Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Sermon Supoenaes


ThePilgrim

Recommended Posts

  • Members
The pastors aren't party to the lawsuit. The subpoenas are an overreach. The relevance is that government servants do not have the constitutional (read: legal) authority to demand sermons just because they might mention something political.

 

Forgot to respond to this bit. But legally that's not what they're doing is it? There is no court case against the pastors for doing something political. Legally what's going on is that subpeonas have been issued in response to a court case about the council's handling of a petition. If what's being requested is irrelevant (perhaps because of alterior motive), then the subpoena can be OBjected to--par for the course.

 

If someone said that the council was using the court case to harrass the pastors or get access to their property and that is wrong, I'd say they had a point. But what's not happening--as is being implied in the press--is that the council is straight-up taking the pastors to court for political speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I think we are going in circles, here, Carl. The pastors' sermons are not relevant to the lawsuit.  The lawsuit was brought in opposition to the bathroom bill.  The pastors' sermons have nothing to do with that. Nothing. And what the subpoenas are demanding is overreach.  Plain and simple.  Just a few things the subpoenas asked for (again, relevance is an issue: the pastors were not involved in the lawsuit. There were simply critical of HERO...):

 

 

Overreach. Attempt to silence dissent.  Against our federal constitution, TX state constitution, federal law...Simply put: the subpoenas were wrong.  

 

Yeah, it depends how you define unconstitutional I guess, and you would know more than me. The point I'm making is that the council are not making any legal challenge to any right the pastors may have to political speech. If they were, I would have assumed that was unconstitutional--i.e. using power or authority not in the way intended. If they are 'silencing dissent' by other means, for example by being vexatious in a court case about something else, then I would call that wrong but not unconstitutional, in the same way I would call murder or theft wrong but not unconstitutional. But maybe I'm not using the word correctly! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The pastors' sermons are not relevant to the lawsuit.  The lawsuit was brought in opposition to the bathroom bill.

 

The lawsuit was brought in opposition to the council's handling of a petition about the 'bathroom bill'. The pastors have been called to provide evidence because the defence alledges that they were involved in organising the petition. Maybe they weren't involved in it. Or maybe they were but they have nothing to say/provide that's germaine to the case. Or maybe they do but those sermons are not it. Whatever the truth, the lawyers are alledging that the pastors were involved in carrying out the petition and that such is relevant to the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Glad I don't live under British law.

 

Sounds like it! USA law must have changed a lot from English Common Law then, because under common law the courts can compel people to provide evidence in both criminal and civil cases and as far as I know it's been like that for many centuries and is a cornerstone of English justice. It that wasn't the case, I don't really see what the courts could actually do about anything. If you were being prosecuted for murder and there were ten witnesses but your court date fell on the day of the world cup final you'd be in luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The lawsuit was brought in opposition to the council's handling of a petition about the 'bathroom bill'. The pastors have been called to provide evidence because the defence alledges that they were involved in organising the petition. Maybe they weren't involved in it. Or maybe they were but they have nothing to say/provide that's germaine to the case. Or maybe they do but those sermons are not it. Whatever the truth, the lawyers are alledging that the pastors were involved in carrying out the petition and that such is relevant to the case.


The tweet states that they have entered the political area and there for are "fair game".
She is attacking them politically because they have become political.
That is what the tweet says.

I still think they should be freely giving any preaching to whoever will read it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, I think she's saying that they entered the political arena by organising a petition and now that the same petition is the focus of a lawsuit the pastors are "fair game" for having their roles in it investigated. That's the OBvious context of the Tweet because what is being discussed is the subpoenas, and the subpoenas relate to a court case about the petition. It's also the OBvious context of the question she asks in the same Tweet-- "Were instructions given on filling out anti-HERO petition?”

 

If the mayor is claiming the subpoenas are about investigating the pastors for generally preaching politics, then that must mean there is a lawsuit from whence the subpoenas came whereby the pastors are being prosecuted for preaching politics. But there is no such lawsuit.

 

Is the council using the lawsuit that is happening (the one about the petition) to bully and intimidate the pastors by issuing subpoenas that are irrelevent and 'overreaching'? Looks like it. But that's not the same thing as the state prosecuting the pastors for political speech.

 

Here's my rub with it. When I read some of the articles linked/posted here, and some folks comments, here's what I thought the facts were:

 

1. A lesbian mayor has become aware that pastors are preaching against homosexuality.

 

2. The mayor is now having the state prosecute the pastors and has publicly justified this action on the grounds that preaching on homosexuality is political and according to her it is illegal for pastors to bring politics into their sermons.

