it may happen in georgia
if you were still a jw.. would you pay for a permit to preach?
by candidlynuts 11 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
EvilForce
More than likely this will get turned down by a court of law under freedom of speech. These local ordinances have been overturned time after time in state and federal courts. Since the witnesses do not sell anything and are a non-profit entity the are exempt from having to get a solicitation license.
Now, the council could make people "serve notice" to the police telling them where they were going to be preaching. But those police could not interfere in any way shape or form with message, location, or duration of the preaching.
My grandfather & father have been city overseers, PO's, etc...so have seen alot of these things over the years....but I am not a lawyer!
I know we have a couple of lawyers on this chat board.....what is your understanding guys/gals???? -
Oroborus21
Greetings!
Actually in many jurisdictions (city and county) charitable solicitation of strangers door to door or via telephone or post requires either a permit or an identity card or some form of approval. The laws are designed to prevent unscrupulous persons from going door-to-door claiming to collect for a charity of some sort.
To acquire the identity card in Los Angeles where I live you have to complete an application and submit some materials and state the time period of the "campaign." I know all of this being on the board of directors of a new local cancer charity.
Typically the regulations have not been enforced upon religious groups (and even many others) and there is a question of whether the mere incidental mention of a "donation arrangement" during a presentation at the door that is otherwise U.S. Constitutionally protected political or religous speech creates an obligation to obtain the identity card.
You might look into what is required in your area locally and the next time anyone comes to your door and asks for money you can ask them to show you their copy of the identity card. Many jurisdictions specifically exempt such political and religious activities from the requirement.
Having said all of that, I would (when I believed in doing it) have preached in defiance to any law that required me to obtain a license to doing so, even if it meant risking a fine or jail time.
When you look into the history of JWs it is a fine and brave when when it comes to standing up for their rights in the early and mid 20th Century. It is very sad now, that it seems that today's Jehovah's Witnesses don't have the same "gumption" as their forerunners. Most Witnesses, and it is the directive of the Society I think, comply with No Solicitiation, NO Trespassing, and any local legal requirements of obtaining a license, etc. (most of the time) when their forebears would have never stood for it.
But you may recall it was only a few years ago that one town tried to establish a licensing situation that was almost directly to thrwart the JWs and the JWs rightuflly appealed and eventually won that Supreme Court case. This is only a few years ago but I am drawing a blank on the name for some reason.
IN any case the ordinance you are referring to in your post is just another similar law to the ones that other jurisdictions have out there and seems directed at commercial and charitable solicitations.
If for some reason the JWs were made to comply wiith such an ordinance and compliance became burdensome, then they could simply adopt a policy of omitting the donation arrangement mention during their preaching work. I think back at all the times I went in service I thnk I could easily count on my fingers the numbers of times that I actually "mentioned the donation arrangement" and still have some fingers left over, that's how seldom I mentioned it.
-Eduardo
-
EvilForce
I'm with you on the donation dealio..... I just paid for the magazines out of my own pocket since they were so inexpensive.
But I guess the old adage of you get what you pay for comes to mind :) -
Elsewhere
The proposed ordinance also would require permit applicants to have a valid business license or a non-profit incorporation.
The WTS will fight the ordinance tooth and nail over this clause alone.
The reason is because JWs do not go door-to-door as representatives of the WTS or the local congregation. They go door-to-door "on their own". Every lawsuit I have ever seen where a JW going to someone's door resulted in a lawsuit, the WTS denied having ANY legal ties to the person... that person at the door just so happened to be using literature published by the WTS, but the JW himself was action on his own.
This is one of the ways the WTS and the local congregation avoids any legal liability should a JW do something stupid at a door. Now, if this ordinance were to be passed, the WTS and/or the local congregation would be forced to declare that the person going door-to-door is in-fact acting on their behalf and would therefore expose them to legal liability in a lawsuit.
Once this "agency" relationship is established in one lawsuit in that area, other lawsuits could use it as a precedent to demonstrate that the WTS in in fact liable for the actions of JWs everywhere in the US. This would most certainly result in financial doom for the WTS.
