Houston, we have a problem

[Pressing-On]

Houston, we have a problem
Angry over voter lawsuit, city demands to pick through sermons, other communications from pastors who aren’t involved
Monday, October 13, 2014

HOUSTON – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have filed a motion in a Texas court to stop an attempt by the city of Houston to subpoena sermons and other communications belonging to several area pastors in a lawsuit in which the pastors are not even involved.

City officials are upset over a voter lawsuit filed after the city council rejected valid petitions to repeal a law that allows members of the opposite sex into each other’s restrooms. ADF attorneys say the city is illegitimately demanding that the pastors, who are not party to the lawsuit, turn over their constitutionally protected sermons and other communications simply so the city can see if the pastors have ever opposed or criticized the city.

“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “In this case, they have embarked upon a witch-hunt, and we are asking the court to put a stop to it.”

“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Christiana Holcomb. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions. Political and social commentary is not a crime; it is protected by the First Amendment.”

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9349

[Pressing-On]

More Than 1,800 Pastors Advocate For Political Speech Rights in Church

So far this year, more than 1,800 pastors across the United States have participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday, an annual event hosted by Alliance Defending Freedom that advocates for pastors’ right to speak on politics from the pulpit without fear of losing their churches’ tax exempt status.

Pulpit Freedom Sunday, which started Oct. 5 and runs through Election Day on Nov. 4, first began in 2008 with only 33 participating pastors.

So far this year, Alliance Defending Freedom, the Arizona-based Christian activist group that started the event, reported pastors in more than 1,500 churches in all 50 states and Puerto Rico have preached sermons “representing biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates” since the event began nearly two weeks ago.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-rights-church

[FlamingZword]

That is why some churches do not have 503C status.
not having that non-profit status allows you to speak freely without any governmental gag.

[n david]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

That is why some churches do not have 503C status.
not having that non-profit status allows you to speak freely without any governmental gag.

It's also why churches should not be tax exempt. Tax exemption allows the government dictate what can and cannot be preached from the pulpit.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

That is why some churches do not have 503C status.
not having that non-profit status allows you to speak freely without any governmental gag.

Originally Posted by n david

It's also why churches should not be tax exempt. Tax exemption allows the government dictate what can and cannot be preached from the pulpit.

It shouldn't matter whether or not they are tax exempt. We need the correct discourse on the separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is about the government not forcing a "state" religion on the country. It is not about squashing freedom of religion in this country. We need to get that right somehow, if that is even possible today.

[Pressing-On]

BTW, this is a very excellent article and I think those posting on this thread would find it a great read. Bookmark it and read it in its entirety.

The History and Danger of Administrative Law

Administrative law is commonly defended as a new sort of power, a product of the 19th and the 20th centuries that developed to deal with the problems of modern society in all its complexity. From this perspective, the Framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated it and the Constitution could not have barred it. What I will suggest, in contrast, is that administrative power is actually very old. It revives what used to be called prerogative or absolute power, and it is thus something that the Constitution centrally prohibited.

But first, what exactly do I mean by administrative law or administrative power? Put simply, administrative acts are binding or constraining edicts that come, not through law, but through other mechanisms or pathways. For example, when an executive agency issues a rule constraining Americans—barring an activity that results in pollution, for instance, or restricting how citizens can use their land—it is an attempt to exercise binding legislative power not through an act of Congress, but through an administrative edict. Similarly, when an executive agency adjudicates a violation of one of these edicts—in order to impose a fine or some other penalty—it is an attempt to exercise binding judicial power not through a judicial act, but again through an administrative act...

The Prerogative Power of Kings

The constitutional history of the past thousand years in common law countries records the repeated ebb and flow of absolutism on the one side and law on the other. English kings were widely expected to rule through law. They had Parliament for making law and courts of law for adjudicating cases, and they were expected to govern through the acts of these bodies. But kings were discontent with governing through the law and often acted on their own. The personal power that kings exercised when evading the law was called prerogative power...

The Rise of Absolutism in America

The United States Constitution echoes this. Early Americans were very familiar with absolute power. They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights. It is no surprise, then, that the United States Constitution was framed to bar this sort of power. To be precise, Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America...

In sum, the conventional understanding of administrative law is utterly mistaken. It is wrong on the history and oblivious to the danger. That danger is absolutism: extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. And the danger matters because administrative power revives this absolutism. The Constitution carefully barred this threat, but constitutional doctrine has since legitimized this dangerous sort of power. It therefore is necessary to go back to basics. Among other things, we should no longer settle for some vague notion of “rule of law,” understood as something that allows the delegation of legislative and judicial powers to administrative agencies. We should demand rule through law and rule under law. Even more fundamentally, we need to reclaim the vocabulary of law: Rather than speak of administrative law, we should speak of administrative power—indeed, of absolute power or more concretely of extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. Then we at least can begin to recognize the danger.

http://parkercountyblog.com/2014/10/...istrative-law/

[Aquila]

I think the debate should be... why should tax exemption deprive a pastor of his (or her) right to free speech as spelled out in the Constitution?

This is a "free speech" issue.

[good samaritan]

I don't think tax exemption should keep a pastor from freedom of speech and evidently it hasn't because the city of Houston has made this subpoena. The question is what is going to happen and what are the people going to do? Freedom has a price we can't always expect people to give it to us.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think the debate should be... why should tax exemption deprive a pastor of his (or her) right to free speech as spelled out in the Constitution?

This is a "free speech" issue.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I don't think tax exemption should keep a pastor from freedom of speech and evidently it hasn't because the city of Houston has made this subpoena. The question is what is going to happen and what are the people going to do? Freedom has a price we can't always expect people to give it to us.

Hope you both get a chance to read the last article I posted. It is very well written.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Houston, we have a problem
Angry over voter lawsuit, city demands to pick through sermons, other communications from pastors who aren’t involved
Monday, October 13, 2014

HOUSTON – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have filed a motion in a Texas court to stop an attempt by the city of Houston to subpoena sermons and other communications belonging to several area pastors in a lawsuit in which the pastors are not even involved.

City officials are upset over a voter lawsuit filed after the city council rejected valid petitions to repeal a law that allows members of the opposite sex into each other’s restrooms. ADF attorneys say the city is illegitimately demanding that the pastors, who are not party to the lawsuit, turn over their constitutionally protected sermons and other communications simply so the city can see if the pastors have ever opposed or criticized the city.

“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “In this case, they have embarked upon a witch-hunt, and we are asking the court to put a stop to it.”

“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Christiana Holcomb. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions. Political and social commentary is not a crime; it is protected by the First Amendment.”

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9349

Something this insane would be covered by at least one of the other major news networks.

Do you have an actual link for this being covered by one of the major news networks?

The other thread purports to have a Fox link, but the video feed does not match the topic of the story-- making the accusations look suspicious to me.