Home

By Clint Elliott

Moral instruction has represented an important component of public education since the birth of this nation. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the first federal law addressing education, required new territories admitted to the Union to recognize that “religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Morality represents a necessary leg to support the 3-legged stool of education.

Building upon this emphasis, in 1832 Abraham Lincoln wrote that he desired “to see a time when education, and by its means, morality, sobriety, enterprise and industry, shall become much more general than at present.” Even Horace Mann, a nineteenth-century advocate for public schools, recognized the need for moral instruction to counter “the dark host of private vices and public crimes, which now embitter domestic peace and stain the civilization of the age.” No doubt building on these sentiments, the McGuffey Readers became popular textbooks during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with stories and lessons on morality. Thus, from the outset, our public schools necessarily and naturally included a deep fabric of moral instruction.

Kentucky also has long recognized the importance of moral instruction in public education. For example, KRS 158.6451 seeks to ensure that students will “become self-sufficient individuals of good character exhibiting the qualities of altruism, citizenship, courtesy, hard work, honesty, human worth, justice, knowledge, patriotism, respect, responsibility, and self-discipline.” KRS 158.005 defines such  “character education” as instruction that improves “the ability of students to make moral and ethical decisions in their lives.”

I doubt that anyone would deny that current challenges facing our youth heighten the need for moral instruction today. In 2003, a report from the national Commission on Children at Risk acknowledged that children in our nation are experiencing deteriorating mental health evidenced by increasing rates of conduct disorders, suicide ideation, and other serious mental health problems.[1] As a result, the Commission proposed authoritative communities to develop nurturing environments that would include morality and spirituality for child well-being. While the family represents the foundational authoritative community for children, certainly our public schools can contribute to addressing children at risk by including moral instruction.

Thankfully, in its 2025 session Kentucky General Assembly recognized the need to address serious issues in public schools with steps such as traceable communications systems (SB 181), restricting cell phone use during instructional time (HB 280), and by acknowledging the importance of moral instruction (SB 19). These efforts amplify the undeniable condition of public schools and the need for more – not less – moral instruction. These efforts also demonstrate the General Assembly’s sensitivity to issues of concern for the citizens they represent.

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State

Notwithstanding an undeniable need for moral instruction, some people oppose released time moral instruction by expressing misguided notions about “separation of church and state.” Many of those opponents suggest that separation of church and state means that our public schools must thoroughly cleanse themselves of any reference or acknowledgement of religion. Some people even continue to vocalize the misguided idea that the Supreme Court actually removed the Bible from schools in the 1960s, although that perspective represents a misguided understanding of the law. As a parent of a student who had the opportunity to take a Bible as Literature class in high school, I’m glad that such a misguided view of the relationship between schools and religion does not represent reality under the history and tradition of the First Amendment. In the specific Supreme Court case often referenced, the Court actually said the following:

[I]t might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.[2] 

More directly on point regarding concerns about separation of church and state is the following clarification from the Supreme Court:

The Court has sometimes described the Religion Clauses as erecting a “wall” between church and state . . . . The concept of a “wall” of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. The metaphor has served as a reminder that the Establishment Clause forbids an established church or anything approaching it. But the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state. . . . No significant segment of our society, and no institution within it, can exist in a vacuum or in total or absolute isolation from all the other parts, much less from government. “It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation. . . .” Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. . . (emphasis added).[3]

The law is clear, public schools are not religion free zones and, as schools for the public, they must accommodate the religious freedoms of those they serve.

The Case for Released Time Moral Instruction

One thing is undeniable in communities across the Commonwealth, parents in Kentucky recognize the importance of moral instruction. As a result, their local school boards have an obligation to consider parents’ requests and thoughtfully and legally accommodate moral instruction.

Nearly one hundred years ago, the Supreme Court acknowledged that “the child is not the mere creature of the State.”[4] Rather, the Constitution protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children.[5] Just this year, the Supreme Court further explained that the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children “is not merely a right to teach religion in the confines of one’s own home. Rather, it extends to the choices that parents wish to make for their children outside the home,” including in public school.[6] The Court further explained that parents cannot be forced to choose between the benefits of public school and religious freedom, meaning that schools cannot force parents to leave public school for homeschool or private school simply to enjoy the religious freedoms the First Amendment protects. 

