as.

professor mark david hall joins us now via zoom he's the author of the just released book who's afraid of christian by christian nationalism is not a threat to america or the church. mr. hall good sunday to you. how do you define the term nationalism? why? you have my own definition, but i think the important thing to begin with is how it's been defined. 2006 basically starting 2006, a steady stream, books started coming out, explain that there's this group of christians theocrats who want to take over america for christ and oppress literally everyone else except for white christian males. this is in the polemical literature by people like michelle ingersoll and kathryn

stewart and julie, julie ingersoll, michelle goldberg, katherine stewart, andrew seidel. they make these claims. in 2000, 19 scholars came along and brought a bit more sense to the debate. but people like andrew whitehead and samuel perry defined christian nationalism as it stew of racism sexism. nationalism, people who want to bring christ and country and again oppress everyone except for christian males and. moreover, they argue that 51.9% of americans fully or partially embrace this toxic stew. and so this is a very scary phenomenon. and if you listen to almost all the critics, one of the things i do in my book is i say no good reason to believe that more than a tiny handful of americans embrace this sort of toxic stew. so i redefined christian nationalism. what i mean by it are those americans who believe america was founded as a christian nation and who believe christianity should be favored above other religions that instance, christian prayer, be returned to public schools,

contending is far less of a toxic phenomenon, a toxic ideology that it doesn't necessarily involve sexism, militarism, and that of thing, and yet that it's still a problem attic. and so i offer prudential constitu biblical and theological reasons for rejecting even this benign form of christian nationalism. how long has the christian nationalism, as you define it, how long has it been around in relation to what you say is this relatively new phenomenon and and how critics have just defined christian nationalism? yes, i would say it's accurate trace my definition of christian nationalism back to the american founding and it's a little agonistic we could push it back to the earliest colonial settlement we had things like established churches and this sort of thing in virginia, the general assembly even told the anglican how to govern itself and then suddenly has been favored above other religions really throughout almost all of american until now. maybe when you get the mid 20th

century. so it's around a long time, it's always problematic and i'm glad we've moved away from it. significant ways there. about 20% of americans who want move back to it, who want to return christian prayers to public schools, who want congress to declare america to be a christian nation. so it's still around, but it's a far cry from the handmaid's tale described by so many of the critics. your book is who's afraid christian nationalism. why christian is not a threat to or the church mark david hall. with us in this segment, the washington journal, if you want to join the conversation, phone lines as usual, democrats 202748 8000 republican 202748 8001. independents. 02748 8002 andrew seidel is another author and one that i know you know well. you've debated in the past his book is the founding why christian nationalism is un-american. he spoke about christian

nationalism last fall in event sponsored by the student union. and this is a little bit of what he had to say about christian is a political religion premised on the claim that the united states was founded as a christian nation, that we were based on judeo principles, whatever that vague phrase mean, and that we have strayed from that foundation. and they use the language of return of getting back to our godly roots to justify all manner, oftentimes hateful, evil, public policy, think back to june 1st, 2020. this is when then president donald trump had peaceful protesters, gassed, beaten and brutalized with rubber bullets so that he could walk to church to pose for photograph with a bible. the point of that malignant

stroll was to show that are a bible believing bible beating, churched nation, that we are a christian nation and anyone who disagrees should be beaten and gassed. the goal of christian nationalism is to or rewrite the constitution so that it creates two classes of people the right kind conservative christian and everybody else mark david hall on andrew seidel's comments and the goals of christian nationalism. so one of the things that i appreciate about andrew then of the freedom from religion foundation is he's crystal clear that he's not academic and his first book he writes that this is a polemic, this is not an academic study. and what he said there was some truth that certainly there are people out there who believe america's founded as a christian nation. and i think there is a sense of wanting to return. the question is, what do they want to return to. my guess and what i argue is

