N.M. Baptists stand with Houston pastors

[Revmitchell]

DEMING, N.M. (BP) -- The Baptist Convention of New Mexico has taken a stand with five pastors in Houston who have had their sermons and other communications subpoenaed following their opposition to a homosexual-transgender rights ordinance passed in May.


Former Southern Baptist Convention President Fred Luter voices a prayer following passage of a resolution in support of Houston pastors by Baptist Convention of New Mexico messengers during their annual meeting Oct. 22. Also pictured are Adam Hughes, resolutions committee chairman, left, and BCNM President Tar Henderson.
Photo by John Loudat of the Baptist New Mexican
"... whereas we believe that this attempt to subpoena their sermons and church communications is a violation of First Amendment rights and of the separation of church and state, we thus resolve to state our belief as such," reads the resolution unanimously approved during the convention's Oct. 21-22 annual meeting.
"... we further resolve to support them in their fight against this action; we further resolve to pray for them in this fight and aid them in any other way as is possible and appropriate; we resolve, finally, to stand in like fashion in the event that similar legal action be taken against pastors or ministers in the state of New Mexico," the resolution stated.

Fred Luter, the Southern Baptist Convention's immediate past president, voiced a prayer for the pastors following the resolution's passage.

Luter, who is pastor of Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in New Orleans and the SBC's first African American president, was the convention's guest preacher, bringing sermons related to the convention's theme, "Standing Strong," in each of the meeting's three sessions.

http://bpnews.net/43606/nm-baptists-stand-with-houston-pastors

 

[go2church]

Great, I'm sure Houston pastors are relieved.

Typical PR resolution, make it look like you're saying something without ever having to do something.

Expect the same nonsense in Waco this year.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes if course this is a bad bad thing, what in the world were they thinking.

 

[nodak]

The NM Baptists got it right. I can almost wish Brother Joe was still pastoring a church and received a subpoena, because I would love to see him tackle this fight.

We may think this is silly stuff, or can't happen to our local church, or even that in the actions that pastors had taken they asked for it.

But let me ask you this: next time your 5 year old granddaughter or your teenage daughter or your wife is shopping in Home Depot with you and needs to use the john, how do you feel about some guy feeling especially feminine that day following them in?

How will you feel when the transgendered activist chooses the opposite sex bathroom at church?

These are valid questions. You see, there truly are folks not born xx or xy and they do have a medical issue. But all of them I have known did not need a law to give them permission to use the appropriate bathroom. They simply looked/dressed/acted what they were genetically regardless of their current plumbing and locked the stall door. After medical treatment, and doing that, no one is going to know you were born say with both sets of plumbing and it took dna testing to make the appropriate call. Those folks are not using opposite sex bathrooms, they are using the bathroom that matches their dna.

But we also get in our town, the activists. They don't have medical issues, just have "decided" they feel more like a man or a woman rather than what their dna and their plumbing show. And they are the ones that push these laws.

Some preachers stood up to them. Why on earth would we not support these preachers?

And what happens next time someone is offended by someone's preaching? Will preachers get a subpoena if they preach Jesus is the only way to heaven?

Early Baptists understood the importance of a free pulpit. Do we?

 

[go2church]

Resolutions are nothing. They aren't binding and they can't be enforced. This has always been the case. It doesn't matter what the topic or discussion, until there is a motion to do something with steps of accountability, voted on by the messengers, resolutions will always be nothing but PR.

 

[Zenas]

First I want everyone to know that I think the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO as it is affectionately called) is misguided at best and evil at worst. I could not be in favor of any law that requires someone to violate his conscience in order to comply with it.

However, I think the hysteria over the subpoenas is very misguided. I have read Al Mohler’s diatribe on the matter as well as some others and they don’t seem to get it. These subpoenas were issued as a part of discovery in a lawsuit to determine whether there were enough valid signatures on a petition to put a repeal measure on the ballot. The Houston city attorney said the petitions lacked the requisite 17,269 signatures. Since there were over 50,000 persons who signed the petition, a few interested parties filed a lawsuit for court determination as to whether the signatures were valid.

The pastors who received the subpoenas were believed to be persons who had solicited signatures on the petition. Apparently there is a law that requires them to be in a particular form to be valid. Therefore, it is a relevant issue in the case as to just how these pastors instructed signors of the petition. Thus the subpoenas were issued for “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.” This is pretty broad, and in fact the subpoenas were amended to delete the word “sermons.”

