Calm Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 As far as I can tell, no one is saying sermons and such shouldn't have been taught...though the broad original subpoenas from the nonCity attorneys (who in my opinion should have been given no legal standing to operate on behalf of the city who has its own attorneys surely, even if they were used to do research, write briefs, etc) may have been looking for stuff to discredit the opposition with stuff that had nothing to do with validity of signatures. I wonder if Houston has hate speech law. There is a difference between using public pressure in an attempt to change what people speak of and using legal tactics. So far I don't see any claim that the sermons were illegal, etc.If the actual intent by the city was to look to see what information was shared about how to collect signatures to see if instructions were correct or not, there does not seem to be any reason to suppose they are trying to prevent such speech being made in the future.
tonie Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) TWITTER: Mayor Annise Parker: If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game. Were instructions given on filling out anti-HERO petition?-A October 14, 2014 ABC13 - Houston Tx Some signatures were acquired at churches which make the sermons fair game, according to City Attorney Dave Feldman."If they choose to do this inside the church, choose to do this from the pulpit, then they open the door to the questions being asked," [City Attorney Dave] Feldman said. Edited October 16, 2014 by tonie
ERayR Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 As far as I can tell, no one is saying sermons and such shouldn't have been taught...though the broad original subpoenas from the nonCity attorneys (who in my opinion should have been given no legal standing to operate on behalf of the city who has its own attorneys surely, even if they were used to do research, write briefs, etc) may have been looking for stuff to discredit the opposition with stuff that had nothing to do with validity of signatures. I wonder if Houston has hate speech law. There is a difference between using public pressure in an attempt to change what people speak of and using legal tactics. So far I don't see any claim that the sermons were illegal, etc.If the actual intent by the city was to look to see what information was shared about how to collect signatures to see if instructions were correct or not, there does not seem to be any reason to suppose they are trying to prevent such speech being made in the future. Intent really is not the point. The result is an implied threat over free speech and the free exercise of religion.
Avatar4321 Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I hope they fight this all the way. Not because withholding the sermons is a big deal. But so it's clear that these corrupt politicians cannot get away threatening and silencing people through intimidation because they speak something the politicians dont like. Whether it's political or religious they have no authority to try to silence it and it's about time they are reminded by the people who they work for 1
strappinglad Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 If it is true that petitions were signed at the churches and promoted from the pulpit ,then that seems like blurring the line between church and state. However, what that has to do with whether or not correct info was relayed to people pertaining to the accuracy of the petition ,I have no idea. Does the city really want 50,000 legitimate signatures delivered to force a plebiscite? If incorrect info was given the city should be thrilled. I would hope that the pastors involved send a sharp stick to the city with instructions on its use.
Avatar4321 Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 The constitution prohibits government from interfering with religion. Not the other way around
california boy Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 Intent really is not the point. The result is an implied threat over free speech and the free exercise of religion.I think it is pretty common when one is being sued to request documentation in order to defend yourself and to get a context of who is in the right. It is the government that is being sued, not the government suing churches. Do you not think that the government has a right to find out whether the basis of the suit will hold up in a court of law? Or are they suppose to just go to court with no defense. Now if the government was suing about something that was said in church, then we would all have valid concerns. This however is not the case.
The Nehor Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 At least they will never be able to pull this on me. I do not write down my talks.
Silhouette Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 At least they will never be able to pull this on me. I do not write down my talks.Brilliant!
rockpond Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) At least they will never be able to pull this on me. I do not write down my talks. I had that thought as well... The best I could provide would be a very rough outline that would make sense to almost nobody but myself. And since I sit next to my Bishop on the stand I have seen him holding his --very limited-- notes before speaking. I once heard him give a beautiful and inspiring 15 minute talk using nothing but a few lines scribbled onto the margins of the program (after the Spirit prompted him to ditch his prepared message). Do these pastors really write down their sermons word-for-word or are the subpoenas for the audio/video recordings? (Which I've noticed many other churches do.) Edited October 17, 2014 by rockpond
thesometimesaint Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 The constitution prohibits government from interfering with religion. Not the other way around The US Constitution establishes a secular government not a sectarian one.
