The city of Houston sparked a firestorm when it subpoenaed the sermons of five pastors who led opposition to the city’s equal rights ordinance. Christian conservative groups and politicians, including Attorney General Greg Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz, denounced the action as an attack on religious liberty. Faced with the criticism, the city amended its subpoenas to remove any mention of “sermons.” But it still seeks “all speeches or presentations related to” the ordinance and a petition drive aimed at repealing it.
Opponents had mounted the petition drive but the city ruled there weren’t enough valid signatures to put the repeal issue on the ballot. Opponents filed suit. The case is set for trial in January.
The ordinance bans discrimination by businesses that serve the public and in housing and city employment. Religious institutions are exempt. Critics complain the ordinance grants transgender people access to the restroom of their choice in public buildings and businesses, excluding churches.
Mayor Annise Parker says the city wasn’t trying to intrude on matters of faith. She says it just wants to know what pastors advised folks about the petition process. But critics are deeply suspicious the Houston subpoena could set up a test case aimed at revoking the tax exemption of religious organizations that advocate political activity the government doesn’t like.
What to make of the balancing act between the city’s effort to defend its equal rights ordinance and pastors who encouraged people to oppose it in speeches and correspondence?
What are the limits, if any, of religious leaders to speak out as a matter of religious faith without facing a government subpoena?
We asked our Texas Faith panel of religious leaders, theologians, academics and faith-based activists what they thought of the clash between faith and politics in Houston. Their responses: diverse and provocative.
“I celebrate the courage of preachers who, like the ancient prophets, become critics of the political system,” said one Texas Faith panelist.
But another said: “Foolish paranoid irrationality aside, the city of Houston does not restrict preachers’ ability to pontificate on why some people should be given human rights, but others should not.”
And there was this: What if they had been mosques? Would Ted Cruz & Co. have been so quick to proclaim religious liberty?
If you think there’s consensus – even among those in the faith community – you’re wrong.
MATTHEW WILSON, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Southern Methodist University
The city of Houston ought to tread very lightly here. It has already, by its own implicit admission, overreached once by issuing a subpoena for the sermons of those pastors who led opposition to its policies. Even its modestly revised request, however, for “all speeches and presentations” (what else is a sermon?) relating to the ordinance in question will exert a chilling effect on religiously-motivated dissent. And let’s not kid ourselves–this is exactly the intent.
The message from Houston city government is that, if religious leaders try in any meaningful way to counter the prevailing progressive orthodoxy on matters of gender and sexuality, they will be beset with all sorts of intrusive legal hassles.
Traditionally, in American politics, we have drawn a line between religious institutions electioneering on behalf of parties and candidates versus speaking out on public policy questions. The former is generally prohibited (if the religious institution wants to remain tax-exempt), while the latter is permitted as a matter of free speech and religious freedom. If religious leaders feel called to speak out against the death penalty, or abortion, or the bombing of Syria, or same-sex marriage, or cuts in welfare spending, then they are exercising their prophetic mission and seeking to serve as the conscience of society. Churches, mosques, and synagogues should feel free to rally their members in support of or in opposition to laws that have a direct bearing on their moral vision of the good society–and they should not face government legal harassment for doing so.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind what exactly the city of Houston is trying to do here: they are seeking to prevent their own citizens from voting on this highly controversial ordinance. The religious leaders’ petition, if approved, would not overturn the law; it would merely allow the people to have a say on a policy potentially affecting so many aspects of their daily lives. If the pastors failed to convince enough people to prevail at the ballot box, so be it. The city, however, is apparently determined to deny them that opportunity — and willing to use heavy-handed tactics of legal intimidation in the process. This does not reflect well on the Houston city government’s tolerance for dissenting views. They ought not only to drop the subpoenas, but also to let the people vote.
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and Professor of American Church History, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
It is difficult to understand why the preachers in Houston have let themselves get into a lather on this.
First, a sermon is a public proclamation. Not only is a sermon delivered openly in worship where almost every church says all persons are welcome. But also it is an oral, visual presentation that many clergy happily post on their church web sites or release through social media. It was unwise for the civil government in the city of Houston to imagine issuing subpoenas for sermons, but it was also silly for anyone to object. Nobody has to subpoena a sermon. Anybody with access to the internet can just click a few times and most preachers’ sermons are readily available.
