A zombie movie? Considering the cast of characters on the left, it just might be possible.

Have you considered producing a Z movie? :-)

I see that.
The FBI news is so bizarre that I'm formulating B movie scenarios in my mind and realizing no matter how I move the story around it is still too crazy even for a B movie.

Thank you. The OP and other posters were citing this case as an example of governmental overreach, and that was what I was responding to.

We are talking at cross purposes. I'm using a hypothetical, while you're talking about the specific incident. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Of course, in the specific case you are correct.

The First Amendment has nothing to do with this case. The state of Georgia is neither establishing a religion nor prohibiting its free exercise. What it is doing is taking appropriate steps to defend itself against a lawsuit initiated by a former high-level employee of a state administrative agency, who is suing the state for “wrongful termination” from a job that, by Objectivist standards, should not even exist. None of his rights are being violated – he does not have the right to obtain or keep such a job, unless such a right is derived from his employment contract with the state. The state has no right to question what deity he worships or how he worships it. But when his religious beliefs extend to public policy, they become political beliefs as well, and these beliefs absolutely are relevant to his qualifications for a job that involves administering state laws. To the extent that his sermons address his political views, they are appropriate objects of what amounts to a subpoena in response to a lawsuit he initiated.

The answer is clearly yes. That "private citizen" was a state bureaucrat and he is suing the State of Georgia for alleged "wrongful termination" from a government job that shouldn't even exist. The state has issued what amounts to a subpoena clearly relevant to their defense against a lawsuit that he initiated. No Constitutional issue here.

100% agree. It the only relevant aspect of this situation.

The only thing that interests me is , does the government have the right to turn over (seize) sermons, or any public statement made by a private citizen. The answer is clearly No.

Separation of church and state would seem to uphold his firing, not prevent it. He had a high administrative position in a state bureaucracy overseeing the government's health codes, while at the same time being a minister and delivering sermons on behalf of a religion that promotes a vegetarian lifestyle. Clear conflict of interest. Not to mention that he had no right (as Objectivists understand rights) to that job, which shouldn't even exist.

Amendment 1.and Article 4. Probably more. You're questioning, so you can look it up. Oh wait. Definitely separation of church & state.

And here I wanted to start a Slavic Pagan Temple. If I wanted to a sermon it would have to be done in Russian.
I'm being facetious, although the thought has crossed my mind. So, it has started, there goes the First, Fourth,Ninth, and Fourteenth-Sec.1, Amendments to the Constitution related to this scenario.

"Which provision of the Constitution, exactly, is being violated?"
I don't know. It seems like this is the sequence of events:
- Gov't fired him b/c they had problems with his opinions in his sermons. I suspect this would be legal for a private business to do as long as they're not discriminating against and entire religion. I don't know if it's legal for gov't.
- He sues them. So the courts will decide if it's legal.
- They demand all the sermons for their case. This seems reasonable since he's suing them for money. If he drops the suit, though, I would think they would have no right to demand the sermons.

When you give someone money, or a job, it's normal that there are strings attached. This is why I don't like the gov't controlling huge areas of the economy.

Perhaps the government should
subpena rev jerimiah writes sermons.

Yessir.

Which provision of the Constitution, exactly, is being violated?

Capitol Hill Blue reported it in 2005 after receiving 3 emails from people who attended the meeting in which GWB said it. The mainstream media never published it... big surprise. The publisher defended the article and kept it on the site for 2 years afterward, but it is not there now. I guess he got Comey'd.
Don't forget, you heard that phrase first right here;^)
http://www.rense.com/general69/paper....

I don't recall any Bush saying that. However, the "piece of paper" represents the thoughts, put into words, inscribed on paper, by great men whose genius was the invention of a Republic like the world had never seen, before or since. Doing anything without principles is to be a car without steering wheel. Yes, actions have consequences which is often forgotten because the actions while they may look good in theory, often have dire consequences when they are only done for show.

How many here think “District Health Director” is a legitimate government job? And it sounds to me like his religious beliefs are entirely relevant to the administrative position he held in the state bureaucracy. For example, Seventh Day Adventists promote vegetarianism, according to their website:

“A well-balanced vegetarian diet that avoids the consumption of meat coupled with intake of legumes, whole grains, nuts, fruits and vegetables, along with a source of vitamin B12, will promote vigorous health.”

https://www.adventist.org/en/vitality...

Whether or not one agrees with the above statement, no one should be given the authority to make “public health” decisions based on his religious beliefs. Because he applied for and accepted a government job with just such power, his beliefs (as reflected in his sermons) are fair game as far as keeping his job or getting it back are concerned.

Also note that the order to provide his sermons came as a response to his suing the State of Georgia for wrongful termination from a job that shouldn’t even exist, according to Objectivist standards. The State is the defendant here, not the plaintiff. If he hadn’t initiated his lawsuit, the issue would have never come up. And if a private employer were sued under the same circumstances, I think that most posters here would uphold that employer’s right to subpoena such evidence for his defense.

Don't I recall something in the Constitution going like "there shall be no test of religion" for public office-holders or workers?

Well, they still have the 2nd amendment intact, unlike some other states. As a result, I expect these government actions will not stand for long.

According to Bush, it's just a GD piece of paper. Voting without principles, living without principles. Actions have consequences.

If this isn't a violation of the Constitution, then the Constitution has no meaning.

Dang, it's like you went and did a dino something I'd do up there.

I would have claimed to be one of those preachers who speak not from notes, but directly from scripture... Here's a sermon for them... taken from that holiest of holy books...

This is from the third part of the Second Chapter of the Fourth Book of Rand, thus spake St. Dagny the Inspirational, who sayeth unto the masses:

"You don't have to see through the eyes of others, hold onto yours, stand on your own judgment, you know that what is, is–say it aloud, like the holiest of prayers, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.”

Shall we follow with the words St John the Divine taught us? "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Say Amen!! Wooh!!!