That said, we all know that morals should be taught and that there is a subset of the range of moral codes that is essentially standard. By itself, this is simply not what anyone would call their moral code, so I don't consider it to be one. But, things like empathy, tolerance, and the golden rule are essential to every moral code I know of. There should be no debate on whether we teach tolerance in school, since it's not a moral that conflicts with any moral codes. We should teach select universal morals in school, and all that stems from them, but not any specific moral codes. For example, it would be wrong to teach Christian morality in school, but I expect the golden rule to be taught in school, even though that is one moral found in the Christian moral code. That's what I mean, if I wasn't clear before; we should teach a core set of morals, but not entire codes. The nuances and specifics of the different codes should be taught at home or in places of worship, where there is no conflict.
There is an inherent contradiction to the Abrahamic moral code that is the source of this debate; you can't teach someone to tolerate human diversity and then teach them to shun people for being different. Since almost all codes contain the first part, and only a few emphasize the second, society should emphasize the first; that creates the minimum of moralistic contradictions.