Houston Seeks Review of Pastors’ Sermons After Lawsuit Filed Over ‘Bathroom Bill’ Initiative

Downtown HoustonHOUSTON — Officials in Houston, Texas are seeking to obtain copies of sermons delivered by several area pastors after a lawsuit was filed by unrelated Christian leaders whose initiative surrounding a recently passed “bathroom bill” was rejected by city officials.

As previously reported, Houston Mayor Annise Parker, an open lesbian, had promoted an “Equal Rights Ordinance” earlier this year designed to quell any discrimination in America’s fourth largest city—including any discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” Most opponents were especially concerned about the “Public Accommodations” section of the ordinance, which would allow men to use women’s restrooms, and vice versa, if they identity with the opposite sex.

“It shall be unlawful for any place of public accommodation or any employee or agent thereof to intentionally deny any person entry to any restroom, shower room, or similar facility if that facility is consistent with and appropriate to that person’s expression of gender identity,” the ordinance states.

The only stipulation, according to the ordinance, is that people who use the opposite sex’s facilities must dress, behave, and clothe themselves in a way that is “consistent with the gender designation of the facility the person attempt[s] to access.”

In June, Houston City Council passed the bill, resulting in the creation of an initiative signed by area residents who requested that either City Council repeal the ordinance or that it place the matter on the ballot for voters to decide. According to WND, over 55,000 signatures were submitted, and City Secretary Anna Russell confirmed in writing that 17,846 were acceptable. The minimum required by the city for a referendum is 17,269. Although Russell acknowledged that the submission was over nearly 600 votes about the minimum, Mayor Parker and the city attorney rejected it.

In August, those behind the initiative, which included area pastors, filed a lawsuit against the city over its rejection of the signatures and the referendum in general. Now, in response to the lawsuit, attorneys for the City of Houston have subpoenaed several area pastors not a party to the lawsuit, and have issued discovery requests demanding copies of their sermons, as well as other communications, to see if they have ever spoken against the city or the ordinance.

“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Christiana Holcomb in a press release issued Monday about the matter. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions. Political and social commentary is not a crime; it is protected by the First Amendment.”

  • Connect with Christian News

ADF has now filed a motion in court to stop the City from scrutinizing the speech of area pastors.

“The message is clear: oppose the decisions of city government, and drown in unwarranted, burdensome discovery requests,” the brief accompanying the motion states. “These requests, if allowed, will have a chilling effect on future citizens who might consider circulating referendum petitions because they are dissatisfied with ordinances passed by the City Council. Not only will the nonparty pastors be harmed if these discovery requests are allowed, but the people will suffer as well. The referendum process will become toxic and the people will be deprived of an important check on city government provided them by the Charter.”

“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” added ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “In this case, they have embarked upon a witch-hunt, and we are asking the court to put a stop to it.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Tony Phillips

    We are now on the road to communism in this country. The Left and their immoral and Godless agenda are running over the will of the people and our statute and laws that were put in place to keep them in check. The attacks, like this one in Houston, are so blatant now they don’t even try to hide the fact that they are trying to silence free speech. Welcome to the new age…

    • Michael Stevens

      Orwell had it right, with his “Ministry of Truth” from his book “1984”.
      He just missed it by 30 years…

    • Robert Fisher

      Yep. Man, this nonsense is getting so depressing.

    • Leon Davis

      No one is taught about communism any longer, and those of us who understand their manifesto can see the strategy of many groups operating to destroy our way of life. Fact is we know less about the anti-family agenda of the barren anti life forces that nature has sent to destroy our society. Fact is America has violated natures laws and the price is being paid. The churches got into bed with the government and now they are paying for the mistake. Houston will burn like
      Sodom and Gomorrah – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah
      Wikipedia
      Sodom and Gomorrah were cities mentioned in the Book of Genesis and throughout the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and in deuterocanonical sources, as …
      ‎Lot’s wife – ‎Zoara – ‎Dead Sea Works – ‎The Bible and homosexuality

  • MC

    “Officials in Houston, Texas are seeking to obtain copies of sermons delivered by several area pastors”

    I feel like I’m in Nazi Germany. The good news is that the government has no say to what is preached in Church, we are protected under the first amendment. We’re just going to have to start suing anyone trying to mess with our first amendment right.

    • xinthose

      they do when you file your church as a nonprofit corporation “501c3”; research it

      • MC

        They have no right to tell preachers what to preach from the pulpit, the First Amendment protects that right. Research it.

        • TaxGeek
          • MC

            Trust me, there are legal ways around that.

          • Todd S

            I read the links. They prohibit support or opposition of specific candidates. It doesn’t appear to disallow positions on initiatives, voter education, etc. The tax exempt status is immaterial to the issue. The lawsuit is due to certified signatures being rejected by the improper official. The response appears intended to embarass and silence opposition to that overreach.

