Transcripts For CSPAN2 Author Debate On The Influence Of Christianity On Americas Founders 20240713

Enjoy booktv now and over the weekend on cspan2. [inaudible conversations] all right. Good evening ladies and tillman. My name is jasmyne post. Im a scholar here at university of louisville and its an honor to welcome you to our Mcconnell Center event. In celebration of Constitution Day we thank you for joining us for debate on did america have christian founding . Its my pleasure to introduce aa moderator for this the next debate. Olde providence 24th dean or the Brandeis School law at the university of louisville. Prior to becoming too brandeis Dean Crawford said at the robert professor of environment the tw at Tulane University law school in new orleans. Before killing he was a tenured member of the faculty at Georgia State University College of law in atlanta where he found and codirected the center for comparative study of metropolitan growth which has developed new models for fieldbased fuelbased education and comparative and environmental landuse law. Dean crawford is a lot of that law degree from harvard and came attend columbia. He was admitted to practice law in the statement here. Please join me in welcoming tonight moderator dean colin crawford. [applause] thank you very much. Good evening to all of you. Its a pleasure to be back here for the second year in a row at the Mcconnell Center, at a convinced the reason i was asked back is if i have one skill, it is in being a very strict timekeeper. So this evening im going to hold the speakers to the time limits that i have been instructed to give them. And before introducing them, just let it run over that format very quickly. Each of the speakers will have 15 minutes for the opening statement. When they have two minutes left i will put up two minutes, then one, and then i will utter the word stop, and i will say please afterwards but ill ask that you both respect that so we have time for a robust discussion. And then i will not abuse the moderators privilege and asked the question each of them as a way to try and incentivize the discussion. For that they will have five minutes each and then we will start to take questions from the audience. I will repeat this later but i will make this three now. We all know that experience of being in audiences with the audience members racist races s an extensive statement. I would encourage you to ask the speakers questions so we can hear what they have to say, and then take back home our points to discuss. So then we will have audience discussion. Let me quickly introduce both of them in the order is that Mark David Hall who is immediately, or is on par to my right to speak first. Professor hall is a professor of politics at Fox University in newberg oregon. He is the author editor of over a dozen books. He has a phd from the university of virginia in government where he wrote on one of the founders, and i just learned an Early Supreme Court justice, james wilson. He is also the author of the forthcoming book which is coming out in october. Do you have it with you . You can short what it looks like. Did america have a christian fm nelson books and sp to emphasize that the book is intended for a general readership. Its not unlike his other work directed towards academic audiences so it should be accessible for all of us, myself included. To my email yet right is Andrew Seidel, a constitutional attorney and the director of Strategic Response at the foundation at getting this wrong, andrew. At the freedom from religion foundation. Got it right. He has a j. D. From the skull close to my heart, a place i taught for eight years, Tulane University in the new orleans. He was magnet cum laude graduate from tulane and also has an element for my hometown university, the university of denver. He is the author and do have a copy because the book was published in may, the author of the founding myth, which as you pointed out to be, and i took note, has blurbs from two, law professors. As i said this came out in may 2019. Once again im going to hold them as tricky as i can to the time. I will tell you two, one, then stop please. So without further ado, mark, please begin. [applause] thank you very much, Dean Crawford. And thanks to the Mcconnell Center proceeds is event and especially to gary for inviting us to persist in it. Its an honor to be here. There are two common answers are often given to the question did america have christian founding . On the one side of the 19th century up to the present day you have authors the said course it did. Not only did it virtually all the founders were godly men and their change great and explicitly christian nation. These authors oftentimes lacked academic credentials. They sometimes make use quotations can sometimes use quotations that cannot be verified. At the worst they make up stories that i have in mind Something Like Parson Williams and his great account of George Washington kneeling in prayer in the snow at valley forge. Its just made up. This is not the sort of position im defending tonight at of what to make sure thats clear. On the other hand, and this is of grave concern to me, it is very, very common for academics and for popular scholars to answer in the opposite direction to say no, no, it did not. It didnt have a christian value. Most of the americas founders, they create a godless constitution of the desired a strictly separate church and state. I believe these sort of assertions are simply false. Ill begin to show that some in my talked talk tonight and i go four great detail in my book. What he want to do is contend that if we have to answer the question did america have christian founding, with a yes or a no, that yes, it is deathly the best answer but when you be careful in defining our terms comes i want to explore a little bit what we mean by christian founding. How would we know it if we sought . If i borton i would explore different possible found from the early colonies to the war for independence to the Constitutional Convention but im until the going to stipulate were talking that will use say at the founding era, 17 ml 57091 or so the war for american independence and the creation of our Constitutional Order. So with that said lets begin to explore what we mean by a christian founding . One possibility would be americans in the identified themselves as christian. If thats what we mean then indisputable we had a christian founding. Of americans, european dissent almost when a person what it said im a christian. 98 what identified themselves as protestant. 2 are roman catholics and about 2000 jews in four american cities. Debate over come right . Thats not interesting in my mind. These could be very highest christian, christians influenced by i want to lay that to the site for now. The second possible meaning is they were all Orthodox Christians. Let me say and to devote an entire chapter of this in my book that theres absolutely no good reason to believe that most many of americas founders were ds. Its the case that jefferson and adams, franklin were not Orthodox Christian but thats not the same thing as being ideas. The term defined including by Andrew Seidel its book. There are actually great reasons to believe that many of them were Orthodox Christians although in many cases we have to be careful about making that sort of claim. Actually the organizers of this debate have it just right. Scholars has spent years and have killed many trees trying to identify whether the founders were influenced by lockean liberalism or classical republicanism or the Scottish School of moral sense and to look at influence. What were the major influences upon americas founders and if think you can make an excellent case christianity was a very important influenced her i wouy the most important influence. Christianity proper or ideas developed within the christian tradition of political reflection. Let me jump to what might be a hard case for me, the war for american independence because on the surface this seems to be a profoundly unchristian act. Im sure you all know romans and we could get going, i read the beginning. Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from god. And the authorities that exist are appointed by god. One could make the case the patriots by rebelling against this duly constituted authority are engaged in a profoundly unchristian act. On the surface this seems to be a problem. However, as early as a 12th century some catholic scholars began to work on this problem and ask things like what would happen if a ruler became a pirate . Might that ruler sees to be the sort of governing authority that paul speaks about in romans 13 . This idea was taken by the protestant reformers especially john calvin and those who followed him buchanan, and so forth. They develop this robust resistance ideology. Calvin is one of the most conservatives. He talks about having the authority to resist eichinger becomes a tyrant but even as hes doing the john knox in scotland say no, the people themselves have this sort of authority. I would say this is a very important position that develops within the reformed tradition and this is very important in american context because between 5075 of americans of european dissent in this era or i could identified as calvinist. This connection was noticed by the other side, the loyalist peter oliver railed against the dissenting clergy took so active a part in the rebellion by dissenting clergy payment is the tunes, and congressional, baptists and other. King george reportedly referred to the war for independence as a presbyterian rebellion. The most important document to come out of the continent of congress, the declaration of independence, rest in important ways on a theological clinker we hold these truths to be selfevident that all men are pretty equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. You may of jack, White American we know Thomas Jefferson is not an Orthodox Christian and he would be absolutely correct. We need to understand theres aa committee of five and his committee change the draft in way she did not like. More portly and went to the entire continent of congress that change it again and this type has authority over because it comes from congress when most members of congress for signing off on this by nature, god come to think about the god of abraham, isaac and jacob. The god who intervenes in human affairs. Let me press on again to another case. How about the constitution course . Is this a godless document . If youre familiar with the state constitutions in the error it is different. Many state constitutions have multiple references to god specific. The constitution basically silent. The only reference that comes close to being a reference to god is the dateline and the of our lord 1787, get some constitutional scholars say we should even consider this to be a part of the constitution proper. There are some notions that america is a a nation populatey christians. The pocket veto occurs ten days after Congress Passes a piece of legislation, theres an assumption this will not be done on sunday. The Constitutional Convention met every day of the week except for sunday. Congress in 1790 i think in thee house met once on a sunday. Generally people did not do legislative business on the sabbath. So lets, what sort of argument i have . God is basically not there and we have a ban on religious office which flies in the face of the leaven of the 13 in 1787. Ardell sixes we will not have religious test for federal office. Whats going on . I want to suggest we cannot determine whether america is a godless or godly constitution simply accounting references to the deity. Where to look deeper. I want to begin with the sort of literature that the american founders were referencing. You recall i said to her protestant. Artisans are people of the book. The book was important to them you would expect to see references to the bible everywhere. In fact, thats exactly what you find, a very fine lyrical scientist did a wonderful analysis of a whole bunch of tests and an article he eventually published in the american Political Science review. What he found is in looking simply at political literature and looking at citations within this political literature, that roughly in the founding era were talking about 34 of all citations were to the bible alone. This is compared to 22 to all enlightenment thinkers combined montesquieu, locke, smith, everyone combined. 22 , bible alone 34 . Its important to note the references to the bible. He excludes political sermons that dont have references the secular thinkers and theres another important reason that i will get to. Let me jump to a more substantive argument. Fine, how, how were the focus if was by christian ideas . Out. 2 just four methinks and weaken explore them later. The founders believed all have sinned and fallen fall short oe court of god, that humans are sinful and even christians continue to struggle with the older within. This led them to develop a a Constitutional Order characterized by federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law. They were very suspicious of concentrated powers. Some enlightenment thinkers at the time by way of contrast were very interested in centralized government with no checks and balances, run by experts. That makes sense if reason is to be your guide. Let be jump to another one. The founders were convinced there were world standard universal moral standards that apply to all people at all times in all places. Human law must be based upon this world standard. If you read Early Supreme Court justice come sense like st. Thomas aquinas. There are two types of law, the fine and human. There are four types of divine law, eternal, celestial, natural, physical morelos. Human laws must be based on moral laws. And so forth. Every Supreme Court justice prior to John Marshall with the exception of james irbil is on record saying the Supreme Court could strike down an act of a legislator for inviting violating natural law. Thirdly, the christian ideas in from the founders understanding of liberty. For them liberty was a freedom could do what is right. They distinguish between liberty and licentiousness. One founders were liberty must be used within the bounds of right and duty, or in another common formulation, all without liberty is tyranny. Liberty without law is licentiousness. Fourth and critically the founders were convinced that humans were created in the image of god. James wilson if i may, this is the u. S. Supreme court decision, writes that man wonderfully made is a workmanship of his all perfect cricket. Some of your wickedness as coming from psalm 139. He doesnt put in reference. Hes clearly referencing the psalmist. He goes on to say this, that life with a consistency beautiful in a in a dvd human e from its commencement to its closest protected by the common law. In the contemplation of the law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the room by the law, life is protected on from immediate destruction but from every decree of actual violence and in some cases every agree of danger. Theres number of things i i cd point you to want to with respect to liberty. This is where the rubber hits the road. Im running out of time so let me just get one of my favorite quotations with respect to religious liberty and then i will return to churchstate relations. George mason in a draft what became a very important document, ardell 16 of the virginia declaration of rights said, he drafted that as religion or the duty which we owe to our divine