WT goes to the US Supreme Court Tomorrow

by JT 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tdogg

  "The free one-on-one exchange of ideas is a pillar of our democracy," says Paul Polidoro, a lawyer for the Jehovah's Witnesses, in his brief to the court. "Stratton has devalued both the constitutional right of speakers to express information and the constitutional right of residents to receive it if they so choose."

  Wow! Look at Jehovahs spokesman using the rights of "our democracy" and using the constitution as if it were some sacred document. Too bad they dont bring up what the WT really thinks about the government of the United States and its constitution. How convieniently they can change their song when it suits them....
• 

  peterstride

  I agree with TDOGG's statement that:
  "Wow! Look at Jehovahs spokesman using the rights of "our democracy" and using the constitution as if it were some sacred document. Too bad they dont bring up what the WT really thinks about the government of the United States and its constitution. How convieniently they can change their song when it suits them...."

  And to the above, I want to add what's been mentioned many times in these boards, namely:
  That the freedoms and rights the WTS lawyers are demanding for the organization, are not given to the rank&file JWs within the organization!

  That in itself upsets me quite a bit!

  Peter Stride
  Toronto, Canada
• 

  BoozeRunner

  There a few ways to look at this issue. Lately, I have been disturbed about how easily we are letting our freedoms slip away.

  Too often, it is a knee-jerk reaction to something appalling, or to a tragedy.

  For example, the idea of a national ID system containing fingerprints on Drivers Licenses. Do YOU want to be fingerprinted like a criminal?

  Personally, I think I have the right to live my life in TOTAL obscurity and anonymity if I chose to.

  States force electronic toll payment systems like EZ-Pass and such. Our movements can be tracked each day.

  Am I paranoid? Maybe, but not without good reason. I have watched governments pass laws which simply amount to either ways to contol us, or to get our money.
  I mean, whens the last time you heard of a person flying out of a car during an accident and killing a pedestrian due to not wearing a seatbelt? So, why should we be forced to wear one?

  Its about control, PERIOD, and the best way to control is to limit freedoms.

  Aint we learned nothing from our years in the Borg?

  As to ID's at the door for JWs-there are many things I dont mind doing voluntarily, I just want to have the CHOICE to do it or not.

  Boozy

  p.s.That means I agree with Seeker on this one
• 

  MadApostate

  Seeker says:

  I am very much leery of giving any government the right to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't, even door-to-door. All it would take is some local government to decide they don't like, uh, conservatives, or liberals, or blacks, being able to speak to their neighbors about an issue, and suddenly the permits will not be issued. It won't have anything to do with criminals, and everything to do with idealogy.

  
  Comments like this indicate that you have absolutely NO CLUE regarding this case or issues as they relate to our modern time and juris prudence.

  IF the USSC's decision is favorable to Stratton in any shape or form, the Cort will do so in a way that guarantees that your concerns DO NOT result.

  JT says:

  seeker email me if you get a moment
  ...
  ...
  interesting thought but there could be other factors you may want to consider as well

  thanks

  REREAD THE BOE above
  and email me

  
  WHAT A BUNCH OF PUSSY-WIMPS!!!

  YOU H2O CLIQUERS ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT MAINTAINING YOUR "CONSOLIDATED FRONT" THAT YOU ASSHOLES CAN'T EVEN DISCUSS DISAGREEMENTS OF OPINION HERE IN PUBLIC.

  YOU ASSHOLES ARE WORTHLESS. YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN PRESTIGE AND STANDING IN THE XJW COMMUNITY.
• 

  ianao

  MADAPOSTATE: PLEASE CALM DOWN.
• 

  Seeker

  MA,

  I respectfully disagree with both of your points.

  1. This case may not have serious repercussions, but it could be the first step down a bad road. I recall my history, and know that blacks were prevented from voting by means of tests to determine their "qualifications." I am leery of any steps in that general direction, and yes, the current Supreme Court is quite capable of doing things that will restrict rights.

  As for me being a pussy-wimp or a worthless asshole, I'll leave that to others to judge. But I don't know JT's motive for wanting me to write him privately, although it might involve personal information that would violate a mutual friend's privacy, stuff that doesn't belong on a board. However, JT asked him to write, and I did, as I always do when someone requests this of me.

  I should think that you would have read enough of my posts by now to know that I never shy away from an argument, I am perfectly willing to stand alone on an issue, I am part of no "consolidated front", and I couldn't care less about prestige or standing in the exJW community.
• 

  Pathofthorns

  I think this whole issuing permits for door to door activities and confining those activities to monday to friday 9-5 is rather reasonable as long as the issuing of permits is just a matter of registering with the township and that these are issued without discrimination.

  Door to door callers are generally not welcome and at this point in time appear unnecessary due to all of the other more preferable mediums available to carry out legitamate business and charitable activities.

  Any legitamate business or charity should find the restrictions reasonable, and those who would like to be contacted outside of the hours restriction can be contacted by phone so an appointment can be made.

  The unfortunate thing with regard to all this is that while the Society would like unrestricted freeness of speech, they severely restrict the freedoms of their own members.

  I would just love to hear their arguments in court because you just know that if you apply many of those same arguments to them and how they treat their own members, there's bound to be some blatant hypocrisy.

  Path