Full Frontal on the First: Atlanta Fire Chief

[Phatscotty]

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.

In a move most people consider 'shocking', Houston Mayor Annise Parker has subpoenaed not only sermons delivered by multiple Churches in the area, but also "all speeches, presentations, discussions, texts, emails, literature, packets, memos that had to deal in any way with homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession,” according to the Houston Chronicle. The mayor stands by her decision, her aide re-affirming that anything proclaiming that homosexuality is a sin preached by a pastor at a Church is not protected speech....."“The pastors made their sermons relevant to the case by using the pulpit to do political organizing,” Evans said in her statement. “This included encouraging congregation members to sign petitions and help gather signatures for equal rights ordinance foes. The issue is whether they were speaking from the pulpit for the purpose of politics. If so, it is not protected speech.”

Here is the full article Houston subpoenas pastors’ sermons in gay rights ordinance case
and here is some fact checking The city of Houston, Texas, subpoenaed several pastors' sermons as part of a crackdown on preaching against homosexuality.


So basically, the government can tell religions and pastors not only what is a sin and what isn't a sin, but that they are breaking the new law by saying certain things are sins, breaking the new law by preaching the Bible, and the government will not allow religion to preach anything concerning the issue of homosexuality, unless it is positive.

I say, people who believe in the principle and regularly say 'but, Separation of Church and State! should be saying it the loudest right now. This is clearly violating the Freedom of Religion as well as the Freedom of Speech.

[rdsrds2120]

Nice to see some things don't change around here.

--Gomez

[crispybits]

The issue is whether they were speaking from the pulpit for the purpose of politics. If so, it is not protected speech.

That's from your little diatribe and explains why the following is not true.

So basically, the government can tell religions and pastors not only what is a sin and what isn't a sin, but that they are breaking the new law by saying certain things are sins, breaking the new law by preaching the Bible, and the government will not allow religion to preach anything concerning the issue of homosexuality, unless it is positive.

Nobody is saying that religious speech condemning homosexuality as a sin is illegal. What they are saying is that using religion as a political platform by which to mobilise support for political causes (such as denying equal treatment to homosexuals under the law) invalidates the separation of church and state from the religious side of the theoretical "wall of separation", and that anyone doing so loses religious free speech protection by doing so, and should be held to the legal consequences of their words as if they are not religious sermons...

If we live next to each other, and had a fence between us, then anything you do on your side of the fence is your business and I have no right to try and stop you. Unless that is, you decide it is your right to climb over the fence and stop me doing something I want to do. Once you climb over that fence, you can't then complain that I'm violating the sanctity of the fence by calling the police on your ass. The religious have crossed the fence by politically organising through their religious institutions. They don't now get to complain if political institutions get involved in the areas of their religion that have crosed that line, because they brought that into the political arena themselves...

[notyou2]

In Canada we have free speech, but there are laws against hate speech.

The mayor is simply attempting to stop the hate. I thought Christianity was all about love, not hate. Apparently there are many so called Christians that love nothing better than to hate.

[pimpdave]

You spelled Muslims wrong. They say the same things in their mosques daily in the USA, yet I bet that c#@t mayor wouldn't have the guts to do the same thing to them.

[tzor]

In Canada we have free speech, but there are laws against hate speech.

The problems with Canada are legion. A large number of them is with saying you have X and then restricting the very X you claim to have.

The mayor is simply attempting to stop the hate. I thought Christianity was all about love, not hate. Apparently there are many so called Christians that love nothing better than to hate.

Well isn't that all nice and special. But last time I checked, we have this "separation of church and state" in the States. In other words, it's none of the Government's damn business what a church believes. The government's job is not to enforce Christianity upon "Christian" churches. Yes, there are a number of so called "Christian" churches I despise. But unless they are upsetting the rights of others in a public space (or upsetting the rights of private property rights in the private space of the people they are upsetting) it's none of the Government's business.

The problem with "hate speech" is that it is too vague. It can easily become a tool to bully the other side into silence.

Going beyond the posted speed limit in a school zone is wrong ... you just hate fast drivers.

[crispybits]

Well isn't that all nice and special. But last time I checked, we have this "separation of church and state" in the States. In other words, it's none of the Government's damn business what a church believes. The government's job is not to enforce Christianity upon "Christian" churches.