creator in the manner of discharging it can be governed only by reason a conviction not force and violence, therefore all men should enjoy the fullest toleration exercise of religion. This is pretty good. Note how the argument is ground in the theological proposition, a duty which we owe to divide and creative. This is a good draft but James Madison was upset at said. He did not like this word toleration. He proposed an amendment and article 16 was admitted to make it clear we have a natural right to freely exercise our faith. With that i think i will stop. One minute to spare. Okay, andrew. So im going to speedy i will just say two, one and then so we the people, those words are poetic but they are so much more. They declared power comes from the people, not god. That was revolutionary. Our godless constitution was indeed revolutionary was the first not to mention a dvd of forges in. The first to ban religious test from the federal office and the federal constitution experiment with the secular government was so successful that all the states while the suit. This disassembly churches, cuttg churches off from taxpayer funds through the 1830s. Secular Government Works because there is no such thing as the freedom of Religion Without a government that is free from religion. America invented the separation of state and church. Its an american original. The idea was born in the enlightenment but it was first intimated in the american experiment. Im proud of the steak i was bipolar, i wish every american were proud of this american invention at a wish there were far fewer seeking to undermine it with ideas that we are a christian nation. America did not have a christian founding and its a good thing we didnt. Because the principles that are central to christine that they can be find in the bible are fundamentally opposed to the principles on which this nation was built. Ill get into that in a moment but lets look at what my phone had to do to prove his claim. He would have to name those christian principles that influence the founding of it must be christian. These are ideas and ideals that are unique to as religion. It cant just be religion claiming credit for ideas that are out there. The golden rule, not people think of this desecration principle but the greeks had hundreds of you before christianity as did the chinese. The egyptians had it millennium before christianity. The golden rule is a universal human principle. John adams called it that great principle of the law of nature and nations. So where can we find christian principles . We can find it in the bible. We can find them in the ten commitments, in jesus words in the christian bible, in pauls letters, in two corinthians. [laughing] thats we find christian principles thereby put lexeme agent is fishing tradition of political reflection and dedicated a tribute that to all the christianity. He finds their discussion of the universal human principles, things like liberty and life and acting in self interest which he labels sinful. Basically speaking a christian flag in these human ideas but to claim that life and liberty are christian ideas when theyre the most basic Building Blocks of humanity committed the sin of which is like myself were often accused of calm heresy. Even if were to focus on christian thought, thought which we should say ignores what 1200 years, 1500 years of christianity . Hes got a bigger problem because historically religion gets dragged into modernity by second ideas and thinkers. When it comes to progress, religion does not lead come at fault. Professor smith is an excellent work in this area. He likens it to the tail wagging the dog. Religion comes along later to claim credit for that progress. Think about the historical opposition to divorce, to womens rights, to lgbtq writ, the abolition, to desegregation come to civil rights. The stronger religious theological and biblical argument on the sight of all those debates is on the wrong side of history. This isnt to say some religious groups were on the right side but the better biblical and religious arguments are on the wrong side. And less orthodox religions, religion that was on the right side was liberalized by secular ideals and values. Secularism drove religion to abolition control church to examine their collective conscious. Frederick douglas wrote revivals of religion and revivals of the slave trade hand in hand because he recognized this. Martin luther king recognized it. He wrote a letter from a birmingham jail to his fellow preachers who were standing on the sidelines mouthing pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities while he was fighting for civil rights. He often likened the church to a taillight and said it should be a headlight even though it wasnt. Again this is only counterintuitive because of what my opponent is doing now, claiming that religion is responsible for that progress. If you want a modern example you can see this happening now with gay marriage. The opposition to gay marriage was exclusively religious. Mark my words with the next 30forges religion will be trying to claim credit for that victory. First he has to name those christian principles, not simply claim that christianity is responsible life and liberty and Human Dignity. After naming the pencils have to connect them to the founding. I was thrilled to him consumer talked about the Constitutional Convention in that area. Of course would talk about that. We are not talked with history from a time when the americas were an outpost of a christian king. When there was the constitution let alone a first back to the constitution. Colonials made a really deceptive. Everything is old to us we dont realize how far apart those were that jamestown was settled 180 years before the Constitutional Convention. My opponent first day of birth is closer to the Constitutional Convention than jamestown was. Talking about the fun of the conus is not that useful. The declaration of independence, amazing document, lava, and couldve went to i two two chas in the founding myth. It was a justification, and investment, if there are political with great britain. It did two things in laying out political philosophy. Said first that power comes from the people. That is antibiblical. And second, that the declaration said we have a right to rebel against tyranny which christianity prohibits. He mentioned romans 13. Those that exist the institute by god, whoever resists authority resists what god has appointed. Sites that, hes proving the point that secular thought wishes christianity away from those totalitarian values that i was just trying to make. That passage is clear. Go read it for yourself. He must show discretion id and has two connected to family. He has to show where the founders relied on that idea. Its not enough to show the founders were all christian. I would concede that for the sake of argument even though its not true. Fast in conversation, i love to this conversation especially if you want to buy me a glass of the delicious kentucky bourbon year. I will talk about that for hours but is not relevant to the question because even if they were all jesus rose from the dead christians, and they were not, he still t has to show that the religious beliefs influenced their choices at conferences the Constitutional Convention. Those religious beliefs must be examined and then compared against the principles that inform our constitutional design. Its especially hard given the framers almost never side the bible at the Constitution Convention when they were writing our founding document, and we can talk more about the left side in the west ask a question about that. Very much miss cited. It we should also add you might want to show this principles positively influence the founding of trinity. Showing a negative