Transcripts For CSPAN2 Author Debate On The Influence Of Chr

Those authorities that exist have been instituted by god. When he states that he is proving the point that secular thought pushes christianity away from those values that i was just trying to make. That passage is clear. Then he has to connect it to the founding. He has to show where the founders relied on that idea. Fascinating conversation i love to have this conversation especially if you want to buy me a glass of delicious bourbon here. Even if they were all jesus rose from the dead christians heat you he you still have to show that their religious beliefs influence their choices. Those must be examined and compared against the constitutional design. We can talk more about the studies if you want to ask a question about that. We should also add you might want to show that the principles positively influenced the founding of the United States. All you have to do is look at slavery. It was widely justified using the bible. It is a christian principle that influence our surroundings in constitution. I suspect he wont. More on that later. He has the burden of proof here. He has to prove those two things meet the burden. Not only can he meet the burden. I will disprove it. They conflict with americas founding principle. I could talk about our godless constitution. And haul all of the state followed the federal model. I dont need to because there is a fundamental conflict between christian principles and the principles in which the nation was founded. And to be me the Ten Commandments are about it would be difficult to read a sentence that would conflict more with that. Again violation of the First Amendment pretty clear. Free expression. All violated right there. Most of the monuments you see here. Stop right there. Even though the commandment goes on. We use our modern morality to use the Ten Commandments. If you actually read on the commandment continues for i the lord your god meant jealous god. Gods most moral law promises to deliberately punish innocent children. And grandchildren and greatgrandchildren. American justice demands proof of guilt to avoid punishing the innocent. Or even vicarious redemption are out biblical constant. Jesus died for our sins is an example. His punishment absolves others of their wrongdoing. This is a central idea of christianity. It is a complete fabrication of personal responsibility that is fundamentally at odds with our entire democratic legal and financial democratic systems. Again First Amendment you can blaspheme all you want. I could go on like this. Even the ones you are thinking of right now. If you buy the book to find out why. I will say this. The principles that appear the prohibitions on murder and theft and line they are not uniquely or originally christian. Theyre actually opposed to that. In the comparison between christianity and the constitutional system continues like this. It generates principles such as obedience and fear. We the people give rulers their power here. And we have a right to rebel against them. The biblical justice is so severe that if it was implemented it would violate the constitution. It conflicts with the constitution on at least two major accounts. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Being stuck in a jail cell is cruel and unusual. Dont tell me that the fire and britain stone bring stone of how is not also. It transgresses that core presumption. In vicarious redemption. They were pretty at it is unnecessary to debunk every quote or historical tidbit. That foundational claim that christian principles influence americas founding principles must be the cart discarded. Christianity did not make the United States let alone make it great. We the people make america exceptional. They have exceeded as an experiment because it was based on reason. If we abandon reason in favor of religious faith. We are asking to progress not to some golden age to a time when religion ruled the world. Thank you. [applause]. I will now ask a question to which you will each had five minutes to respond. It is to try to bring them it together into a dialogue because this listener at least i heard responses virtually to two different questions they gave to my ears what was a very historically informed argument while mr. Seidels response focused on the role of religion largely in current life. Did america had a christian founding and my question to both of you as the following. Why does it matter if at all to ask this question today why does it matter to ask the question of whether whether they have a christian founding or not. I think it is a very important question. James wilson again. Any good Constitutional Order will poll pull the people back to the First Principles and its incredibly important that we as americans think about the principles on which our Constitutional Republic was founded. I would contend and i contend in my book that these are very good reasons to believe that christianity was very important performing this order. If we want to understand what the founders have in mind we need to understand these principles. Secondly its important just to get history right thats a lot in and of itself. Christianity have a major impact on americas founders. That is not to make a claim for the truth of christianity. It really has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. A lot of the appointed attacks were