Little bit about john. John is a professor of American History and the chair of the History Department at messiah college. He received his ph. D. From suny stonybrook in 99 and has been at messiah since 2002. His book examined the relationship between kal vannism, cosmopolitanism and enlightenment in 18th century america. He coedited the book confessing history, explorations in Christian Faith and the historians vocation with jay green and eric miller in 2010 and his book, why study history, reflecting on the importance of the past was published in 2013. Most recently hes written the bible cause, history of the American Bible Society with Oxford University press. John has published in the Christian Century and i christianity today along with the Washington Post and New York Daily News and has done article in the journal of presbyterian history and 19th american 19th century history. Tonight, dr. Fea will be speaking on material from his 2011 book, was america founded as a christian nation, a historical introduction, which was one of the finalists for the George Washington book prize. The book was recently rereleased and revised edition and Randall Balmer has called it a remarkably useful guide for navigating the arguments about americas christian origins. At the conclusion of this talk he will do a question and answer session and i would ask you guys, there is a mic in the gallery. Fu wanted to ask a question, you need to come to the mic. I will come to stage, repeat the question and then he will answer it. So you guys have to be a little bit patient. That said, it is my pleasure to bring dr. Fea to you tonight. I would like to thank division 2, the Student Government association and religious life office for their assistance in bringing john to campus and i would like to thank dr. Fea very much for a wonderful visit so far. Please help me welcome dr. John fea. Thank you. Its good to be here at danville, in danville at center college. I have never been to this part of kentucky before. I have never flown into lexington before. So its good to be i have been to louisville a few times but this part of kentucky i have not visited. Its great to be here. Glad that cspan is here. The topic that i want to talk with you about tonight is a topic as tara mentioned that is at the really crux of some of the things i do as a historian. I think a lot about the relationship between religion and politics, both contemporary but also historically. I try to think historically and offer commentary on contemporary life. This book was america founded as a christian nation has really been an effort for me to try to make sense of the relationship between religion, specifically christianity, and the founding of our country. Much of the debate over this idea of was america founded as a christian nation, you probably hear this all the time on talk radio and cable news, much of the debate has been largely driven by political agendas, right. If we can just prove that america is not founded as a christian nation, we can advance a certain political position or if we can prove that america was founded as a christian nation, somehow we need to perhaps go back to that or reclaim that or return to some kind of a golden age when we were a christian nation. What people on both sides of i think the political aisle try to do when they go into the past, especially as it relates to religion and the founding, is they cherry pick. They go back and they find the things that the socalled Founding Fathers said that they like. And they marshal they martial t to promote their contemporary agenda in the present. So, when i do a talk on this topic, i usually come to the place where im giving a talk, most of the people in the audience come with their minds already made up about how they would answer the question and the title of my book, was america founded as a christian nation. And theyre really here to talk to gather more ammunition or find more historical insight that will help them to continue to propagate whatever political or cultural they have at the present. Again, historians dont work that way. The title of my book is there pause because tas my attempt to try to think about this question historically. I dont think its possible to be completely objective as a historian, but what if we were to think about the relationship between religion and the founding without 21st century politics or 20th century politics for that matter. In mind. That may sort of reflect you know, our narrative, our story we might tell, may reflect some complicated nuanced complex ways of thinking about this question. When were not driven by politics. Unfortunately, much of the conversation is dealing with politics when it comes Christian America. In fact or whether or not were a christian nation. In fact, i would even argue whether the title of my book is is bad historical title. Ill say what i mean by that. Because its taking as i argue in the book, its taking a question. Was america founded as a christian nation, that was really only asked with any degree of you know, commonality, was not really asked of American Culture until the late 1970s and early 1980, in other words, no one at the time of the founding was asking this question. In any significant way, so, its taking a 20th century question and superimposing it upon Founding Fathers who lived in a very different time, a very different place and were not fighting the kind of culture wars in the same way that we do today. So i think thats why its a bad historical title. Having said that, the original title was something boring. Something like religion and the foundinging fathers or something. My publisher said if you called this book was america founded as a christian nation, even put a red, white and blue cover on it, now r, this is the second edition, some are reading this in class and have seen the cover. It might sell more books and hopefully thats been, its done