Well isn't THAT all nice and special, but just like the wall should hold government away from religion, it should hold religion away from government, and yet:

The number of organizations engaged in religious lobbying or religion-related advocacy in Washington, D.C., has increased roughly fivefold in the past four decades, from fewer than 40 in 1970 to more than 200 today. These groups collectively employ at least 1,000 people in the greater Washington area and spend at least $350 million a year on efforts to influence national public policy. As a whole, religious advocacy organizations work on about 300 policy issues. For most of the past century, religious advocacy groups in Washington focused mainly on domestic affairs. Today, however, roughly as many groups work only on international issues as work only on domestic issues, and nearly two-thirds of the groups work on both. These are among the key findings of a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life that examines a total of 216 religion-related advocacy groups operating in the nation’s capital.

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/11/21/lobb ... hful-exec/

If religious folk want to claim there's this wall here and what they do for religious reasons is untouchable by the politicians, then they really should stop being such hypocrites and keep their religious opinions out of the political arena don't you think?

[tzor]

Well isn't THAT all nice and special, but just like the wall should hold government away from religion, it should hold religion away from government, and yet:

No the wall simply states that the Bishop can't tell the Governor what to do and the Governor can't tell the Bishop what to do. That is all. The Bishop is still a tax payer of the Government and perhaps the Governor is a member of the Church. Now while few churches are "democratic" some in fact are. In those cases the Governor is perfectly within his rights as a member of the congregation to petition against the Bishop (or whatever title is in charge in that particular church).

There is a big difference between religion/government and church/state.

Of course if you want to go back to the American Dark Ages, you go and enforce that notion that religion should not be meddling in government business. After all, the Abolitionist movement was a religious one.

Personally I think that lobbyists of any sort have way too much power in government these days, but that is a problem with government itself, not with people of religious faith.

[crispybits]

The abolitionist movement was not exclusively religious, in fact some (not all) of the most influential members of it argued for abolition on purely humanistic grounds (Oglethorpe and Wilberforce for example). There were theists and non-theists in both camps of that moral battle.

The fact remains, if the religious want to claim that there is a wall of separation, and then do not respect that wall of separation by their own actions, they are acting in a hypocritical manner. You can't have it be only one-way.

The Governor in a democratic church can vote against the Bishop on a religious matter, but if he does so for political reasons then most everyone would agree he is not voting on religious grounds and is acting as a political agent not a religious one. Similarly, if the Bishop votes on a political matter in a certain way for religious reasons then he is still acting politically, and the expression of his opinions on that political matter should not be protected by religious free speech..

[tzor]

The Governor in a democratic church can vote against the Bishop on a religious matter, but if he does so for political reasons then most everyone would agree he is not voting on religious grounds and is acting as a political agent not a religious one. Similarly, if the Bishop votes on a political matter in a certain way for religious reasons then he is still acting politically, and the expression of his opinions on that political matter should not be protected by religious free speech..

That's so bizarre I don't even know where to begin. First and foremost ... what is "political?" Are you aware of the meaning of the term?

show

Now if you are specifically considering "political reasons" as being tied to a political party as opposed to the general running of the state,then you have something closer to an argument, but even then a technical one. Religious leaders, being members of 501(c)(3) corporations cannot endorse specific candidates, not because of the "wall" but because of the nature of the tax exempt status of religious institutions. However, political topics can be so addressed.

show

A Bishop has the right to say whatever he feels like. (By the way, so does a Mayor or Governor). The prohibition of him publicly endorsing a political candidate comes from the tax code and is the same for all such organizations, (for example a pro-life lobbying group) under the same organizational structure. it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "wall of separation" even if you do believe that the "incorporation doctrine" pushed the amendment to the states and local governments (which, technically, it does not).

[crispybits]

Maybe civil would be a better word than political. Maybe secular would be. I think it's pretty clear I'm making the distinction between governmental and religious fora. They have different starting points, they stress different priorities, they threaten differing punishments, etc.

If you want to make a religious statement then that's fine by any measure, but that claim should be recognised as religious in nature. For example "homosexual acts are sinful". I would call any such claim complete BS, but I would also defend the right of you or anyone else to make that claim. If, however, you go further than that and say "the government should act differently towards homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships" then you are no longer making a religious statement, you are making a political/secular/civil statement. When you go even further (not you personally) and say "the government should not allow gay marriage because my religion says it's wrong" then you are being outright political/civil/secular. You cannot make a statement of that nature, and then hide behind religious free speech protection principles.

Religious institutions are quite happy (seemingly, judging by the facts evident to anyone who does even a quick google search) to politically lobby based on their religious beliefs. That's different than individuals voting on principle by the way, they act through the political establishments to further their religious agendas. Yet when the political sphere tries to push back and say "well, now you're trying to influence policy you have to abide by the same rules the rest of us in politics abide by" particularly in terms of calling out discriminatory principles based on religious arguments it's all "separation of church and state!!!!"

