Just a thought

[TemplarKormac]

[

Do pastors have any legislative power on their own? No. So how are they 'trying to make laws that have an effect on your life?' Funny thing is, you allow government to fashion laws that affect your life all the time--laws that you may support, but that may harm others.

Sigh.

What law have I advocated that harms you.

I mean, I'm all for the "Get that fat sack of shit off the Couch Act of 2014", but I can't get many takers.

You're doing it right now. Advocating for a government body to regulate what goes on within the walls of the church by the force of law. It affects my ability to practice my faith. It makes other people of faith (including myself) fear that their beliefs will bring the full weight of the government down on them. That under definition of the law is 'harm,' your ad hominem notwithstanding.

 

[JoeB131]

You're doing it right now. Advocating for a government body to regulate what goes on within the walls of the church by the force of law. It affects my ability to practice my faith. It makes other people of faith (including myself) fear that their beliefs will get bring the full weight of the government down on them. That under definition of the law is 'harm,' your ad hominem notwithstanding.

You are kind of free to believe any shit you want to think.

but when churches start playing politics, they should be under full disclosure like Unions and businesses.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yet you are miserable that not everyone's opinion agrees with yours. Misery breeds its own misery. It isn't yours or anyone elses right to demand that people have a positive view of homosexuality. It is their opinion, not yours.

If you are going around hating someone because you don't like the sex they are having, that's being a pretty miserable person.

If you want to be a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist or an anti-Semite, that's kind of your problem.

Who said I hated anyone? Having two homosexual friends should betray such an assertion. If I want to be what I want to be, it's none of your business. But people are entitled to the opinions they have, you are not entitled to regulate them. Luckily, the government hasn't regressed as far as you have in that category. In all points you are wrong:

1) I am no racist, because I have many black friends that I would not otherwise interact with if I were so. Criticizing Al Sharpton and friends for trying to stoke the flames of racism, such as was the case with George Zimmerman, and now in Ferguson, MO; is not racist. Moreover;

2) I am no misogynist, because I do not hate women. Criticizing them for doing something wrong is not misogynistic. Would me criticizing a black woman, say Michelle Obama, be racist and misogynistic? Moreover;

3) I am no homophobe because I support equal treatment under the law. Criticizing that Houston mayor for trying to force her lifestyle on people of faith is not homophobic. That's not equal treatment, that is coercion, moreover;

4) I am no anti-Semite because I very much support Jewish persons and the state of Israel.

More importantly, people are (for the 15 billionth time) entitled to their opinions and beliefs, they infer whatever consequences befall them for such, but they are not your opinions to regulate. It is only when they act on their opinions that it becomes a problem.

So, this is what I see:

1) Al Sharpton is acting on his opinion that whites are still racist,

2) Houston Mayor Annise Parker acting on her opinion that people are homophobes by demanding the sermons of five pastors,

3) Wendy Davis acting on her opinion by flooding the Texas state capitol building with thousands of women via "The Night of a Thousand Vaginas" because she thinks the legislature and governor are misogynistic,

4) President Obama letting his indifferent opinions of the Jews and State of Israel dictate his foreign policy towards the selfsame nation and ethnicity.

Why don't you see them in the same light you see people like me? Might it be because you don't want to? So, how does making assumptions about me serve you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're doing it right now. Advocating for a government body to regulate what goes on within the walls of the church by the force of law. It affects my ability to practice my faith. It makes other people of faith (including myself) fear that their beliefs will get bring the full weight of the government down on them. That under definition of the law is 'harm,' your ad hominem notwithstanding.

You are kind of free to believe any shit you want to think.

but when churches start playing politics, they should be under full disclosure like Unions and businesses.

No, they shouldn't. When government starts interfering in the affairs of a church, it is making law and policy with a respect (or lack thereof) for an establishment of religion. That is unconstitutional. Your position would be an exercise of futility in the courts.

 

[DriftingSand]

The Mayor of Houston is a sexually deviant, horrible, depraved slut! Period! The people of Houston need to have a recall election immediately. We Coloradans recalled three State Reps when they voted against the Second Amendment so I see no reason why the folks of Houston can't recall this whore for ignoring the First Amendment.

 

[sameech]

[

Like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that started in churches? You want to remove the tax exempt status of all the black churches too?

In the mean time, that you think the only people who should be allowed to speak are those who do not think things that might affect your life borders on some very dark corners of mental health.

I would be happy if ALL the churches got out of politics, honestly I'd be happy if Reverend Jackson and Reverend Robertson just went away and never came back.

Ironic. I don't think either of the people you mentioned have an official role at any church these days.

