City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

[EmperorNapoleon]

They had 50,000 signatures.They only needed 17,000 The city arbitrarily claimed they were invalid which is what the lawsuit is all about.

A couple of points:

1. They did not have 50,000 signatures. They needed exactly 17,269 signatures and they had 17,869 signatures.
2. It wasn’t arbitrary and they are not challenging the City Attorney’s assessment that the signatures are not valid in court.

 

[JimG]

When government starts asking all Catholic priests for copies of there sermons, I would hope that there will be a public uprising.

 

[Tajho]

This sounds like something out of a science fiction apocalypse novel.

I have a young granddaughter that recently posted that she is gay since she likes her girlfriends. When I asked her if she knew what homosexuality was she didn’t have a clue. Basically just having a good friend of the same sex means to her that she is gay. (hate to use the word “gay” this way as I am always reminded of the Christmas Carol” and gay apparel.) Anyway, further talking with her turned up that she has no real understanding of actions being moral, immoral or amoral. Morality, in the situation in Houston, seems to be the focus point of what is happening; and this local ordinance has provided a soapbox for public officials to promote the politically correct progressive view.

I have not read this ordinance that Houston passed last May or June. So without knowing what it states it is difficult to understand how it could be applied to sermons of pastors to be given in their respective congregations. The fact that said these sermon have been summoned, however, leads to the question of why? Is this a political action of progressive indoctrinated offices in opposition to conservative values or is it deeper still?

My interpretation of this progressive PC view leads me to believe that they cannot evaluate anything as being moral or not. Such an evaluation would result in making a choice. This they cannot do since to endorse one over the other would be (by they’re own definition) discrimination. Their own doctrine seems to make it impossible to judge anything as good/bad, right/wrong or morally right/morally wrong. It is a house of cards that will fail. I pray that they just don’t destroy the country while they are doing it!

The pastor are going to fight this legally and they deserve our prays and support.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Their sermons, which are public speech, are evidence. There is no violation of religious liberty here.

Now, Napoleon, what if those speeches contain anti-homosexual sentiment, but not political content whatsoever? Hm? Do you think they would still use those?

I bet my buttocks they would use it to contort the case against these voters the way the media always does: by making the Christians look like bigots unless they buy the gay agenda. Now, I have no problem with condemning homosexual actions as immoral. But it’s always very fricking annoying when commentators try to make it any more than that.

The Synod on the Family is an excellent example of the media doing the opposite - reading what a Christian body says in favour of the gay rights agenda. Even though, if you do any reading of what’s actually going on, there’s nothing earth-shattering in the Synod’s content.

So I don’t blame these pastors for not wanting to play the game. I’m tired of having my own pastors, bishops, and cardinals playing into the media’s and gay rights advocates’ stupidity.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Emboldened by SCOTUS’ gutlessness in refusing to rule on the accelerating domino-effect of pro-gay judicial activism, anti-church liberal politicians like Ms Parker are going to be like sharks getting a whiff of blood in the water. And they will try ever-harder to disempower and silence their moral opponents in the pulpits.

Todd Starnes is dead right about San Jacinto.

 

[Hobbes42]

I suppose this’ll be the new norm whenever a religious organization gets in the way-harassment.

 

[Lion_IRC]

It’s hard to speak of “norms” in fast-changing times like these.

 

[Holly3278]

This is clearly a violation of our religious liberty!

 

[estesbob]

A couple of points:

1. They did not have 50,000 signatures. They needed exactly 17,269 signatures and they had 17,869 signatures.
2. It wasn’t arbitrary and they are not challenging the City Attorney’s assessment that the signatures are not valid in court.

Staff in the City Secretary’s office will have 30 days to verify that the names - 50,000 of them, opponents said - cross the minimum threshold of 17,269 signatures from registered Houston voters that foes needed to gather in the month following the measure’s passage in an 11-6 vote of the City Council.*

houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/houston/article/Equal-rights-law-opponents-deliver-signatures-5599272.php?cmpid=twitter-premium&t=63159f4ad9cf61987c

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

If nothing else, the U.S. has become the land of the “slippery slope.” If this is allowed to stand, can we expect the same city authorities to demand a Catholic priest’s homily when he speaks from the pulpit explaining that Holy Orders are restricted to males – thus running afoul of whatever passes for “human rights” these days?

