The good literature of our childhood has been taken off the library shelves because someone has now decided that the author (since) meant something derogatory which is vividly attested today. Historical monuments are removed from their bases because the subject happens to be a leader of a now frowned upon movement; not considering that said individual had been blessed with the opportunity to examine advanced understandings may well have made a different choice.

The fact being that no one but the good Lord Himself knows another’s thoughts and meanings without intimate knowledge and the ability to question the subject itself, and without the story, an understanding advanced rarely comes.

I was moved watching the State of the Union address. A well-delivered speech, whether I agree with the politics behind it or not. However, during the evening we were subjected to another celebrity endorsement of an idea based on the very premise that people today believe they can speak to thoughts, minds and souls of people from the past to the point that the rest of us should be chastened and led to their way of thinking.

I guess the spokesperson was chosen because his father was once the speaker for the annual event, and that should add some authority to his words. Once again, the idea of ​​“separation of Church and State” imposed itself on us. I want to finally put this beast (the idea, not the mouthpiece) to bed. This notion has been debated for as long as the United States Constitution was first signed, or at least since the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791.

I have read five of the historically documented arguments in the debate for the idea that the founding fathers intended there to be a separation of church and state. In every argument, without fail, and I quote, “the words ‘separation of church and state’ do not appear…” in the Constitution, nor in the First Amendment.

Each of the arguments went on to say, in one way or another, that the idea of ​​its intent was derived from other writings by those same founders. In fact, the most notable document in the history of this debate, a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which the phrase “separation wall” was included, turned out to have been written at a church convention explaining that the establishment clause of the First Amendment was for purposes of protecting the Church from government interference.

The basic principle was that the government would not choose any religion as the official religion of the country. All declarations pursuant to the Establishment Clause have been carefully crafted to protect each person’s right to practice the religion of their choice or to practice no religion at all.

The only fact repeated in these arguments, and therefore known, is that the Constitution of this United States in no way suggests that there should be no reference to religious understanding within the walls or establishments of our government.

This argument that there is has only deterred people from moral lessons or commentary within our governmental institutions, further eroding the already natural human condition that leads to chaos.

There seems to be, at least based on reports from those trying to do important work from within, a serious erosion of the basic respect and decency that is vitally important in our schools; the very governmental institution through which most of our impressionable minds pass.

Now, from personal experience, I can tell you that this erosion has seriously slipped since the 1980s and the penalties for those who seek to do the right thing expecting order and classroom rules have hardened to the point where they just want to raise their hands and find other career opportunities.

But they hesitate because of their love for their role and the knowledge that if they left, the chaos would only get worse since, the proverbial “monkeys would be in charge of the zoo”.

Religion is not a bad word. Religion applies to all citizens, as all religions usually have a book to guide those who believe. And, though I only know from one of these books, I can say that the scriptures are “…useful for teaching, for convicting, for correcting, for instructing in righteousness.”

So, even if you are not a believer, there is an excellent teaching of morality that would benefit the whole of society.

Please read the following (ideas and quotes from a study book written by Dr. Derwin Gray).

The company is a kind of family. “There are families who understand that there is an unspoken rule…”

Dr. Gray speaks of unwritten rules of behavior, but understood on the basis of “traditions, rules and accepted behaviors”. Dr. Gray goes on to say, “Every family has practices and behaviors that are part of their culture.

Well, religious people have their own “families” with their own set of behavioral guidelines. And God’s family is no different.

“If there was a poster on the refrigerator in the kitchen of God’s house, stating the rules of acceptable behavior, it would have family rules like these listed:

Be gentle and humble; love each other with patience; use your gift from God; capabilities; grow in spiritual maturity; to be generous; speak honestly; managing anger and conflict; do not take what belongs to others; pay attention to your words; show compassion; forgive as Jesus forgave you; respect others to gain respect”

With rules like these, who can argue that religious behavior or speech is detrimental to the social institution.

Our schools must return to the days when great advances in science and mathematics were commonplace with respectful moral behavior. This is necessary so that education can return to the forefront of the institute.

A great place to start is to spend more time focusing on what needs to be done and less on what needs to be done. Stop starting a civil war with rhetoric based on sophistry.

Written by Reverend Robert Henry, Senior Minister of “Living By Faith” Ministries and Member of the Pickaway County Ministerial Association for The Circleville Herald.