      • alnga

        There is no law requiring what a pastor preaches. But that threat has been held over the heads of churches for better than fifty years now. It is false however it will become a major problem for all churches if the Democrats win this November because if they do they will take steps like Canada and censor the pastors.. They will not be able to preach the Romans chapt. one message.

    • alnga

      In the last days we will be saying that right is wrong and that wrong is right..

      • Leon Davis

        Sodom and Gomorrah – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah
        Wikipedia
        Sodom and Gomorrah were cities mentioned in the Book of Genesis and throughout the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and in deuterocanonical sources, as …
        ‎Lot’s wife – ‎Zoara – ‎Dead Sea Works – ‎The Bible and homosexuality

  • Eddie frOly

    The ever tolerant left LGBT community and their “if you don’t affirm my way of life as wholesome then you are being hateful and must be silenced! ” Which is absolutely preposterous. I love my kids to death and damn sure don’t agree with everything they do and say. The same goes for my friends and I tell you what if one of my friends is doing something idiotic I will not hesitate to tell them in no uncertain terms because I love them not the other way around. Why must people think that if you don’t hold their point of view you hate them. I shouldn’t have to sacrifice my religious freedom on the alter of your lifestyle choice!

    • Robert Fisher

      Your problem is that you’re trying to use logic and ethical reasoning when dealing with liberals. Believe me, it’s a hopeless cause.

  • Gary

    The pastors should hand-deliver any sermons requested. And maybe even preach fresh ones on this topic. This is a result of having a wicked mayor and city council. Moral people would have never passed that ordinance. The Christians need to confront the wicked politicians and dare them to try to restrict their freedom of speech or religion.

  • Charles Wise

    It’s my understanding that as a democracy, America should be a nation ruled by the people and for the people. But it’s not. Alaska voted unanimously to keep marriage between one man and one woman. That’s the majority of people in Alaska. But one judge–one person, IE, the minority–threw that decision out the window. Now here we are with a person in control in Houston who thinks she’s judge and jury. I don’t think this will fly, but if it does, the precedent was already set. The voices of the majority have been silenced by the minority. It’s a shame that my great uncle died in vain during World War II. Those freedoms he fought for aren’t worth a plugged nickel today.

    • David

      A majority of southerners opposed racial integration of schools and equal rights for all races…

      • Robert Fisher

        Dave, you’re confused. If someone’s inalienable rights are being infringed because of a morally neutral physical characteristic, like race, that’s illegal and needs to be stopped. On the other hand, no one has the right to redefine words like “marriage” or “gender” or violate peoples’ privacy in the restrooms simply because they have a pet perversion they can’t keep to themselves. Capiche?

    • MJMcMahon

      Up until fairly recently, I would have agreed with you – until
      someone pointed out that what you’re espousing is the Tyranny of the
      Majority. Which of your rights are you willing to give up at the
      insistence of a voting majority? What if the citizens of your state
      voted in November that Christians no longer had the right to meet
      because their teachings were in conflict with the state? Would you be
      willing to surrender to that ballot box?

      As I pointed out to my Congressman in a letter this evening, there are similarities between this situation and Pastor Martin Noemuller’s famous quote:

      “In Germany the Nazis first came for the homosexuals, and I did not speak out because I was not a homosexual.

      Then they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.

      Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.

      Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.

      Then they came for the Catholics, but I was a Protestant so I did not speak out.

      And when they came for me, by that time there was no one left to speak out for anyone.”

      Our Constitutional rights aren’t just for the popular folks….food for thought.

  • xinthose

    if the churches weren’t 501c3 yoked up with the government, then it wouldn’t matter what they preached

    • Steve Clark

      I couldn’t agree more. The power to tax is the power to control. A free church will pay its taxes and its members will tithe without having to get a government tax credit in return.

      • Leon Davis

        And there would be no income tax, but we sold out along time ago

        • Steve Clark

          You are spot on.

  • robert ethridge

    If God doesnt destroy America He will have to apologize for sodom and gomora

    • Eric F

      That is the best and most hilarious posting I’ve seen. LOL

  • Steve Bshaw

    What is it with Houston and lesbian mayors?

  • Baby James

    It’s time to stand up and tell these people to go to hell!

    • Demmi Greene

      Amen.

  • Lesli Spice

    Download a sample ballot in your area prior to the next election, research the candidates, and make sure you vote in every election.

  • tcwaters

    I just don’t understand how a supposedly Christian publication isn’t aware that bearing false witness is a sin. This post is fraught with problems, and uses false information to create a biased perspective. I believe you should be ashamed of yourselves.

