Look forward to the broadcast of this in the near future. Paul miller has been friend and contributor to our journal providence since its founding. He is a professor at georgetown. He served in the army and on the staff of the National Security council at the white house. His included time in afghanistan. He has been very outspoken on the issue of nationalism especially of Christian Nationalism which is very much a topic great conversation right now we did host several months ago yoram hazen, the israeli thinker whose book on nationalism, helped to found the movement. National conservatism. Yoram europe is very pro nationalism. Paul miller is a critic of nationalism, especially Christian Nationalism. So welcome this conversation. Paul will speak for 20 or 25 minutes, after which there will be plenty of time for question and comment. So paul, thank you so much for joining. And let me say that the book is here physically in the office for those who would like to buy it and i commend that to you. So paul, you. Thank you mark should well. Well thank you, mark. And thank you to you all for time this evening. I dont take that for granted and i hope to make it worth your while. I want to say. A special thanks to mark and to providence. Some of this book has its origins in articles that appeared in providence magazine years ago or in talks i gave the islands, christianity and National Security conference over the years. Thats not to imply that. They endorsed the book. Its just that im very grateful for for mark and for the giving me a place to develop thinking and to do research and to start the work that resulted this book. Thats the sign of a good, healthy institution and a good convener when they gather an intellectual Community Around themselves. And marks been able to do that with both and providence and im grateful for that. Do we need more christian ity in American Public life . Were less Many American christians today look at the state of our country and are alarmed at signs of moral and cultural decay. We worry about the erosion of religious liberty, the seeming growth of antichristian attitudes in certain corners of american society. We know that christianity, to be unquestioned in american life, and perhaps some of us think one things better that way. Dont we need to revise give the presence and influence of christianity. To save america from itself itself. Theres a scholarly to this argument. The scholarly counterpart says that america has always been defined by christian heritage and, that we have to get back to that understand of american identity, where we risk losing what it means to be an american and we might actually lose our democracy, which they say is rooted in this christian heritage. So for example, the famous political scientist, Samuel Huntington, wrote in his final entitled who are we . In 2004 . He says this, the american quote was rooted in a product of the angloamerican Protestant Society and culture, the central elements of which include food, the christian religion, protestant values, morals, a work ethic. The english language. Traditions of law. Justice the limits of government power. And a european legacy of art, literature, philosophy, music. He says almost all the central ideas of the american creed, liberty and equality have their origins in dissenting protestantism. Because of our emphasis on the conscience, he says go so far as to say this. The american creed is, in short, protestantism without god and argues that the creed quote, is unlikely to retain its salience if americans abandon the anglo protestant culture in which it has been rooted. Our culture has changed drastically over the generations. We are, in fact, less christian now than ever before in american history. And if Samuel Huntington is right, that means in some sense we may be less american and perhaps at risk becoming less democratic. So do have to is this what ails american . Do we need to get back to some notion of america as a christian nation . Well, that view that Samuel Huntington advocated, i think best labeled national ism nationalism. And im going to argue against huntington i dont agree with his prescription. I think his history is fine. But i dont think thats the best way of understanding solution to what ails us today. But before i can even make that argument, i actually have simply define a bunch of terms, especially. I have to explain why this is not an argument about patriotism. Often when times when i give a talk like this some listeners get a little nervous they think that im arguing that we should not love our country. That patriotism is bad. National identity is a false construct or something that. So let me just start by saying im a patriot and love america. I served in uniform im a veteran of the war in afghanistan, worked in government for ten years, worked in the white house for, two president s. And i think its a positive virtue to cultivate a love and a gratitude for our. C. S. Lewis praised the love of home of the place we grew in, of all places, fairly near these and fairly like them love of old acquaintances, familiar sights, sounds and smells, a love for the way life that we grew up in. And similarly, nigel biggar, ethicist at oxford. He argues that it is justifiable to feel affection and loyalty and gratitude towards a nation whose customs and institutions have induct us into created forms of human