City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

originally posted by: beezzer
So you are stating that this is not true?

The OP is not true. The issue is about petition signatures. It's not about what the pastors say about homosexuality.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: beezzer

Lawsuits should not infringe on 1st Amendment rights, and this clearly has the air of intimidation.

So can I go into that church and drop a bunch of F-bombs?

Actually, if you termed it "performance art against the patriarchal heterocage" you might get away with it and get to go on The View.

LOL, Someone really ought to do that

originally posted by: NavyDoc

That may be fine and dandy when "your team" is in charge and mandating things you agree with but, as you very clearly and wisely state, the pendulum swings both ways and when and if it swings the other way, do you really want to have given the state the power and precedent to dictate you to do things you don't want?

Kudos when kudos are due!

Quite an excellent observation! I would extend it to those who want to merge state and religion ... what happens when another religion or even another denomination comes into power?

I wonder how Baptists will enjoy mandated Catholic Confessionals?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

That may be fine and dandy when "your team" is in charge and mandating things you agree with but, as you very clearly and wisely state, the pendulum swings both ways and when and if it swings the other way, do you really want to have given the state the power and precedent to dictate you to do things you don't want?

Kudos when kudos are due!

Quite an excellent observation! I would extend it to those who want to merge state and religion ... what happens when another religion or even another denomination comes into power?

I wonder how Baptists will enjoy mandated Catholic Confessionals?

Being a former catholic atheist mixed raced atheist, I am not concerned about what the Baptists think.

State and religion should never merge. State should be neutral and limited and stay within its own lane.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Neither am I, but I bet they will be.

Time will tell.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

Neither am I, but I bet they will be.

Time will tell.

It will.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

That may be fine and dandy when "your team" is in charge and mandating things you agree with but, as you very clearly and wisely state, the pendulum swings both ways and when and if it swings the other way, do you really want to have given the state the power and precedent to dictate you to do things you don't want?

Kudos when kudos are due!

Quite an excellent observation! I would extend it to those who want to merge state and religion ... what happens when another religion or even another denomination comes into power?

I wonder how Baptists will enjoy mandated Catholic Confessionals?

Being a former catholic atheist mixed raced atheist, I am not concerned about what the Baptists think.

State and religion should never merge. State should be neutral and limited and stay within its own lane.

... and so should religion.

I would love to see the Church give up its tax exemption

a reply to: links234

Please explain how the op is not true? Houston wasn't demanding the pastors turn over the sermons and other communications?
Just a tad bit curious about that one.

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 fail to see just how these sermons and such are gonna prove weather or not the signatures on the petition are legit but the gov't seems to thin they can. More than likely they are gonna try show that the pastors helped get the signatures with the hopes of that invalidating them.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

That may be fine and dandy when "your team" is in charge and mandating things you agree with but, as you very clearly and wisely state, the pendulum swings both ways and when and if it swings the other way, do you really want to have given the state the power and precedent to dictate you to do things you don't want?

Kudos when kudos are due!

Quite an excellent observation! I would extend it to those who want to merge state and religion ... what happens when another religion or even another denomination comes into power?

I wonder how Baptists will enjoy mandated Catholic Confessionals?

Being a former catholic atheist mixed raced atheist, I am not concerned about what the Baptists think.

State and religion should never merge. State should be neutral and limited and stay within its own lane.

... and so should religion.

Yeah, we agree on that, but state hasn't gotten the memo.

a reply to: NavyDoc

and religion lost theirs quite a few years ago.
when kennedy was running for president there was this big thing about him being catholilc and the people kind of saw a vote for him as being a vote for papal influence within our gov't. Kennedy decided to make it public that he felt that his religion could and should be held separate from his gov't duties.
why is it that so many of the republicans now feel that they need to make the opposite position clear to the masses now?
you have to admit it's kind of a big turnaround of attitude!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: links234

Please explain how the op is not true? Houston wasn't demanding the pastors turn over the sermons and other communications?
Just a tad bit curious about that one.

They were, but they aren't anymore.

Mayor, city file revised Houston Equal Rights Ordinance subpoenas against pastors

The mayor said revised subpoenas that specifically relate to HERO and the signature-gathering process for the petition to repeal the ordinance have been filed and that the original subpoenas were too broad.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: NavyDoc

and religion lost theirs quite a few years ago.
when kennedy was running for president there was this big thing about him being catholilc and the people kind of saw a vote for him as being a vote for papal influence within our gov't. Kennedy decided to make it public that he felt that his religion could and should be held separate from his gov't duties.
why is it that so many of the republicans now feel that they need to make the opposite position clear to the masses now?
you have to admit it's kind of a big turnaround of attitude!

Kennedy would never be elected today--he was an evil catholic who was a hypocrite because he had a mistress and lowered taxes and was against gun control. Today's progressives would have lambasted JFK.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

That may be fine and dandy when "your team" is in charge and mandating things you agree with but, as you very clearly and wisely state, the pendulum swings both ways and when and if it swings the other way, do you really want to have given the state the power and precedent to dictate you to do things you don't want?

Kudos when kudos are due!

Quite an excellent observation! I would extend it to those who want to merge state and religion ... what happens when another religion or even another denomination comes into power?

I wonder how Baptists will enjoy mandated Catholic Confessionals?

Being a former catholic atheist mixed raced atheist, I am not concerned about what the Baptists think.

State and religion should never merge. State should be neutral and limited and stay within its own lane.

... and so should religion.

Yeah, we agree on that, but state hasn't gotten the memo.

Perhaps, perhaps not, opinions vary.

But "Church" would claim that "the memo" was unconstitutional, immoral and atheist, so even if they got it, I doubt they'd read it.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Interesting.

What would today's Republicans and Tea Partiers think of Eisenhower or Reagan?

Not to mention the godless Barry Goldwater, LOL.

a reply to: NavyDoc

who probably had more integrity than most of the politicians today.
not that I think he had that much integrity but I think our politicians of today are really a sick lot regardless of their party. Bush wouldn't have won if it wasn't for him coddling the religious.
how did that work for us?

originally posted by: Shakawkaw
Are any of them in jail/prison? No? So not a freedom of speech issue.

Perhaps they could be in prison if the State decides to prosecute for some kind of "hate-crime". That is obviously the agenda here, to either intimidate or prosecute. Even if not going to jail, the prosecution alone can create problems for people. The mayor knows this and she is going on a personal witch hunt against people who disagree with her chosen lifestyle.
In fact, she is no different than the Prez who uses his mighty pen and an Executive Order as an end run around Congress. She is a petty, tyrannical dictator. Also I'm wondering who the local district judge would be if charges were brought, and if he or she just happens to be the activist type. Know what I mean? The mayor is on a Progressive mission, likely in concert with other Progressives.

Without using any names or metaphors of names, instead now focus every sermon to vote out every candidate that might infringe on this 1st amendment issue. Attack, attack, attack! Make them run for cover and put them on the defensive as individuals, not the office they currently hold.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

Interesting.

What would today's Republicans and Tea Partiers think of Eisenhower or Reagan?

Not to mention the godless Barry Goldwater, LOL.

There you go. You think the opinions of politicians you do not like are less than those you do like, and I likewise. Therefore, the best answer is to limit the power of any and all politicians.

originally posted by: tkwasny
Without using any names or metaphors of names, instead now focus every sermon to vote out every candidate that might infringe on this 1st amendment issue. Attack, attack, attack! Make them run for cover and put them on the defensive as individuals, not the office they currently hold.

Then you'd be called a domestic terrorist, sued to oblivion, and jailed.