influence is easy. All you have toal do is look a slavery. It was widely justified using the bible. Slavery is implicitly recognized twice in the Ten Commandments. Jesus tells you how hard you can be tersely. Thats a christian principle that influence our founding and the constitution. Hes free to claim that influence. I suspect he wont. More on that later. Maybe you will. Shows those christian principles and influence on the founding, and that is the very question that asked in my brandnew book available at fine bookstores anywhere. [laughing] the founding myth. What i set out to do was ask the question did christian principles positively influence the founding of the trinity of america . And no, they didnt. They were not founded on christian principles and its a good thing because those principles are fundamentally opposed to the principles on which this nation was built. Hes got the burden of proof. Hes makingf the claim one is rejected by most scholars. He has to prove those to meet the burden. Im going to disprove it. Christian principles conflict with americas founding principle. I could talk about oregons constitution, about a secular government, the separation of religious, the treaty of tripoli which is the trait was not found on the christian religion but i dont need to because theres this fundamental conflict between christian principles and the principle which this nation was founded. To me the ten ten commitments a prime example. Im the lord your god, you shall have no other god before me. It will be difficult to write a sentence that conflicts more with our respect than that. You shall not make for yourself an idol. You shall not bow down to them or worship them. Again, a violation of the First Amendment. Pretty clear. Religious liberty, free speech, expression all violated rightio there. Most of the monuments we see to the Ten Commandments stop right there. Even though the commandments goes on. That means we use our modern morality to edit the Ten Commandments, gods most law. If you read on, the committee continues for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of the paris for the third and fourth generation. Cosmos moral law promises to deliberately punish innocent children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren. Now, american justice demands proof of guilt to avoid punishing the innocent. The christian got intentionally harms innocence to punish the guilty. Repudiation of personal responsibility is punishing innocent or even vicarious redemption biblical constant. Jesus dying for our sins is perhaps the most prominent example. He was interested but somehow his punishment absolves others of the wrongdoing. This is the central idea of christianity, that jesus died for your sins. It is a complete abrogation of personal responsibility that is fundamental at odds with our entire democratic legal and financial systems. You shall not make wrong for use of lord your god here dont take gods name in thing. But again First Amendment and you can blasphemy him all you god damn one in this country. [laughing] all Ten Commandments conflicting one way. You have to buy the book to find out why. I will say this. The few principles that appeared in both systems, those prohibitions on murder and theft and line, they are not uniquely originally christian. The comparison between christianity and americas constitutional system continues like this. Christianity then rates principles such as obedience of fear. The constitution venerates freedom. The bible teaches you to obey rulers because they are ordained by god. We the people give rulers their power and we the people have a right to rebel against him when they turn tyrannical which are the only theft of government which you see in the bible, totalitarian and monarchies. Biblical justice is so severe that it was implemented it would violate these constitution. Hell, a central tenet of christianity conflict with the constitution on at least to make major doubts both asti place of torture and as an eternal punishment. The eighth amendment proves cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court said being stuck in a jail cell with a five pack a day smoker is cruel and unusual so dont come the fire and brimstone of hell isnt also. Original sin, another with essential principle transgresses that core perception of american justice the presumption of innocence. And vicarious redemption, the defining christian principle repudiates person responsible upon which all american law, society and government rests. Its unnecessary to devote every end quote or historical tidbits especially if its before the Constitutional Convention because the foundational claim that christian principles influenced americas founding principles must be discarded. Because christian principles conflict with americas founding principles. Christianity did not make the United States comfortable make it great. We the people make america exceptional. America succeed as an experiment because it was based on reason. If we abandon reason to favor of religious faith or if our elected leaders commit that sin, we are asking to regress, not to some golden age but to a time when religion ruled the world which we called the dark ages. Thank you. [applause] gentlemen, i will ask the question to which you will each have five minutes to respond, and mccain ise to try and bring you together into a a dialogue. Because for this listener at least i heard responses virtually to two different questions. That is, professor hall gave to my ears what was a very historical and historically informed argument that look at our founding, while Andrew Seidel response focus on the rolen of religion largely in current life. I want to ask your question as the said informed by our question tonight, which is did america have christian founding . My question to both of you is the following. Why does it matter if at all to ask this question today . Why does it matter to ask the question of whether the country had a christian founding or not . And again you will each have five minutes. Super. I think its a very important question. James wilson again said any good Constitutional Order will pull the people back to the first principles. Its incredibly important that we as americans think about the principles upon which our Constitutional Republic was founded. I would contend and i continue my book that i think there are very good reasons to believe that christianity and ideas developed in the christian tradition of political reflections were very important for performing this quarter. If you want to understand what the founders hadif in my, why ty read this sort of institution they created, we need to understand these principles. Secondly its important just to get history right. Thats why christine had a major impact on americas founders. We can understand the founding without it. Thats not to make a claim for the truth of christianity. If i was writing a book on saudi arabia i would talk about the influence of islam in saudi arabia. It had nothing do with what islam is true or false. A lot of mr. Seidels pointed attacks were mocking christianity. Are not the silly police . In doing so he presents a form of christianity that i am iphone find almost unrecognizable. In addition to make had a great mistake. I as a christian gods command not to create an image that also support the perspective says someone else has the right to do so. Finally i would suggest you Supreme Court has made history relevant. They said we must interpret the religion clause, his simple clause, i would say clauses in light of the founders view. In light of the generating history of this. Justice repeatedly go back to this history. I did a lot of we could order once vibrant in full every religion clause opinion. What you find is jurists usually