flourishing. And for me, i imagine, for most of us here, that nation is america and it has inducted us into patterns of life that us to flourishing. So none of critique that im going to give you tonight is critique of the existence of nations. Its not a critique of loving your country. Its not even a critique of what some people call our civil religion. I actually enjoy the pageantry. The serum monies that make up our national together. And i think those are another crucial way of expressing our gratitude towards our nation. None of that is nationalism. Nationalism is a political. It is an argument about we define our country and its a program of Political Action for the government ought to do. Very different from patriotism which is simply a love of country nationalism is an argument about how we define country. Nations, nationalists say, are by their cultural identity. The borders, which are easy to draw, they think. And the maintenance of which lies within governments jurisdiction. Right. So nationalism is a kind of a philosophy of government and a theory of the relationship between culture and government and people. And me, let me kind of say it all over again, because this is a key to my main point. Nationalists believe that nations are defined by their cultural identity. That identity is easy to define. You can draw clear boundaries around it. And that government has a role in upholding that cultural identity. Imagine checkerboard. A nationalist looks at the world and. Thinks that you can draw a map of the worlds cultures. That as clear and distinct as a checkerboard. Not literally squares. But i mean there is separate squares that are mutually exclusive and that borders between them are very clear and easy to demarcate. Once you identify the square over there, the essence of frenchness belongs that square. And right next to it, the essence german ness belongs to it, next to that. And you can draw a clear boundary and say, this is frenchness, that is german ness. That is an essential underpinning to an entire nationalist. Then they go on and say, once you draw drawn that map, that checkerboard, every square gets a government so that theres a 1 to 1 correspondence between a people, a culture and a government. And crucially, believe that the government has a response to keep that square, being that square. So if you are the french government, it is part of your duty, your responsibility to maintain, uphold, defend and upkeep. Frenchness. And so when you say america is a christian nation, youre also implying a whole host of things underneath that. Implicitly, youre arguing that america is defined by specific Cultural Heritage that this is easily identifiable and demarcated, that you get to say what cultural identity is and that government has a role play in defining, upholding and drawing boundaries around that culture and that identity. Now, maybe you didnt realize that youre saying all those things when you say america is a christian nation. But but you did. Youre implicitly asserting all these philosophical premises about the nature of culture, about purpose of government, about the identity of nations. When you assert so apparently innocuous as america, as a christian nation, national is a belief that humanity is divisible into mutually distinct internal, coherent cultural groups, called nations defined by shared traits, whether it be ethnicity, language, religion culture, and that these groups should have their own government and, that the one and that one purpose of government is to promote and protect a nations cultural identity. Thats nationalism in american Christian Nationalism is now easy to define. Its simply the belief america is a christian nation. We should stay that way and our government has a role in keeping it that way. Now, i can maybe, you know, agree with a of the first statement when. You say america is a christian nation. If this is an observation about history. Okay. No argument. If thats an argument about demographics that a super majority of americans profess christianity, thats a true statement to. Now, you say we should stay that way. Well, no agreement. Disagreement there either. I am a christian and i want all people know jesus. So in that sense, i want all of us to know jesus and all americans, all people, the world to know jesus. But that third belief that our government a role in keeping it that way thats where a lot of problems come in. American Christian Nationalism sometimes manifest itself as a set of. Ive given you the top down the ideology huntingtin and your amazonian kind of spell stuff out. But sometimes see it more as an attitude from the bottom up that are entitled to primacy of place in the public. That in some sense we are the true heirs of the essential heritage of american identity, that we christians have a presumptive right to define meaning of the american experiment, because we sometimes see ourselves, americas architects, americas first citizens, americans guardians. Theres almost a creeping christian that can come into our discourse. Sometimes. Let me offer a couple of examples of what Christian Nationalism might look like on the ground so to speak, to match it with the ideology that i try to describe. I think Christian Nationalism looks the patriots bible. Its a real thing you can find on amazon a bible that shows how the history of the united connects the people and events