Either you want separation, in which case every religious individual is free to vote on any matter however their conscience dictates, but religious institutions should stay separate from the political/civil/secular ones and should not attempt to influence them (or vice versa). Or you want religious lobbyists getting involved in policy matters, and the state being given the same right to push back on those religious institutions. You can't have it as "the state can't touch my church, but my church can push the state in whatever directions it likes".

[patches70]

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.

In a move most people consider 'shocking', Houston Mayor Annise Parker has subpoenaed not only sermons delivered by multiple Churches in the area, but also "all speeches, presentations, discussions, texts, emails, literature, packets, memos that had to deal in any way with homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession,” according to the Houston Chronicle. The mayor stands by her decision, her aide re-affirming that anything proclaiming that homosexuality is a sin preached by a pastor at a Church is not protected speech....."“The pastors made their sermons relevant to the case by using the pulpit to do political organizing,” Evans said in her statement. “This included encouraging congregation members to sign petitions and help gather signatures for equal rights ordinance foes. The issue is whether they were speaking from the pulpit for the purpose of politics. If so, it is not protected speech.”

Here is the full article Houston subpoenas pastors’ sermons in gay rights ordinance case
and here is some fact checking The city of Houston, Texas, subpoenaed several pastors' sermons as part of a crackdown on preaching against homosexuality.


So basically, the government can tell religions and pastors not only what is a sin and what isn't a sin, but that they are breaking the new law by saying certain things are sins, breaking the new law by preaching the Bible, and the government will not allow religion to preach anything concerning the issue of homosexuality, unless it is positive.

I say, people who believe in the principle and regularly say 'but, Separation of Church and State! should be saying it the loudest right now. This is clearly violating the Freedom of Religion as well as the Freedom of Speech.

I think the pastors, the churches just shouldn't comply with the Mayor's demands and dare the mayor to have them arrested. The judge would laugh the mayor and the prosecution right out of the court. Well, the judge might not laugh, but he'd give an earful to the mayor. And if not that judge then on appeals and the Supreme Court would toss the mayor and her requests for church sermons right out of court in a heartbeat.

Any quasi decent lawyer would successfully defend the pastors and churches easily.

[Phatscotty]

The issue is whether they were speaking from the pulpit for the purpose of politics. If so, it is not protected speech.

That's from your little diatribe and explains why the following is not true.

So basically, the government can tell religions and pastors not only what is a sin and what isn't a sin, but that they are breaking the new law by saying certain things are sins, breaking the new law by preaching the Bible, and the government will not allow religion to preach anything concerning the issue of homosexuality, unless it is positive.

Nobody is saying that religious speech condemning homosexuality as a sin is illegal. What they are saying is that using religion as a political platform by which to mobilise support for political causes (such as denying equal treatment to homosexuals under the law) invalidates the separation of church and state from the religious side of the theoretical "wall of separation", and that anyone doing so loses religious free speech protection by doing so, and should be held to the legal consequences of their words as if they are not religious sermons...

If we live next to each other, and had a fence between us, then anything you do on your side of the fence is your business and I have no right to try and stop you. Unless that is, you decide it is your right to climb over the fence and stop me doing something I want to do. Once you climb over that fence, you can't then complain that I'm violating the sanctity of the fence by calling the police on your ass. The religious have crossed the fence by politically organising through their religious institutions. They don't now get to complain if political institutions get involved in the areas of their religion that have crosed that line, because they brought that into the political arena themselves...

You are partially right, and thanks for a good example, but what I was getting at is government can pass a law that goes against the Church's teachings, and the Church can't do or say anything about it??

And by the way, Eric Holder and Vallerie Jarret used the crap out of religion using as a political platform to get Obama re-elected. I know it's a thin line between glad-handing at the door and organizing a rally during mass, but basically it's the same double standard. Only the Left can do it.

[Phatscotty]

You spelled Muslims wrong. They say the same things in their mosques daily in the USA, yet I bet that c#@t mayor wouldn't have the guts to do the same thing to them.

Man, I forget to add the most important part to the OP. PimpDave to the rescue!

Not even when a certain groups message is hate and murder and political Islam...nope, they would never.

[crispybits]

You are partially right, and thanks for a good example, but what I was getting at is government can pass a law that goes against the Church's teachings, and the Church can't do or say anything about it??

And by the way, Eric Holder and Vallerie Jarret used the crap out of religion using as a political platform to get Obama re-elected. I know it's a thin line between glad-handing at the door and organizing a rally during mass, but basically it's the same double standard. Only the Left can do it.

