Texas Pastor Protection Bill

[Sparko]

One other thing being forgotten, this is a STATE law that clarifies and reinforces the federal constitution. It allows state lawmakers to make decisions based on it without having to involve a federal court you would need to argue a constitutional ruling. It makes things a lot simpler.

[Leonhard]

The world is rearing its ugly head Sam.

Does it mean something to take a stand, even if it might not gain us anything? Yes, so when we go before God we can at least say that we had no part, directly or indirectly in what happened. "Not us O Lord." Right now the world is getting all its been asking for, gay marriage, abortion, infidelity as "normality", no moral objectivity, no real consequences of actions and a lessening of responsibility and human dignity.

I'll take any stand against one of those issues, even if its just to defend the corner I'm standing on. Even if I might lose, or it might be pointless. Its still a fight worth fighting.

What else would you have us do?

Christians going forward are going to either become harder in their identity and more Christ-like, or softer and then simple meld into whatever the world happens to be.

[Sparko]

I think devolving into personal attacks is unseemly. You wanted debate on the bill and the surrounding strategy. Given that, you want to one-up folk who disagree by "counting souls," as though such a thing were even possible. That's unseemly and, no, I won't follow you into the dirt.

I called it!

[Sam]

I just had an interesting picture of Apostle Paul in a meeting with Peter discussing the need to soften their evangelistic efforts because of "bad PR".

Maybe a picture of Paul appealing to the Roman government to clarify that Roman citizens can't be beaten would be more apt.

[Cow Poke]

I just had an interesting picture of Apostle Paul in a meeting with Peter discussing the need to soften their evangelistic efforts because of "bad PR".

[RumTumTugger]

And there was a lot of "dirty politics" in that, as well. At one point, for example, Democrat Judge Robert Schaffer invalidated a bunch of signatures on a petition because the person who signed for the validity of one of the forms had an "illegible" signature. Heck, MY signature is "illegible"! I often say, "if you can read it, it's not ME". This judge was clearly endorsed by the gay community, and this ruling will PROBABLY be overturned, but it will take time and money. So, AGAIN, the need for a PREEMPTIVE clarification of the Religious Freedoms of Pastors, rather than trusting into the hands of biased political hacks.

bullys are what bullys do. I hope the Greenmail stops working for them. unlike it has in other instances.

[RumTumTugger]

So, your strategy is to wait until something happens, and HOPE that a judge does the right thing, and sets a bad legal precedent if he doesn't. The world is changing fast, Sam, and AGAIN, I was in a room with some of these militant gas/lesbians who are hellbent on having the Churches acknowledge their GLBTness. And I heard from Texas pastors - particularly in Austin - who had their own stories of being "scoped out" by gays and lesbians.

Please forgive me if I'm not as trusting of the militant gays and lesbians as you are.

I'm glad Texas is taking a stand on this against the BULLIES. I do hope other states do as well.

[Cow Poke]

Sam it is not a non existent threat. Mayor Parker is a good example of said threat. which this bill is in reaction to. You are either blind to or are purposely keeping yourself IGNOREnt about the threat. ask Mossrose about what is happening in Canada.

And there was a lot of "dirty politics" in that, as well. At one point, for example, Democrat Judge Robert Schaffer invalidated a bunch of signatures on a petition because the person who signed for the validity of one of the forms had an "illegible" signature. Heck, MY signature is "illegible"! I often say, "if you can read it, it's not ME". This judge was clearly endorsed by the gay community, and this ruling will PROBABLY be overturned, but it will take time and money. So, AGAIN, the need for a PREEMPTIVE clarification of the Religious Freedoms of Pastors, rather than trusting into the hands of biased political hacks.

[RumTumTugger]

Inasmuch as it's based on a non-existent threat and creates a protection that already exists in the Constitution, yes. It's a position piece that invariably will appear to be "circling the wagons" and exclusionary. It's definitely not in the spirit of "going the extra mile."

Sam it is not a non existent threat. Mayor Parker is a good example of said threat. which this bill is in reaction to. You are either blind to or are purposely keeping yourself IGNOREnt about the threat. ask Mossrose about what is happening in Canada.

[Cow Poke]

Could you expand on any of this? What were some of the things they said?

I'll have to be very vague, as there is likely legal action already poised or pending. One of the pastors, for example, had a young homosexual man come to him with concerns that he had been in a meeting with some of his GLBT community, and they were discussing ways of infiltrating the Church.

