Transcripts For CSPAN2 Author Debate On The Influence Of Christianity On Americas Founders 20240714

[background sounds] good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is jasmine. It is an honor for me to what commute to our if it this evening. In celebration of constitution day, thank you for joining us for a debate on did american have a christian pounding. It is my pleasure to introduce the moderator for this evening his debate. Is the 24th Brandeis School of law at the university of law. Prior to coming to brandeis, Dean Crawford served as a professor of environmental law at the University Law school in new orleans louisiana. He was a tender member of the faculty at Georgia State University College of law in atlanta. Center for comparative study for metropolitan growth which has developed new models for field based education and compared environmental landuse laws. Dean crawford has a law degree from Harvard Law School and degrees in modern history from cambridge and columbia universities. It was admitted to practice law in state of new york. Please join me in welcoming tonight his moderator, Dean Crawford. Cut back dean thank you very much it is a real pleasure to be back here for the second year in a row at the Mcconnell Center and i am convinced that the reason i was asked back is then that if i have one skill it is in being a very strict timekeeper. Mac so this evening i am going to hold close to the time limit that i have been instructed to give them. And before introducing them, just let me run over that format very quickly. Each of the speakers will have 15 minutes for their opening statements. When they have two minutes left i will put up two minutes then one and then i will utter the words stop and i will say please afterwards. [laughter] but i will thanks that you both respect that so that we have time for a robust discussion. And then i will not abuse the moderators of privilege and asked the question of each of them as a way to try and and sensitize the discussion for that they will have five minutes each and then we will start to take questions from the audience and i will repeat this later but i will make this clean now. We all know that experience of being in an audiences for the audience member raises and says a statement and i would encourage you to thanks the speakers questions so we can hear what they have to say. And then take back home, are points to discuss. Then we will have audience discussion. Let me quickly introduce both of them in the order, and more david hall, who is immediately or on the far to my right. He will speak first, and professor hall is the professor of politics of George Fox University in newburgh, oregon. Is the author and editor of over a dozen books. He is the phd from the university of virginia and government where he wrote on one of the founders and i just learn not only the Supreme Court justice, james wilson. He is also the author of the forthcoming book which is coming out in october. You show what it looks like and more. He did in america have christian founding coming out from dozen books. He asked me to emphasize that it is a book intended for general readership. Its not unlike his other work directed towards academic audiences. So it should be accessible for all of us. I self included. To my immediate right, is andrew seidel, andrew is the constitutional attorney and director of Strategic Response of foundation at the im getting this wrong andrew at the freedom from religion foundation. He has from a school close to my heart. I taught for eight years Tulane University annoy our orleans, he was a magnet, from tulane and also as an element from my hometown university. The university of denver. He is the author and i only have a copy because the book was published in may, the author of the founding myth [laughter] which he pointed out to me and i took no, a blurb from two prominent law professors. As i said, this came out of me 2019. Once again im going to hold them strictly as i can to the time and i would tell you to one and then stop please. And so that went out further ado and more, please begin. [applause] and more. Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting us to participate here it is an honor to be here. So there are two common answers that are often given to did america have a christian founding. On the one hand, they say of course it did but not a legitimate of course all of the founders were godly men and they were trying to create a christian nation. In these others often times lack academic and credentials, they sometimes misused rotations and sometimes use quotations they cannot be verified. And sometimes at the worst they make up stories. Sometimes of the great account of George Washington. Its just made up. This its not the sort of position i am depending tonight and i want to make sure thats clear. On the other hand, this is actually of great concern to me. It is very common for academics and for popular scholars to answer in the opposite direction. They know, no it did not. It did not have a christian founding. Most of them for bs and they created a godless constitution and the desire to strictly separate church and state. I believe these sorts of associates are very simply false. Ill begin to show that some in my talk tonight and i go in to greater detail in my book. So what i want to do, is content that if we have to get into the question. Did america have a christian founding we say yes or no. That yes is definitely the best answer but we need to be careful in defining our terms. And so i want to explore for a little bit what we mean by a christian founding. How would we noted we saw it on. If i had more time, i would possible founding to the early colonies to the war for independence and Constitutional Commission but i am simply going to stipulate that we are talking about will usually cite in the founding era. Seventy to 65 to 7091 or so the war for american independence in the creation of a Constitutional Order. So with that said, lets begin to explore what do we mean by a christian founding. One possibility would be that americans in the era identify themselves as christian. If that is what we mean then its indisputably we had a christian founding. Of americans and european dissent, almost a hundred percent one of said i am a christian. In fact 98 percent would have identified themselves as protestant 2 percent and Roman Catholic and about 2000 jews in four american cities. Debate over. Right. No. These can be very and pious christians, christians influenced by so im going to lay that aside for now. The second possible mean is they were all orthodox christians. Let me say in a devoted an entire chapter this my book. Theres absolutely no good reason to believe that most forum any american founders it is so the case that jefferson and adam and franklin were not orthodox christian. But thats not the same thing as being a ds. Lisette said term used by including mr. Seidel in his book. I think there are actually great reason to believe that many of them were christians off of in many cases we lack reference we have to be careful about making that sort of claim. I think actually the organizer of this debate had it right. Scholars have spent years and have killed many trees trying to identify both of the founders were influenced by a lockean liberalism or classical republicanism or the Scottish School of moral sense. Its a look at influence in what was in major influences upon americans founders and i think you can make an exit case that christianity was a very important influence, the most important one. Christianity proper within the political affliction. Let me jump to what might be a hard case for me. The work for american independence. Because on the surface, this seems to be a profoundly unchristian act right. Im sure yall know romans 113 wanted to and we can keep going i will just read the beginning. Let every soul be subject to the governing authority for there is no authority except from god. And the authorities that exist are appointed by god. One might argue the case that by rebelling against the duly constituted authority are engaged in a profoundly unchristian act. On the surface it does seem to be a problem however as it was the 12th century some catholic scholars began to work on this problem and as things like what