    First is the issue of gender identity and expression. The ordinance does not allow men to enter women’s public accommodations. That is just an outright lie. Similar ordinances exist in a number of city’s, municipalities and states across the country. There is not a single known instant of a man entering a woman’s bathroom as a result. The bill allows Trans people to not be discriminated against. A trans woman is not a man.

    The second and more problematic issue surrounds the purpose of the subpoena is very specific to explore where pastors in their official duty preaching have acted in a political way. It shouldn’t suprise anyone that churches which enjoy tax exempt status are not permitted to participate in political efforts. This effort doesn’t curtail anyone’s Constitutionally protected rights, and isn’t connected to individual’s rights in any way, shape or form.

    I don’t have a problem with religious people disagreeing with government actions. Everyone has a right to their opinion. But bearing false witness is bearing false witness and that’s a sin. If so-called Charistians want to st op being ignored and ostracized, they should try living their faith and stop sinning in the form of lying.

    • Phleb

      If “it” has a p*nis (excluding young sons with their mothers), “it” doesn’t belong in the females restroom.

      • tcwaters

        And what makes you believe trans women have male genitals? Have you been looking at peoples’s private parts?

        • Phleb

          Copy and paste where I said or believed anything you just posted.

          BTW, I work in the health field…I’ve seen many people’s “private” parts.

          • tcwaters

            Then you have no issues with trans persons using the restroom appropriate for their gender identity?

          • Phleb

            I’ll repeat myself since it seems necessary for you. If “it” has a p*nis (excluding young sons with their mothers), “it” doesn’t belong in a female restroom.

            This whole “gender” identity issue seems like a personal problem that shouldn’t effect negatively on fifty-plus percent of humanity.

            It reeks of Bill Clinton’s statement that the economy is recovering…we just don’t FEEL it. Both statements are ridiculous.

          • tcwaters

            Haha. So you are a comedian. Love it.

            You are correct that this won’t affect negatively 50+ percent of the population. In fact the percent of people negatively affected will be zero. A number of states, municipalities and cities already have these protections and there are no cases whatsoever of it negatively affecting anyone.

            It positively impacts a small number of persons with no negative impact to anyone. All the fear mongering is baseless and obnoxious.

          • Phleb

            I can assure you…I’m no comedian. We ALL know the dangerous ramifications that can happen when we allow (legally) males into female restrooms. We can’t all pretend that we live in lala, rainbow land. Male’s have been using their p*nises as weapons since time began.
            It’s only a matter of time before it happens, and it will probably happen to an innocent child.. it’s just too bad I don’t know you in person when it does. I’d slap you in the face with it, for this absurd argument you’re making.

          • tcwaters

            For not being a comedian, you have a great sense of humor. I was referencing the Bill Clinton comment added to this thread even though it has nothing to do with anything.

            Here’s the problem: legally male persons are not allowed into women’s rooms by this discrimination protection ordinance. I’m not pretending to live in lala land. Trans persons and the males you are talking about are far from the same groups of people, but opponents to discrimination protections have trouble grasping that, probably because they don’t know who they are talking about. As I’ve said and you seem to overlook, the facts are VERY CLEAR. nondiscrimination protections like this exists in a number of states, municipalities and cities, and there has never ever been one case where a woman has been harmed. Not one. That’s zero. I don’t think that could be more clear.

            Women and children are unfortunately regularly the victims of sexual assault often by members of their own families in their homes. If you are really concerned with protecting women and children, perhaps you ought to focus on the locations where women and children are assaulted. To harp on some supposed danger, which is not supported by evidence or even logic is pure , baseless,fear mongering.

          • Phleb

            ^^ “For not being a comedian, you have a great sense of humor. I was referencing the Bill Clinton comment added to this thread even though it has nothing to do with anything.” ^^

            It has every thing to do with this discussion. “Feeling” isn’t a currency recognized by any bank. It’s a ridiculous statement, just like yours. Stating that, “it hasn’t happened yet” is no guarantee that it won’t happen. The other bonus tie-in is that Bill Clinton is a misogynist pig that treats females like they have no value….just like this “bathroom bill” does. We, who actually do need the protection, of having a secure space while we are at our most vulnerable position, deserve a louder voice than those who are living in lala land.

          • Phleb

            ” If you are really concerned with protecting women and children, perhaps you ought to focus on the locations where women and children are assaulted.”

            I do focus on it….daily. I work at a hospital and live in the real world where I see the damage done by males to females everyday. So get off your high-horse. You have your head in the clouds.

          • tcwaters

            Talk about being on a high horse. Pot calling the kettle black. Look at the numbers- look at the statistics. Look at where women and children are assaulted. Let the facts speak for themselves. There is nothing “living in the clouds” about that. And more directly to the point with the ordinance at hand, the ordinance provides no protections for men who assault others. This ordinance can not be used by perpetrators to get off the hook. That’s just the facts.Nothing “head in the clouds” about it.

