Think americas most common code of spirituality. And for franklin when you go back to the 18th century, doctrineless moralized christianity was serious intellectual business. It was very serious. Born out of contemporary religious debates and dissatisfaction with his familys puritanism, like many skeptics in the 18th century, franklin was weary of 300 years of fighting over the legacy of the ref reformation. Franklin grew up in a world of intractable conflict between catholics and protestants. But also within and between protestant denominations themselves. What good was christianity, he wondered, if it precipitated pettiness, persecution and violence. Unlike some selfhelp celebrities today, franklin and his cohort of european and american deists reckoned in promoting a ethicsfocused christianity, they were redeeming christianity itself. How successful that redemptive effort was, you all are going to have to decide for yourselves. Could you really have a nonexclusive doctrinely minimal moralitycentered christianity . Or did the effort fatally compromise christianity itself . Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and many of their friends in america, britain and france wanted to give it a try. 13 years after franklins death, jefferson wrote that he considered himself, quote, a christian in the only sense jesus wished anyone to be. He admired jesus, quote, moral doctrines as more pure and perfect than any other philosophers, jefferson said, but to jefferson, jesus excellence was only human. Jesus never claimed to be anything else, jefferson said. Christians, including the authors of the new testament books, impose the claims of divinity on jesus after he had gone to his grave and not risen again, jefferson concluded. Well, franklin didnt go as far as jefferson. Franklin preferred not to dog dogmatise one way or the other on matters of jesus divinity. In a classic tension that still marks American Religion right now, franklins devout parents, his sister jane and the reverend George Whitfield all found doctrineless christianity to be dangerous. Yes, they agreed that morality was essential, and, yes, it was better not to fight over minor theological issues, but true belief in jesus was necessary for salvation. To the puritans and evangelicals, jesus was fully god and fully man. Doubting that truth put your soul in jeopardy. Jesus had made the way for sinners to be saved through his atoning death and his miraculous resurrection. It wasnt enough to just emulate jesus life, as important as that was. More than a moral teacher, jesus was lord and savior. So honoring christ required belief in doctrinal truth. Franklin wasnt sure about that. Perhaps the puritans and presbyterians of his youth had gotten it wrong. Perhaps he was the one who was getting back to jesus original teachings. But he was sure that doing good was the grand point. For most of his life, franklin had traditional christian inquirers, especially family and friends who asked him about the state of his beliefs. And the state of his soul. As ive said, among the most consistent of those inquirers were her sister jane and George Whitfield. In the last few weeks of franklins life, however, one more inquirer came on the stage. Franklin had known yale College President ezra styles ever since yale granted franklin an honorary masters degree in 1753, styles a congregationalist minister and a broadminded calvinist realized that franklin was near death. Quote, you have merited and received all the honors of the republic of letters and are going to a world where all sublinary glories will be lost in immortality, styles wrote to him. Styles paused, would it be impertinent of him to ask about franklins belief in christ . As much as i know of dr. Franklin, styles confessed, i have not an idea of his religious sentiments. I wish to know the opinion of my venerable friend concerning jesus of nazareth. Stiles adored franklin, quote, happy immortality, which i believe jesus alone has purchased for the virtuous and truly good of every religious denomination. Franklin respected styles and so five weeks before his death, five weeks before his death, he penned a response. Its absolutely precious that we have this. And he asked styles to keep it confidential. Apparently he didnt since were talking about it here. You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time i have been questioned upon it, franklin wrote, which is just simply not true. I dont know why he sid that because his parents, jane, George Whitfield and others had been asking him about it all his life. Anyway, he said, but i do not take your curiosity amiss and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it, he wrote. Here is my creed. I believe in one god. Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most Acceptable Service we can render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. So, at the end of his life, franklin was a providentialist, a believer in the duties of worship and benevolence. And he expected god would rule in a final judgement. So, pretty good. Then he continued. As to jesus of nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, i think the system of morals and his religion as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see, franklin wrote. But he still had doubts. Quote, i apprehend christs teachings have received various corrupting changes. In other words, hes not sure that he can trust what the new testament says about jesus life and teachings. Corrupting changes. And i have some doubts as to his divinity. Though it is a question i do not dogmatize upon. There is that word again. Dogmatize. Having never studied it. Franklin never doubted how admirable christs moral teachings were, he just didnt know if he could accept the new testaments doctrinal claims about jesus. Franklin thought, quote, it needless to busy myself with it now when i expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. There