that they really want to return to the america of the 1950s without the segregation. and i want to be clear about that. without the sexism. so in america, where you don't have drag queen story hours, we have teachers leading, children in prayer. they actually aren't christian prayers. they're usually written by state committees. and they go something like this, oh, god, please bless her. they help us to study hard and safe. amen. so, again, any monotheist could say that sort of prayer in most americans were monotheist. so is this sense of wanting to return something a golden age? i argue in my book that this is ill and that there are actually excellent for getting the government out of the business, running churches, having teachers, lead prayer in public school, this sort of thing. andrew seidel goes on in his next book, american crusade to make this sort of bombastic kind of crazy arguments, frankly. for instance, he talks about home, the u.s. court has been taken over by white christian nationalists and evidence. he points to a number of cases

where, in fact, for instance, the finds that a 25 foot cross a now in public land is constitutional and he says there it is christian nationalism, a christian being favored above others. one of the things he neglects to mention is you have two jewish justices. i'm elena kagan to stephen breyer in the majority and clarence thomas, although he apparently is is still a white christian national. so he's african-american and so the case submitted to the court says is not unconstitutional to a cross on public land. i go a list of cases, six or seven cases, where in all of them you have elena kagan, stephen bryan breyer, ruth bader ginsburg agreeing that a christian symbol, a christian program, is constitutional, that philadelphia can't discriminate against christian organizations. and he just simply ignores all counter evidence, as he does with the court cases. find in favor of muslim plaintiffs, for instance versus arabs and abercrombie and french decision for instance. so we need to understand he's

coming from a particular perspective as is boston these believe in a wall of separation between and state a wall that would somehow require a 1925 cross now on public land memorializing dead from world were one to be torn down or moved or decapitated. andrew seidel's organization freedom from religion foundation objected when ohio wanted to include a star of david in, a holocaust memorial. and if you think about the holocaust memorial very close to you in washington, d.c., there are all sorts of biblical imagery images and passages throughout that memorial. andrew site elba, boston. believe all. of this must go their strict separation is coming from a particular perspective and i think that's fine. they have every right to do that. of course. but to say that just because someone world war one, eric cross, doesn't need to be torn down is a christian nationalism who a nationalist who wants to engage in hate and evil. i believe andrew seidel used those words right.

i think that's just a leap. it's three steps too far. you mentioned, bob boston, he'll be joining us and talking with viewers in about 35 minutes here in washington journal. let me let you chat with some viewers plenty already calling in to talk you the book again who's afraid of christian nationalism and just published earlier this month. correct? correct. peter is sarasota, florida democrat. good morning. yes. who is afraid of christian nationalism? i would say members of every other religion and non believers certainly deserve to be afraid. christian nationalism. andrew seidel booked. excellent. it goes into great detail but the book is entitled the founding myth goes into great detail about how and why the founders were strongly to america considered a christian nation or nation of any other religion keeping. a wall of separation between.

church and state goes into great detail about it. the god ever mentioned in the constitution, the declaration of independence uh goes, against the king of england very strongly. and the christian religion states. it states in the bible, uh, you know, kings are to be obeyed and so forth and so on. that's exactly the opposite. what the declaration is doing, it was going strongly against king of england and putting on its own path. yeah, jefferson stated. thomas jefferson stated in the treaty of tripoli. 1805, i quote the government of the united states is not in any sense founded the christian religion shouldn't be any more plain and obvious that thank you, mark david hall. well, thank you. i'm first of all, jefferson and the thing to do with the treaty of tripoli. andrew book is full of inaccuracies and falsehoods i

reviewed and law and liberty i encourage you to go and read that review. you begin question or statement really with a claim that all sorts of americans are afraid of christian national some. this is somewhat of an empirical question so we can turn to recent pew studies. 2020 to 2024. and these studies find that in. 54% of americans have never heard the phrase christian nationalism. of those who have, well, a total percentage american population, 25% have a negative view of it. and 5% have a positive view of it. so there seem to be precious few christian nationalists, certainly precious self-identified christian nationalist out there. this is bill in pennsylvania, republican. you're up next. yes. hey, you for taking my call. hey, uh, that fella said that our our country wasn't founded. do these folks ever go to, like, um, our state capitol buildings and see bible verses and the ten commandments that are that were

