Letters: The Bible is not a moral manual

John Sealey
Sunday 26 May 1996 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Lord Runcie's understanding of the Bible - if accurately presented by Andrew Brown's article ("And the Word of God is: ambiguous", 17 May) - seems perfectly correct. The Bible is not a moral manual. It is a collection of religious books. Anyone looking for a secular moral code in the Bible will not find it. Contrary to your headline, the Bible is not at all ambiguous on this issue. A secular Bible is a contradiction in terms.

Secular morality, on the other hand, is a well known and much debated area of human experience that owes little or nothing to religious codes of behaviour. Grossly oversimplified, for an action to be correctly described as a moral action it (logically) must: 1) be rationally based, 2) be freely and autonomously chosen, 3) treat other people as "ends" and not "means", and 4) be applicable to all. Following a set of religious commandments is, clearly, not one of the necessary criteria for being moral. One does not have to be religious in order to be moral.

One simple but significant implication of this distinction is that state school inspectors must be vociferously, and if necessary, legally, attacked whenever they criticise an RE teacher for not including moral education in their lessons on religion.

JOHN SEALEY

Morton, Lincolnshire

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in