Curious What "Everyone" thinks on this, Freedom`s Guranateed & Protected

[thomashenry]

And Please Let`s have a Civil Honest Debate.


Pastors "Ordered to turn over sermons"

Now In spite of Personal Views , what do You think of this, Are we not Guaranteed the Freedom of Speech that is afforded to All Civil Sane Legal American Citizens ? it is not as if they{Pastors/Clergy} are yelling Fire in a Crowed theatre or saying something that is new from their view point {Gospel}, have we evolved/devolved, so to speak, to the degree that I would assume that anyone with a differing Public opinion is now to be ostracized & marginalized ?, if not down right intimidated, shouted down with a Virulent & an almost overt threat. This is Tolerance ?

This type of "Collective" behavior/suppression/oppression that has had blatant consequences, for everyone, in other societies in history & has never ended well. Is this that ruse of Political Correctness that is & has been actually raising it`s ugly head, no longer in the shadows that encompasses an Intolerance never before unleashed with an ever growing magnitude it embraces, is it the growing and evolving interpretation {by the few} of the Constitution ?

Article:

In an outrageous act of overreach that the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) rightly branded "an inquisition" and a "witch hunt," the city of Houston has demanded that hundreds of pastors preaching on themes relating to homosexuality and gender identity turn their sermons over to the government for inspection.

So much for the idea that electing a lesbian activist for mayor would have no negative consequences on the religious freedoms of the people of Houston. So much for gay-activist "tolerance."

It was bad enough when Mayor Annise Parker undermined the will of the state by campaigning nationally for the redefinition of marriage when the people of Texas had declared in overwhelming fashion that they did not want marriage redefined.

And it was bad enough when she began to refer to her partner as the "first lady." (What does that make Mayor Parker?)

But it went beyond bad when Parker made clear that getting an LGBT ordinance passed in Houston was an "intensely personal" thing to her. Yes, she said, "The debate is about me. ... It's not academic. It is my life that is being discussed."

What happened to her being an elected official who was put in office to serve the people? What of the massive outpouring of calls to other elected officials protesting the bill?

As the Rev. Max Miller of the Baptist Ministers Association of Houston and Vicinity stated in response to Parker's public comments, "One thing we did hear: It's personal. You cannot represent the people of this city on a personal matter."

Or, as expressed by conservative City Councilman Michael Kubosh, also responding directly to Parker in the same public meeting, "I know you say it's about you, but, mayor, this is really about all of us. It's not really about you; it's about everybody here."

At the heart of the opposition to the bill was concern expressed over the transgender bathroom ordinance. This would allow anyone who identified as transgender to use the bathroom of their choice, regardless of their biological sex, thereby ignoring the rights of a multitude of women and men who would find this a real intrusion.

As noted by Steve Riggle, senior pastor of Grace Community Church and an Executive Committee member of the Houston Area Pastor Council (HAPC), "Forcing women in particular using city facilities to be subjected to cross-dressing men invading their privacy is beyond the pale and offensive to every standard of decency."



The bill also would open the door to potential sexual predators who could use this ordinance as a guise for their perversion.

Unfortunately, Parker was able to push the bill through, despite the opposition, also succeeding in having a petition thrown out that challenged the bill. (It appears that the petition was wrongly rejected as well.)

Now, in a ridiculous attempt to retaliate against those pastors and bully them, Parker's office is demanding that these Christian leaders turn over their sermon texts relating to homosexuality and transgender issues. Pastor Riggle was even "ordered to hand over 'all communications with members of your congregation' regarding the non-discrimination law."

For good reason, the ADF stated that the mayor's actions were "overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious," and they should be flatly rejected for those very reasons. As the ADF explained, "the city is illegitimately demanding that the pastors ... turn over their constitutionally protected sermons and other communications simply so the city can see if the pastors have ever opposed or criticized the city."

In light of this egregious example of gay-activist bullying—the very kind that I and others have documented for years now—I urge every pastor in the city of Houston to address the issues of homosexuality and transgenderism this Sunday, announcing this for the entire world to hear but at the same time, refusing to obey the unrighteous decree of Mayor Parker's office to turn your sermons over for government scrutiny. (This should be done respectfully, in the spirit of Acts 4:19-20; 5:28-29.)

I also urge every congregational member in Houston to tell your pastors that you are standing with them, encouraging them to stand up for what is right in the face of bullying and intimidation.