put on there hundreds of years ago? i was just curious about that. and, and as far as i reading a book, i think the problem started when our country stopped reading the book, the word of god, a christianity isn't just for certain countries. as you read the word of god, god they extended mercy and grace, salvation to anybody, any nation that comes unto him. and according to this book, uh, we know the end of this book and that's what they're kind of getting scared of. like it not god is god. and if isn't the god of all, he is into god at all. and god says that christ is going to come. we know where he's going to come to hot spot of the world over in folks read your bible. if you read the word of god all makes sense. you all see it coming. that's in pennsylvania. mark david hall did you want to jump in? sure. well, let me affirm that affirmation that one should read the bible. i think that's an excellent,

excellent in my previous book in america, a christian founding, i make what i think is an excellent argument that america's founders were influenced by christian ideas or ideas developed within the christian tradition of political reflection. in many important ways. it led them to embrace the separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and most importantly, it led them to a robust understanding of liberty that protected americans. that's why they banned test religious test for federal office. one of my favorite documents from this era is george washington's letter to the hebrew congregation in newport, rhode island, where he makes clear that this tiny little religious minority there may be 2005 --. and in north america at the time at the most. and he makes it crystal clear that they have the same right to worship god according to the dictates of conscience and act upon the religious convictions whenever possible. and it's a year by the time we get to the founding era in founders were influenced by

christianity in certain ways, but they did not create a christian nation. that language is way too exclusive. it sounds. if the nation is made by and for christians that was never the founders intent. this is mark in albany, new york, independent. good morning. hi. how's it going? i to clarify that the guy from israel is not the true god they will yell way is, not the true god and christianity and judaism claim that yahweh is the true god and is not. swami vivekananda to america. in 1889 and he spoke at the parliament religions. and you can look this up so mark to mark bring me to 2024 and this debate today on christian. and. so jesus wasn't the son of god, the son of god a concept they

say if you step on the spiritual path, are considered the son of god, that is a concept that's not the real story, because god goes to infinity as the white light, you stood up, you got your point. mark, i want to come back mark david hall to the founders and their views on on religion and politics. what gets cited a lot is thomas jefferson's letter to the danbury baptists from 1802, in which he he states in that letter his views on the separation of church and state saying the he wants to establish a quote wall separation between church and. what's your reading of of that famous letter. sure. jefferson has every right to his own views. of course, jefferson played no role in drafting or ratifying the first amendment. he was even in america at the time. the wall of separation if you think about it just for a

second, as horrible metaphor to reflect the language of the first amendment establishment clause, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. that's a one way barrier. it's a restriction on congress. and through incorporation, the states in no way, shape or form can be viewed a restriction on religious americans on the church. the church has every right to speak into politics. so the civil rights movement led by the reverend dr. martin luther king, jr. absolutely appropriate and not a violation. the establishment clause. let me take a step back, though, if we go to that. i believe he his draft of that letter on saturday day on sunday. thomas jefferson, then president of the united states, went to church services in the u.s. capitol building where he heard john leland, the baptist itinerant minister in an opponent of religious establishments, preach, and they regularly held worship services in the us capitol. jefferson is president permitted the war department building in the department building to be used for worship services as well and so whatever jefferson

desired in his heart of hearts, he did not act as if there was a wall of separation. neither did james madison. neither did any the founders. this is completely a historic. the literal letter was ripped out of context when it first appeared in a court opinion in reynolds versus the united states and then unfortunately, it was used in a horrible historical from the perspective of supreme court opinion and since versus board of education, where the court basically the establishment clause requires, a wall of separation between church and even though the majority as they were claiming that permitted new jersey to fund or subsidize using busses to get to parochial schools. and this is one of the reasons they're establishment clause jurisprudence has been such a mess. and fortunately, over the last 20 years, the court has backed seriously away from ever son. and then. lemon and how has now a very sensible approach toward the establishment clause actually? why does the house and senate

open their business every in prayer? this goes back way to the continental actually, and then the confederation congress is just consider what we do and if you go to 1788 is a confederation congress is going out of business. congress held a are we going to pay the chaplains we've had james madison is on record voting to pay the chaplains. the first federal congress comes around. james madison is on the committee that decides. okay what sort of legislation legislative chaplains are we going to have. this is 1789. so one of congress's first acts is to select a chaplain for the house and a chaplain the senate. and we've had chaplains ever since. so this is just considered part of what we do in america. again, if the establishment clause required a wall of separation between church and state that would clearly be inappropriate. but what the first amendment does is, it prohibits an establishment of religion in no reasonable universe is selecting a chaplain who leads people in