progressive and both rutledge m of black almost alws characterize as progressives. They are more likely to make historical appeals that are the conservatives. They make different historicalof appeals from while thinking they profoundly distort the founders use of religious liberty and especially churchill state relations and to do this by going to the two founders, just just a few isolated documents that are really unrelated to directly away the First Amendment. That is Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the virginia statute for religious liberty and the memorial, the letter to the Danbury Baptists and the detached memoranda. When we need to recognize member jefferson was not involved in crafting the First Amendment or ratify it. In r spite of many u. S. Supreme Court Opinions to the contrary, there is no evidence that anyone in the 18th century look to the virginia statute for guidance as i think by focusing on these two founders who are among the most separation us all the founders who get a very distorted view of what american founders believed with respect to churchstate relations, if we look at the product concentration, we see even at the federal level they retain a support for the idea that the state and even the federal government can occur to promote religion. President washington, athens, madison issued calls for fasting. Fasting. Under jefferson a treaty was ratified to provide money to the indians to hire a a priest and built a church. And on and on to concur with the evidence here, evidence that separation is like, might bring ten that the letter to the Danbury Baptist is the only document that matters. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Seidel . Its important because courts are using to interpret your rights today. In the most recent decision the Supreme Court had been on this counselor clause of the 40foot concrete cross in maryland, the court elevated history over legal principles. It said this cross of been there for 90 years so we will go ahead and let it stand. When you look at that it said we dont know what these guys met when they put this cross at 90 years ago. We can never know what they intended when it putt up this giant 40foot tall Christian Cross. But we do not exact with the founders that 230 years ago. And they look at history to interpret our rights today, and increasingly, especially when religion and law are come into conflict, religion and constitution, they areti elevatg history over legal principles like separation of state and church. I think thatt is one absolute critical reason to the second thing is we do want to get history right. It is important for us to understand our history. That something we agree on. It really is crucial for us to understand where we are going and where we have been as a nation. The interesting thing about that though, we can get into, i would love to get into it more because if history is important, this is the study ofdy the citations for the printed sermons, we do want to get that right. When researchers in this study were look at the political document the discounted the timed authors were cited. When the include the printed sermons, a a bible right reall, really highly on that. Something like eight times on average. But when you exclude those printed sermons, just look at the political right, citations to the bible dropped once in every through four works and that plummets to the custody conventioneers which i thought were focusing on 21 citation in every 16 publications. Itu study he cited says quote te bible prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific aestheticians at which the bible has little to say. That was when we talk about the use of the cost of convention. So it is important to get history right andnd the use of e studies in fairways. Another small thing was a year of our lord mentioned. That is not in the constitution. That date was a scribners flourish at at the end of the founders did not know was there. I will open the floor now. I will keep it a queue of three people. Please try to have a question and not a statement. We do had people circulating with microphones for the questions because this is being taped. We had 25 minutes for questions so the gentleman here in gentlemen here in the front are there others, so mr. Seidel mentioned that it does not seem like the First Amendment actually goes with sure sorry, im not a christian, but the first so you said that you live your life as a christian and those ideas dont conflict. I would like your a little bit more how they dont conflict. Certainly. Mr. Seidel is making a category mistake. I absolutely affirm 100 that you still have no god before me, right . I should worship only the lord my god. I accept that as a command that i will fall and worship only god. However, this is something that a think individuals have to come to for themselves. And if you dont believe that, if youre a member of another faith, if youre an atheist, certainly you should not be compelled to worship the judeochristian god or the christian god or the islamic god if you live in saudi arabia. I actually support the First Amendment, and the establishment clause which i think needs a lot less as a constitutional principle. Its pretty much what it says Congress Shall make no law respecting south of religion. When i could have National Church and by Corporation States are now bound by this. It would be inappropriate for kentucky to say everyone has to worship the christian god and yet christians can still accept the First Commandment and the other commandment that normative. Its not about what christians personally believe i appreciate that he is for the First Amendment but that doesnt have anything to do with whether or not christian principles influence the founding of the United States. Religious principle is you should have no other gods before me. That is a fundamental conflict that you cannot explain away. Are there others. Recognizing the conflict between christianity and the founding principles would it serve as a recognizing that there would be conflict. That they shouldnt use christianity as the founding principles. In a way that is against christianity. In a way that is against christianity. Are you trying to suggest that there are such disagreements between them they recognize they are recognizing that it could conflict with the principal they want to use. Influence and doesnt always mean invitation. I think thats absolutely right. One of the things that founders looked at was the history of religious persecution it was spelled in the old world. When religion and government were united. That was a reason for them to separate. We are very far removed i actually think thats one of the reasons that we are seeing one of the pushes right now away from secular america towards a christian america. They had worked for a very young long time. Thats because it has worked. We hope that we dont get that experience. Your question is appropriate for mister seidel. Let me just say in a book available soon in a bookstore everywhere. When they are separating church and state for example of this is the most popular petition against against the general assessor. It makes explicitly arguments against the general assessment. They hated the idea. Mass and two. If you read the memorial. They say things like general assessment hurt that. We dont want assessment because it will hurt christianity. He may have done that as a matter of rhetoric but if you use that rhetoric he thought it would be meaningful to virginia. Questions. This is a question for both dr. Hall who seems like he would be a christian i would want as my neighbor a quaker, and i come from a line of quaker and im trying to start a line of atheism in my family. And as a member both of you i would like to comment about