- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:13 pm to darkhorse
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:13 pm to darkhorse
quote:
They can't endorse a party or candidate. However, they can advise their people on biblical content and what to look for in a candidate.
Can they do this?
quote:
training video by a member of a local pastor council explaining the rules for collecting signatures for a ballot initiative
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 1:14 pm
1
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:13 pm to FalseProphet
Do you not understand that if citizens sue the gov't, and then your church is subpoenaed by the gov't, that in itself is a suppression tactic?
To put it another way, they are prohibiting the free exercise of religion
To put it another way, they are prohibiting the free exercise of religion
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:14 pm to cwill
quote:
Feldman is defending the subpoenas by pointing out a training video by a member of a local pastor council explaining the rules for collecting signatures for a ballot initiative. This illustrates that these folks were politically involved and therefore the speech was not protected, according to Feldman.
The last time I checked, pastors (if they are American citizens) don't lose their citizenship rights once they're called to the ministry.
Unless that training video was filmed with said pastor in the pulpit, I can't see where he crossed the line. (And, even then, still didn't, since only endorsement of candidates is prohibited under IRS rules.)
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:14 pm to FalseProphet
Based on common sense. You'll find that laughable which will merely underscore my earlier points re: lawyers.
A pastor participating in a signature drive which subsequently becomes the subject of a lawsuit to which the pastor is not a party does not mean the pastor's sermons are subject to subpoena.
A pastor participating in a signature drive which subsequently becomes the subject of a lawsuit to which the pastor is not a party does not mean the pastor's sermons are subject to subpoena.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:15 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
ah ha! So there it is.
AH HA!!!!! nope.
quote:
by pointing out a training video by a member of a local pastor council explaining the rules for collecting signatures for a ballot initiative.
Don't give 2 flips about what he belongs to. Being part of a council does not = giving up personal rights. At all.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:16 pm to genro
quote:
Do you not understand that if citizens sue the gov't, and then your church is subpoenaed by the gov't, that in itself is a suppression tactic?
Depends what the suit is about, what the church's involvement is and what the subpoena is for.
Being a church doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you like and not be subject to the laws of this country.
quote:
To put it another way, they are prohibiting the free exercise of religion
My religion says gays can marry. Louisiana is prohibiting the free exercise of religion!
Same for mormons and multiple wives.
All freedoms have limitations. It's a balancing act the courts must perform. This isn't new. It's been going on for centuries.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:16 pm to genro
quote:
Do you not understand that if citizens sue the gov't, and then your church is subpoenaed by the gov't, that in itself is a suppression tactic?
The citizens are suing over the amount of names disqualified. Why should the city not seek information from those organizing the collection of signatures?
Are you saying it's not relevant at all.
I still don't think you understand what a subpoena is.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:17 pm to darkhorse
quote:Being involved in a political campaign does.
Being part of a council does not = giving up personal rights. At all.
You said it yourself. Now you're arguing against yourself.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:18 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:If they use any means to try to intimidate your religion from saying that, then yes, yes they are.
My religion says gays can marry. Louisiana is prohibiting the free exercise of religion!
One way of doing that would be to subpoena your church after an LGBT-related lawsuit.
Now, if you can imagine that, the shoe on the other foot as it were, how do you feel?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:18 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Why should the city not seek information from those organizing the collection of signatures?
So the religious sermons are connected to this collection of signatures how?
You water carriers for obvious abuse don't do your side any good.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:18 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
training video by a member of a local pastor council explaining the rules for collecting signatures for a ballot initiative
Are they endorsing a candidate?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:19 pm to Lg
You can't make up the law as you go along son. Your name is not Scalia.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:20 pm to the808bass
quote:
So the religious sermons are connected to this collection of signatures how?
The question in discovery is whether the information sought is likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.
In this case, it sounds like there is a high likelihood that they encourage individuals to get involved in the signature process. That inference alone would seemingly be enough.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:20 pm to FalseProphet
quote:They should.
Why should the city not seek information from those organizing the collection of signatures?
Instead, they subpoena'd religious sermons from the privacy and sanctity of a house of worship.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:21 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
quote:
Being part of a council does not = giving up personal rights. At all.
Being involved in a political campaign does.
What???
quote:
ou said it yourself. Now you're arguing against yourself.
Try that once more please.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:21 pm to genro
quote:
Instead, they subpoena'd religious sermons from the privacy and sanctity of a house of worship.
Privacy and sanctity of a public performance? That exists now?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:23 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Privacy and sanctity of a public performance?
Whether a church service is considered a "public performance" depends on the religious views of that particular church. Religion has the right to privacy and exclusivity if they so choose. Or to any degree they so choose. That right has been violated overtly.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:24 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
You can't make up the law as you go along son.
Who's making up law? So are you telling me that a pastor can't tell his congregation to oppose something that goes against the beliefs of his church?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:27 pm to genro
quote:
Whether a church service is considered a "public performance" depends on the religious views of that particular church.
So some public events are private and some are public? I'd love to see authority for that. quote:
Religion has the right to privacy and exclusivity if they so choose.
You have a right to exercise your religion free from government intrusion. The allegations of this case are apparently that the church engaged itself in the political process. Nonetheless, I'd love to see a case where there is a right to privacy when you give a sermon to even 10 people.
quote:
That right has been violated overtly.
It hasn't yet. And the church will get to argue their point. Go figure. We have courts.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:27 pm to the808bass
quote:
A pastor participating in a signature drive which subsequently becomes the subject of a lawsuit to which the pastor is not a party does not mean the pastor's sermons are subject to subpoena.
The lawsuit is over the legitimacy of some signatures and the petition. The churches participated in the signature drives. That being said the coalition and churches would have relevant evidence regarding the signatures. So from there....
A pastor may have been directing his congregants to gather signatures. What if he was directing them to collect signatures from people outside of the Houston city limits? Is that relevant evidence going to the validity of the petition signatures?
Page 14 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News