City of Houston Subpoenas Pastors’ Sermons
I saw several people denouncing this on social media, and I assumed they were exaggerating. But no, the city of Houston has been subpoenaing local pastors for written copies of their sermons. As the Houston Chronicle explains:
Houston’s embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week when it surfaced that city attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists that have sued the city.
Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when they get their day in court in January, claiming City Attorney David Feldman wrongly determined they had not gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. City attorneys issued subpoenas last month during the case’s discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”
The subpoenas were issued to several high-profile pastors and religious leaders who have been vocal in opposing the ordinance. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion on behalf of the pastors seeking to quash the subpoenas.
The slippery-slope danger here is obvious: It’s very bad news if people worry that their public advocacy for an upcoming vote can invite government scrutiny.
However, beyond the obvious issues, let me raise the more general problem of taxation: The government can always justify its investigations into church sermons or the activities of many not-for-profit organizations because their special tax treatment comes with strings attached. Namely, they are not supposed to agitate for specific political candidates or other causes. Indeed, the cheekily titled “Freedom From Religion Foundation” organization won a lawsuit earlier this summer (filed in 2012) in which the IRS agreed to step up its monitoring of churches in this respect.
As with any form of systematic theft, there is no way to “fix” this problem. If the government takes money from people against their will, and this is considered the default position, then to exempt any individual or group is construed as a special gift to which strings can be attached. If people agree that the government has a right to take a large chunk of an organization’s income, then the government certainly has the right to say, “We’ll give you your money back if you don’t talk about things on Sunday morning we don’t like.”
The ultimate solution to these conflicts won’t be through codification of “free speech” codes; we already have the 1st Amendment. The solution is to convince the public that the default position is they get to keep the income they earn. That’s not a special favor from the IRS.
This is absolutely not true. Yes, to some extent, government can attach conditions to grants. However, not all of these are legal. For example, sterilization cannot be a requirement for welfare.
I don’t think I said they could sterilize the pastors. I said they could justify their investigations into what they were doing.
I’m not saying that you were saying that. We probably should distinguish between two senses of “justify”: an actual, reasonable justification and the kind that’s cited for some action but doesn’t really justify it (i.e., the actions of the US gives terrorists justification for their attacks). Per the First Amendment, sectarian funding of religion is prohibited. Funds have to be for non-religious purposes, so government can attach some strings. But the same amendment would also forbid excessive demands, too.
You seem to struggle with the difference between ANY and ALL and it’s not the first time you have made this mistake. For Dr Murphy’s statement to be correct it is enough to find ANY one justification. It is not necessary for ALL possible justifications to be legal. So you don’t disprove it by finding ONE justification that doesn’t work.
I’ve made no mistake.
What, in God’s name are you talking about…sterilization? You took a ‘rabbit trail’ there Bobo – not sure your intent with respect to the topic at hand. But, the FACT that the IRS has ALREADY targeted conservative organizations, as well as churches, because of the ‘strings attached principle’ is NOT a ‘Faux Scandal’ as the LIAR in the WH has lied about trying to downplay the severity of the criminal act it is.
No, this is about the illegal ‘contractual’ agreements the Federal government establishes between itself and a non-profit org trying to get tax exempt status. Those strings are glaringly obvious except to those blinded by liberal ideology creating the thesis that ‘…the government is so graciously offering you a ‘rebate’ of your taxes, so-o-o-o ya owe us…’ mentality.
Look at the debacle that is ‘government sanctioned school lunches ‘ -schools were offered $ millions (strings) for their adherence of ‘the program’ i.e. ‘…you do this and we’ll do that’ – more evidence that there are ALWAYS strings attached when dealing with the criminals in government. As Aesop once quoted, “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” So true with oBAMA’s lying administration
Freedom is liberating, knowledge is essential, using it is detrimental and fighting for the cause of freedom is knowledge’s end result. But without knowledge it all breaks down, oBAMA knows it, is employing this disinformation – lying tactic and the liberal media is complicit and culpable.
To cap this off, yes, this is absolutely true. The evidence to support this ‘String Theory’ is all over the news…well, not all news outlets…you won’t hear this in the ‘government sanctioned’ liberal lame-stream media as they are part of oBAMA’s Propaganda Ministry. So do yourself a favor and read any of the UK news outlets, The Globe or…if you can’t stomach the truth at Fox News. They know more about what is happening here in the U.S. than any liberal listening to the government’s Propaganda Ministry’s liberal news outlets.
What in God’s name are you talking about?
A rather convoluted way of looking at it, in my opinion.
No. It is the most direct way of comprehending the issue. I am surprised that you find it convoluted.
That was a rather vacuous and vepid response, in my opinion.
Not that I’m religious, but the ability to discuss matters openly is more valuable than a tax exemption.
Problem is there should be no trade-off, according to the 1st amendment. In reality there is.
Reality is full of trade-offs. Trust me, I’m an Engineer.
Presumably the pastors can decline the tax exemption if they feel the same?
The state is to have control. If the messages in the churches threatens their control, then they must pay.
(Feels like I should endnote that with “That is the Chicago way” in Sean Connery’s voice)
“The government can always justify its investigations into church sermons or the activities of many not-for-profit organizations because their special tax treatment comes with strings attached.” Well then, perhaps an alternate solution to the problem is to simply eliminate tax deductions for nonprofit organizations, that way the government has no justification for investigating the activities of those organizations when it’s assessing taxes.
Or just not tax at all.
Former Chief Justice Marshall famously said, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” The US gunvermin does not have the power to destroy the church. Churches are not tax exempt, they are, by their nature, tax immune.
The 501c3 exemption was originally created for non-church charities. Many (most?) churches have mistakenly applied for it, no doubt encouraged to do so by the IRS.
The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment says the gunvermin has NO authority over churches.
I’m not positive, but isn’t the 501c3 exemption simply allow the DONORS to deduct donations on the DONOR’S income tax? If the religious institutions didn’t get the exemption, then their donors would be taxed on the amounts they donate. Isn’t that why religious organizations apply for the 501c3 status? I don’t think it has to do with the tax status of the church itself.
Phillip the Bruce is right. Read this two pager at: http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/content/docs/issues/church/Pulpit-Freedom-Sunday-Executive-Summary.pdf
It’s an easy read and updates everyone on how our 1st Amendment religious rights are under attack.