voluntary prayer and establishment of religion, which is why congress believe unanimously agreed to have chaplains in both the house and the senate. and we've done so ever since. and as you point out we do, too, today and other a few americans at places like the from religion foundation in protest and other americans united for separation of church and state. but does anyone worry about this? do you think it's a good thing. i think it's a fairly benign thing. wouldn't bother me if congress decided not to do this anymore. but i don't think it actually hurts most of anyone. and presumably these chaplains provide aid and comfort to members of the legislature who are far from home. and if that's the case then i say more power to them. in wilmington, illinois, democrat. good morning. you're on with professor mark david greene. mark david hall, excuse me. thank you. the last time we talked religion, i was kicked off the air for saying that i thought religion it best belief in magic and gauche and at worst an excuse to use god to kill and

commit genocide. and i was forced to go to church long after. i quit believing in god, but i'll go back to the ambrose bierce quote religion is the daughter of hope and fear, explaining the ignorance to nature of the unknowable and for all these people going out. shame know god is real and jesus is real. they do scare me because. they're just acting out of fear instead of logic. mr. hall yeah, well, there are people who hate religion and i'm very sorry if this young man was scarred a young man. it's horrific. and i'm sorry to hear that this does well. many of the polemical literature, i think many of the authors of this polemical literature were at one time believers. they were somehow hurt by the faith. and so they had this view of christianity usually religion more generally, as this oppressive spirit, oppressive force. so if you read only one book, i

would commit to you, andrew seidel, see the myth book, his hatred religion is just palpable and he engages in mockery of. the judaism of christianity. and i'm sorry for seidel that he felt hurt in this way. but but it does show where i think many these critics are coming from. how long have you been researching and writing about nationalism and what got you into topic? so i was flying home from a speaking engagement on january six 2021, and i and on layover i got a note, a reporter, an email actually saying, you comment on the religious images among the rioters at the capitol hill, and this was the first i had heard of it. so i said yes, i'd be happy to do that. was horrified by the riot, but i said i'd be happy to comment on the images. and it took her about 20 minutes to send me images and i went through the footage i could find there were lots of footage you could go through quickly. and what i saw was a sea of americans flags, a sea of trump flags, it seemed, and no

christian images. eventually she sent me some slides, tweets, images, a tweet that showed a woman who had a sign that said, like, god, freedom and liberty or something like that. she was at at the washington monument, which is 1.5 miles from the u.s. capitol. and she was not among the rioters. in fact most of the images had nothing to do with the riot at all. and those that were from the riot were ambiguous. revolutionary era flag said an appeal to heaven. and so i said to this woman, you might want to be careful with this narrative you seem to be crafting. i don't see much by way of christian images among these images you sent me. she completely ignored me and came out with the story. the next day. christian nationalist have attacked u.s. capitol building and this was a narrative you saw throughout all of america. perry and others explicitly. things like this is this christian nationalist it gets. and so this just piqued my interest. and so i started reading everything could find about christian nationalism. most of my work is the american

founding or about religious church state relations throughout all of american. and i was just shocked at this literature, most of it, as i've said, just is just polemical literature written journalist or aggrieved academic who clearly had axes to grind. and even the academic literature and was profoundly flawed. and what seemed me to be obvious ways. and so what i do in my recent book is i spend two chapters debunking this polemical literature, both the polemical literature and the scholarly literature that's critical of christian nationalism. of course, christians, after all this year, 16 years of attacking christian national in 2022, they come out and embrace christian nationalism. now they want to redefine it and, insist it's not sexist and racist and militarist and that sort of thing. and i take at their word, but it just strikes me as a horrific idea. and then this leads the critics to say, look, here it is. here's evidence that christian nationalism exists. and so the book hopefully debunks all of that. and it gives a reasonable definition of christian