fairly well. What i want to do today in limited time that i have to talk about this, is i wanted reflect on what the founders believed about the relationship between religion and the republic theyre trying to create in the American Century and i want to leave you with five things to think about. As you sort of reflect on this question. You go home for thanksgiving and debate this topic. No matter wh side of the question you fall on. Five thingings. The first assertion that i want to make americans have always believed that they were living a christian nation or at least if i could nuance that a little bit more, americans up until the 1970s and 80s, i would say, believed that in one former or another, they were living a christian nation. Now, if you did not believe that america was somehow a christian nation or perhaps, you might expand this to a Judeo Christian nation, you were in the minority. Not in the mainstream. Not only did americans believe they were living a christian nation, that is a historical statement. Its not, i dont mean to say whether they were right in believing they were living a christian nation. I dont mean to suggest that they were interpreting the constitution or founding documents correctly, but this is a sort of historical fact of life and culture and history from 1789, the passing of the ratification of the constitution until the 1980s. Now, when people thought about themselves living in a christian nation even aspiring to live in a christian nation, they articulated this belief they were living in a christian nation in slightly different ways so, of the six, seven pictures you see up there, each one of these people in their own way, ewe way, articulated the idea that america was somehow a christian nation. Lets take the first person up there. Someone youre familiar with. He talks specifically about americans solving the problem of segregation. Of racial equality, racial justice, as a means of reflecting, literally says this in the letter, the Judeo Christian roots of our nation, so, in other words, in order for america to be a more christian nation, we need to solve this problem of race and segregation. He articulates that in very, very strong christian nation terms. He appeals to Founding Fathers, to theologians, to some ancient christian leaders. So, theres one example. You probably do not recognize the next guy. Justice david brewer, probably not familiar with him. He was on the Supreme Court in 1892 when they passed a case called trinity, holy trin ki, the holy trinity case. And in that case, Justice Brewer wrote the majority opinion and in that opinion, he said, america is a christian nation and was founded as a christian nation. That didnt necessarily mean there is an established church, but our roots. They traced this back to the puritans and to the early founding of the colonies and so forth. Then he went off on a speaking tour talking about the idea that america had christian roots. The next guy, washington vladin was a great defender in the social gospel. Washington and the social gospel believe believed that in order to make the United States more christian, in order to make a christian nation out of us, we needed to be more sensitive to social ills. Social injustices in society. We need to care more for the poor. We need to address these kind of structural problems of poverty. In our culture. And if we do that, america will be a much more christian nation. Using those very words to describe what his ultimate goal was. Some may be familiar with jerry fallwell, who in 1970s, had his own version of what a christian nation was, writing in the wake of americas bicentennial in 1976, changes in america life, particularly in relationship to the roe versus wade decision of abortion, but also a host of other things. In the 60s, the removal of prayer and bible reading from public school, more complex conversation about what he was motivated by. But fallwell believed that americans true Christian Americans, god and country americans, needed to return to our christian roots. Making arguments na many of the Founding Fathers were christians and we need to get back to the jueo Christian County they they createded. When we think defenders of Christian America in history, dont really think of popes, but pope leo was very, very influential in articulating an argument among american catho c catholics that catholics were actually at the heart of the building, they helped build america as a christian nation. So, while all these protestants were out there talking about look at the mayflower, these christian origin, pope leo was buying into that same strategy and actually says things like you protestants think you guys were the first ones here to establish the christian nation. If you want to look at the roots of the christian nation, go to st. Augustine, florida, all the Spanish Missions in the southwest. We were here before you. Leo said, not you. So, in essence, hes saying were a christian nation, but not the kind of christian nation this you think we were. You protestants. Billion li graham, should be a familiar face to some of you n 1950s and 60s, he believed america could become a christian nation if more and more people accepted jesus as their savior. A great evangelical rerivvivali. We need to christianize this country by getting people saved and held these massive rallies in america and all around the world. Then warren, another one you may not be familiar with, one of the First American historians. Writes a, one of f the fist histories of america and the first couple of years of the 19th century. And if you read his book, it is a heavily prove den shl history. In other words, god was behind the american revolution. God uniquely has blessed the United States. God sustacons to sten the unite states as a people. This is an exceptional nation. This is a prove den shlly formed nation. A christian nation. Its all over this early