To my fellow leaders in Houston and around America, let's seize this moment and use it for the glory of God, preaching His love for all people and His real interest in those who identify as LGBT while at the same time proclaiming that His ways are best, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that gender distinctives are not to be discarded or despised.

You have been given a unique opportunity in American history. Now is your time to shine boldly, publicly and without shame.

We are all standing with you.........Dr Michael Brown

[frozensparky]

It's a very biased article and honestly I would love to read an unbiased one. Unfortunately most articles written on this subject will be horribly slanted one way or the other.

[KeepItMoving]

Typical example of "victims" getting power and abusing it in exactly the same way they claim they were victimized. For the government to confiscate the teachings of religious speakers is the kind of thing you read about in fascist countries.

[acrawlingchaos]

I believe that if a religious organization wants to be free from government scrutiny, they should surrender their non-profit status.

[VmissileX]

I believe that if a religious organization wants to be free from government scrutiny, they should surrender their non-profit status.

Strong this.

[Edman316]

I believe that if a religious organization wants to be free from government scrutiny, they should surrender their non-profit status.

Strong this.

I agree. Preach politics = pay taxes or STFU.

[sy2502]

I believe that if a religious organization wants to be free from government scrutiny, they should surrender their non-profit status.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acrawlingchaos again.

[thomashenry]

I believe that if a religious organization wants to be free from government scrutiny, they should surrender their non-profit status.

I Agree.............."Render unto Caesar"

Lifting the chains from the pastors

[acrawlingchaos]

I Agree.............."Render unto Caesar"

Lifting the chains from the pastors

I want to make it clear that I believe this applies to anyone who is requesting special status from the government.

All religious organizations,
All non-profit organizations,
Any citizen who request "welfare"

Those who take government handouts and insist they owe nothing in return are the epitome of entitled.

[thomashenry]

From the Office of Sen. Ted Cruz:






Senator Ted Cruz




I'm proud to stand with the pastors. Religious liberty is the very first protection in the Bill of Rights, the foundation of all our liberties. The City of Houston’s subpoenas demanding that pastors provide the government with copies of their sermons is both shocking and shameful.

For far too long, the federal government has led an assault against religious liberty, and now, sadly, my hometown of Houston is joining the fight.

This is wrong. It's unbefitting of Texans, and it's un-American. The government has no business asking pastors to turn over their sermons.

These subpoenas are a grotesque abuse of power, and the officials who approved them should be held accountable by the people.

The Mayor should be ashamed. And we should all be proud to stand up and defend the pastors who are resisting these blatant attempts to suppress their First Amendment rights.

[acrawlingchaos]

From the Office of Sen. Ted Cruz:

Senator Ted Cruz

I'm proud to stand with the pastors. Religious liberty is the very first protection in the Bill of Rights, the foundation of all our liberties. The City of Houston’s subpoenas demanding that pastors provide the government with copies of their sermons is both shocking and shameful.

For far too long, the federal government has led an assault against religious liberty, and now, sadly, my hometown of Houston is joining the fight.

This is wrong. It's unbefitting of Texans, and it's un-American. The government has no business asking pastors to turn over their sermons.

These subpoenas are a grotesque abuse of power, and the officials who approved them should be held accountable by the people.

The Mayor should be ashamed. And we should all be proud to stand up and defend the pastors who are resisting these blatant attempts to suppress their First Amendment rights.

I have to disagree with Senator Cruz. The Johnson Amendment clearly states that 501 (c)(3) organizations are prohibited from engaging in political activities that favor candidates. When filing as a non-profit organization, the by laws are SELF LIMITING, not limited by the government. When you accept special status, you have agreed to limit yourself... which includes (specifically in this model) discussion of political candidates.

I do not believe for a second the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional. No one is forcing the Church to adopt a non profit status. I also believe that those who seek non profit status should be limited in the resources that are directed to lobbying.

[NorwichGrad]

I want to make it clear that I believe this applies to anyone who is requesting special status from the government.

All religious organizations,
All non-profit organizations,
Any citizen who request "welfare"

Those who take government handouts and insist they owe nothing in return are the epitome of entitled.

YUP!! Agreed 100%. ALL sides are guilty of this..


This is from Alexander Tytler:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

[sy2502]

I am starting to get really scared because I am agreeing with acrawlingchaos's every single post... what's wrong with the world?????


But seriously OP I'll be the first to say they people have a right to say what they please, including what goes against the government, certain laws, etc. But As soon as you start taking money from somebody, that somebody can start dictating the rules for you. At which point you need to choose which you like best: the money or the freedom?

