The History of the 1954 Johnson Amendment

It’s Relationship to Jefferson’s Wall of Separation View,

It’s Unconstitutional Nature, and It’s Remedy in Law – HR 235

By Barbara Ritchie Pond

 

A History of the Johnson Amendment of 1954 and Its Violation of  Rights, Protected by the Bill of Rights within the U.S. Constitution – Amendment 1

 

In 1954, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, faced fierce re-election opposition from anti-leftist groups and conservative Christians.  He successfully changed the IRS code, prohibiting non-profits and churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates.  Such language was a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — the law of the land which states,  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...” Johnson’s IRS insertion was then, and is now, a violation of our individual rights of freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.  Prior to this time, no restrictions on the free speech of church entities and their members existed.  This is all condoned under a false view of Jefferson’s so-called “wall of separation” doctrine.

 

Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Doctrine, Misunderstood/Misused

 

The term “wall of separation” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence.  It is a term which first appeared in a letter from Thomas Jefferson written to the Danbury Baptists.  Neither was Jefferson the author of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

 

Our 3rd President of the United States, James Madison, was its author.  Jefferson wrote about it, but Jefferson was not the mind behind it.  It was patterned after the freedom-of-religion wording (also written primarily by James Madison with input from Baptist groups) within the Virginia Constitution. The term “wall of separation,” as Jefferson explained it, had to do with the non-interference of government into established religions and religious practices. It did not, in Jefferson’s day,  apply to “No  Christian or Church Involvement in Politics.”  It did not prohibit church, pastor, or believer involvement  in the public political arena. 

 

Jefferson said, “In matters of religion, I have considered  that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the power of the General Government….”  Jefferson’s wall-of-separation view was that government could not interfere in religion — religion and religious practice!  Liberals lifted out the “wall of separation” phraseology, and over many years, ascribed it to the opposite view — the non-Jeffersonian view — that religions and religious entities cannot actively involve themselves in elections, government entities, and politics in general.

 

There are those who love to quote scraps of Jefferson, who eliminate the weightier remarks of Jefferson regarding church-state relationships, the moral law, and individual rights.  For example,  Jefferson spoke often of God in His speeches before the American nation.  He also alluded often to God’s “moral law.”  He openly spoke of man’s moral duties in society — not just his duties as an individual. Issues, to Jefferson, were moral — not just political. “Man,”  Jefferson said, “has been subjected by His Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are evidence with which his Creator has furnished him...The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society...their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.”  Yes, Jefferson believed in a Creator God, the moral law of Holy Scripture, and God’s will that man’s morals accompany him into his American citizenship.  [In the Founders’ view, including Jefferson‘s view, this law (called natural law by our founding fathers), was alluded to in the founders’ founding documents. In their view,  man’s rights (based on natural law) were unalterable and of a higher order than a written law of man.  Thus the Constitution confirmed the law and secured the right and bound both individuals and government representatives to a moral code.] 

 

What is this natural law that Jefferson so fiercely adhered to?   Our forefathers all looked to John Locke for that definition.  John Locke said, “The law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others.  The rules that they make for man’s actions must...be conformable to the law of Nature — i.e. to the will of God.”  Jefferson believed that the law of Nature was God’s Law, which was the will of God.  He held with Locke on his definition of natural law.  There can be no question regarding Jefferson’s beliefs on this matter.

 

Furthermore, Jefferson advocated no real wall of separation in education between religion and state-supported institutions of higher learning.  Jefferson said, in his letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, of November 2, 1822, “In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion with a small spice only of fanaticism.  We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house.   The courthouse is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each.  Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others’ preachers and mix in society with perfect harmony.  In our university you know there is no Professorship of Divinity.”

 

Jefferson continues, “A handle (point) has been made of this to disseminate an ideal that this is an institution not merely of no religion but against all religion.  Occasion  was taken at the last meeting of the visitors, to bring forward an idea that might silence this calumny (malicious false charge)...In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation  we can give them, preserving, however, their independence of us and each other...and by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace,  reason, and morality.”  [So much for religious groups not meeting on state university campuses or in public buildings! — Jefferson was for this and instituted it in his university.  Furthermore, he said charges made against him that his institution was not just of no religion but was against all religion were malicious  lies!]

 

Interestingly, President Bush has been criticized for talking to “we, the people” about his praying to God.  Jefferson said during his Presidency, “I offer my sincere prayers to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, that He may long preserve our country in freedom and prosperity.”  He said, “I shall need the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, Who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence, and our riper years with His wisdom and power…”

 

Jefferson’s “wall of separation” was non-interference of government into the church of God — unlike the interference practiced by Lyndon Johnson and others (even by our own U.S. Supreme Court).  Jefferson worried about judicial activism too.  He said, “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.  It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy…. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.  It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves.”  [Obviously, Jefferson would not have supported Marbury v. Madison.  He would not have believed that the supreme law of the land is its justices‘ decisions, but only the Constitution itself.  Jefferson was a strict constructionist; he was not a judicial activist.]

 

The Johnson Amendment of 1954 is unconstitutional!

 

The Johnson Amendment of 1954 is a direct violation by the State of the rights of churches, pastors, and church members.  It is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is the antithesis of Jefferson’s true concept of a “wall of separation.”  The liberals’ Separation of Church and State View is not founded upon the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights, or even upon in the private writings of Jefferson himself.  The only Jeffersonian view of “Separation of Church and State” is that view that government must not interfere in religion or in churches — in their establishment, in their religious free exercise, in their free speech.  The Johnson Amendment must be repealed if individual rights are to be upheld and if the Constitution — the law of the land — is to be obeyed.

 

The Remedy — HR 235 – The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act

 

HR 235, introduced by Representative Jones, if ratified into law, will overturn the unconstitutional  Johnson Amendment of 1954.   The Johnson Amendment violates the free speech of pastors and church members within their physical churches, and is clearly the interference of general government into religion and its free exercise, a violation of the most basic inalienable rights of man, attacking freedom of religion in America and the free speech practices of both a majority and [in some religious sects] a minority of its citizens.   HR 235 must pass Congress in order to return those stolen rights to us.  At present, the State is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, a lawbreaker, and a tyrant over its religious citizens.

End ▬ The History of the 1954 Johnson Amendment,

It’s Relationship to Jefferson’s Wall of Separation View,

And Its Unconstitutional Nature