City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

[Orogeny]

It’s Thursday night, so maybe my brain is not as fresh as it would be…

But where in the Snopes article do you see them say this is false? I can’t see it.

Thanks in advance.

They changed their page. They call it a “mixture”. That means that part is true and part is false. Initially, they agreed that there were subpoenas but they said that the claim that the subpoenas included sermons that mentioned homosexuality, the mayor, etc… was false. That has now been removed.

Peace

Tim

 

[CaptFun]

OK - 8 o’clock, Day 1 of a better administration, the EEOC should:

Throw the book at these political oversteppers … and title the press release

“A Prosecution of Hate Crimes”.

 

[Lion_IRC]

The thing I don’t get is why certain (gay lobby) politicians are pushing the boundaries of decency with their relentless intrusion into “bathroom laws” and sexual expression and LGBTQ activism?

That’s not a “political” issue. That’s moral issue.

If the Church has always preached about morality issues, how is it that all of a sudden, those same issues are NOW crossing the line of separation between Church and State?

In this case, it is the State which has launched an intrusion into the privacy of our religion and our sexual morality. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t pick a fight with the Church and expect the Church to remain silent on the anti-church ‘politics’ of gay activism.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The thing I don’t get is why certain (gay lobby) politicians are pushing the boundaries of decency with their relentless intrusion into “bathroom laws” and sexual expression and LGBTQ activism?

That’s not a “political” issue. That’s moral issue.

If the Church has always preached about morality issues, how is it that all of a sudden, those same issues are NOW crossing the line of separation between Church and State?

In this case, it is the State which has launched an intrusion into the privacy of our religion and our sexual morality. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t pick a fight with the Church and expect the Church to remain silent on the anti-church ‘politics’ of gay activism.

That’s exactly right. The Church has had doctrines on genders and marriage, etc. long before the State tried to turn them into “political” issues. Furthermore, from all I’ve read, the only inhibition on a non-profit regarding political speech is the endorsement of candidates. It would not pertain to discussion or the opining on any particular law or bill. Especially since many, if not all civil laws cross over into “religious” territory such as justice, prudence, morality, etc…

 

[mexolic]

christianpost.com/news/houston-sermon-subpoena-scandal-5-things-you-need-to-know-128268/

 

[Vanny]

Wasn’t there a Catholic priest (colorado?) or Cardinal who said he expected to die comfortably in his bed, his successor in jail, and HIS successor to be executed in the public square. Yep it’s coming.

 

[RGCheek]

christianpost.com/news/houston-sermon-subpoena-scandal-5-things-you-need-to-know-128268/

lexpolitico.com/?p=578

The Houston Chronicle reported that:

Most pages were thrown out because those who collected names for the petition were not registered Houston voters or did not sign the petition themselves. Those errors invalidated more than 2,000 pages with about 11,300 signatures

While we lack clarity as to exact numbers, it appears that given a blatant constitutional infirmity with part of the circulator requirement, and the structure of the language of the relevant charter provision, the requirement that the circulator be a petition signatory herself may be unenforceable. If so, at least those 2,694 signatures in the City Attorney’s first category, and possibly many more, would be effective…

The signatures also must be verified in one of two ways. The first option is for each petition signer to sign the petition in the presence of a licensed notary or other “officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments and proof of deeds.” Charter art. VIIa, § 3; art. IX, § 3. This is plainly burdensome on the petition process; petition gatherers do not typically travel door to door with a notary. Alternatively, a petition circulator may complete an affidavit swearing that all of the signatures on a petition page were made in his presence on the date the signature indicates. Charter art. VIIa, § 3. The circulator, however, must be one of the signers of the petition. Id. Since only registered Houston voters may sign a petition, these provisions together mean that the Houston Charter requires that petition circulators also be registered Houston voters.

Here we have the blatant constitutional infirmity: the requirement that the circulator be a registered voter of the jurisdiction has been unconstitutional since the Supreme Court decided Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999).

Another case of a political machine doing what they do best; invalidating the opposition while rewarding the supporters, the letter of the law be damned.

 

[estesbob]

Wasn’t there a Catholic priest (colorado?) or Cardinal who said he expected to die comfortably in his bed, his successor in jail, and HIS successor to be executed in the public square. Yep it’s coming.

