John Witherspoon and Religious Liberty in America

After being declarers of independence, Americans became constitution-makers. One of the great wrong-headed pictures portrayed by the Progressive History Lesson is that we were preoccupied with politics. Many more Americans were concerned with–and participated in–the making of church constitutions than in the making of state and national constitutions. In the 1780s Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, and even Congregationalists and Baptists formed national, regional, and local covenants and constitutions. The two most visible, because they were large and Philadelphia-based, were the attempts of Presbyterians and Episcopalians to form orderly national churches. It was not uncommon, in 1787, to see men moving from one constitutional convention to another, and most of them would have been hard pressed to say which was more important.

The most prominent in this group was the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, prominent Scots-Presbyterian, signer of the Declaration, member of Congress, President of Princeton (and also primary agent of the “American philosophy,” the basis of the liberal arts in America for over a hundred years), and author of the Introduction to “The Form of the Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.” One can argue, and I often have, that he was as important to the formation of the republic as his student in theology, James Madison.

Continue reading at www.imaginativeconservative.org

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

If you find a comment offensive, please flag it as inappropriate by hovering over the down arrow to the right of that comment and clicking on the "Flag as inappropriate" text. Once a comment receives three "flags," it will be hidden from further view.

http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

"Christian Constitutionalists often point out that the phrase 'separation of church and state' is found in the Constitution of the USSR, not the Constitution of the United States. This is true. Nevertheless, the mandate for separation of church and state is inherent in Article 6 on two levels: 1) The Constitution is declared to be the supreme law of the land, which makes any law (secular or Biblical) contrary to this 'supreme law' null and void and non-executable by the Constitutional Republic, 2) Religious qualifications for government officials are denied, which prohibits Biblical qualifications…"

Excerpted from "Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land?" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….
- Myrtlelinder
  
  You are correct and, regardless of any law, Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other, "THE WORD OF GOD REIGNS SUPREME" AND EVERY CHRISTIN SHOULD AS A "CHILD OF GOD" RECOGNIZE THAT FACT, AND SHOULD ALLOW NONE TO COME BEFORE IT.
  This is my opinion and I will recognize this fact, as long as GOD choses to allow me to live.
  - daves
    
    The only problem then is what is truly God's Law. To me, it is that we should be kind to each other.
    - http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland
      
      To me? Who cares what the law is to you! What matters is what the law is to God.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        No, what matters to you is what your interpretation of the bible says.
- bighoss
  
  If we ever should get to the point where Americans lose all sense and agree that a government should be formed up along the ridiculous lines you describe, will you then run for High Priest of the United states?
aceituna

It then goes into the Bill of Rights, first 10 amendments to find that congress cannot establish any religion, or stop anyone from practicing his religion. This article points out something important though. It is inferred that the citizens of the US belong to the Christian religion and what it forbids is establishing a certain denomination of the Christian religion and prohibiting the practice of such religion. It does not deal with a religion such as the Muslim which has many practices contrary to both the Christian religion and also to the constitution. Now where would this lead in the discussion of separation of religion and state?
- Myrtlelinder SC
  
  We have somehow, gotten a majority of anti-GOD Muslims in the Congress and in the Senate and one playing president. I cannot understand how we got into such a mess. Why did we not realize the Muslims were running for office, I can only imagine, lies, lies and more lies denying their interest in the Muslims and who they worship.
- http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland
  
  This is, of course, the interpretation of most contemporary Christians who so desperately want the Constitution to be a Biblically compatible document . It was NOT the interpretation of those who debated Article 6 and Amendment 1 in States' ratifiying conventions. They knew fully well the non-Christian implications of Article 6 and that Amendment 1 included all religions – including Islam. The framers understood the same. For primary source documentation, see "Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land?" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut… and "Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….
meknow

I would like to know who the men in Congress and the Senate are Muslims…………..
- daves
  
  I am pretty sure the honorable Keith Ellison is the only Muslim serving in our federal government.
- bighoss
  
  Representative Keith Ellison is a Muslim, but I know of no others in either the Senate or the House. Myrtlinder SC must be one of those ditzy types who sees a Muslim behind every tree and ever Congressional desk. I suppose it is as easy to contend that our national legislature is loaded up with Muslims as it is to continue to make the absurd contention that the President is one or to contend that he was not born in Hawaii.
aceituna

I have posted before that there are certain limits to the freedoms listed in our constitution. The most obvious example cited is that we don't have the freedom of speech to hollar "fire" as a joke in a crowded theator. This shout would cause chaos and possible deaths so in the interest of safety for our citizens we are not permitted to do so. In the interest of safety for our citizens I would suggest we need to limit Religious Freedom to practice our religion to only those practices compatible with what is in our constitution and laws, namely the practices of genital mutilation, wife beating, forced conversion by coersion, cruel and unusal punishment for minor infractions of the law such as divorce proceedings etc. etc. etc.I am sure that you could easily add to this list.
- bighoss
  
  There are already some such measures in the laws of the various states. People who beat the living daylights out of minor children under the claim that they are beating the devil (literally) out of them are not protected by the constitution. Human sacrifice in the name of religion is nevertheless MURDER. Withholding vital medical attention to a critically ill child and claiming that all the kid needs is prayer and the ministrations of some self-anointed "faith healer" will get you jail time if the child dies and your asinine and deadly actions are exposed.
  
  The criminal justice system and various fraud investigation units ought to do a better job of investigating so-called "faith healers" like the despicable Benny Hinn and exposing their false claims.
  
  Take some comfort in the recent exposure of the infamous Crouch family, of the TBN network. See the link below for more information. The sleazy weasel Paul Crouch and his pink-haired ex-wife (who still hangs around on their network to help raise money) have reaped huge largesse from their "Praise the Lord" (and pass the collection basket) shenanigans, living in multiple lavish residences, driving hugely expensive cars, and paying themselves hfat salaries, while sucking in contributions from gullible and ignorant sheeple who believe the certifiable baloney Paul and Jan spoon feed them. Let's hope this family spat and the shocking revelations it is inspiring will sink their sorry ship.
  http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-22/news/312259…