mocking christianity. And in doing so he presents a form of christianity that i find almost unrecognizable. I as a christian can absolutely accept gods command not to create a great image but also support the First Amendment that says someone else has that right to do so. It has has made history absolutely relevant. They said that we must interpret their religion cause. In light of the founders. Just as it were peter lee goes back. I read in full every single religion cause opinion. And what you find is we usually think of as aggressive. As almost always characterized as progressive. They are more likely to make historical appeal than are the conservatives. They make very different sort of appeal. They do this by going to the two founders. And just a few isolated documents. To the First Amendment. And then the detached memorandum. It was not involved in crafting the first First Amendment or ratifying it. Despite of many u. S. Supreme court. No evidence that anyone looked to the statue. By focusing on the two founders who are among the more separation us. Who get a very distorted view of what americans believe for the idea that the state and the federal government can encourage and promote religion and president s. Under jefferson a treaty was ratified to provide money. And on and on it you can go with the kind of evidence here. They like to niggling. It was the only document that matters. It is important because they are using it to have your rights today. The cross kate. The court elevated history over legal principle. This cross has been there for 90 years so we are to go ahead and let it stand. When it looked that it said we dont actually know what these guys meant when they put these crosses up 90 years ago. We can never know what they intended when they put up this cross. They look at history to interpret our rights today and increasingly especially when religion and law are coming into conflict. They are elevating history over legal principles like separation of state and church. The second thing is we do want to get history right. I think its something we agree on. It is crucial for us to understand where we are going and where we had been as a nation. The interesting thing about that though. If history is important then this is a study of the citations for the printed sermons. When they were looking at the political documents. When they included the printed sermons the bible rank really highly on that and Something Like eight times on average. But when you exclude the printed sermons. They dropped to. 3 times. That actually plummets during the constitutional conventional years. One citation in every 16. The study that they cited actually said the prominence disappears which is not surprising since the Debate Centers on the specific institutions. Thats when they were talking about the years of the constitutional convention. It is important to get history right. Another small thing was the year of our lord. That is not in the constitution. It was added at the end. Most of the states did not ratify it at the time. When the founders did take the time to debate state language which they did when they were debating the slave trade. This is a critical debate. They spent hours going over this language. And when they debated it. That language was not ratified. Its important to get these things right. But the reason i as a constitutional attorney for a secular government and religious liberties because courts are using this history in this warped history to decide these cases in it is getting worse not better you have to appreciate these speakers that are coming in under time. 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 you said that you have lived your life as a christian and those two ideas i dont conflict. I like to hear a little bit more on how they dont conflict. They are fundamentally making a category mistake. Im a firm 100 that you will have no gods before me i should worship only the lord my god. I will follow and worship only god however, this is something that they 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 can held to worship the judeochristian god or the christian god or the islamic that if you live in saudi arabia. I think it means a lot less as a matter of constitutional principle i think its pretty much what it says. We are can have a National Church and then by incorporation states are down by this. Everyone has to worship the christian god and yet they can still accept the first commandments. 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. What it says. Certainly it is permissible. The president ial calls for prayer. These things are not a violation of the constitutional principle enacted in the establishment cause. The lady to my left over here. In kentucky and several other states 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 United States<\/a>. All you have to do is look at slavery. It was widely justified using the bible. It is a christian principle that influence our surroundings in constitution. I suspect he wont. More on that later. He has the burden of proof here. He has to prove those two things meet the burden. Not only can he meet the burden. I will disprove it. They conflict with americas founding principle. I could talk about our godless constitution. And haul all of the state followed the federal model. I dont need to because there is a fundamental conflict between christian principles