[thomashenry]

I am starting to get really scared because I am agreeing with acrawlingchaos's every single post... what's wrong with the world?????


But seriously OP I'll be the first to say they people have a right to say what they please, including what goes against the government, certain laws, etc. But As soon as you start taking money from somebody, that somebody can start dictating the rules for you. At which point you need to choose which you like best: the money or the freedom?

Freedom EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY TIME

[sumolgi]

This is a violation of the first amendment, plain and simple. Lawyerball time and for sure to be moved into the federal court system...

[GnomusMaximus]

Then churches need to be taxable organizations.

I wonder what would be happening if it was a group of Mosques doing some sort of political activism. The same conservatives would be on that like flies on a turd.

[GKC45]

You don't think they're not doing that already? What rock have you been hiding under?

[acrawlingchaos]

This is a violation of the first amendment, plain and simple. Lawyerball time and for sure to be moved into the federal court system...

Where is the violation? As far as I know, every non-profit organization agrees to the conditions set forth by the IRS, which includes political activism.

If they decide to engage in political activism, they relinquish their 501 status. Acceptance of a 501 status is SELF LIMITING... not limited by the government. You can speak as freely as you want, and the government can dictate the conditions in which special funding is disseminated.

Non Profit organizations should divert ALL resources to what they claim to be.... charity. If you are endorsing or denouncing candidates or spending vast amounts lobbying, than you are not using the funds for the special exception you are asking for.

[thomashenry]

I have to disagree with Senator Cruz. The Johnson Amendment clearly states that 501 (c)(3) organizations are prohibited from engaging in political activities that favor candidates. When filing as a non-profit organization, the by laws are SELF LIMITING, not limited by the government. When you accept special status, you have agreed to limit yourself... which includes (specifically in this model) discussion of political candidates.

I do not believe for a second the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional. No one is forcing the Church to adopt a non profit status. I also believe that those who seek non profit status should be limited in the resources that are directed to lobbying.

The Supreme Court has been clear that the simple act of taxation is not in and of itself a violation of either the First Amendment’s free-exercise or establishment clauses. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible for a tax to violate either or both of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. If a tax were targeted in discriminatory ways or became so oppressive that it substantially constrained a religious group’s ability to function, then it could possibly violate the free-exercise clause. Likewise, the administrative details of enforcing a taxation scheme could become so intricate and require so much interaction between the state and a religious organization that a court would find sufficient entanglement to violate the establishment clause, as interpreted through the Lemon test.

Lemon Test : In its 1971 decision Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court set forth a three-pronged inquiry commonly known as the Lemon test. To pass this test, thereby allowing the display or motto to remain, the government conduct (1) must have a secular purpose, (2) must have a principal or primary effect that does not advance or inhibit religion, and (3) cannot foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

The Johnson Amendment : the history of the Johnson Amendment and how Lyndon Johnson got his amendment to the tax code passed with no legislative analysis, no committee hearings, and no debate. After the presentation, a professor at a local university said, what Johnson did with his amendment to the tax code would have been called a “fat opossum” because it snuck through under cover of darkness. That’s a perfect tag line for the Johnson Amendment.

James D. Davidson, a professor at Purdue wrote an article in the Review of Religious Research (excerpt here) that should be required reading for all pastors. In his article, he explores the political realities of the 1954 U.S. Senate election in Texas that led to the adoption of the Johnson Amendment. After reviewing the legislative and political history of the Johnson Amendment, Davidson concludes:

The ban on electioneering has nothing to do with the First Amendment or Jeffersonian principles of separation of church and state.

Davidson is right. He details in the article how Johnson was motivated to propose his amendment to the tax code as a means of silencing two powerful secular non-profit organizations (Facts Forum and the Committee for Constitutional Government) that were opposing his candidacy for the U.S. Senate because they believed he was soft on communism. Davidson states:

The ban on electioneering is not rooted in constitutional provisions for separation of church and state. It actually goes back to 1954 when Congress was revising the tax code, anti-communism was in full bloom, and elections were taking place in Texas. In this highly-charged political environment, Lyndon Johnson introduced an amendment banning section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt orgaizations from participating in “any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.” . . . Johnson was not trying to address any constitutional issue related to separation of curch and state; and he did not offer the amendment because of anything that churches had done. Churches were not banned from endorsing candidates because they are religious organizations; they were banned because they have the same tax-exempt status as Facts Forum and the Committee for Constitutional Government, the right-wing organizations that Johnson was really after.