the religious rights fundamentalist christian a lot who had perhaps have a great influence in the last president ial election and how that has hurt the country. I didnt ask him that. I am technically a birth right quaker. Im very sympathetic. As were the founders. They built religious accommodation into the u. S. Constitution itself my people believed that he meant what he said when he said swear not at all. We dont mind affirming them. The u. S. Constitution gives the president the choice to swear or affirm. Similarly James Madison wouldve become the second amendment. It did not make it into the constitution but he brought it back up when the militia act was debated. In terms of the election of donald trump i think there are many factors that go into that i want to begin to try to sort them out for you or evaluate them. One thing you said i think its very powerful to use religious arguments in america. I cite the bible all the time. One of my favorite passages is in the sixth chapter of matthew. He condemns those who pray in public as hypocrites we use this line when we write to government officials who are doing at the national day of prayer for instance. It can be very effective. The rise of Christian Nationalism is really what youre talking about. The best indicator and predictor of a trump voter in the 2016 election was not Political Party it was not religion despite how much you care about that. It was not race or racism. It was thinking the United States was founded as a christian nation. That is the best predictor in the 2015 election. Donald trump tapped into this vein of Christian Nationalism in a way that we have never seen before. Or at least not seen it recently. He rode into the highest most powerful office in the land. And this is why i wrote my book, why am trying to make the argument that Christian Nationalism is unamerican it is a threat to our country. It is an existential threat to the government of the people. I think every american ought to be sitting up to it right now. I would like to see a lot more of that. We had 15 minutes approximately left. In the middle back. I also had to know that weve only had questions from gentlemen. So first the gentleman in the center. So you said mr. Seidel that history recently has been cited in a way that takes over legal priorities and structures and all that. Where would you say at the the legal principles and structures come from but history. How do the laws change in response to history and how especially in light of Woodrow Wilsons re definition of how justice should be understood according to some elements that they morph as human mores. We should have timeless rates versus more valuable rights. You are getting pretty deep into constitutional interpretation. The cases that im speaking about the Supreme Court decided marsh versus chambers. And historically they had been looking at the interplay of religion and governments. You cant endorse religion. They have a three prong test. In this case in which they challenge the prayers has state legislature the Supreme Court said what i can a focus on all of that. Were to look at history and in 1774. The Constitutional Congress prayed. We will go ahead and allow this. Same thing happened in the cross case. In history is very valuable as i think you can all probably gathered from whats happening right now. My problem with those cases is that the history that they can cite is just as malleable as you could offer. The same one that was cited in that cross case. The guy who gave that prayer was a traitor he turned traitor. He actually wrote this letter to washington that we have condemning the continental congress. These two confederation congresses. The First Federal congress needs. The Committee Puts together chaplains come decide if there should be james mattis since on the committee. Federal congress sidesteps. A few months later its a large bill with a lot of things that it includes the paint of chaplains and medicine votes for this bill. Congress has had chaplains ever since. All that is a transition a distinction where i can agree with mr. Seidel and unhappy about it. The Supreme Court uses history in two ways. Hes exactly right. Theyre looking at practices throughout all of american history, 19 sidhu, 20th, 21st but theres another way in which the court uses history. Its separate. That is what yet the original understanding of the establishment clause and what it meant. This is the original given to us by rutledge and black and others. Here is an excellent case come made if were going by the constitutional principle that comes from originalism the First Amendment means large what it says. We will not have an established church but its permissible toy have things like page of chaplains, prayers and legislative bodies, president ial call for prayer. These things are not a violatio of the constitutional principle enacted in establishment clause. Our next question is the gentleman in the blue and then the lady to my left over here. The lady in the front and then i will go to the back of this section. It has brought us in god we trust being displayed i would like both of your thoughts on whether or not that is in line with the founding of our nation. Or violation of that. I absolutely think that the Current National model in god we trust is unconstitutional. I think it violates the central principle of the separative ration of church and state. Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In the free exercise clause is the second part. No law respecting is a broader band than a law prohibiting the we have to be deciding these cases in favor of a secular government is not just be in a national established church no law respecting an establishment of religion. I think it is a fundamentally unconstitutional. I dont know if we can rely on the courts to ever strike it down has lost all religious meaning. It ought to offend every believer out there. It is rank hypocrisy. We have a lot of questions. The original model. It was decided on of many one. From anyone. Unified sentiment. The day after the house approved a language that became the First Amendment they said hey i have no idea what we asked the president to issue a thanksgiving day proclamation. We cant do that. That is a european practice. I will paraphrase him. We could do that. Its a biblical practice. So worthy of christian information. And the president washington issued an incredibly robust thanksgiving day proclamation. They gave us a plausible reading of the word. I offered another plausible reading of the word if we look more broadly about what the founders intended to do. They are members of the First Federal congress. They ratified at this thing. How do they understand it. They understood largely but not solely. Never from putting the Ten Commandments and the Supreme Court. On and on you can go. No interpretation of the First Amendment can reach these conclusions. If we could agree at that. And you want to continue to make non originalist interpretations. More power to you. We should not pretend to prohibit things like that. I told you the only reason i got asked back is that i tend to be strict on all of this. We head about another seven minutes. I have seen four hands i will try to get to them. The ones i have seen and we will see if we have additional time. The audience members had complied and kept their questions as questions. Youre sane and saying and that 99 of america in the Constitutional Congress was christian if you want everyone to have the same frame of reference that was why things were couched in rhetoric. I guess im a non originalist but the constitution cannot grow with society. Why do mighty stick with this originalist why cant the constitution grow with the society that has become more secular with time. See mike that as a