Tag: speech
Roundup: Houston Pastors Facing Unconstitutional Government Power Grab Over Sermons
Posted on November 3, 2014 in Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
As the battle in Houston continues over the city subpoenaing the sermons of at least five pastors for their involvement in opposing a local “bathroom bill,” the commentary continues to flow. Below you will find some notable voices and their thoughts on the subject to help you stay on top of the issue. Every American should be angry over the fact that any government entity would dare subpoena the speech of anyone, let alone pastors. All speech, and religious speech such as sermons is certainly included, is protected by the First Amendment and the government has no business seeking it. Prayerfully the city will back down. If not, I hope the Texas State Supreme Court squashes the subpoena request and ends the city is sued inquisition. Mayor Parker needs a strong wake-up call and reminder that she has no business intimidating people by violating their civil rights.
CBN: ADF Unimpressed by Houston’s Revised Subpoena’s
The Alliance Defending Freedom released a statement on the changes. “The city of Houston still doesn’t get it. It thinks that by changing nothing in its subpoenas other than to remove the word ‘sermons’ that it has solved the problem. That solves nothing,” ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley said in the statement. “Even though the pastors are not parties in this lawsuit, the subpoenas still demand from them 17 different categories of information – information that encompasses speeches made by the pastors and private communications with their church members,” he continued. “As we have stated many times, the problem is the subpoenas themselves; they must be rescinded entirely.”
UPDATE: US Civil Rights Commission Tells Houston Mayor to Leave Pastors Alone
Posted on October 27, 2014 in Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
The news that Mayor Annise Parker of Houston, Texas subpoenaed the sermons and other communications from several pastors after the passage and attempted repeal of a controversial “bathroom bill” in the city has become a national matter.
Bathroom bills are dangerous, to say the least. Typically a bathroom bill will allow a man to use the women’s bathroom, locker room, or other facilities (and vice versa) based on little more than a perceived gender identity. In other words a man can simply say that he is a woman and be allowed to use the women’s facilities. The dangers of such bills seem obvious to everyone but the activists pushing for their passage.
When the Houston bathroom bill was being proposed by the city many pastors spoke out against it and even encouraged their congregations to oppose the bill. Such speech is not merely appropriate for a pastor inside his church it is constitutionally protected speech. But that didn’t stop the city of Houston and Mayor Annise Parker from subpoenaing the sermons, emails, and other communication of these pastors.
That’s when people across the country got mad.
The Johnson Amendment: Freeing America’s Pastors from IRS Intimidation Means Repealing It
Posted on October 22, 2014 in Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Most people have never heard of the Johnson Amendment. For that matter as soon as you say IRS code you will lose most of your audience. Nevertheless, this one amendment has had a significant impact on churches and, as a result, on society as a whole.
The Johnson Amendment was inserted into the IRS code in 1954 as a way to limit the speech of pastors and churches regarding elections, political campaigns, and social and political issues. Taking a cue from the fictitious “separation of church and state,” the Johnson Amendment seeks to control the speech of America’s pastors because of the influence they wield.
No doubt the effects of the Johnson Amendment are clear today. At one time America’s pastors took a leading role in education their congregations regarding political issues and candidates, now, most pulpits are silent.
SHOCK! Government Demands Copy of Pastors Sermons!
Posted on October 16, 2014 in Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
For some time people like myself has been warning that the government was becoming increasingly intrusive on the religious freedoms of churches. Stories from the last few years alone are enough to make any sane persons head spin. From zoning law restrictions to taxes, the government has been seeking to get more than a foot in the door of America’s churches.
I have warned on more than one occasion that before long the government would try to silence America’s pastors – either through regulation, IRS intimidation, or both. It seemed a no brainer to me that the end game was to pretend to value freedom of religion while seeking to monitor and regulate exactly what speech is used.
It seems that day has come far sooner than anyone expected.
The city of Houston has issued subpoenas to a group of pastors for their sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity, or any mention of Mayor Annise Parker; who happens to be a lesbian.
Atheist Groups Rejoice Over IRS Decision to Monitor Churches. But Should They?
Posted on July 31, 2014 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Good news! The IRS has agreed to start monitoring churches more closely concerning political speech. Doesn’t that make you feel safe?
