Transcripts For CSPAN3 The Bible And The Founding Of America 20180222

Please join me in giving the speakers s a round of applauser their outstanding job. And today, we are looking at the bibles influence on the nations founding. Thank you to those who have submitted questions. I want to randomly go through them for the speakers. Well start with are dr. Kidd. Franklin quoted god helps those who help themselves, and can you put that into context in your remarks of franklins belief e . Well, that is an example of franklin, that Poor Richards al almanac was full of aphorisms that sounded like proverbs and they were full of proverbs. That type of philosophy of god helps those who help themselves is an excel will lent exlent ex tu, re virtue and morality and franklins vision of religion and morality, but there is a way in which, and i mean it that statement in particular i think that it sort of desencenters g in a way that his calvinist forebearers would not have wanted the do. His parents wanted god not only thele help you now, change your life. And what needs to happen is that if converted by an experience of gods grace and transforming power and enabled to live a godly, moral life where i think that, that type of philosophy of god helps those who helps himself is god as a supplement, and if you are following gods principles, and work hard and honest things are going to go well for you which is a kind of classic american creed. It may be that it sits uncomfortable wb the council of scripture. Would you say that is a deist statement . Yeah, i mean, i would say that it has a kind of the deist flavor to it in the sense that god, maybe being active, but also somewhat, you know, you need to take responsibility for yourself, and that gods work, and gods power is not the first thing that you need, and the first thing that you need in the formula is your own initiative, and so, again, god is being decentered a little bit. It seems to me just knowing what i know about franklin that it is a sense of god being a little bit secondary or distant. Great. Thank you. Another question from the audience from dr. Dreisbeck is that so many people say that our government a democracy, but can it be or can it be both . Well, the constitution makes reference to the republican form of government, but i dont believe it is inconsistent in some ways of which they manifest themselves. So if you are going to take the words and take it in the purest definition, there may be some restrictions, but let me remind you of the core of the republicanism is the consent of the governed as exercised through represent thetives. In that second aspect could perhaps come into some tension with democracy in the purest form, but as the words might have been used alt this time in time in history, they would not have seen a sharp clash between the two, and they did not view that some expressions and manifestations of the peoples voice as being intentioned with republicanism as they understood it. If i could jump in there, too. And the idea of democracy which they would have thought is a bad idea, any level of government that is dealt with, the people have to vote say on a popular referendum on every question, and so, do they have the expertise to make the decisions, and if not, if it is an issue of the context the the Foreign Policy issue or bank iing or Something Like that, and the ideal is that you elect people who do have sufficient expertise in these kinds of areas who the founders would have found virtuous and independent, and on behalf of the people would have made informed policy ke decisions. So we are more democratic since 1776, and 1787, because number one, we have lots of kinds of people voting, so, women, and just start with women can vote. And lot of ethnic minorities also participating where they couldnt have at the time of the founding. But it is is still, you know, the fundamentally democratic republic that we have as opposed to a pure democracy that the founders would have considered to be ill considered and chaotic. Republicanism is a check on the power and this is coming back to the biblical anthropology, and we need as many constraints as we can manage in the way we frame our government. Thank you. Dr. Byrd, this is for you. Thomas jeffersons religious views . Yes. Well, i didnt mention Thomas Jefferson, but let me jump in. You may be able to jump in. My basic understanding of Thomas Jefferson is that he was a little bit more purely dee y deistically in what he had to say, because he was miraculous on concentrating on the life and morals of the examples of jesus as a morality which is the key thing for him. Other than that, you know, that is also about religious views of i sometimes use the term offed a hernt to use the term adherent, because he used the the claims of the miraculous claims that he read in the bible, and if he could not understand through reason, he would have reason to doubt it. And so if jesus of nazareth was the greatest moral teacher that there was and there is great value in studying it, the kind of religion that he would have liked to warm to, and nondogmatic, and it would have been nonhierarchal, and mistrusted of the churches, and of the episcopal or the oriented around the bishops for example. And so he had a Certain Affinity even though he may not have embraced the specifics with more congregational type of expressions and the baptists in the Church Governance and he liked that Church Governance in that type of belief system, but i think that we are talking here about a very nondogmatic and religion that could be explained in rational the terms. And so they agreed on the separation of the church and the state, and so it is a fascinating with the baptist, and John Wheeland who is one of the major baptist people, and in the new end to come around and preach, and he actually talked about Thomas Jefferson who was a baptist, and he thought that jefferson was a gift of god, and he thought that it was to extend with the theology to disagree with, but he was a gift of the nation for jeffersons politic, and he spoke about him as a biblile