and the principles in which the nation was founded. And to be me the Ten Commandments<\/a> are about it would be difficult to read a sentence that would conflict more with that. Again violation of the First Amendment<\/a> pretty clear. Free expression. All violated right there. Most of the monuments you see here. Stop right there. Even though the commandment goes on. We use our modern morality to use the Ten Commandments<\/a>. If you actually read on the commandment continues for i the lord your god meant jealous god. Gods most moral law promises to deliberately punish innocent children. And grandchildren and greatgrandchildren. American justice demands proof of guilt to avoid punishing the innocent. Or even vicarious redemption are out biblical constant. Jesus died for our sins is an example. His punishment absolves others of their wrongdoing. This is a central idea of christianity. It is a complete fabrication of personal responsibility that is fundamentally at odds with our entire democratic legal and financial democratic systems. Again First Amendment<\/a> you can blaspheme all you want. I could go on like this. Even the ones you are thinking of right now. If you buy the book to find out why. I will say this. The principles that appear the prohibitions on murder and theft and line they are not uniquely or originally christian. Theyre actually opposed to that. In the comparison between christianity and the constitutional system continues like this. It generates principles such as obedience and fear. We the people give rulers their power here. And we have a right to rebel against them. The biblical justice is so severe that if it was implemented it would violate the constitution. It conflicts with the constitution on at least two major accounts. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Being stuck in a jail cell is cruel and unusual. Dont tell me that the fire and britain stone bring stone of how is not also. It transgresses that core presumption. In vicarious redemption. They were pretty at it is unnecessary to debunk every quote or historical tidbit. That foundational claim that christian principles influence americas founding principles must be the cart discarded. Christianity did not make the United States<\/a> let alone make it great. We the people make america exceptional. They have exceeded as an experiment because it was based on reason. If we abandon reason in favor of religious faith. We are asking to progress not to some golden age to a time when religion ruled the world. Thank you. [applause]. I will now ask a question to which you will each had five minutes to respond. It is to try to bring them it together into a dialogue because this listener at least i heard responses virtually to two different questions they gave to my ears what was a very historically informed argument while mr. Seidels response focused on the role of religion largely in current life. Did america had a christian founding and my question to both of you as the following. Why does it matter if at all to ask this question today why does it matter to ask the question of whether whether they have a christian founding or not. I think it is a very important question. James wilson again. Any good Constitutional Order<\/a> will poll pull the people back to the First Principles<\/a> and its incredibly important that we as americans think about the principles on which our Constitutional Republic<\/a> was founded. I would contend and i contend in my book that these are very good reasons to believe that christianity was very important performing this order. If we want to understand what the founders have in mind we need to understand these principles. Secondly its important just to get history right thats a lot in and of itself. Christianity have a major impact on americas founders. That is not to make a claim for the truth of christianity. It really has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. A lot of the appointed attacks were mocking christianity. And in doing so he presents a form of christianity that i find almost unrecognizable. I as a christian can absolutely accept gods command not to create a great image but also support the First Amendment<\/a> that says someone else has that right to do so. It has has made history absolutely relevant. They said that we must interpret their religion cause. In light of the founders. Just as it were peter lee goes back. I read in full every single religion cause opinion. And what you find is we usually think of as aggressive. As almost always characterized as progressive. They are more likely to make historical appeal than are the conservatives. They make very different sort of appeal. They do this by going to the two founders. And just a few isolated documents. To the First Amendment<\/a>. And then the detached memorandum. It was not involved in crafting the first First Amendment<\/a> or ratifying it. Despite of many u. S. Supreme court. No evidence that anyone looked to the statue. By focusing on the two founders who are among the more separation us. Who get a very distorted view of what americans believe for the idea that the state and the federal government can encourage and promote religion and president s. Under jefferson a treaty was ratified to provide money. And on and on it you can go with the kind of evidence here. They like to niggling. It was the only document that matters. It is important