The end of the first amendment
- Thread starter BombadEER
- Start date
I agree. It's extreme. Could never happen here.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/14/city-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons.html
And then there's the truth, not Fake News from FOX.... So SAD!
[City attorneys] were looking into what instructions pastors gave out to those collecting signatures for a referendum on the non-discrimination law. (What exactly the pastors said, and what the collectors knew about the rules, is one of the key issues in pending litigation around whether opponents of the law gathered enough signatures for a referendum.)
Feldman said the pastors made their sermons relevant to the case by using the pulpit to do political organizing. That included encouraging congregation members to sign petitions and help gather signatures for equal rights ordinance foes, who largely take issue with the rights extended to gay and transgender residents.
“There’s no question, the wording was overly broad. But I also think there was some deliberate misinterpretation on the other side,” [Houston mayor Annise] Parker said at a press conference. “The goal is to find out if there were specific instructions given on how the petitions should be accurately filled out. It’s not about, ‘What did you preach on last Sunday?'”
To reiterate: The mayor’s office is not interested in what they preached, or how the pastors feel about Parker or her sexual orientation. (Those things are all well protected under the First Amendment, as they should be.) All officials want to know is what kinds of instructions the pastors gave out with respect to collecting petition signatures, and whether what they said agrees with what they’re arguing in court while appealing the referendum.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/houston.asp
You don't believe that do you? The Mayor was trying to suppress the pastors.
I believe that since the petitions were rejected because of irregularities and that the organizations sued to have them re-instated that they should be able to provide documentation to support their viewpoint. And if instructions were given from the pulpit, those are part of the discovery. The legal teams from both sides have the right to see that information, it's the law.
Discovery, in the law of the United States and other countries, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.
Just tax them already. We all know they are already a PAC. They tell their congregation how to vote and whom to vote for.
Tax them and let them say whatever the hell they want.
Tax them and let them say whatever the hell they want.
Oh yes, the completely unbiased snopes. Of course none of that explains subpoenas for sermons, unless you think their sermons were something like, "While you're turning in your Bibles to Luke 5:1-11 let give some instructions to those collecting signatures."
To reiterate the pastors were issued subpoenas for sermons and had to sue to get the order dropped.
I've seen enough nutjob pastors on TV and doing interviews and whatnot to believe that it's very much like that in their churches. It honestly shocks me that they have anybody in their congregation
You obviously missed the other post about discovery in the organizations suit to re-instate the petitions for their referendum. Had the organizations not sued but instead went back and obtained the proper amount of valid signatures no sermons would have been asked for.
In their attempt to short-cut or side-step the legalities of a properly presented petition they opened the door to having all instructions for conducting the signature process open to the court. That would include instructions from the pulpit included in those sermons.
The sword of justice cuts both ways. Frankly, the attorneys for the organizations suing the city should have seen this, bad planning or their part.
So your argument has gone from its fake news to its the pastors' faults their constitutional rights are being abridged.
It today's world a nutjob is anyone who says something with which I disagree. What disturbing words did you hear? Who said it?
You do realize that churches and pastors are not permitted to endorse specific candidates for office? Nor speak against specific candidates for office?
Really. You think a person loses one's basic constitutional rights because she or he is ordained?
Are you really this stupid or is it an act?
CHURCHES POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY AND TAX EXEMPT STATUS
Political activity by a Church can jeopardize its tax-exempt status under IRC § 501(c)(3).
Partisan Campaign Support or Opposition Prohibited:
A church, as a tax-exempt organization under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) § 501(c)(3), is absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign in support or opposition to any candidate for elective public office. See Treasury Regulation §1.501(c)(3)---1(c)(3)(iii).
This prohibition applies to all national (federal), state, or local elective public office campaigns.
[laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing]
This says nothing about what a pastor can and cannot do politically. It says what a church can do and maintain tax exempt status. A church can still endorse candidates. They just cannot do so and maintain tax exempt status under the law. A pastor is wholly free to endorse candidates. He just cannot do so from the platform of the church and maintain tax-exempt status for church. Also what you cite overstates the reach of the law into the affairs of the church. As to your question, it looks like you really are that stupid. Further, the inquiry in question had nothing to do with tax exemption. The Houston mayoral office was seeking to intimidate and controls speech.
That's incorrect. BombadEER posted a link to a story under the title "The end of the First Amendment". I read the article in the link and commented that I thought the author's views were extreme (exercising my First Amendment right). You posted another link touting that the same was happening in Houston. I read that linked story and did my own research to see what else I could find on the same story.
Amazingly, the first thing that popped up in a Google search was the Snopes piece which had more detail than the piece from FOX, background on the suit filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom representing the pastors from the various Houston churches who had presented the original petitions. The Snopes story is very complete and highly annotated with other stories referencing the same topic.
I made the tongue-in-cheek comment about the fake news from FOX, that topic seems to be all the rage, and used the highly annotated Snopes story with quote to detail the side of the story that FOX left out. Other posts have followed to detail the discovery process that the City of Houston is taking to defend the suit brought by ADF and the pastors.
So now you contend that because the pastors and the ADF in Houston have to comply with the law as it pertains to the lawsuit that THEY filed against the City of Houston that their constitutional rights are being abridged?
They can say whatever the hell they want....they will give up their tax-exempt status. Just like I posted in post number 8 of this thread.
I honestly don't remember who it was. It was a black pastor someplace that was being interviewed and what he was saying was so ridiculous that I just changed the channel and put it out of my mind.
You would think after being put in his place on so many occasions for about half thinking things through he would learn a lesson.
[laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing]
You were wrong again, but that has never stopped you before. Extra ghay laughing men to cover the butthurt.
I agree ... and I really try to not make statements that are going to be inferred as an over-generalization, and I certainly don't believe that this is going in most, or even a high percentage of churches. This would be a very small minority. But to think that it doesn't happen at all is kind of ridiculous as well. There are nutjobs everywhere. In every country, in every race, in every ideology, in every religion.
I agree with everything but the last sentence. The City of Houston has every right to request documentation through discovery to defend themselves in court, including the content of sermons. It's the law!
Since I was once unconstitutionally subpoenaed for church records (actually, it was my administrative assistant's name on the subpoena since the mayor thought she may be easier to intimidate) I may have been asked about my experience and have a little more inside knowledge than snopes.
No it isn't. He posted someone's interpretation of the law. Probably Reverend Flynn's.
How does that relate to the lawsuit filed against the City of Houston by the ADF?