 

3. The prosecution is now underway, beginning with a subpoena demanding the pastors' sermon materials.

 

After all, the original Fox News article only mentioned about eight paragraphs in that it wasn't the state doing the suing and that the subpoenas were issued as part of a defence, not a prosecution. And bringing up first amendment is something you do when someone's trying to change a law or use a law to threaten your rights isn't it? So all this talk of the constitution being violated further implies that the state is trying to bring legal action against the pastors.

 

So if I didn't fact check that, and I went away and told others about it. And then for years it would come up in conversations about preaching--"you remember in 2014 some pastors were prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality?!"--does anyone think that would be a fair summary or what really happened?

 

And it's really unecessary because what really has happened is serious enough: a council has apparently refused a petition even after it passed the number of signatures needed, and the council has responded to a lawsuit about it by issuing subpoenas that appear to be designed to intimidate those involved in the petition (and/or for preaching against homosexuality).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Carl, the challenge to the bathroom bill is based upon the fact that there were more than the required number for a petition.  There were many thousands handed in, and those that were not legitimate were discounted. Even at that, that left a few hundred more than the required amount. The rub came in, though, when the city attorney through out ALL of the signatures, and thus the referendum was shot down. Illegally, I might add. The city secretary (I'm not sure of her actual title) who is responsible for counting and approving the signatures did so.  The city attorney had no legal right, nor any business, coming in and tossing them, thus effectively saying the people of the city had no right to vote on whether or not to allow transgenders in opposite sex bathrooms.

 

Of course the mayor isn't claiming she's going after them politically...who in their right mind would claim that?  Carl, I realize you don't live in America, but please know this: our freedoms and liberties have been under attack for many years. God-haters are trying to remove Him from every aspect of life.  And, sadly, too many Christians are going along with the idea that Christians should stay out of certain areas (completely backward of how this country was founded).  I'm sorry, but the subpoenas don't have to center in a lawsuit whereby the politics or not of pastors is involved...all that is necessary is for them to demand them, in the name of the particular lawsuit here (bathroom bill) as a way to control. For what reason, other than scrutiny and attempt at control, did the subpoena state that all sermons that mentioned the mayor must be given?  That has nothing to do with the bill. For what reason did the subpoenas state that all sermons that mentioned homosexuality must be given?  Again, that has nothing to do with the bill. Etc.  You may think that it is relevant, but it isn't.  Now, even though I still think it would be wrong, had the subpoenas only requested communication which actually mentioned the petitions, perhaps things would be fine.  In fact, here is what a law professor had to say:

 

 

 

University of Houston law professor Peter Linzer says the city reached too far in issuing the subpoenas. One subpoena sent to Pastor Steve Riggle, for example, asks for “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to [the equal rights ordinance], the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity.” However, Linzer says it wouldn’t impinge on the pastors’ First Amendment rights if the city only asked only for sermons or speeches related to the signature drive. “Let’s assume they gave instructions to cheat,” Linzer says. “That would be relevant speech and I don’t see how they would have any First Amendment protection for that.”

 

There is a very real effort here in America to de-God everything.  Things like this simply are part of it.  

 

Here's Ted Cruz with some good words...

 

 

In all actuality, people can rightly sue the mayor and city attorney for violating city charter by negating the petitions for referendum.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Interesting article by TX State Rep Matt Krause

 

(On a side note, the fact that the IRS "allows" this kind of speech is not a good thing - what it "allows" it can disallow - ...and just one of the multitude of reasons the IRS should be ended)

If you have ever looked at the Internal Revenue Code, you'll understand why they generally don't make serious changes to it: It is massive, and they don't even understand it, themselves, so fir them, its in their best interests to ignore what it says when possible and do what they like, since they have no oversight and answer to no one-the only ones who can stand against them are those who do their homework and can bring that information before a court to fight them. That's why the 508c1a code is still in place, that recognizes churches as tax excepted. It would be too difficult to change it, because then you have to change a bunch more to maintain cohesiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

If you have ever looked at the Internal Revenue Code, you'll understand why they generally don't make serious changes to it: It is massive, and they don't even understand it, themselves, so fir them, its in their best interests to ignore what it says when possible and do what they like, since they have no oversight and answer to no one-the only ones who can stand against them are those who do their homework and can bring that information before a court to fight them. That's why the 508c1a code is still in place, that recognizes churches as tax excepted. It would be too difficult to change it, because then you have to change a bunch more to maintain cohesiveness.

True. But since they have no oversight, they can change at will...and there have been folks who have done their homework and still lost. I'd just like to see the IRS done away with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...