They can say what they have always said. "Our religion teaches that X is a sin, sinners will be punished with eternal Hell, yadda yadda yadda." If they stick to that then there really is no issue (at least not in my eyes) because that's religious teaching and is protected by the wall of separation.

If they use the pulpits and the religious institutions to say "the government has done the wrong thing, the government should do this or that" then that's political (as in it's regarding policy) and that should not be protected in the same way.

Unfortunately, religious groups seem to think the wall should only work one way and not the other. In a way they are insulting the intelligence of their followers. Surely "X is a sin" is a powerful enough message that their followers, acting on their individual consciences, would vote against X being policy without needing some preacher telling them they should?

If you started a thread about how liberal religious institutions get involved in supporting liberal politics then I'd be on the same side as you in that particular debate. No religious institution should have anything to say about policy, and no political institution should have anything to say about religion. (note institution - religious people have a vote, and politicans can hold religious beliefs and act in a way consistent with them - it's the fact that the institutions get used as platforms to cross the wall of separation that is the problem)

[AndyDufresne]

In the future, institutions will be people like corporations. Solves that problem!


--Andy

[tzor]

If you want to make a religious statement then that's fine by any measure, but that claim should be recognised as religious in nature. For example "homosexual acts are sinful". I would call any such claim complete BS, but I would also defend the right of you or anyone else to make that claim. If, however, you go further than that and say "the government should act differently towards homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships" then you are no longer making a religious statement, you are making a political/secular/civil statement. When you go even further (not you personally) and say "the government should not allow gay marriage because my religion says it's wrong" then you are being outright political/civil/secular. You cannot make a statement of that nature, and then hide behind religious free speech protection principles.

I see these things differently than you do, apparently. I might come to the same conclusions, but for different reasons.

Let's take the notion of "the government should act differently towards homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships" for example. I think you need to know the "why" to that statement before you can assess the nature of the statement. Likewise "should" is a relatively mild word. "The government should not interrupt my favorite soap opera," for example.

Finally there is the "the government should not allow gay marriage because my religion says it's wrong" and there I see something completely different. You see, the "government" is the government of people who are of and not of your religion, so unless you are arguing from natural law and universal unalienable rights, the specifics of your religion should not be imposed on someone not of your religion. Since we are talking about marriage the best example was the Federal government's threat of war to force Mormons to abandon polygamy.

And note I'm not even thinking of "religious free speech," but "free speech" in general, and the associated codes that a 501(c)(3) corporation is entitled to. All of those statements are technically allowed because they are not directed towards a particular candidate. Just because I don't agree with them, doesn't mean they can't be said.

If they use the pulpits and the religious institutions to say "the government has done the wrong thing, the government should do this or that" then that's political (as in it's regarding policy) and that should not be protected in the same way.

Unfortunately, religious groups seem to think the wall should only work one way and not the other.

There is a subtle irony in this. Government's generally don't "preach." Your typical Governor doesn't address the people every week on a government topic of the day.

But if you want, here is an example of liberal political preaching ...

Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

That was the Governor of New York State telling people that if they are "Right to life" then get the hell out of his state.

Do you think we should revoke his government because he said that? Probably not. (I'm sorry Mr. Cuomo, but because you said that, you can't tax the people any more.)

[crispybits]

Where has the Governor told anyone what they should believe about whether their religion endorses or condemns right-to-life or anti-gay positions. he's not said "you can't believe that homosexuality is a sin". He's not said "you can't preach that people who give and receive abortions are going to hell because it's against the commandment thou shalt not kill"

He's not getting into a religious debate there. he's not saying "God loves gays" or "Your church should start teaching that life begins at birth". He's saying that if you take those stances on civil policy issues (the inclusion of assault weapons is a pretty big clue it's not a religious dig - I don't remember seeing any AK-47s in the bible...) then you have no place in NY.

Do I agree he went too far? Yeah of course, a politician, once elected, should be trying to include and provide for all of his constituents within reason and the bounds of possibility in a pluralistic society, even the ones he personally finds reprehensible. But there was no religious rhetoric there, only discussion of current and relevant civil policy issues.

If you want to argue that they are religious issues then you're flat out admitting the fact that religion has invaded politics so far you can't even tell the difference any more. Religion = personal philosophy and personal choices. Policy = the rules everyone lives by regardless of their opinions. If your religious issues have become huge policy issues that's a clear indication you already crossed that wall of separation by a country mile...

[Serbia]

All I know is, I read "Full Frontal" and clicked on the thread.
I'm massively disappointed.

