you just don't want to. 
These two most recent examples are now about a week old but I haven’t seen any attention to them here amongst all these great discussions of the day. Could it be that the main stream and left stream media have totally or largely ignored them?
The first was the city of Houston that issued a subpoena, demanding the sermons of several local ministers.
The second instance was a recent vote by the Federal Election commission regarding the regulation of internet campaign speech.
In the first instance the Houston subpoenas were of course challenged and subsequently modified but still not withdrawn. In the second case the FEC vote did not succeed as it ended in a 3 to 3 tie but the protagonists say will keep trying.
The big news is not the outcome of these two events but the fact that they happened in the first place; that there are people in positions of government authority, both elected and appointed, that deemed it appropriate to take such ludicrous action.
I would provide links but they are all from “right wing” sources. I think some of you won’t believe them or me so you are left to either discover the truth on your own or continue with your head in the sand.
Oh, and BTW, all the people involved that are attempting this assault on the First Amendment are Democrats
Any organization that has filed and got a tax exempt status is expected to be non profit and non political. An organization cannot be tax exempt (non profit and non political) and openly get involved in political campaigns, endorse a person running for political office or tell people who to vote.
If they want to do it, then they should get themselves off the list as tax exempt, file regular annual tax returns and pay taxes.
It is neither Democratic or Republican or First Amendment issue. It is the tax code.
and Lois Lerner is on ice. 501(c) (3) status has nothing to do with why the subpoena was issued.
They did have a good time with this. “City seeks to monitor sermons.” “ Mayor wants to squelch opposition by religious groups.”
You somehow forgot to mention that the subpoena is a discovery request and that it has been modified to delete the word “sermon” and general language concerning gay rights. Now all it seeks are documents, speeches or presentations pertaining to the gathering of signatures for the petition at issue.
What petition? The City of Houston passed an anti-discrimination ordnance that protected gay rights among things. A number of pastors led efforts to have the ordinance repealed by referendum and urged congregation members to sign their petition. The opponents of the ordinance had to obtain 17,000 or so signatures on a petition to have the issue placed on the ballot. The city atty examined the petition and found enough signatures were invalid so as make the total less than the number needed. Petition begone.
The petitioners then sued the city claiming the signatures were valid and the issue should go on the ballot. Outside counsel for the city them prepared the subpoena which included the offending word “sermons” in the discovery request. The mayor and city atty have now revised the request to delete “sermons” and keep the discovery focused on the signature gathering by the pastors.
Assault on the First Amendment? Only on Fox “ News.” LOL.
Poor drafting by the outside counsel? Obviously
I already did mention that it had been modified and that my point was not what the (legal) outcome would be one way or the other. It was to point out that there are people in government that have a mindset that they think they have the right to demand sermons from any religious community. Their poor legal advise and poorly worded subpoenas are not the point. It's the people that are the problem. Any person that took an 8th grade civics class should recognize this.
Did you see only it on FOX? That's the other part of the problem.
No comment on point #2? Or are you still doing legal research before you know what to think?
-- Modified on 10/26/2014 9:15:25 PM
There are “no people in government that have a mindset that they have the right to demand sermons,” as far as the Houston incident is concerned. The mayor is not involved at the discovery level for heaven's sakes.
The city’s liability insurer selected the outside counsel and tasked them with handling discovery. The mayor and the City atty were unaware of the poorly drafted discovery request until the media uproar, and as soon as they reviewed the discovery they agreed it was unduly broad. So they ordered the firm to redraft the request to tie it tightly to the litigation.
Any notion that anyone in government was trying monitor sermons in the community is ridiculous, although that is what I concluded from watching the Fox coverage.
I believe you champion “on air" apologies when a mistake has been made. Will we hear one from Fox News
The mayor and her staff including the city attorney were totally inculpable for the events and the subpoenas.
Right.
All they did was remove the word "sermon" from the subpoena.