-
JH
Witnesses pay for the cars, the gas, the clothes, the magazines, the hotels when they go to conventions so what's a permit gonna change...
Rat
-
AlmostAtheist
I think it's against Witness dogma to pay for a permit. I don't have any idea of the basis for this, but a very knowledgeable JW (presiding overseer) brought it up in a car group once, saying that if they demanded payment for a permit, we would have to refuse. I could easily be remembering it wrong, he could have been wrong, there could be "new light", etc, etc.
But to answer the question, when I was a JW, I would've done whatever the bOrg said to do. Buy a permit, don't buy a permit, go to 5 meetings a week, live like a leper for 6 months to prove I'm repentant, whatever... thank you sir, may I have another?
Dave of the "glad to be free" class
-
Euphemism
It would be interesting if, to avoid the solicitation provisions, the Society instructed the JWs to not mention the donation arrangement when going door to door. Frankly, when I was a Witness, I rarely mentioned it anyway. I was just glad if I could get people to take the stuff; and I didn't want them to think that our real purpose in coming was to get a donation. (it seemed kind of like a bait-and-switch... here are these free publications... oh, and by the way, could we have some money, please?)
-
Krystal
If I was still as zealous as I was when I got baptized... for sure! What is money compared to the wonderful priviledge of preaching the good news of the kingdom?!
(personally, I only mentioned the donation thing if I left a book... for mags, i would just give myself.)
They tried passing a law like that here in Blainville, QC... they lost!
-
blondie
I don't know why that town thinks they are going to accomplish what was decided in favor of the WTS re Stratton, Ohio, before the US Supreme Court in 2002.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/00%2D1737.html
Maybe they could call it a TIP.
***
w86 10/1 pp. 30-31 Questions From ReadersHow can a Christian distinguish between bribing (condemned in the Bible) and giving a "tip" or "gift" for a service rendered?
We need to appreciate that practices differ from area to area. Ways that are accepted in some lands would be offensive or improper elsewhere. For example, people in one country may bow before an official, but in another land that would be viewed as idolatry. Similarly, a "tipping" practice accepted in one land might be shocking or illegal in another. While bearing such differences in mind, all Christians should apply God?s counsel against bribery.
What is bribery, and what does the Bible say about it? The World Book Encyclopedia explains: "Bribery means giving or offering something of value to a person in a position of trust, who in return violates his or her duty or the law in order to benefit the giver." Thus it is bribery to give money (or a gift) to a judge to influence his decision and pervert justice. It is also bribery to offer money so as to circumvent the law, such as asking a building or automobile inspector to ignore a violation.
God condemns bribery, telling Israelite judges: "You must not pervert judgment. You must not be partial or accept a bribe, for the bribe blinds the eyes of wise ones and distorts the words of righteous ones." (Deuteronomy 16:19; compare Proverbs 17:23; Isaiah 1:23; 5:23; 1 Samuel 8:3-5.) Jehovah himself sets the standard, for with him "there is no unrighteousness or partiality or taking of a bribe." (2 Chronicles 19:7; Deuteronomy 10:17) Christians desiring God?s approval refuse to resort to bribery.?Compare Acts 24:26.
While men worldwide denounce and have laws against bribery, many people face the problem reflected in the above question. They know that it takes a "gift" or "tip" to get minor officials in their land to do their job or to do it fairly. For instance, The Wall Street Journal said about a land rife with inflation: "To obtain the extra cash needed to get by, government workers resort to petty corruption. ?You have to pay them to hand you any kind of form,? says the head of a state agency. Meanwhile, immigration officials badger bewildered foreign tourists at the international airport for $20 to stamp their passports so the travelers don?t miss their planes."
Recently, U.S.News & World Report commented on bureaucratic delays and resulting payoffs that are common around the world. For instance, it said: "An Indian these days must slip money to an official on the side to enroll a child in school, to gain admittance to a hospital, even to secure reservations on a train." Other illustrations of this include:
?A tradesman needs a permit before he can work. He pays the official fee at the government office, yet everyone knows that without a "gift" his papers will be kept on the bottom of the pile. While he is not asking to be put ahead of others, if he gives the normal "tip," his paper will be properly handled.
