 Great, well welcome back everyone So we're going to start our second panel our first speaker is professor Marcy Hamilton Who's the Robert A. Fox leadership program professor of practice and the Fox family pavilion resident senior fellow in the program for? Research on religion at the University of Pennsylvania. She's also a founder CEO and academic director of child USA a Non-profit academic think tank at the University of Pennsylvania dedicated to interdisciplinary research on child abuse and neglect Her writings include God versus the gavel the perils of extreme religious liberty from Cambridge University Press Which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. She was a law clerk to US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor She received her BA from Vanderbilt University and MA in English and fiction writing from Penn State and both an MA in philosophy and a JD From the University of Pennsylvania. So professor Hamilton Florida's your thanks. Thanks so much This is really, you know, we're living in very difficult times But this is a wonderful respite today to be thinking about these issues and focusing on them So thanks to Carl for your persistence and Roger Williams University for being able to Continue this despite a pandemic and of course thanks to the freedom from religion foundation So, you know, the question that was given to us Was did the framers intend the US to be a Christian nation? And of course, this is a completely loaded term Christian nation and you know one meaning of that phraseology is that it means Christian control of the United States but that is a version in my view of the Michian concept of the will to power and in fact The notion that we have a Christian nation in which there is a mandate to control with certain beliefs, I Think is completely inconsistent with what the framers were thinking And and frankly how the framers most of them many of them had been trained So there's another meaning That I'm going to pause it for what it means to be a Christian nation And it is based on the intellectual history of the Constitution And in particular the influence of Calvinism and Reformation theology So The reason that I think this is such an important concept is that it is an antidote To what we now have With the phrase Christian nation It's an antidote to will to power The the Calvinist concept that was at the base of the thinking of the Constitutional Convention had two features And it was really I mean it was Presbyterian's one moment of shining light of example in American history But but it turned out to be foundational So the two premises that I'm going to talk about that are derived from Calvin through the framers Are that you need to expect that every human Including the ones at the very top Will abuse the power that they were are given And secondly the solution to those kinds of abuses of power is a structural solution You know at the same time as united states constitution was being debated in the city of philadelphia across town The presbyterians were debating their own constitution And there was a very important influence He was the chair of the presbyterian convention But he was also the educator of a number of the framers and that's john witherspoon so And and by the way, this is a side note both conventions ended up with constitutions and in my view Having studied them both. I think the the framers at that Uh Of the united states constitution actually did a better job than the presbyterians in terms of creating a lasting structure But that's a side note So forgive me for reading for a minute because I want to get the numbers right Of who was who and where they were at the time because this matters um You know some form of Calvinism played a role in the lives of at least 23 Of the 55 framers It played a central role in the lives of two framers who were most influential on the question of representation And were intellectual leaders at the convention. And that's james madison and james wilson James madison tended the preeminent presbyterian college of the country At that time it was called the college of new jersey. Of course now it's princeton university Where he says he himself madison says he was prescribed a strong dose of Calvinism James wilson Was educated at the presbyterian saint andrews of scotland and he was raised in a very strict presbyterian home The theology of calvin John calvin generated three major traditions presbyterianism Congregationalism and the dutch reformed But the majority of those at the convention Who were affiliated in some way with calvinism Were influenced by presbyterianism Six of the framers were presbyterians themselves Hugh williamson of north carolina was a presbyterian minister 10 framers two of whom presbyterian were educated at the college of new jersey So 10 of the framers were educated either by john witherspoon or by Finley samuel finley who was deeply influenced by wooderspoon So the the largest collection of people at the convention Uh, who shared an educational background Were those who came from what became princeton Um, but was at the time, uh, the leading presbyterian college in the country I and they were taught by uh witherspoon Three of the framers were congregationalists. Um, uh, but They were they were sharing Not so much the structural concepts But what I will end up discussing as the baseline understanding that we need to understand Why the constitution is not a christian nation In the sense that it's being promoted In this day So the 10 framers who were educated at princeton the college of new jersey were bedford brirly Uh, davie datan elsworth houston madison alexander martin luther martin and paterson All of them had been steeped in colvinist Precepts and the compulsory twice daily chapel And frankly the college was, um Founded for and devoted to a presbyterian principles and reverend witherspoon was referred to as a A whole staff of instructors all by himself. And so There is every reason to believe that um witherspoon had A strong hand in the ways in which the framers were looking at how you construct a constitution But I the other reason it's worth looking to witherspoon is he's the only clergyman Who was uh involved in not only during the revolutionary war He was the only one whose influence extended through the drafting of the declaration The artist's goals of confederation the continental congress and then through his students at the constitutional convention So So who was witherspoon? Uh, well, he was widely respected. He had tremendous influence He was not thought he was not an innovative theologian um But as the chair of the committee that framed the presbyterian constitution and the educator of so many framers He did in part Very clear. Um, but but useful to understand guidelines on how government should be formed And how government should operate and how it should be um treated by the people and by the rulers so If you look at calvin's project in the framers project Their their projects were quite similar in the sense that they were both intended to save A failing social organization For calvin was trying to save the christian church For the framers. They were trying to save Uh, what at the time had been called the articles of confederation, of course uh, but both were sent on a project of Uh, they weren't trying to discard everything that had been previously done They were trying to save what was best about it Uh, and in both circumstances, what was most problematic about what they were facing Were the abuses of power? and In both circumstances the answer to those abuses of power was a structural answer which was intended to be able to Funnel the likely tendency to abuse power Through channels that would then deter those abuses and then serve the larger good So the the fundamental insight that calvin Had but also that witherspoon took and then fed on a daily basis To the framers who had been educated by him Where it was the inevitability of the corruption of all human beings Uh, and the likelihood that someone who is handed power will then turn around And use that power for selfish reasons and for reasons that don't serve other people um, but At the same time, what do you do about the fact that you have to have an operating government? You have to have some way to cabin that power and to channel it toward the larger public good and so You know, essentially what uh witherspoon taught was there were three choices um, and government is a set of building blocks and those building blocks are put together To fit the people that they will be governing. So it's not that Monarchy representation or direct democracy the three options that any of them is ideal Rather It's that the um, the building blocks are available to be manipulated and to be shaped in order to find a way to halt the likely abuses of this particular people at this particular time So when the presbyterian constitution, there's a phrase Um that then rings true through um, both our constitutional history But also through the thoughts of the framers at the constitutional convention And that is that uh, the organizing structure is reformed But it's always reforming Uh, and of course, this is consistent with madison's deep despair When the framing of the constitution was ended and essentially he then says Uh, you know, it may not work We may not have the the good people to fill the roles of this constitution in order to make this a success and Uh, the answer though was that well, perhaps We'll just keep fixing it. So the constitution was never intended to be perfect It was intended to meet the needs of the particular era and that's why it would need to have an amendment procedure um, of course, jefferson thought it had to be uh amended extremely frequently and that didn't happen, but um, the concept that Uh, we have a system That is intended to be altered in the face of abuses of power I think is a powerful message to those who would say no Um, this is a government that needs to be constructed in the eyes of one set of religious beliefs So the congregationalists from the calvinist tradition, of course Uh, endorsed direct democracy. That was not one unapproach that either, uh Whether spoon or madison or the other calvinist influence framers thought was the answer They really did believe that direct democracy would lead to anarchy and even licentiousness So to quote a presbyterian thinker at the time Man's depraved apostate condition renders government needful Needful both in the state and the church in the former without government Anarchy would soon take place with all of its wild and dire effects and men would be like the fishes of the sea Where the greater devoured the less Nor is the government in the church less needful than in the state and this for the same reason So what you can see there is two aspects of this on the one hand this Uh strong foundation assuming that everyone who has power will be tempted to abuse it But at the same time you need governing structures and you have parallel institutions. They're not the same institution