The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: m25operator on October 15, 2014, 12:02:22 PM
-
Apparently, church pastors in Houston, TX have been preaching about homosexuality, coming elections and their effects on the congregations. The Lesbian mayor doesn't like it, and has successfully solicited the courts to issue subpoenas for sermons if they mention the aforementioned or subversive text. Sounds like the Texas Rangers need to be called in, corrupt local or State governments, are part of their job description.
-
It's a pretty simple 1st Amendment case, but if they tolerate it they don't deserve any better.
-
If they are inciting violence good for her otherwise screw her.
-
Pastors to Mayor: Don’t Mess with Texas Pulpits
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/10/15/pastors-to-mayor-dont-mess-with-texas-pulpits/
-
If they are inciting violence good for her otherwise screw her.
Errrrrrr!!! Wrong!!!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Whether or not the people choose to participate in civil disobedience due to the preaching does not justify or nullify her orders. To cast a broad net of subpoenas because she disagrees with the Religion is unconstitutional.
-
If they are inciting people to stone gays, then yes they need to be held accountable for that. And yes, the bible does say to do that.
-
If they are inciting people to stone gays, then yes they need to be held accountable for that. And yes, the bible does say to do that.
Can you point out where? I don't remember any place in particular that suggests the death penalty for any particular sin, at least not in the New Testament.
However, if the city was concerned that the pastors where indeed trying incite murder then I don't this would be the proper way of investigating it.
-
First off, both the Jewish Faith and Christian Faith recognize the Old Testament, but even the most Orthedox Jew no longer has the infrastructure in place to follow through on Biblical punishment, and Christians follow the teachings of Christ where the sin is still a sin, but we leave it in God's hands.
Second, this is about removing right and wrong from the world and making everything the same. Liberals can not stand the idea that there are moral absolutes that define right and wrong. In the 60's a book came out titled I'm OK, You're OK. This pushed the idea of no moral absolutes and no competitive reward. We are seeing this idea grow year after year.
If this Mayor wants to hear the sermons she can attend a service, or she can tie a criminal suspect to a crime and testimony that implicates the pastor and their sermon, then she can subpoena the text for criminal activity. Until then I refer her to the First Amendment.
-
Can you point out where? I don't remember any place in particular that suggests the death penalty for any particular sin, at least not in the New Testament.
However, if the city was concerned that the pastors where indeed trying incite murder then I don't this would be the proper way of investigating it.
its in Leviticus I want to say high teens low 20s
-
Leviticus 20:13...
Old Testament..
-
Houston Backtracks on Church Subpoenas
http://www.woai.com/onair/the-joe-pags-show-10/houston-backtracks-on-church-subpoenas-12867545/
-
Biblically speaking....... Jesus, as final High Priest, having paid the cost Himself, negated the need for the pushments formerly doled out for breaking Levitical law.
It's in the New Testament........check it out. ;)
True Christians should not desire to stone gays..... that doesn't mean it hasn't happened a time or three over the last couple thousand years....... but if it was done so in the name of Christ, they will answer for it
-
Biblically speaking....... Jesus, as final High Priest, having paid the cost Himself, negated the need for the pushments formerly doled out for breaking Levitical law.
It's in the New Testament........check it out. ;)
True Christians should not desire to stone gays..... that doesn't mean it hasn't happened a time or three over the last couple thousand years....... but if it was done so in the name of Christ, they will answer for it
peg you and I both know people like to pick and choose the verses they fallow and those they don't, the more fanatical they are, the worse they are.
-
Soooo, did she subpoena the sermons from the Muslims mosques as well?
I didn't think so.
-
It actually falls under 2 aspects of the 1st A, the religion clause that you've already jumped on, but also free speech.
As for the religion clause, it could be used to negate all gay rights, and abortion laws due to lack of jurisdiction .
I'm talking about ALL laws on these subjects, pro AND con .
-
It actually falls under 2 aspects of the 1st A, the religion clause that you've already jumped on, but also free speech.
As for the religion clause, it could be used to negate all gay rights, and abortion laws due to lack of jurisdiction .
I'm talking about ALL laws on these subjects, pro AND con .
This is why I quote entire Amendments. Many people like to pick and chose which portion of an Amendment they quote, however, I find that these simple short Amendments work best when looked at in their entirety.