            Opponents of nondiscrimination protections rarely care about the facts. Their fear mongering is hampered when facts and reality are engaged.

          • Phleb

            Let’s speak to the real issue. Why is this a problem with males that they can’t use the facility that actually caters to their needs?

            Why do we not have urinals in our homes but we have them every other public place?

          • tcwaters

            I’m not sure that is the real issue. There are no cases of “males” who want or need to use the women’s room. The non-discrimination protections allow trans persons to use the restrooms that fit their gender identity. A trans woman using the women’s room and trans men using the men’s room.

            The urinals is a good question that perhaps a historian could comment upon.

            Many new construction buildings are moving to having multi-use single stall restrooms which are another solution and hold merit.

            In my opinion, the real problem is that some people- like those who oppose ordinances like this mislabel trans person as male or female where that is not accurate or appropriate. This may come about by not knowing a trans person, and by believing the falsehoods that are spread.

            When opponents talk about this, they only ever talk about men in women’s restrooms. This displays their lack of understanding of trans persons. There are trans men who can be very hairy and don’t belong in a women’s room either. I have a friend, who is muscular and hairy and a trans man. I believe this desire to focus on men in women’s rooms stands in the way of understanding the real issue.

          • Phleb

            What a load of mumbo jumbo. Stop ignoring simple anatomy. . . Not this gender identity obfuscation. What makes a male a male in the simplest terms is the p*nis. If you “still” have one…under whatever dress you put on, or shave your legs, or the height of your heels etc… you do NOT belong in the females restroom.

            It matters not on any other subject! I know a woman who grows a beard… but she has female body parts.. she belongs in the female restroom. How simple can it get for you and your kind?

            I noticed you clearly wanted to avoid the subject of why we have urinals in PUBLIC mens rooms but not in our homes… Your argument is wrong.

          • tcwaters

            Yes,you are quite ignorant about Trans people and utterly fixated on men in dresses, which doesn’t describe Trans persons at all.

          • Phleb

            What’s sooo hard to understand? My neighbor was a tranny. He told me he realized after 20 years of marriage, 2 children and the big dream house wasn’t making him happy … he wanted to live like a woman. He left the marriage..the children and the state of California. When I met him he’d grown his hair out, dyed it and never wore pants again (his words).

            Later, his daughter came to visit (the son was not as understanding) I met her outside, really sweet little girl. He introduced us and commenced to talk about his life and how much happier he is now that he’d found a woman to date.
            WoW. .okay. I was confused for a second, but her daughter saved the situation by saying…”My daddy, the lesbian”.

            Even later, I was out with my three yr son, he appeared and decided to play with him….swinging him around …his feet flying through the air. Good times right? It was good until the swinging slowed to a stop. I noticed “the bulge” in the spandex dress he was wearing.
            Needless to say, that was the end for our neighborly conversations.

            That’s one example of a trans male I’ve met. Name calling doesn’t change the fact that “it” doesn’t belong in the females bathroom.
            Btw if you look at the title of this article you’ll find its about the ‘bathroom bill’.
            I am sticking to topic..you seem to get side-tracked.

          • Leon Davis

            It describes some of them

          • Leon Davis

            What would GEORGE WASHINGTON DO?

        • Leon Davis

          Some do And some don’t where have you been?

    • Leon Davis

      There is not a single known instant of a man entering a woman’s bathroom as a result. The bill allows Trans people to not be discriminated against. A trans woman is not a man. Here WE GO ACCUSING and doing the same thing your self.

  • tcwaters

    Personally, I’m also fine if churches want to be in the business of political advocacy and campaigning efforts. They just have to give up their religious exemptions and be deemed political organizations instead. When pastors preach political campaigning stuff they are violating the separation of Church and State.

    Supeaneas are a common tool used in investigation. No one should be afraid of a supeanea or be opposed to it unless they have something to hide.

    • briannajs

      There’s a difference between political campaigning and standing up for morality.

      Some politicians would have one to believe abortion and homosexuality are political issues when they are, in fact, ones which address our moral fabric as a people & society. Both the sanctity of a child’s life in the womb as well as traditional marriage are both Biblically upheld.

      The government has no right or say in punishing pastors for standing for what Scripture upholds. It’s why we have the 1st Amendment.

      • tcwaters

        There is a difference in participating in the political process/campaigning. Yes! And I completely agree that the government has no right to punish a pastor for exercising their First Amendment rights. But that said, the point here is that the First Amendment doesn’t mean that a person can say anything they want or do anything they want to do. A pastor is fully within their protected rights to preach. Preaching and telling their congregants how to vote, or other political activity are not the same thing.