The Johnson Amendment is a big fat opposum. It was a bill that got inserted into the tax code through back-room deals made by a powerful Senator who wanted to be able to seek reelection at any cost and, in the process, trampling freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. We have grown up with a generation of chuch-goers that believe it is illegal for their pastor to address candidates and elections in light of Scripture or church doctrine when there is no valid justification for believing that.

The Johnson Amendment was unconstutional when it was passed and it is unconstitutional now. It’s high time that we shined the light of the Constitution on this particular fat opposum.

[sumolgi]

Where is the violation? As far as I know, every non-profit organization agrees to the conditions set forth by the IRS, which includes political activism

Political activism and non profit status aside, it looks to me to be blatant attempt to abridge free speech through governmental intimidation. That's all.

[acrawlingchaos]

The Supreme Court has been clear that the simple act of taxation is not in and of itself a violation of either the First Amendment’s free-exercise or establishment clauses. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible for a tax to violate either or both of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. If a tax were targeted in discriminatory ways or became so oppressive that it substantially constrained a religious group’s ability to function, then it could possibly violate the free-exercise clause. Likewise, the administrative details of enforcing a taxation scheme could become so intricate and require so much interaction between the state and a religious organization that a court would find sufficient entanglement to violate the establishment clause, as interpreted through the Lemon test.

Lemon Test : In its 1971 decision Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court set forth a three-pronged inquiry commonly known as the Lemon test. To pass this test, thereby allowing the display or motto to remain, the government conduct (1) must have a secular purpose, (2) must have a principal or primary effect that does not advance or inhibit religion, and (3) cannot foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

The Johnson Amendment : the history of the Johnson Amendment and how Lyndon Johnson got his amendment to the tax code passed with no legislative analysis, no committee hearings, and no debate. After the presentation, a professor at a local university said, what Johnson did with his amendment to the tax code would have been called a “fat opossum” because it snuck through under cover of darkness. That’s a perfect tag line for the Johnson Amendment.

James D. Davidson, a professor at Purdue wrote an article in the Review of Religious Research (excerpt here) that should be required reading for all pastors. In his article, he explores the political realities of the 1954 U.S. Senate election in Texas that led to the adoption of the Johnson Amendment. After reviewing the legislative and political history of the Johnson Amendment, Davidson concludes:

The ban on electioneering has nothing to do with the First Amendment or Jeffersonian principles of separation of church and state.

Davidson is right. He details in the article how Johnson was motivated to propose his amendment to the tax code as a means of silencing two powerful secular non-profit organizations (Facts Forum and the Committee for Constitutional Government) that were opposing his candidacy for the U.S. Senate because they believed he was soft on communism. Davidson states:

The ban on electioneering is not rooted in constitutional provisions for separation of church and state. It actually goes back to 1954 when Congress was revising the tax code, anti-communism was in full bloom, and elections were taking place in Texas. In this highly-charged political environment, Lyndon Johnson introduced an amendment banning section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt orgaizations from participating in “any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.” . . . Johnson was not trying to address any constitutional issue related to separation of curch and state; and he did not offer the amendment because of anything that churches had done. Churches were not banned from endorsing candidates because they are religious organizations; they were banned because they have the same tax-exempt status as Facts Forum and the Committee for Constitutional Government, the right-wing organizations that Johnson was really after.

The Johnson Amendment is a big fat opposum. It was a bill that got inserted into the tax code through back-room deals made by a powerful Senator who wanted to be able to seek reelection at any cost and, in the process, trampling freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. We have grown up with a generation of chuch-goers that believe it is illegal for their pastor to address candidates and elections in light of Scripture or church doctrine when there is no valid justification for believing that.

The Johnson Amendment was unconstutional when it was passed and it is unconstitutional now. It’s high time that we shined the light of the Constitution on this particular fat opposum.

The Constitution does not guarantee tax exempt status for the Church. It was not given to the Church after an in-depth political or legal analysis... it was given to the Church because it was customary.

If the Johnson Amendment was removed, vast amounts of tax code would have to be altered in response. IMO the Johnson Amendment is just.

Political activism and non profit status aside, it looks to me to be blatant attempt to abridge free speech through governmental intimidation. That's all.

If you put political activism and non-profit status aside...... you don't have government interference.

The easiest way to keep the Government out of your business is to not get them involved.

[sumolgi]

If you put political activism and non-profit status aside...... you don't have government interference.