You have a government of the people for Secular government and you have a church government And that was a predominant way that the presbyterian mindset, but in in particular with their spoon looked at the at the concept So, uh, you know one of the if you go back to john calvin's Institutes of the christian religion, which i'm sure you all did yesterday for fun What what you will find is that? Um, he was outraged that of all the institutions in the world that would fail. It would be the church How could the church fail? And his answer to how the church could fail Was that it was sinful humans at the top and throughout the church That led to the church's failure so that but what he prescribes is to go back to the ancient church Look at their organizational structure, which by the way was representational And he says if you look to representation, you're going to see a greater chance for Avoiding the excesses that we will have Uh, if we solely trust individuals So It wasn't that he believed the church should be wholly eviscerated. It was that it needed to be reconstructed In order to channel human nature to be More likely to serve others rather than just The self-interest that he saw at the time so, um This is what leads us to Understand in the context of the constitutional convention What was the attitude that the framers brought to the convention now if we look at the notes of the debates as opposed to um Anything else at the time what we see is debates about how to cabin power so The the presupposition among the framers gathered Uh was that everyone Would in fact abuse their power and the debates were about how to limit power. They weren't about whether or not Um, there would be a class of individuals you could trust They weren't debating. How do we make sure that the most highly educated and the most patrician are at the top of the government? Uh, instead they were debating. Okay, if we put any man, of course, that was the concept was all men at the time But if we put any man into the government, um, how can we construct the government so that he is led to Serve the larger good and not just his own good Uh, and so on the one hand it is uh Following this concept of You in no human is perfect, but but far from that every human is problematic uh, and uh, but you can't generate good If you have an institution that is constructed that will work together so So this is the the language himself of um of calvin that then witherspoon takes forward and then We see the framers reflect at the time of the convention Let us hold this as an undoubted truth, which no siege engines can shake The mind of man has been so completely estranged from god's righteousness that it conceives desires and undertakes Only that which is impious Which is perverted foul impure and infamous The heart is so steeped in the poison of sin That it can breathe out nothing but a loathsome stench But if some men occasionally make a show of good their minds nevertheless ever remain enveloped in hypocrisy and disciple craft And their hearts bound by inner perversity Yeah, the re that is about as negative as you can get about human nature, but Why is it valuable? Why is it valuable at the constitutional convention? Why is it a lesson that madison and others brought to the convention as a useful way Of thinking about what needed to be done next And obviously the usefulness of it is that it teaches the necessity of Assuming human nature can't be trusted and therefore the structure must be Constructed in a way that it won't be But but notice too what happens when you start talking about a reformed Constitution a reformed government Always reforming. What does that mean? Well a reformed government always reforming is reflecting the fact That those humans are going to use the current structures to their own ends And if you don't keep amending and reforming the process Then we will have That which calvin was fighting against which is corruption of even the church You're going to have corruption If you don't keep meeting the challenge that is raised by each human being to the system that's in front of them And so in a sense The gathering of the convention and the the shared universe That they lived in At least a majority of the framers and it it was the viewpoint that Was predominant among the conversations was that You can't possibly think That anyone that we put in power Is going to be capable of doing this without us putting them in the right system And if we fail it will because It will be because we have failed to create the system that generates the most good It won't be because We didn't find the right people to fill those positions Because frankly there is no right person in the sense of One who won't be tempted to abuse their power to the detriment of all around them and of the people as the whole So Calvin really structured what focused his concepts on structural mechanisms, which makes him quite distinctive from martin luther I and those structural mechanisms ended up being part and parcel of the the Classes that witherspoon would teach to the framers um that ended up at the at the convention so The the there were three primary evils that needed to be addressed um And these were the evils that were in the pre-reformation Church and they're the evils that were also identified at the convention One we had humans that had abused their power Two they had shirked their responsibilities And three they had failed to serve the people I mean that sounds like something that would have been out of the convention and not Calvinist work though that is it precisely what calvin saw and that is what witherspoon imparted to his um students and so the fear was of cruel tyranny And lawless unrestricted domination by those who are not restricted by a system that works But what calvin saw was that you could construct a church On the basis of the church that had gone wrong um, and so Uh, and it didn't need to be constructed identically so you could take the monarchical structure of the church at the time And you could turn it into one that was more accountable to the people and the choice that was made was a church in in um Through calvinism and through the presbyterian interpretation calvinism was a church representation um And so at the very same moment in philadelphia, we had the framers of the presbyterian constitution Debating what would be the best structures for this presbyterian constitution in order to deter abuses of power And the framers were also debating what would be the structures that would deter the abuses of power Now it's not that i'm advocating that they were telling each other at the convention that we have christian principles And we should apply those christian principles Right, you know, I mean my favorite story of the convention of all was when suggestion was made that they should have a A member of the clergy to come in And read a prayer because they were fighting and it was not too pleasant. Of course everybody knows it was really hot and unpleasant in philadelphia in summer um But you know the response to that was well if we brought in a clergy member to do a prayer We have to pay them does anybody want to pay them? Nobody wanted to pay and that was the end of that discussion So the the convention was not led by a member of the clergy There was no explicit discussion, but the principles That were created In response to the problems of the catholic church Through the reformation were brought to bear through the education that witherspoon had imparted Through madison and his strong dose of calvinism and through the other members of the constitutional convention that had been educated at The college of new jersey, which um was 20 of the convention And and some of the uh, definitely the leaders So It's not enough though to look solely at the calvinism Of uh witherspoon by itself because of course witherspoon also brought with him Uh concepts from john nox And the the failure In in witherspoon's view and also in the views at the time The failure of calvinism was that he never did Say that the people can rise up against their rulers that that um It is okay to be in opposition to your rulers and instead calvin Essentially said that if the rulers are tyrannical that is in some ways a judgment of the people So you can't stop um solely with um that perspective, but you veer off into John nox and presbyterianism And what he added was there is a duty of the people to check their rulers And so you have this fundamental concept of Absolute distrust of any human being in power You have an answer that a structure will help it But then what nox adds is that it's a structure But it's a structure that will only succeed if the people can criticize Um and hold their uh leaders to account And so you can see through these um these precepts what is starting to form at the constitutional convention is a concept Of overarching structure that is driven by two things By the need to secure The ability to stop abuses of power but at the same time to create avenues So that the people cannot be trapped by the structure that's created and that they can respond so Uh witherspoon lectured his students and his particular students were brierly Dady Dayton, uh, William Churchill Houston and um, Madison On the different types of government. He did it under the heading of legal lectures on moral philosophy But here was his prescription for good government that Madison Clearly took from the classroom Into the constitutional convention and then james the brilliant james wilson reflected this Having been educated at st. Andrews What the first is that wisdom is needed to plan proper measures for the public good And uh, in other words, uh, there must be thought and care put to the construct of government And to the experimentation with government um too You should have fidelity to nothing but the public interest the only Legitimate goal of the formation of the structure of government is the public interest Three and and this I think is interesting In light of the fact that the framers of course, uh, met in complete secret And had an agreement that they would not talk to the press You need secrecy expedition and dispatch in carrying out the measures of a government And fourth, you need unity, uh and agreement Among those who are affirming the government and part of the government Notice the first two qualities are all about the qualities of good government and they're defined by accountability to the larger good But the latter two stress the pragmatism Um of a witherspoon Which is that you are supposed to put these building blocks of government together whether it is Pieces of monarchy pieces of representation or pieces of direct democracy But when you put them together, um, you must do it in a way that will be effective And so Why do we have one president? Instead of committee of presidents because there was a debate about well What will happen if we make the executive branch led by a committee? And then we have a bicameral legislature and the answer was well, you really do in the end Need one