City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

Rob, I did use the term, and when Jay pointed out it is objectionable, I removed it. My mistake.

And yes, the article links emails which demonstrate that the chairmen of the company are a “married” homosexual couple who appear to quote a line from one of the old Viking sagas at the bottom of their note to the job applicant. In the emails—it appears that a large portion of the upper management of the company responded personally to the young lady—it is also clear that all of them are (a) supportive of the idea of same sex “marriage” and (b) claim some degree of Viking spirituality. Hopefully this does not extend to human sacrifice at burials of the elite, a duty to aggressive war, slavery, and the like which were practiced by them.

It is, like the case in Houston, an example of what “tolerance” means to the progressive left these days. “Agree with us or we will trash what you hold sacred”

In this case, I’m thinking Jim’s advice holds true as an application of what Paul did in Acts 16:35-40; point to a higher law than the magistrate/mayor as a reason that they do not need to comply. Hopefully the court will not only agree that the subpoena is unlawful, but legally speaking slap the mayor into next week.

[Mike Harding]

The goal of the LGBT organizations is to destroy biblical Christianity and the traditional family, both of which are threats to their perversion. We are organizing a press conference next Tuesday at the Capitol in Lansing, Mi with 50 or more Fundamental Baptist pastors to state our objections to the new anti-discrimination bills regarding LGBT.

I agree. I also think this is going to be the biggest issue, over the last 200 years, that will strike at the core of the independence that we have enjoyed in America. I feel that many churches will fall into apostasy as they capitulate toward this and that those who do make the stand will begin facing persecution that we have not historically had to worry about.

It is already something that is hitting my own home as I am trying to teach my kids how to navigate through these waters. Right and wrong are still the same, but how they practically navigate through this, is way different than it was just 10 years ago. Equipping them for this is quite a challenge.

She got on Twitter to try and defend her position. So far, it’s not going well, and I chipped in with my .02 cents. I’d encourage others here to write, tweet, call, or whatever that she is in violation of constitutional principles here.
Bert, appreciated the apology and your most recent post. Especially thought that the passage in Acts is appropriate…thanks for sharing that!

have to take me to court to enforce her subpoena. If after all of my appeals were denied, I’d end up telling her under a court’s direction:

Sorry, but I preach with a bare bones outline. I don’t use notes or have a written out sermons.

…..is that any good lawyer or judge OUGHT to be telling a person like the mayor that the 1st Amendment protects speech, and the 4th Amendment prohibits fishing expeditions—you need to have a reason for the information that is supported by law.

And so, God willing, when the courts slap the city and the mayor into next week, I think that someone ought to look into filing a complaint against the lawyers and judges who made the subpoenas possible. It’s probably not enough, yet, to get them disbarred, but anyone with a law degree ought to instinctively say “nope, not going there” with such obvious infringement of the 1st and 4th Amendments is happening.

Yes, it’s true we are to obey authorities unless they require us to do something God forbids or forbid us from doing something God requires. But it’s very important to remember that Paul used every legal means necessary at his disposal to fight injustice, for the sake of the Gospel. If it were our church I would recommend using every legal means necessary to fight the injunction, but if those are exhausted then yes, turn over the sermons. Then, as was already recommended, continue to preach the truth.

We live in a nation where the law is king. Thus, we need not obey unconstitutional subpoenas.

1) They should turn in the sermons—and more than requested. They could even prepare some special gospel-centered, evangelistic sermons for the occasion.
2) They could also send in study Bibles, tracts, literature, etc….
If they want to hear the gospel, who are we to deny it to them? :)

Looking at the Twitter feed Jay linked, notice that the mayor is trying to twist an IRS regulation (churches cannot endorse candidates) to ban a protected exercise by churches (political action on behalf of, or opposing, legislation). So we have a city attorney abusing the 1st and 4th Amendments to implement an IRS regulation wrongly and….in an area where he has no jurisdiction. City attorneys do not enforce IRS code, after all.

