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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:13 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: 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.


My, my, we do resort to personal attacks when we struggle with trying to justify things, don't we? I've not been uncivil to you in this thread, I request the same common courtesy from you.

Reverend Wright violates the law. I see no stipulation where you have to file a lawsuit to come in violation of the rules nor be prosecuted for such violations. Rev Wright does endorse political candidates and does Father Michael Pfleger . They push for laws, they protest, the tell people which laws to support and whom to vote for. They should have their tax exempt status revoked as well, yes?

As yes, excuses as to why one group, such as unions, which you like, should get different rules than others, whom you dislike. Therin lies the problem with our tax code. Instead of simply using it to gain revenue for the proper use of government, it is used to control behavior--by rewarding those whom TPTB like and punishing those whom they dislike.

The fair answer is that there should be no tax exempt politically active group regardless the excuse or how favored the cause.

From the Wall Street Journal




On Christmas morning, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. compared presidential candidate Barack Obama's impoverished childhood to Jesus Christ's. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people," he then trumpeted. "Hillary [Clinton] can never know that."


You make the error that I was using the video that simply happened to be in a quote block as information about leftist Christians.
edit on 15-10-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   

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


OK,
So the IRS has made it illegal for religious people to talk about politics in church.
Although I think that's a bit of insanity, that's another thread.

So what these churches are being accused of is breaking IRS code.

The city of Houston has no jurisdiction over a failure to comply with IRS tax code.
The IRS can reassess the individual churches tax status but that gives the city of Houston no legal right to abuse the first amendment.

The city is not actually functioning in a legal manner and the subpoena is unlawful.

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



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Massive overstep and trampling on Constitutional rights. NO.


originally posted by: dawnstar



The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.
www.foxnews.com...


I'm not really sure how I feel about this but I kind of think that the gov't might be overstepping their limits here?
On the one hand the churches shouldn't be stepping into the political arena without losing their tax exemption status and these sermons and other communications might just prove that the churches have done this.

On the other hand I don't want the gov't being able to tell the churches what messages can be said and what can't.

Mainly I am kind of getting tired of the word "ebola" and trying to find something more interesting to chat about.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: kimmie7

Exactly how is gathering information for a law suit case - information that is most likely publicly displayed on the church's website - trampling on constitutional rights? That is all that's happened here.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
explain to me just how the information that has been requested relevant to how many names are on a petition??

unless they have reason to believe the unbelievable (the pastors were encouraging their congregations to lie) I can't think of one!



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

A religious official would do something nefarious? UNTHINKABLE!

Surely that's never happened before.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: kimmie7

Exactly how is gathering information for a law suit case - information that is most likely publicly displayed on the church's website - trampling on constitutional rights? That is all that's happened here.


When a government institution, ie City Government, tries to force pastors to submit their sermons to the government for any reason is intimidation and by extension a threat to freedom of speech.

Let's just wait, I'm sure the pastors have been banded together by a lawyer who will sue the city for huge bucks and they have an excellent chance of winning.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I highly doubt if they announce it in the church bulletin when they do!!
and if they were to encourage their congregation to???
well they shouldn't be a pastor that is for sure and if they were doing maybe we should keep an eye on the church memberships because I'd expect many would leave!



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Liberal activist official on a mission to force everybody to comply with her idea of political correctness. It wouldn't be the first time I guess, but it does overstep the bounds. What's new from this bunch of Progressives though? Kind of reminds of Mayor Bloomberg and his hissy fits about Big Gulps.
edit on 15-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Lost the first post so trying again. I live in the Houston area so let me provide a few points.

