Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its an attempt at intimindation. Thats pretty damn anti-FIrst Amendment.

Subpoenas are used to intimidate people all the time. What makes this case special in terms of being "anti-First Amendment"?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The intent however is very much anti-First Amendment.

I disagree. The First Amendment covers freedom from government censorship in most cases, not freedom from all consequences of making statements. And I don't see how this subpoena has anything at all to do with the establishment clause.

Its an attempt at intimindation. Thats pretty damn anti-FIrst Amendment.

Intimidation has nothing to do with First. You are still allowed to say it.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its an attempt at intimindation. Thats pretty damn anti-FIrst Amendment.

Subpoenas are used to intimidate people all the time. What makes this case special in terms of being "anti-First Amendment"?

Government intimidated the exercise of speech by a religion.

Intimidation is not disallowing.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Intimidation is not disallowing.

The First Amendment dseals with protection persons against government attack or censorship. A government entity attempting to intimidate pastors in what they are seeing in their sermons - ie in their direct practic of religion is a big hells yes on what the Founding Faddahs were trying to prohibit. Legal? maybe. Does it violate the intent f what the Bill of Rights trying to safeguard, you bet your E-Bola spewing monkey it does.

Churches should be free from government interference as long as they don't preach to interfere with government. The moment a church preaches on how to vote they should loose all protections.

 d-usa wrote:
Churches should be free from government interference as long as they don't preach to interfere with government. The moment a church preaches on how to vote they should loose all protections.

The gov't should not be able to interfere with political speech at all, be it from a pastor or from some rival politician or any individual or group..

And the bill of rights in the TX constitution states in part:

No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion

and

Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech

 d-usa wrote:
Churches should be free from government interference as long as they don't preach to interfere with government. The moment a church preaches on how to vote they should loose all protections.

Define protections?
What part of the First Amendment do you not get?

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Churches should be free from government interference as long as they don't preach to interfere with government. The moment a church preaches on how to vote they should loose all protections.

The gov't should not be able to interfere with political speech at all, be it from a pastor or from some rival politician or any individual or group..

The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Churches should be free from government interference as long as they don't preach to interfere with government. The moment a church preaches on how to vote they should loose all protections.

Define protections?
What part of the First Amendment do you not get?

Pay your taxes, preach whatever you want. Simple stuff really.

The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.

Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.

In the incident case, again it has nothing to do with their tax status. The Mayor’s tweet kind of says it all:
“If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game,”
As soon as someone shows me how this is in any way related to a suit over whether the city attorney reviewed the signatures on a petition correctly, I’m all ears. Even if I disagree with the petition. its an intimidation move on its face.

 Frazzled wrote:

The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.

Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.

Sorry, they should lose all special protections they get for being a 501(c)(3).

I seriously wish that somebody in the government had the balls to call out all the guys that do the "preach politics from the pulpit and dare the IRS to do something about this" stunt whenever elections come around.

Slightly off topic, but:

I always struggle to comprehend how an entire nation as large as the USA holds on so rigidly to a constitution written by men from 227 years ago who had absolutely no idea what the present day would hold, had no idea about many of the scientific, technological and social advances, and would have had no idea as to the mainstream liberal ideas of todays society. How on earth can people just use the words 'first amendment' to immediately stop any debate even if there is a lot of logic to the opposing sides views... It was written almost 100 years before the worlds first public electricity supply for petes sake.
In Britain we don't hold onto the Magna Carta as though it's word is final and cannot be changed to reflect the changing times.

Each to their own. It's just something I will never comprehend.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.

Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.

Sorry, they should lose all special protections they get for being a 501(c)(3).

I seriously wish that somebody in the government had the balls to call out all the guys that do the "preach politics from the pulpit and dare the IRS to do something about this" stunt whenever elections come around.

OK. Now in the incident case the Mayor is not related to taxation.

Having said that, I agree with you 100%.

Our constitution is extremely progressive though, and DID in fact factor future technological advances into it by including language to change the constitution.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.

Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.

Sorry, they should lose all special protections they get for being a 501(c)(3).

I seriously wish that somebody in the government had the balls to call out all the guys that do the "preach politics from the pulpit and dare the IRS to do something about this" stunt whenever elections come around.

OK. Now in the incident case the Mayor is not related to taxation.

Yeah, I let my general disdain for political churches get the best of me.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.

Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.

Sorry, they should lose all special protections they get for being a 501(c)(3).

I seriously wish that somebody in the government had the balls to call out all the guys that do the "preach politics from the pulpit and dare the IRS to do something about this" stunt whenever elections come around.

So when candidate Obama (or any other candidate) gave (or give) speeches to church congregations, those churches should have forfeited their exemptions?

Yes.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.

Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.

Sorry, they should lose all special protections they get for being a 501(c)(3).

I seriously wish that somebody in the government had the balls to call out all the guys that do the "preach politics from the pulpit and dare the IRS to do something about this" stunt whenever elections come around.