?In a certain land, people know that traffic officers get low pay and are expected to add to it with "gifts for refreshments." An officer stops a driver and says that a law was broken, so the man must pay a fine. When the driver protests that he broke no law, the officer warns that if the matter goes to court, he will charge the man also with assaulting an officer. Thus, many simply pay the "fine," viewing it as unofficial taxation. Others refuse, being willing to take the consequences.
?A municipality is supposed to provide garbage collection. But it is normal for a householder to give the garbagemen a "gift." If someone does not, his trash is "forgotten," and he is liable to be fined for unsanitary conditions.
Such problems show that many in authority use their government post for unjust profit. (Ecclesiastes 8:9) Christians long for God?s righteous new system, but until then they must cope with the present system. (2 Peter 3:13) This may mean recognizing local situations wherein public servants expect gifts for performing their job. Even in lands where such is normal, many of Jehovah?s Witnesses who deal with inspectors and customs officials have declined to give "tips" to obtain what the law entitles them to. Because they are known for this stand, they receive treatment that most people get only through a payment. (Proverbs 10:9) However, each Christian must be guided by his Bible-educated conscience according to the local situation.
Love for neighbor is a factor to consider. (Matthew 22:39) It would be unloving to use a "gift" to get preferred treatment, such as being moved to the head of a line, bypassing those who were waiting. Jesus counseled us to treat others as we want to be treated. (Matthew 7:12) Some Christians may feel that as their turn in line comes, they can comply with the practice of the land to give a "gift" to get an official to do what his job requires. Of course, in lands where such "gifts" are not customary or they are shocking to public sensibilities, the loving Christian will act in a way that does not stumble others.?1 Corinthians 10:31-33.
Another factor is obedience to law. Jesus urged: "Pay back Caesar?s things to Caesar, but God?s things to God." (Mark 12:17; see also Matthew 17:24-27.) It is one thing if a Christian who has not broken the law is expected to "tip" a government employee or other official. But what if a Christian actually had violated the law? In that case, how could he in good conscience offer a bribe to induce an officer to ignore the violation? The apostle Paul wrote that we should fear governmental superior authorities, who are empowered "to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad." (Romans 13:3, 4) Paul?s own position was: If he did wrong, he would accept the appropriate punishment. (Acts 25:10, 11) Thus, a Christian who violated a traffic law might have to pay a fine or fee, as directed by an officer or a judge.
Paul also said that governments are ?ministers to you for your good.? Despite the greed of some officials, governments do provide services for the public good. For instance, officials inspect automobiles as to their roadworthiness, and they examine whether buildings are in compliance with fire codes. Therefore, if a Christian felt that, within the law, he could "tip" an official who expected a "service fee," it is evident that this is quite different from bribing an inspector to ignore violations of the law.
In whatever land they live, Christians should exercise practical wisdom in dealing with local situations. God?s servants should remember that those who ?will be guests in God?s tent and reside in his holy mountain? cannot resort to bribery. (Psalm 15:1, 5) With regard to giving "tips" to receive rightfully due services or to avoid unfair treatment by officials, a Christian must decide what his conscience permits and bear responsibility for any resulting complications. He certainly should pursue a course that leaves him with a good conscience personally and that does not sully the good name of Christianity or stumble observers.?2 Corinthians 6:3.
[Footnotes]
"Questions From Readers," The Watchtower of June 1, 1968.
Elders in the Christian congregation are responsible to handle violations of divine law, such as stealing, murder, and immorality. But God did not require congregation elders to enforce Caesar?s laws and codes. Hence, Paul did not feel compelled to turn over to Roman authorities Onesimus, who was a fugitive under Roman law. (Philemon 10, 15) Of course, if someone flagrantly violates secular law, gaining the reputation of being a lawbreaker, he would not be a good example and might even be disfellowshipped. (1 Timothy 3:2, 7, 10) If lawbreaking was involved in causing another?s death, bloodguilt requiring congregation investigation might result.