would happen if the ruler became a tyrant. Rulers ceased to be the sort of burning authority in romans 13. This idea was taken by the protestant reformers. Especially john calvin and those who follow him. Conan, and so forth. They developed this robust resistance ideology. Calvin is also actually mowed the most conservatives, having the authority to resist a king becomes a tyrant but even as he is doing that. Thank know the people themselves, have this sort of authority. I would say this is the very important position that develops within the forum tradition and this is very important in the american context. Between 50 and 75 percent of americans of european descent and sara or accurately identified as calvinists. This sort of connection was noticed by the other side. The royalist peter peter oliver railed against the dissenting clergy. He took so active of a part in the rebellion. By dissenting clergy, the met presbyterian and congregational inductors and others are non clergy. King george himself referred to the wharf for independence was presbyterian rebellion. The more normative plan, the most important document come out of the Continental Congress, the declaration of independence rest in the party went on a theological. We all these truths to be selfevident that all men are created equal. That they are done by the creator. Among which are live liberty and the pursuit of happy is. You may object. We know that Thomas Jefferson its not an orthodox christian. He wouldnt be absolutely correct that you need to understand there is actually committee of five and this committee changed jefferson strapped in ways that he did not like. More portly that went into the entire cottonelle congress that changed it again. This document has authority only because it comes from this congress. Most members of congress, were signing off on this, by nature his god creator, they were thinking about the god of creator isaac and jacob. Let me press on again to another hard case. About the constitution. Is this a godless document. If you are familiar with the state constitutions in the era, its definitely different. Many constitutions admit multiple to god specifically. The constitution is basically silent on this. Sully referenced it and didnt even come close to being a reference and god is the dateline in the year of our lord in 1787, and yet some constitutional scholars say we shouldnt even consider this. To be part of the constitution proper. There are some notions that american is the nation populated by christian, the president and the pocket veto occurs ten days after the Congress Passes a piece of legislation. There is an assumption that this would not be done on sunday. The Constitutional Convention meant every day of the week except for sunday. The congress in 1779 met once on a sunday. Generally people do not do legislative business on the sabbath. So what sort of argument i have here. Okay god its not there. We even have a man on the office which lies in the face of the 1113 state in 1787. Article six as were not going to have religious and federal office. What is going on. I want to suggest that we cannot determine both of america is the godless or public constitution simply by counting references to the deity. We have to look a little bit deeper. I want to begin with a sort of literature that the american founders were referencing. You recall that i said they were protestants. People of the book. If the book was important to them, you expect to see references to the bible everywhere. And the fact thats what you find. Very fine political scientist did a wonderful analysis of a whole bunch of text. An article that eventually published in americans of Political Science review, we need found was in looking simply at the political literature, and looking at citations, within the political literature, that roughly in the founding era, were talking about 34 of all citations in the bible alone. Compared to 22 percent to all in the thinkers combined. Everyone combined. 22 percent, the bible alone 34 percent. Its very important to note that was the undercount the references to the bible. He excludes political sermons that dont also have references and secular thinkers and theres another reason that i will get to. Let me jump to a more substantive argument. Then find hall, how. How were the founders influenced by christian ideas. All. To just for main things and we can perhaps afford them a little bit later. The founders believed that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god that humans were sinful and even christians continue to struggle with the old man. This led them to develop a Constitutional Order xrays by federalism and separation of power and checks and balances. The rule of law and they were very suspicious. Concentrated powers. Some enlightenment in my time of congress were very interested in centralized government. With no checks and balances. Run by experts. The kind only makes sense for reasons to be your guide. To me jump to another one. The founders were absolutely convinced that there were world standards. Universal world standards that apply to all people in all times, in all places and human laws, lets be based. Based upon these moral standards if you meet somebody like james wilson in early supreme justice, he sounds like there are two types of law. The divine is human. Divine law are for. Natural celestial and physical and human laws must be based on moral laws. And so forth. Supreme court judges prior to marshall, is on record staying the Supreme Court and strike down an active legislature of the violate a natural law which is really quite an extraordinary claim if you think about it. Thirdly, the christian ideas informed the founders and understanding of liberty. For them liberty was a freedom to do whatever is right. They distinguish between liberty and live. When founders worked, liberty must never be used within the bounds of right and duty or in another common formulation, law that went out liberty is an liberty that went out law. Fourth and i think this is critical the founders were convinced that humans were created in the modern days. The image of god. James wilson again if i may, this is the u. S. Supreme court opinion. He writes that man beautifully and wonderfully made, his workmanship of his all perfect creator. Some of you recognize that is coming from psalm 139. He doesnt put in reference psalm 139. He is clearly referencing the psalmist here. He goes on in his lecture and says this and this is going. Live with a consistency and beautiful and a deviating human live, from its commencement to its close is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of the law that begins with the infinite first able to stir in the womb by the law live is protected not only from the immediate discretion but from every degree of actual violence in some cases every degree of danger. So there is a number other things i can. To but i want to pay respect with the religious liberty in charge state. This is where the rubber hits the road. Im running out of room or im running out of time. Church state relations will be later. George mason and a drop to a became a very important document in article 16 of the virginia declaration of rights. He said that he drafted that as religion or the duty which po to our divine and a mythic creator in the manner of discharging eczema can be governed only by reason of conviction and not force and violence. Therefore the homage enjoy in full toleration and exercise of religion. Know how the argument is grounded in a theological proposition. The duty which po towards a divine and assistant creator. This is the good draft but James Madison was not satisfied and he did not like this were toleration. He devotes an amendment and article 16 was amended to make it clear that we have a natural right to freely exercise our faith. And with that, i think almost stop. A minute to spare. Andrew. Host all just a tooth and one then stop. Andrew we the people, those words are poetic but so much more. Our godless constitution was indeed revolutionary. It was the first not mentioned a deed or jesus, the first of been religious test for Public Office in the federal constitution experiments, the secular government was so successful that all of the states followed suit. This establishing churches