person to lead in moments of emergency That was the pragmatism of the construction of government that witherspoon Um, certainly imparted to his students, but also Samuel finley imparted to the other five framers trained by him So, uh, so That the what is this christian nation? I've just described it is a structure That is built on precepts That are derived from a particular religious view at the time That was dominating The intellectuals of the time But it is not a structure that is It's not that the united states constitution is copying the presbyterian constitution. I mean to the contrary They were being drafted at the same moment. It's rather that the united states constitution sits on a christian concept Which can be adopted as a secular concept and that concept is that everyone who holds power will abuse it Uh, and I I don't think there's ever been a time in history when this message was more important Or the message of the government needs to reform It needs to be reformed, but it constantly needs to be reforming And so for those who are shocked by a president who had who sees no limits It's because the current structural configuration Is inadequate to cabin the goals and the ego of this one person, but Uh, you know Calvin through knocks through witherspoon through madison They wouldn't have been surprised at all. They assumed That there would be individuals who would operate in a lot of the ways that the current president of the united states is operating and so what the very basis of the constitutional experiment must be distrust distrust of every human But it's distrust distrust combined with the hope in human capacity to construct a government Of balance and interdependence And it's it's It's best understood. I mean at the time the image that would have been used was the image of a clock of a watch Where you have independent variables, but they're working interdependently And you have no operation Without each of them doing their job correctly But independently The the goal here is that we have A constitutional system Which is built on the paradox of distrust and hope But at the same time The absolute necessity the baseline foundational view Is that it is impossible to build any institution that will permanently Guard against abuses of power by human beings and instead Institutions must continue to be structured over the course of the time to meet the likely abuses of power So let me just then bring this back up to the To the current situation So, you know, what is distinctly christian about the united states constitutional experiment? What's distinctly christian is the view of human beings. It's the view frankly of That old-fashioned concept of human nature Uh, and it is um, I would say that that view of human nature is evidence-based Uh, it's very hard to show examples of those with power who do not At some time likely abuse their power. We now see it writ large But it is still what we should expect and why is the united states constitution relatively successful over the course of um centuries In my view, it's probably because of that one christian element, which is that You can't trust anybody But it's it's not a christian nation in the sense everybody should believe the same thing and of course Everybody shouldn't believe the same thing because of the radical finitude And the failure of any human being to fully understand Either the constitution or their role or themselves That's the basis here So We should assume all those with power will abuse it um, and uh, we should put hope in the solution being structural And we should assume it will be imperfect So what i'm pointing to is a profound humility that is divorced From the concept of this is a triumphal christian nation that is driven by particular christian concepts As I said at the start that view Of christian nation is much more akin to Nietzsche's will to power than it is to anything That the framers or the framing generation were thinking And put in its proper light We have a constitutional system that demands reformation because of its understanding of the tyranny That results from unchecked human power Thanks Thank you professor hamilton um for anybody In the audience who has questions for professor hamilton or for any of the other panelists so far there will be Uh an opportunity for you to ask questions starting at 1245 Uh our our next panelist is uh Professor steven green who's the fred h paulis professor blonde affiliated professor of history and religious studies and the director of the Willamette center for religion law and democracy. He's the author of seven books including most recently The third disestablishment church state in american culture 1940 to 1975 from oxford university press and dozens of book chapters and articles about religious freedom From 1992 to 2002. He was the legal director and special counsel for americans united for separation of church and state He received a ba from texas christian university a jd from the university of texas and both an ma in american religious history and a phd in history from the university of north carolina at chapel hill He did graduate work at duke law school and duke divinity school And i want to say it's a great pleasure to to meet you professor green who i who i've never had the pleasure of meeting before and i just want to say in my I do a lot of work on nationalism in the constitution and in my Book chapter my forthcoming book chapter on christian nationalism. You are by far the most cited author in in that chapter I think by a loose count. I think your work is cited 15 times in that chapter so it's it's great to Finally meet you if not in person at least virtually in person. So the the floor is is yours Okay, thank you jerry. I appreciate that I also appreciate the invitation to participate in this With the kind support from roger Williams university and from the freedom from religion foundation so, uh, thank you all for The invitation let me see if I can get to my power point hold on a second Oh, here we go. All right. Can everybody see that? Is that good? All right you'll have to be one of the uh, I guess upsides of us now having to be doing remote learning and remote teaching is i've not discovered but i've been addicted now to, um google images and just to try to keep my classes paying attention when we're Going through these topics and so, um It's amazing what you can find on google images. All right Well, one of the most resilient debates of american history is clearly the one over the nation's purported religious founding as predictable as chicago clubs Cubs collapse every summer legal and religious conservatives raise claims about america's christian heritage in their attempt to gain The moral and legal high ground in the ongoing cultural wars one recent example of this is, um A sunday sermon back in 2018 by reverend robert jeffers of first baptist church of dallas texas In that sermon titled america's a christian nation reverend jeffers Asserted that the nation's founders were predominantly evangelical christians that they intended to instill christian values in the nation's governing documents america's founded a christian nation jeffers has insisted And the nation's law and institutions need to rediscover and reaffirm this basis Now while reverend jeffers claims could be passed off as the ramblings of a fundamentalist preacher dallas first baptist church is actually i think the largest Uh congregation in the nation's largest Protestant denomination And so Cannot necessarily be completely discarded the reverend jeffers is not alone in his ramblings He is part of a large group of political and religious conservatives Who raise similar truth claims and use christian nation arguments to promote a conservative political and social agenda? More than a handful of christian nationalists have access to the holders of the nation's political and judicial powers jeffers for one As a member of president donald trump's close Closest religious advisors serving on his evangelical advisory board Although claims that america was founded as a christian nation have existed for a long time ebbing and flowing in response to cultural forces The maxim witnessed a resurgence in the latter decades of the 20th century carrying over into the present century For some time now investigative journalists at religion dispatches and church and state magazine have been documenting the rise of christian nationalism Now before proceeding any further, uh, the proposition that america is a christian nation Requires some defining Now defining it is more difficult than it looks because the concept of america as a christian nation Has a protein quality to it There's a high degree of scholarly consensus about the religious impulses behind the settling of british-american colonies And the significant role that religious rhetoric played during the founding period um There's less agreement. Oh though over whether there's a direct correlation between calvinist Covenantal theology and biblical principles on one side and the sources of republican principles on the other Proceeding even further in this taxonomy A smaller number of scholars and popular writers argue that the protestant ethos Pervaded the founding period rather than in enlightenment theory And the ubiquitous religious rhetoric indicates that the majority of people including the political leadership held orthodox christian beliefs And the framers of the nation's governing documents intended to incorporate christian principles into them And then finally even a smaller number of writers, which is probably represented more by the uh, picture on the right They claim the united states was actually specially blessed or chosen by god and his providential hand directed the framers in the nation's founding So under this last perspective the nation's past and founding documents assume almost a sacred quality So it can be appreciated due to the variety of potential And the fluidity between perspectives It can often be difficult to decipher what one means when speaking about america's christian heritage Or that it is a christian nation So as a result of this the rhetoric surrounding america's christian fountains can appeal to a very wide audience Many people hold vague if not ill-defined ideas about americans christian nationhood In fact a study by the first amendment center recently revealed that over 50 of things is 53 Of americans actually believe the united states constitution created a christian nation notwithstanding the express prohibitions in the establishment clause and the No religious test clause Now that study is very ironic because that same study also indicated that 67 of the same people responding Believed that the constitution requires separation of church and state now. I'm no mathematician But when you have 53 saying it's a christian nation and then 67 saying Separation of church and state. There's some kind of interesting overlap Anyway politicians are notorious for playing on these pre pre positions and in turn in reinforcing this narrative christian nation