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: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chamberf=6
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Is silencing churches BAD? I mean to where they claim Being the True And Right say?

Temperance.


Silencing churches is GOOD! By golly!

We can't have anyone disagreeing with government!





posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

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?


It is threatening because the sermons, at least most pastors sermons can be found online, in public forums, or they can send someone to sit in and record the sermons, although that really isn't necessary these days because almost all sermons are online now and quite public. When the state requests transcripts of what someone says it is normally to intimidate them or to prosecute them.

Seems to me the pastors in question were stupid and ignorant in what they said,

but the constitution protects the stupid and ignorant to say what they will

look at Sharpton etc.

they regularly incite riots and violence against a specific target group and no one is trying to prosecute them.




This is a real threat to freedom of speech and the "separation of church and state" as libs like to call it.








edit on 10Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:46:30 -0500am101510amk153 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
For one it is not hate, some people genuinely think they are trying to save your soul, if you go to church then you are obviously prepared to hear some things you don't necessarily want to be told are wrong, if you don't go to church then please disregard this message.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Should a pastor or preacher be allowed to use the church for protection while they are preaching hate?

Even if they are preaching hate (and poltical correctness is very broad nowadays in its definition of hate), how does this demand square with the Fifth Amendment?
At the very least, they should surely be getting their evidence from witnesses, not from the alleged culprits themselves.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Are any of them in jail/prison? No? So not a freedom of speech issue.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

What the hell. This is completely unacceptable.

Imagine if a Mosque had to turn over a transcript of every one of their sermons for a case of suspected terrorist activities. The left would have a nuclear melt down.

What complete crap. The government is without a doubt going to go the way of a totalitarian government, get over thrown later on after killing countless numbers of our population and everyone of themselves in the long run, and we will just end up where we started 200 years ago.

Just cut the crap you backwards and retarded officials. End the cycle. We will ALL forever be monkeys if you dont learn new tricks.
We have. Why the hell cant you?


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



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: grandmakdw

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.


#1 A pastor should not be preaching hate

#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?



ok, so, you would also apply this to Islamic churches practicing sharia law in Texas?


Unfortunately, it does protect their right to stay stupid and ignorant things that we vehemantly disagree with.

When they cross the line from speech and kill their daughters, that is not speech, that is an unlawful action. If these pastors lead a group downtown to the gay bars to injure or kill homosexuals then that is crossing the line into action.

What do you think about the pastors who incited and lead riots in Ferguson, should they be prosecuted?
Why isn't the state going after them?


Online porn has been proven to incite violence against women in study after study,

also study after study has shown that violent video games are related to subsequent real violence.

The liberals and progressives fought very hard under the freedom of speech to allow people to engage in these activities.

Should Houston be allowed to stop preaching on the basis it might incite real violence, with no specific threat to any one person,

then the government could quite easily make the case against porn and video games if the right group of people get in power.






edit on 9Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:34:51 -0500am101510amk153 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Chamberf=6
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Is silencing churches BAD? I mean to where they claim Being the True And Right say?

Temperance.


Silencing churches is GOOD! By golly!

We can't have anyone disagreeing with government!



Doesn't count. Leftist preachers are good and protected. I've yet to see demands that Rev. Wright's tax exempt status be pulled and, boy-howdy, he is political as they come.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
any of the evidence that they demand from the pastors should be relevant to the case-
was there or was there not enough signatures on the petition.

I am trying to think of just what they hope to gain from these sermons and such that would prove there wasn't enough signatures and that is all I can come up with..
They are hoping that the pastors instructed their congregations to lie about their identity and sign the petition twice in the sermons or church bullitens!

I just can't see that happening sorry!



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: badgerprints

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


By what law?

Tax laws that is why I said give up their tax free status you must have missed that part.
Tax Laws


By that same token, would you also agree that unions should give up their tax exempt status for endorsingpolitical candidates? Planned parenthood?

