No Mr. Speaker, It Doesn’t Work That Way

On July 12, 2025, Speaker Mike Johnson felt empowered to change the long standing principle of the separation of church and state.  In his press release, entitled, ‘The True Meaning of the Separation of Church and State, Mr. Johnson advocates for the plaintiffs in a Texas lawsuit and hopes that the federal court in Texas concurs in an opinion by The IRS, giving churches the right to advocate from the pulpit on behalf of political candidates.  Once again, Mr. Johnson is asking The Establishment Clause to take a back seat to Christian religious freedom.

In Johnson's press release, he cites the fact that the origins of religious freedom in our country were much akin to a one way door.  He states that the definition of the wall of separation, as described by Jefferson in 1802, was to simply protect the church from the state and not the state from the church.  But Mr. Johnson cherry picks his history and fails to mention Jefferson as the 1777 author of The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.  The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was the model that Madison used to craft The First Amendment in 1789.  And thankfully, it was the basis for our nonsecular constitution.  The core concepts of The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom were:

• No one can be forced to attend a religious service or support a religious institution
• People cannot be harmed for their religious beliefs
• People can fully express and defend their religious beliefs
• Religious beliefs do not affect civil rights
• The rights in the statue are natural and cannot be taken away

Each of the key concepts in The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom are intended to protect individual civil liberties.  This is by no means a document drafted to protect the church from the state.  The founders based their construct of The US Constitution on this document, resulting in what some call a Godless constitution.

Mr. Johnson’s advocacy for repeal of The Johnson Amendment echoes both The President and SCOTUS in their drive to choose  religious freedom cases (Catholic Charities, Maumoud).   We all know that what defines these efforts is privilege; privilege for Christians.

The repeal of The Johnson amendment would result in a massive flow of tax deductible political contributions.  In his stretch for religious freedom, Mr. Johnson fails to mention the tax implications and the flow of dark money through churches.  

A little honestly on the part of The Speaker in his attempt to redefine The Johnson Amendment would be appreciated.  His failure to discuss the flow of dark money through churches and into The House is a veiled attempt at cash flow to candidates and privilege to Christians.