book. Warren was one of the great female writers of the early 19 century. Her brother, james otis, died rather young, but he was very, very active as a patriot in the 1760s, resisting the stamp act and those kinds of things. So, you see, they all approach this Christian Nationalism in a slightly different way, but all use the language and the rhetoric of america as a christian nation. In one form or another. One more example. And thats the zyl war. Now, when the book came out, we were right in the middle of the 150 anniversary. Thats past, but whats fascinating about the civil war is that both the north and the south viewed the war, especially the theologians and ministers, but also politicians as a holy war to some extent. It wasnt just a holy war. But both sides were articulating a view that we are the truly christian nation, the confederacy and the union and god is technically on our side and not on the side of the other. This is what makes lincolns inaugural address so profound because he says, no, were all guilty. Both pray to the same god. Both read the bible the same way. But this is not the way it played out. Now, you might think that the north thought god was on their side because the south had slavery. Thats what i lot of my students tend to think and thats partially true, but early on, remember the war as lincoln articulated, it was a war over the preservation of the union. And many northern christians believed that the union was somehow created by god. It was a sacred union, the institution was a sacred document. This is roofus choate, a massachusetts senator, who talked about a united, love iin and Christian America. He was actually a whig senator and actually refused to join the Republican Party in the 1850s because it was a party of division. And he wanted to make sure this was a national, he had the sacred vision of the nation. So america was a christian nation and the cause of the war in the north, at least initially, was that god especial ordained this nation and to divide this nation would have been seen as a sin. An incredible wrong doing. The confederacy believed it was on their south. Some of you may have memorized the constitution. What were the saturday morni morning,schoolhouse rock. We the people in order to form a i cant say the preamble without singing that song, but what u yo see here is actually the preamble to the United States of america constitution. Now, im going to read it and listen or read, try to figure out whats added to this that is not in the original United States institution or the one that was ratified in 1789. We the people of the confederate states, each state acting in its sovereign character, so im going to ready, ill give you that one, right. Thats not in the original. It represents states rilghts. Each state acting in its own sovereign character. In order to form more perfect government, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and prosperity, invoking the almighty god, do establish this constitution. Whats missing or added is this this reference to an invocation of an almighty god. The favorite and guidance of an almighty god. What they would say to the northerners, you think god is on your side in this war . You think youre the christian nation . You dont even have god in your preamble in your u constitution. We do. This was an argument they made over and over again. Got so the skin of some northern ministers when they would do this, that immediately following the war, there were a group of northern ministers who came together to form the nr a. Not that n rrra. This was called the National Reform association. Although you have trumps world, maybe they should have formed the other. The soes yags, which had the purpose of trying to put an amendment to the United States constitution that said we are a christian nation. So that we can compete with the south. In other words. So, again, you see how this religion and Christian America, Christian Nationalism plays a role. The mainstream always believed they were living christian nation. Eve nonchristians were aware of the fact they were living a christian nation. Second point. How about the bible. The bible was important to the revolutionary generation. There was a great study done in the 1980s Bay University of houston sicientist named donald lutz. They read all of the wrightings of the founding father, people who signed the declaration of independence, signed the constitution, maybe state constitutions, i cant remember how they defined it. What they found was that the bible was cited more than any ore book. These were very literal people. They dont know why, but it was clear whether they were using it to help them prove their point for political propaganda or whether they really mooefed the bible was useful to the construction of a nation, its hard to tell, but the bible was cited more than any other book in their writings. Now, to be fair data. Other books authors and here, were thinking of classical writers like aristotle or plato, writers of the day, known as sort of commonwealth men. Other kind of political strax. They would xheed the number of times the bible is cited, but if you pick one book, the bible is the most. Make sense . Depends on what you want to do. You could work it any way you want. If you want to use israel to prove your point. There are many on the crist koran right who will quote lutz and say yeah, we were a christian nation and the founders believed the bible and cited the bible more than any other book and there are those on the secular side who do the same thing and take the evidence another way. Now, in my studies of the use of the bible, in the revolutionary generation, what i found that one of the most popular verses cite came from galatians chapter 5 verse 1. Ifs for freedom that christ has set us free. Stand firm then and do not let yourself be burdened by a yolk of slavery. So i decided to read up on the way in which