- 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 10/14/14 at 5:39 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:39 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Even then, that's a Fourth Amendment violation.
Unless the city/state plans on kicking down doors and taking the sermons up anyway, there wont be any first amendment violations here.
0
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:39 pm to the808bass
quote:
None of what you said made sense. Keep plowing away.
It makes perfect sense, in fact it's the only post in the last few pages that isn't an emotionally charged outburst. You simply cannot acknowledge it.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:42 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
It makes perfect sense, in fact it's the only post in the last few pages that isn't an emotionally charged outburst. You simply cannot acknowledge it.
An incorrect position, stated however calmly, cannot be remediated by the zen-like demeanor of the purveyor of the incorrect position
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:43 pm to Roger Klarvin
No. Using your logic, a person imprisoned by the police for something they've said isn't a violation of their freedom of speech because 1) the police did it and 2) the imprisoned can still technically "speak."
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:44 pm to genro
quote:
Klarvin agrees it's political intimidation.
It's intimidation in intent only, the action itself is perfectly legal.
quote:
He agress the churches and preachers are being targeted.
Not simply on a whim, though. It's a spiteful response to a religiously driven lawsuit. Or are we pretending there are a lot of non-church goers willing to sue over this?
quote:
He agrees those churches and preachers aren't actually on the lawsuit.
I never said that, nor do I know that. nobody in this thread does, not even those claiming they do. The pastors may be directly or indirectly involved, they may not be. If they aren't, you've been told what will happen.
quote:
Yet it is not impeding their free exercise of religion.
Correct, though much of the rest of the post isn't.
quote:
That's insanely irrational.
If everything in your post were accurate, I would agree.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:46 pm to the808bass
quote:
Using your logic, a person imprisoned by the police for something they've said isn't a violation of their freedom of speech because 1) the police did it and 2) the imprisoned can still technically "speak."
I have used no such logic, your example is no way comparable, and you are no closer to drawing attention away from the issue at hand than you were before making this post.
Good try though.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:48 pm to Roger Klarvin
It's using the same argument you're using.
If intimidation of 1st amendment rights is done through the legal system it is not a violation of the 1st amendment. You made the argument in this thread.
If intimidation of 1st amendment rights is done through the legal system it is not a violation of the 1st amendment. You made the argument in this thread.
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 5:50 pm
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:49 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
An incorrect position, stated however calmly, cannot be remediated by the zen-like demeanor of the purveyor of the incorrect position
I'm not right because I'm calm, I just happen to be both right and one of the few calm ones in this case. Everyone here could be just as calm as me and, as you say, they would still be incorrect.
The emotion with which many (and Im not talking about you) are approaching this topic just makes it easier to shed light on the reasons behind their posts.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:50 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
This is intimidation in practice, but legally it isn't.
Yay representative government.
The Chicago Way.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:52 pm to the808bass
quote:
It's using the same argument you're using.
No, it's not. In your example, an action clearly enumerated as illegal in the bill of rights has already been carried out by force.
Have the pastors already had their sermons taken by forced? Have they been punished for not turning them over? Has ANYTHING actually been done to forcibly make them hand over their sermons yet?
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:52 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:It is unconstitutional
It's intimidation in intent only, the action itself is perfectly legal.
quote:Why on earth do you keep mentioning whims? Do you think violations are only violations if they're done haphazardly and without purpose? WTF.
Not simply on a whim, though. It's a spiteful response to a religiously driven lawsuit. Or are we pretending there are a lot of non-church goers willing to sue over this?
Whether or not the people who sued attend church is totally beside the point. It's like, you think persecution of religion is okay because... they actually are religious? If they weren't religious, it would be wrong? I'm so confused by your view of this.
quote:It's in the article. What are we discussing here? Are you cherry-picking which parts are true and which aren't? We need some clarification.
I never said that, nor do I know that. nobody in this thread does, not even those claiming they do. The pastors may be directly or indirectly involved, they may not be. If they aren't, you've been told what will happen.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:55 pm to TexasTiger89
quote:A little?
I'm thinking Mayor Parker is taking things a little too far.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:56 pm to genro
quote:
It is unconstitutional
And yet not one person can actually explain why.
quote:
It's in the article.
The article is also clearly slanted in favor of the lawsuit AND incorrectly describes the law in question. Why on earth should I believe them, especially given that that is the ONE piece of information required for their outrage to be justified?
I'm not saying they are involved, but forgive me for not trusting an article with demonstrable flaws that REQUIRES that tidbit in order to even serve a purpose.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:57 pm to the808bass
quote:
If intimidation of 1st amendment rights is done through the legal system it is not a violation of the 1st amendment.
Well technically that's true (assuming it goes through the Supreme Court eventually) but not my argument.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:I can, quite easily. If the government subpoenas churches of citizens who sue, that would intimidate churches from expressing their viewpoints.
And yet not one person can actually explain why.
No one's explained it because it's obvious.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I'm not saying they are involved, but forgive me for not trusting an article with demonstrable flaws that REQUIRES that tidbit in order to even serve a purpose.
Textual criticism as a basis for your position. Kudos.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 6:06 pm to the808bass
What I learned is that Roger supports religious persecution. His justification: the persecutors have a good reason and the persecuted really are religious. He really didn't make any other points
Posted on 10/14/14 at 6:06 pm to genro
He has some religious angst.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 6:07 pm to genro
quote:
I can, quite easily. If the government subpoenas churches of citizens who sue, that would intimidate churches from expressing their viewpoints.
Except that isn't what is happening. Until the subpoena is upheld in spite of the churches/pastors not being involved, or the city does it anyway, they aren't being intimidated. If they are not involved it is a hollow threat that they KNOW is hollow. It is essentially the city puffing out their chest in that instance.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 6:08 pm to the808bass
Would you trust an article from a tansgender writer with factual flaws claiming the pastors WERE involved?
Of course you wouldn't, nor should you.
And even if the article is accurate on that fact, the subpoena will never be carried out. There is no scenario in which you have a point unless you are willing to suggest the city intends to do this regardless.
Of course you wouldn't, nor should you.
And even if the article is accurate on that fact, the subpoena will never be carried out. There is no scenario in which you have a point unless you are willing to suggest the city intends to do this regardless.
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 6:09 pm
Page 6 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News