rhetoric has such low-hanging fruit that many politicians cannot resist making at least vague claims rattle reagan george w bush And even ala trump have made such claims These claims find support In what one scholar has called a veritable college industry of popular books that advance this narrative through highly selective and questionable presentation of historical data What is often called proof texting? I think that's what john mentioned earlier So so long as claims about the nation's founding political institutions remain in the rhetorical There is less cause for concern But as my article explores the christian nation rhetoric has long influenced judicial decision making In variants of this maximum impact current supreme court Jewish prudence Now this is a cause for concern So I want to talk briefly about the origins of the christian nation myth as I call it How it was applied expressly in the 19th century and then now how it's been manifested suddenly in recent establishment clause decisions Okay, so first A paradox arises when considering whether america is christian in a legal or constitutional sense such that the nation's laws and policies should reflect And reinforce a christian perspective As noted christian nationalists and their scholarly enablers like to cite ubiquitous religious rhetoric from the founding period Some of it coming from the lips of our own founding fathers After all, why would john adams have said our constitution is made only for moral and religious people If he hadn't believed it Now the reason that paradox exists is notwithstanding the presence of religious rhetoric Including affirmations of god's providential hand in the nation's creation The nation's core founding documents are bereft of references to religious principles or affirmations of god's authority for republican governance Now to be sure The articles of confederation concludes with an affirmation about the uniting of the states under one government quote Please the great governor of the world But that references for authority Containing no claim of the authority of government comes from god Similarly as most people know the declaration of independence contains four references or affirmations of a deity But all of these references are in enlightenment natural law terms Now in contrast to those declarations The constitution itself is bereft of even the passing reference to god Authority to establish the united states is derived from we the people not from any kind of higher authority And the absence of an affirmation of god even in enlightenment terms is remarkable considering that the majority of the state constitutions at that time contain deific affirmations And this was realized with contemporaries contemporaries at the time Noted and even lamented this omission Anti-federalists and their conservative clergy condemned the godless nature of the constitution during the ratification debates During the yellow fever outbreak in 1793 And then in the presidential campaign of 1800 So if members of the family generation largely agreed about the nation's governing documents were based on secular rational principles And how did this narrative arrive? about the nation's christian origins Well, several events came together in the early 19th century that support the belief that america was founded as a christian nation The first event that fuel the reevaluation of the nation's founding was extensive growth of evangelical protestantism in the early 1800s as john mentioned Fueled by proliferation of revivals commonly called the second grade awakening This expansion of an evangelical perspective coincided with a general discrediting of the deistic and rationalist thought That occurred during the founding period as a part of the popular revulsion to the excesses of the french revolution In addition to seek reaffirmations of piety in the public realm evangelicals held a post-millennial Eschatology that taught that jesus's second coming would occur after a thousand year reign of a godly society brought about by christians That would take place in america Evangelicals dusted off puritan motifs of america being specially chosen by god as being the exemplar of the world This belief of god's kingdom would manifest itself in america necessitated a reconsideration of the nation's founding Which the evangelicals quickly set out to sanctify and this is manifest destiny that's on the right So by the 1820s Evangelical authors were making claims about how god had directed the founding in the political endeavors evangelical reformer lineman lineman beecher declared in 1820 quote Our republic and its constitution and laws is of heavenly origin It is not borrowed from greece or roam, but from the bible he said similarly reverend jasper jasper adams who was a nephew and cousin of presidents published a sermon in 1833 Where he asserted that the united states had sprung from the efforts of quote are strong and pious forefathers And the exercise of a strong and vigorous faith The christian religion he said was quote intended by them to be the cornerstone of the social and political structure with which they were founded So these powerful christian explanations about the founding of the republic reinforced beliefs about american exceptionalism And before long they became the accepted narrative Now a related event coincided with the growth of evangelicalism and helped also fuel the sanctification of the founding During the early 19th century revisionist historians began to Excuse me revisionist histories began to appear That offered these glorified accounts of the american revolution as leaders and the drafting of the nation's documents This movement began almost immediately upon the death of george washington in december 1799 Where the first president was not only venerated but turned into a deific figure Second generation of historians set out to sanctify the founding and provide explanations for how 13 small colonies Could defeat the most powerful nation on earth george washington became american moses who benefited from the interposing hand of god divine providence, so this is a quote quote divine providence gave george washington opportunities and dispositions To add that great add to add great acquired what he already had To the greatest of the natural abilities proclaimed reverend henry holcomb george washington's leadership was quote evidence Of the disposals of a superimposing providence he said Same biographers turned the stylistic meaning washington into an evangelical christian Then the sanctification of washington served to sanctify those events and actions in which he directly participated including the drafting of the constitution Historian katharine abanizi has written that the second and third generations of americans by then that washington had become quote Irrevocably linked to the constitution such that his christian character infused the document and influenced his fellow drafters to ground the government On religious principles So as a result in the middle of the 19th century religious historian robert baird would write quote that most certainly the convention which framed the constitution of 1787 under the presidency of the Immortal washington was neither an infidel Nor atheistical character All the leading men in it were believers in christianity and washington as the world knows was a christian This narrative only grew in later years Decades later revisionist historian benjamin moores declared quote that most of the statesmen at the constitution convention were christian men including washington And as moores concluded The christian faith and character of men who formed the constitution forbid the idea That they designed not to place the constitution in government under the same providence and protection of god and principles of christian religion The constitution he said was founded under the christian influences and is in its purposes in spirit a christian instrument So by mid-century this narrative of the nation's christian origin was fully embedded In the popular literature in school books and in the public imagination and there it would remain from the century So how did this make a transition into the law? Well, the third event that helped create this christian nation myth and then facilitate its application in the law Was the resurrection of the old british maxim that quote christianity formed part of the common law? Conservative american jurists most notably justice joseph story on the left and chancellor james kent on the right Perpetuated this idea in their very influential treatises A story wrote in one of his published lectures quote There has never been a period in which the common law did not recognize christianity as lying at its foundations Likely the most famous legal decision of the early 19th century to rely on the christian nation maxim Was a new york case called people versus ruggles Where the defendant was convicted of quote wickedly and maliciously blaspheming And uttering faults and scandalous words which were quote Jesus christ was a bastard and his mother was a whore Actually, if you look back at the blasphemy cases from the early part of the 19th century, they seem to be the favorite phrase That jesus was a bastard and his mother was a whore Well, he was convicted of trial and unappeal ruggles argued that his conviction should be overturned because new york Didn't have a statute that outlawed blasphemy And that even if it did his conviction would conflict with the state's constitution that protected freedom of conscience Brushing aside those sound arguments Chancellor kent upheld the conviction on the ground that christianity was part of the state's common law Quote christianity and it's as large since he said as a religion revealed and taught in the bible is not unknown to our law But then kent did more than simply affirm the law recognized and reinforced christian principles He actually declared the nation's dependence on christianity Christian discipline and virtue. He said which helps bind society together Were essential instruments of civil government? He wrote And then so quote whatever strikes at the root of christianity Tends manifestly to the disillusion of civil government Now judges would cite the ruggles decision throughout the 19th century in upholding blasphemy convictions Sunday law convictions and religious oaths Requirements for jurors and witnesses and in my article I go into more detail about these numerous decisions in the early part of the 19th century Where courts apply this idea of america being a christian nation Now this jannis-like ideas of america's christian nationhood and the laws and corporation of christian principles received an additional boost In the 1892 supreme court decision holy trinity church versus the united states The new york episcopal church had been fined for violating an immigration law After it hired a new rector from great britain the law prohibited going uh overseas to hire anybody for any position in the united states Writing for unanimous court Justice david