and banning heading churches offer taxpayer funds. All through the 1830s. Secular government works. There is no such thing as the freedom of religion that went out a government that is free from religion. America invented the separation of state and church. The american ritual. The idea was warm when the enlightenment but it was first implemented in the american experiment. I am proud of this fact. I wish my and i wish every american were proud of this american invention. I suddenly wished they were far fewer seeking to undermine it with ideas that we are christian nation. America did not have a christian founding. Its a good thing we did it. The principles that are essential to christianity that can be found in the bible are fundamentally opposed to the principles on which this nation was built. Ill get into that in a moment but first list look in the opponent had to prove this claim. First he would have to name is christian principles that influence the valley and they must be christian. These ideas and ideals that are unique to his religion. It cant just be religion claiming credit for ideas that are out there. Francis the golden rule. A lot of people think of this is the christian principle but the greeks had it hundreds of years before christianity asked in the chinese. And the millennium. Before christianity. Golden rule is in a christian principle is the human as well. John adams, the great principle of nature and nations. So why can we find christian principles. We find them in the bible. We can find them and the Ten Commandments and jesus his words in the christian bible and pauls letters. In two corinthians. [laughter] that is where we find christian principles. My head was like mention this christian tradition of political reflection. In any kind of attributes that to all of christianity. If either a discussions of these human principles. Things like liberty and live and acting in selfinterest which he labels simple. Basically he speaking of christian like in these universal human ideas. The flames that live and liberty are christian ideas when they are the most basic Building Blocks of humidity of which like myself weve all been accused of. Even if we were to focus on christian thoughts. Thought which we should say ignores what 1200 years or 1500 years of christianity, he said a bigger problem. Historically religion gets dragged into maturity by secular ideas and thinkers. When it comes to progress religion does not lead, it fall is. Professor and more smith has done some excellent work in this area. He said this is like the tailwagging the dog. I know this is counterintuitive but thats only because religion comes so long later to claim credit for that progress. Think about the historical opposition to divorce. Two womens rights to lgbt rights to evolutions desegregation his in the rights. Stronger religious theological and biblical argument outside that debate is on the wrong side of history. That isnt to say the some religious groups work. Absolutely the right side at the local and religious arguments are on the wrong side. Less orthodox religions. They would liberalized by secular ideas. It drove religion abolition, drove churches to examine their collective conscious. Frederick douglass wrote that revivals of religion and revivals of the slave trade go handinhand because he recognizes it. He wrote his letter from the birmingham jail to his fellow preachers who were standing on the sidelines staying hi lists role and sees. He was fighting for civil rights. He is all he was relate the church to a taillight and should be a headlight even though it wasnt. This is only counterintuitive because of what my opponent is doing right now bradys claiming that religion is responsible for that progress and it did not accomplish. If you want a modern example, you can see this happening right now with gay marriage. The opposition to gay marriage was exclusively religious. Mark my words within the next 30 to 40 years religion is going to be trying to claim credit for that victory. So first is that enables christian principles. Not simply say that theyre responsible for live liberty. Gift and connect them to the founding. Im thrilled to hear him say we are talking about the Constitutional Convention in that era. Of course we are. Were not talking about history for my time when the americas were an outpost of the christian king. When there was no constitution. A lot of First Amendment to that constitution. The colonial is really deceptive and everything is owned to us so we dont realize how far apart this war but jamestown, wasnt settled 180 years before the Constitutional Convention. My opponents first and earth is closer to the Constitutional Convention in jamestown was. So talking about the founding of the colonies its not that useful. The declaration of independence, an amazing document. A limit and encourage everybody to read it. I go to chapters on in founding myth. It was a justification and announcement, is severed our political connections with great britain. It did two through two things in terms of laying out physical political philosophy. Said first that power comes from the people. That is anti biblical. Second, that the declaration said we have a right to rebel against history. Christianity t privates. Romans 13. Instituted by god will ever resist authority, resist what god has appointed. We need cites that, he is proving the point that secular thought christians and christianity away from their totalitarian. That passage is clear, go read it for yourself. Christian idea that many of connected to the founding. Just to show with founders relied on that idea. Again its not enough to show that the founders were christian. I would concede that for the sake of argument even though its not true. Fascinating conversation and i love to have this conversation especially if you invite me a glass of the delicious kentucky bourbon that you have here. Not back i will talk about that for hours but its not really relevant to the question because even if they were all jesus and rose from the threat christians and they were, hed still have to show that their religious beliefs influence their choices as for instance the Constitutional Commission. Those religious beliefs must be examined and then compared against the principles that inform our constitutional design. Actually especially hard given the results never cited the bible as a constitution of connection when they were writing our founding documents. We talk more about the left side if anybody wants to talk about that. I believe that was very much misguided. We should also add the might want to show this principles positively influence the founding of the United States. I can show you the negative influences kind of easy. All you have to do is look at slavery. It was widely just by using the bible. Since slavery is implicitly recognized twice in the Ten Commandments. Jesus tells you how hard it can be your slaves. Thats a christians principle that absolutely influence our founding. Hes free to claim that influence. Barnett later. To show us this christian principles and show us the influence on the founding. And incidentally is the very question that i asked in my book. Its available everywhere. [laughter] founding myth. When it like to do in this book is asked the question did christian principles positively influence the founding of the United States of america. Another didnt. They were not founded on christian principles and its a good thing. Because those principles are fundamentally test. To the principles on which this nation was built. Is that the burden of proof here. Hes making the claim projected by most scholars yet prove those two things the proven burden. Not only did he not meet that burden, im actually going to disprove it. Because christian principles conflict with americas founding principles. I could talk about regardless constitution and our secular government and reject action of prayer and religion at the Constitutional Commission and how all of the states followed the federal model when they saw how well it works. The treaty of tripoli says the United States is founded on the christian religion but i dont need to. There is this fundamental conflict between christian principles and the principles on which this nation was founded. To be the Ten Commandments