I don't know if it was the SAME young homosexual man, but such a young man testified FOR the bill at the hearing, acknowledging the extent to which the gay lesbian community was becoming militant, and that he was personally disgusted with "the hypocrisy of my own community". I believe that would be a matter of public record* - and his testimony was quite fervent in favor of the bill.


*his testimony at the hearing

[Cow Poke]

I just wonder if some day not long from now we'll be saying, "I told you so." The LGBT community hasn't exactly made a secret of their vociferous pursuit of acceptance from seemingly all corners.

That, sir, is the key. The Mayor of Houston and her cohorts are a prime example of the militancy of disrepecting the religious freedom of Churches. And that's a lot of the reason for this legislation.

[Zymologist]

So, your strategy is to wait until something happens, and HOPE that a judge does the right thing, and sets a bad legal precedent if he doesn't. The world is changing fast, Sam, and AGAIN, I was in a room with some of these militant gas/lesbians who are hellbent on having the Churches acknowledge their GLBTness. And I heard from Texas pastors - particularly in Austin - who had their own stories of being "scoped out" by gays and lesbians.

Please forgive me if I'm not as trusting of the militant gays and lesbians as you are.

Could you expand on any of this? What were some of the things they said?

[Cow Poke]

No, I maintain that will be the long-term effect of this protectionist strategy.

It is a false statement on your part that this is a "strategy" which I "articulated".

I'm simply not going to play a game that starts out with "What's YOUR strategy? Have you ever actually won anyone to Christ?" ... and gets meaner from there.

So, you're wanting to criticize a fisherman for how he fishes, or the strategy that he employs, but you want your own fishing exploits or experience to be off limits.

You haven't spent any time or money on litigation over this issue and it remains incredibly unlikely that you will. Like I said, show me one example of this happening anywhere, anytime in US judicial history and I'll cede the legitimacy. Otherwise, it's punching at ghosts.

So, your strategy is to wait until something happens, and HOPE that a judge does the right thing, and sets a bad legal precedent if he doesn't. The world is changing fast, Sam, and AGAIN, I was in a room with some of these militant gas/lesbians who are hellbent on having the Churches acknowledge their GLBTness. And I heard from Texas pastors - particularly in Austin - who had their own stories of being "scoped out" by gays and lesbians.

Please forgive me if I'm not as trusting of the militant gays and lesbians as you are.

[Zymologist]

No, they shouldn't. But there are plenty of ways to retain those protections without making big, vocal pushes to let everyone know just how explicitly a pastor is protected.

This threat, a barrage of same-sex couples demanding the government to force clergy to officiate their marriages, just isn't happening. And I have yet to see any indication that it will happen, either. It's fairly common knowledge, at this point, that pastors and clergy are protected under the First Amendment. SCOTUS just ruled last year that religious schools can freely discriminate.

Anyone interested in the subject can be made aware of these protections in a short amount of time. If a case were to go to court, it'd be thrown out immediately. It's just not a thing. So why make it another thumb in the eye for the LGBT community? Needless aggression in the name of "defense".

Ok...I still don't see how it's "aggression" and a "thumb in the eye" to essentially, if your characterization of it is accurate, repeat something that's already "fairly common knowledge." And if it really is seen as a thumb in the eye and an act of aggression, does it really seem so impossible that some militant gay folks (surely you know they exist) will make this demand, eventually?

I just wonder if some day not long from now we'll be saying, "I told you so." The LGBT community hasn't exactly made a secret of their vociferous pursuit of acceptance from seemingly all corners.

[Sam]

Ok, I'm a little confused. It seems strange to me, first of all, to call it a non-existent threat, but if it's already protected in the Constitution, then where's the harm in clarifying it?

I'm mostly confused about your comment on being exclusionary and going the extra mile. Are you saying that the protections that are already in the Constitution should not be there? To be clear, do you think that churches should be required to perform same-sex marriages?

No, they shouldn't. But there are plenty of ways to retain those protections without making big, vocal pushes to let everyone know just how explicitly a pastor is protected.

This threat, a barrage of same-sex couples demanding the government to force clergy to officiate their marriages, just isn't happening. And I have yet to see any indication that it will happen, either. It's fairly common knowledge, at this point, that pastors and clergy are protected under the First Amendment. SCOTUS just ruled last year that religious schools can freely discriminate.

Anyone interested in the subject can be made aware of these protections in a short amount of time. If a case were to go to court, it'd be thrown out immediately. It's just not a thing. So why make it another thumb in the eye for the LGBT community? Needless aggression in the name of "defense".