cal figure, and so he had religious meaning and value for the baptists who agreed with him, and he valued the baptist take on politics, and what he viewed his religious as a moralit morality, and the freedom for the individuals. If you are looking at his account books, he was very generous in giving money to minister, and he maintained friendships with many, many ministers, and including the ministers that he would not have agreed with on theological matters which is important to the him. If you are looking at jeffersons views, some of the anticlerle cal statements that he may, and some of the harsh one, it is useful to be looking at the context in which he makes them. For example some of the harsh anticlerical statements that he makes is in the midst of the war where he sees so many anglican ministers leaving and siding with theloyalists, but at the same time, he that is expressing great admiration for the patriots with such a cause. So in the 1800s he is harshly attacked by the congregational ministers in new england, so there again, he is deeply and personally wounded by some of the things that they say about him, and so, again, you have to look at the context in which he makes the harsh statements about cler clergymen around the election of 1800 and then another decade and a half, he runs into the presbyterians of Central Virginia of who is going to be the professors at the university of virginia and there were some presbyterian ministers in his own community who were not keen on the people that he wanted to hire. Again, he lashes out inle some of the harsh anticlerical statement statements. So i think it is always useful to look at the political context in which he makes some of the statements to understand where he is coming from with that particular kind of expression from jefferson. Thank you. This next question is for dr. Kidd. Did franklins knowledgeable but nondoctrinal faith make him a better Bridge Builder between various religious group, and did the same thing wshg for lincoln . Yeah, i think it did. He was on friendly terms with lots of different kinds of churches and ministers. When he was in philadelphia, he most commonly would attend the citys Anglican Church torturech of england, and his wife was more devout, and she was an anglican, and so he would go with her to church, and he gave money for the Anglican Church to be expand and some people said that it was so that there would be an entire electrical steeple for his experiment. But some thought that the church was a good thing. But he even gave money to help build a synagogue in philadelphia. So it was not just charity and benevolence towards christian denominations, but to jews, too. So i mean, i think that it is an upside of to me franklins nondog matic approaches that he was very irennic. And so he was keen to help Different Churches and if you can remember from my talk, that every Christian Group that he was part of them, and the reason for that is that he was so friendly to a lot of people in the groups that was in a harsh time the of interdenominational conflict especially between the catholics and the protestants. And so when franklin had the opportunity to visit the continent of europe, he was very complimentary towards catholic, and catholic churches and never quite got over some of the, you know, deep bread anticatholic sentiments that he grew up with, and at times make nasty statements about the catholic, but he was a Bridge Builder among the types of denomination, and religion, and that reflected the fact that he basically had a positive view of religion and church going, and that sort of thing just as long as you didnt use it to beat people over the head with doctrine. Did a similar thing work for lincoln . Well, right. I dont know as much about lincoln, but perhaps processor byrd can Say Something about this, but lincoln as especially a leader, washington was like this, too, of making sure to reach out to other leaders of different denominations when you need your support and you are valued here, and this sort of thing. And in washington and lincolns case that you will see that principled outreach to different types of denominations. And with, i think that is true with lincoln, and there is so much con sis tsistency in th comparison, and that is why i think that it is helpful, and the only distinction that we might make with lincoln is that the sense of providentialism is clear with anyone, and he had a clear sense of providence and a pessimistic type of providence and part of this is the time and part of it is the war, and he is, you can see it even in the famous speeches where he is talking about gods side, and he talks about maybe god is in favor of the words, and maybe we are going down the road in various ways. So he had a strong sense of gods judgment on the nation, and that may have been something u unique, and probably, again, it is easy to think of figures as just kind of isolated intellects who are reflecting out of body, and they were are living people, and as the professor is talking about with the specific situations with je jefferson, you have to think about the context and the same is true with lincoln. The context is the same, because his entire presidency, and he is the only president who could say this i think that the entire presidency was bounded by war from the time he took office it is conflict, and that is what he dealt with. When i read David Mcculloughs biography about john adams wherever he was attended Different Church service, and denominations, i found it to be unusual compared to how we attend church to today, and this is how we go to get the denomination, and that visiting various churches and that is bridgebuilding with the earlier founders, is that something that could help us toda today . In the 1700s, there is an intense conflict between catholic and protestant, and baptists and arguing about the difference of presbyterian and church policy, and that is like issue that you shed blood over, right . And so it speaks to a time when people were number one a little bit more theologically more converse than we think