- 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 3:20 pm to Vegas Bengal
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:20 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
conservatives wrap themselves in the victim flag on this board each and every day.
Only when it pertains to our religion and our guns.
1
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:21 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
They will claim anti-homosexuality sermons are either hate speech or political speech and then claim preaching against this goes against their tax exempt status. Let's not be naive. We all know the end game here.
So if that's the "end game" and these churches are violating the law, then problem solved. Tax exempt status pulled.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:22 pm to genro
quote:
f sermons are subject to governmental review, preachers would be intimidated from freely saying what they want.
Yes, if sermons were subject to random governmental review that would be a problem, but they're not and this is not an example of that.
quote:
Hell a precedent is already set. Preach something the government doesn't like, and they will demand you tell them about it. You don't see how that quashes and intimidates the free practice of religion?
No. Get involved in a political battle and campaign against an ordinance, have a political ally file a lawsuit based on a petition you collected signatures for where the validity of the sigs are in doubt THEN you may be exposed to a subpoena.
And how is that going to stifle their practice of firebrand religion? Are they going to have to stop ranting about the sin of gay?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:23 pm to Lg
quote:
Only when it pertains to our religion and our guns.
Bitter clingers, the lot of you. Obama was right.
quote:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
The man was right.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:25 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
cwill, if you cannot see how this is an attempt to silence the opposition, then I truly cannot help you.
Is it that you can't articulate how a preacher who delivers his sermon to 100s to 1000s each weekend would be silenced by producing the text of his sermon to others?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:27 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:No. I'm saying what I said. Read what I said.
So you're saying reading past sermons will intimidate preachers from freely saying what they want....
quote:The vast majority of church sermons absolutely are not. And regardless, it is their choice.
I hate to break this to you but their sermons are on television.
quote:Criticism of a church or religion is perfectly acceptable and falls under freedom of speech
Many of them taped. Remember Rev. Wright? I didn't see any conservatives upset by folks going back and picking apart and cherry picking his sermons. Now all of a sudden it's a horrible thing.
A government intimidating a religion is an entirely separate issue. Was Rev Wright subpoenaed because a church-member once sued the city of Chicago? (Answer: No). That would be wrong.
quote:False. That's not up for you to decide. There are plenty of houses of worships of all religions that WOULD NOT welcome you. It's not your decision, it's theirs. They can practice their religion however they want, including determining how private/public their sermons are. We've gone over this.
Also, these sermons aren't secret. Anyone can walk into a church and hear them.
quote:It's already happened. Too late.
If it does, then the judge can quash the subpoena.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:29 pm to cwill
quote:
Yes, if sermons were subject to random governmental review that would be a problem, but they're not and this is not an example of that.
I've seen this a few times. The fact that the gov't has a reason makes it WORSE. If they reviewed things on a whim that would just be weird. They are doing it because of a citizen lawsuit. That's direct intimidation.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:30 pm to genro
quote:
They are doing it because of a citizen lawsuit. That's direct intimidation.
No. The churches were apart of the process that led to the lawsuit.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:31 pm to FalseProphet
quote:You're right. They preached things that made people sue the city. Now the city wants to know what they preached.
The churches were apart of the process that led to the lawsuit.
And the worst part is you think that's okay and don't understand the implication.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:32 pm to cwill
quote:
Is it that you can't articulate how a preacher who delivers his sermon to 100s to 1000s each weekend would be silenced by producing the text of his sermon to others?
I appreciate an honest debate, and that is (apparently) what we are having. So, do you honsetly think the intent of the mayor's legal staff is to review sermons to determine if there was some form of crime committed? Or are they sending a message to not oppose the mayor's ballot initiatives? What is the intent of the subpeona? (hint - the mayor and her staff realize now they probably took this a bit too far)
We are (obviously) going to see this eye to eye. But I can guarantee you, if a particular cause you were passionate about was made to do the same I would fight for your right to express your opposition. Period.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:34 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Also, these sermons aren't secret. Anyone can walk into a church and hear them.
What if the sermons aren't written down or taped? Would the pastor then be deposed? I am preaching tonight and all I have is which scripture I'll be speaking about.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:36 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
quote:
They are doing it because of a citizen lawsuit. That's direct intimidation.
No. The churches were apart of the process that led to the lawsuit.
So you'd be OK if the Churches had their lawyers subpoena the mayor to turn over a list of everyone she's ever had a lesbian encounter with? Perhaps also demand a list of all homosexuals working in the Houston City Government and everyone they had homosexual encounters with as well. After all, those encounters were part of the process that lead to all this, right?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:41 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
The man was right.
Well he had to be right about at least one thing. His rate on being "right" isn't very good.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:41 pm to DD44
quote:
So you'd be OK if the Churches had their lawyers subpoena the mayor to turn over a list of everyone she's ever had a lesbian encounter with? Perhaps also demand a list of all homosexuals working in the Houston City Government and everyone they had homosexual encounters with as well. After all, those encounters were part of the process that lead to all this, right?
How do you relate that to the lawsuit?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:43 pm to cwill
quote:
How do you relate that to the lawsuit?
You apparently don't understand the wide net that is cast in discovery. If it was wrong, the judge would stop it. No need to worry about it.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:44 pm to cwill
It relates to the lawsuit about as much as those sermons. That's the point.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:45 pm to DD44
quote:
It relates to the lawsuit about as much as those sermons. That's the point.
You're analogy is very tenuous. But, if they can show relevance, discovery is discovery.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:46 pm to TK421
quote:
Liberals used to value the first amendment.
When was that?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:47 pm to genro
quote:
've seen this a few times. The fact that the gov't has a reason makes it WORSE. If they reviewed things on a whim that would just be weird.
That it is part of and the heart of a lawsuit about the validity of signatures doesn't bother me, though I think their subpoena was over broad and as I have stated many times within this thread, it will likely be extensively narrowed.
And I would definitely find government demands for any citizen documents without having a connection to a legitimate legal process much more frightening. You may be the only person in the world who would not.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:49 pm to cwill
quote:That is frightening.
And I would definitely find government demands for any citizen documents without having a connection to a legitimate legal process much more frightening. You may be the only person in the world who would not.
But religious freedom has specific protection and in fact was the impetus for this country being settled in the first place. When you consider that, as well as the direction this country is heading, I consider that more frightening. And no, I'm not the only one.
Page 18 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News