The easiest way to keep the Government out of your business is to not get them involved.

I understand what you're saying but then we get into semantics... in this case political activism is also spiritual guidance (not that I agree with that particularly but it is what it is) so where's the line and who draw's it?? And even if the status was for profit... I'd have to wonder if the city wouldn't play some version of the same game with them regardless since they are more bothered by the content than anything else. This is all a little too right wing for me but I really hate to see anyone bullied for speaking their mind.

[sy2502]

I understand what you're saying but then we get into semantics... in this case political activism is also spiritual guidance (not that I agree with that particularly but it is what it is) so where's the line and who draw's it?? And even if the status was for profit... I'd have to wonder if the city wouldn't play some version of the same game with them regardless since they are more bothered by the content than anything else. This is all a little too right wing for me but I really hate to see anyone bullied for speaking their mind.

Funny because the latest Supreme Court case addressing freedom of speech was, if I remember correctly, the Westboro Baptist Church case. Which established they had every right to say the disgusting and repulsive things they were saying because they qualified as protected speech.
The case in question isn't about saying disagreable things but, as acrawlingchaos said, "political activities that favor candidates." They are different.

[acrawlingchaos]

I understand what you're saying but then we get into semantics... in this case political activism is also spiritual guidance (not that I agree with that particularly but it is what it is) so where's the line and who draw's it??

The Johnson Amendment draws it, and the law is drawn when when religious organizations use donated funds to denounce or support a particular candidate.

And even if the status was for profit... I'd have to wonder if the city wouldn't play some version of the same game with them regardless since they are more bothered by the content than anything else.

There would be no legal precedence. There is legal precedence to limit speech of those seeking special exemption.

This is all a little too right wing for me but I really hate to see anyone bullied for speaking their mind.

It isn't very right at all... very left.

Either way... it isn't bullying. The government has simply declared that if you want special exemption from taxation, you are limited in the use of how these funds are used. It seems more than reasonable.

Nothing is stopping these Pastors from stepping off the pulpit and being political active and supporting specific candidates, but it must be done on their dime, not ours.

[Phattso]

I am a Christian, but I am not a religious zealot and I do not believe anyone here is, either. I personally would not want any preacher to tell me who to vote for or to tell me to not like gays or attempt to influence my personal beliefs or judge people's lifestyles. On the other hand, I would not want my mayor to act like the IRS and target groups based on their beliefs, unless it is hate speech or something against the law.

I'm not offering a solution, other than of a preacher started talking politics in a sermon, I will walk out.

Not a gay lover. Just an all-people respecter.

[acrawlingchaos]

I am a Christian, but I am not a religious zealot and I do not believe anyone here is, either. I personally would not want any preacher to tell me who to vote for or to tell me to not like gays or attempt to influence my personal beliefs or judge people's lifestyles. On the other hand, I would not want my mayor to act like the IRS and target groups based on their beliefs, unless it is hate speech or something against the law.

I'm not offering a solution, other than of a preacher started talking politics in a sermon, I will walk out.

Not a gay lover. Just an all-people respecter.

I would be interested to know what exactly caused her to proceed with a subpoena. Reading up on some of the Mayors antics, I will have to agree with you that her behavior is embarrassing. She comes across as self serving and ignorant.

[Phattso]

I would be interested to know what exactly caused her to proceed with a subpoena. Reading up on some of the Mayors antics, I will have to agree with you that her behavior is embarrassing. She comes across as self serving and ignorant.

Not sure. There could have been a more productive way, but she chose an over-the-top power-grab basically. Lawyers all over the country are going to be all over this. Since the mayor is gay, she over-blew it with anger and a knee-jerk response. I expect she will not get away with it.

[thomashenry]

i would be interested to know what exactly caused her to proceed with a subpoena. Reading up on some of the mayors antics, i will have to agree with you that her behavior is embarrassing. She comes across as self serving and ignorant.

winner winner chicken dinner :]

[Brackneyc]

Not sure. There could have been a more productive way, but she chose an over-the-top power-grab basically. Lawyers all over the country are going to be all over this. Since the mayor is gay, she over-blew it with anger and a knee-jerk response. I expect she will not get away with it.

Not to simply be argumentative, but I suspect she will.

[Phattso]

Not to simply be argumentative, but I suspect she will.

Always ok to disagree and she might. One of the main reasons I think she won't, is because it could set a precedence for any politician and for consideration of new laws that are possibly unconstitutional.