ShareWIK.com

In the New Year, many of us turn our attention to resolutions.

My resolution concerns the moral education of our children.

I’ve become increasingly uncomfortable with the progressive dissolution of our society’s moral consensus and its impact upon our children.  But until now I’ve not had the courage to raise the issue publically.

I recently had a discussion with a Middle School student in which s/he shared that s/he was bi-sexual. 

Having done a fair amount of research on sexual orientation, my reading of the scholarly literature tells me that a person won’t fully understand their sexual orientation until their late teens or early 20’s.  Hence, I was surprised to hear such a discovery from someone of such a young age.

When I thanked the student for trusting me with such an intimate revelation, I asked how s/he had come to this self-understanding?

It seems that the Middle School at which s/he attends is divided into 3 cliques: Straight, Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered, and Bisexual. S/he determined that if you are “Bi” you can get along with everyone.

As I questioned the child I realized s/he had little comprehension of sexual orientation, was not sexually active, and was not planning any sexual experimentation.

Being a people pleaser I can understand why this child and others would embrace a sexual orientation that would allow them to better get along with their classmates.  Yet I was troubled that the sexualization of their school was so acute as to lead a child to embrace a sexual identity in order to ”get along with everyone.”

As I speak with educators nationally I have come to realize this is not an isolated experience.  Indeed, between the ABC Family Channel, the internet, and an increasing number of school districts adopting some rather explicit K-12 sexual education curriculums, the age of innocence is in steep decline. 

At this point you may expect me adopt a right wing critique of the sexualization of the public educational system or a left-wing defense.

I will do neither.

The problem facing our children is more fundamental and goes beyond sexual ethics.

Our problem is in answering the following question:

What is right and what is wrong?

Our national consensus on morality is rapidly narrowing. 

A growing number of us are skeptical we can find consensus. 

We have tried to avoid the difficult task of building moral consensus, by deciding to educate our children without a coherent understanding of right and wrong.

In the past four decades our society has replaced a comprehensive understanding of right and wrong, with a moral code comprised of three taboos:

1)         One may not criticize someone else’s life choices or behavior.

2)         One may not behave in a manner that coerces or causes harm to others.

3)         One may not engage in a sexual relationship with someone without his or her consent. 

If we were all born mature 18 year olds we could have a vigorous debate concerning whether they might sufficient to sustain a free society, but the three taboos are completely inadequate as the basis for a child’s moral education.

Presently our families and schools are teaching our children to make good choices, but in an increasing number of schools teachers are not allowed to define the meaning of “good.”

We are living as if the three taboos are a sufficient basis for a child’s moral understanding.

We are wrong.

Several years ago a Harvard student explained why in his commencement speech:

“The freedom of our day is to devote ourselves to whatever values we please so long as we do not believe them to be true.”

To tell a child to make good choices without telling them the meaning of good is literally non-sense.  It breeds insanity.  For what is an insane person, but a person who cannot make sane moral judgments?

And when a child, so educated, makes a choice we deem to be bad and incarcerate them for it, I believe that child ought to have the right to sue us for moral malpractice. 

And I believe we would be found guilty.

We owe children a robust moral education. 

To do so we need to rebuild a national consensus on morality. 

Our world would not exist without gravity, and humans cannot live together without an adequate moral consensus.  A free society by definition requires such a consensus.

Why?

Morality allows us to live together with minimal need for coercion.

Morality tells us how to behave when no one is watching. 

Democracy cannot exist without such a moral consensus.

The absence of a national moral consensus will undermine democracy.  

The conflict that results from divergent moral frameworks can only be handled by a totalitarian government that keeps order with arbitrary moral judgments enforced coercively. 

Whether we like it or not, America cannot survive without an adequate moral consensus. 

Alexis de Tocqueville is credited with the following quote:  “America is great so long as America is good, when America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

We can longer afford to ignore what it means to be good. 

Is there an answer we can all accept?  I believe so.

I call it rMorality and it can be summed up as follows: Loving God with all that you have and are, and loving your neighbor as yourself. 

Unlike the three taboos, which are basically about self-gratification, this guides us to look out for the good of self AND others. 

Is it too narrowly religious? 

No.  If you don’t believe in God, you can still focus on the golden rule, while others are free to explore God and love. 

It gives us a basis to begin working together to develop a national consensus on morality and save us from the consequences of a moral vacuum.

Have I overstated my case? 

Consider this, two weeks ago the Swiss Parliament debated a bill that would legalize incest provided it is between people of a certain age and consensual.

Do we really care so little for our children that we are willing to be apathetic when it comes to morality?

No.  We care for our children.  It’s time to show it.

Rev. Dale S. Kuehne, Ph.D. is the author of “Sex and the iWorld. Rethinking relationship beyond the age of Individualism.”  He is the Richard L. Bready Chair of Ethics, Economics, and the Common Good and founding director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College.  He serves as pastor of Emmanuel Covenant Church in Nashua, NH and is a regular ShareWIK.com columnist. 

Read other columns by Rev. Dale Kuehne here. 

©2011 ShareWIK Media Group, LLC