MorningStar Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I would write an extra special talk just for them. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I think they should send her copies of all they have. Maybe reading them will do her some good. I think they would have been happy if she had asked to hear or them, but to demand them? She must really want to hear or at least read what they have to say.If she would just read the sermons she won't be gay anymore
wenglund Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 My solution... All public bathrooms are single user and generic. No more communal bathrooms. Have to wait in line longer….but it would remove a lot of arguing. Arguing will continue regarding tolet seats being left up. Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
wenglund Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) The US Constitution establishes a secular government not a sectarian one. The word "secular" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Whereas, the U.S. Motto since 1864 has been, "In God We Trust." Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited October 17, 2014 by wenglund 3
Avatar4321 Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 The US Constitution establishes a secular government not a sectarian one.did I say otherwise? The constitution limits government. Not people or organizations. The founders expected, even designed, it for churches to act as special interest groups in the republic. And they would be checked and countered by other special interest groups.it was expected that religions and ministers would lead the charge against corrupt government. Through their preaching and teaching 4
Calm Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) deleted…spaced... Edited October 17, 2014 by calmoriah
thesometimesaint Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 did I say otherwise? The constitution limits government. Not people or organizations. The founders expected, even designed, it for churches to act as special interest groups in the republic. And they would be checked and countered by other special interest groups.it was expected that religions and ministers would lead the charge against corrupt government. Through their preaching and teaching The sole purpose of governments is to limit what people/organizations do. Anything less is anarchy. IE; Imagine no rules of the road when driving. YikesWe can/do argue over what is subject to governmental oversight. I'm more of a Jeffersonian in that regard."The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".Thomas Jefferson
Kenngo1969 Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 deleted…spaced... Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose!
Kenngo1969 Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I would hope that the pastors involved send a sharp stick to the city with instructions on its use. As in, where to, uhhhh, stick it? (That was naughty, I know! Sorry. Sometimes I can't help myself!)
Kenngo1969 Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 As far as I can tell, no one is saying sermons and such shouldn't have been taught...though the broad original subpoenas from the nonCity attorneys (who in my opinion should have been given no legal standing to operate on behalf of the city who has its own attorneys surely, even if they were used to do research, write briefs, etc) ...I understand what you're saying. Strictly speaking, though, it is litigants (i.e., the parties to a suit) who either have or lack standing. As much as I hate to admit it with respect to this case, however, it is not uncommon for government entities (such as cities) to retain outside counsel in cases like this. The jurisdiction where attorneys are permitted to argue cases is governed by rules of admission to the Bar of the state in question.
Calm Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I understand what you're saying. Strictly speaking, though, it is litigants (i.e., the parties to a suit) who either have or lack standing. As much as I hate to admit it with respect to this case, however, it is not uncommon for government entities (such as cities) to retain outside counsel in cases like this. The jurisdiction where attorneys are permitted to argue cases is governed by rules of admission to the Bar of the state in question.Then they should be removed from having the power to submit requests without going though the city attorneys. They (the pro bono) have, imo, demonstrated lack of good faith. If the city wants them to continue to work on the case, why not (that is their choice to look bad or not), but they shouldn't have power in and of themselves since they abused it.
EllenMaksoud Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 ....and you reap the whirlwind. This will not be the last we hear of such actions. I cannot really see anyone being surprised that this tactic. I have my popcorn and will enjoy the show from Qatar while I listen to my Muslim friends keep asking me to explain what freedom is and how it applies to this kind of effort by the US government and want to know how anything done in the Middle East is different except they think they stand for morality and civil society. Well the Muslims I have known are very respectful and protective of me. Some of their cultural ideas are very un-Western. The Shia have a "Temporary Marriage" practice. Some insist that clipped finger nails must be flushed and not thrown in the trash can as the evil Jenn eat them. One insisted that the bathroom door be shut because that is where those Jenn live. Though I agree with their prohibition of Pork, and the Hijab does a lot to conceal an old woman's age as long as I can resist waddling.
ERayR Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 As far as I can tell, no one is saying sermons and such shouldn't have been taught...though the broad original subpoenas from the nonCity attorneys (who in my opinion should have been given no legal standing to operate on behalf of the city who has its own attorneys surely, even if they were used to do research, write briefs, etc) may have been looking for stuff to discredit the opposition with stuff that had nothing to do with validity of signatures. I wonder if Houston has hate speech law. There is a difference between using public pressure in an attempt to change what people speak of and using legal tactics. So far I don't see any claim that the sermons were illegal, etc.If the actual intent by the city was to look to see what information was shared about how to collect signatures to see if instructions were correct or not, there does not seem to be any reason to suppose they are trying to prevent such speech being made in the future. It seems that per Ms. Mayor's facebook post that is not really true. It isn't the sermons that is the problem. Ms. Mayor,etal want all communication from these Pastors, including personal conversations with parishioners.
Recommended Posts