brewer held that the congress had not intended that the hiring restriction applied to quote ministers of the gospel Or any class whose toil is of the brain But after making that statement Brewer went on to offer a second reason for why the decision besides just statutory interpretation Couldn't apply in this instance According to brewery said quote america is a christian nation Been founded by religious people who formed a government based on religious principles This required that all laws be interpreted in a way that was consistent with christian principles In addition to affirming the maxim that christianity formed part of the common law Brewer also expressly declared that the nation's institutions were grounded on christianity As he would state in a later public lecture He said christianity has entered into and become part of the life of the republic Such as the principles of christianity serve as the foundations for our social and political life Now even though brewer had a nuanced understanding of what it meant to be a christian nation in this sense of being a compassionate nation with responsibilities that flow from that this declaration that justice brewer made Seized upon by religious conservators to justify their moral behavior enforcement And brewers christian nation decision remains a favorite by christian nationalist today So what about the modern applications of this? Well by the early 20th century the maxim that america was a christian nation had lost some of its resiliency As my article discusses several reasons for this decline Part of it had to deal with natural law theories being displaced by legal positivism and realism And increasing religious pluralism advent of ecumenicalism Even the supreme courts in brace of church state separation in the 1940s did not produce an immediate resurgence of christian nationalism Rather took the events of the 1960s and 70s to breathe new life into this narrative the school prayer and bible reading cases Um Which appeared to promote a cultural secularism the social rebellion and unrest of the 60s roe versus wade reactions to these events led to the rise of the religious right In the 1970s in the election of ronald reagan in 1980 Which of course then cemented the marriage between republican party and the christian conservative right Conservatives insisted the supreme court's requirement the government must maintain a position of secularity and separation of church and state They claim now was promoted hostility toward religion So it was during this time that a new generation of christian nationalist authors emerged gained popularity among conservative evangelicals too influential Influential figures were rastus john rastuni and frances schaefer Rastuni was the founder of christian reconstructionism or dominion theology. This is actually schaefer who is on the left here Um advocates establishing biblical theocratic principles For a republic based upon old testament law the lordship of jesus christ Schaefer A very popular author for evangelicals argued for imposing biblical principles for government that went back to the protestant reformation Both of these writers were highly influential on a generation of religious right leaders including jerry fall They're on the left pat robertson james kennedy And then a host of authors of popular histories about the founding such as john whitehead david barton who's been mentioned and tim le hay of the popular series Among many others, okay While there's no evidence these these christian nation writers have influenced judges Particularly members of the court their ideas were instrumental in the rise of a series of series of religious conservative legal advocacy groups The first was the national legal foundation Initially affiliated with pat robertson That was followed by the american center for law and justice headed by j. Sekolos people who are familiar with him Then the rutherford institute headed by john whitehead liberty council affiliated with liberty university concerned women for america bevel hay Alliance defending freedom among many others In the 1980s these groups started to file lawsuits challenging church state separation among other matters filing amicus briefs at the supreme court Many of their briefs on church state matters raised what can best be called christian nation light claims now the first modern supreme court decision to rely on the nation's purported christian heritage to resolve church state conflict Was a 1983 case of marsh versus chambers upholding the practice of paid legislative chaplains Rather than applying the lemon test with its secular purpose in primary effect inquiries chief justice berger applied a historical pedigree test Noting that the first congress had authorized the appointment of the paid chaplains three days before finalizing the language of the first amendment berger asserted that this historical evidence sheds light on what the drassman intended the establishment clause to mean That holding did not turn solely on the timing of that coincidence though berger also insisted that public prayer was part of the fabric of society Quote to invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with the making of laws is not under these circumstances in establishment of religion And it concluded by quoting from the zorakby clause in case from 1952 for the principle that quote We are religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being Although justices had previously relied on historical data to inform their understanding of the purposes of the religion clauses Marsh went further as the first decision in which historical quote unquote facts became determinative of constitutionality Marsh was followed the year later by lynch versus donnelly Um dealing with the challenge of a public religious display berger again spurned the lemon test in favor of his historical approach He asserted that there's quote an unbroken history of official acknowledgments of the rule of religion in american life That history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements Of the founding fathers and contemporary leaders. He said In no place did berger discuss the context behind these acts or the political reasons that may have motivated public officials to employ religious rhetoric In fact, he just took them on face value These declarations were simply just part of the traditions and heritage that underlay the nation's fountains. He said This history berger declared reveals contemporaneous understanding of the guarantees of the religion clauses Well from that point it was off to the races The next religious display case alliganey county versus aclu 1989 witness the first Series of amicus priests raising express christian nation arguments written by the national legal foundation And concerned women of america founded by devil hay. Like I said, who is the wife of christian nationalist tim le hay of the left behind series Such briefing has only increased since then an elk grove school district versus new dal in 2004 The justice is considered the contentious issue of removing the words under god from the pledge of allegiance The case elicited a plethora of amicus priests that argued that the phrase was consistent with if not required by the nation's christ religious heritage The nation's founding documents acknowledged god asserted the brief from liberty council and wall builders, which is the organization of david barton And this brief was chopped full of religious statements by presidents and other public figures Quote without our belief in god, there's no foundation for our belief in the inalienable rights given by god Other briefs made similar claims quote We cannot read the history of the rise and development of a nation without a reckoning of the place of the bible As occupied in shaping the republic asserted the institute for basic life principles Thus it establishes the philosophy of god is the ruler and his transcendent laws are to govern and guide for Superior and to be superior to man's laws So these were the contents of these amicus priests The following year the justice has heard twin cases involving challenges to the public display of ten commandments monuments McCrary versus aclu In van orden versus perry, which uh d chimberinsky was the council The issue of the nation's christian heritage was front and center in these cases As the kentucky displays were actually justified on the ground that the ten commandments have profoundly influenced the formation of western legal thought And the formation of our country Again, there's an onslaught of amicus priests raising christian nation claims quote our laws our Frame of government our political history Are not understandable without references to the biblical ethical monotheism asserted the amicus brief of the family research council Which is associated with james uh james dobson Likewise the national legal foundation declared that quote authoritative voices established the ten commandments impacted law and jurisprudence in america In his plurality opinion upholding the ten commandments monument in van orden chief justice renquist borrowed evidence from the amicus priest It's interesting to look at the amicus priest and look at his opinion Though he stopped short of embracing their conclusions quoting from lynch A renquist reaffirmed the unbroken history of official acknowledgments in the role of religion in american life But then went a step further to specify that it included the recognition of the role of god in our nation's heritage After citing to washington's thanksgiving proclamation for the general proposition He then segued into a more recent acknowledgments of the role that the ten commandments has played in our national heritage Now missing from that discussion was any citation to official Acknowledgements or use of the ten commandments that coincided with the foundings In part because that historical evidence is lacking But as christian nationals are apt to do renquist was happy to draw from generalities to reach a specific conclusion Now in contrast to uh his uh majority opinion or plurality opinion in there in uh van orden Justice scolias dissenting opinion McCrary openly embraced the christian nation narrative He said quote those who wrote the constitution believed that morality was essential for the well-being of society And the encouragement religion was the best way to foster that morality And then based on the historical record of religious decorations and proclamations scalia Asserted that the constitution did not require the government neutrality toward religion But could actually favor the prevailing religion of the people With that type of language justice scalia indicated how this christian nation perspective might be applied in the law Well 10 years following ten commandments case the court's church state docket uh for 10 years Provided a little opportunity for applying christian nation approach In 2014 however the justices revisited the issue of legislative prayers in the grace versus galway decision That issue again