        As for “standing for what Scripture upholds,” There is a difference between our individual rights and actions as persons and what we do within our professional lives. For example, a minister or anyone else has a right to stand on the sidewalk and protest. Would you agree with that? THAT is protected First Amendment speech. In that space and capacity anyone can try and persuade others how to vote or why something is right or wrong. Within the pulpit, political activity or campaigning is NOT protected, nor allowed. That violates the separation of Church and State.

        Lastly, I’ll just say that I will fight tooth and nail to protect any pastor’s right to preach the Bible, even if I disagree with what she or he might say. I will at the same time fight tooth or nail AGAINST the pulpit to be used as a tool for political action and campaigning. We live in a Constitutional Democracy and not a Theocracy, ad the rights of all, including the non-religious must be protected at all times. The rights of the non-religious or the religious whose views differ (there are religious people who support a woman’s right to choose or marriage equality or nondiscrimination for example) are MORE important than what a Bible says. God gets to judge when a person stands before Him. That isn’t the role of Government.

  • alnga

    Houston Texas , you need to clean your house now, our God will not be mocked and His Word is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The clock is ticking……..

  • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

    Interesting subject, but not necessarily one of religious conviction. The cartoon show, South Park, did a parody on the gender-neutral restroom controversy by setting it at school class of third graders. It was ridiculously hilarious. I am not a religious man but still think the same-gender “phenotypes” should have respect for the public conscience.

    Would rapists take advantage of gender neutral restrooms? I image they would.

    While I agree that homosexuality is a normal, genetic predisposition that has manifested in a fairly large number of people, restroom accommodations should not be allowed unless, perhaps, an investigation or petition finds that the gay community is large enough to merit further consideration. Even so, I see a potential social, mine field were it to be allowed.

    If gays really want to use the opposite gender-phenotype’s restroom, then perhaps they should dress like them and go ahead and use it. (“phenotype” is the outward appearance of an animal/person which does not necessarily manifest genotypical (genetic) gender traits.

    But frankly, I really don’t see why gays would want to use the opposite gender-phenotype’s facilities. It should be no big deal so long as they continue to respect the privacy of others.

  • Melody Rainer Tregear

    May God remove this woman and all those who support her from power. And Father God, please protect Your people, who are called by Your Name, from the destructive demonic spirit of homosexuality at work in this city. In Jesus Name I pray. Amen.

  • Joel Busher

    My Sermon –

    10 Reasons for Criminalizing Homosexuality

    Reason #1 Gay activists have corrupted and have used corrupted judges to topple the Constitutional Will of the American People. The right to homosexuality is not an American right but a judge made right.

    Reason #2: The gay political activism is corrupting American children in the public educational system beginning in kindergarten and will not stop until the crime of homosexuality is penalized.

    Reason #3 The use of innumerable public bathrooms for their sexual escapades is destroying the decency of our community.

    Reason #4 The visible “lewd and lascivious” gay pride parades are destroying local communities and cities and is perverting our local administrators and police.

    Reason #5 The death penalty for homosexuality is commanded by God of the Bible

    Reason #6 The perversion of child adoption is a threat to that child where the home ought to offer a high quality example of sensible and moral values. Dangerous lifestyle of homosexuality recognizes pornography, male and male orgies, and lewd parades as part of their life style and is a threat to the moral well-being of children.

    Reason #7 Homosexuality is a violation of social compact which is created for the perfection of society not its perversion. The bathroom confusion in California has revealed the extent of the homosexual spirit in its ability to destroy civil society. The power of the majority of American have the right to restore the punishment for homosexuality. Additionally, the vicious attacks against the Christian community must be vigorously responded to.

    Reason #8 Those who discourage public debate by name calling are a danger and threat to the very nature of free government. Jesus said that calling someone “Roca” (empty headed) is a punishable offence. Why? Because it destroys the process of enlightenment which is required for making the majority sensible for important social impacting decisions. Name calling is a criminal offense. The Gay Community relentless use of name calling such as homophobic, troll, moron, bigot, nut-case, and other derogatory statements destroy public debate, and it is destroying free government based on the enlightenment of the majority and is criminal and another reason to make homosexuality illegal.

    Reason #9 The relentless corrupting of American people by media outlets for gay perversion must be brought to the end. Restoring the punishment for homosexuality will end media corruption. Homosexuality is corrupting public opinion, and this is turning state and federal law against the moral with huge penalties in order to support the immoral.

    Reason #10 The gay community has resorted to death threats and mailing of gay pornography in order to attack the reputations of those who oppose them. This in of itself should alarm every American, and anyone who give support to the gay community, and their tyrannical behavior must be considered an enemy to free government.