of, the bible to our lives in the modern world. The story of the United States is wonderfully woven into the teachings of. The bible, Christian Nationalism also looks like the Patriot Church network as a spiritually active, engaged, grassroots effort designed to take back our communities to fight against the forces are destroying the very and religious fabric related just fabric that makes the usa special. I think Christian Nationalism looks the 29 of americans who told that the federal government should declare the United States a christian nation or the two thirds of americans who told pollsters that god has granted america a special role in american history. And so in human Christian Nationalism definitely looks like the 65 of americans, 65 who believe it is fairly or very important that a citizen be a christian in order be Truly American. I find that one personally shocking the idea that you have to be a christian, be Truly American. I think obviously false. And its shocking to me that two thirds of americans apparently believe otherwise. Christian nationalism looks like a belief that our immigration policy should christian immigrants so that we only let in people who already share our religious heritage. Nationalism looks like a candidate. The United States senate from ohio who tweeted his opposition to welcoming afghan refugees because they did not share our quote, Judeo Christian way of life. Thats Christian Nationalism in action opposing afghan resettling here because theyre not enough. Christian nationalism also looks like citing some 3312 blessed as the nation. God is the lord. Second chronicles 714. If my people who are called by my name and applying those verses to the united as if we are the nation, whose god is the lord, as if we are the people called by name. I think that is a misuse of scripture, i think those versus clearly applied to the church, the church is the nation whose god is the lord. The church is the people called by name. I could go on with, but i wanted to give you a flavor of what this might look like in day to day life or in some of the specific policy issues that you might engage with. In doing so, ive already kind of started to give you some of my critique. Now let me make it more explicit. What is wrong with . Christian nationalism. What is wrong . Christian nationalism . Number one, i think nationalism of all kinds is simply incoherent. It is impractical. The map of the worlds cultures is not a checkerboard. It is more like a venn diagram, overlapping circles. It cultures are not squares. Have no clear boundary lines. Cultures are a blobby, fuzzy circles that overlap and theyre very fluid, are constantly moving. What defines our heritage . Christian have picked religion, but other nationalists say it should be. Culture, ethnicity, race, language, history, land, folkways. Theres all kinds of criteria that nationalists have used to say this and not Something Else should define our national. Who gives them right to say . I think . We all should have a vote, so to speak, in defining who we are, defining what our culture is, what culture we identify, our member in 1998, i was backpacking through europe. I happened to share a train car with group of young men who turn out to be ethnic promax. Promax they were both bulgarian speaking muslim citizens of greece. So what nation do they belong to . They spoke the wrong language and had the wrong religion to be truly greek and the nationalist. They had the wrong citizenship, religion to be bulgarian and had the wrong citizenship in the wrong language to be considered turkish. Were they less than true citizens or less than true people just because of their cultural outsider status . Nationalism looks at such people and has no place for them. It is impossible to draw a coherent lines around every culture and subculture and group on earth and make it align political boundaries, cultural pluralism is ubiquitous. It is inevitable. You can never get rid of it. And its usually pretty good. And so nationalism then a program of cultural homogeneity, cultural sameness tries to do away with cultural pluralism, which is an established fact and will never go away. That leads to the second problem, because its. Every effort to it happen must rely on coercion. Because it cant rely on reason cant rely on persuasion and therefore nationalism inherently intrinsically illiberal. I mean against liberty, it treats some people as second class citizens like marx on the train. When a nationalist government proclaims, this is our official culture. Its also saying youre not one of us to cultural minorities or dissidents. Youve all heard people say were the real americans. But puzzlement and think what that actually says about other people who are in fact, americans and hold american citizenship but might not conform to the same cultural template as the person proclaiming themselves the real american. Thats why Christian Nationalism, though it uses the rhetoric of christian, is sometimes unchristian in its effect. It can be only loving. It can be. It can be even oppressive towards cultural minorities by saying to them, youre not one of us. Let me give you example. One of the books in favor of nationalism written by rich lowry, the editor of, national review. He argues that nationalism is a program of preserving the cultural nation. We want a kind of freeze frame American Culture and