This is a bit of a drift, but I will point to the firearms debate and the Second Amendment: Many gun rights people will quote only the second half of the Amendment, and many anti-gun people throw the first half back alone. However, if you look at the entire sentence you will find that it builds the case even stronger. This is the same for the First and all others.
-
I hear your point M58, but I will pick the nit that pro gunners use "shall not be infringed" alone to illustrate that no legislation regulating the whole has any legitimacy, while the antis use the "well regulated" part as an excuse for ignoring the second part.
-
Leviticus 20:13...
Old Testament..
Thanks for that. It was an interesting read, I never realized the Old Testament so specific on punishments for those things. PegLeg45 is right, any Christian that takes this literally has some issues.
-
peg you and I both know people like to pick and choose the verses they fallow and those they don't, the more fanatical they are, the worse they are.
I can't argue that... and on top of that, many take scripture out of context, which makes it worse.
I see it in action all the time.....and by people I know.
Also, not saying any one denomination is right or wrong, but the fact that we have separate Christian denominations comes from following specific passages of scripture (not that they take the scripture out of context) and basing worship doctrine on those passages.
As to the topic of the OP, I defer to M58 and Tom, as they have the issue pretty well covered. ;)
-
If there is cause to believe that the sermons incited violence, there could be a case for subpoenaing sermons already given, but that is iffy unless they can give specific dates the sermons were given and the nature of the incitement.
If there have been no incidents of violence being attributed to congregation members who heard the sermons, it gets even iffier.
This would be similar to music or movies portraying and favoring violence....even if "fans" did commit violence after being exposed.
Were religion would come in is if, for example, a religion mandated that non believers be killed and a follower of that religion were to, say, kill a co-worker who was a non-believer in a manner practiced by that religion, beheading as an example, while claiming it was done in the name of the religion.
An alternative view is that it would be generic work place violence with not even hints of a religious motivation.
-
That doesn't hold up Solus.
Al Sharpton has been inciting violence since the days of Tawana Brawley and nothing was ever done.
Several of Sharpton's speeches have led to riots and murders that were later directly linked to his statements.
-
I hear your point M58, but I will pick the nit that pro gunners use "shall not be infringed" alone to illustrate that no legislation regulating the whole has any legitimacy, while the antis use the "well regulated" part as an excuse for ignoring the second part.
Tom, allow me to nit you back and point out that keeping "regulated" in its era context not only supports but strengthens "shall not be infringed." Pro-Constitution people actually hurt their own cause when they only use one half of the sentence.
Oh, wait a minute: That is the point I was trying to make earlier.
-
It would help if some of us actually looked at the subpoenas or at least the more in depth articles about them.
The lesbian mayor - who has now denied all knowledge of the subpoenas until a few days ago - and the district attorney who is also now denying all knowledge of the subpoenas, claiming instead that "pro bono attorneys" preparing the city's defense in the lawsuit against the so-called HERO ordinance which mandates common use of all bathrooms based on sexual self-identity.
The subpoenas seemed to have more to do with any of the sermons' references to homosexuality and to the lesbian mayor (I'll stop referring to her that way when she does) than anything else. No one, TAB and Tom - NO ONE - has advocated any violence for or against anything. Nice knee-jerk on your part there, especially you TAB.
And now Abbott, the Texas AG and running for Governor against "Abortion Barbie" Davis, has essentially sent a cease and desist letter to the DA.
-
Nice knee jerk on your part, I never said any one had. I simply pointed out that when Democrats do incite violence nothing is done about it so even if these preachers HAD as TAB speculated it would be irrelevant.
You sound like a person with a guilty conscience leaping to conclusions like that.
-
That doesn't hold up Solus.
Al Sharpton has been inciting violence since the days of Tawana Brawley and nothing was ever done.
Several of Sharpton's speeches have led to riots and murders that were later directly linked to his statements.
Reread my post, Tom.
I said without that violence that can be linked to the speach/sermon a subpoena would be iffy and even with the violence it would be too.
I compared it to music or movie that called for violence and even if it did result in violence any action would be doubtful.
-
Reread my post, Tom.
I said without that violence that can be linked to the speach/sermon a subpoena would be iffy and even with the violence it would be too.
I compared it to music or movie that called for violence and even if it did result in violence any action would be doubtful.
My point exactly.
The precedent of taking no action has already been set.
-
My point exactly.
The precedent of taking no action has already been set.
Ok...then I'm not sure why you posted "That doesn't hold up Solus." if you agreed.