It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
Most pastors record their sermons these days. If the mayor really wanted copies of the sermons, she could have heard what was being said straight from their mouths, without giving them a heads up. Sounds like she's very insecure about her lifestyle choice, and can't stand any critiques, because it might bruise her fragile ego.
"Toughen up lady! It's gonna come, and the church is gonna be at the forefront. You should have known that before you took the job. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

On the other hand...

“The state is breaching the wall of separation between church and state,” Perkins told me. ‘Pastors need to step forward and challenge this across the country. I’d like to see literally thousands of pastors after they read this story begin to challenge government authorities – to dare them to come into their churches and demand their sermons.”

That's very convenient for a group of folks who are constantly comparing America to Sodom and Gomorrah. How often has America been told we are under discipline and judgement from god, in just the last ten years? But now you want the heathens to protect you from those other heathens? What about Romans 13?

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Or does that only apply when it suits the leadership of the church?

Bottom line. This mayor needs to get her panties unbunched, and do what she was put in office to do. Run the damn city. Let the LGBT haters hate. They'll get over it.
The church needs to give her what she wants without question. The sermons become public once they are preached anyway. If they want to file motions, they should have waited until she told them what they could and couldn't say. THAT'S a violation of their free speech. Though I don't feel sorry for them. They've been trying to tell the heathens what they can and can't do for centuries.




posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

And government never does anything over the top or imposes itself in a manner that would create an atmosphere of coersion or intimidation.

(where's the eye-roll emoticon when you need one!)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: badgerprints
The tyranny of political correctness rolls on.
Orwellian States of America.


This.


Might not agree with their beliefs but freedom of religion and freedom of speech are hallmarks of our free society and enshrined in the very first amendment to the Constitution.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
here is the reason that the anti-discrimination law was voted on by the mayor and city council......seems to be a lot more tame than what the religious fanatics say it is....
www.houstonchronicle.com... 0abe94cf61987c

remember, you can still be fired from your job if you are gay in Texas, and if you are trying to promote job creation in Houston, you don't want the threat of being fired for being gay, to be a part of the business environment.

the Houston religious pastors want to keep that discrimination intact, therefore they want to see what is being said by the gay-haters in these churches...by the way, I don't agree with ordering by law to see these sermons. religious leaders should be able to say what ever bigoted thing they want to say. they have a long, rich tradition of deadly influence to base it on.

edit on 15-10-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Should a pastor or preacher be allowed to use the church for protection while they are preaching hate? How is this any different from the people that are placed under arrest at rallies when they give speeches promoting hate. Remember several preachers from Texas have been calling for gays to be killed just because they are a pastor in no way means they should be given a free pass.



This issue really has nothing to do with homosexuality now,

which in my opinion what one does in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom,

but that is my opinion -

it has now become an issue of freedom of speech and the combining of church and state, with the state wanting to control the church.


#1 A pastor should not be preaching hate, pastors like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and most especially Farakahn should also not be preaching "hate" and inciting riots which they do for example. But the state by constitution is forbidden from interfering with what they preach in churches.

What about Obama's pastor of many many years who had his parishioners recite "God Damn America", was that not hate speech?


#2 American fought hard for the right to free speech,

liberals and progressives fought the hardest for free speech (porn especially) in the past 20 years.


#3 There is also a constitutional amendment that is often misquoted by liberals/progressives/Democrats as separation of church and state.

Regardless of the correct wording the government is forbidden by law to direct the content of sermons.

Intimidation by requiring the submission of sermons is directing content.


#4 This would be the first step in doing away with non-interference in the practice of religion.

Do you want to take the first step in doing away with the "separation of church and state" as is often misquoted from the constitution?




I think the pastors have a very clear cut and strong case for suing the city big time and winning hands down a massive lawsuit on this one.

Unless, the government wants to do away with non-interference between church and state altogether.

Then what happens when the government changes as governments do and the majority want the church to interfere in the state?



As a previous poster said, the vast majority of pastors post their sermons online which is easy for all to see/read.

Asking them to submit sermons is blatant intimidation and saying the state can control one aspect of a church,

which is a slippery slope.


This leaves wide open the city for a very huge and extremely expensive lawsuit.







edit on 9Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:13:29 -0500am101510amk153 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Should a pastor or preacher be allowed to use the church for protection while they are preaching hate? How is this any different from the people that are placed under arrest at rallies when they give speeches promoting hate. Remember several preachers from Texas have been calling for gays to be killed just because they are a pastor in no way means they should be given a free pass.