So when candidate Obama (or any other candidate) gave (or give) speeches to church congregations, those churches should have forfeited their exemptions?

They should be investigated to see if they are following guidelines at least, but the IRS won't even do that.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Slightly off topic, but:

I always struggle to comprehend how an entire nation as large as the USA holds on so rigidly to a constitution written by men from 227 years ago who had absolutely no idea what the present day would hold, had no idea about many of the scientific, technological and social advances, and would have had no idea as to the mainstream liberal ideas of todays society. How on earth can people just use the words 'first amendment' to immediately stop any debate even if there is a lot of logic to the opposing sides views... It was written almost 100 years before the worlds first public electricity supply for petes sake.
In Britain we don't hold onto the Magna Carta as though it's word is final and cannot be changed to reflect the changing times.

Each to their own. It's just something I will never comprehend.

I have to ask, that how could you think, that the first adment could be used to stop debates? The only type of debate that it could be used in, is a one where it would be argued about the freedom of speech. However, the freedom of speech is very easy to argue for, so that debate would not be too long anyways, and using simply its authority would be an argumental fallacy, so I can see no cases, in which the constitution is used to silence people.

 Frazzled wrote:

Subpoenas are used to intimidate people all the time. What makes this case special in terms of being "anti-First Amendment"?

Government intimidated the exercise of speech by a religion.

Sound like you have free speech crossed with free exercise of religion. There are not facts sufficient to show the subpoena was an attempt to restrict free exercise of religion or freedom of speech.

I agree with the idea that churches should not be tax exempt, nor should the government restrict any lawful speech they might engage in.

 Ouze wrote:
I agree with the idea that churches should not be tax exempt, nor should the government restrict any lawful speech they might engage in.

As I'm not so good with the american law, does anybody know, that are non-religious organisations tax exempt?

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Subpoenas are used to intimidate people all the time. What makes this case special in terms of being "anti-First Amendment"?

Government intimidated the exercise of speech by a religion.

Sound like you have free speech crossed with free exercise of religion. There are not facts sufficient to show the subpoena was an attempt to restrict free exercise of religion or freedom of speech.

ER no. Violating both. Its the double whammy.

He tweet admitted it. Can't see why you, a lawyer would defend such a practice in any form. She's certainly run from it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I agree with the idea that churches should not be tax exempt, nor should the government restrict any lawful speech they might engage in.

I agree with your agreement. Agreements for everyone!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I agree with the idea that churches should not be tax exempt, nor should the government restrict any lawful speech they might engage in.

As I'm not so good with the american law, does anybody know, that are non-religious organisations tax exempt?

Charities, certainly "public interest" (aka evilz 501s), some other things. Are unions?

 Frazzled wrote:
Can't see why you, a lawyer would defend such a practice in any form.

There is no legal privilege protecting the documents in question. There is no First Amendment bar on subpoenaing sermons. The only legal question is whether the subpoena is overbroad. The reason the mayor might be "running from this" (if that is what she is doing) is because it is politically damaging. That's an optical issue, not a legal one.

 Frazzled wrote:
Charities, certainly "public interest" (aka evilz 501s), some other things. Are unions?

Google tells me labor unions are 501(c)5, so yeah.

Don't forget about the NFL, although I find the outrage and he statements about why people are outraged pretty uninformed.

Why is the NFL tax-free anyway?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why is the NFL tax-free anyway?

The "NFL" (the tax free part) is actually a very small and minor part of what we think of as the NFL. It's basically the body that is the liason between teams, owners, referees, sponsors, players, etc. It's tax free because it's basically a non-profit liaison between all groups that doesn't make any money because almost all of it is passed through to other groups. All TV money goes to the NFL, who then sends it to the teams (who pay taxes), the players all pay taxes, the referees all pay taxes, stadiums pay taxes, ticket sales are taxed. The only part the "NFL" keeps is whatever money it costs to have their corporate offices (which are tax free) and to pay their staff (who all pay income taxes).

So it's really a silly statement IMO.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Slightly off topic, but:

I always struggle to comprehend how an entire nation as large as the USA holds on so rigidly to a constitution written by men from 227 years ago who had absolutely no idea what the present day would hold, had no idea about many of the scientific, technological and social advances, and would have had no idea as to the mainstream liberal ideas of todays society. How on earth can people just use the words 'first amendment' to immediately stop any debate even if there is a lot of logic to the opposing sides views... It was written almost 100 years before the worlds first public electricity supply for petes sake.
In Britain we don't hold onto the Magna Carta as though it's word is final and cannot be changed to reflect the changing times.

Each to their own. It's just something I will never comprehend.

They knew there was always going to be some power grabber like the Houston mayor. Thats why we have it and hold to it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

What does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously suggesting that that is equivalent to being transgender?

Nope... The article outlined how the "victim" is the one who must show "proof" of their claimed gender identity.


I was merely making a (bad) joke about it, and kilts