nationalism. and yet i want to emphasize, i critique even this most benign form of christian nationalism. i think it's very bad idea to attempt return to teacher led prayer to public schools, whether christian or generic itself. make no mistake about it. i'm no fan of christian national ism really in any of its manifestations. story that got a lot of attention. is donald trump selling god bless u.s.a. bibles? what did you think about that and all the attention it got in the news? yeah, i it disgusting. i think he's a huckster. i think he's always been a huckster on on on the prowl to make a buck. he keeps coming up with innovative schemes. and yeah, i think really he has no business doing that. i yeah. i believe the bible use for that is king james version and i'd be wrong about that. that's public domain version. you can get a version free. i believe you can get a printed version for like 399 on amazon. i encourage people to do that there's no need for a bible with

song lyrics and constitution and pictures of america in it. let's read the word of god and. it's not there. to david in austin, texas independent. good morning. yes, i hope can hear me. i just had a question for your guests. firstly, i totally agree with the idea of reading the bible. i think it's a i think it's an awesome book. i also wanted to get your guests on the j edgar hoover the institution as proponent or defender of white christian nationalism. your book says we don't have to be afraid of it if white christian nationalism. but when you look at this institution and how it's in the in the rise of white christian nationalism across the country. i just wanted to know if you had an opinion on how this organization has conducted itself in in support quote unquote patriotic ism and white

christian nationalism. i just listen. thank you. yeah, thank you. so i just had a chance to read the gospel of j edgar hoover a month ago after this book had gone to press, or i sent it off the printers anyway. it is fascinating. and there certainly are ways in which during the cold war, especially american corporations and government entities, understood. i said in an existential battle. but year i mean the united of america. so the united states of america is facing communism. and so this certainly did include some folks who might have had christianity's best interest at heart to emphasize the extent to which, look, we're americans. and part of what it means to be americans is to be christian. and so you had corporations pushing this. hoover pushed it. he had had retreats. were fbi agents would be bused off a government expense to hear from religious leaders and this sort of thing. it's in the 1950s, of course, that we had the words under god in the pledge allegiance or we

had in god we trust to the money. i think this is understanding, annabelle, from the historical context. i don't think any of it is particularly laudable from a christian perspective, nor do i think most of it was harmful. to this day, we include the words under god in pledge we have in god we trust on our money. let me ask who is harmed by that? now, i know some people annoyed and some people have brought lawsuits saying this violates the establishment clause. but again, i want to continue and argue for this at great depth in a number of works. did america have a christian founding included? the establishment clause does not build a wall of separation between church and state? if it did maybe a god we trust should come off the money. what the establishment clause says is that we are not going to have a national church just like england has a national. and by incorporation, we going to have state churches. so it would be inappropriate for the state of texas to say the baptist church is the state church for texas.

we're going to tax everyone to it and to support the church, the baptist church and. absolutely inappropriate. right. but to have symbolic things like in god, we trust in their money, not constitutionally problematic. and i don't think it's particularly anyone. the gospel of j edgar hoover by lauren martin came out in february. mark david hall's book who's afraid of christian nationalism, came out earlier this month, and he's taking your calls. for about the next 15 minutes here on the washington on this sunday morning. this john in shiner, texas republican. good morning and on c-span and this is i really appreciate the person chosen conversation we seem to be having about this made up crisis. i was watching joe scarborough this morning and he had someone it was his name older basically comparing the we the dumb maga people comparing trump to jesus in the hysteria. it's just absolutely beyond the pale. well, what this is really about

is and you mentioned earlier about, you know, the government, there are two sources of power. we believe in god. the good are in labor rights and the creator, which is declared in a declaration of independence or the government and the democrats and are trying to do is remove any form of other religion besides government in the system. if you go to china or any combinations, what do you see? you see pictures of leaders here, united states. we have crosses on highways. so the only way to control the power is for the government to remove and to discredit it, to rid of god in our public life so they can be the only our rights come from our creator government. and once the government says the government, your rights go from us, they can take it away. that's what this is really about. look out for the forest, for the trees. great conversation. thanks, mr. hall. well, there's a lot there and a just begin by pointing out that i agree. absolutely no rights come from god. hold these truths to be self-evident.