invited arguments based upon the perceived religious practices of the founders and the purported intent for government to foster religion The town argued the constitutionality of public invocations based upon marsh and the historical legacy of the practices But supporting amicai went further One citing george washington's first thanksgiving proclamation for the proposition that quote It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty god The declaration of independence was crafted quote in prayer and bible study claimed another amicus brief The institutions of society have founded on the belief that there is an authority higher than the state That is the moral law which the state is powerless to alter That individuals possess rights conferred by the creator which the government must respect Once again the court's opinion upholding the practice is steered away from expressed christian nation rationalizations Yeah, just as kendi he opened the door for the court's greater use of history in ways that could be determinative Rather than the marsh rule representing an exception to establishment clause kennedy remark quote the establishment clause must be interpreted by references to historical practices and understandings And any test the court adopts must acknowledge the practice that's accepted by the framers was through the critical scrutiny of time and political change And so doing justice kennedy opened the door for more christian nation-based Justifications In some ways the grease case like marsh was easy because it actually was a historical pretty pedigree The clarity becomes more oblique though when an exact historical pedigree is missing and this is when christian nation arguments Become more trouble and misleading because they invite the court to rule by analogy Does president washington's issuance of the thanksgiving proclamation also validate the government's Ownership of a religious symbol Well that came before the court in 2019 in american legion versus the american humans association challenged to the 30 foot tall latin cross monuments on government property The cross that was stood this location since 1925 is a tribute to local soldiers who died in world war one But the fourth circuit court of appeals held the cross represented an unconstitutional endorsement of christianity This triggered alarm among religious conservatives and once again a makis priest In this appeal to the u.s supreme court brought out their historical practices arguments Claims of the founders piety Figured in prominently into many of the makis priests Quote from the republic conception of coming from the republic's inception is founders embrace governmental expressions of religious belief unabashedly intertwining the secular with the religious set a group of conservative christian college professors Founders engaged in religious expression billy graham evangelistic crusade claimed because quote they understood that religious beliefs and ethical principles provided the foundation for and preserved the government and helped set up the constitution No brief went as far as the foundation for moral law amicus brief however Which boldly asserted that quote all valid human law must rest upon revealed law which is found only in the holy scriptures Brief also cited favorably to that 1811 ruggles blasphemy decision for the proposition of quote whatever strikes at the root of christianity Tends manifestly to the disillusion of civil government Um, so unlike march in town versus greece the founding era example was missing So the court in american lesion Had to borrow once again by analogy and that's what justice alito did He declared the court's approach to disputes were once again quote looked at history for guidance In the void of direct historical evidence though alito then analogized to practices and other declarations He offered a laundry list referencing washington's thanksgiving proclamation farewell address perennial favorites of christian nationalists And even went so far to find evidence in the fact that some cities in the united states San diego los angeles has some type of a religious basis This all comes together to justify the use of religious language by the government And the recognition of religion generally So this allows Alito to blithely conclude the quote were categories of monuments symbols and practices with longstanding history following tradition They are likewise constitutional so This expansive view View of what is relevant history and traditions has often relieved the justice system relying on more expressed christian nation arguments But still there can be no denying these are these arguments have been in the background of many of the religious symbolism cases Particularly in the descending opinions of anordan and macquarie county This constant barrage of amicus priests raising claims of the nation's religious heritage And of the religious beliefs of the founders reportedly demonstrated by their occasional use of religious rhetoric Has no doubt had a subtle effect upon judges Who already predisposed to such arguments and were otherwise hostile to a regime of church state separation The emboldened christian nation arguments have helped install at least at a minimum a jurisprudence of christian nation life Despite this concept actually being a historical myth Thank you Thank you. Thank you, steven. Uh, uh, do you mind uh, un sharing your screen? Sure, let me get rid of this on the second There we go. All right. Great. Thank you so much So now we're moving into a half an hour A discussion period where we can, uh, ask questions about any of the panelists and i'm going to use my prerogative as the Moderator to ask the first question, but if anyone has a question, uh, you should put it in the the q&a And unfortunately, you know as a law professor My my question is probably going to be one of these long rambling questions that sounds like a comment Uh, and less of a Question, but it I promise you it will end up as a as a question So and it's a question really taught to any of our our panelists and and let me frame it this way The question for that the that this symposium asks is is this a christian nation? And i'm just wondering how do we go about answering that question? That is do can we actually answer the question of whether this is a christian nation by looking at What the founders said and what they thought or what roger williams said and thought or what commerce jefferson said and thought to me The question of national identity, you know, is a very comp is a very complex one I mean as scholars like roger smith have shown we have competing nationalist traditions. That is there are Uh, you know from the founding or before there have been people who have thought that being american was defined at least in part by being protestant and white and Uh male or at least men should be the ones in charge and that this was all part of being american And there are people who continue to believe that being being like a real american or authentic american is determined at least in part by these descriptive Identities and these Disposition has had a lot of power in american life and has guided policies Um, so I just think that the question of national identity often gets confused with The separate question of how do we interpret the constitution? Right that is should we interpret the constitution as giving some privileged status to christianity Um, and it's probably because we think of the constitution as somehow a mirror of the country That is the constitution embodies who we are as a people So if we're a christian people then the constitution must be christian or if the or vice versa if the constitution is christian Then we must be christian, but I do wonder and this is this is now i'm about to ask the actual question whether Uh, you think that these two questions are really one in the same That is the question of the meaning of the constitution and the status of christianity under the constitution Is it really one in the same with the question? That the symposium frames is this a christian nation that is this question of national identity aren't they Separate and and can we really answer one by answering the other? So there's that it's a long and rambly questioned up, but i'll throw it out to any of our panelists We want to take take that on You know i might start this is not a new question the question you're asking Um in in my essay I point at william plumber who's a presbyterian minister Raises exactly this question in the early 19th century. He says if by christian So it's all about definitions. What do you mean by christian nation marcy was addressing this as well If by christian nation you mean the majority of people in america are christian Now by the way for the first time in u.s history the majority of americans are not white christians in the last 10 years But plumber says if that's what you mean. Yeah, okay, we're a christian nation But if what you mean is we ought to by our laws give christians entitled to any civil political or religious Privileges except in common with jews deus and atheists then i utterly reject it so I mean i think to some extent your your question just points out the importance of definitions Well and and i would just add i think it points out I mean my project of course is intellectual history We can't say That there was no christian influences on the constitution. That's not supportable So we have to figure out. Well, what were they and how do we describe them and how do we treat them now? So which is why i never get into the first amendment or any of that Although you can dig madison and train him right back over into drafting the first amendment But but my point is that what we need is fact-based history About christian the christian role But also if if the constitution is reformed and always reforming The question is what it is right now Uh, not what it was at the time that the seeds were planted and so Um, and so that may end up conflating your two questions, but I I think as a matter of history they're separate Go ahead So yeah, I saw like like uh marcie. I'm um You know political theorist and intellectual historian and I I suppose what? Interest but also worries me is you know, uh professor green Brought out very well the way in which a kind of revisionist and partisan history is being told about the about the found on the christian right But I I also see the same kind of instrumentalizing or sort of partisan take on that history on on the side of Not perhaps at the left of secular liberals who want to sort of secularize the founding in a way That just isn't Supportable either and so you know my my historical interests are primarily in the 17th century But what I'd like to do is just recover the fact that these are really complex questions There are many different theories and practices on the table And it is the case that a lot of things that modern liberals assume to be safely secular Are in fact adaptations of ecclesiological and quite controversial ecclesiological and theological