of in our day and time that when you cant take for his culture, that you need to be fighting for those issues anymore. But one of the real breakthroughs came with the new evangelical movement of the 1730s and 40s, and if you been to the museums battle of america that you have seen from George Whitfield and the great awakening here. And the thing that is so good about whitfield is the greatest evangelist of the era ra and even though he was an anglican minister and especially in p america, he cooperated with nonanglicans, and anybody who was supportive of his message of the new birth of salvation, and being born again, and this is the experience that all people need to have, and he was quite willing to preach in their churches and to the preach alongside them, and he was upgraded by anglican authorities about saying why are you concerned about so many centralists such as the baptists and the quakers and so much, and he said, because i see bornagain people among all denominations. And so that is a unity that is borne to me out of a specific principle which is the belief in the need to have a way in which these two trends toward religious unity is happening at the same time. The religious unity around the birth of salvation, and the other is the enlightenment type of trend of saying that we need to stop fighting about the differences of theology and murd eing people in w ining and i wars over theology, and so you end up getting people like jefferson and john leland who you mentioned before who have d different personal views about theology who have identical roles of American Public life, and we need full religion, and that you should let people meet in their own churches and freedom, and should not force them to pay religious taxes, and to support a church they dont attend which is what most people in the colonial era ra had to do, and so, this is why that tradition of the religious liberty is so important. It does not mean, i mean, that we all have so much time and we cant be having time to attend everybodys church and i understand that, but we should at least follow their example and say that religious liberty is for everybody. I think that there is a couple of interesting things going on with the early founders and the president s had with the early societies. Washington especially around the time of his inauguration communicated with two or three dozen religious societies across the spectrum, and main religious groups, but also religious groups from the minority communities, and one thing is that he wants to assure them of the american experiment, and bring them into the fold and ensure r they are full participants in the american experience. He also is using this as an opportunity to communicate to the American Public at large. Remember, this is a time when there are limited ways in which a political figure can speak to the American Public at large and writing letters to religious societies and groups is one of those ways to the communicate to a broad audience. All of the early president s used letter writing for societies to communicate some important ideas. Washington is talking succinctly about the conceptions of the religious liberty, and let es t forget that Thomas Jefferson used a letter to the Baptist Association to express that famous metaphor of the separation of the church and state. A few years later at the closing days of the presidency, he writes to the Methodist Society in which he says that the dearest part of the constitution is that part that protects the liberty of conscious. So they are using the communications to really express heartfelt issues and important issues is, but it is also important to focus on the communications, because these societies are communicating with them, too. They are communicating what their concerns, what their fears are, and concerns about whether in fact their liberty in matters of religion is going to be respected. And so it helps them to understand the fears and concerns of religious minorities and begin to labor for the american understanding of the religious liberty that would include them. Thank you. Okay. Dr. Byrd, this next question is for you, and it is a a long one, so take notes. Yeah. [ laughter ] you referenced david as a model for war. A man after gods own heart, and yes, a man of war. But god said to the david that because he was a metaphor and she had much blood on the earth, david would not be one to build god a house, but rather his son solom solomon, a man of peace, and reconcile these two as much as you can. Okay. I think that it is fascinating that opponents of war did not use that text for reference, and part of the reason that is sort of less obscure, and more to the moment much like the ser mont on the mount, and obviously a patron who is going to be going to the war are not going to be mentions that incident, and it is a valid point in many ways, and it does not undercut the larger point that god when david was going to war and defeating goliath and he was listening to those things, that speaks to gods work in doing that. It is a complicated question. I didnt see it at least in the research that i did or pointing that out, and those of you calling david a warrior, you might want to talk about this, and it is one of those things that you drew on, and however, it is an interesting poin, and again, it would have helped to reinforce the argument for not only pacifists, and technically, but didnt exact ly have fun to support the war for one reason or another. U thank you. Dr. Kid, do you suppose as dr. Restile sent a letter to president lincoln before his death . Well, i dont know if he did, because he would be have been dead three weeks later. It is true that people in franklins life were imploring franklin to accept christ as his savior, and this is one of the reasons why i dont see franklin as a traditional christian, because those around franklin did not think that he was a christian, and so, i think that the best example George Whitfield who i mentioned a moment ago, and whitfield and franklin were friends and Business Associates for 30 years. And