are a prime example of this. You shall have no other gods before me. It would be difficult to write a sentence that conflicts more with our First Amendment in that. You shall not make for yourself an idol. You shall not bow down to them or worship them. Again, violation of the First Amendment. Pretty clear. Religious liberty 3x russian. All went there. Most of these and admit stuff like that. You know the commitments goes on. That means we use our modern morality to edit the Ten Commandments. Most god his most moral law. If you actually read on, the commitment says i the lord your god am a jealous and punishing children the nicu movie of the parents for the third and fourth generation. God his most moral law promises to punish innocent children and greatgrandchildren. Proof of guilt to avoid touching and ascent the christian god intentionally harms innocent to punish the guilty. Mary mediations and personal responsibility like this punishing is our if it redemption are biblical constant. Jesus died for our sins is perhaps the most prominent example and he was innocent but somehow his punishment of his will others of their wrongdoing. Right this is sinful ideas and christianity. That jesus died for your sins. And as a complete aggregation of personal responsibility. Fundamentally at odds with our entire democratic legal and financial system. You shall not make wrongful use of the lord your god and dont take god his name in vain. But again, first minute you can say whatever you got demott in the century. [laughter] i could go on like this all the Ten Commandments conflict in some way. Yes even the ones you know thinking of right now. If you buy the book to find out why. I will say this, the few principles that appear in both the deck aloft in americas judicial and legislative system, those prohibitions on murder and theft and lying, they are not uniquely originally christian. Exclusively christian principles are actually opposed to those american principles. And to be compared between christianity and americans constitutional system, continues like this. Christianity principles which is obedience and fear. The constitution as freedom. The bible said oak bay the rollers theyre ordained by god. We the people, have a right to rebel against them when they turn tyrannical. Which incidentally are the only types of government facing the bible. Totalitarian monikers. Biblical justice is so severe that if it were implemented it would violate the constitution. Hell a central tenet of christianity conflict with the constitution on two major counts. Torture and is in eternal punishment. Aunt amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court said stuck in a cell cell with a five pack a day person is punishment. Transgresses that core presumption of american injustice. The presumption of innocence. And vicarious redemption. These defining questions principles repudiates personal responsibility upon which all american laws and government rest. So it is unnecessary to debunk every quote or historical history. Because that foundational flames. That christian principles are influenced americas founding principles must be targeted. Because christian principles conflict with americas principles founding principles. Christianity did not make United States. Let alone make it great. We people, make america exceptional. America is an experiment because it was based on reason. If we abandon reason in favor of religious faith or if our elected leaders to but that said, we are asking to regress. Not to some golden age but to a time when religion which we call the dark ages. Thank you. [applause]. Host each of you will have five minutes to respond. My aim with this question is to try and bring it together into dialogue because for this listener at least, i heard responses virtually into different questions. Professor hall gave to my ears what was a very historical and historically informed argument that looked at her founding while mr. Seidel, focused on the role of religion largely in current lives. I want to thanks you a question as i said informed buyer questions tonight which is his american have a christian foundation. Make russian to both of you is the following why does it matter if at all to thanks this question today. Why does it matter to thanks the question of both of the country has a question founding or not. And again youll each have five minutes. Mark james wilson and his laws said that any good Constitutional Order will pull the people back in the first principles. Its incredibly important that we as americans think about principles upon which our Constitutional Republic was founded. I would contend and i contented my book that i think theyre very good reasons to believe that christianity and ideas developed in the christian tradition of political affliction, were very important for in this order. We want to understand what the founders had in mind, and why they created the sort of institution, they created we need to understand the principles. Secondly is important just to get history right. Thats while in of itself. Christianity had a major impact on americas founders and we cannot understand the founding that went out it. So to make a claim for the truth of christianity. If i was writing a book on saudi arabia, i would talk about the influence of islam. In saudi arabia and it really has nothing to do with both of or not islam is true or false. A lot of mr. Seidel his pointed attacks were on kind of mocking christianity. Are the silly beliefs. In doing so, he presents a forum of christianity that i is the lifelong christian find on most unrecognizable. In addition making category goal mistakes. I absolutely accept god his command but also support the First Amendment. Finally i would suggest the u. S. Supreme court has made history absolutely irrelevant. At ever since the board of education, both lacks a majority and for the dissent said we must interpret the religion because he called it a simple cause, and founders in light of the generating history of this. Justice is repeatedly go back to the sounding area history. Article one while read in full every single religion clause. What you find is as progressive. Almost always characterized as progressive. There are actually more likely to make historical appeal that are the conservatives. They make very different sort of historical appeal. For my way of thinking, the profoundly historic the founders views on religious liberty and especially church relations. And they do this by going to this founders and just a few isolated documents that are really unrelated to directly any way to the First Amendment. Thomas jefferson and top James Madison and the virginia statute of religious liberty and memorial. Letters to the baptists and the attachment memorandum. We need to recognize and remember the jefferson was not involved in crafting the First Amendment. Or ratifying it it was by the many u. S. Supreme Court Opinions to the contrary. No one in the 18th century in the virginia statute resided to think my folks focusing on these two founders who are among the more separation. They have a very distorted view of white americans founders believed was church state relations. If we look at the broader constellation, the founders, we can see even at the federal loophole, and retain a support or the idea that the state and even the federal government can encourage him up with religion and presence in washington adams, madison, issued called for thanksgiving proclamation. On jefferson, treaty was ratified to provide money to the indians to hire a priest and build the church. And on and on you can go with this sort of evidence here. Evidence is like the separation to conveniently neglect it. The only document the matters. Thank you. P2 mr. Seidel. Andrew is important because church makes it for your rights today. The establishment law that 40foot tall concrete cross, the court elevated history over legal principle. Is that this cross is been there for 90 years, so were going to go ahead and let it stand. We do look to that, and said we actually dont know what these guys were met when they put this cross of 90 years ago. We could never know what they intended with the point of this giant 40foot tall fishing press. We do know exactly with the founders 230 years ago. They look at history to interpret our rights today. Increasingly, especially when religion and law are coming into conflict. They are elevating history over legal principles like separation of the state and church. I think that is one absolutely critical reason and the second thing is, we do want to get history right. It is important for us to understand our history. I think that something we agree on. It really is crucial for us to understand where we are going and where we have been as a nation. The interesting thing about that though, we can get into a book and get into a study a little bit more because if history is important, this is the study of the citation for the present sermon. We do want to get that right. When researchers in the study were looking at the political documents, the discount at the time that authors were cited. When they included the sermons, the bible right really highly on that. Something like eight times on average. But we do exclude those printed sermons, just looking at the political writings, addition of the dropped 2. 