Religion in Houston: Freedom to speak about anything the government approves


SAN DIEGO, October 10, 2014 — There is good news for five Christian pastors in Houston, Texas.

The pastors had been ordered by city officials to turn over any sermons in which they mentioned the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), the mayor, gender issues, or homosexuality. Some bad press and public outcry forced the city to reconsider. An amended subpoena now demands that pastors hand over “all speeches or presentations related to HERO.”

These pastors can praise God and heave a big sigh of relief. After all, this is supposed to be a victory for religious freedom.

What is the difference between a church speech and a sermon? Good question. There is no difference, but in our world of Orwellian Newspeak, the government poking its nose into speeches sounds less like an assault upon religious liberty and more like a simple limitation of free speech in general. Lest we forget, free speech is also guaranteed in the Constitution, right next to the line about freedom of religion.

The initial subpoenas were issued in response to a lawsuit filed against the city for rejecting signatures on a petition designed to put HERO to a public vote. HERO is better known by its nickname, the “Bathroom Bill.” Religious groups were bothered by a provision that allows transgendered men to use the ladies’ restroom because they self-identify as women and should be allowed to use facilities that correspond to their self image, not their plumbing.

According to the city attorney, certain pastors were subpoenaed because they vocally opposed HERO.

Attorney Erik Stanley of The Alliance Defending Freedom says, “The city of Houston still doesn’t get it … The subpoenas still ask for information that encompasses speeches made by the pastors and private communications with their church members …This tramples their First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion … Any inquiry into what these pastors did in standing against the ordinance passed by the city of Houston and encouraging members to sign the petition is a violation of the First Amendment.”

Mayor Anisse Parker says regarding the revised subpoenas, “We don’t need to intrude on matters of faith to have equal rights in Houston, and it was never the intention of the city of Houston to intrude on any matters of faith or to get between a pastor and their parishioners.”

That sounds great. There is only one problem: The city continues to intrude on matters of faith despite this latest mincing of words. Not only does the First Amendment guarantee religious expression unencumbered by the government, it also guarantees freedom of speech to all citizens, period — religious or otherwise.

While some consider the endorsement of a petition political, claiming it violates “separation of church and state,” they seem to forget that when the state tells the church what it can or cannot say, church and state are not staying particularly separated.

It was never the purpose of the First Amendment to forbid people to express concern over areas where their religious convictions are affected by secular law.

Our political system by its very nature deals with different ideas and implementations of ethics and morality. Ethics and morality are both also central to religion.

The idea that churches should back away from such subjects has less to do with the First Amendment and more to do with what is commonly called “the Johnson Amendment.” Passed by Congress in 1954, this law states that organizations exempt from federal taxes “may not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of — or in opposition to — any candidate for public office.”

Lyndon Johnson pushed this bill through. Coincidently, he was running for reelection in the Senate at the time and did not seem to like churches speaking against his policies.

Although technically the law only has to do with literal endorsements of candidates, the interpretation has been stretched to refer to any political speech at all. The matter gets subjective. Is opposition to genderless bathrooms or gay marriage political because it comments upon public policy, or religious because it deals with religious conviction? Who makes the distinction? Lawyers and judges?

Meanwhile, many believe that even speech endorsing a candidate or opposing a bill is protected under the First Amendment.

On October 5, pastors all over the country declared the day “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” challenging the Johnson Amendment and deliberately speaking out on politically related issues. The idea was to invite lawsuits and hopefully get the Johnson Amendment overthrown as unconstitutional.

That may or may not be the best tactic. But the Houston incident suggests that the constitutionality of such laws can no longer be ignored. There is something about the government ordering pastors to turn over sermons which leaves a creepy feeling deep in the pit of the stomach. Such orders do not belong in America, even when the word “speeches” is used instead, in the hopes that citizens will be too stupid to notice that there is no difference.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.


Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and columnist. Details of his show can be found at
Fox News and the Houston Chronicle contributed to the hard news portions of this article

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

Previous article6 myths about how minimum wage hurts job growth
Next articleUN Day 2014: Reflecting on the quest for world peace
Bob Siegel
A graduate of Denver Seminary and San Jose State University, Bob Siegel is a radio talk show host and popular guest speaker at churches and college campuses across the country, using a variety of media including, seminars, formal debates, outdoor open forums, and one man drama presentations. In addition to his own weekly radio show (KCBQ 1170, San Diego) Bob has been a guest on many other programs, including The 700 Club, Washington Times Radio's Inside the Story, The Rick Amato Show, KUSI Television's Good Morning San Diego, and the world popular Jonathan Parkradio drama series, for which Bob guest starred in two episodes and wrote one episode, The Clue From Ninevah. In addition to CDN, Bob is a regular contributor for San Diego Rostra. Bob does a good deal of playwriting as well (14 plays & 5 collaborations), including the award winning, Eternal Reach. Bob has also published books of both fiction and non-fiction including; I'd Like to Believe In Jesus, But...and a fantasy novel, The Dangerous Christmas Ornament.
  • Adamo Veritas

    The subpoenas have nothing to do with taking away the pastors’ freedom to speak or preach against HERO or homosexuality in their churches. The city attorneys only want to see what these pastors communicated to their church about the collection of signatures. This is the basic discovery process of any lawsuit. If there is evidence the churches knew and understood the proper guidelines to collect signatures, then the city can use that information in the case.

    • Amadaun

      Baloney. Left leaning, minority-based churches talk politics all the time, even to the point of allowing favored (Democrat) candidates to address the Congregation from the pulpit. This is big time bias, and it’s pretty obviously an intimidation tactic. Catholic churches have been harassed as well for hinting from the pulpit that anti-abortion candidates merit positive voter attention. Your explanation, while technically correct, is laughable. The clear intent of the subpoenas is to harass and intimidate congregations that are not appropriately PC. Fascism in America is live and well and lives on the left side of the aisle.

      • Adamo Veritas

        This whole lawsuit is about the validity of signatures on a petition. The defendant (the city of Houston) claims most of the signatures aren’t valid because they didn’t follow the proper procedures. The plaintiff (the group who collected the signatures) claims they are. If you were an attorney defending the city of Houston, wouldn’t you want to know what instructions were given inside of these churches that gathered signatures for the petition? Many of these instructions were probably given during the church services since that is usually when pastors talk to their congregants. Quit making this into something that it is not.

    • Bob Siegel

      My article mentioned the signatures. The church has a constitutional right to say anything it wants about signatures without being bothered by the government. They were also being asked for speeches on related matters. This was all made quite clear in my article with the news sources credited.

      • Bob Siegel

        And how come the city backed away from the word “sermon” changing it to “speech” if they weren’t aware that this was less about discovery and more about the invasion of a religious liberty?

        • Adamo Veritas

          During the discovery phase of a lawsuit, attorneys often cast a broad net to collect as much evidence as they can. Was their request too broad? Maybe. Was it unconstitutional or an invasion of religious liberty? Of course not.

          • Bob Siegel

            An official of the mayor admitted that it was a concern about “separation between church and state” I.E. Maybe the church should not have been encouraging the petition, which motivated the “discovery”

      • Adamo Veritas

        Yes, the church has the constitutional right to say anything it wants, but if what they say is relevant to a legal investigation then it can be subpoenaed by the court.