this verse had been interpreted by christians throughout the decades. The centuries, actually. I went back and read like some of the earliest christians the third and fourth and fifth centuries. How did they interpret galatians 5 1. While there was some variation, i think its fair to say most christian theologians in history interpreted this verse somewhere along these lines. It is for freedom that christ has set us free, stand firm then, do not let yourselves be burdened by the yolk of slavery. It was often interpreted as sin. For the sin nature or maybe the devil or some evil force. That was sort of anti god. And christ by coming in the form of a god, coming in the form of a man through the incarnation, which christians call the incoronation, dying for the sins of the world, set us free from this slavery, sin, sin nature, however you want to interpret it it. This is the standard catholic and later on, protestant interpretation of this verse. So thats why i was pretty stunned when i was in the archives reading a sermon by a new jersey pres bah tier yan minister, enoch green. He was preaching a sermon on this passage and literal ly, he said it is for freedom that christ has set us free and told his congregation, at least of his notes are any indication, that freedom was not freedom from sin or from the devil or satan, but rather, it really meant what this verse meant, it was metaphor cal. It meant freedom from the tyrannical tax schemes of the british empire. So, we have been set free from that. Stand firm then do not let yourselves be burdened bay yolk of slavery. Which is very much before it became associated with black chat l slavery. It was a political term to describe, similar to tir any. Anyone who took away your rights. They enslaved you. Then the kicker of all in there, christ equal sign continental army. So, im assuming he preached this sermon. He stood up there and said this sermon really means, the summer of 1775. Bunker hill had just happened. There was mobilization for war going on around him and this is the sermon, how he interprets galatians 5 1. Now, im not a biblical scholar. I dont study the bible. Im not a theologian. Im a historian. I cannot say with any degree of certainty, whether enoch green correctly interpreted it or not. What i can say is that his interpretation is a rather innovative one when you compare it to the entire history of the way the church has interpreted this verse before. Heres a great example. Of a minister, theres hundreds of examples like this. I couldnt even fit them all in the book, where scripture is being used in pulpits and by politicians. To promote political ends. I think we call that continuity. The bible is clearly being used to promote a political agenda. In this case, the agenda of the american revolution. Lets not let the loyalists off the hook. The opponents of the american revolution, the socalled torreys off the hook because they love the use the bible and their favorite verse, romans 13. Im going to read this pass aage to you. I want you to think about romans 13 in terms of the context of say 1774. Or 5. Right. And many of the ministers who tended to be supportive of the crown. Read it this way. Let every soul be subject untoe the higher powers. For there is no power but of god, the powers that be are ordained of god. Thats the king, you guys. Right, submit. Be subject to. Who so ever therefore resists the power, resists the ordnance of god and they that resist should receive damnation. So, imagine how an antirevolutionary would use this text, right . The king, george ii, i, is our god given authority. For you to rebel against him is to rebel against the authority of god, the powers that are ordained by god and whats the punishment for this . Damnation. By the way f you keep reading romans 13, you will find also references to paying your tribute. Paying your taxes. What could this apply to the stamp tax. Or the coriersive act. So you could imagine how powerful this was used. How powerful this verse was used by loyalist. The point being, the bible was extremely posht. It was quoted all the time. What i was fascinated with how the bible was used and in many cases, its often used in the period between 1765 and 1766 to justify this delivers the constitution, there was no in the United States constitution. There was one reference to religion, thats article six. So you could hold a better offense regardless. Comes a couple of years later. There are a few, there is the there will the established religion. We wont get any, those are only references. What about the fact, under god, does say in the year of our lord, which is a common way of using, theres evidence to suggest that the year of our lord part was just added on well after they left the convention any way, so wasnt like they were put god in there or not. Now, whats interesting about this is at the time of the revolution, all 13 of the former kole flis also developed constitutions. So, we have by 1780 or so, we have 13 separate state constitutions, here, in these state constitutions, theyre far from godless, so, for example, lets look here at the constitution in my home state of pennsylvania or my adopted state. This is a test oath that Anyone Running for office signing up to vote in 1776 had to declare. I do plooef in one god. So, you had to be a believer in god, who creates and governs the universe and rewards the good and punishes the wicked. I acknowledge the scriptures to be b given by divine inspiration. You cant affirm that. You dont get to right to participate in government or vote in pennsylvania in 1776. The constitution says, you could run u for federal office. Its clear the people of pennsylvania were very, very interest interested in having, they wanted christians to be running their state. If you look at vermont constitution, it doesnt become a republic until 1771. They were the first state to allow gay marriage and so forth. You