Claims and I think disestablishment itself is so clearly this disestablishment is just such a radical fringe wacky evangelical position In the 17th century that the kind of story you want to tell of like, oh, this is just a kind of mainstream So rational conclusion doesn't even fly for the 18th century. You really can't Erase the evangelical contribution at that stage And so I I sort of a kind of worry about maybe the presentation of the founding that that steven gave us But yeah, so but again, I would just want to hold to our job as scholars is to recover the complex facts of the matter Rather than sort of weigh in definitively on a kind of highly controversial and partisan issue in the present Yeah, I didn't get into Part of the paper and clearly did not get into the books. I've written about this rather extensively um the information and um, I agree and I think what we need to do is one that's not um Superimpose our understanding of secularism from the 21st century Down to the latter part of the 18th century. That's clearly an artificial approach Um, but we also need to to just kind of qualify a little bit what marsy said Um, I think that we also need to be careful about not kind of and I'm saying marsy's doing this um This is actually part of what the modern way of thinking about this is this is part of the problem with going back and looking In the history Is to to do it in kind of a binary way? And to a certain extent your statement trees, what you just said. Yeah, um modifications of Christian ideas Christian principles Um, I don't think marsy's saying this and she can correct me if she's wrong. I I don't think the founders of the constitution were in were Utilizing or imposing what they actually thought were solely and directly calvinist principles into that. That's right These were principles that had been adapted and had evolved right, I mean You know what they were they were There's a modification of christian Ideas and a different way of thinking about the acquisition of knowledge But it still was in response to christian ideals and so there was not a Christian view of the constitution or a secular view of the constitution at the time it was this hybrid that had grown up right And so this is part of the problem is that the christian nation Christian nationalists they go back and cherry pick and they look at a particular rhetoric Which was prevalent during this time for a whole lot of reasons we could get into um And then they say ah, this means the same thing that it means today Or as they were talking in very nuanced terms back then too And so there are many reasons they used religious rhetoric and without a doubt by virtue of the prevalence of religion in that time period They could not disassociate themselves talking about the founders from this particular influence And that's clearly true But to pick back up on just the other thing about what jared said about this the distinction between national identity and then the constitution I'm actually glad you said it because to certain extent in in my 2015 book on inventing a christian america that actually is part of my argument is part of the reason that this Narrative became so popular in the 19th century When it was not that kind of express narrative in the latter part of the 18th century no one was talking in those kinds of terms Is because there was a search for a national identity And a search for a way of trying to explain who we were as a people And with the influence of evangelical christianity arising in the second great awakening There was a pre a position that they wanted it to reflect that evangelical perspective And then they had to somehow then kind of make that consistent with what happened during the founding period And it is very clear looking at and many of the sermons papers biographies, etc of the early part of the 19th century of this Best word is it's just revisionism to going back and Reading writing in to these histories which then became the histories in public schools throughout the rest of the 19th century About what the founding period really was about and infusing it with A very strong christian influence as opposed to something that was a whole lot more complex All right. I'm turning over moderating duties to uh carl since I have to go teach, but it's uh, it's been a great conversation I've really really enjoyed it. Thank you Thank you jaren I have a question from professor marianne case. Um, who's one of the speakers this afternoon Uh, and she writes I heard you and since uh, she typed this when you were speaking, um, john I assume This is uh to to you john ragusta Um, I heard you quote a framing era source To the effect that the greeks and romans did not unite church and state Can you say more about what the framers thought the romans were doing in this regard? Um, thank you carl. No, it it wasn't that the uh, greeks and romans didn't unite church and state They they did various things that you could say did the point was being made that you don't have to have christianity And and this point was being made by the evangelicals Government doesn't have to support christianity in order to have a moral virtuous system Um, and again, all of this is in contra distinction to what marcie is raising about checks and balances and the structure of the system But even if you want a government which is made up of moral and virtuous people What the evangelicals were saying is that doesn't require government support for christianity again It's very much this jeffersonian nation of universal morality I mean, you might say that it roger williams made exactly the same point Is that you've had flourishing civilizations that were not christian and which non christian religions were established And you can't say that those civilizations were lacking in civil virtue right, um, so it's again one of the themes that i've kind of noticed across the panels, which is worth bringing out is just the extent to which the secular And the kind of radical evangelical case for church state separation In the 17th century and also in the 18th century was really explicitly oriented against a kind of Hebraizing Protestantism that saw the point that saw that the work of the christian republic to be kind of building the old You know building a republic on the old testament model In new england, which is very much what people like john elliott or john linds if we're trying to do Uh, whereas williams says no no no we're christians Right, we have this thing called the new testament You know the new testament see where he sees the old testament And so the kind of wedding of church and state that produces a kind of national church is just not um I mean, you might make the jokes just not kosher Under the christian dispensation and so I think that kind of story has been lost one of the thing again That sort of worries me about the kind of you know binary that we're working with christian or secular It just includes the just the vast array of Protestantism's and And the kind of infighting that was there and I think that that's actually where the action was For so much of this and we're really kind of cutting ourselves off at the knees if we don't You know want to get to grips with those kind of theological arguments by saying, oh, well, they're not They're not arguments. They're you know, they're dogmas or something I completely agree with teresa on this and I mean when I start My classes on religious liberty or the establishment clause. I always start With the ways in which massachusetts Congregationalists and others were Literally attacking not just taxing but attacking The quakers and and the baptists and the fact that baptists are the ones that conceived of this concept of separation of church and state But the other thing I think that everyone needs to remember Throughout all of this is that you know, we remember benjamin franklin and the quakers For their toleration Well, they were tolerant, but you couldn't even serve in government in the state of pennsylvania unless you were a quaker You had to have seen the light of the quaker light in order to serve in the government So, you know, we started with diversity from day one and it was warring diversity It was not a you know a kumbaya of uh pluralism I'm so glad you brought that up about pennsylvania because pennsylvania, you know Partisans of pennsylvania want to say oh, it was this tolerant desert island and that's just not the case Not true and I'm at penn and I mean my god I'm not allowed to say anything against benjamin franklin ever but but the point Is that um the quakers were very oppressive Uh, and it was they felt sorry for the ones who didn't believe the truth the way they did and thought they would see it eventually But since they hadn't seen it yet, they could not serve in the government. So Um, we have here a question from uh, andrew sidell and i'll take this opportunity of of thanking um, andrew Who is a staff attorney with the freedom from religion foundation? and um, rebecca mark market who is also a staff attorney for the freedom from religion foundation and An alumna of the roger widams university school of law for Being the terrific resources to me and help him put this Symposium together andrew asked the following question The concept of official capacity versus private capacity Regarding promoting religion Seems a clean cut way to decide cases Mr. jefferson can pray President jefferson cannot call for prayer Have the courts used this helpful dichotomy? and if so When did they move away from it? anybody the um, I mean I was raising the dichotomy The courts have referred to it. Although the best quotation I can think of is just as stevens and van orden And which unfortunately he was in dissent And he makes very specifically the point that look when a public official gives a speech We understand the difference between What's their personal statements and especially during a political campaign versus what what's their official statements? And the doctrine has been fairly well established. This is why it's just an outrage If a president actually stood in the white house to make a political speech. I mean that would be outrageous For the president to do it's you know not been done in the past So the distinction has always been there Do the courts rely on it now? No, unfortunately. I mean in some of these modern cases that stevens talking about They've not really been as careful about that although most of the cases have not focused on the question of What the official can do in this sense most of them have been you know more focused on You know christmas displays or You know 10 commitment displays, but I think if they came back to this doctrine it would actually be fairly helpful to create a foundation For uh, we're not saying people aren't religious. We're not suggesting that that To talk about a wall separation makes america you're religious or somehow disrespects christianity It's you can't be again exactly this point that reverend william plumer is raising back in the 1840s. You can't be Officially