So what do we make of a guy making an argument where any good court is going to slap him down on four huge criteria? He’s trying to bleed the ADF, and these churches, dry in the effort by bringing in the IRS, DOJ, and FEC, and he’s making the bet that the ADF will be satisfied with a win and won’t go after his license to practice law. It would not surprise me if the DOJ and the President were already in on this, as the ADF is suing the administration regarding the contraceptive mandate.

If I’m reading this right, it could get very entertaining.

Mayor Annise Parker seems to have backed down some:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/10/15/BREAKING-Houston-Ma…

Breitbart Texas reported earlier about the controversy, stemming from litigation challenging the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance and subpoenas asking the pastors for the content of their sermons, speeches and communications with church members. Texas Senator Ted Cruz weighed in, firmly supporting the pastors in their efforts to fight the subpoenas, while Mayor Parker initially remained adamant that the city had the right to request those records. Despite posting comments on Twitter just hours before that seemed to indicate she would continue to fight this issue, she told a Houston radio station that she had changed her mind.

As reported by KTRH Mayor Parker admitted that the subpoenas were too broad, and that the pastors’ sermons should not have been included. “It’s not about what did you preach on last Sunday,” she said. “It should have been clarified, it will be clarified.” City Attorney David Feldman had an odd admission of his own: that he had not reviewed the subpoenas before they were issued. “When I looked at it I felt it was overly broad, I would not have worded it that way myself,” said Feldman. “It’s unfortunate that it has been construed as some effort to infringe upon religious liberty.”

City officials told KTRH that they would narrow the scope of the subpoenas, but it is not clear how they will address the other concerns voiced by the pastors regarding their free speech and religious liberty issues with the rest of the items requested by the subpoena.

Keep the pressure on her and especially the attorney. I find his explanation…less than satisfying.

City Attorney David Feldman had an odd admission of his own: that he had not reviewed the subpoenas before they were issued. “When I looked at it I felt it was overly broad, I would not have worded it that way myself,” said Feldman. “It’s unfortunate that it has been construed as some effort to infringe upon religious liberty.”

Really? That’s his brilliant excuse? It should read: “I totally did not do my job because I’m completely incompetent and in the Mayor’s back pocket, which may explain why I can’t find either my spine or my moral compass with both hands and a flashlight.”

I believe signing off on documents you haven’t read is cause for disciplinary action for an attorney. As Jay affirmed, this is getting very entertaining. And given that it’s the IRS and DOJ that would actually enforce the laws they’re invoking, it could get even more entertaining before things are done.

that what the city is looking for is evidence that churches and/or pastors used their influence to coerce people to sign the petitions, perhaps at the church facilities themselves. The articles mention that the city believes that “unqualified” people were collecting signatures. I think that is the aim of the subpoenas. The city is trying to disqualify the signatures by saying the signers were coerced. I could be wrong on this…

Local to me there is a similar problem. The city government voted to buy a race track that was going to be foreclosed on. The city is indebted to a bank for the track with economic development money. A group of citizens formed a petition drive to put the purchase up to public vote and the petition drive collected 3 times the number of signatures needed. Now the city government is accusing the signature collectors of being illegitimate. The language of the lawsuit is similar to what is being used in Houston.

Mark, the trick here is that by the law, churches can, do, and should interact in the political process. If doctrine speaks to a law, pastors and other church leaders are free to influence the political process. The only thing churches can NOT do under 501C3 regulations is endorse candidates.

So Houston has two problems with the tax law argument. First, churches can legally do this, and second, even if churches could not do this legally, the city of Houston does not have jurisdiction. The IRS, DOJ, and FEC do. And it will be interesting to see where this is a matter of stupidity, or a gambit by which the city (and possibly others) were trying to intimidate/impoverish churches and the ADF.

is that Houston isn’t interested in whether pastors preached against homosexuality in this case (at least on the surface). What they did was reject the petition to put the HERO ordinance to a vote because “some of the petition gatherers did not satisfy the requirements set out for such petitions in the city charter, such as by not being registered Houston voters or by not signing the petition themselves. If such requirements were not met, he said, all the signatures the circulator gathered were invalid.”

What they were trying to do was say churches were collecting signatures using people who were not registered Houston voters to do so. Kapiche?