not change. He also says. American is not intrinsically white. He wants to defend against accusations of racism. The example he gives is jazz. He says jazz is proof that American Culture is not white. We all know white people didnt invent jazz, right . We never would have. And i think thats a true statement. But it makes me wonder why. Lowry is a nationalist. Because if you want to celebrate Something Like jazz, do you recognize the preconditions for the emergence of jazz . It is precisely cultural pluralism, cultural change, cultural fluidity intermingling and innovation. If youre an american nationalist in 1900 and you. You begin to see the beginnings of the first beginnings of jazz emerging. What are you going to say . Ill tell you what said. I went back and i researched. I found it. I the white critics of jazz who said this is unamerican. This is jungle music. This is voodoo music. Thats what the american nationalist 100 years ago said about jazz. So you get to pick one of two buttons to push either is good and Truly American or lets freeze American Culture and never change. You do both. Id like to live in the world of jazz, which means embracing a doctrine of, free culture, understanding that cultures will change. And thats fine. Thats good. Theres no one expression, one essence, one reified, essence of American Culture that happened in 1955 and we just have to get back to that. Cultures always change and we should embrace that. Perhaps some of you right now or other will say, okay, i it. We need to embrace cultural change. But my agenda here so much about cultural reification or status its really about righteousness its really about my desire to preserve public morality. Righteousness a nation. But sin is a reproach to any people. We need to empower government, give it the tools to restore some moral sanity to this nation. Perhaps of you recall a controversy a couple of years ago, something called drag queen story. Our right where some advocates, some nationalists wanted to empower the government to ban this thing called drag Queen Story Hour from taking place in public. Whats wrong with with with a restore to public morality america. Its a very different conversation than the conversation about cultural predominance. I want to affirm that we should strive for righteousness and justice. I also want to affirm the biblical doctrine of disestablishment and religious freedom. And and i want to emphasize biblical doctrine, not cost. I mean, it is a constitutional doctrine. But to me, thats secondary. A biblical doctrine of disestablished meant of keeping the church and the state institutionally separate and juristic notionally separate. Its very important to keep those boundaries just distinct. Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world. And romans 13, we read about gods ordinance of government and nowhere in scripture does god give government the right to the authority to regulate worship of himself. Thats what we dont criminalize blasphemy anymore. Thats why its okay to not be a christian. Why its okay in this country to insult. Im reminded of salman rushdie, who was nearly murdered yesterday, day before by someone over his book because allegedly insulted islam. Now, ive read that book. Im not a i cant comment on it. But the fact the idea that somebody could. Pass a death sentence, the words on paper is appalling. It is appalling. And there should be no. But to that. I think that we should be in the business of. Handwringing over public morality or insults to religion when. There are people who want to murder you for it. You know, lets have a priority straight the danger of letting the church in the state form a partnership in order to restore public morality. Two dangers there. Is a danger to the church that it could create hollow religion, public morality enforced at the point of a sword and given a christian gloss is not true. Heart piety. It is social conformity. It is legalism. It is in all an older form of Political Correctness. We all like to complain about Political Correctness, but using the state to enforce your version of morality is political. Just your version of correctness its the religion of the pharisees, the of christendom is not the main point of christianity. And i dont think its the top of the agenda that jesus had for his church. I think we also need to protect the church from the manipulation of the state. The church alone has authority to proclaim the word god and exercise discipline over and make disciples of all nations, not the state. Thats the first danger, the danger to the church. I really want to emphasize the second danger. This is not just an arcane debate. There is a danger of a form of political tyranny backed by religious given a religious justification in founding. History is replete with examples of governments that manipulate religion, endorse their tyranny. I call myself, a conservative, i imagine many of you do as well. We used to warn against the dangers, big government. And now some nationalists want to turn and let the government get in the business of regulating our moral behavior. Ive never seen any evidence that government is competent to that. You trust bureaucrats and, regulators to regulate your moral behavior public. Ive never seen evidence they can do that, certainly not without becoming and oppressive and possibly turning that power round and persecuting the