    *Google – Article VIII Union of Holy Assemblies – a new proposal to the US Constitution makes God’s law American law.

    • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

      Two reason’s all you said is false:

      1) The U.S. is not a theocracy, it is a secular republic that forbids religious laws, especially fostered by religious fanatics who, had they their way, would be little different from ISIS.

      2) There is virtually no evidence for the truth of your wild, hyperbolic accusations.

      Why don’t you just leave them alone and tend to yourself. Your religious views are simply that, and are not shared by millions of Americans.

      Had you happened to have been born in a Muslim nation, to a Muslim family, you would have been taught to believe Islam, just as you were likely taught to Christianity, and you would have believed in Islam every as fervently as you now believe Christianity. Religious beliefs, then, are a function of happenstance of birth and have nothing to do with truth. You have no more reason to believe what you were taught to believe than anyone else anywhere in the world.

      • Joel Busher

        (1) [U.S is secular nation] Response:Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”

        TRUTH:
        Theocracy means a government where God rules. America is a
        theocracy according to its social compact, the Declaration of Independence declares that Americans receives their inalienable rights from a Creator and our moral rectitude from a Supreme Judge. America was established under the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Our National Motto is “In God We Trust.” Our
        Pledge of Allegiance declares we are “One nation under God” and from God we receive liberty and justice. The subscription clause of the US Constitution declares Jesus as ‘our Lord.” God ruling over the passions of man is the only safe refuge for life, liberty, and property against man’s potential depravity, and by extension, the certain misuse of civil authority.

        Can you take the American Pledge of Allegiance?

        “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”

        In 1954, President Eisenhower responded to the Communist threat by encouraging Congress to add the words “under God” to America’s pledge of Allegiance. Communism is based on atheism. America is not an atheist nation and to proclaim this and encourage national atheism is to redefine America and is to join the communist
        conquest of America thereby adding your name to the list of America’s domestic enemies.

        (2)

        ― United States House Judiciary Committee of Congress 1854
        “In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. The great, vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure, doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

        The fight that is going on against Christian values and God’s law is
        really a fight against the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the raising of tyranny by the loss of due process of law. The common law which protects your rights were developed by English Christian jurists who incorporated precepts of the Bible into the common law, and this laid the foundation of every American’s protection of life, liberty, and property.

        Right of Search Warrant by a Judge (Dt19:18)

        Right to a public trial (Dt.21:19),

        Right to an appeal (Dt.17:8-9),

        Right to a impartial judge (Lev.19:15),

        Right to present evidence (Ex.22:13),

        Right to a fair trial (Ex.20:16),

        Right to require two witnesses for the death penalty (Dt.17:6),

        Right to put up a defense (Ex.32:9-14).

        Right to public trial (Dt. 21:19)

        A right to a thorough investigation (Dt:19:18) (Dt.17:4)

        Join in the fight to protect your rights but the Bible on the US Constitution.

        • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

          “(1) [U.S is secular nation] Response:Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it””

          Non Sequitur

          Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about a god or Jesus. What it does say is “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” ( Article VI, paragraph 3,)

          Too, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was derived from Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/virginia-act-establishing-religious-freedom which lays out the PURPOSE and INTENT of the Establishment Clause.

          You may call all this a lie all you want, but it takes not a molecule of fact from this nation being secular in nature.

          There are two kinds of “truths”: subjective and objective.

          Religious belief is subjective truth. I matters not what you believe, but if it cannot be established objectively, it is subjective (truth only to the believer). No one, for example, can say, with validity, that a drunk does not see snakes when he says he clearly sees snakes anymore than one can say that a religious fundamentalist that he does not “know” there is a god when he clearly “knows” it.

          Objective “truth” requires independent verification where the detailed fact or facts are verifiable. For example, mathematics; the distance between Earth and the Moon can be measured precisely in any given moment by laser, and the result is true all over the world as measured the same way by anyone. Thus, it is independently verifiable both by technology and humans. It is an objective truth.

          “America was established under the ‘Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.'”

          It can be independently verifiable that our laws are derived from British Common Law which was heavily influenced by Roman Law. That some biblical laws are the same (e.g., Thou shalt not kill) is no evidence that our laws are based on that “commandment.” Other cultures have the same law and some believe it to have come from their god(s).

          As for the Subscription Clause, it does not say anything about Jesus. Other religions call their supreme being an equivalent word to “lord,” and ascribe all laws to be derived from that “being,” ISIS/The Islamic State, for example. Can you prove they are wrong in their belief? You cannot “prove” it by referencing the Bible. You cannot “Prove” the authenticity of a document/book by referencing that same document or book unless its author AND claims can be verified. It is a circular argument.