I see you have no knowledge of tax exempt statuses do you? There are several different kinds some do allow getting political some do not. Churches qualify for 501(c)(3) while unions use 501(c)(5).
501(c)(3) Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated. An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.
501(c)(5) Organizations include labor, agricultural and horticultural organizations. Labor unions, county fairs and flower societies are examples of these types of groups. Labor union organizations were a primary benefactor of this organization type; dating to the 1800s. IRS, from a federal level, stipulates a federal requirement and duty of providing service to the members first. They have other requirements such as a requirement that benefits may not inure to a specific member but the rules for inurement vary among the three different types of organizations under this segment. They can make unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions.
501(c) organization



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
A nice Pastor should surely tell these city dignitaries to go forth and multiply themselves, personally I would tell them to feck away off...that's me being nice.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: buster2010
Should a pastor or preacher be allowed to use the church for protection while they are preaching hate?

Even if they are preaching hate (and poltical correctness is very broad nowadays in its definition of hate), how does this demand square with the Fifth Amendment?
At the very least, they should surely be getting their evidence from witnesses, not from the alleged culprits themselves.

So they should get their evidence from someone else instead of getting the words from the horses mouth. Yeah that makes sense.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
The gospels have always been about love to me.

the end



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: badgerprints

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


By what law?

Tax laws that is why I said give up their tax free status you must have missed that part.
Tax Laws


By that same token, would you also agree that unions should give up their tax exempt status for endorsingpolitical candidates? Planned parenthood?

I see you have no knowledge of tax exempt statuses do you? There are several different kinds some do allow getting political some do not. Churches qualify for 501(c)(3) while unions use 501(c)(5).
501(c)(3) Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated. An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.
501(c)(5) Organizations include labor, agricultural and horticultural organizations. Labor unions, county fairs and flower societies are examples of these types of groups. Labor union organizations were a primary benefactor of this organization type; dating to the 1800s. IRS, from a federal level, stipulates a federal requirement and duty of providing service to the members first. They have other requirements such as a requirement that benefits may not inure to a specific member but the rules for inurement vary among the three different types of organizations under this segment. They can make unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions.
501(c) organization


It says it right there in that statute. Unions get special protections. They are also exempt from the RICO act. They have a special status. I know the tax laws, but was asking your OPINION, not to quote something we already know. Why should one type of organization who does political lobbying and speech get one set of rules that another does not?

Methinks this is a case of wanting to restrict political speech you do not like while protecting political speech of the people you do like.

Same rules for all, is the just answer.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc


I've yet to see demands that Rev. Wright's tax exempt status be pulled and, boy-howdy, he is political as they come.

Religion is politics. The state needs every child to be taught to "just believe" what ever . Its the first lesson bestowed on citizens from an early age.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
For one it is not hate, some people genuinely think they are trying to save your soul, if you go to church then you are obviously prepared to hear some things you don't necessarily want to be told are wrong, if you don't go to church then please disregard this message.

That's just it they are not keeping it in their church they want to change laws to fit their religion. So maybe the church should learn how to keep their religion in their church where it belongs and out of the political arena.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: badgerprints

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


By what law?

Tax laws that is why I said give up their tax free status you must have missed that part.
Tax Laws


By that same token, would you also agree that unions should give up their tax exempt status for endorsingpolitical candidates? Planned parenthood?

I see you have no knowledge of tax exempt statuses do you? There are several different kinds some do allow getting political some do not. Churches qualify for 501(c)(3) while unions use 501(c)(5).
501(c)(3) Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated. An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.
501(c)(5) Organizations include labor, agricultural and horticultural organizations. Labor unions, county fairs and flower societies are examples of these types of groups. Labor union organizations were a primary benefactor of this organization type; dating to the 1800s. IRS, from a federal level, stipulates a federal requirement and duty of providing service to the members first. They have other requirements such as a requirement that benefits may not inure to a specific member but the rules for inurement vary among the three different types of organizations under this segment. They can make unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions.
501(c) organization


It says it right there in that statute. Unions get special protections. They are also exempt from the RICO act. They have a special status. I know the tax laws, but was asking your OPINION, not to quote something we already know. Why should one type of organization who does political lobbying and speech get one set of rules that another does not?

Methinks this is a case of wanting to restrict political speech you do not like while protecting political speech of the people you do like.

Same rules for all, is the just answer.


As long as they stay within the guidelines of their tax status then they can keep them. But these churches are stepping outside of their guidelines.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: badgerprints

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


By what law?