need to be a protestant. So, it eliminates catholics. At least they seem to have the right to vote under pennsylvania. This is the case in a large number of state constitutions and then there are other other states that continue to have a religious establishment. All of these states, they have an official church in which your taxpayer money goes to support the ministers of that church, whether you belong to that church or not guilty. So, if youre a baptist in massachusetts in 1810, you are paying a religious tax that is going to pay the salary of the congregational ministers because its the established church. And the last state to get rid of the established church in the 1830s. So, was america founded as a christian nation . Did we want christian people . It gets more tricky now. What was a nation . One could make, i think one could make a legitimate argument that under the articles of confederation n the 1780sve individual state had sovereignty. And some of these states had clearly christian test notes and had christian establishments. Protestant establishments. The rare example, rare sort of departure is virginia and there, you have this classic showdown. I love this showdown because of you have these two Founding Fathers. You have Patrick Henry on one side. Give me lib erty or give me death, Patrick Henry. Hes the advocate of what becomes the general assessment. In other words, henrys ideas, we get rid of the established church in virginia. Which is the anglican church. Dont need to have it. Our church of england after the revolution, right. We get rid of that. And we still have a religious tax. But everybody will pay the tax whether pay the tax and the money will go to their own denominational ministers. If you dont have a religion, your tax will go for poor relief. To help the poor. But never the less, its still a tax tn religion. Then you have the Madison Jefferson camp, who are for complete religious liberty and theyre saying no, even if any kind of religious tax is a violation of what would become known as the separation of church and state, we need to keep government out of religion and vice versa. So, this virginia, so, you have massachusetts. Virginia. Pennsylvania. Vermont. You know, whats the nation, is it a nation of collection of state, who have all different views on church and state. The nation unified yet. Some historians dont argue theres not a nation until feeling a Common National feeling. So, we historians like to make the smooth places rough. So, heres an example. Right. Of you know, how do you sort that out. When youre asking this question was america founded as a christian nation. Two more points then ill stop on. After everything ive just said, let me now assert to you point four, that the founders were champions to a man, champions of religious freedom. In other words, every founding father defends the right of human beings to worship god in the way they saw fit or not worship god at all. So, here we have the 1786 virginia statute of religious liberty, which many could perceive to be one of the greatest statement on religious liberty ever made, ever written, written by Thomas Jefferson. We just talked about the context of that statement. 1790. George washington, the new president writes a letter to the jewish congregation in newport, rhode island. The oldest synagogue, in the United States and says, i as president will affirm your right to worship freely, without persecution from the state. From the federal government. So, religious liberty is celebrated. Now, someone may ask me later, anticipate this, like what would the Founding Fathers believe about our religious liberty debates today. I have no idea. I mean, they gave us a basic principles. About religious liberty that we should defend it. Oftentimes though, they couldnt imagine some of the religious liberty issues that we are debating today. Now, notice what i just said. These same Founding Fathers all defended the right to worship freely. That doesnt necessarily mean like in pennsylvania vermont, for example, well let you worship freely, but youre not going to be in government. Youre not going to be able to vote, to hold a position in government. Well let you worship as free as you want, but we want just christians or just want protestant in some cases to serve in political positions. So again, its very sort of complicated here, then finally, i think its fair to say that the Founding Fathers believed that religion was good. For the republic and here, we need to remind ourselves of something. We need to remind ourselves that the Founding Fathers were not pastors. They were not theologians. When they talked about religion, they were not talking about religion in a way that kind of like you know, heres what you need to believe to get to heaven. Or to be right with god. They were statesmen. They were faced with the task of building a republic. And they knew because they took history 101, they took world history. Or you know, whatever the equivalent course is. They took western civ. They knew that in order for republics to survive, people needed to sacrifice to some extent, the great, their own selfinterests for the greater good of the republic. They called virtue. Its a political idea, virtue. Unlike the victorian age, which changed the meaning to make it a more feminine call quaulty. It was manly in the 18th century. They sacrificed their selfinterest for the greater good. All of the founders believed that if religion was a way in which we could teach american citizens how to do that, how to be virtuous as defined in the 18th century, right, then it would be useful to the republic. In other words, religion was in some ways, only useful if it taught people religion taught people how to think about the world and about something higher than themselves. God. And if we could, it was only useful if we could translate that sort of sackry i shall idea to the world of politics. So, there