The proposition stands on a presupposition that religious training is always morally strengthening. That is, those who have a sound religious background and practise their faith in life with a religiosity can tackle moral problems. But the question also propounds (= initiates) a counter-thesis that those who lack such disciplines lack the wherewithal (= resources) to tackle moral problems. I shall discuss the two issues separately.
Religion is based upon faith in an unseen holy power or force that is believed to conduct the affairs in the world. Naturally a disciplining of human impulses towards the achievement of a higher ideal relates religion to a kind of morality. To wit (= know), morality is a kind of ethical behaviour that builds individual’s character through a study of good and evil. Here, however, it ought up an to be mentioned that a sound moral perception need not be necessarily a religious attribute. History speaks of atheists (= nonbelievers in God or any such substitute) or secular civilizations where the moral standard has been high.
However, it cannot be denied that ‘sound religious training’ is conducive to (= likely to produce) a good moral standard. The reason: faith in an ideal that is regarded as the highest one and whose achievement is regarded as a godly virtue. Such a faith is the noblest incentive and no sacrifice is great enough for persons who are inspired by such an ideal. The great saviours, prophets social reformers and poets are such stars. These religious prescribed rules of conduct, service and sacrifice that, initially, cast a spell on the mass of followers. They join the remarks of these religions in devout faith; for the force of material gain, in time, spoil the spirit of love, mutual cooperation, sacrifice and neighbourly feelings. Human mind and sensibility becomes a junk (= rubbish). Religion, then, appears in a new light suited to the situation and context. There is a millennium. The pages of history teem with instances of such resurrections (- coming into new life) of religion. But religion, also, loses force or currency like a debased coin. Nor is disbelief in religion a moral sin.
Morality is never a purely religious attribute (= quality). Jawaharlal Nehru was a proud atheist and found his religion and morality in nature, huriane science and a stout reason and common sense. The doctrine of Buddhism postulated (= thought out) a discipline that ignored God. This doctrine still survives powerfully in nations like China, the far east, Tibet and Japan. Their morality is more alive than the degenerate morality of the Hindus in many ways. The Stoies in ancient European civilization were a class of men that avoided a life of indulgence (= fondness for only the pleasures of life) and rank pleasures. They follow Nature and disciplined their lives on a strict pattern of moral laws like the natural laws.
The above instances bear out the truth that morality is closely related to human behaviour. Moral codes of conduct are, of course, prescribed by the various religious disciplines. But moral values change with changing life. The ethics of human behaviour that obtained (= was thought fit) in ancient India does not fit in the modern context. For example, it is generally held that to rob men is morally punishable. But today the practice of robbing the excess wealth of the rich to feed the hungry mouths of poor is regarded as a form of social justice.
We may even comment, that the long-standing notion that religion and morality are two sides of the same coin has done more harm to religion than otherwise. Our Hindu religion takes upon itself the exclusive privilege of prescribing morals law. We know that distinctions of caste is a legacy (an inheritance) of the past. It grew out of a necessity to distribute duties and responsibilities among the citizens of a nation according to the requirements towards the development of a growing and healthy civilization. At the initial stages this caste-division functioned as a healthy system. But the moral rules or laws that governed the different castes became rigid; the implicit (= implied in the system) faith that all members in a society contribute to its growth lost its original force. As a result, today, the human society has become cast into rigid moulds with unhappy consequences.
This loss of character infects every religious discipline today. The history of Christianity or Islam is marred by such excesses, we know. A persual of their history reveals to what extent they have run amuck (= made shabby use) their moral precepts in committing tortures, reprisals (= counter revenges) and other foul acts.
Thus, in the final analysis, morality is not any hard bound set of rules of conduct. Nor is it an appendix (= tag) of religion or non-religious disciplines. Its rules change with changes in the human context. More deeply, moral sense is an attribute of the human mind and intelligence. It is the highest quality of an enlightened civilization. The Greek civilization, the Christian civilization and the ancient Hindu civilization are all possessors of a high standard moral tradition. And so is the Buddhist civilization or the Islamic one.