Specifically regarding parents’ choice to participate in released time programming for their children, the Supreme Court has given clear instruction about the law. In that regard, the Supreme Court wrote:

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.[7] 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has made clear that released time programs do not violate the Establishment Clause and do not violate any notion of separation of church and state. Moreover, important for ongoing consideration on the local level, the Supreme Court explained that even though a “program may be unwise and improvident from an educational or a community viewpoint,” it is not the role of the law to examine the “wisdom of the system, its efficiency from an educational point of view, and the political considerations which have motivated its adoption or rejection in some communities. Those matters are of no concern” when viewing the legal right of released time programming.[8] As the Court further explained, the concept of separation of church and state cannot be weaponized to suggest that “public institutions can make no adjustments of their schedules to accommodate the religious needs of the people. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.”[9]

In today’s cultural climate, no reasonable rationale exists for a school to neglect moral instruction. Likewise, no reasonable, much less legal, rationale exists for a school board to discriminate against released time programs simply because a program teaches morality from a religious perspective. Certainly some in our communities may oppose the nuances of a particular program, and some may have a better one in mind, but that’s precisely why we have the First Amendment and the freedom of choice in released time, to protect our freedoms in a diverse and pluralistic society.

About the Author

Clint Elliott is the Executive Director of the Justice Defense Foundation of Kentucky

References:

[1]Institute for American Values, Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities (2003), 5. 

[2]Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963).

[3]Lynch v. Donnely, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984). 

[4]Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). 

[5]Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997).

[6]Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025).

[7]Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 (1952).

[8]Zorach, 343 U.S. at 310.

[9]Zorach, 343 U.S. at 315.

Join us for a high-energy huddle that’s all about Making America Great Again – starting right here at home.

Learn about LifeWise Academy, a Christian non-profit that that provides off campus Bible classes to public school students during the school day. Over 1,000 public schools in 34 states participate in the program, and we can bring it to Warren County…if approved by the School Board. Unfortunately, the Warren County School Board voted down a proposal by residents to bring LifeWise to our schools by a vote of 2-3, with 3 against. However, we are asking the School Board to reconsider this vote. Learn more at our meeting.

• When: Tuesday, October 28, 2025, 6:00 PM
• Where: Hilton Garden Inn, 1020 Wilkinson Trace, Bowling Green. No RSVP necessary.
• Bring a snack to share.

Let’s make waves, not excuses. Warren County and America is counting on us!

Solar energy presents significant limitations that prevent it from being a fully reliable or independent power source. The primary drawbacks involve its intermittent nature, dependency on costly storage solutions, substantial land use requirements, environmental and waste issues, manufacturing supply chain vulnerabilities, and infrastructure challenges. These issues highlight that solar energy is not a standalone replacement for other forms of power generation but a supplemental and dependent part of a larger energy mix. 

Advocates for Farm Preservation, and others are working diligently to stop the Wood Duck Solar development that will encompass 2,300 acres in Barren County, just 10 miles from Mammoth Cave National Park. The solar “development” covers 28 separate tracks of land, spanning 20-30 miles of road frontage while encircling homes, farms and farmland. Mammoth Cave National Park issued a letter in April 2025 opposing the project due to the potential of contamination of the underground water systems which flow directly to the cave. Over 500 signatures and over 100 letters in protest of the project have been submitted to the Public Service Commission. Help us to gather more input, and put pressure on local and state authorities to stop this project. In addition to your signature on this petition – an evidentiary hearing will be held in Frankfort on October 2nd and the public is invited to attend in person or on zoom. 

Please provide your full name:

Email *

Please provide your mobile number

• Sign up for text updates

Do you have an additional message you would like attached to your petition?

Address

Address Line 1

Address Line 2

City

--- Select state ---AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingState

Zip Code

Submit

By Gary Houchens

The murder of Charlie Kirk has hit me like a ton of bricks. It feels very personal.  Of course, this kind of political violence impacts every American, but I was a bit surprised at my own deeply emotional response.

While I was aware of Charlie Kirk and his work, I didn’t know the man. I had never heard him give a speech. I didn’t follow him on social media. He was a generation younger than me. He was a professional activist whose mission field was college campuses, while I am a college professor whose activist mission tends to be in the world of K-12 education.

While we are both “men of the right,” my own level of influence is a sliver of Kirk’s. I’m barely known at the state level, and then within the narrow domain of education policy. Charlie Kirk was a massively popular influencer at the national and even global level.

I have been in higher education long enough to see leftist ideology take over college campuses and drive conservative voices into the shadows or completely out of the universities. So of course, I was heartened when Turning Point USA, which Kirk founded, began to open chapters across the country, finally giving young conservatives a strength in numbers to finally share their views in the open.

I was especially proud when, in 2024, the Turning Point chapter on my campus invited Kyle Rittenhouse to speak, and while there was a massive chorus of voices seeking to silence him and cancel his presentation, my university insisted that we would be an institution committed to viewpoint diversity and freedom of speech.

The Rittenhouse speech was a great example of Kirk’s approach: hosting a campus event that its sponsors knew would provoke the worst instincts of their opponents yet doing so in a way that utilized freedom of speech and argumentation as its key strategy for winning the public argument.

This seemed to be central to Charlie Kirk’s style. Watching videos of him interacting with hostile students on campus this morning, I was struck by his intelligence, charm, and generosity. He seemed genuinely committed to overcoming his opponents through reasoned debate and effective persuasion. In this sense, he was a great model for young people seeking to engage in public discourse in productive ways.