is a form of religion or even of christianity, for example, that was kind of prophetic in nature or sort of called out the Founding Fathers for slavery or for some other kind of sin, right . And did not help to produce a strong republic. Im convince that had the Founding Fathers would have had no use for that kind of christianity. There emphasis on christianity was largely must be understood in the context of their primary goal. Namely to build a virtuous republic. So, five points i wanted to leave you with. One, america and these are points we could debate here. In a q and a. One, america also perceived themselves to be living a christian nation. Two, the bible was very important to the founding generation. It was used in different ways, perhaps innovative ways. Three, the Founding Fathers created a godless constitution, but did not create godless state constitutions for the most part with the exception of virginia, so that makes it a little complicated. Four, the Founding Fathers defended religious liberty and then five, the founders believed that religion was good for the republic. I think theres more in the book, but i think these are the kind of key themes that we have to consider at the thanksgiving table. When we start to debate did the Founding Fathers really believe they were founding a christian nation or perhaps better put, what is the relationship, or what was the relationship between christianity and the american founding. Thank you. All right, so, questions. Hard to see. The light is right in our eyes. Its hard the see. Zwl yes. Up here. So, the question is, did dr. Fea come to a conclusive answer. If i had a dime for every time that was the first question. Whey tried to do, what i tried to do as a historian, is to make the sort of smooth places rough. Human behavior, human nature can be a complex experience. Its hard to put in to black and white categories. I think you can make an argument that the founders believe that christianity was important to the republic. Both in terms of the last point i made about the role of virtue and the role of sustaining a vir crewous republic, but also in terms of many of them believe that the kind of people they wanted running their country were people who were of Christian Faith. Now, so that would be the strongest argument. I think the state constitutions and the last point about the virtuous republic are the strongest arguments to make in favor of the idea that america was founded as a christian nation. Notice there is an historical treatment. I think its almost impossible today to except for demographics, right, theres more christians than any other group. You could say were a christian nation based on demographics. Its hard the to make an argument after the civil war. That america is somehow a christian nation. Thats because of the 14th amendment. Says that states must now abide by the bill of rights. The states have, can no longer make their own decisions regarding slavery, but laettner the 20th century through a few Supreme Court cases, the 14th amendment was then applied to religion and the argument went you could no longer say as a state, we have an established church or a test of because that would violate either article six of the constitution or the first amendment, so the states now on religious issues must by 20th century, must conform to, they may not like it, certain people may not like it, but theyre legally bound to conform to the bill of rights and article six, so its hard on that front to make an argument that America Today is a christian nation and say well, look, the states, the states, well, that doesnt apply anymore. Theres a lot of ways you could argue no, too. I didnt talk about the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. The idea that the constitution is indeed godless. So, what im saying is its a complex 18th sempkry question. That you know really as historians, we should sort out in the context of the 18th century. Rather than in the way of how this question is debated today in our temporary culture wars. Where we said at the beginning of the talk, where we cherry pick that we want from the past. I dont think its a particular helpful question. Today as historian. So, yes and no. Over here. Braden. [ inaudible ] so, the question is, how does this research inform or understanding of the culture wars today. Going into this book, i try to be at objective as possible. But id be lying if i didnt have a preconceived idea. I was telling some, i think it was at lunch today, some students how i first came upon this book. You know, i am a christian. I attend a congregation. In which people ask me a lot about would ask me a lot, they still do. Many kind of ordinary churchgoers dont stitt in the pew, dont have a ph. D. In history sitting next to them so, when they talk with me, what do you think, youre an american historian, are we a christian nation . Its a conerer sags starter. So, the crude answer, i didnt have to read the answer, i could just say read the book. The more serious answer, i went into trying to kind of perhaps trying to challenge the notion that i see on the religious right. As an essential part of the cowellture pars. We can win if we get Thomas Jefferson on our side or appeal to George Washington or appeal to something in the founding that talks about god or religion. People with large followings within certain Christian Communities make sheez arguments in a half baked poorly historical researched kind of way. So i went in with a kind of you know, little bit of an ax to grind. I left the project however with a much greater appreciation with the roll that religion did play. During the founding period. Then it forced me to say well, do these people have a point . These christian right people have a point, then i started reading more of the secular critique, which is sometimes as bad. Of the founding. Sometimes, its worse, actually. Tlas a whole flood