wrong people. And this road, if you follow, it goes to a very dangerous place. There are dangerous and even violent versions of. This kind of Christian Nationalism on, january 6th of 2021, after a thousand people violently the u. S. Capitol in what i only describe as a terrorist. They stopped to pray on the floor of the senate. They said, in jesus christ, we invoke name. They said, thank fulfilling this chamber with patriots that love christ. Thank you. That the United States could be reborn that this is our. To my mind they were using jesus name to bless an insurrection, a riot, a terrorist attack. However you want to characterize it, which i find appalling. Now, im not saying all national ists go down that road. Im not paint. Im not trying to say that all christian nationalists or nationalists. But i do want to say this is one destination that nationalism can lead to. And as christians should jealously guard the name of christ and it far away from that. And so what is the solution if nationalism is not the right way . Define american identity. How do we define american identity . How do we live as christians, the public square, and pursue justice which is good without falling into the trap of Christian Nationalism. Happily we have the american creed of liberty and equality. The constitution and the declaration. Our expression of an underlying natural law that is consistent with and rooted in the moral principles of christianity. Do democracy, to my mind, is the political of the golden rule. Do unto others means reciprocal altruism, which in political terms means political equality as selfgoverning citizens. I recognize you. You recognize me as coequal citizens, who Work Together to govern this grand republic. And so if you want to seek justice, if you want to govern righteously, hold to the constitution, hold the declaration, hold to the rule of law, hold to equality and religious freedom for. All citizens, including for non christians, including for queens, including for progressives and for methodists and everyone in between. Now we havent always done this and this of course reminds us of our national failures. We have many sins, the past and. That brings up a final element of our national identity, not just the creed. I it is also the story of the creed. We americans are the people who have journeyed together to make the creed more real over centuries. Being an american means accept putting your stewardship of our ideals your responsibility to join the struggle. One of the first advocates, one of the first explorers of nationalism, actually said this, which i think is an Excellent Way of understanding what a nation should be, ernst went on. He the nation, like the individual, is the outcome. A long past of efforts sacrifices and devotions, a hero sick past with great men and glory is the social capital upon which the national ideal rests. These are the essential conditions of a being, a people having common glories in past, and a will to continue them in the present. Having made great things together and wishing to make them again. We americans have done great things in the past. We have great things to do in the future. Doing them requires us to recognize where we still have yet to live up to our creed. Thats the story. Make that your story. Will you embrace it and take responsive ability for it to take the story to its chapter . Thats what it means to be an american. Thank very much. Thank you, paul. We have time for questions and comments. But for the purposes of our online viewers and for cspan, if you would, please come up here to the microphone, if youd like to speak. And please yourselves as well. Sure. Smith from middle east forum. I had a crush about you mentioned i believe it was josh mandel objecting to afghan immigrants for not sharing our judeochristian. Certainly i think particularly given our in afghanistan that sentiment is appalling. Frankly, i think we the ones that helped us in particular that said, im curious how do you think that cultural differences sometimes extreme cultural fit into like a question like america . Whats interesting, i with your overall picture of nationalism and you know, american creed and such, but how is it that you can be sensitive to the fact that, you know, when you have people that have wildly different lifestyles or points of view very fundamental things that you know that seems to me that theres its never going to create problems without even regards to whos right and wrong. How do you factor that into, say, immigration policy, since that was the topic you were speaking . Arent there cultures that are maybe less consistent with democracy . Yeah. Or even if. Yeah. I think the answer is no. Ive looked at the evidence of democracy around the world and i see examples of relatively successful open societies in every major cultural block in the world. Ive written a paper on this in chapter four. In the book. My favorite example is the country of malawi. In 1993. There was peoples movements and protests and riots all over the world as Eastern Europe was converting to democracy, the iron curtain fell, actually happened in a lot of africa as well. And in malawi the people demanded a and the dictator guy named hastings banda, he said. All right i will hold a referendum and therell be one question on it. Do you want multiparty democracy or would you like me to remain president . Life. He