BaptistLife.Com Forums.

http://baptistnews.com/culture/social-i ... of-pastors

Welton Gaddy offers some perspective in this mess.

fundy preachers in Houston are having a field day with this one; as are their friends in the Tea Party and Charles Pickering's Alliance Defending Freedom not to mention Tony Perkins and Focus on the Family.

Bama Republicans see this issue like Ebola, as a gift for frenzy and fear mongering here on the eve of the Mid Term Elections.

It has been widely reported is in this cabal in Houston the Lesbian Mayor is attempting to stifle.

Or you can check the website for the Alliance Defending Freedom or Focus on the Family

Cruz is a product of 2nd Baptist Houston Academy

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texa ... us-Liberty

Find any source that names young in this or leave him out. This is silly name dropping.

This seems to be a case of having your cake and eating it too. These pastors are involved in a lawsuit against the city, so their sermons, personal communications, private conversations and any other words they've uttered about it are fair game. To restrict access is to deny the city due process in defending against the lawsuit. Of course, this is an excellent opportunity to try and make this sound like some conspiratorial attack on Christian faith. If they hadn't filed a lawsuit, there'd be no subpoena. Looks like the mayor may back down, in the face of the bullying, unfortunately, leaving these pastors to continue to think that they are above the law.

So, did they exhaust the biblical means of adjudication before resorting to a lawsuit?

Stephen find a source and offer a quote on your whipping boy or leave him out. It's quite simple.

Don't want a subpoena? Don't file a lawsuit against a government entity to try to get an ordinance repealed. You can't hide behind religious freedom to try and win a lawsuit without due process provided and accorded to the other side. The city is entitled to gather evidence to present their case.

If they hadn't filed the lawsuit, then this would most certainly be a case of violating religious freedom, free speech, and even persecution, and, given the content of the issue, and the nature of the ordinance, I'd be outraged. But they did. And that changes everything. I don't care how unpopular it is, or whether religious liberals are bent out of shape, too, or even if the city looks like a bully in getting the subpoenas, if you're suing someone, your words and actions are evidence. Let the courts decide the issue fairly. Pushing this into the court of public opinion circumvents due process.

Sandy,

I have to disagree that all political speech by pastors is wrong. I fully agree that partisan politics should not be promoted from the pulpit. But there are political issues that directly cross into territory that the Church sometimes needs to speak up about. When that happens the pastor has to answer to answer to God rather than the government. Remember is was the Sanhedrin, a government body, that told Peter to stop preaching the gospel. It was a government that crucified Jesus. It was a government that allowed discrimination against black people and that had to be changed in the civil rights movement.

Sometimes we have to speak up politically. When the government, the mayor, whoever starts going after people who are using their first amendment rights to speak we've got a problem.

I agree that pastors and churches should not endorse candidates because I think that to be a poor use of the pulpit and a waste of the moral expression of the church; however, such is left to the church rather than coerced by the state. Pastors and churches have a virtually absolute constitutional right to engage in political speech. The state has a right to grant or deny tax exemptions to contributions to churches on that basis, so long as they do not choose winners and losers in the exemptions.

All those incredibly brave, IRS defying, candidate endorsing pastors (sarcasm alert) are doing is jeopardizing future tax status of contributing members. They face no other consequence that those related to that.

What makes the Houson matter odious is that it is an expression of the oppressive, inexhaustible power of gummit heaped on a class of citizens and institutions in order to intimidate, silence, and harass. We should all fear, and object to, that.

While William has a salient point, recent readings on my part suggest the "Houston" pastors in light of what Bonhoeffer called the "politics of stupidity" could be more "odious" than the govenrment intrusion. At same time I am well aware of separation of church and state. I just don't see George W. Truett having much in common with the politics of the Houston pastors, Ed Young in particular.