because they are using it to have your rights today. The cross kate. The court elevated history over legal principle. This cross has been there for 90 years so we are to go ahead and let it stand. When it looked that it said we dont actually know what these guys meant when they put these crosses up 90 years ago. We can never know what they intended when they put up this cross. They look at history to interpret our rights today and increasingly especially when religion and law are coming into conflict. They are elevating history over legal principles like separation of state and church. The second thing is we do want to get history right. I think its something we agree on. It is crucial for us to understand where we are going and where we had been as a nation. The interesting thing about that though. If history is important then this is a study of the citations for the printed sermons. When they were looking at the political documents. When they included the printed sermons the bible rank really highly on that and Something Like<\/a> eight times on average. But when you exclude the printed sermons. They dropped to. 3 times. That actually plummets during the constitutional conventional years. One citation in every 16. The study that they cited actually said the prominence disappears which is not surprising since the Debate Centers<\/a> on the specific institutions. Thats when they were talking about the years of the constitutional convention. It is important to get history right. Another small thing was the year of our lord. That is not in the constitution. It was added at the end. Most of the states did not ratify it at the time. When the founders did take the time to debate state language which they did when they were debating the slave trade. This is a critical debate. They spent hours going over this language. And when they debated it. That language was not ratified. Its important to get these things right. But the reason i as a constitutional attorney for a secular government and religious liberties because courts are using this history in this warped history to decide these cases in it is getting worse not better you have to appreciate these speakers that are coming in under time. 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<\/a> actually goes with you said that you have lived your life as a christian and those two ideas i dont conflict. I like to hear a little bit more on how they dont conflict. They are fundamentally making a category mistake. Im a firm 100 that you will have no gods before me i should worship only the lord my god. I will follow and worship only god however, this is something that they 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 can held to worship the judeochristian god or the christian god or the islamic that if you live in saudi arabia. I think it means a lot less as a matter of constitutional principle i think its pretty much what it says. We are can have a National Church<\/a> and then by incorporation states are down by this. Everyone has to worship the christian god and yet they can still accept the first commandments. Its not about what christians personally believe i appreciate that he is for the First Amendment<\/a> but that doesnt have anything to do with whether or not christian principles influence the founding of the United States<\/a>. 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<\/a> 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<\/a> is really what youre talking about. The best indicator and predictor of a trump voter in the 2016 election was not Political Party<\/a> it was not religion despite how much you care about that. It was not race or racism. It was thinking the United States<\/a> was founded as a christian nation. That is the best predictor in the 2015 election. Donald trump tapped into this vein of Christian Nationalism<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> said what i can a focus on all of that. Were to look at history and in 1774. The Constitutional Congress<\/a> 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. What it says. Certainly it is permissible. The president ial calls for prayer. These things are not a violation of the constitutional principle enacted in the establishment cause. The lady to my left over here. In kentucky and several other states 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> congress. They ratified at this thing. How do they understand it. They understood largely but not solely. Never from putting the Ten Commandments<\/a> and the Supreme Court<\/a>. On and on you can go. No interpretation of the First Amendment<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> we have not heard christian principles that influence the founding of the United States<\/a> 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<\/a> of moral sense with hutchinson as opposed to the human smith type. I think it is hard work. To the extent to which the founders were not influenced by those thinkers. Theyre even more aligned with christianity. It was based on christian principles. Why wasnt it built sooner. They ruled for 1600 plus years. Why wasnt built in 789. Instead of 1789. Why were we founded earlier why did have to wait until the scientific revolution was up and running until we actually saw these ideas put into practice. In a large part they are not christian. They are not religious. The lady in the second row here. See