forgot to rig the election. It was actually reasonably free and fair and malawians overwhelmingly voted for democracy. It turns out that most people in the world dont actually like being oppressed. Democracy is wildly popular, especially with women and religious and ethnic minorities, because always gain the people who democracy and the people who make the argument were not quite ready for democracy yet. You know who they are. Rich men of the ruling tribe because theyre the ones who always run show when its not democratic in. Almost every case. So im fairly optimistic about the ability of cultures to adapt the institutions of democracy. It will look different. And yes, its not easy. Theres lots of difficulties. Theres problems with coups. And so you can control the military and corruption in other societies. So look at that footnote in the book. But again, i see little evidence that its impossible, which means im pretty relaxed about immigrants from all over the world coming to the United States. I dont theyre going to make it their priority to undermine american democracy once theyre here. So thats my short answer. Any rejoinder there . I would ask a given that whatever you say about government policy. I, i guess its immigration policy is kind of one and its weird this because more or less im on your side at same time. I think that. Im not asking as much a question. I think the question you answered is part what i was asking. The other part would be, though, when have different cultures that i mean, im just pulling out of my you know randomly there are cultures where, you know, it is normal for certainly in history for you women to get married at 11 or Something Like that. What do you do when you bring people are used to that culture into america you know in a large number, clearly theres going to be friction there. To what degree should a government give allowances to those kinds of cultural differences . Thats not national question. It doesnt seem to me that seems to a more practical question. You know, the current immigration guidelines say that to immigrate, you have to have a working knowledge of english. It actually does say that you have to show awareness of loyalty to the constitution. And whats the third one . Theres a third one. History. Think its a basic very, very basic history quiz. Like when did the revolution happen . I think its pretty good, right and it kind of answers the question because law does regulate like the age of marriage and things like that. So i think immigrants rightfully be expected to assimilate to some those basic norms. But its not christianity its not christian Cultural Heritage. Its not any of that european music. You know, it its a very thin concept of what you have to assimilate to to really here. Yeah. Right. But my name is hidden palm to preface this by saying this is not my views, but i want a strong man some of the nationalist views for a second during your speech was reminded of federalist paper number ten by James Madison about the danger of fact and sort of how, just from a practical politic standpoint, there is a certain level of homogeneity that is necessary just to be able to govern people that once you introduce enough pluralism, its not even a people, its just individuals who cant agree on almost anything. Many of the nationalists often feel that nationalism is the one of the least bad options for uniting a people. Comparing that to contrasting that against, say, you know, a religious theocracy or against race which have much you know worse externalities comparatively than just nationalism and shared culture and language and things like that. My second part of the question is how do you defend yourself against, lets say, accusations of, cultural relativism, right. This brand of of of liberalism of of tolerance, justice toothless against a an entrenched, you know, a group that is using levers of power within the country invoke a very what many christian nationalists feel is a very form of religious within Political Correctness wokeism what have you that is that is actively ascending to oppress there like fundamental values. Right. You just respond to all of that. So i think youre correct that the nationalist that they have the answer to National Solidarity and unity. I want to affirm the basic of what theyre aiming for. I also think that we should have a sense of National Unity and identity. I think its a good thing. I think theyre part of the problem, not the solution. Think they are a faction, not the whole nationalism throws fuel on the never fire of the culture war because is its identity politics for the majority tribe, right . When minority do the same thing, we call it identity politics. And when majorities do it, when White Christians do it, we call it nationalism. But its basically the same thing. Its special pleading for your tribe. And so if this pleads and this group pleads, were never going to get along. Were going to tear ourselves apart. We do have to have something that holds us together. Its not a common culture because dont have one. Its got to be the constitution in the declaration and the story thats thats whats got to hold us together because there is no other option. All all right. Now, that was that was number one. The second one. Cultural. Its not so much cultural relativism. The critique is against viewpoint neutrality. Right. Because you are expressed