Saw an article in the paper this morning about Bobby Bowden's new book. Bowden, of course, is the coach of the Florida State football team, and he's one of the more outspokenly "Christian" people in a sport that seems to breed loud-mouthed (and often less-than-contemplative) religious types.

In his book, Bowden says (among other things) that he doesn't allow atheists and other immoral people on his team, either as coaches or players. The implication is that atheists are, by definition, immoral.

Now, the article I read questioned that and other "Bowdenisms" -- this wasn't a news story but more of a review-feature kinda piece, so no need for you to start spouting off about the "biased" media, but I've heard similar thoughts from a lot of people I respect much more than Bowden. Athletes and coaches, in general, are not more thoughtful or intelligent than anyone else. The "Bobby Bowden Philosophy of Life" interests me about as much as the "John Smith Philosophy of Life" (with apologies to anyone named John Smith reading this column). Such is often expressed this way: "I think kids need to grow up going to church so that they get a good grounding in moral values."

What a load.

When I was a kid, I went to church. And Sunday School. The works. I was taught that the supreme moral tests were the ten commandments. Well, nine commandments. I can't see any difference between "thou shalt have no gods before me" and "thou shalt not make any graven image..." That second part seems to me and more than a few scholars to be simply an extended explanation of the first. You could also say the same for commandment #3, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain..." But whether you want to call it the Eight, Nine or Ten Commandments, those are the big rules.

Pretty high on the list (however you count) is "Thou shalt not kill." Unlike a number of other Commandments, which have lots of conditions and such, that one stands all by itself. It seems pretty clear and absolute to me. Problem is, most of the good guys in the Bible kill. David, perhaps the most exalted of Old Testament heroes, not only killed on the battlefield (which was okay because God told him to--in fact, the story of David and Goliath is generally told as proof of the power of faith), but he also ordered the death of the husband of his mistress. Two Commandment violations there, for those playing at home. God "punishes" David, but in the end ol' Dave still gets the girl. Sounds more like a modern-day Hollywood romance than heavy religious thought.

The thing is, a whole lot of Christians seem to believe that anything is moral if God tells you to do it. Certainly, that thought is expressed over and over throughout the Old Testament. But Christianity is based on the new covenant, the life of Jesus and the apostles as described in the New Testament. Jesus himself summarized the Ten Commandments with his two-part "golden rule": Love God with all your heart and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself (often expressed as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or somesuch). At the Last Supper, he declared the new covenant, that he would die for the sins of mankind. The Christian act of communion is the ritual observance of this main tenet of Christianity.

I remember being taught the golden rule, though it was never explained very well and never put forth as Jesus' own interpretation--some might say replacement--of the Ten Commandments. For the most part, though, we heard lots of stories about Bible heroes (who routinely broke commandments with relative impunity) and lots of tales of miracles and lots of "Jesus loves the little children." All well and good, but hardly the base of a moral education.

My dad's favorite admonishment to my brothers and me while growing up was a slight recasting of the golden rule: Think about how what you do affects other people. I think that's a pretty good start for morality. In fact, it's almost perfect. Even in cases where that concept might seem nutty--say, when engaged in life-and-death combat not of your choosing--it works. The truly moral person would ask whose life would benefit society more. Of course, almost all of us are self-serving enough to answer that question in our own favor, but still, that rational engine can be applied even in such an extreme circumstance. In fact, the reason my dad's--and Jesus's--philosophies work is that they require active thought. I can hear fundamentalists out there screaming "situational ethics," but come on, that's exactly what Jesus preached. Time and again, his actions and parables cut down the stiff and legalistic dogma of the religious leaders of his time. The new covenant reinforced the idea of critical thought within religion. Which is why it is still valid today.

On the other hand, the doctrine of "Follow the Ten Commandments unless God tells you otherwise" is utterly useless. Now, I'm not claiming that every Christian is so unthinking as to believe such a facile creed--most aren't--but none of the churches I attended encouraged kids to think for themselves about such things. Once I got to be a teenager, some allowance was made for original thought, but during those formative years of church-led "moral education," I was fed a steady diet of junk philosophy. The only consistently good moral instruction I received was at home--from my mother as well as my father--and that's as it should be.

Consistent instruction--and more importantly, consistent examples--in the home will teach moral lessons much more completely than anywhere else. And it doesn't take a Christian--or even a religious person--to recognize the wisdom of the golden rule (or John Stuart Mill's utility principle, or my dad's dictum, or...) and apply it to everyday life. People, just like life itself, are complicated, and new questions arise every day. What's important is to know how to ask questions, not simply be able to spout out pat answers. And that has nothing to do with any particular religious belief or lack thereof.

Jon Worley finds the "tenets" of atheism to be far more moral than those of any religious text he's read.