they had a very transparent relationship about understanding that they were not on the same page spiritually and that franklin thought that he needed the do something about that. And so, whitfield would just pull no punches and say that you need to put your faith in christ for salvation, and franklin would sort of say, im all set. And i would have those conversation, and the favorite was in the 1750s that he wrote a letter to the franklin, and they are business partners, and he publishes a lot of stuff, and whitfield is saying that i need to take care of this and so forth. And by the way, i have noticed so much success that you have had in e llectrical progre, and understanding the mysteries of the new birth in christ. And you can just imagine franklin rolling his eyes and so whitfield was constantly talking about it. And i wonder what the private conversations that were recorded were like. And so, franklin and his sister had conversations about that, and so there was one time when franklin was making it back to boston to philadelphia to visit the family, and it is clear that the jane mecome and ben franklin fought. This is one of the struggles of writing the biography of any 18th century figure like this is that almost all of the letters that jane mecome were lost because some person in the past in the past said to throw it in the trash this priceless stuff breaks your heart really. It is like a phone call conversation where you only hear one side, right. And so he sent her a cloth as a gift or something to say im sorry, and i was harsh towards you, but it is clear that they were fighting about whether you need god to be moral. She was clearly saying to him that you need god to change your heart or you can never be truly moral and he said that i dont think that you do, and they fought about that. The point being that the point to styles that i have never been thought about this before is exasperating, because people have been asking him about this his whole life and so it is a constant theme for him. Thank you. Dr. Driesbeck, since america and her constitution were established with the constitution and the reverence to the bible, how long can we maintain the establishments if we continue to move away from biblical foundations . Well, that is a very hard question, yes. I would start by saying it is important to know are where the ideas came from, and you understand why they were perceived as important in their own time, and then we can ask the hard question of whether those reasons are still pertinent to us the today. I think that my own view of politics general ly is that things like constitutions cannot be divorced from a political culture or the chuulture at lar, so you can take a constitution, and i believe it is a well conceived, and you can put it in a different cultural context, and it wont work. Right. So this is true not just of our own constitution, but as we have seen attempts to import other constitutions around the world. And so it si pornt to understand under what contex it was written. And the generals are very well dispensed to the habits. And George Washington said that the of all of the things that can be dispensed morality and religion cannot be fleshed out. He is not telling us what it is, but he is telling us that religion and morality are indispensable to the project. So we are fair cly clear that h is not thinking of the formal religious establishment that had been a part of europe since the time of consta te ststantinecon rather that a vital role for religion in this role that has been created. And simply to underscore how important this is to washington, and by the way, washington is not an outlierer here, and he is expressing the common place of the age. This is something where there is virtually no dissent on the point, but what does he go on to say in the next sentence, having said that it is indispensable and he says in vein is the man who would try to subvert these processes of the language. So what i am seeing is that if you are seeking to undermine those principles, then you cannot call yourself a patriot. So washington at that time would have seen the role of religion in the culture as absolutely essential for the survival of the experiment in the republican selfgovernment. Yeah, i think that i agree and the founderers would have taken that as a given that virtue has to undergird the are republic. There are cautionary notes that we need, because we tend to think that critics of what american churl has become today, and might sometimes take a little bit too rosie view of the culture in 1887. There were notable problems, right . Slavery and other notable issue, and they, what they believe is the blind spots in most cases, but they would have agreed that virtue is essential. And when this comes up to today. And people on the secular left will hear and you hear abortion or gay marriage or these hot button issues, but i think that and i explain po the students that i think that almost everybody in america believes that well be better off if we have a Virtuous Society at least on some things, and so the example they give is the crisis of 2007 and 2008 where, we have incredibly complex, and selfish financial things going on like swaps, and all about making money for me. And would we have done better as a republic as everybody in the Financial Sector had all agreed that we need to be working in the best interest of the public at all times while also making money, which you can do the that. And i think that left right middle, whoever. And yeah, we would have done better we had more pervasive virtue and public spiritedness, and that is what the founders meant. I am responsible to the fellow person. I cant act selfishly are, because i have to be responsible to the public interest, and so we had a financial meltdown that was partly a result of pervasive spirit of greed and selfishness, and we all kind of felt that we would have done better as a republican with that example of virtue. Like to go to that example, because it is apolitical, and most people would say, yeah, we could have stood to have more virtue