That's Mayor McStalinist's twitter.
You are exactly right and Mari is dead wrong.
The Christian Post has spoken to sources familiar with the ongoing dispute who believe that Parker is not telling the truth and that she personally directed the subpoenas. They point to this tweet that she initially posted before the story became more controversial and she backed off: "If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game."
Maybe the Mayor is lying about what really happened. It is certainly possible that this part of a grand government conspiracy to assault the First Amendment. Maybe the lame duck Houston mayor decided that she wanted to spend the remaining months of her term invading religious freedom and chilling free speech. Maybe she told the City Atty to declare the petition signatures invalid in hopes that the petitioners would then sue the city and give the city subpoena powers.
Yes, it is starting to make sense. Then she could use the subpoena powers to find out what those preachers were really saying about gays in their sermons. Then she could use her vast powers as the mayor to ….teach them a lesson?
But before you go out any further on the thin ice, Ed, I think I should point out to you that if the Mayor wanted to find out what the pastors were saying in their sermons, all she had to do was go to church, or read the sermons in the church newsletter. Seems a little convoluted to me to invite a lawsuit to do this.
Not that I’m being critical LOL but have you talked to Mein about this one
available on tape, CD, DVD, and/or the transcripts. Practically, all churches now have that availability. It helps get donations from those members and non-members, who don't (can't or won't) regularly attend.
Strawmen and sarcasm aside, if the sermons were available in the public domain then why not obtain them the less intrusive way? Teach them a lesson about what? She wasn't using HER vast powers. She was attempting to enlist the vast powers of the judicial system not to teach but to scare.
And as to your earlier parley that blamed incompetent lawyers I contend that lawyers should know more than almost anyone else the complete wrongheadedness of this action. I also still contend they didn't do it on their own.
Again, my complaint and amazement is that ANYONE would think this was a move that should have been taken at any level of logic.
-- Modified on 10/27/2014 11:48:08 PM
to actually read up on what you're commenting on, so here, let me help you:
he Christian Post has spoken to sources familiar with the ongoing dispute who believe that Parker is not telling the truth and that she personally directed the subpoenas.
They point to this tweet that she initially posted before the story became more controversial and she backed off:
"If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game.""
Any notion that anyone in government was trying monitor sermons in the community is ridiculous, although that is what I concluded from watching the Fox coverage.
I believe you champion “on air" apologies when a mistake has been made. Will we hear one from Fox News?
Now, that apology thingy, have at it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fair game for what? What would she do with the sermons obtained through discovery that she couldn't also do by obtaining the sermons by copying the church newsletters, or going to the church herself? The sermons have no relevance to the underlying lawsuit. If she wants to have her gay friends picket the church, she can do that without the lawsuit.
I can sue you and get your posts through discovery, or I can just read them here. Which do you think I'm going to do? Now quit annoying as I need to get back to trying to get that job.
are fair game for posting on billboards? I can tell you've not been to church in a while, not because of your sinning ways, but you'd know the text of sermons dont appear in newsletters.
Like Ed said, you're focusing on the legal aspects but that's not the point. The point is a government official (or her agents) sought to supeona sermons. SHE made this an issue, not me!
BTW, do black churches talk about matters of state from the pulpit? I'm sure the 95% Dem monolith is only thinking about democracy when they form up bus rides to polling places and GET OUT THE VOTE!!!
Maybe you guys can audition as a couple!!??!!?
Perhaps the precedent was set when the Bush administration went after All Saints Episcopal church in Pasadena, CA for a minister speaking against the Iraq war just before the 2004 elections, but then giving Falwell a pass for endorsing Bush for re-election.
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2516
Well, I'm joking of course. But, I do think standing for 501(c)(3) should be done away with. Way too easy for them to get around the intent of the laws meant to regulate them, and when they try to enforce them, one side or the other screams that the government is abusing it's power.
