Featured State of Georgia demands pastor turn over sermons

Yes a Seventh Day Adventist, but that means nothing to the citizens of this world.

Sooner or later they will come after us and all others who name the name of Jesus Christ if we don't nip this in the bud.

Of course if HRC is elected she will probably make that bud blossom (IMO).

HankD

 

I doubt we are getting the full story here, but the government has no business reviewing the sermons of a pastor. Period.

Yes. Fortunately, I doubt they will prevail. Everyone from the right wing to the left who cares about religious liberty will be on this.

Neither major candidate is great on this issue, but at least the Democratic Party and its people have a measure of influence over their candidate.

 

Oh stop the madness. Y'all are supporting a man who threatens legal action left and right to keep women from talking about his assault of them. The government is just stepping through doors that y'all seem to be okay with being opened in certain circumstances.

Frankly, I don't get what the big deal is about the sermons. If you're preaching the Gospel, then give them all the copies they want and the body of Christ will stand with you.

So many sermons are online as it is.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

It would appear that even though the article has a recent date, this situation actually started back in 2014.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/hea...lsh-hired-by-georgia-public-health-department
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-eric-walsh-loses-georgia-job-20140516-story.html
http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/evidence-mounts-in-fired-for-being-christian-case/

From the earlier reports, Walsh was offered the Georgia position which was then retracted (fired before actually getting into the job). The part that bothers me is that the hiring office reviewed sermons, which apparently caused their retraction (so yes, he was fired for what he said in his sermons).

I'm guessing that the recent article is an update to the on-going case, and Georgia officials are requesting more sermons to further promote their case against Walsh? In which case, it seems we're looking at a triple-threat: Your sermons could keep you from getting hired; could get you fired; and could be used against you in court.

 

The lesbian mayor of Houston tried this. The courts slapped her silly.

 

President Hillary Clinton would be there cheering them on. For sure.

 

"Frankly, I don't get what the big deal is about the sermons. If you're preaching the Gospel, then give them all the copies they want and the body of Christ will stand with you.

So many sermons are online as it is."

If one freely wishes to supply the sermons, fine, and may the Gospel message work on the readers' hearts. However, for the government to demand that a pastor hand over the sermons would appear to tread on the First Amendment. If there's probable cause that the pastor is preaching violence/terrorism or the like, let the authorities get a warrant/subpoena. Due process applies to pastors, too.

And whether or not one supports The Donald (I absolutely do not) has no bearing on the appropriateness or constitutionality of this action against the pastor. Bringing up Trump (and "stop the madness") look like smokescreens from here.

 

As has already been stated, the issue is not whether or not the sermons are available publicly, but that the government is demanding to know what is being spoken inside the local "family of God" and then pass judgement on the truthfulness, falsehood, or value of what is said. Religious liberty, as enshrined by the separation of church, demands that the government be religiously neutral. Therefore, the sermons are legally meaningless and outside of the government's constitutional authority and reach.

 

I thought we had discussed a similar story before.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

Interesting. But the government has been doing the same in state, local and federal criminal and civil cases forever through subpoenas.

Absolutely. And I suspect they will if they actually think some crime has been committed.

And? It looks like smokescreens when he and the GOP and it's surrogates being up what Bill Clinton did as the response to questions about what Trump did.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

Thank you for playing, but that is incorrect.

I could go over the history, but I doubt it would make any difference to you.

 

Eventually, that's where we're headed if we keep electing democrats.

 

Unless he is representing that view as a view of the state, he's free to speak about it in public or in private. It's none of the government's business.