 

[pnewton]

“If someone is speaking from the pulpit and it’s political speech then it’s not going to be protected,” Feldman said."

Yes, but speaking to a petition or ordinance that is directly moral is not political preaching. It is immoral politics. Now any address as to mayoral candidates up for election would be political. This is indisputable. Even then there is a clear solution. Do not keep copies of these sermons.

 

[zz912]

Their sermons, which are public speech, are evidence. There is no violation of religious liberty here.

You find nothing chilling or dangerous about the govt demanding to see the sermons of pastors?!?!

And when did churches lose their right to free speech? And the most important speech there is is political speech.

 

[RGCheek]

A couple of points:

1. They did not have 50,000 signatures. They needed exactly 17,269 signatures and they had 17,869 signatures.
2. It wasn’t arbitrary and they are not challenging the City Attorney’s assessment that the signatures are not valid in court.

Staff in the City Secretary’s office will have 30 days to verify that the names - 50,000 of them, opponents said - cross the minimum threshold of 17,269 signatures from registered Houston voters that foes needed to gather in the month following the measure’s passage in an 11-6 vote of the City Council.*

houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/houston/article/Equal-rights-law-opponents-deliver-signatures-5599272.php?cmpid=twitter-premium&t=63159f4ad9cf61987c

Emporer Napoleon, where in the world did you get your numbers from? You are so far off that it looks like you simply made your numbers up and I would hate to think that about anyone.



Folks, the war on Biblical Christianity (which includes Roman Catholicism) is heating up.

We all must be vigilant and support one another.

 

[zz912]

“If someone is speaking from the pulpit and it’s political speech then it’s not going to be protected,” Feldman said."

Says who? I thought political speech was protected in this country. When did we lose the ability to speak politically?

 

[RGCheek]

Yes, but speaking to a petition or ordinance that is directly moral is not political preaching. It is immoral politics. Now any address as to mayoral candidates up for election would be political. This is indisputable. Even then there is a clear solution. Do not keep copies of these sermons.

Or just go underground and do ALL church activities outside the view of the government and corporate owned press.

 

[RGCheek]

Their sermons, which are public speech, are evidence. There is no violation of religious liberty here.

To subpoena sermons for the review of the courts under an pretext is crossing that sacred line of ‘separation’ between church and state. and if anyone rejects that observation, then the simple breadth and scope of this subpoena is itself intended to chill religious free speech, obviously.

 

[RGCheek]

Says who? I thought political speech was protected in this country. When did we lose the ability to speak politically?

Apparently if you have a lesbian mayor or other high elected local office then you are now engaging in political speech if you discuss sexual morality from the pulpit or anywhere else.

Welcome to the new America.

 

[Monkey1976]

Notice that certain political speech and activity by a 501(c)3 organization is just fine, so long as they agree with the progressive movement. Take a look at Planned Parenthood, for starters. Same IRS classification as any church, but I would be hard-pressed to find a group that’s more politically active for the left.

 

[Orogeny]

When my wife told me about this last night, I told her that I didn’t believe it, that it must be an urban legend, because the concept of a governmental body in the US requiring a church to provide copies of sermons, lectures and private conversations about homosexuality or an elected official is ludicrous. This morning, I see it in the Chronicle and I still can’t believe that someone is that arrogant. I hope the city gets hammered in court over this obvious attempt to control what is said from the pulpit.

This is chilling:
“City attorneys issued subpoenas last month during the case’s discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.””

How far back does one have to go? One year? Ten years? One hundred years? If the issue is only about the petition, then why the other issues?

Do the pastors have to turn over sermons that support the mayor or the ordinance or only those that oppose those things?

Unbelievable.

Peace

Tim

 

[qui_est_ce]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in order to keep their 501c status, they can speak about political issues, they just may not support a political candidate.