Justice Scalia calls JWs "crackpots"
by proplog2 3 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
joeshmoe
144thousand&one posted this on another thread and I'd have to agree:
The "crackpots" referred to in the concurring opinion of Scalia and Thomas are those the majority of the Court referred to in its opinion as "patriotic citizens who have such firm convictions about their constitutional right to engage in uninhibited debate in the context of door-to-door advocacy, that they would prefer silence to speech licensed by a petty official." Clearly, this cannot describe Jehovah's Witnesses. "Patriotic" is an adjective that has no applicability whatsoever to Jehovah's Witnesses, and it is unlikely the upholding of the Stratton ordinance would silence the affected Jehovah's Witnesses.
But whatever your opinion on who Scalia was refering to, I think we can all agree JW's are crackpots! -
JWinSF
It doesn't surprise me. Scalia is a very conservative judge who seems to be on the side of the "religious right". As a group, they are very anti-JW [as are the JWs very anti religious right]. The funny thing is,that they are basically "cuts from the same cloth". They both think that only they have "The" answers for Society. I personally find Scalia's past rulings to be highly odiferous.
While not a JW supporter --- I disassociated and think that theologically and control-wise they are way off-base --- I do give them credit for the freedom of speech that they had won for residents of the USA in prior Supreme Court rulings. Yes, these fights were for their brand of evangelizing. But, all the same, freedom to not be coerced into doing something against one's beliefs is a precious value. It's too bad that the JWs don't "practice what they preach" regarding freedom of speech within their own Organization.
But, as far as Scalia goes, him calling the JWs crackpots IMO is the same as "the pot calling the kettle black".
John W Wirtanen
-
Kingpawn
I don't read it that way. Looks to me like the "crackpots" he refers to (name-calling by an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court!), are those who'd say "Normally I'd object to having to be licensed in order to exercise my rights to free speech under the Constitution, but because I agree with the other
brain-dead moronspatriotic citizens that it's wrong to criticize the government and its efforts torape our civil libertiescurb our freedoms to give us security, I won't do so."Besides the Witnesses will ignore the law (remember "We must obey God as ruler rather than men"). That's one thing that always PO'ed me about the Mormons. If they thought polygamy was God-ordained they should have kept with it and told the government to kiss their many-wedded asses. OK, the government would make some arrests and jail a few. Eventually the public outcry over the persecution would have stopped it.