          Nor does the clause imply Christian authority over the Constitution:

          “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

          The authority in the U.S. is supposed to be “We the People,” not anyone’s construct of god(s). Unfortunately, authority and sovereignty has virtually slipped into corporate hands and many in DC have become as corrupt as any tin-horn politician in the banana republics.

          I know that I am wasting my time here. Fundamentalism, by its very nature is unbending. Cannonballs of logic cannot penetrate it’s walls.

          So, the very best we can do is to agree to disagree. I think, very slowly, our powers of Reason are evolving. It will take at least another millennium before our minds are fully free from the dark ages of religious certitude and we can achieve world peace.

          The only doctrine worth having is, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It is not “do to others as you believe you should.”

          • Joel Busher

            Max writes [Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about a god or Jesus. What it does say is “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” ( Article VI, paragraph 3,)]
            THE TRUTH
            Joel’s response: US Constitution says that American public servantsare to take the “oath or affirmation.” The “oath” to who? The oath was not to the people but to God; this is the basic understanding of the common law. The no ‘religious test” requirement was added to the US Constitution in response to England’s religious test that allowed only those of the Anglican communion access to office of public trust in England – America did away with the “religious test” but it did not do away with religion faith. Religious faith is
            required to take the oath because the Oath is a binding of the conscience before God. George Washington said in his Farewell Address “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious
            obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” In fact George Washington and every president after that by laying their hands on the Bible when taking the presidential oath is acknowledging God and affirming their conscience before God.

            In 1866, Bingham speech (author
            of the 14th Amendment) to Congress on the US Constitution’s “Oath and Affirmation” clause ”The oath, the most solemn compact which man can make with his Maker, was to bind the State Legislatures, executive officers, and judges to sacredly respect the Constitution and all the rights secured by it.”

          • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

            “US Constitution says that American public US Constitution says that American public servantsare to take the “oath or affirmation.”to take the ‘oath or affirmation.'”

            Yes. back then virtually all founders believed in “A” god, not necessarily a Judeo/Christian god. Most probably did, which is why the Establishment Clause was so watered down. But that lends no more evidence to the Constitution being a Christian document than does Jefferson’s Deism make it a Deist document. I stand by his intent.

            “this is the basic understanding of the common law.”

            Nope. The BODY of the Constitution still forbids religion to be a factor in running for office and forbids the government from making religious laws. This fact cannot be denied and is not open to interpretation. You can’t get around that fact. You may not like the SCOTUS’s clarification of the 14th Amendment making all government bodies in the U.S. subject to the Establishment Clause, but, very fortunately, the justices understood Jefferson’s logic and intent even though Christian fundamentalist do not. That is the way it is. You might say that the SCOTUS completed what Jefferson intended the Establishment Clause to state.

            That various individuals made references to a “maker” or a “god” or a “creator” has no effect on the BODY of the Constitution. Oaths are affirmations of any religious beliefs, ARE NOT part of the BODY of the Constitution.

          • Joel Busher

            The Bill of Rights is a compilation of amendments sent to Congress by the States in order to secure
            rights for the states. Many of the states supported their local established denominations with tax revenue (colonial governments were established by religious groups). The first amendment clause was requested due to the fear
            that the new general (federal) government would established a church of one particular denomination thus potentially interfering with State/church relations. Additionally, the puritans and other religious groups did not come
            to America to disenfranchise the church from government; in fact, they came to purify or establish a church/state society ( a city on the hill). The attempt to separate God from government is a direct attack at America’s social compact the Declaration of Independence penned by Thomas Jefferson which declares
            Americans receive their inalienable rights from their Creator and their moral rectitude from the Supreme Judge.Thomas Jefferson communicated with Danbury Baptists when Connecticut had church state relations. Nowhere in the letter
            does he speak of disentrancing the state church which the Baptist or any other sect would of considered unwelcome inference by the Federal government and a direct
            violation of the First Amendment. The use of Thomas Jefferson letter to interpret the First Amendment is an artifice of the Supreme Court in its consistent policy of judicial activism and usurpation.

          • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

            Very good. I see you did address the Establishment Clause. Yes, many States did, indeed have a state religion–as did my State of Virginia, and that is why Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom, which outlines the purpose and intent of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

            Apparently you did not read Jefferson’s intent as established. It was unfortunate that Jefferson was unable to qualify the Establishment Clause to apply to all citizens (probably because of strong opposition from religious politicians), but that was his intent and certainly the effect it had on Virginia.

            Even though, as written, the Establishment Clause did bind the national government and not the states, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment made it applicable to the States as interpreted by the SCOTUS many times.

            And, BTW, Jefferson was a Deist. He was not a Christian. And even if he had been, his intent in the Virginia statute stands today as his intent to separate government and religion–to establish a wall of separation.