1. The subpoenas asked for sermons, pastors notes and any communication to the congregation about the ordinance.
2. The churches are not a party to the lawsuit.
3. The lawsuit was filed by the group that gathered the petition signatures to have the ordinance put on the ballot.
4. The city secretary certified the signatures as sufficient to meet the requirements. Under the charter, it is the city secretary's responsibility to certify petitions.
5. The mayor did not want the ordinance to go on the ballot because the majority of the city residents do not want it.
6.The city attorney decided that pages of the petition did not qualify after they had been certified.
7. The ordinance makes it illegal to challenge anyone who claims to be transgendered from using whatever restroom they choose. The citizen's felt this left the door too far open for perverts to use the ordinance for their benefit.
8. The Houston Chronicle is the left leaning Fox news in Houston.
9. Yesterday the city attorney said they had every right to ask for them and any information that included anything about the ordinance.
20. The mayor and city attorney are now stating that the subpoenas were too broad and will be rewritten.

Hope that clarifies some things.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TXTriker

5. The mayor did not want the ordinance to go on the ballot because the majority of the city residents do not want it.


The mayor did not want it on the ballot because she was afraid that the majority of citizens might vote for the ordnance.
If the majority of the citizens didn't want it, it would be voted down with no problem.



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



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I can imagine a conversation 30 years from now. . . .

"Remember when we used to have freedom of speech?"

"Yeah, me neither."


And that's just before the black helicopters swoop down on your for incorrectly expressing a forbidden thought and thus committing a crime. It's off to the re-education camp for you ... unless you are a repeat offender? Yes? Than they might just shoot you right then and there.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
You confused me. The mayor wants the ordinance the citizens don't. It would have been put on the ballot for the general election not on the city council ballot. If it was put on the ballot for the actual citizens to vote on it would not stand. The city council did pass it against everything the citizens said.


originally posted by: badgerprints

originally posted by: TXTriker

5. The mayor did not want the ordinance to go on the ballot because the majority of the city residents do not want it.


The mayor did not want it on the ballot because she was afraid that the majority of citizens might vote for the ordnance.
If the majority of the citizens didn't want it, it would be voted down with no problem.






posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

You know ... because so many pastors stand in the pulpits on Sunday and rail about signing petitions and whom you should be voting for ...



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Im so sick of this political correctness in AMerica. Its ok for a muslim, gay, or any other minority to scream bloody murder and get their way but its no ok for the majority (christian) to exercise their freedom of religion and speech. I have no problem with a GL having that lifestyle or promoting that lifestyle as long as I can conversely communicate my free speech and beliefs about it. Its called the 1st amendment and sometimes we must agree to disagree agreeably!



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer

If we wait until they go to jail for what they preach, then it'll be too late to complain about.


Well, let me know when that happens, and I'll admit you were right. (eye roll emoticon)


But in the meantime, lets push the envelope against the 1st Amendment?

Is that really what you are endorsing?


Are you really surprised?

The left has been using the gay agenda to work against the 1st for a while now. If freedom of religion goes, they can get rid of freedom of speech, too, and look, you have kayla here advocating for open punishment of people who are petitioning government for redress of grievances, which is also 1st Amendment.

Get rid of the that one, and there is no more bar to supreme rule of the 14th and enforced "equality" for all (except the oligarchs, of course).



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Eventually, it comes to us whether we want it to or no. Pretty soon you have someone demanding that we act counter to our beliefs and suing us if we refuse. If we cannot live our lives according to our beliefs then we do not have freedom of religion.

Contrary to your belief on the matter, religion is not simply something that happens inside that mysterious building for an hour or so on Saturday or Sunday or whatever day you observe the ceremony on, and sooner or later you have to stand up for your way of life if it is at all worth believing in.

You switch it on its head. When did "don't force your beliefs on me" become "that means I can force my beliefs on you"?



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TXTriker
You confused me. The mayor wants the ordinance the citizens don't.


Sorry about that.
I was the one confused.

I'll leave it at this.
They need to let the voters decide.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TXTriker

Oh yeah, how could I forget (I grew up in Houston) - that city is full of homophobes that hate gays and transgenders. Dallas is a much more tolerant town. They passed laws on this back in 2002. Hell, even El Paso enacted laws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation -- way back in 2003. Houston is way, way behind.

There are laws against perverts, so this ordinance doesn't give them a free pass. That's just Christian fundamentalist fear mongering right there. Lesbians can go into women's restrooms - nobody's more attracted to women than lesbians. Ooops



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join