But of course, he was also a provocateur, a talent that in our social media-soaked era is also probably key to his success. It was one such provocative statement on Kirk’s part that caused me to quietly end my own brief affiliation with the Turning Point chapter at my university.

In January 2024, Kirk made statements attacking Martin Luther King, Jr. and questioning the legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Kirk called on his followers to reject MLK as an American hero.

MLK was a complicated figure, to be sure, and I understand the argument Kirk was making about the unintended consequences of federal civil rights legislation, but the Civil Rights Act marked a major public policy victory over one of the great lingering evils of the modern age. Strategically, rhetorically, and historically, I thought Kirk was deeply mistaken to take this stance, and I felt compelled to disaffiliate with the organization as a result.

Not for a second did I think Kirk was a racist for his misguided position on Martin Luther King. But accusations of racism, fascism, misogyny, and hate have been part and parcel to the way the left has regarded Kirk, and how many on the left met the news of his murder.

Social media feeds last night were filled with posts either celebrating his death or rationalizing it in some way. The more diplomatic among these commenters would qualify their language with phrases like, “I don’t condone political violence, but…” (there is always some “but” to quietly justify or minimize the horror of leftist terrorism), while others just blatantly claimed Kirk got what was coming because of his alleged sins against various left-wing identity groups.

And here, I suppose, is where all of this feels so personal. Because, while I’m no Charlie Kirk, I too have felt the sting of brutal personal attacks for voicing opinions that most ordinary Americans held until just about the day before yesterday.

My life has never been threatened for the political things I’ve written and spoken about, but my livelihood certainly has, and I’m extremely blessed to work at a university that values and defends intellectual diversity (colleagues elsewhere have not been so blessed). I have faced unfair, questionably legal political repercussions that should embarrass and trouble Kentuckians of all parties.

I have been publicly vilified on social media, sometimes by former “friends,” and on the floor of the Kentucky Senate chambers by people who have never met me, with attacks on my character, my motivations, and my professional competence, all for my views on things like school choice, the relative size of the federal government, and the legal definition of marriage.

And of course I am not alone. For a generation or more, I have watched people on the left condemn every position even slightly right of center as fascist, dangerous, and bigoted. I know because, sadly, I was a person who used to make those kinds of false claims.

Political philosopher Yoram Hazony has written how this persistently false narrative about conservatives has the effect (perhaps intended) of delegitimizing the views of half the population. If you can dismiss a person’s views as hateful and beyond the moral pale, then you are justified in using institutional power to silence them. It’s not a stretch to then justify killing them if they can’t be silenced through other means.

Of course, the right has its own version of this pattern too. But the shamelessness with which so many people on the left, included people among our professional elites, feel free to condone violence to meet their political goals, is simply unparalleled on the right.

It makes me wonder, if someone took my life because of my perceived political views, would there be people who celebrate or rationalize it publicly (or privately)? As unlikely as this scenario seems given my relatively small role as a public conservative, I think the answer is yes. And that is deeply troubling, not just for me personally and my family, but for what that means for our democracy.

It’s especially grievous that so much of the vitriol directed at me, Kirk, and others is based on frankly false claims. Even if Kirk held truly reprehensible views, that would not justify violence against him, but he is not, in fact, a racist or misogynist, or any of the other terrible descriptors used against him.

In the hours after Kirk’s murder last night, it was revealed to me that a person who is very close to me personally has held a range of assumptions about things they thought I believe that are utterly incorrect. Not one word of the things they thought I believed was true.

If such deep misunderstanding is possible among those who love each other, what ocean of false assumptions are we harboring toward strangers we perceive as our opponents? What hope do we have for salvaging the American republic when we consider our interlocutors monsters?

I debate hard on the issues that matter to me, and I certainly think there are some ideas promoted by the political left that are frankly evil. But I try my best not to see the people who hold those views as evil. We have all been mistaken about things in the past, and we are all capable of growing and changing, and I am committed to using reasoned debate and civil persuasion to change minds and hearts.

There have likely been times, when under attack myself, that I have used less than noble rhetoric toward my attackers, and for that I repent and vow to do better. But in general, I try to stay committed – and I now renew my commitment – to engage those who disagree with me with respect, calm, and reasoned arguments, just like Charlie Kirk was doing yesterday when he was gunned down.

If we don’t repent – all of us, but especially our friends on the left – of the tendency to frame our opponents as moral monsters, Charlie Kirk will only be the first martyr in the bloodbath to come. Many more of us will follow.

Lord, save us from ourselves. Show us a better way.

Gary W. Houchens, Ph.D., is professor in the School of Leadership and Professional Studies and Director of the Educational Leadership doctoral program at Western Kentucky University. From 2016-2019 he served as a member of the Kentucky Board of Education.