Noteworthy, however, is that the subpoenas were not issued to learn if the pastors were guilty of “hate speech” or for that matter any other social infraction. They were looking for how the instructions were given for signing the petition. This is not an infraction of the First Amendment, their protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Pastors can say nearly anything in church they want to say. But when they convey information that is relevant to litigation, what they said is discoverable by either side to the lawsuit. However, just because it is discoverable doesn’t mean they are going to be sanctioned for saying it. That’s what the multitude of protesters in this matter, including my own pastor, don’t seem to understand. They are not being made targets, they possess information that is relevant to the outcome of the lawsuit.

 

[Revmitchell]

However, I think the hysteria over the subpoenas is very misguided.

And we will all have a heart attack and die of not surprised.

 

[Revmitchell]

Here is a fact. We will not let the government start subpoenaing sermons. There is no discovery to be made in collecting sermons. Americans will not tolerate it. Lack of concern for that is just odd and unAmerican.

 

[matt wade]

First I want everyone to know that I think the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO as it is affectionately called) is misguided at best and evil at worst. I could not be in favor of any law that requires someone to violate his conscience in order to comply with it.

However, I think the hysteria over the subpoenas is very misguided. I have read Al Mohler’s diatribe on the matter as well as some others and they don’t seem to get it. These subpoenas were issued as a part of discovery in a lawsuit to determine whether there were enough valid signatures on a petition to put a repeal measure on the ballot. The Houston city attorney said the petitions lacked the requisite 17,269 signatures. Since there were over 50,000 persons who signed the petition, a few interested parties filed a lawsuit for court determination as to whether the signatures were valid.

The pastors who received the subpoenas were believed to be persons who had solicited signatures on the petition. Apparently there is a law that requires them to be in a particular form to be valid. Therefore, it is a relevant issue in the case as to just how these pastors instructed signors of the petition. Thus the subpoenas were issued for “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.” This is pretty broad, and in fact the subpoenas were amended to delete the word “sermons.”

Noteworthy, however, is that the subpoenas were not issued to learn if the pastors were guilty of “hate speech” or for that matter any other social infraction. They were looking for how the instructions were given for signing the petition. This is not an infraction of the First Amendment, their protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Pastors can say nearly anything in church they want to say. But when they convey information that is relevant to litigation, what they said is discoverable by either side to the lawsuit. However, just because it is discoverable doesn’t mean they are going to be sanctioned for saying it. That’s what the multitude of protesters in this matter, including my own pastor, don’t seem to understand. They are not being made targets, they possess information that is relevant to the outcome of the lawsuit.

Bingo! We have a winner. Look what a little unbiased use of your brain can do for you.

Folks need to stop reacting based on their emotions and on what the pot stirrers would have you believe. Think for yourself, do some fact discovery, and make logical conclusions.

 

[Zenas]

Here is a fact. We will not let the government start subpoenaing sermons. There is no discovery to be made in collecting sermons. Americans will not tolerate it. Lack of concern for that is just odd and unAmerican.

So what will you do about it? Go to jail rather than turn it over? That's stupid. I would think you would want as many people as possible to hear your sermons, and by turning over a written copy many others will get to read them. Who knows, someone might get saved.

I can guarantee you that as long as there is no effort of prior restraint or effort to sanction what was said, your sermons are fair game for discovery as much as political speeches or classroom teachers' lessons.

To Revmitchell, or anyone else: Just how is the First Amendment violated by requiring pastors to produce documents pertaining to their sermons?

 

[just-want-peace]

Just how is the First Amendment violated by requiring pastors to produce documents pertaining to their sermons?

Surely you are not this naive!
Remember when abortion was "only for the safety of the mother", or "homos just wanted to be legally protected from persecution", or "social security will never be used for anything but retirement funding"?????

IOW the old "slippery slope theory" - been proven many times over!!!!

Now, re-think your objection to government being able to tell you they want "whatever" for "whatever reason", and look at the long term potential for abuse.
We have enough laws that are being abused now, so we certainly do not need any more.

 

[Zenas]

Surely you are not this naive!
Remember when abortion was "only for the safety of the mother", or "homos just wanted to be legally protected from persecution", or "social security will never be used for anything but retirement funding"?????

IOW the old "slippery slope theory" - been proven many times over!!!!

Now, re-think your objection to government being able to tell you they want "whatever" for "whatever reason", and look at the long term potential for abuse.
We have enough laws that are being abused now, so we certainly do not need any more.

Yes, it's a slippery slope but you've got to be on the slope before you slide. This isn't even slippery and those who are making a big deal out of it are causing the conservative Christian community, of which I am a part, to look really ignorant.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So far I have not seen anyone articulate how the Constitution is being infringed by these subpoenas. I don't see anything in the Texas Constitution that would be violated by these subpoenas either.

"Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship."

 

[just-want-peace]

Yes, it's a slippery slope but you've got to be on the slope before you slide.