as sort of libertarian ish and is associated with a legal doctrine of viewpoint neutrality, government cant put a thumb on the scales in of this or that ideology or religion. Right. I think neutrality is not the best way to characterize this, but as the language is out there. Again, i want to affirm as a christian should govern justly and with righteousness. Thats a true statement that but but we but theres line where governing governing a sectarian way turns state into a church and that is illegitimate that is a form of tyranny. To always easiest with examples. So let me talk about drag queen story oregon. Right. The argument was many people still say we should ban something that they believe is intrinsically wrong, like drag queen story. Our Public Libraries and the particular specifics matter here. What they were saying is that the library at public should disallow this group from ever booking space and using it to read books to children. Which means youre going to taxpaying citizens and discriminate against them on the basis of their values. Thats what the nationals were arguing for. I think thats bigotry and illiberal and wrong and a form of tyranny. Even if i disagree with their beliefs, even if im not to go to their event, i think they have right to hold an event. I think you have a right to live wrong. And i dont think i have a right to use the government to make you right or agree with me. Thats why. Yes, i want to libraries be used by people i disagree with because thats the country i want to live in. If you it the other way around and guess whats going to happen. Theyre going to run for mayor and turn the ban around against. Christians i dont want to live in that country. I want to live in a country where we have reciprocal. Yeah. If third part to that, then completely agree with you. But for the sake of the conversation right there, would the typical rebuttal but what it would be that the buttons already being pushed that there is no viewpoint neutrality, that so far there is a a cultural left that is actively banning their types of their values and already pushing it away. So how do you reclaim that sort of liberal doctrine that is able to keep us, you know, allow the to have some level of of of disagreement or we can even get into the discussion of a private versus public virtues like that in the cultivation of that. Yeah, im going to cheat a little bit here and say that in the previous example i do affirm the government has the right to regulate public decency. Right. Its illegal to walk around naked outside like you cant do that. So there are some standards that they can. So you regulate behavior, but discriminate on the basis of values or identity. Thats how id actually handled the library. On this philosophical question of neutrality and is it just a trojan horse for progressivism . Have you noticed that actually winning legally . Look at the last 20 years of First Amendment jurisprudence and religious freedom cases. We are winning this idea that classical liberalism, thats the language you use is somehow a trojan horse for progressivism, not hold up. When you look at the actual jurisprudence where were winning case after case after case in favor religious freedom. Religious freedom is more well established in american constitutional law today than ever before. In all american history. So its not a trojan horse for progressivism. Its a its a trojan horse for whatever you want. Call us for me. And its up for for liberalism. Right. I rejoice that for classical liberalism. So its a great thing if if this be the trojan horse, then lets make the most of it. Okay. Theres the the culture may be trending leftwards, but the law, i think, is actually trending rightward. Theres some difficulties there, some points of tension. But the answer is not to force regulation on culture. The answer is you to get involved in your communities and win and minds. So if anyone has a question, they jump right in and just take my spot. So often, this classical review, its you know, its its tied up with ideas of burke and sort of like prescription as as the the measure in which we draw up to move away we measure whether or not a policy is good or bad. And so the argument goes is if its intrinsically this neutral value is allowing us to get a more perverse polity, then obviously somethings wrong. We need to change course. Thats of thats the again im im speaking from what my what i know to be their position. Yeah if you want to stop drag Queen Story Hour pick up the phone and call them sit down and have lunch with them and. Get to know them, treat them as your neighbor and love them dont discriminate against them at the point of law. Yeah. Hi. Drawn over and im a law student here in d. C. Im curious, do i have to do i have to accept presupposition that the law neutral that it doesnt encode kind of moral values in order to i guess accept your perspective you present i think no chapter five is a pretty long discussion of neutrality. Again, i dont think its the best way to characterize the debate philosophically is the language used in law. I regrettably, i was persuaded some friends in the course of writing the book that neutrality is is not helpful language. And i actually lay out several areas where is impossible right. So for example you simply cant be neutral. On a question of human sexuality is it infinitely malleable the way i think