Apparently a lawsuit brought against the IRS by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has resulted in an agreement between the atheist group and the IRS to spend more time monitoring churches. After all, we can’t have churches giving direction to their congregations about critical issues, and where candidates stand on those issues. (Alliance Defending Freedom has sent a FOIA request to the IRS asking for these new policies.)
The lawsuit was first prompted in 2009 as a result of the nationwide ‘Pulpit Freedom Sunday” campaign started by Alliance Defending Freedom. This campaign was started as an effort to challenge the unconstitutional “Johnson Amendment” that was inserted into the IRS code back in 1954. The Amendment makes it illegal for tax-exempt organizations to engage in electioneering, broadly defined as endorsing one political candidate or another.
Justin Bieber and Jonah Hill Prove Free Speech is Dying
Posted on June 12, 2014 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Did you see the massive media firestorm over the comments made by both Jonah Hill and Justin Bieber?
It’s crazy, there has been nothing on my newsfeed, my Facebook and Twitter but stories about how angry people are over the comments made by these celebrities. Hill made a homophobic comment and Bieber made racist remarks not once, but twice on video. The result has been chaos as media across the country discusses the comments and the anger people are expressing as a result.
Except…
If a Cake Maker Can Be Forced to Violate His Convictions – What About a Graphic Designer?
Posted on June 10, 2014 in Marriage, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
The word I want you to see is creative. At the heart of this case is the right of every American to exercise – or refuse to exercise – his or her first amendment free speech rights. At the core of this case is the fact that the government is seeking to force an American citizen to violate his both his free speech and religious freedom rights. The government is telling Jack Phillips that he must use his creative abilities to create a cake a piece of art – a form of speech – that celebrates same-sex “marriage” and violates his religious convictions.
The reason this is critical and intricately linked to the article about the graphic designer is that if a cake maker can be forced to violate his religious convictions and use his creative talents to celebrate sin. And if a photographer can be forced to violate her religious convictions and use her creative talents to celebrate sin. How long before the government tells graphic designers that they must violate their religious convictions and use their creative talents to celebrate sin?
How Mark Cuban and Al Sharpton Prove Liberals Like Racists
Posted on May 29, 2014 in Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
I have no trouble agreeing that there is no place for racism in our society. That’s’ a no brainer that we can all get behind and unite around. But if that is the case then racism in all its forms – including black on white racism – must be punished. To allow Al Sharpton, Charles Barkley, Michael Jordan, Spike Lee and others to continue their lives unscathed by their racist comments is what perpetuates racism. The reverse racism that is rampant in our country is serving to fuel the racist fires.
No group of people, black, white, Jewish or otherwise, can fight to end racism while living a racist life. And yet Sharpton and his ilk have done just that. It’s good money for Sharpton. But he has served no one and made no difference in the world.
People Might Call Me Names for Agreeing With Donald Sterling
Posted on May 22, 2014 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
I like this move by Donald Sterling.
I know saying that might make some people angry. Some might even call me names or believe that I am racists or that I support racism. But nothing is further from the truth. Here’s why I agree with Sterling.
It seems redundant at this point to say it again, but let me be clear: I do not condone racism of any kind. That includes black on white racism that is often ignored by media and activists. Racism of any kind is an evil disease in our country that needs to die.
So here is where we’re at concerning Donald Sterling.
If You Don’t Like Michael Sam It’s Because You’re a Homophobe
Posted on May 19, 2014 in Religious Freedom, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
If he wasn’t gay you probably wouldn’t know who Michael Sam even was. In fact, being gay is, at this moment in time, one of his most celebrated accomplishment in life. Some even believe that being gay is the only reason he was even drafted in this year’s NFL draft; making him the first openly gay player in NFL history.
Here’s the problem, despite any other accomplishments in his life – including being co-defensive player of the year – Michael Sam is known for being gay. NFL scouts say he is an average player that may not do well in the NFL. But that doesn’t matter because he is gay so we have to draft him to make sure the NFL avoids a major PR nightmare.
This is the duplicitous end result of the effort to make homosexuals a special class of people.
Another freedom crushing result is that anyone who dares to speak against such behavior is immediately punished and compelled to apologize.