Should Uninvited D to D Work of Jehovah's Witnesses be against the Law?

by frankiespeakin 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  frankiespeakin

  I agree that everyone should have the right to practice thier own religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with another person right to privacy and right to not be harassed in their own home by those who feel they have the better religion.

  The door to door work of JWs is harassment, when you consider that they call for the most part in the morning, univited to talk about why there religion is the right one and often have very bad things to say about other belief systems, which has the potential of disturbing the peace.
• 

  under_believer

  No.
  
  As much as I despise the door to door work, I see no way of outlawing it, at least in the US, that is consistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution.
  
  I may hate what they say, and how they say it, but I'll defend their right to do so to the end of my days.
• 

  Finally-Free

  They should have the right to practice their own religion in their own home or place of worship. I should have the right to practice my own religion in my own home or place of worship. My doorstep is part of my home, not theirs.

  One of the religious practices I engage in at home is to offer sacrifices of saliva to the cedars in front of my house. If a JWs face happens to get in my way when I'm practicing my religion, that's not my problem.

  W
• 

  frankiespeakin

  UB,

  I may hate what they say, and how they say it, but I'll defend their right to do so to the end of my days.

  Making it against the law to go from door to door uninvited does not interfere with thier rights of free speach, or religious freedom. It simply means they can't come uninvited to someones door. They should have all the rights to free speach just not the right to harass people in thier own homes uninvited with thier religious views.
• 

  Amazing

  No, absolutely not. Freedom of speech is too vital to outlaw the JWs.

  HOWEVER ... the WTS and JWs should be required to introduce householders to critical information of their beliefs in such a way that anyone considering joining should do so with informed consent. That alone would put a damper on new recruting, especially when they get to the part about shielding child mlesters.

  REAL LIFE EXAMPLE: I was first exposed to this style when I attended a business program about buying into and owning vending machines. The President of the company was required to inform us that he was a convicted felon and the reasons for the conviction. He was required to give us a fact sheet approved by the court. Because of the disclosure, I was not afraid to get into the business, but I chose not to because I really did not want to service vending machines.

  Jim Whitney
• 

  garybuss

  I think uninvited door to door solicitors should not be legal if: 1.) The property is posted No Trespassing or No Soliciting; 2.) The property is gated; 3.) The building is security; 4.) The property owner has asked for relief from visits.
  
  I do agree with the village of Stratton, Ohio in the matter of the case of Watchtower v. Stratton (Ohio). I'd like to know solicitors were name and company registered before they called on my elderly friends and relatives. I don't think an honest solicitor has a thing to fear from registering prior to soliciting. I also agree with the United States Supreme Court that the United States laws need to be changed in order for villages like Stratton to monitor solicitors.
  
  So, my answer is: I'd like the Jehovah's Witness's door to door fundraising and recruiting to be legal, but regulated. I believe the time is ripe for the door to door activities of the Witnesses to be regulated, in part, because of their policy of allowing known sex offenders to make uninvited calls on stranger's homes without disclosure or accountability.
  
  The Witnesses try to hide who they represent when they call. The Witnesses try to be personally anonymous and resist giving out their personal name and address when asked. The Witnesses are dishonest in that they deny the purpose of their calls is to raise funds and recruit new group members. That paragraph represents dishonest recruiting practices and misrepresentation. Those are two good reasons to regulate them and the others who benefit from the Witness's prolific litigations.
  
  
• 

  blondie

  The right to do door-to-door evangelizing has already been confirmed in the US Supreme Court and very recently too. As long as it is in the US, I doubt that the government will start telling religious groups what they can do unless it is a crime on the books.

  http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZS.html

  What about the work of LDS/Mormons going from d2d; or the Baptists down the road who do go d2d as well?

  http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/stratton.html

  Blondie
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Blondie,

  The right to do door-to-door evangelizing has already been confirmed in the US Supreme Court and very recently too. As long as it is in the US,I doubt that the government will start telling religious groups what they can do unless it is a crime on the books.

  Makeing the d to d work illegal on the basis of harassment is not interfereing with a persons right to practice his religion, it is just recognizing the right of people not to be harassed in thier own home by someone trying to convert them on something as personal religious beliefs.

  What about the work of LDS/Mormons going from d2d; or the Baptists down the road who do go d2d as well?

  They too should be fined if they go door to door, harassing people with their religious views. They should find another way to advertise their religion, that doesn't disturb people's privacy. Why should a person have to put up with someone comming to their house on a regular basis, trying to in effect shove thier religion down thier throat by uninvited repeated calls. I think such a law would not really be out of the question.
• 

  blondie

  frankiespeaking, I understand those points and they were covered before the Supreme Court. It is quite interesting to read the transcript and see that those men and women, saw past a religious group whose individual beliefs they did not share, but saw how it would affect the religious freedom of everyone in the US. I trust that most people are smart and aware enough not to be taken in by the WTS without the government having to pass a law curtailing a practice (d2d) that many religions engage in.

  Let's not be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Many muncipalities have tried to curtail just the WTS by law and by limiting the free practice therein. All these attempts have failed at the final legal level, the US Supreme Court.

  The right to bear arms is a similar law that makes some situations seem more dangerous (more than seem in my opinion), but I don't see a law being passed preventing people in the US from owning firearms any time soon

  Blondie.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Too make it illegal to go d to d uninvited would also give the JWs more time for other things, like going to the park, sleeping late, and what have you, so it really isn't persecution, and would teach them respect for other people and thier rights to privacy and to be more respectfull of a person's right not to be harassed at his home uninvited simply because he has different religious views.