines (not rules) which enable people to make up their minds in a non coercive atmosphere.
People the world over, whatever their religion or personal philosophy, base their moral criteria on the golden rule of human behaviour "Do not do to others what you would not like for yourself which was written in the Analects of Confucius 500 years before Christ.
Liberal criteria are based on human experience, using human reason and grounding it in compassion and integrity. We all believe in the common moral decencies of altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility.
Irish society is maturing fast. More education facilities, access to books, the media and travel, have all helped to make us more aware of our common humanity. It is becoming obvious that Christianity in its traditional form no longer appeals to young people in particular. So long as religions are burdened with infallible dogma, they cannot adapt their morality to the ever changing situations of the modern world.
INDEED, the very idea that morality should adapt would be anathema to many church members both clerical and lay. When you have boxed yourself into the corner of moral absolutes and shut yourself in with God's law, which cannot be questioned, then adaptability to changing circumstances is a non starter.
This is a major reason why many feel that an RSE programme should be taught outside religion class, One of the fundamental cornerstones of human ethics is the recognition that circumstances can alter cases and that, as a general guideline, the way which will cause the least hurt to all involved will be the best way.
Mr McCann implies illogically that all liberals are agnostic. Certainly some liberals leave God out of the picture they base their interpretation of existence on the evidence of the natural world and its evolution and not on a belief in a supernatural power. One does not need a god to be good, or a religion to be ethical. Historically, the churches have been so successful in elbowing out the non religious philosophy and in equating the Christian religion with morality, that people now think religion is morality.
Mr McCann argues that if God is left out of the picture then life becomes ultimately meaningless. Humanists and non religious people give meaning to their lives by accepting responsibility for themselves, by caring for others and by their concern for the natural world.
Humanists believe that we do right actions simply because they are right, not in the anticipation of a heavenly reward. Love, kindliness, tolerance, forgiveness and truth are so unquestionably good that we do not need a god to assure us of their worth. Humanists say that all values come from man.
There is not the slightest reason to fear that once this is recognised, we shall fare any worse than when religion was thought to provide the only possible basis for responsible social conduct. The history of religion is sufficient refutation of this. The human values of love and solidarity existed before Christianity took hold.
A belief that issues such as sexuality, abortion, contraception, divorce, euthanasia and suicide are matters of private morality and best decided by each person for themselves, is another powerful reason for looking at morality outside the religion class. Liberals realise issues are complex, and they trust that people will try to make the best decision they can in the circumstances.
This outlook differs from Mr McCann's, who believes that people should not be left to make up their own minds, but that firm and unambiguous teaching is what is required. It is this absolute certainty on moral issues which chills the heart.
With the liberal approach goes a firm commitment to openness and inquiry in education. If you take God and religion out of the equation, we all want the same thing the best for each other and for a human society which is firmly committed to ethical human values. A liberal approach espouses a philosophy of cautious optimism while trying to be more honest and open, which can be painful. In helping our children to sort out their values, we must give guidelines, not rules. A properly conducted RSE programme will help us to learn what being human is all about.