3 times the rate was three or four words. Actually pump performance during the conventional years which i thought we are focusing on to win citation in every 16 citations. The study inside it actually says the bible disappears. Which its not surprising was the debate centered upon specific institutions with the bible has little to save. The years of the Constitutional Convention. It is important yet to get history right review these studies and fairways. Another small thing for the year of our lord was mentioned. That is not in the constitution. That appeared that was a flourish added at the end of the founders did not know was there. Most of the state did not ratify it at the time. He wrote an article about this. If you want to read more about a neighbor with her on that. When the founders did take the time to debate date language, with states dead in a pop seven part article one section nine article five here they were debating the slave trade. They were at each others throats. This is the critical debate and he spent hours going over this language. When they debated it, the language they came up with was that year 1808. No year of our lord. And again that language was not ratified and its important to get these things right. Primarily the reason is i the constitutional attorney trying to defend the rights of americans. And because courts are using this history and this warped history. Bad history to decide things. It is getting worse not better. Thank you very much. Have to appreciate to speakers on time. God bless for being concise as well. All of them for now. I will keep at most iq of three people by indicating once again what is try and have a question and not a statement. I will take the liberty of cutting people off if they are going on at length. We do have people circulating with microphones for your questions. We have 25 minutes for questions. So the gentleman here in the front. Are there others . [background sounds] so mr. Seidel mentioned that its not seemed like the First Amendment actually goes with the sorry im not a christian, but the First Amendment. You said you have lived your live as a christian and his two ideas dont conflict. I would like to hear a little bit more about how they dont conflict. I think hes categorically making a mistake. I actually say 100 percent you should not have no law before me. I should only worship the lord my god. I accept that as a command that i will follow and i will command that i will follow that they will only worship god. However individuals have to come to for themselves. And if you dont believe that, if you know a member of another faith, if you know an atheist, certainly you should not be compelled to worship the judeochristian god or the christian god or the islamic god if you live in saudi arabia. So i absolutely support the First Amendment and the establishment clause which i think made so long less as a matter of constitutional. I think it is pretty much what it says. Congressman. You are not going a national church. So be absolutely inappropriate for kentucky to say everyone has to worship the christian god. And yet questions can still accept the First Amendment and the other commandments as normative for them. Host just briefly its not about what personally believe. I appreciate this ease is for the First Amendment. Andrew that doesnt have anything both of or not the christian principles have to do with the founding people. The american principal of the First Movement is you can have as many gods as you want. Or no god. And that is a fundamental conflict that you can explain away. Colin take the microphone. My question is recognizing the conflict between kennedy and founding principles. When that conflict be self serve as a and that is for recognizing that the conflict with the christian founding that they shouldnt use christianity of the founding principles therefore it does influence it but in a way that it is against christianity. Andrew are you trying to say there such agreement that gives influence. Recognizing the disagreement and recognizing that it could potentially conflict with the principles if that they want to use so they went the opposite way. Influence doesnt always mean imitation a convenient use as you but you dont want to do. Andrew i think thats absolutely right. I think one of the things offenders looked at was history of religious persecution. The tour of blood was a phrase that they use that were spilled in the old world with religion and government were united. That was absolutely a reason for them to separate state and church here. And that was while widely acceptable we are very far removed from the history of the torrents of blood being spilled in the name of religion here and i actually think thats one of the recency of that you know seeing this push right now away from secular america and towards a christian america. I think you see this rise of Christian Nationalism because weve gotten so what complacent because of the separation of state and church as work for a very long time. We argue this body persecution history. Were is it too far removed from it to experience with the founders did. They fully so but thats because it worked. I should hope we dont get that experience. Mark christian principles and the founders. In a book, available soon in bookstores everywhere. [laughter] i believe that americas founders embraced religious liberty for all citizens. Including nonchristians are precisely rigid christian see about theological reasons. I believe they are moving between christian and stay because of the most popular position again against the bill, signed by a lot of people sign James Madison, makes explicitly even generally call arguments against the general assessment. Evangelicals of virginia hated the idea had medicine two. If you read the memorial carefully, madison says things like general assessment hurt the diffusion of the spirited christianity and things like that. So madison actually argues that we dont want assessment because it hurts christianity. Now he mightve done that as a matter of rhetoric that if use that rhetoric, you thought it would be meaningful to virginia. Colin question sir. This is the question for both doctor hall who seems like he would be a christian i would want is my neighbor. The quicker and i come from a line of quaker. Im trying to start a line of atheism in my family. And as a member of the freedom from religion foundation, both you i would like to comment about the religious rights and fundamentalists christian law who have perhaps had a great influence in the last president ial election and how that is hurt the country. All right [laughter] i teach at a Quaker School though i am not currently worshiping. I am very sympathetic as for the founders. The founders built religious accommodations into the u. S. Constitution itself. My people believe that jesus meant what he said we need said swear not at all that you aba and aba. Quakers do not swear that we dont mind affirming it. U. S. Constitution article two prisons, gives the president the choice to swear or affirm similarly James Madison or what would become the Second Amendment had a religious accommodation to predict religious. He didnt make it into the constitution but you run a backup when militia act was debated. In terms