mac this question is for mister hall. We talked at the beginning of this why the question of whether or not america was founded on christian principles was important. Why is it important for you to prove that it was. What does america look like in a nation that say you found out it wasnt. Why is it important to you to prove that. Especially when the answer of the question is we see it reflected in laws and discriminatory laws. That is a good question youre assuming i have my conclusion when i set out to prove it. I would like to think that i am looking at the evidence with the open mind. If i were to start a new part of my career i probably would begin that that assumption have a pretty good impact. Maybe i as i got into the text i would say that. With respect to Practical Implications<\/a> i do think its important for understanding Constitutional Order<\/a>. It matters because the court says it matters. We now come to the final question of the program each of them has five minutes to get some Closing Remarks<\/a> again when you get to four i will for i will say one and then time. Thank you very much. To the Mcconnell Center<\/a>. Enter mr. Seidel of her showing how two people who really disagree about important matters could discuss them civilly. Ive argued tonight and even in greater detail that far too many scholars the founders created a godly constitution. They were the founders desire to represent church and state. There is no good as Circle Historical<\/a> reason to support these propositions. He does not had to quit his day job. In 2013 the freedom from Religion Foundation<\/a> to the star of david in the holocaust memorial. Again you can make a principal non originalist argument. In favor of proposition but there is no good historical argument to be made. In no way shape or form does the establishment clause prohibit the inclusion of the star of david in holocaust on public land. I had suggested tonight that are good many reasons. They were influenced by their christian convictions. In many cases we simply dont know. Dont hear me as claiming too much. But as the founders we do know something about. Virtually none of them were there. We have very good reasons to believe that many of them were christians. I have argued as well and i think this is what i say multiple times. They were influenced by christian ideas when they crafted the constitution. Their understanding of liberty. I have never claimed that they are uniquely christian principles. People with no religion at all could embrace these principles. One can be a pacifist for all sorts of reasons. If you look at my colleagues i would suggest the most obvious reason why they are pacifist is because of their adherence to a religious tradition that has long said that they should not use of violence against other people. They embrace a robust understanding because not despite that religious convictions. I have a wonderful quote from the letter. Washington makes it Crystal Clear<\/a> that the populations that you guys had religious liberties just like everybody else. Although im arguing that they have a christian founding. This is very good news for all of us. Religious liberty cannot be absolute. I want to concede that it cannot always win. As they cannot sacrifice babies. Even if they believe their religion requires them to do so. But the first First Amendment<\/a> does not require that Public Square<\/a> to be scrubbed free of religion. I will close early i will conclude that the best answer to the question did america had a christian founding is yes and its good news for all citizens regardless of their religious convictions or lack thereof. There of. Thank you very much. The Ten Commandments<\/a> hell, original sin. The very idea of vicarious rejection. Our American Experience<\/a> was based on region. They conflict at a fundamental level im not an academic sitting comfortably in an office. My book has 1300 citations. We handle 5,000 estate state Church Complaints<\/a> every year. Teachers telling kids that they have to pray before they go down to lunch each day. They are justified with claims that this is a christian nation. Or that we are based on judeochristian principles. To justify Christian Nationalism<\/a>. America is in a desperate fight against Christian Nationalism<\/a>. I dont know whether my opponent would identify with that. I know that it fuels Christian Nationalism<\/a>. He appeared on the number of times. His book was pulled off the shelf it had 70 lies in it. I know is affiliated he is affiliated with the heritage foundation. This was groups pushing the projects. It seeks to tell the story of the role of religion in the constitutional history of the United States<\/a>. It was to pass the ceremonial bills first. So ask yourself what is the debate really about. It goes to goes to the heart of several questions. As my opponent just seeking to my give expert testimony. On behalf of those businesses. In that remarkable letter that washington wrote. He said the government of the United States<\/a> gives bigotry no distinction. He did not go on to say unless youre christian and you open up a bakery in which you can totally discriminate. He did not say that. Why asked the Supreme Court<\/a> to uphold a cross. As my opponent has done. Why work with groups like adf leading the charge against in favor of discriminating against these couples. I mentioned in the introduction