he goes joking again, right . He knows hes going to be dead soon and hes going to go and hes going to find out whether he was right or not. So in this life, he just wasnt sure whether he could know the truth about christ, the bible, salvation, but he was going to find out soon. In spite of his qualms about traditional christianity, he saw, quote, no harm, however, in it being believed, in it being believed if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines, jesus doctrines more respected and better observed. So you can believe if you want, but for franklin, the point was never just belief but virtuous action, moralized christianity. I shall only add respecting myself, he concluded his letter to styles, that having experienced the goodness of that being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, i have no doubt of its continuance in the next. Though without the smallest conceit of meriting such goodness. God had always been good to him, franklin said, and he saw no reason to think that gods kindness would stop when he died. And die he did. On april 17th, 1790. And he left when he died, he left the enigma of his faith unresolved. But in his code of doctrineless moralized christianity, franklin became the founding father of perhaps the most pervasive kind of spirituality in the western world today. Thank you very much. [ applause ] the conservative Political Action conference is meeting this week at marylands national harbor. Energy secretary rick perry, interior secretary ryan zinke and congressman mark meadows will be among the speakers. Live coverage gets underway at 8 35 a. M. Eastern on cspan2. And later in the morning, President Donald Trump will speak at cpac. Other speakers include kellyanne conway, Linda Mcmahon and the head of the fcc chair. Thats live at 10 05 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Join us saturday at 9 30 a. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3 at the American Civil War museum in richmond, virginia, for live coverage of the civil wars impact on americans. Speakers include peter carmichael, director at Gettysburg College civil war institute, james robertson, author of the untold civil war. Jane schultz, author of women the at the front and amy morrell taylor the author of the divided family in civil war america. From the Georgetown University law center. Guest speaker thomas west talks about hiss book, the political theory of the american founding. In a republican form of government, namely based on consent elections, virtue is needed more than in any other form of government because in a republic the people themselves pick the rulers. Sunday at 4 00 p. M. On real america, the 1956 film i city decides about the Historic Supreme Court decision brown v. Board of education. Group youth had delegates from all the high schools in st. Louis. Well, all i know is that our school there are some kids who just dont like colored people. Well, hey, some of the kids in our school dont like white people either. Well, i think its the individual that counts. How are you going to get to know a person unless you meet them . When the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was illegal, these children were traed. And at 6 00 p. M. On american artifacts we look at a selection of popular political cartoons from the early 20th century. And clifford variman continued to draw for the washington evening star for the next 42 years. His cartoons appeared almost daily, usually on appeared almo daily on the front page of the paper, he had quite an ill lust reious career. Watch American History tv every weekend on cspan 3. Monday, on cspans landmark cases, well look at the Supreme Court case mccullochv maryland. Restricted state action against the legitimate use of this power. Explore this case and the high courts ruling by the university of virginia, associate law prfrs farah peterson. And mark kiln beck. Watch landmark cases live monday at 9 00 eastern on cspan, cspan. Org or listen with the free radio app. For background on the cases, order a book thats available for 8. 95 plus shipping and handling at cspan. Org landmarkcases. Theres a link on our website interactive constitution. Next, a look at the bibles contributions on the american Constitutional Republic, and an American University professor talks about the bibles influence on the u. S. Judicial system, including due process and separation of powers. His remarks were part of a symposium hosted by the museum of the bible in washington, d. C. Hello, everyone. Our second session today is the bible and the founding of the american Constitutional Republic with daniel dreisbach. It shaped the founders political thought and rhetoric. This presentation will examine the founding generations appeal to scripture to answer political questions and to inform an emerging constitutional tradition. Daniel dreisbach is a professor in the school of Public Affairs at American University here in washington, d. C. Many he earned the highest faculty award, scholar teacher of the year. His Research Interests include constitutional law and the intersection of politics, law and religion in American Public life. His most recent book is reading the bible with the Founding Fathers. I have that one myself and its full of sticky tabs. I encourage you to get that and enjoy it. Please join me in welcoming dr. Dreisbach. Well, thank you very much. It is a real pleasure and a joy to be here in this magnificent facility in this tremendous resource that we have here now in the nations capital. Let me also say that its a real joy for me to share the platform with professors byrd and kid, two scholars from whom ive learned a great deal through the years. This morning, im going to be drawing on my book, reading the bible with the Founding Fathers, and i want to turn our attention to the bibles contributions the emergence of a constitutional tradition. In the last third or so of the 18th