of the election of donald trump, i think there are many factors that go into that. I will begin to try to sort them out. Or evaluate them. I do think its very powerful to use religious arguments. Andrew i cite the bible all of the time. One of my favorite passages is in six chapter of matthew which says if this is jesus sermon on the mountain he condemns those who pray public as hypocrites, so we use this line we write to government officials who are doing the national day of preferences. Very effective. The rise of Christian Nationalism is really what you know talking about and that question but the number and the best indicator in the best predictor of a trumpeter in the 2016 election was not political party, it was not religion despite how much you hear about white evangelicals supporting him it was not race and racism. It was thinking that the United States was founded on a christian foundation. So donald trump got into this vein of Christian Nationalism in a way that we have never seen before. Release not seeing it recently. He wrote that wave into the highest most powerful office in the land. This is why i wrote my book. This is why im trying to make the argument that Christian Nationalism is fundamentally on americans. In my mind it is a threat to our country. These is the threat of the people for the people and by the people. I think every american ever ought to be standing up for it right now. I was thrilled to see the christians against Christian Nationalism that just happened to couple of weeks ago. I like to see a lot more of that. Colin fifteen minutes left. I also have to note that weve only had questions from gentlemen. So first, the gentleman there. Primarily a question for mr. Seidel but id like to hear mr. Pauls response as well. You said history recently has been cited in a way that trumps no pun intended, legal principle real priorities and structures of that, where would you say those legal principles and structures come from but histo history. But if the structures, namely lightyear response on how to the laws change in response to history and how especially in light of Woodrow Wilsons redefinition of how justice should be understood according to subelements of activism that the law is more as humans morphed rather than if we have a timeless constitution we should have timeless rights versus more valuable rights. Andrew you are getting pretty deep into the constitution. The cases that i am speaking about a really good example is in 1983, the Supreme Court decided marsh versus chambers. Historically this report is will been looking at the religion and governments and theres a separation there, you cant endorse religion, and a three prong test of the lemon test that they would like to use. In this marsh case in which Ernie Chambers challenged the prayers at his state legislature. The spring court said were not going to focus on all of that. Were going to look at history and his 1934, the condo congress, says the long history of prayer since since they were going to go ahead and allow this. It didnt actually examine any of the principles. They just look to history. Same thing happened in the planes were cross case. History is very malleable as i think you can all probably gather from what is happening right now. So i think my problem with those cases is that the history that they can cite is just malleable is what you know talking about. Francis the parents owning 74, is delivered at the Continental Congress. The guy who gave that prayer, the reverend jacob, was a trainer. He turned traitor. He actually wrote this letter to washington that we have condemning the Continental Congress and condemning the army telling washington that he should resend the declaration of independence and he fled to england. This is the traitor who gave america prayer as being cited in the Supreme Court cases positively. To me history is more malleable than anything. I actually have something coming out on this in the use of history in determining prayer at school board meetings. There will been another number of federal judges to sit there is a long history of prayer in eight different states i think is the number they like to say. If youve traced that quote back, if any goes to one particular the mixed breed, of the court brief, written by a rightwing mission nationalist outfit as a friend of the court. Not by historian not by a legal scholar, and its been cited time and time again. If you actually redone citations in the brief, all of them are wrong. There is no history. Ill be there. Colin its touche is that guiding right away got captured and repeated the revolution. Actually congress that brought it first. Is the first one to pray. After he ran away, they invited two chaplains to come. At the very end of the concord federation, they said why dont we pay these guys for the to the boat and voted to pay them. James madison voted to pay these two and federation congressmen. The first money put together the chaplains and decided there should be James Madison is on the community. One for the house and one for the senate. A few months later its a large bill that with a lot of things, but it includes the paying of chaplains. Madison votes for this bill in Congress Said chaplains has had them ever since. All transition into a distinction where i can actually agree with us. So im happy about this. The Supreme Court in the history of two ways. These exactly right. Galloway, they are looking at practices throughout all american history. The 19th century in the 20th and the 21st. But theres another one in which what support uses history. In a separate and that is looking at the original understanding of the establishment because an ornament. This is sort of rituals have been given to us. And here i think it is an excellent place that if we were going by the constitutional principle that comes from original ism, the First Amendment needs means largely what it says. Were not going to have an established church but certainly permissible to have things like paint chaplain and prayers and legislative bodies and prescient so call for prayer. These things are not a violation of the constitutional principle inactive in this cause. Colin the next question is the gentleman in the blue. Then the lady in the front. Then i go back to the back of the section. In kentucky and several other states, project has brought us in godly trust being displayed in schools. I would like both of your thoughts on both of or not that is in line with the founding of our nation. Or if violation of that. Andrew i absolutely think the Current National motto in god we trust violates that central principle of the separation of state and church and the government should be neutral when it comes to religion. They should make no law respecting. No law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That the establishment clause of the first part and the free exercise causes the second part no law respecting is the significantly broader man than a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion which is much more narrower category. With the suits come into conflict when be deciding these cases in favor of a secular government. Its not just banding a national established church. No laws written an establishment of religion but i think god we trust is fundamentally unconstitutional. I know both of we can rely the course to ever strike it down. They said if they wrote that petition it ought to offend every believer out there. Imagine if they said this about john 316 or they said this about praying the rosary. It is rank hypocrisy. Im dead already. Gina was fast. [laughter]. Colin of anyone much better unifying rather than a device religion. Colin the day after the house approved the language that became the First Amendment, the lender present decided i have an idea, why dont we have the president issue a thanksgiving day proclamation. But we cant do that thats a european practice. Roger sherman, the old puritan from connecticut and im going to paraphrase. He said no we can do this. Its a biblical practice. If something solely worthy of christian imitation. The house which just approve the First Amendment agreed with sherman, and the senate agreed with the house and president washington issued an incredibly robust thanksgiving day proclamation in 1789. Mr. Seidel gave