plausible approach. And its an intellectually honest one. They would literally say the founders would have permitted this but we cannot permit this today. So we wont permit it. I think its easily worked. I think close to 100 of americans and european dissent. Would have identified themselves as protestant or catholic. That is a very different thing. They arent necessarily pious people. They were most certainly not there. We have no good reason to believe that. It is a term is defined. It is a super fun thing to have. But you would still have to examine the principles that they use to craft the nation and other than life, liberty and Human Dignity we have not heard christian principles that influence the founding of the United States of america. I have not touched on this. But i think it is selfdefeating. God did not create us in his image. We created god in our image. If you look at the jesus portraits around america. A kind of proves the point. We make god in our own image. Not the other way around. Theyve have the profound sound but mean nothing. We have our next question here in the front row. I think both of you have some very good points and i think youre both right much of what youre saying but youre coming from a very educated point of view. My question to you is we dont have the educated population now that understands everything as you do. And recently people had decided they are gonna going to decide to change definitions of everything. How do you see that affecting your argument because it may not be relevant because everybody is deciding that theyre going to change the definition of what everything was in the past. I think it is a big part of the problem. I think thats what im talking about. When im talking about sticking a christian flag in the idea of white and liberty. Its a big problem and i cant answer and 30 seconds. I think its useful to read the foundational document the declaration of independence of the constitution if one could read beyond that. I was. I would encourage you to read both of your books. I think youre making good faith efforts. You could read both books and decide for yourself what you think is right. We will take two more country dash my questions. There is a lady in eight green blouse. Reference has been made by both of you to the enlightenment philosophers. In the reference is made in the documents were influence in your arguments do you get to those enlightenment philosophers which are at least some form of christian or influenced by christian philosophy. Thats a very difficult question there is not one in like in minutes. Some of them are opposed to christianity i think at the core. The Scottish School of moral sense onch the other hand, the scottih school of moral sense particularly hutchinson, read, as opposed to the smith type. Its compatible christianity. I think its hard work. I would say to the extent to which americas founders were influenced by enlightenment thinkers intended to be the more friendly or even compatible with christianity. Part of the answer is religion being dragged into progressive stance by cycling as american. Why wasnt built sooner . Christianity ruled for 1600 years. Why wasnt it built in 789 course why wasnt america built then instead of 1789 . Why were not found it earlier . Why didli you have to wait until the scientific revolution and delight with were up and running until we saw these ideas putan into practice . Because in large part they are not christian. They are not religious. We have time for one final question. The lady in the second row. Wheres the microphone, please . Okay. This question is for mr. Hall. We talk at the beginning about why the question of whether or not a request out of christian principles is important. What i want to know is why its important for you to prove that it was . What does america look like in a nation that, so you found outt wasnt . Why is it important to you to prove that especially when answer to the question of why the question is important that we see it reflected inlaws and discriminatory laws that almost always, like christian religion is used to justify . Another good question at an usher you made it like this but you areg assuming i had a conclusion and and i set out to prove it. Id like to think and a look at the evidence with an open mind the conclusion that the evidence required. If i i were to start a new parf my career in saudi arabia, i probably would begin with the assumption that islam had a pretty important fact on its politics and society and whatnot but maybe if i get to the decks i would find that it did. If i found out it didnt i which of the period with respect to Practical Applications is important to understanding our constitutionalor order, then wih respect to religious libya, churchstate relations that matters because the court says it matters. Ill answer that in my conclusions. We know are at the final portion of the broken for each of them has five minutes to give some closing remarks. Again when you get to four i will say one and then type. Thank you much to the Mcconnell Center for hosting this debate and gary for inviting me to participate it appeared and to try to pursuing how to people who disagree about important matters can discuss them civilly. I have argued tonight and argued in greaterer detail in did america have a christian founding . The far too many scholars of a popular authors assert that any good reason, things like most women of americas founders, the founders great icons constitution, that the embrace religious liberty, at the founders this artistic a separate church and state. Othere is no good historical argument to be made. As a matter of original understanding in no way shape or form that the establishment clause prohibit the inclusion of the star of david in the holocaust world on public land. Affirmatively ive suggested that a good many reasons to believe americas founders were christians and influenced by their christian convictions. I have to say in many cases we simply dont know. Many founders did not leave papers, papers were destroyed please dont hear me explaining too much. One of the founders we do know about is virtually none of them were deists as the term is defined and we have good reasons to believe that many of them were christian. Ive argued as well and i think this is as ive said multiple times americas founders were influenced by christian ideas when they crafted the constitution to read things like original sin, the understanding of liberty and i appreciate mister heidel and i had written i never claimed that they are uniquely christian principles. I can see that people from other religions, people with no religion at all can embrace these principles. I can go to a Quaker School with quaker students and one can be a pacifist for ulcerative reasons including nonreligious reasons but i would suggest the most obvious reasons why these quakers or pacifists is because of their adherence to a religious tradition that has long said christians are not to use violence against other people. Ive argued tonight and i give more evidence in my forthcoming book americas founders embraced a robust understanding of religious liberty because of their religious convictions. I had a wonderful quote from George Washingtons letter to the hebrew synagogue where washington makes it Crystal Clear that tiny jewish ou populations that you guys have religious liberties just like everyone else and i want to emphasize that so although im arguing america is a christian found that its good news for all including nonchristians and nontheists among us. Religiousliberties cannot be absolute. Its not a trump card that always wins. We didnt have time to get into us but i want to concede religious liberty cannot always win. Aztecs cannot sacrifice babies to son god. The owner of