century. We are talking here about the american founding, and by that term i am referring to that time in the life of a nation when americans, the colonists, began to agitate for their rights as englishmen. And believing they had failed to secure those rights they then embark on the pursuit of independence and having secured independence they then have this tremendous task of building a new nation, building the institutions of government and the like in the wake of a devastating war, and having won this independence. Thats what im referring to, the last third or so of the 18th century. The Founding Fathers read the bible. There are many quotations from and illusions to blooth familia and obscure biblical confirmed they knew the bible from cover to cover. Biblical language and themes literally seasoned their rhetoric, the phrasings and the cadence of King James Bible and it is, in fact, the King James Bible for the most part these americans are reading. If you know the king james, you know it has its very distinct language, very distinct rhythms, and you hear these cadences and rhythms when you listen to the discourse of the founding era. And its going to be this biblical language, from this particular english bible thats going to inform their written and their spoken words. The ideas of scripture are going to shape their habits of mind and inform their political pursuits. Now, the bible was the most accessible and authoritative text for most 18th century americans. And effective communicators, politicians are going to adeptly use the bible to reach their audiences. And significantly, both christian as well as skeptical founders, including some who doubted the bibles define origins, are going to appeal to scripture in their political rhetoric, their political discourse. In a now famous study published in the american Political Science review on the sources cited in the political literature of the american founding, political scientist donald lutz reported the bible was cited more frequently lets see. The bible was cited more frequently than any european writer or even any European School of thought. The bible, he found, accounted for approximately onethird of the citations in the literature he surveyed. The book of deuteronomy alone was the most frequently cited work followed by the spirit of the laws. In fact, deuteronomy was referenced nearly twice as often as john locks writings and the apostle paul was mentioned as frequently as montesque, or william blackstone. And why is deuteronomy so appealing to this generation of americans . There are several responses. First, deuteronomy is a digest, it condenses the books and the laws of moses, which exerted significant influence on american law going all the way back to the first puritan commonwealths in the 17th century, and continuing up to their own time. This book also records gods dealings with a chosen nation, especially in establishing the political and legal institutions necessary to govern a nation. Yes, there are texts on government and the responsibilities of citizenship that refined in the new testament. Whats particularly appealing, i think, in the accounts of deuteronomy is americans in the wake of independence, in the aftermath of this war, they have to build a new government. And they see in the history of israel having departed from egypt the same exercise taking place, the building of a new nation with its various political institutions. And this has a particularly attraction to americans in the founding era who see themselves engaged in a similar project. Now, to be sure, theyre drawn to many other texts. Yes, deuteronomy is particularly appealing. But there are also going to look to texts like romans 13 which speaks to submission to those in authority. A story about liberty and liberation, that they think speaks very much to their own circumstances. Theyre also drawn, perhaps inappropriately, we could debate this, to some of the new testament texts that speak of liberty. Galatians 5 1, stand fast therefore in liberty wherein christ hath made us free. A wildly popular text in the literature of the american founding. This is a text i would view as speaking so what i might call christian liberty, but theyre misappropriating it for a political purpose. They are also drawn to the great covenant text in the Old Testament. Leviticus 26, deuteronomy 28, that tell the story of a nation forming a covenant with god. So theyre drawn to a variety of biblical texts. Now, i think we should perhaps pause to ask this question. Are the many references to christianitys sacred direction that refined in this political discourse, are these merely rhetorical ornaments, are they without substantive significance, should students of the founding be attentive to the bibles influence on the political and legal developments of this period . In other words, did the founders use the bible in ways that mattered . One can acknowledge that the founding generation read and referenced the bible, and simultaneously doubt that the bible exerted consequential influence on their political and legal projects. Simply counting and documenting the founders many references to the bible, i think tells us little, except the bible was a familiar and useful literary resource for this generation of americans. In the book i try to move beyond the simple observation that the founders frequently cited the bible. I think that almost goes without saying. I want to move on and examine how the founders used the bible, and how it may have influenced their founding project. Which biblical texts appealed to them . And why did they think these texts spoke to them in their own time and situation . A study of the founding generations uses of the sacred text must be attentive, must be attentive to the purposes for which the bible was invoked. And again, not merely to the fact that they read and frequently referenced it. The founders uses of the bible, they used the bib