that they have up positive influence on america. If and only if this were a debate about history but its not. If it have just been about history he couldve claimed any christian influence. Positive or negative this is about providing historical gloss so that christian nationalists can use the language every turn of getting back to our religious roots to justify their current policies. This administration justifies it is directly contradicted. Its about feeding muslims because theyre not american enough. It is about revoking a womans right to choose. Busing in policy. America was not founded as a christian nation. We were not built on christian principles because those are opposed to our founding principles. He failed to name the christian principles. And instead named universal human principles and claimed them for christianity. He could not show what was not there. This debate is not about history it is about right now. Incorporation you. [applause]. Thank you to all of you for being here this evening. Two both of our speakers in the Mcconnell Center<\/a> for allowing us to have this very engaging robust debate. Select the debate and the in the moderators for being with us tonight. We have a small token of our appreciation that know what will get to you now. Will be holding a drawing it was one and that was written previously and not the unreleased copy but the sacred rates of consciousness. For that founding we have Jeremy Dodson<\/a> and then for the sacred rights. Andrew lawson. And immediately following if you did want a copy of that sounding minutes. Thank you all for coming out this evening and helping us to represent sent constitution day. We hope you all had great travels. Next week and anonymous person believed to be a senior official will release a book critical of the president. It is titled a warning and published by 12 bucks. According to the Washington Post<\/a> which received a copy of the book ahead of publication they reflect on my he wrote the book anonymously. I had decided to publish this because this debate is not about me it is about us. It is about how we want the presidency to reflect our country and that is where the discussion should center. Some will call this cowardice. My feelings are not hurt by the acquisitions nor am i unprepared to attach my name. I may do so in due course. The author is expanding on an opt and they wrote for the New York Times<\/a> in september 2018 titled i am part of the resistance inside the trump administration. The author corrects an assertion they made and their in their opinion piece from last year. I was wrong about the quiet resistance inside the trump administration. Unelected bureaucrats and cabinet appointees were never going to steer donald trump the right direction in the long run. Or refine his malignant management style. He is who he is. Next weekend they will host a journalist discussion. Jeff mason wright has bureau. Will be our guest. In addition you will hear from joe klein who is a longtime anonymous author of the clinton era novel primary colors. Check your Program Guide<\/a> for schedule information. Recently on the Author Interview<\/a> program. In this portion of the program mister rowe authors his thoughts on nationalism. Theres patriotism and then nationalism. There arent too many danish nationals because they say not only do i love my country but it is superior i happen to believe our country is superior. Superior in the scent that it embodies the philosophy that is right and is not suitable for all people at all times but everyone ought to aspire to it. I dont want to take that at the vantage point. I want to make it available to people. We have a lot of experience with the Civil Society<\/a> of a Democratic Society<\/a> im a mild nationalist. To watch the rest of the interview visit our website and click on the afterwards tab. But tv has live weekend coverage of that Miami Book Fair<\/a> starting on saturday and sunday featuring author discussions and interactive call and said segments. Republican senator tom cotton talks about the Arlington National<\/a> cemetery. The National Security<\/a> advisor and u. S. Ambassador discusses her life and career. On the Westborough Baptist<\/a> church. The chair of the constitutional studies at the university of notre dame on liberalism. They discuss the Russian Hackers<\/a> on sunday. November 24. Our live coverage continues with the former secretary of state secretary of state in the obama administration. On the 1950s red scare. The journalist discusses former new york city mayor michael bloomberg. They talk about the state of cia detention centers. In the former professional centers. Watch it live coverage of that Miami Book Fair<\/a> on saturday and sunday on cspan to book tv. Television for serious readers all weekend every weekend. Join us again next saturday beginning at 8 00 a. M. Eastern for the best in nonfiction books. Host Marc Randolph<\/a> is a cofounder of netflix and he is the author of this new","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803103.us.archive.org\/34\/items\/CSPAN2_20191118_113400_Author_Debate_on_the_Influence_of_Christianity_on_Americas_Founders\/CSPAN2_20191118_113400_Author_Debate_on_the_Influence_of_Christianity_on_Americas_Founders.thumbs\/CSPAN2_20191118_113400_Author_Debate_on_the_Influence_of_Christianity_on_Americas_Founders_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}