Cardinal George

 

[Trader]

Since the gospel reading for today was Mt 22:15-21, there must have been a lot of homilies that mentioned politics. Because I am a known trouble maker, I made a point of complimenting Monsignor because his homily was good enough that he would not be embarrassed to have it read in court.

This whole story is so ridiculous, it should embarrass every politician who had anything to do with it. The first amendment was written to protect political speech, not obscenity; and to protect religion from the government. To read the constitution to mean that combining two of our most precious freedoms is illegal is to say 1 + 1=0. This would be the stupidest thing I have ever heard except that politicians keep trying to one up themselves.

Also in the running this week was the CDC saying all hospitals were equipped to handle Ebola cases when the truth was that none of them were prepared for something they had ever seen. That is a pretty big difference. Some politicians not only need low information voters, but voters with little ability to process information.

 

[mexolic]

Is there an agenda here? The practices of city hall look questionable if you know what I mean. Will other cities follow suit? I have heard that it would one day come to this. To preach a sermon based on sacred scripture and to have the government snoop in on what is being said. Sadly, I wouldn’t count on popular opinion on this one. Look at what popular culture tells us about same-sex marriage and the number of same-sex celebrity couples. This is only the beginning.

 

[RHC]

Perhaps the city government should review the Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

Texans, once again, you have the chance to stand up for freedom. Our dearly-bought and critically important freedoms of speech and religion are at stake. You don’t have to like the speech or religion - I don’t like the KKK’s speech or the Church of Satan’s religion. But I understand that they have the right to speak and to worship as they please. Even if it offends me. Protection from being offended is not guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Consider the words of Anthony P. Griffin, an African-American ACLU lawyer who defended the grand dragon of the Texas Knights of the KKK in the 1990s against government overreach into his civil rights. Mr. Griffin said, “The Klan says some vile and vicious and nasty and ugly things. But the Klan has a right to say them. If you ask whether they have a right to organize, to assemble, to free speech, those people we hate have such a right, and we just can’t get around that. Because if you take away their rights, you take away my rights also.” (Emphasis mine - Read the full NYT article here: nytimes.com/1993/09/10/news/a-klansman-s-black-lawyer-and-a-principle.html)

Mr. Griffin gets it. You don’t have to agree with someone’s beliefs to realize that curtailing their freedom of speech or religion is to eventually curtail your own. This massive, egregious overreach by the Houston government cannot stand.

 

[Monkey1976]

Consider the words of Anthony P. Griffin, an African-American ACLU lawyer who defended the grand dragon of the Texas Knights of the KKK in the 1990s against government overreach into his civil rights. Mr. Griffin said, “The Klan says some vile and vicious and nasty and ugly things. But the Klan has a right to say them. If you ask whether they have a right to organize, to assemble, to free speech, those people we hate have such a right, and we just can’t get around that. Because if you take away their rights, you take away my rights also.” (Emphasis mine - Read the full NYT article here: nytimes.com/1993/09/10/news/a-klansman-s-black-lawyer-and-a-principle.html)

Mr. Griffin gets it. You don’t have to agree with someone’s beliefs to realize that curtailing their freedom of speech or religion is to eventually curtail your own. This massive, egregious overreach by the Houston government cannot stand.

One of the times the ACLU actually stands by its ideals. Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
Evelyn Beatrice Hall:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

 

[estesbob]

One of the times the ACLU actually stands by its ideals. Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

That was twenty years ago-the ACLU had not at that point become a fully owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party.

It is sad to see once noble organizations sell their souls … I used to be a huge supporter of Amnesty International-mainly because of their opposition to the death penalty. Then they declared that abortion was a basic civil right. I hope they got at least 30 pieces of silver for their sell out.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well, the mayor relented finally a couple days ago. She ordered the subpoenas withdrawn. It was very difficult to find a story that wasn’t loaded with pro-mayor propaganda, calling the pastors “anti-gay” or opposed to an “equal rights” bill. It was also difficult to find stories that even bothered to point out that this woman is openly lesbian and herself said because of that, this issue was extremely “personal.” Why this issue wasn’t virally national news is a testament to the media’s blind eye to anti-religious bigotry. They are okay with it.