in an area like that. And so we wont agree as we see everyday in the news that the abortion and the marriage and these kinds of thing, and i have my on opinions about that, but anybody who would say, virtue and morality and that is passe, and you know, peel shounoknow, what they want to do and be free to do that and the founders would have said that is a formula for chaos and social breakdown. And that is the licentiousness that is at war with the very concept of liberty. And so we started off this question with the constitution and the influence of the bible on, that and so i know that the three of you had an opportunity to see the bible in america exhibit and how would you describe the effect on the m mayflower . Well, you start with the people who crafted this document, and they were pias people, and not everyone who was on that ship were pilgrims and it is a mix of people which prompted the crafting of the docume document, but we start from the proposition that these were people who were ob a were on a godly mission as they upd it, a understood it, and they saw themselves in a yu feek position in history and they had the opportunity to wipe clean the slate of Human History and undo the bad mistakes of the past and try to build a new political system that would avoid some of the mistakes. We begin to see those sentiments in a brief document like this the. And it does show that they are willing to Work Together in a righteous way for something in the future and for some kind of structure. So i dont know if we get a lot of insight into the constitutionalism through the mayflower compact itself. Certainly, the seeds of the ideas of a constitution, and these are the seeds that will replicate themselves throughout the american constitution. We see it in the mayflower document and the constitution. And we see it in clear and distinct purposes of the mayflower compact, and it is interesting of the order in which it comes. Because it is forgotten, and then final ly they affirm their allegiance to the king which is in itself remarkable, because afterall, they have withstood the persecution of the king. And looking at romans 13 and 1 peter 12 that the professor was talking about in his discussion, but that in itself sort of reflects a biblical underpinning of the authority. Another thing to add to the that is that undergirding all of these documents is the full ramifications of what that meant to them. And from an informed point of view, god is absolutely sovereign. God is omnipotent, and god makes covenants with humans which is a remarkable statement of that god puts forth. And so they are based on covenants. Covenants for churches, covenants for marriage, covenants for family. And so there were times at the very front of their thoughts as they ener ter in er teter into negotiations and understandings of who they are. Thank you. Dr. Byrd, the members of the audience would like the hear more about the database and the cataloging. The revolutionary project that i basically put in Microsoft Office and i went into different primary sources. And then at the end of, i after i had read as much as i could find, i just wanted the find in the text where they were and all of that, and so it is a couple ber some kind of thing. And for the civil war project, it is a much more streamlined proce process. I i have been helped by lincoln moan who is a professor of history and incredible coder, and he is programming to sweep through an algorithm that can sweep through 2,000 primary sources, and pick out the text stream matching. A and so that is so much larger da database than the revolutionary period database, because you can do so much more with the text than the 19th century, and then you can scan them, and ocr can pick the them out, and understand them, and try that with something from 1776 and the computer is going to be garbled and something written from ben franklin to the sister going to be looking like a chocolate cake, and equally like that. That is a time consuming process of assimilating data. I hope that you have graduate students helping you with that, too. I have graduate students helping me with some thing, but i dont want to persecute a graduate student by saying that well, that is just too much punishment to ask. And dr. Driesbeck, this is for you and another long question. When the bible is used in political settings and debates, there is often the concern that biblical text will be used without regard to the biblical context in order to serve a part s partisan political agenda, and do you see examples of that today and bible taken out of context for immediate political goal. Yes, this is one of the concerns that i wanted to focus on when i wrote this book on the bible and the founders because i was not only interested in what kinds of text they were drawn to, but i was very interested in using these texts in ways that were consistent with the biblical context that we find them, and i think that the record is somewhat mixed, and there are some examples that you will see for me, and the found ers are using the the biblical text more favorable to the biblical con ttext than we often use it. For example, we have quite a few references in the founding literature to mika 68 and what does the lord require of thee than to walk mercifully and closer to god. And i have heard a half dozen sermon s sermons on this, and this is what god requires of me personally, but in the founding, i think that they quite properly understood that this is the gods grievance against the nation israel, and in the end of the text the children of israel having been convinced that they have broken the covenant with god, and what must we do to make this right. And so, justice and mercy and walk comfortably with your god, and there is a much bigger understanding of the context with god rather than gods instruction of the people, and rather than the construct of the god to me as an individual. I think that they are mis misappropriated one might say, and i made a reference to this in my talk this morning, and take for example, uses of new testament language on