Second, it is strange for the conservative critics of the Houston mayor to complain about a political leader who questions the content of sermons. Do they not have any memories of six years ago, during the 2008 campaign for the Presidency? Do they not recall all those conservative critics of candidate Barack Obama who were furious about the sermons preached by the Illinois Senator’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Candidate Obama was hounded and harassed by those partisan critics not about what he said but about what his pastor said in a United Church of Christ pulpit in Chicago. Eventually the criticism reached the point that Mr. Obama felt he had no choice except to resign his membership in a congregation to which the Senator had belonged for decades.
Third, preachers who genuinely feel called to critique a position of the government cannot, on the one hand, insist on their free exercise of religion (a part of the First Amendment to the Constitution) while they enjoy the tax exemptions and other privileges of church life that come very close to the constitutional limit on an establishment of religion (another part of the first amendment to the Constitution). One cannot use the cloak of free exercise of religion as a means to engage in tax exempt political lobbying that amounts to an establishment of religion.
I celebrate the courage of preachers who, like the ancient prophets, become critics of the political system. But, when they speak publicly, they forsake their own credibility if they prefer that the light of public awareness not lead others to criticize them.
DARRELL BOCK, Executive Director of Cultural Engagement, Howard G. Hendricks Center for Christian Leadership and Cultural Engagement, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies Dallas Theological Seminary
Religious liberty as well as all free speech should be protected. The right to petition it would seem to me is also an extension of free speech, as well as governmental accountability to her constituents. It is an exercise of citizens rights that is being checked here, not just religious liberty or free speech.
The city’s right to legislate as the people’s representatives should not react when some of the people use legal means to question a decision they make, a process that has a procedure. The only material to which the government should have access in that case is to anything that might point to a violation of that procedure. Otherwise, hands off.
MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism and speaker on interfaith matters, Dallas
The problem started when the City of Houston passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination against transgender identity in accessing restroom facilities in public and private employment.
The religious folks took it as an infringement of their rights protected under the First Amendment and started the petition to do away the ordinance or put it on the ballot as a referendum. Mayor Parker called in for the sermon notes to build up her case to stick with the ordinance, and then backed off saying that it was not the sermons but the notes.
The mayor ought to stick with the subpoenas with sermon notes and not let the issue be derailed; it will be a long drawn battle about First Amendment rights, but what we forget is those rights are in place when they do not violate the rights of others.
Let me throw in the monkey’s wrench here, what if a Mosque is delivering sermons that may cause disturbance in the society, should the Mosque hide behind First Amendment and not share its sermons? We all should be open to scrutiny for public good and need to protect the rights of the individuals that are being violated.
We have come a long way in becoming a civil society, one by one; we are becoming what God wanted us to be – to respect all his creation supported by our declaration that all men are created equal. It took us nearly 150 years to recognize that women were equal citizens, then the African Americans, and after many more recognitions we are reaching the pinnacle of civility by including the GLBT community as equal in every aspect of life and honor their legitimate needs in a civil society.
Here is a possible solution, in the process of becoming the most civilized nation, among other things, we have banned smoking, we have built ramps for handicapped individuals in public and private facilities, even though the percent of users is few and far in between. Now, we may consider adding a bathroom facility for the transgender. Let every American live in dignity.
The civility of a society is determined by how it protects its women, minorities, children, poor, the weak and the unprotected. In brutal societies, the state or the mob has all the rights, whereas the ordinary citizens don’t, and are subjugated to the whims of the mob. In civil societies on the other hand, the value of unprotected individuals is equal to the value of the ones in power or majority.
It is the responsibility of a society to safeguard the rights of individuals in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. The civility of a society is reflected in fulfilling that requirement.
JIM DENISON, President, Denison Forum on Truth and Culture
Houston should abandon the subpoenas, but not for the reasons some may think.
If attorneys for the city withdraw their request, many will say they tried to bully a group of pastors, were caught, and capitulated to public pressure. I would say they corrected an action that was dangerous on the merits.
Apparently the city believes the pastors may have given instructions to congregants regarding their petition drive, and wants to see these instructions. However, such instructions, if given, were part of the pastors’ expression of religious speech. If we decide that a minister’s First Amendment rights are protected only so long as his or her sermon’s content is “religious,” where do we draw such a line?
If he or she applies theological content to social issues, does the resulting sermon lose its protection? Could someone sue a minister for applying the Bible to same-sex marriage? To LGBT civil rights? To legalization of marijuana, or euthanasia?
Houston’s attorneys obviously think they are defending their city and its equal rights ordinance. But in doing so they are attacking one of our nation’s foundational freedoms. According to Thurgood Marshall, “the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”
William O. Douglas, who served on the Supreme Court longer than any other justice, warned: “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” His answer to today’s question seems clear.