trustee enterprises may not discriminate against people of other races even if they believe their religion requires them to do so the First Amendment does not require the Public Square to be scrubbed free of religion. One minute left. Im going to close early and concludethat the best answer to the question did america have a christian founding is yes and this answer is good news for all citizens regardless of their religious convictions or lack thereof. Thank you very much. [applause] the 10 commandments held original sin, biblical government, christian punishment and obey your rulers, the very idea of a curious redemption through human sacrifice rid these ideas are sensual and fundamentally irrevocably irretrievably opposed to the notion on which this nation was built. Our experiment is based on reason not the christian faith. The twosystems conflict at a fundamental level. Im not academic in an office disconnected on the effects of my rhetoric. My books have gotten citations but weve had 5000 Church Complaints every year. Half of those are in a public school. Teachers telling kids they have to pray before they go down to lunch each day and often times those violations are justified with claims that this is a christian nation or we are based on judeochristian principles. Lawyers fight these claims turning to people like my opponents to justify the rights of conscience for children and right now america is in a desperate fight against Christian Nationalism. That sinister exclusionary idea that to the american is to be a christian and to be a christian is to be an american. I dont know whether my opponents would identify as being a Christian National but his rhetoric fuels Christian Nationalism. He appeared on David Bartons show a couple of days ago. Martins book was pulled off the shelf it has so many lies in it. Same publisher i believe and i know youre affiliated with the Heritage Foundation which is part of a coalition of groups pushing that project. One of the one is the religious history act which seeks to tell the story of the role of religion in the constitutional history of the United States. The goal is to pass these ceremonial bills first and pass laws that actually favor christians. So ask yourself what does is this debate about . This goes to the heart of several questions. Is my opponent seeking to correct the historical record . The generations of scholars that have boasted those claims . If its about history why give expert testimony on behalf of those businesses who want to discriminate against customers for who they are and who they want to marry. Letter that er washington wrote he said the government of the United States is bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. He didnt go on to say if you are christian in which case you can discriminate. He didnt say that the rent if its about history why asked the Supreme Court to uphold before he puts the Christian Cross as my opponent has done why work with groups like adf leading the charge against 4 in favor of discriminating against these. If this is about historywhyn saying states can take away womens reproductive choice or a gay couples fundamental right to marry as my opponent has. I mentioned in the introduction we needed toshow christianity had a positive influence on the founding of america. That would have been an overreach if and only if this were about history but its not. I think he admitted as much because if this had just been about history he could have claimed any christian influence, positive or negative on the founding including the christian justification for slavery and subjugation of women. He didnt do this because this debate is not about history. Its using the governments christianity now, its about providing a historical law Christian Nationals like donald trump and mike pence can use the language overturned, of getting back to ourreligious roots to justify their current policies. This administration justifies the childs separation policy at the border with romans 13. The same provision that was directly contradicted by the declaration of independence. They learn to do this in white house bible study. Not moving the embassy to jerusalem jason the second coming, batting muslims because they are not american and overturning gay marriage about revoking a womans right to choose read my opponent has an intellectual zamboni Christian Nationals , following them around, working to our respectful historical faith on their religiously motivated policies but the simple fact is america was not founded as a christian nation that we were not on christian principles because those principles are opposed to our founding principles. He failed to name the d christian principle positively influenced our founding and instead named universal human principles and claim them or christianity. He could not show what was not there yet but he did show is this debate is not about history, this debate is about right now you. [applause] 94 to all of you for being here this evening anagain both of our speakers and the Mcconnell Center forallowing us to have this very engaging robust debate. Er on behalf of the Mcconnell Center i would like to thank both debaters and moderators for being with us to. We have a small token of our appreciation know will give you this time we will also be holding a book drawing from the cards you sold out when you walked in. First book is the founding and the other is one that was written previously. It is not the unreleased copy of doctor halls book but it is the right of consciousness which he had a party. Or the founding, we have jeremy dobson. [applause]. Alright and for the sacred right of conscience we have andrew lawson. [applause] thank you. And immediately following if you didnt want a copy of the founding are selling them outside of the auditorium. Thank you all for coming out and helping us recognize Constitution Day. I hope you all have safe travels. Watching a special edition of book tv now airing during the week while members of congress are in their districts due tothe coronavirus and then. , america at war area first historian Megan Kate Nelson look at how the civil war impacted the American West as the union and confederate armies for control of the territory that author robert plumblooks at how harry and , clara barton, Harriet Beecher still and others had an impact on the civil war. In later colonial historian mary beth looks at the year 1774, the lead up to the beginning of therevolutionary war. Enjoy tv now and over the weekend on cspan2. This weekend on cd, saturday 6 pm eastern richard guardrail where director of theConsumer Financial Protection Bureau. Is about consumer and the promise they face. Its about Consumer Finance and how it changed and its about a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the role and importance of the work that engages in the protect people across america. Sunday at 12 30 hr mcmaster, former Trump Administration National Security advisor. The United States and other free and open societies ought to do everything we can to protect ourselves against the efforts of the Chinese Communist party to subvert our freemarket economic systems and our democratic form of governance. And at 6 20 ruth gilmore, author and City University of new yorkprofessor on mass incarceration in the us. The fact that most people leave prison do a little bit of analysis to see that we could be closing prisons already and jails already if we just cut by two weeks and three weeks and four weeks much less years the kinds of sentences people are serving. Watch book tv on cspan2. Hello everyone, thank you for joining us. My name is Kashif Graham and i am librarian at Vanderbilt Community library. Im excited to check today with saeed jones about his newly released memoir, how we fight for ourlives