Here is a source that tracks the issue of separation of church and state. I know, I know, they're a 501 (c)(3)!
https://www.au.org/about/our-mission
-- Modified on 10/27/2014 8:54:58 AM
First amendment gives the right to say anything including hate speech, speeches to recruit Jihadis in religious institutions.
Most of the crap floating around today under first amendment are lies, damn lies and methodical distribution of mis information. Wish first amendment had a stipulation to tell the truth instead of any damn nonsense.
Another damn Repubscum scare tactic not known to anyone else other than right wing BSC’s.
The real intent of free speech was to inform and educate the citizens not scaring them spewing garbage.
dooooshbag.
... if so vote Democrat.
Does any Repubscum?
Repubscum has done more to curtail, reduce and abuse freedom expression in this country than anyone else.
Why can’t Repubscums let women make their own choice?
Why can’t LGBT community marry who they want?
Why can’t gays openly serve in the military?
The list is long…
The entire issue is about restroom options. The best way to solve the issue would be to provide LGBT facilities for the folks who aren't sure if they are male of female.
quit taking the tax exemption if they want free speech. Or shut up on political issues if they want all their money that doesn't go to charities.
my name O'Hare was a fictional character, chosen by me for my Irish roots.
I am no atheists, I believe people will find/create what they expect to find. If I believe God is gracious, then God will be gracious to me. If I believe everything is energy, then the universe will give back to me what I give. If I am fearful of change, I will face fearful situations to overcome my fears. If I give love, then love comes back to me. If I focus on positive, I will have more positive in my life. If I am angry, then angry people will be attracted to me.
Surely I am a co-creator of the life I desire.
For the sake of separation of church and state, let them say whatever they want to say as long as they are not advocating violence. They talked about revolting against the oppression of the British, in churches. They talked about the inhumanity of slavery in churches. They talked about equal rights, voting rights, the right to join unions, in churches. Many laws that were changed, eliminated, or passed were talked about, in churches. A government, when it feels threatened, can view almost anything as being against it, and call for clamping down on those whom they deem are voicing descent. Yes, the church has been the source of a lot of evil. However, as far as our laws, it has often been the source of our moral conscience. How do you propose to, like Solomon and the two women claiming the infant, cut that down the middle? Do you propose to eliminate the voice from the political discussion forever more? Taxing them is not separation of church and state.
I would definitely want to hear about grace, it's really the only message that touched my heart in church. But I get your point, It's just hard to not imagine people like Pat Robinson in a position to influence hating a certain group of people. But I know, really, that most Christians are well meaning people that believe they are being re-made in to more likeness of Jesus. And I am okay with Jesus. It is kind of funny he had a tax collector as a follower, I guess somebody had to collect at the tent revivals, just kidding. 
Perhaps it was the tax collector who passed the plate, but it was Judas who controlled the purse (the treasure). You see where that got him. But, in all fairness, it's believed that he didn't betray Jesus for the money but rather to force him to be the prophesied Messiah coming in the form of the Lion of Judah, rather than the suffering servant prophesied in Isaiah 42:2-4. Those most in distress needed the Messiah to return to overthrow the oppressive Roman rule.
put it in the bank because I'm pretty sure you're gonna need it someday soon.
If charities get 10% of what these people collect will be great but, they don’t. Most of the money is sucked by the top brass.
if we get rid of the tax exemption, we can balance the budget next year.
you just don't want to.
my heart is with veterans, animals and cancer research.
Compensation % of Expenses Paid to Title
$560,896 0.19% Nancy Brinker Founder, CEO
Other Salaries of Note
$606,461 0.21% Elizabeth Thompson President
Why should I pay for their excessive salaries with my hard earned money. All of these fuckers are crooks as far as I am concerned.
Just another business cheating innocent people.
The Federal Election Commission voted 3 to 3 to regulate Internet political content produced for free by an individual.
They could be coming for the TER P&R board next.
Only one shiny object at a time I guess.