HOWARD S. COHEN, Lecturer in Jewish/Christian Relations and member of Congregation Shearith Israel and Congregation Beth Torah, Dallas
Every individual and institution has the right to start a petition or encourage others to sign petitions for or against any ordinance. On the face of it then, this was an overreach by the city and smacks of intimidation. On the other hand, religious institutions that enjoy tax exemption in exchange for not being political organizations are not like other institutions. The churches and their pastors have to make up their minds; they cannot have it both ways.
As I have said in answer to previous questions, the problem is solved by taking away the tax exempt status of all religious institutions. Then the pastors would be free to sermonize to their hearts content as all citizens can without the state interfering. There is no basis in a country that has established a wall between church and state for extending religious organizations such tax exempt status. I find it interesting that the same groups that rail against a progressive income tax as social engineering, have no problem with allowing such tax exemptions for religious institutions.
AMY MARTIN, executive director, Earth Rhythms; writer/editor, Moonlady Media
Let me get this straight. Critics of the equal rights ordinance are panicked because a transgender person might use the same public restroom facility as them for a few minutes? One hopes they’ll realize that gay people are using the same restrooms, as well as cross dressers and other people who fall into their category of sinful. Where do they want transgender people to pee, in the street?
Foolish paranoid irrationality aside, the city of Houston does not restrict preachers’ ability to pontificate on why some people should be given human rights, but others should not. In this country, people are free to lobby why prejudice should be institutionalized and even given tax advantages. Because be assured that in Unitarian, Unity, New Thought, spiritual not religious, and many other religious places, those at the pulpit will be advocating just as passionately that God bestows love on all equally and so should we.
But I am confused. Opponents of equal rights in Houston did not get their way in a public vote, so they turned to the courts. That is the American way. In such court cases, each side is to gather all the evidence they can to make their case, using subpoenas if necessary, which is what the city of Houston is doing. So opponents of equal rights are essentially picking a fight, but insisting the other side respond with one arm tied. #DishItOutButCantTakeIt
CYNTHIA RIGBY, W.C. Brown Professor of Theology, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary
My understanding is that the reason Houston is issuing subpoenas is because it is trying to substantiate how many people freely and legally signed the petition that protests the city’s equal rights ordinance (known as “HERO”).
I think the city is within its rights to issue such subpoenas, particularly since initial investigations seem to indicate that the number of valid signatories (initially reported as over 50,000) is actually 2,000 less than the required number (which is 17,269). In other words, tens of thousands of signatures appear to be invalid, and the city is trying to ascertain if they are, and why.
Were a huge number of signatures gathered wrongly? Houston needs to figure this out. The subpoenas will allow investigators to gather information about speeches and instructions given that may or may not have violated legal procedures and coerced people into signing. Apparently, there is reason to believe that some of these speeches could have occurred in churches and other places of worship. The concern, it seems, is not that specific instructions were given on church property, but that those instructions were given, and the signatures gathered, in ways that manipulated the signatories.
Initially, sermons were subpoenaed, presumably because it was suspected that preachers gave specific instructions from the pulpit for how to sign the petition.
I sincerely hope this is not the case, and appreciate the fact that the city revoked the subpoenas of sermons out of respect for the pulpit.
It behooves those of us who preach to honor what we have asked our government to honor: the freedom of the preacher to discern and preach the Word of God as he or she understands it, with no constraint. Once preachers start giving specific instructions from the pulpit for how to sign a petition, they have become constrained. They then serve merely as “arms” of some political agenda, whether the agenda of the state or the agenda of those who are challenging the state.
Politics should not be kept out of the pulpit, but keeping “instructions for signing a petition” out of the pulpit protects not only the state, but also the church. To leave the specifics out of the pulpit is not to bind the conscience of the preacher; it is to preserve the preacher’s freedom.
DANIEL KANTER, Senior Minister, First Unitarian Church of Dallas
Pulpits in our nation are free to speak on issues no matter the quality or topic. No city should be interfering or censoring but our legal entities are free to subpoena anything they deem important to legal proceedings whether they are in church files or not. In this situation I believe the move to equal rights is the top priority while the freedom of the pulpit must be preserved.
Preachers the world over say the stupidest most obscene and abusive things every Sunday especially when it comes to the dignity of LGBT folks and women. We can’t stop that nor can we hold them legally responsible. But we can pray they open their minds and hearts and see how ignorant the kind of preaching that divides us and makes us enemies is. Houston, you have a problem, and I recommend you start serious conversations about dignity, compassion, and respect citywide with your religious leaders. God knows we all need it.