that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and pursuit. happiness. those words were originally penned by thomas jefferson. they were revised a bit by congress, of course. jefferson is no orthodox, but this was just commonplace in the late 18th century, writes from god. that's why they're. very important. and yet. what was it a few weeks ago you had a journalist mocking people who believe rights come from god, saying this is evidence of christian nationalism. and then she goes to to associate all sorts of evils. a parade evils with christian nationalists and me. if i believe that a movement that wanted to oppress every american except for white christian, even though i'm a white christian man, would be terrified. that would be horrific thing. there is just no good evidence in it. very much appreciate your listeners comment that this is the first sensible conversation. there have been other sensible conversations course, but almost all the critics use this

language. literally give at least eight quotes like this christian national wisdom is an existential threat. american democracy and the christian church. christian nationalism is a threat to the government by the people. for the people. of the people. christian white. christian nationalism is the greatest threat to american democracy in the church. america. on and on people go, literally. some critics compared american christian nationalist, the people they think are christian nationalist to nazis and fascist. this is just not helpful for our public discourse. and so part of the reason i wrote my book to say, hey, let's just tap things down again, maybe even get away from labeling people and just have a discussion about the important issues of our day, about the sanctity of human life, about religious liberty, about the border, about homelessness. and let's just talk about these issues without people and try to

come in good faith and discuss of positives and minuses of different approaches we might take to these things and hammer out some sort of reasonable consensus solutions to them. they'll be so more useful than simply labeling people, christian nationalists and people on right engage in this sort of activity to. right. labeling folks as woke whatever else these labels are not helpful. you talk about how many people in america consider themselves christian nationalists and and differing opinions of what that is and you talk about labeling. but can you kind of give us some numbers here or some percentage of americans to try to help us understand this? sure. well, if go by self-identification, people say they say christian nationalism is a good thing. that's 5% of americans. and even that figure is problematic for two reasons. first of all, some american is when they hear those words put together, they might just be thinking, well, i'm a christian

and i'm a patriot, so i guess i'm a christian nationalist. and they might not embrace of this toxic stew of racism sexism, homophobia, ism, militarism, that sort of thing. on the other hand, it is certainly possible to be that you don't identify. i think almost no americans, close to zero americans would say i am a racist. probably a tiny fraction of 1% would. and yet there might be. and probably are more than a tiny fraction, 1% of americans who are accurately called racists. and so what social scientists do is they come up with various attempts to measure a phenomenon that they that they then define. so whitehead and perry who are serious social scientists come with a definition of christian nationalism that really is a toxic stew. americans who conflate god and country, who are racist, sexist, homophobic, military. and they find that 51.9% of americans fully or partially embrace toxic stew. of course, they always go on to say, but not everyone who identifies as a christian

nationalist through our scale is is a sort of evil person. and it really is pretty much an evil person. one of the strange findings in their study is 5% of african-americans identify or are labeled as christian nationalist, according to whitehead and perry. now what we see is the social science has gotten better pr a neighborly faith, especially in a great article by smith and adler have suggested whitehead and perry's figures are just grossly inflated by any measure. and so by coming up with far more reasonable measures, we could go into the measures, if you'd like. i'd be happy to talk about the details of them. but by looking at far more reasonable measures, maybe we have 10% of americans who are christian nationalist adherents. this is this was found in a phone study, a very serious study, the everyday crusade, a neighborly faith came to a similar sort of conclusion. and what we find is that among these folks there are people who

have views that are problematic. of course, all americans have views that are problematic, not literally all that many. so, for instance, of the 10% of americans who are labeled as christian nationals adherence, 9% think -- in, america have too much power. so that of smacks of anti-semitism. but unfortunately in a very sad about this, about 9% of americans overall think -- have too much power. and so this shows there's anti-semitism in, america, and that the christian adherents, christian nationalist adherents share in the anti-semitism. it is interesting when you go to the next question, though, or the next possible. do you have a favorable -- view of -- in america, christian nationalist adherents, according to the study, actually are more likely to have a favorable view of american than are than average population. so when we dig down into this i think precious little evidence that are racist that in america