 

[JoeB131]

Who said I hated anyone? Having two homosexual friends should betray such an assertion.

That sounds like, "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are n****rs!"

 

[peach174]

I think that if they engage in politics, Churches should have their tax exemptions revoked.

Like the law says.

Better yet, let's start applying consumer/product fraud laws to churches. I'd love to see the court case where htey prove there's a heaven with sunshine and puppies.

A lesbian subpoenas all sermons related to homosexuality clearly is all about churches over-stepping

If a church was preaching racism or anti-semitism, would you be as understanding?

The 1st amendment is for all speech and that would include hate language, not just feel good expression that political correctness is trying to do right now.

 

[peach174]

The Mayor of Houston is a sexually deviant, horrible, depraved slut! Period! The people of Houston need to have a recall election immediately. We Coloradans recalled three State Reps when they voted against the Second Amendment so I see no reason why the folks of Houston can't recall this whore for ignoring the First Amendment.

They don't have the ability to recall in Texas.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey TK, when you're having these "thoughts" of yours, you should really try for a slightly less biased source.

Houston Hustle - Snopes

Houston Narrows The Scope Of Controversial Subpoena Of Pastors' Sermons - NPR

 

[FA_Q2]

Hey TK, when you're having these "thoughts" of yours, you should really try for a slightly less biased source.

Houston Hustle - Snopes

Houston Narrows The Scope Of Controversial Subpoena Of Pastors' Sermons - NPR

You realize that nothing in your 'unbiased' source refutes anything that the OP's source states, right?
As a matter of fact - it reinforces it and shows that the city damn well knows they overstepped here and needed to back off. That is what your source basically states. They had to refine the request because it was overly broad.

The OP's source, btw, contained the ACTUAL subpena:
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillSubpoenaRequest.pdf
And it is a ridiculous read.

All this is an effort to defend the fact that the city basically blocked a ballot measure even though it had WAY more support than required.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey TK, when you're having these "thoughts" of yours, you should really try for a slightly less biased source.

Houston Hustle - Snopes

Houston Narrows The Scope Of Controversial Subpoena Of Pastors' Sermons - NPR

You realize that nothing in your 'unbiased' source refutes anything that the OP's source states, right?
As a matter of fact - it reinforces it and shows that the city damn well knows they overstepped here and needed to back off. That is what your source basically states. They had to refine the request because it was overly broad.

The OP's source, btw, contained the ACTUAL subpena:
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillSubpoenaRequest.pdf
And it is a ridiculous read.

All this is an effort to defend the fact that the city basically blocked a ballot measure even though it had WAY more support than required.

The first line of his OP was a lie. It wasn't the mayor that did it.

Houston Mayor Annise Parker subsequently maintained, through a city spokeswoman, that the subpoenas had been issued by pro bono attorneys working with the city, that neither she nor the City Attorney was aware the subpoenas had been issued until after the fact, and that the city would be narrowing the scope of those subpoenas:​

 

[Roadrunner]

Hey TK, when you're having these "thoughts" of yours, you should really try for a slightly less biased source.

Houston Hustle - Snopes

Houston Narrows The Scope Of Controversial Subpoena Of Pastors' Sermons - NPR

You realize that nothing in your 'unbiased' source refutes anything that the OP's source states, right?
As a matter of fact - it reinforces it and shows that the city damn well knows they overstepped here and needed to back off. That is what your source basically states. They had to refine the request because it was overly broad.

The OP's source, btw, contained the ACTUAL subpena:
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillSubpoenaRequest.pdf
And it is a ridiculous read.

All this is an effort to defend the fact that the city basically blocked a ballot measure even though it had WAY more support than required.

The first line of his OP was a lie. It wasn't the mayor that did it.

Houston Mayor Annise Parker subsequently maintained, through a city spokeswoman, that the subpoenas had been issued by pro bono attorneys working with the city, that neither she nor the City Attorney was aware the subpoenas had been issued until after the fact, and that the city would be narrowing the scope of those subpoenas:​

Alinsky in action, learned from her mentor Obama.

Or maybe she watches a lot of The Simpsons.

Same thing though.

"I DIDN'T DO IT!!!!"

 

[DriftingSand]

The Mayor of Houston is a sexually deviant, horrible, depraved slut! Period! The people of Houston need to have a recall election immediately. We Coloradans recalled three State Reps when they voted against the Second Amendment so I see no reason why the folks of Houston can't recall this whore for ignoring the First Amendment.

They don't have the ability to recall in Texas.

That's too bad. Perhaps a provision for doing so in the future should find its way on the ballot so rogue politicians won't get too big for their breeches.