BINGO!!!!
And I take it that you don't see a legal demand such as this as getting ON the slope?????

All the instances mentioned in my post earlier just got us ON the slope! and you see where we are with those now.

This is nothing more than test of the water to see which actions will sink or float with the public. If this had drawn no massive negative response, you would see more of the same across the country.

Just one more instance of the old camel's nose inside the tent.

 

[matt wade]

BINGO!!!!
And I take it that you don't see a legal demand such as this as getting ON the slope?????

All the instances mentioned in my post earlier just got us ON the slope! and you see where we are with those now.

This is nothing more than test of the water to see which actions will sink or float with the public. If this had drawn no massive negative response, you would see more of the same across the country.

Just one more instance of the old camel's nose inside the tent.

Or you may just be demonstrating the typical overreaction of the sheep that follow Beck, Rush, and Hannity.

 

[Salty]

A slippery slope?

check this link

 

[Zenas]

BINGO!!!!
And I take it that you don't see a legal demand such as this as getting ON the slope?????

Thank you for pointing out the slippery slope problem again since I may have missed it the first time. However, I noticed you didn't address the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution or Section 6 of the Texas Constitution as to what part of them would be violated by these subpoenas.

As for your question, no I don't see a legal demand such as this as getting ON the slope. Furthermore, I am a little surprised that these pastors don't want their sermons disseminated as widely as possible. If I were one of them, I would call the mayor and her minions and invite them to come to my church and hear the gospel preached.

 

[Revmitchell]

First I want everyone to know that I think the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO as it is affectionately called) is misguided at best and evil at worst. I could not be in favor of any law that requires someone to violate his conscience in order to comply with it.

However, I think the hysteria over the subpoenas is very misguided. I have read Al Mohler’s diatribe on the matter as well as some others and they don’t seem to get it. These subpoenas were issued as a part of discovery in a lawsuit to determine whether there were enough valid signatures on a petition to put a repeal measure on the ballot. The Houston city attorney said the petitions lacked the requisite 17,269 signatures. Since there were over 50,000 persons who signed the petition, a few interested parties filed a lawsuit for court determination as to whether the signatures were valid.

The pastors who received the subpoenas were believed to be persons who had solicited signatures on the petition. Apparently there is a law that requires them to be in a particular form to be valid. Therefore, it is a relevant issue in the case as to just how these pastors instructed signors of the petition. Thus the subpoenas were issued for “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.” This is pretty broad, and in fact the subpoenas were amended to delete the word “sermons.”

Noteworthy, however, is that the subpoenas were not issued to learn if the pastors were guilty of “hate speech” or for that matter any other social infraction. They were looking for how the instructions were given for signing the petition. This is not an infraction of the First Amendment, their protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Pastors can say nearly anything in church they want to say. But when they convey information that is relevant to litigation, what they said is discoverable by either side to the lawsuit. However, just because it is discoverable doesn’t mean they are going to be sanctioned for saying it. That’s what the multitude of protesters in this matter, including my own pastor, don’t seem to understand. They are not being made targets, they possess information that is relevant to the outcome of the lawsuit.

Uh no, you do not get it. Let's take a look at the real motive behind the mayor's intent:

Mayor Parker posted this: “If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game


http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/10...ton-the-real-warning-in-the-subpoena-scandal/


Further Dr. Mohler does not post diatribes. He posts well thought out material. And to answer you other question, you bethcya I would go to jail first and so would a great many many pastors in this country.

 

[Zenas]

Uh no, you do not get it. Let's take a look at the real motive behind the mayor's intent:

Mayor Parker posted this: “If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game


http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/10...ton-the-real-warning-in-the-subpoena-scandal/

My point exactly. And that's why they are seeking to find out what they said. The discovery rules in civil litigation permit just that. They allow you to cast a very wide net:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense--including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

As for Dr. Mohler, I read his blog regularly and I agree with nearly everything he says in it. However, he should have consulted his lawyer on this one before going out on a limb and looking foolish on this matter, that is, foolish to everyone except those who have no idea what this case is about but think they do.

 

[Revmitchell]

He does not look foolish on this matter, neither do the thousands of other pastors who have supported these pastors who were not even part of the original lawsuit.

Whatever law is in place that allows the supoena's of sermons will not be adhered to, tolerated, nor will it be allowed to stand. Ever.

 

[matt wade]

He does not look foolish on this matter, neither do the thousands of other pastors who have supported these pastors who were not even part of the original lawsuit.

Whatever law is in place that allows the supoena's of sermons will not be adhered to, tolerated, nor will it be allowed to stand. Ever.

So is it your stance that all sermons should be except from subpoenas?