Our form of government is a republic.

A republic is a form of self-government, where "supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote." That "supreme power" is "exercised by elected representatives responsible to the citizens and governing according to law."

The whole concept of a republic rests on self-government. And self-government rests upon the assumption that most people will, most of the time, do the right thing. That they have a sense of right and wrong. That they have a basic morality. And that they will elect representatives who have those traits.

The founding fathers were keenly aware of this.

This is not to say the founders were without flaws. But they knew that good men would form good government and that bad men would form bad government.

And their test for being a good man and forming good government was simple - religious conviction.

There are lots of examples of this in the early history of our country.

George Washington, in his first inaugural address, said, "The propitous smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained."

John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with emotions unbridled by morality or religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The founders believed that the republic should be firmly established in religious principles. They thought that if you neglected your duty to religion and morality - your creator - that you were unfit to lead in our form of government.

Adams said that the presence of moral and religious beliefs distinguished a statesman from a politician. A politician, he said, would compromise his principles in order to advance his own interests - political or otherwise. A statesman wouldn't compromise principles regardless of what it might cost him.

How many of our elected officials today would refuse to compromise their principles? How many of our elected officials today even communicate what their principles are?

In 1803, the Rev. Mathias Burnet was invited to give a sermon before the Connecticut legislature in the Capitol building. Here's part of what he said:

"Feeble would be the best form of government without a sense of religion and the terrors of the world to come. ... Banish a sense of religion and the terrors of the world to come from society and you leave every man to do that which is right in his own eyes. The man who is not actuated by the fear and awe of God has in many cases no bond or restraint upon his conduct and therefore is not fit to be trusted with the nation's welfare."

Consider this oath for officeholders prescribed in the oringinal constitution of the state of Delaware.

"Everyone elected or appointed to office shall make and subscribe the following declaration to wit: I do profess faith in God ... and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."

The state constitutions of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and North Carolina all had similar oaths.

Far from the way religion is perceived today in this country, some of the early states made religion a requirementfor holding office.

Gradually, beginning in the late 1800s, a movement toward secularization of government began. One of the leaders of the movement, Col. Robert Ingersoll, said "Religious influence and activities should be limited solely to church matters. Our government should be kept entirely and purely secular."

His views became more widespread as time passed.

Today, people who subscribe to Ingersoll's type of thinking are perceived as mainstream. Those who believe that religion is important are viewed by many as goofballs.

They are extremists, residing in a compartmentalized portion of the political spectrum known as the "religious right." (Does that make their detractors members of the "pagan left?")

People who believe in God are held in contempt by many in the national media, and the coverage they get almost always portrays them as underintelligent and out of touch with the rest of the secular, enlightened world.

But the secular movement has resulted in some bizarre, twisted contradictions.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the ten commandments can't be posted in a school - a government building. But if you look above the bench from which that Court rules, you will see a tablet containing the ten commandments carved into the limestone.

And I believe the secular movement has helped create the vast social problems we face. In 1962, the Bible and related teachings were removed from the classroom.

Since that time, as a society we have at best disregarded and at worst prohibited the "eternal rules" that Washington spoke about.

What has resulted since 1962?

Pregnancy among girls aged 10 to 14 is up 550 percent. The rate of sexually transmitted disease among high school students is up 226 percent. The rate of STDs among junior high students is up 257 percent. The number of girls aged 15 engaging in sex is up 1,000 percent.

The crime rate among teens is up. The dropout rate is up. Prison spending has increased 600 percent and we're still short of prisons.

For a good many years prior to 1962, those social ills showed low, stable levels.

I realize that this is an oversimplification of what ails society. I know that there are many more varied and complex factors involved.

But I also believe the evidence. It's irrefutable. When government and the highest court in the land trivialize religion, religion becomes trivial in the minds of the impressionable. When religion is prohibited in so many ways, it gives the perception that it is somehow bad for us. Today, even people who profess to be religious often act as if they are ashamed of it.

If there is no religion, there is no fear of an ultimate accounting for your behavior. If there is no ultimate accounting, then the only thing you fear from illicit behavior is being caught. If you can get away with it, go for it.

And that - precisely - is where we are today. If it feels good, do it.

Problem is, the price we are paying for "doing it" may become too great for this nation to bear. [[In-content Ad]]