us a plausible reading of the words of the establishment clause. I offered another possible reading of the words of establishment clause. As if you look more broadly about what the founders would do particular redolent to this. The members of the legislature, to ratify the sink. How did they understand it and they understood it largely. Not slowly but largely to the national church. Never to prohibit congress to take god in god we trust. Never the Ten Commandments and the u. S. Supreme court. And on and on you could go putting on god in the pledge of allegiance and the sort of thing. No plausible interpretation and original understanding of the First Amendment can reach these conclusions. All sorts of non original ones can and if we could agree at that and you want to continue to make nonreligious interpretations more power to you. But we should not pretend that they were prohibiting things like that. [inaudible conversation] colin i told you the only reason i was asked back is because i tend to be strict about the time. We have another seven minutes. As he forehands im going to try to get to them. If we have additional time, then ill try to get some more. Thank you for your responses to charter as well because the audience members have complied and have kept their questions as questions. Can we have a microphone them. This is kind of going away from this, so you are staying that 99 percent of america in the Constitutional Congress was rigid. So if you want everybody to have the same frame of reference you pick the same and that would be religion. Today the couch things in gable strokes, doesnt make them television producers. I guess i am not a religion a list but the constitution can grow with society so why do you stick with us a religion list and therefore christian because that was what the nation was like at the constitution broke with a society that has become more secular with time. Mark it can. Its an intellectually honest one. I appreciate like Justin Stevens who would clearly say that the founders wouldve permitted this. We cannot permit this today so we wont permit it. Thats intellectually honest and i appreciate that. We clarify what i was staying. Its kind of weaselly works. I think close to 100 percent of American European descent with the exception of 2000 jews wouldve indicted fed themselves as protestant or catholic in the founding era. Thats a very different thing from staying theyre all necessarily bias people and a different thing altogether from staying they were orthodox christians. But they were most certainly not we have no good reason to believe, one specific official. Again is super fun to have but you would have to still examine the principles. Other than live and liberty and modern day, and i think human dignity, we have not heard christian principles that influence the founding of the United States of america. The mongo that i have a touch on but i think that is selfdefeating. God did not create us in him his image we created god in our image. If you look at jesus portraits, they are blonde hair and blue eyes. Kind of proves the idea that its not the dark skinned jew that we see. Philosopher coined the term deity for a series of words that are strung together that have this profound sound that actually mean nothing. Colin on the cut you off there. Next question the front low. I think both of you have some very good points and i think you are both right. Much of what you know staying but you know coming from a very educated. Of view. My question to you is we dont have the educated population now that understands everything as you do. Recently people have decided theyre going this is my question. They are going to decide to change definitions of everything though how do you see that affecting even your argument. It may not be relevant because everybody decided theyre going to change the definition of what everything was in the past. Mr. Seidel you the first chance you have 30 seconds. Andrew thats on talking about when you are waving the christian flag in the idea of live or liberty claiming that for christianity or as a christian principle that influence the founding. Thats the problem that i am talking about. Mark i can answer in 30 seconds but may be wise in part to do history and i know were all busy, but i think it is peaceful to read some of american foundational documents like the constitution the declaration of independence. And i was, mr. Seidel i encourage you to read both of our books. Here are two people making good faith efforts on how the founders understood the religion. Read those books and decide for yourself do you think is right. Ill take two more questions. Reference has been made by both of you to the environment in terms of like separatism made in the documents from the bible and the percentages. What influence in your arguments do you give to those enlightenment philosophers which are at least some forum of christian orit influenced by christian philosophy like john bosch. Mark is the very difficult question because theres not one enlightenment, radically fundamentally opposed christianity i think at the core. The radical. On the other hand, the scottish world of sense in particular hutchinson and reading type, smith is fundamentally compatible christianity. Its hard work. I would say to the extent which american founders right influence by enlightenment thinkers tend to be enlightenment more friendly and even compatible bowl with christianity. Andrew religion being dragged in a secular. America was based on christian principles then why was it built center. Christianity rules for 1600 plus years why wasnt built in 789. Why was an american bill that instead of 1789. Why were we counted earlier. Why did you have to wait till the scientific revolution in the indictment were up and running until we actually saw these ideas put into practice. He is in large part they are not christian. Colin one more question. This question is for mr. Hall. We talked about why the question of both of or not america is founded on christian principles is important. But what i want to know for me was why is for you to prove that it was. What does america look like in a nation that say you found out it wasnt. So you came to a belief that wasnt found on christian principles why is it important to you to prove it. We see it reflected in laws and discourage laws that almost always like christian religion has to be justified. Mark im not sure like you may not like this but it thinking you are thinking i had a conclusion and set out to prove it. Id like to think that im looking at the evidence with an open mind. If i were to chart a new part of my career and run to saudi arabia. I would probably begin with assumption that islam had a pretty important impact on politics. But if i got into the text, maybe i found it didnt. I wouldnt say that. With respect to practical implications, i do say is important to understand the Constitutional Order. It matters because it of course it says it matters. Colin we now come to the final portion of the program. Each of them has five minutes to get some Closing Remarks again and we do to far, i will say o one. Thank you for hosting todays very great and inviting me to participate in it. And to show how two people really disagree on important matters came together civilly. Did american have a question founding far is it too many scholars and popular authors start that went out any good reason. Things like most are Many American founders were deists. The founders created a godless constitution. That they embrace religious liberties rationalists. In the founders are strictly separate church and state. There is simply no good historical reason to support evidence these propositions. Now again i very said mr. Seidel does not have to put quit his day job. He can make non rigid sql arguments on public land for example. In 2013 the freedom from religion objected to the inclusion of star of david in ohios Holocaust Memorial. Again you can make a principal non original argument in favor of that proposition but there is no good historical argument that can be made. Again i want to emphasize that as a matter of original understanding in no way shape or forum does the establishment clause prohibit the inclusion of the star of david in a Holocaust Memorial on public land. Affirmatively