Thanks to everyone who attended last night's debate and especially those who worked so hard to make it happen, most especially Drs. Kern and Prescott. The lo-fi abridged audio file is available here. Full video will be posted sometime next week. The issue under debate was whether the U.S. Constitution founded a Christian Nation.
After listening to the debate, a few questions naturally spring to mind. Perhaps most saliently, one must ask what exactly are these uniquely Christian principles upon which Dr. Kern rested so many of his arguments? Are there any moral principles which one finds in the sayings of Jesus of Nazareth which are not to be found elsewhere in pre-Christian religions (e.g. Animism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Dionysianism, etc.)? If so, where are these uniquely Christian principles to be found in the U.S. Constitution?
Secondly, why should the letters or speeches of individual founders (e.g. Patrick Henry or Gouverneur Morris) be considered final and authoritative as to the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, especially when said founders were expressing themselves on matters unrelated thereto? If modern church-state integrationists do not consider it acceptable to take Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor to be authoritative because it was written in a private letter to a Baptist church, why should Morris' unpublished draft of a Constitution for France carry more weight? At least it may be said of Jefferson that he was reflecting upon the potential of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By contrast, Morris was proposing a wholly new set of rules for a strikingly different cultural context, even as (back across the pond) the original thirteen States were busily discussing and ratifying the First Amendment.
Finally, it should be noted that Dr. Kern brings up a completely new topic when he moves on from the Constitution and its drafters to the late 20th century, attempting to draw a causal connection between secularism and some of the more unfortunate consequences of the sexual revolution. This is a fascinating topic in and of itself, and while it is irrelevant to the debate last night, might well merit further inquiry in another forum.
For further reading:
- Chris Rodda - History of the Northwest Ordinance
- Patrick Henry quotes and misquotes (note what he never said)
- Gouverneur Morris quote in context (proposed French Constitution)
Prescott did a great presentation. Kern seemed fishing and stretching.
ReplyDeleteNeed another debate issue? Since both mentioned taxes.
1- Argue: The government is doing God's work thus we should not complain about taxes.
2- Argue: Churches are failing to do God's work, thus government is filling the vacuum. Old age security, unemployment pymts, housing, food stamps, health care, etc.
Here is a report of the Debate from Red Dirt Blog
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reddirtreport.com/Story.aspx?id=17861
After listening to the entire debate I can safely say that Dr. Kern presented no evidence to support his position. Tangential writings even of those involved in the writing of the Constitution cannot be given precedence over the actual document that was the outcome of that process. Many things may have been debated and considered to be included in our government's founding document, but what emerged clearly states that religion is NOT to be used as part of government. If they had intended to make this a christian nation they would have said so clearly.
ReplyDelete