            I know we will never agree on this. Religious fundamentalism is beyond empathy and logic (no condescension meant). I say beyond empathy because it is indifferent to minority beliefs and has no qualms in exacting impositions upon them. I say beyond logic because often it rejects science in favor of faith and, too, one needs only to look at most (all?) theocracies in the world to know that one religion having control of a government and being allowed to make religious laws can and will foment discord and often violence.

          • Joel Busher

            American Revolutionary War Motto: “No King but King
            Jesus!

            The US Constitution subscription clause reads “…done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States
            present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of
            America the Twelfth.” James Madison says that that no phrase of the Constitution ought to be a dead letter but must harmonize with every other phrase. The US Constitution declares that Jesus is “our Lord” and harmonizing
            this with other phrases makes Jesus Lord over the legislature, executive and judicial branch of the federal government. The very word of Jesus is incorporated into the Constitution by the word Lord. Additionally, the US Constitution subscriptions clause reads “independence … the Twelfh,” and this
            ties the US Constitution to the Declaration of Independence which declares that all men are created (not evolved), and that we receive inalienable rights from a Creator, and that our moral rectitude is defined by the Supreme Judge; in
            summery, the laws of God given to Moses are incorporated
            into American law. Constitutionally, public officials in order to uphold the ‘oath or affirmation’ must declare Jesus
            as “our Lord’ by obeying Jesus’s words, pray only to Jesus as their Lord and honor and appeal to rectitude of the God of Israel as the signers of the Declaration of 1776 did.

          • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

            “American Revolutionary War Motto: No King but King Jesus!”

            I’ll not accuse you of being untruthful here, but I will say that likely you’ve read this on some Christian fundamentalist site and never vetted the “quote.” There is, however, no evidence of this at all.

            The “quote” is known to have been the slogan of the Fifth Monarchist during the Interregnum in England (English civil war in the 17th century), but not the American revolution. The “quote” was originally attributed to the Rev. Jonas Clarke or one of his company in “No King But King Jesus” on a web site http://truthinhistory.org/no-king-but-jesus-2.html.

            The “quote” is supposed to be in response to British Major Pitcairn’s demand to “Disperse, ye villains, lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England.”

            However, Clark’s own account can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=9S8eAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false

            He said nothing of the kind.

            I find it interesting that so many fundamentalist websites, in order to “Prove” the U.S. was founded on Christianity–a religion that forbids bearing false witness–have no problem at all in bearing false witness. That say something that sounds holy, and Christians all over the nation will echo the statement, never bothering to vet its authenticity. It was something they wanted to hear.

            Besides, even had it been a slogan/motto (which it wasn’t), it would NOT lend any official documentation to America being a Christian nation. Simple logic says that if all the world believed in the truth of a proposition, the entire weight of that belief, alone, would no add a molecule of truth to the belief.
            ***

            That the Constitution gives a SALUTATION of “. . . in the year of our Lord . . ” has no bearing on the body of the constitution. It is exactly that–a salutation. In fact, it was a common salutation on virtually all documents at that time.

            When I write “Sincerely” at the end of a letter, it is a salutation proclaiming that all I said in the letter is true and sincere, it is NOT a part of what I said in the body of the letter, but only my affirmation that I was sincere.
            ***

            I understand your desire to have a theocracy. I was once in your camp, but evolved out of it. Please consider that there is no prevision in the Constitution that gives the Christian church authority over the government. Therefore, it is not a theocracy.
            ***

            You did not answer my statement about the intent of the Establishment Clause, which IS a part of the body of the Constitution.

      • Joel Busher

        RELIGION OF ATHEISM:

        A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.” This fits atheism like Christianity. It is an artifice used by atheist that atheism is not a religion, and in declaring a sublime neutrality, atheists have given their policies the right of exclusive access to the councils of civil government because Christians with their Bible would violate separation of church and state. In other words, the Bible cannot
        influence the legislation of law but Karl Marx and Engels can. This is the banner of socialist and communist in America, but Article IV of the USConstitution requires a republican form of government – a nation under God. [Morality] As far evolving into higher morals, it does not take much to show that morality in American is on the decline because America is a ship without a moral compass. Atheist influences in America has been a wrecking ball on traditional moral values. The danger of atheism is that there is not end game,
        no bottom to the pit, and the right to today’s depravity will also include the right of tomorrows. [Freedom of religion] I cannot support Islam just as I cannot support the religion of Atheism because in all three there is inherit work to twist and corrupt the conscious by severing common sense from the divine light of man’s moral sense. The Bible offers a limit to man’s wickedness, and until America restores that limit, America will stand knee deep in the gutter of its own filth. God Bless America by restoring God in Government.

  • Leon Davis

    Your best defense is to be a real Christian. To me that means to follow Christ not man and clean up your edit act before you release your book.