liberty, right . American americans at this period loved new testament text that simply used the word liberty, and i mentioned galatians 5 1 and steadfast in the liberty of the crisis that sett you free and others the son shall set you free, and they love the quote this, but in my reading this is more about the Christian Liberty and spiritual liberty and not political liberty, but it is interesting of the debate of whether in fact the use of this use in the new text even is app proep yat in the 18th century, and others who say that is not about political liberty, but we heard it from the loyalist ministers calling out the patriots for misuse or the misappropriation of the language of liberty, and in fact, a back and forth of is it appropriate to use the language of lib erty which is more about the spiritual matters than political matters in the political pamphlets and the like. And now, quite often the response from the patriots is that gods understanding of liberty is sufficiently capacious to incorporate within it political liberty even though we might appreciate it more about the spiritual, but there is an ongoing debate even at this time. I think that even in a richer and much more consequential debate is the one that professor byrd mentioned which is how do you interpret a text like romans 13. This is where you will see a different interpretation of romans 13 by the loyalists than those who are favoring independence. Each is going to call the other side out and say, you are misinterpreting this text. And we know why you are misinterpreting this, because you think it is going to help your political cause, so there was a genuine and lively debate between the loyalists and the patriots over what exactly does romans 13, this idea of being in submission to those and what does it mean . You can understand why this is such a lively debate, because it goes to the very legitimacy of those who suggest that we should resist or rebel against england. So it is a very, a very heated conversation that refined. And so again, it is over the proper interpretation of the scripture and whether we are misappropriating it simply to advance a political objective of the moment. Thank you. Would any one else like to respond . I a always perk up when somebody brings up their commitment to follow what the bible says. That is when you have to have somebody there in their hands who is really committed to the scripture and my favorite example of this is a presbyterian pastor in savannah called john soogley w was a del to the first Continental Congress, and he was bothered as much as anybody as the taxes and the British Authority in the colony colony, but in 1775 and 1776 when he saw that the trend was heading towards independent and not resolution, he said we cant do that as christians, because of the roman 13 reason, and that argument is not necessary wiily lock. I dont know what my position would have been a patriot or the loyalist, but he resigned from the Continental Congress and became a loyalist opposed to violent revolution for sure, and he lost it, an head, ended up having South Carolina for a while. And why . Because he was acting in accordance with the conscious in what he saw going on and in romans and it is debatable, and what he has about that interpretation, and this is a good sign, and you do see them act in great personal conscious, and i find that very interesting in the time of law, and people are sometimes using the sdrip ch are scripture as window dressing and not as a price of consciousness. And so probably what that tells us most often is that the bible is the coin of the realm, the language that everyone knew to speak. Part of what is so f fascinating to me if you think about the scripture is that people across time with various presuppositions across time reading this text so that people who dont have very much in common at all meet together across time over romans 13 or Something Else in the text is fascinating to see how people read it and interpret it based on their context and their situation, and in part, it is easy for us to say, well, of course the loyalists are going to interpret romans 13 to enforce the position, because they are being selfish, because they are trying to find the ammunition to support the position, and perhaps, but we all read from our position, and in a certain situation, and so, and they look for the scripture for insight, and medication for everyone, and lot of people did. They look for it to be natural of inside, and so it is inside, and so with any other situation, and we have to look at itt from their point of view, and think about it from their point of view, and it is fascinating from the other side, and from the same text, and how others are reading frit that same text and sometimes both arguments seem good. So this is where the bibles history as well as the history of the interpretation of the bible give so much to us in part, and it gives us insight into the people that we are studying. I dont know how many times i would be reading, you know, because i know a little bit about the bible, and i would be reading a a primary and secondary source that historians put on something, and the text that the historian does not recognize, and while this is an interesting insight, and maybe it is just genesis, and so, i think that it gives us insight into the people who are study, because it is so much a part of our lives and it is going to the give us insight into the scripture and the text can be and how multi faceted. It is interesting. This question is addressed to all speakers and so please reflect on religion and masonry and the founders including George Washington and franklin and the other founders. Yeah, i get asked this a lot. Ben franklin was a free mason, and a lot of the major founders were free masons. Thiskcontroversial subject through present day. For franklin, his membership in the masons was significant, but he does not talk about it a lot. And they say it is because it is a secret society and you are not supposed to talk about it, but i dont get the sense that it is for most of his life a