The new speaker’s view is “the First Amendment for me but not for thee.”

The newly elected speaker of the House of Representatives, J. Michael Johnson (R-La.), spent years as a practicing lawyer before his election to Congress in 2016, focusing in particular on free speech and free exercise of religion cases under the First Amendment.

Johnson’s hard-right political and religious views are well known. Johnson is an evangelical Christian who has condemned homosexuality as “inherently unnatural” and called same-sex marriage “the dark harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy that could doom even the strongest republic.” He served as spokesperson for the Alliance Defense Fund (now known as the Alliance Defending Freedom) whose website touts the “sanctity of life” and “the creative capacity of the union between a man and a woman.”

Less understood is Johnson’s litigation history, and what it suggests regarding his beliefs on the nature of individual rights under the U.S. Constitution and the role of religion in government. So I read about a dozen of the First Amendment cases he was involved in before he went into politics.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    TL;DR;

    Johnson’s theory, summed up, appears to be what might be dubbed, “the First Amendment for me but not for thee.” As he has described it in his own words, “the founders wanted to protect the church from the encroaching state, not the other way around.”

    But only when that church is Christian.

    Long form article doesn’t need to be.

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pick uo any history book. This is verifiably false. Johnson doesn’t remember the Founders came from a place whence the king changed religion, everyone converted or died. This is what he is advocating for, because that is what happens with State sponsored religions, no one can dissent.