of books in the 90s and 2000s. American fascists, all these kind of scathing criticisms of the founders. It was almost like they were all atheists and i wasnt getting that out of my research either. So i think i developed a much dpraeter appreciation for both side of the debate and tried to steer im not a culture worrier. I want to try to get people to talk to one another. I hope this book has gotten people to have a more nuanced view on both sides. Not sure if that has happened or so yeah, thats how i, i learned something about both sides and about the christian right and role of religion. How does this Research Talk about the one nation under god insertion under the pledge . Some of you today were in the politics class. Maybe that persons here. I was in a politics class where this question was also asked. Its important to get some Historical Context behind the idea of one nation under god in the pledge of allegiance and the Historical Context is this. The pledge of allegiance did not originally include under god, it was add nd the 1950s by congress during the eisenhower administration, and the standard interpretation was added as a way of distinguishing the United States from those godless communists of the soviet union. I talked to sort of older american, its like one word. To try to distinguish the kind of religion, the christianity. In some ways what the confederacy is doing in the 1860s. Got to get god on there to show our civil religion, so show were a favor of, were god fearing people. Thats the Historical Context behind this. I did not do an extensive review. Theres a great book who wrote a book called under god in which he unpacks this much better than i can standing up here now. But part of o the issue here is, to kind of when i this term, civil religion or the idea that somehow, eisenhower had the famous saying, everybody should have a faith or religion, i dont care what it is. As long as you have a religious belief. I think under god, context comes from that. I am not aware of any sort of i could be wrong. The difference between a state and a that the nation has it all. [ inaudible ] a shot. Ill try. The question was if how do you think about christian nation as a more fluid concept, right . I suggested a few minutes ago that after the civil war and 14th amendment, you could no longer call the United States a christian nation. That does contradict something i said in the talk. Is there a versus having a secular estate or if i could play around with your question, a Christian Culture or you know, kind of ethos. I think thats a fair point. Thats what i was getting at when i said americans have always understood themselves to be living in a in terms of religion, emmerson versus board of education in new jersey, said that theres a wall of separation in the United States and the its high and impregnable. So, from 1947 on, you could say that the Supreme Court has is essentially a secular state, right . That does not mean though that you know, then what happens. Thats 1947. 1950, you have something close to the fourth grade, third grade awake ping. You have people flocking to churches. Coming, you have main line protestantism. Demographically, we remain a Christian Culture. In terms of you know, the official holidays that we celebrate and get off from school and so forth, theyre all driven by christian sort of ceremonies and rituals. We were talking in the class about 1965. Asian and middle eastern people bringing nonchristian forms of religion. By the time of the 1980s its more diverse. If you wanted to find what a christian nation is by the constitution and relationship between church and state, no, but culturally, it lingers for a long time. I think that answers your question. I think we have time for one more question. [ inaudible ] do you think christianity has had an overall positive or negative influence on america . Im a historian. Thats not really a historical question. Thats asking me to you know, anybody here could answer that. Anyone here could answer that differently. Depending on their political views. Donald trump says lets make America Great again. Historians are not in the business of declaring whether or not, were just again was. What do you mean when you say again . The reagan era, the 1950s. The revolution . And maybe we can his tor size what america is. But im not sure his ttorians b their vocation and calling, whatever you want to call it are in the business of saying whether or not that was great. I have pb ons whether not like the 1950s were great. My africanamerican friends have opinions on whether the 1950s was great. My female friends have their opinion on whether or not the found ofg the nation was great. Were in the business of making those moral judgments. Now, ill take my history hat off and i think you could say a compelling case on both sides. Throughout the course of im going to do what i said i shouldnt do. I think throughout the course of American History, christianity has been used, its also be the source of some incredibly horrendous things. You could come up with other examples of positive and negative things. Im going to punt on that question. Sneak out of it and say its above my pay grade. I would like to thank you guys, but lets thank dr. Fea one more time. Thank you very much. Youre watching American History tv. During congressional breaks and on holidays, too. Follow us on twitter. Like us on facebook. And find our programs and schedule on our website. Cspan. Org history. Cspan. Where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies. And the brought to you today by your cable or o satellite provider. President roosevelt proclaimed a national day of prayer for january 21st, 1942, following the attack on pearl harbor. They worshipped together that day in George Washingtons hometown church. American mystery tv visited christchurch in alexandria, virginia to hear the story. Hi. Im john lawson. Im