there are people who gather to ensure charlottesville in 2017, i think are about 300 people who gathered this. this disgusts me, horrifies me. and i pray for these people, folks who believe that the white race is superior and should somehow be on top. these people. no one claimed those folks were christian nationalists. in fact, the true aryan nation types oftentimes don't like christian indy because of christianity's teaching that all are created in the image of god and must be treated with respect and dignity. so your true racist national laws oftentimes don't like the christian faith or other religions, for that matter. so precious few embrace truly toxic stew. more reasonable measure of christian nationalism come in between ten and maybe 30%, depending on how you how you can slice it. by my measures, and i'd be happy to discuss how i got there. now, my estimate about 1% of americans this view that christianity should be favored

above other faiths. and that's a view i reject. but it's a view that does not return to the days of jim crow or slavery or women being unable to vote. so the talks still described by white hannah perry and, many of the critics just exists but exist among a tiny fraction. 1% of americans, just a little over 5 minutes left with mark david hall this morning. profess ser regent university, author of the book who's afraid of christian lorette, has been waiting in cleveland ohio. good morning. good morning. this is a real good conversation. morning. but if we're going all the way back to the founding of the country we came skip over slavery and when we look at the of people who are enjoying the

fruits from that free labor i mean any country that had 100 years was the free should be number one and everything and then we at it bring it up to today we get sick and all of those religions all of every day you get a priest or a rabbi, somebody's going to jail for abuse the kids and then they want to come in and try to regulate policy over people's lives and they don't want to pay pay. you live in homes, they eat reagan in some million dollars every week every, week it is just don't make any sense. mark david hall. yeah, so in my last book

proclaim, liberty throughout all the land, i have a couple of chapters on the founders and slavery and the abolition list. i show that many founders were turning against voluntarily freeing their slaves, ending slavery in eight of the northern states, banning slavery in the north with territory. so when there was a recognition that slavery was an evil, horrible that needed to be ended and we were moving in that direction. fortunately unfortunately. eli whitney the cotton gin that made the production a certain sort of cotton profitable on the american interior south. and this led to a renewed lease on life for slavery, which wasn't ended really the 13th, 14th, the 15th amendment. but then we had the horrible jim crow legislation that arose after that. so, yeah, race has been in problematic throughout american thank goodness for those founders that came to oppose slavery for usually for the christian convictions thank goodness for the abolitionist movement thank goodness for the civil rights movement led by the

reverend dr. martin luther king jr and others. so i contend that christianity has actually been a very positive force for the flourishing of all human. so all of american history. but we live in a sinful world and there continues to be elements of racism that must be combated. there continues to be race, religious hucksterism, that really should be regulated better. and we should consider various tax policies and this sort of thing and we live in a fallen world. and i'm sorry do but i think christianity maybe the best answers to evolving world in which we live and just historically it's done a lot of good in the united states of america. final 2 minutes here. can come back to the founders, specifically to the declaration of independence. what you quoted the declaration that famous line we hold truths to be self-evident that all are created equal, that they are by their creator with certain unalienable, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. life liberty and the pursuit of

happiness. is that a complete list of what we're endowed our creator for, or is that a sampling of the liberties? yeah, i would say it's a sampling and, you know, it's telling. think that, you know, lock keepers routinely spoke of life, liberty and property. jefferson used in his draft. the more broad pursuit of happiness. yeah, that we have a variety of rights that americans endowed with that all people are endowed with. let's clear about that. and these certainly in the most basic level, a right not to be treated adversely because of the color of our skin, the to be free, the right to worship, god accorded a conscience. but i'm certainly open the development of human rights. and this is really what we've seen in human rights discourse as get into the 20th century. maybe our rights well beyond what what are what mostly negative rights as they're conceived in the american founding. and perhaps they should include positive rights as well. a right to an education, for instance, and that the government might have some some obligation to make that we were

able to attain that right. in other words, we don't just simply lead people free to say, okay, get an education you want or not if you want, but the government may in fact reasonably be to have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that people are educated. mark david hall is the of the book who's afraid of christian? it came out at the beginning of and we appreciate your time this morning i'm going to quickly ree

bios to jennifer strong, who's moderating this fireside chat with frank