religious Is what they were saying Yeah, andrew the When you look at the amicus briefs in particular that I spent a fair amount of time in preparing this article But then even in the opinions that I was mentioning The emphasis always is on these being kind of official declarations because that's what they want. They want it to basically have the Uh The imprimatur that this the state is somehow behind these statements of these public officials That therefore constitutionalizes it and makes the establishment clause difference I think it's hard to make a clear distinction though between when someone is a public official particularly for the president and you're on You know you're on your job 24 7 at least supposedly That You can really kind of put aside when you are speaking officially or privately That becomes a very difficult and I think Lined to make and I think courts are struggling with that I'll just say as a side not in the in the establishment clause context I was actually just teaching this case yesterday in my first amendment class It's the case that's going up. It's out out of the the court of appeals It's a night institute versus trump which deals with a challenge to trump trying to place controls on his twitter feed And when he twitters when he tweets and then people make comments He has censored the comments that he doesn't like And this has gone up through the courts and the court so far have basically said This is actually your official statements even though you're claiming these are private statements And so we actually may get some clarity of exactly what the difference is between an official comment by someone and a private comment by someone At least in this case going up about trump's tweets The the courts pretty much say no, these are your official statements. Therefore you cannot start censoring The the platform the public forum that you've created Just because you disagree with To steven's point by the way the hatch act does make exactly the distinction that steven raises The president is not subject directly to the hatch act restrictions because there's a recognition He's a president when he talks, you know, how do you know if it's political or or personal? But with other officials, they're supposed to be bound I just think there's a 17th century parallel, of course, uh for this Which is that in the letter concerning collaration lock specifies that the magistrate can and actually as a christian must proselytize for his christian faith But as a private person not in his official capacity But of course that just begs this question about the platform I mean necessarily a magistrate has superior resources at his disposal In sort of making his particular persuasion seem particularly persuasive to others And so I just think that like a lot a lot of the questions that we seem to be Viewing is new in terms of social media and the kind of ambiguous ambiguity of these platforms are actually kind of quite old And you know that they're there from the beginning Roger Williams student Philip Primo asked the following question Uh professor hamilton Why didn't we take the position of story in kent with respect to the relationship between christianity and the common law as persuasive evidence Against your thesis Story joined the marshall court in 1812 kent assumed the chancellorship of new york in 1814 These men lived in close proximity to the framing and flourished while many members of the founding generation yet lived Moreover wasn't james wilson of a similar mind At least story kent wilson, etc Suggest that the identity of america as a christian nation Is at least ambiguous too So so of course My point is that if and i'm just doing a strictly Intellectual history question right who influenced the framers and who influenced the most framers And uh of the most influential framers who influenced them And all roads lead to witherspoon and to presbyterian precepts That uh i mean for even uh madison to say that he received a strong dose of calvinism That's an understatement calvinists are not subtle As speaking strictly as a presbyterian here Not subtle at all and You know princeton was the only university in the united states Where the the goal was to produce people who would serve in government or serve the common good uh The high point of every other university Um that was feeding into the convention was to create clergy And so there was something very special about princeton at the time that it was aiming to produce people of public service and so I think you can't discount the education of 10 of the framers and you certainly can't discount the fact that Uh the the principles that you see at play in the classroom for those framers Are precisely the principles you see applied The this concept of It's not that monarchy direct democracy or a representative democracy Are um any of them better than the other frankly. It's that they're tools that they're mechanisms This was precisely the way that witherspoon taught the the um formation of the government should happen um, but also there's this historical accident that the uh problem with the Articles of Confederation was that they were a complete failure Um, but why were they a failure? They were a failure because they did not unite the people and because of corruption Corruption in the state legislatures corruption on the board in the border skirmishes, etc So if you look at it from that perspective, what are the only claim i'm making it's actually a pretty small claim um, but it is that The attitude toward human nature at the at the convention itself was framed by Presbyterian and john nox principles That in my view bring into serious doubt Whether or not they were going to impose an all-knowing christian Philosophy or set of beliefs on the structure instead they walked in we failed already with the articles Now we're probably going to fail again and the reason we're going to fail is against humans are a failure So we'll do the best we can but that's all we've got um, and so I think that ends up being Brilliant in producing a constitution that can thrive, but that's my own editorial comment there at the end Can I just spin that into a question for john? Well as to the history, I mean the the question is missing the history Justice story who is a child when the constitution is drafted and the first amendment is drafted He writes in on the constitution in 1833 that the massachusetts establishment Is the proper means of having a government state relationship a government religious tax He writes that I think the same year or maybe a couple years before the massachusetts people reject that 10 to 1 in favor of a church state separation Just can chancellor kent who has the language steven was quoting He's called the task at the next new york state constitutional convention Where the other delegates to the state constitutional convention give him holy hell If you'll excuse me because I said what what are you saying? This is a christian nation. That's outrageous. We have Freedom of religion. We have separation of church and state and at the new york constitutional convention He backs off and he says oh no no no And by the way, this is not what he had said in ruggles, but he says no no no all I meant Was the demographically We are primarily christian and so ruggles statement was an incitement to riot But to turn to you know based on this history to turn to story and kent as if we should listen to them rather than Madison and jefferson or franklin or adams is frankly just historically completely a historical right can I just marcie's comment really um maybe Think about um something that I don't think that we talk enough about and I've tried to get at my paper but just the extent to which um The establishment question was bound up with questions about the role of universities As the chief institutions for credentialing clergy and that was something that was obviously the case in in England And was clearly brought to america as well um And so I don't know. I just in the case of jefferson, right? I think so often we tell this story of well jefferson was all about you know Disestablishment and then he also had these views on public education Right, um, but actually, I don't know. I would I don't do this in my paper But I would sort of want to make the argument that actually well that the education argument is part of the establishment argument He just thinks that universities should be educating reasonable Gentleman well The problem is he establishes the university of virginia, which is arguably the first truly secular university in the world He insists there will be no professor of divinity He insists there will be no religious services at the university He is required for budgetary reasons to compromise and say well Maybe you can use the rotunda if a minister wants to come in and preach On a sunday, but he refuses to allow that while he's alive This is my this is exactly my point actually is that the he wants the universities to be sort of free from any particular religious Domination because he wants a kind of secular clergy if you will he wants sort of the men who go through This institution not to make that mistake I don't think To say to jefferson. He wanted secular clergy. I think his mind his head would blow up. Um, he doesn't Think if I might finish he doesn't want secular clergy. He wants enlightened individuals He wants people that are going to use their mind Rationally to expand their thinking and understand things he believes and this is maybe what you're getting at therese He certainly believes that their rational minds would lead them to a belief in god He believes that their rational minds would lead them to a sound religion that religion is very unitarian. It's very low church But It's not to create clergy. I mean the world had switched. We're now more interested in law. What he says is we're creating government officials We want lawyers exactly So Educating clergy universities now are educating lawyers Who still have to be trained and credentialed in these institutions? I just think that we're thinking too narrowly Uh, when we think about establishment apart from the question of education Who's doing it? He's credentialing Sorry, carl. No, it pains me to interrupt this for the discussion. It's fabulous And I wish we could just keep going but we're trying to try to uh, Maintain, you know, stay on time. We've got lots of other great questions. I can't get to we have a very short break And I know people need Uh, you know, there's something called zoom fatigue and I also know that people in theaters say always leave When the audience wants more Always stop the audience still wants more So we only have a short lunch break of I think 15 minutes Uh, we're gonna we're gonna start it now because I think people want to rush out and And grab the sandwich and we will resume at uh, one third is 130. Is that right on this on my schedule? Is that right when we're resuming? Uh, it is right. So we'll be back at 130. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you That was fun