Bollocks.

[BoganGod]

The prophet Jesus would not be welcome in any western christian church. Wrong ethnicity, colour, socio economic background etc. Imagine a conservative christian congregation, white, upper middle class, well kept lawn, comfortable pews. Now imagine a tiny dark skinned palestinian carpenter telling them that they should love everyone in their neighbourhood(not just from the country club), not pay as much attention to money, and in general not be judgemental pricks.
Wouldn't fly.

[Phatscotty]

Nice to see some things don't change around here.

--Gomez

Can't have evolution if everything remains the same. Like I said at the time concerning these matters, I would stop talking about it at that point of speculation and prevention. But I promised I would revisit the issues when they became realities.

You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

[Phatscotty]

You are partially right, and thanks for a good example, but what I was getting at is government can pass a law that goes against the Church's teachings, and the Church can't do or say anything about it??

And by the way, Eric Holder and Vallerie Jarret used the crap out of religion using as a political platform to get Obama re-elected. I know it's a thin line between glad-handing at the door and organizing a rally during mass, but basically it's the same double standard. Only the Left can do it.

They can say what they have always said. "Our religion teaches that X is a sin, sinners will be punished with eternal Hell, yadda yadda yadda." If they stick to that then there really is no issue (at least not in my eyes) because that's religious teaching and is protected by the wall of separation.

If they use the pulpits and the religious institutions to say "the government has done the wrong thing, the government should do this or that" then that's political (as in it's regarding policy) and that should not be protected in the same way.

Unfortunately, religious groups seem to think the wall should only work one way and not the other. In a way they are insulting the intelligence of their followers. Surely "X is a sin" is a powerful enough message that their followers, acting on their individual consciences, would vote against X being policy without needing some preacher telling them they should?

Right, you are saying the Church cannot even verbally criticize the government, while the government can demand all information on all things be handed over to pick through every little word the Church has said or done and charge with a crime and prosecute anyone or anything involved. That is what is working only one way and not the other.

That said, given the mayor who issued the subpoena is a lesbian, can you at least admit it's possible, perhaps even likely this could be/is a personal issue?

[crispybits]

I'm saying that the church can make any religious statement it wants and it will enjoy protection from the wall of separation. The government cannot interfere (barring in cases that breach law for other reasons like human sacrifice) in any church saying "God says X is wrong" or "If you do X you will receive this religious punishment" or whatever. If the church says "the civil policy on X is wrong" or "the civil policy on X should be ..." then the government can and should intervene to monitor that they are doing so within the rules. It's like the fence example from before, if you cross the fence to tell me I can't do something on my side then me calling the police on you isn't a violation of the fence because you're already on my side of it.

As I said to Tzor, religion is a personal philosophy and a personal choice that you will follow certain religious rules. Civil policy is different, it's the rules that everyone, of any religion or none, must follow regardless of whether they agree with it or not. If religious issues become policy issues for religiously motivated reasons then the religious have crossed the fence into the realms of politics, and the government checking that this crossing is being done in a legal way and not violating the principles of separation is their job. From your first link in the OP:

“The subpoenas were issued to pastors who have been involved in the political campaign to organize a repeal of Houston’s new equal rights ordinance,”

In the realm of politics there are certain rules. If the pastors that received a subpoena have been involved in the political discussion then their contributions to that political discussion are subject to those rules and the government should be checking that everyone, including the pastors, have followed those rules.

As for the personal agenda by the mayor being a lesbian, that is entirely possible. But the mayor can't bring actual charges against anyone unless they've broken the rules. All she has done is asked the government to check that the rules have been followed, and for that they need the information they have subpoena'ed. You're sensationalising this to the point where someone just reading what you're saying might believe she's just thrown all thos pasors in jail without trial or something. All that has been done is evidence gathering...

[notyou2]

In Canada we have free speech, but there are laws against hate speech.

The problems with Canada are legion. A large number of them is with saying you have X and then restricting the very X you claim to have.

There are definitely problems with Canada, but fewer problems than America.

We have low crime. We have a good working medical system with free health care for all. We have a progressive all inclusive society.

Can you say the same for your country?

[2dimes]

The prophet Jesus would not be welcome in any western christian church. Wrong ethnicity, colour, socio economic background etc. Imagine a conservative christian congregation, white, upper middle class, well kept lawn, comfortable pews. Now imagine a tiny dark skinned palestinian carpenter telling them that they should love everyone in their neighbourhood(not just from the country club), not pay as much attention to money, and in general not be judgemental pricks.
Wouldn't fly.

He was not welcome in the church of his own time and people either.