Tax laws that is why I said give up their tax free status you must have missed that part.
Tax Laws


By that same token, would you also agree that unions should give up their tax exempt status for endorsingpolitical candidates? Planned parenthood?

I see you have no knowledge of tax exempt statuses do you? There are several different kinds some do allow getting political some do not. Churches qualify for 501(c)(3) while unions use 501(c)(5).
501(c)(3) Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated. An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.
501(c)(5) Organizations include labor, agricultural and horticultural organizations. Labor unions, county fairs and flower societies are examples of these types of groups. Labor union organizations were a primary benefactor of this organization type; dating to the 1800s. IRS, from a federal level, stipulates a federal requirement and duty of providing service to the members first. They have other requirements such as a requirement that benefits may not inure to a specific member but the rules for inurement vary among the three different types of organizations under this segment. They can make unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions.
501(c) organization


It says it right there in that statute. Unions get special protections. They are also exempt from the RICO act. They have a special status. I know the tax laws, but was asking your OPINION, not to quote something we already know. Why should one type of organization who does political lobbying and speech get one set of rules that another does not?

Methinks this is a case of wanting to restrict political speech you do not like while protecting political speech of the people you do like.

Same rules for all, is the just answer.


As long as they stay within the guidelines of their tax status then they can keep them. But these churches are stepping outside of their guidelines.


Would that also go for REv Wright?

You didn't answer my question. Why should one type of tax exempt group have different guidelines than another? Why should planned parenthood remain tax exempt when they use tax dollars to lobby candidates who will give them more tax dollars? Why should we use the tax code to restrict those we don't like but protect those we do like?



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: buster2010
Should a pastor or preacher be allowed to use the church for protection while they are preaching hate?

Even if they are preaching hate (and poltical correctness is very broad nowadays in its definition of hate), how does this demand square with the Fifth Amendment?
At the very least, they should surely be getting their evidence from witnesses, not from the alleged culprits themselves.

Can you show the unfair treatment?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: badgerprints

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


By what law?

Tax laws that is why I said give up their tax free status you must have missed that part.
Tax Laws


By that same token, would you also agree that unions should give up their tax exempt status for endorsingpolitical candidates? Planned parenthood?

I see you have no knowledge of tax exempt statuses do you? There are several different kinds some do allow getting political some do not. Churches qualify for 501(c)(3) while unions use 501(c)(5).
501(c)(3) Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated. An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.
501(c)(5) Organizations include labor, agricultural and horticultural organizations. Labor unions, county fairs and flower societies are examples of these types of groups. Labor union organizations were a primary benefactor of this organization type; dating to the 1800s. IRS, from a federal level, stipulates a federal requirement and duty of providing service to the members first. They have other requirements such as a requirement that benefits may not inure to a specific member but the rules for inurement vary among the three different types of organizations under this segment. They can make unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions.
501(c) organization


It says it right there in that statute. Unions get special protections. They are also exempt from the RICO act. They have a special status. I know the tax laws, but was asking your OPINION, not to quote something we already know. Why should one type of organization who does political lobbying and speech get one set of rules that another does not?

Methinks this is a case of wanting to restrict political speech you do not like while protecting political speech of the people you do like.

Same rules for all, is the just answer.


As long as they stay within the guidelines of their tax status then they can keep them. But these churches are stepping outside of their guidelines.


Would that also go for REv Wright?

You didn't answer my question. Why should one type of tax exempt group have different guidelines than another? Why should planned parenthood remain tax exempt when they use tax dollars to lobby candidates who will give them more tax dollars? Why should we use the tax code to restrict those we don't like but protect those we do like?

Let me see if I can dumb this down for you. They have different guidelines because the arey given for different reasons. Churches get theirs because it is supposed to be a charitable organization. This means after paying expenses the majority of the money they get is supposed to go to charity. Unions have a different set of guidelines because their net earnings benefits it members. Unions pay their members if they get injured become ill and pay death benefits because paying such benefits serves the members' mutual interest in improving their shared working conditions.
Now onto Rev Wright should he lose his status? No. Wanna know why? Because he wasn't stupid enough to file a lawsuit to change a law. In the video that Beezer posted and you reposted he said nothing but the history of America he never called for laws to be changed. Next time watch a video before posting it.
edit on 15-10-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join