i suggested tonight that theyre a good many reasons to believe in american founders orthodox questions are influenced by their Christian Christian convictions. In many cases we civilly dont know. Many founders did not leave any papers were destroyed and so please dont hear me claiming is it too much with it in the founders we do know something about that virtually none of them were as determined as defined and we have very good reason to believe that many of them were christian. Ive argued as well and i think this is as i said multiple times in american founders were influenced by christian ideas. Were they crafted the constitution things like original sin in the moment of day, their understanding of liberty i actually appreciate mr. Seidel his points. I had already written here that ive never claimed that they argue uniquely christian principles. I can see the people from other religions that embrace these principles. People with no religion at all can embrace these principles. But we need spies the most. I can go to a Quaker School one can be a pastor. For ulcers of reasons including nonreligious reasons but if you look at my colleagues i would suggest the most obvious reason why these quakers are pastors, is because their adherence to a religious tradition that is long said christians use violence against other people. Ive argued tonight and a lot more evidence in my forthcoming book that americans founders are robust understanding of religious liberty because of not despite the religious convictions. I had a wonderful quote from George Washington his letter to the hebrew synagogue in newport new long island. Washington makes it Crystal Clear that its population that you guys have religious liberties just like everybody else. I want to emphasize that. Off of im arguing america had a christian founding i want to suggest very good news for all of us including nonchristian and non deists. Religious liberty cannot be absolute. Its not a trump card that always wins. We definitely dont have time to get into this but i want to concede that religious liberty cannot always win. As techs cannot sacrifice babies to assign god. The owners of the Park Enterprises may not discriminate against people of other races. Even if they believe the religion requires them to do so. But the First Amendment does not require the Public Square to be scrubbed free of religion. All right. One minute left. Avoid to close early. Im just going to conclude the best answer to the question did american have a question founding is yes. And this is good news for all citizens regardless of the religious convictions or lack thereof. Thank you very much. [applause]. Andrew Ten Commandments. Original sin. Chemical governments in christian pub punishment and obey your rulers. The very idea through human sacrifice. These ideas are central to christianity and fundamentally irrevocably irreproachable be opposed to the principles on which this nation was built. Our American Experience was based on reason not the christian sacred the two systems conflict at a fundamental loophole. Im not an academic sitting comfortably in an office disconnected from the effects of my record. Yes, i read a few articles my books got 1300 citations but we handle 5000 state Church Complaints every single year. Half of those are the public schools. Teachers telling kids that they have to break before they go down to lunch each day. Often times, those violations are justified flames that this is the christian nation. Or that new yorkbased christian principles. Lawyers fight these flames. Justifying the rights of the conscience of children. Right now, america is in a desperate fight against Christian Nationalism. That sinister the americanism is to be a christian as to be a christian is to be american. I dont know both of my opponent would identify as being a christian nationalist but i know his rhetoric fuels Christian Nationalism. He appeared on david barton his talk show a number of times including just a couple of days ago. Bartons book was pulled off of the shelves and so many lies in it. Same publisher. In the Heritage Foundation was started the book which in turn part of a coalition is pushing projects. One of the bills and project poses a religion history act which seeks to tell the story of role of religion in the constitutional history of the United States. Sound familiar. The goals of passing those bills first and then pass laws that actually favor christians. So thanks yourself what is this debate really about. This goes to the heart of several questions. Is my opponent just wanting to correct some of these flames. Why give expert testimony on behalf of those businesses who want to discriminate against customers because of who they are and who they want to marry. In that remarkable letter, he said the government of the United States give the bigotry of the sanctions. Two perspicacious heat and going to say unless you know christian and you open up a bakery and then which state you can totally discriminate against gays. He didnt say that. This is about history. Why do we have this 40foot christian cross. Why work with groups like ads leading the charge against in favor of discriminating against these couples. If this was a bout history why write briefs. Why take away the gay fundamental rights or womens choice. Mention these things reduction. Christianity had a positive influence on america. That wouldve been an overreach. If this debate were about history but its not. I think he had been as much because if this had been about history only. He couldve claimed any christian influence positive or negative on tanning. Including the christian justifications for slavery and the gays. He didnt do this because this debate is really not about history its about using the governments to promote christianity now. Its about providing a historical cost to the christian nationalist white donald trump and mike pence can use the language of return. Of getting back to our religious roots. To justify their current policy. This administration justifies the separations of the families. Romans 13. The same probe vision that was contradictory to the dollar actuation of an if it is. Its about moving to embassies of jerusalem. Its about banning muslims because there are not americans. Its about overturning a marriage and revoking a womans right to choose. My opponent has been an, following him around. By the simple fact is that america was not counted as a christian nation. We were not built on christian principles because those principles are opposed to our founding principles. He failed to name a christian principal the positively influenced. Instead named universal human principles and claim to them for christianity. He could not show what was not there but he did show that this debate its not about history. Its about right now. Thank you. [applause]. Colin thank you for all of you for being here and thank you speakers for allowing us to have this very engaging robust speak. Scenic on behalf of the Mcconnell Center, i would like to thank the moderator and the debaters. We have a small token of our appreciation that will we will get to you now. With this time we will also be holding a book drawing from the period the first book is the founding this and the other is one that was written previously and its not the unreleased copy of doctor halls book but it is which he had a part in. For the founding news, we have, jeremy dotson. [applause] [laughter] and for the sacred rights of conscience, we have, andrew lawson. [applause] immediately following if you didnt want a copy of the founding myths, they are selling them outside of the auditorium. You all for coming out this evening and helping us recognize constitutional day. I hope youll have safe travels. [applause] [inaudible conversation] minute cspan2 online store now has book tv products. Go to cspan2 store. Arc to check them out. See whats new for book tv and all of the cspan2 products. [background sounds] good afternoon my name is jack bennett on behalf of oliver staff will come to prose. Before we begin this afternoon just a few notes, first pass you to. [silence] your cell phones. We are recording this if it. You dont want to be the first to have your phone rang during the stock. Please answer your questions into your microphones. Signing will follow