sort of advocates of the sexual revolution want to say or, is it not . Its a binary choice. And the government actually has to take a position because theres all kinds of that use like men, women, father, mother. Its shot through and so on. Those kinds of cases theres no neutrality. And i think its a the only thing we can do is to say, hey, this is what i believe and im going to advocate for it, but do lovingly. I do so understanding that its a democracy and 51 of the people get to make that choice. And we perhaps a shrinking part of that population. And if we lose that doesnt mean the whole system is invalid. And im seeing quite a lot of that out there that the sense that if were losing it means the whole system is rotten and we should give up on democracy itself. Dont think thats the right answer. I think its fine to advocate for your view on those issues where neutrality truly is impossible, but understand democracy does mean im going to since others take a quick follow up i im curious what your perspective then is on at what point those losses presuming that they occur. Add to create such a irreconcilable differences to justify giving on a basically corrupt system. You know theres a famous case in 1992 when the magazine first things ran a simple about abortion and the symposium was is the american regime illegitimate because of roe v wade right. So know how that story has now ended or not ended but reached a significant inflection point. And i dont think anybody today in our communities would make the argument american democracy is fundamentally illegitimate because, look, were winning. We won on dubs and. Now in 50 states, we can make our case. I think, by the way, im saying we depart. I apologize for the presumption i am prolife. And i think abortion will actually find a kind of a medium where its not totally banned and its not totally loud. Its actually going to be more democratically legitimate because people will actually support what the laws say for the first time in 50 years. I think thats actually a gain democracy, whether youre prolife or prochoice. All right. So you asked, at what point do our losses accumulate to the point american democracy illegitimate . I kind of think question isnt even on the table because i to Something Like dobbs i point to all the cases of religious freedom where were winning. Why are we even having this conversation . Okay. Are there things out there that . Bother me . Sure. Part of my perspective here is my international experience, having spent a long time failed states, countries, civil war, grappling with insurgency, drug trafficking, Human Trafficking terrorism. We are still the greatest country in the world. Why are we this conversation about giving up on american democracy . This is a great place. I sometimes about the nationalist, right . They say. They say they love america so much. And were also a banana republic. Which is it . I think its a great place to live. And we have a lot going for us, particularly you compare it to much of the rest of the world. Yeah, its. The other questions or comments before we close. Of course. One more. Admittedly understanding the role of providence. The rise and fall of nations is complicated, to put it mildly. Nonetheless, you took issue with statement that, you know, god has a special for america in history. Do you think its possible believe without being a christian nationalist . And so what would that person believe . Yeah, something to split some theological. Look, i. From the doctrine of gods. Therefore, everything that happens, he has cause to happen. Does he have a plan for your life . My life . Yes. Thats good news for the gospel. In a grand. Does he have a plan for america . Does he also have a plan for every other country, the world . Yes, he does. What i take issue is when and by the way, this is deeply a part of american tradition is believing that we have a unique special relationship with god, that no other country. I dont think thats true. America does not have a role to play in the redemption of creation and the unfolding of gods plan. Redemption. Maybe im not talking anybody here in the room, but past generations of americans fervent believed this, and its kind of seeped into, i think, the deep soils of american identity sometimes. Does that answer your question . Yeah, i love it. Weve had this whole conversation the whole evening and trump hasnt come once. Come on, people. No, no. Mark tully says no. Anybody else. You like . There was a question that you wanted to ask. No. One. All right. What . Well, let me just say thank you for your time. Thank you for the spirited dialogue. Thank you to mark for this. And im happy to linger if you have any questions you want to ask, not on camera. So thank you so welcome, everyone. Thank you for joining us today for the august installment of the act and lecture series. Im noah gould and i manage the Alumni Association student programs here at the acton. Today will have the privilege of hearing from dr. Fuller on his new job, on his new book no lunch six economic lies youve been taught and probably believe. The format of this event will be a 30 minute lecture followed by q a. This event is being recorded and streamed live. So please wait for the microphone to be passed to ask your question. It is my privilege today to introduce dr. Caleb
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.