No one should be jailed for preaching "hate" as "hate" can be entirely subjective. No one should be jailed for speech unless it comes under specific statutes against fraud, slander, incitement to riot, etc.

"All gays should be killed" may be hateful and disgusting but as a general statement should be protected under freedom of speech.

"That gay guy Bob should be killed" is a specific threat and should be dealt with under such statutes.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Leave it to FOX to leave out part of the issue. It looks like the churches that are suing the city because of a equal rights ordinance case are the ones whose sermons are being subpoenaed. Unless the people in here whining Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion have forgotten the church is forbidden from using the pulpit for political purposes. If they want to get involved in politics then they need to give up their tax free status.

City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case


Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when they get their day in court in January, claiming City Attorney David Feldman wrongly determined they had not gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. 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."



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Very interesting! I had not read that.

Ah, the good ol' media spin.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
here is the anti-discrimination the mayor and city council passed......seems to be a lot more tame than what the religious fanatics say it is....
www.houstonchronicle.com... 0abe94cf61987c

remember, you can still be fired from your job if you are gay in Texas, and if you are trying to promote job creation in Houston, you don't want the threat of being fired for being gay, to be a part of the business environment.

the Houston religious pastors want to keep that discrimination intact


So you cannot say anything against the rules and regulations of the state?

Maybe people should just keep their "hatin' mouths shut?"



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

and getting a subpoena to turn over all communications sermons ect is in no way threatening?
it won't in any way coerce those pastors or others to change their messages to please the gov't in an attempt to avoid future hassles?
and fox did mention the lawsuit by the way although it being fox I am pretty sure that there is a possibility of it being slanted in some way.

edit on 15-10-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

And government never does anything over the top or imposes itself in a manner that would create an atmosphere of coersion or intimidation.

(where's the eye-roll emoticon when you need one!)


Hey, who filed the law suit against whom? If you are going to sue someone, be prepared to have your own dirty laundry aired in court.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Unless the people in here whining Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion have forgotten the church is forbidden from using the pulpit for political purposes. If they want to get involved in politics then they need to give up their tax free status.



Where is that in the Constitution?

Regards,



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
church is forbidden from using the pulpit for political purposes.


By what law?



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

And government never does anything over the top or imposes itself in a manner that would create an atmosphere of coersion or intimidation.

(where's the eye-roll emoticon when you need one!)


Hey, who filed the law suit against whom? If you are going to sue someone, be prepared to have your own dirty laundry aired in court.



Maybe you're right.

Churches should just keep their mouths shut and obey the dictates of the state.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: kaylaluv

and getting a subpoena to turn over all communications sermons ect is in no way threatening?
it won't in any way coerce those pastors or others to change their messages to please the gov't in an attempt to avoid future hassles?
and fox did mention the lawsuit by the way although it being fox I am pretty sure that there is a possibility of it being slanted in some way.


Why should it be threatening... unless you are ashamed of your sermons being seen by everyone in court.

So you're saying the party being sued has no right to gather information to help themselves during a case that's been filed against them?



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
it seems that the question is weather or not they got enough signatures.
just how would the sermons and stuff answer that question unless well the pastors did something dumb and told their congregations to sign the petition multiple times
which well would be a very unchristian thing to do!



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer



Churches should just keep their mouths shut and obey the dictates of the state.

That is what the bible says, Beez.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

And government never does anything over the top or imposes itself in a manner that would create an atmosphere of coersion or intimidation.

(where's the eye-roll emoticon when you need one!)


Hey, who filed the law suit against whom? If you are going to sue someone, be prepared to have your own dirty laundry aired in court.



Maybe you're right.

Churches should just keep their mouths shut and obey the dictates of the state.


Not what I'm saying at all. File a law suit, but be prepared for what happens. That's true when anyone files a lawsuit against anyone, right? Is what the city did illegal? If so, have charges filed. If not, you just have to deal with it.

The point is, no one is hauling these ministers to jail for their sermons. The first amendment has not been breached here. It's a law suit. Nasty things happen during a law suit. Both sides can get nasty. Fact of life.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: beezzer



Churches should just keep their mouths shut and obey the dictates of the state.

That is what the bible says, Beez.


Where?



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

just how would the sermons and stuff answer that question unless well the pastors did something dumb and told their congregations to sign the petition multiple times
which well would be a very unchristian thing to do!



Exactly.




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join