really central issue for him, and i dont believe that the masons in the 1700s were as controversial as they became today. But they were a minimal and f focused kused on and focused on the benevolent, and it is usually men discussing the issues of the day, and this is the era of the social clubs and the coffee houses and the taverns and socialability and so forth. So when franklin went to france, he very much connected with the masons this there. For a short time there when there were national con mnectio involved with it. But i see it as being representative of the time of fairly fairly elite sort of social club that has these kinds of religious overtones, but they dont argue about any kind of doctrine. I think thats well stated. I dont have anything to add to that. Great. So, dr. Kay, this question is for you, can you give us examples about how the bible itself influenced franklins writings . Okay. In my target i mainly cited episodes where it would just show up and builders of babel and things like that, and those are a lot of the ways that it would come up. You were talking about the bible showing up and not even showing. I have to admit that happened with me a few times because it was so omnipresent that i would either just not notice or even though i tried to read the bible every day as a believer, there were just things that were going over my head. One of my favorite examples is a pass ashlg that franklin cited in his pamphlet, plain truth which was one of the First Political pamphlets in American History. I think in the 1750s and its about the pennsylvania militia and the quakers are opposed to the militia. Its not important to get into the details, but hes pushing for raising a pennsylvania militia, and one of the arguments that he makes is based on get ready for this, the expedition of the dannites in judges 18. I saw that one. Does anybody remember this very well . I didnt remember this very well. I had to bring this up and remind myself about the expedition of the dannites, but to him and again, without going into the details, it was it was, the basic point was want being prepared and being deceived and some of these kind of themes thought that it was pain and common sense, and just like pain and common sense citing samuel 8 because people will know this, franklin will know this, the people in philadelphia will instantly see the relevance of judges 18 because they know it and they understand the point that hes trying to make, and i thought, this is a lost world of Biblical Literacy that i dont inhabit, even as someone who tries to go to church and to stay up with the bible, and so forth. They are so deeply biblically literate that it just goes over your head sometimes. So that not only tells you how again, how literate franklin is in the scripture, but i think probably more important how literate the culture is and thats true in philadelphia. Its certainly true in boston and even parts of the south. We have just a few seconds left. Would anyone like to make a closing remark or comment about today . Well, ill just add to what was just said which was lets not forget that this was a literate culture quite apart from Biblical Literacy and one of the represents why it was such a literate culture is because they read the bible and the bible was an ideal tool for teaching literacy. It was a profoundly useful tool in literacy education. So this is a generation that would have been raised learning how to read with a bible in front of them and thats why they would have known so much about these stories from scripture. Thank you very much. Please join me in thanking dr. Bird and dr. Driesbeck, an outstanding job. Thank you. So we have a few remarks. Wed like to release our speakers to go back at their table for their book signing. Thank you, gentlemen. We do have their books for sale in the back of the room if youd like to purchase them, and right now id like to introduce you to rob copeland who would like to say a few words on behalf of museum of the bible. Thank you. Heres whats ahead. Next, a look at Benjamin Franklins faith. Then the effect the bible had on writing the u. S. Constitution and after that, a discussion on the influence the bible had on the american revolution. Join us tonight when American History tv is in prime time our focus will be the museum of the bible in washington, d. C. , which held a symposium on the bible and the founding of america. Well also hear from Baylor University professor thomas kidd on Benjamin Franklins faith. American history tv is in prime Time Beginning at 8 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan3. Later today the commission on security and cooperation and europe looks at the doping of russian athletes and the policy solutions for protecting whistle blowers and combatting fraud in sports. Our live coverage begins at 3 30 p. M. Eastern over on cspan2. Also today, eric trump, son of President Donald Trump will address the annual conservative Political Action conference at marylands national harbor. You can watch live coverage beginning at 6 00 p. M. Eastern on our companion network, cspan. Join us tonight for more from cpac. Remarks from Vice President mike pence. He spoke this morning to the conservative gathering. You can watch his full speech tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern also on cspan. Monday on cspans landmark cases, well look at the Supreme Court case mccullough v. Maryland. A case that solidified the governments ability to take actions not explicit in the constitution and against the legitimates use of this power. Explore this case and the high courts ruling with university of virginia associate law professor Farrah Peterson and Mark Killenbeck and auth aor of mccullough v. Maryland. Securing a nation. Watch it on cspan, cspan. Org or listen with the free cspan radio app and for background on each case order a copy of the landmark cases companion book. Its available for 8. 95 plus shipping and handling at cspan. Org landmarkcases. For additional resources, there is a link on the National Constitution centers interactive constitution