CNN mentions Jehovah's Witnesses Today

by ARoarer 76 Replies latest jw friends

  • JT
    JT

    OutnFree:

    . Just as long as they REGISTER. Registering with the civil authorities is not against God's law, is it?

    From Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, Page 209, 1983:

    (4) Should Christians comply with legal requirements such as the registering of marriages and births, respond to census inquires or obtain required licenses and permits that do not conflict with God's laws?Italics mine.

    #############

    You are sick- I just love it- i love it

    now this is right on the money- can you imagine the town's lawyer

    reading this material straight out of the WT publication to the Jury and Justices- it would be so funny

    on one hand they say they have no problem registering and then on the other hand they say they do- now which is it Damnit the lawyer shouts

    smile

  • Jourles
    Jourles

    Hmmm, this thread just reminded me of the last service meeting. During the demonstration part, both sisters used the term "community volunteer" when introducing themselves. Not once did they mention they were with the JW's. Now I wonder if that was their doing, or at the coaching of the elder that had the local announcements?

  • Eyebrow
    Eyebrow

    My first gut response was to write that restricting one religion is restricting ALL religion.

    However, I too have to consider the current situation in the world and this country. While I don't like the idea of people having to register as a member of a religion with any government, I can see why this Ohio town passed the law. The feel the need to protect their citizens.

    I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, if they have never rejected a permit it seems that the government sincerely is just trying to make sure that all these solictors are legit. And do they run them through for criminal background? When I sold insurance and later worked for a credit card company I was fingerprinted and a background check was performed. I had no problem with that.

    But the idea of any government compiling a list of people based on religious affiliation concerns me. I wonder if this is just a basic permit that does not specify what the door to door purpose is. If so, then it is no big deal to me. But if not, ehhh....this makes me nervous.

    It will be extremely interesting to see how this plays out.

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    For those who wonder what the big deal is about registering and wearing a card, the civil rights come into it when local boards decide to withold permission based on personal prejudice. For precedent of a similar type of situation, consider how blacks in the southern U.S. were prevented from voting by the issuing of all sorts of "requirements" designed to prevent them from qualifying. That is the danger inherent in needing "permission" to do something that is a right. One can find that right taken away.

    Speaking with strangers, going from your house to your neighbor's house, is perfectly normal. It is only in Westernized societies, with increasing urbanization, that it even began to be seen as odd, or a bother, or even a threat. You can make very good arguments that there are increased threats in today's society, but it is the above concerns that the Supreme Court takes into consideration when deciding such matters. As exJWs, we may be very annoyed by JWs invading our privacy. The Supreme Court will (I hope, at least) take much more into consideration before removing a right from society.

    Remember, once you grant a power to a government, it is very hard to get it back, and it almost inevitably winds up being used in unexpected ways in the future.

  • Rex B13
    Rex B13

    I live about 20 miles from the town (Stratton) which is along the Ohio River at it's northern turn from Pennsylvania and West Virginia. This happened about 6 months ago and it is one town only. The congo is in Wellsville, Ohio.
    Rex

  • Eyebrow
    Eyebrow

    Seeker,

    Your last sentence says it the best!

  • ARoarer
    ARoarer

    It is interesting how the JW's insist on identification cards when attending assemblies and special meetings for security purposes. It isn't always in the best interest of the public when people can come to the door with a specific agenda without special identification. Often women feel extremely vulnerable with a stranger at the door claiming to be reperesenting a product or service. I think in today's world no one should expect to be anonymous when they enter into private territorial boundaries on another's property. The issue of crime, and safety are definite concerns, and now especially, as I agree with Ranchette, that Pedophiles being allowed to come to the door "anonomously" to speak the Bible with unsuspecting families is something that most definitly needs to be considered. No only in cities but especially in secluded rural areas, when a young girl answers the door, or an elderly woman or vulnerable people of all ages and sex, they should have the security of knowing WHO is at the door and what is the true agenda? Religous encouragement or Recruitment into a pyramidlike publishing corporation under the guise of legitimate religion. The "ministers" of Jehovah's Witnesses are not "paid clergy", but part time volunteers made up of all different types of people, many of whom have had extremely questionable backgrounds before "coming into the truth". Today's presiding overseer could be mearly a sheet metal worker who had a long history of drug selling and pushing, or a psychotic on medications who becomes delusional if he misses a does of meds. I have known such situations. Yes I also have the same concerns that Seeker raises about giving gov't the power in a court ruling but also there are other considerations to think about when it comes to JW's coming freely and anonymously demanding they have the right to be there on you property to recruit you and than when they kick you out the back door years or mths down the line for not measuring up, then where is the right of the ones who are shunned?? Bin Laden also demands his rights but who cares what he considers to be his rights. He has hijacked the islamic faith and forces the world to go along with his thinking or else. The same with Jehovah's Witnesses. They have taken basic Christian teachings and hijacked it and twisted it into their own fashion that goes beyond what is in the scriptures and those who don't want to accept their way of thinking they also believe should be dead. Maybe not in the same way Bin Laden wants it but the same thinking is what they have. No normal person will want someone like that lurking on their door step behind a fake smile as a "volunteer". I say give the the ID cards.[8>]

  • Bridgette
    Bridgette

    Seeker,
    Your arguments are very valid. Your voice and others like it are very much needed at times such as this. I agree with the need to be cautious and watch closely what laws are eing passed. We live in dangerous times, indeed. Not only the physical threat we are facing, but the tendency of frightened people to needlessly give up their rights in exchange for a feeling of security. And teh ability for a despotic government to take advantage of crisis situations. However, this bears repeating: with more and more and MORE people attempting to peaceably share this planet, the lines between individual rights and community rights thin and get entangled at times. I cannot yell "Fire!" in a movie theatre. By the letter of a free society, this is a blatant violation of my freedom of speech. But it is for a greater, common good, that we cannot yell fire in a theatre. The fact that I have to wear an ID badge with my name, title and credentials facing the public (it's in our company by-laws) is technically invasive to my individuality and privacy (people know my name--sometimes that makes me uncomfortable), but I can guarantee you that you want to know what and who I am if I come at you with a size E needle as you lay in a hospital bed. Your right to safe healthcare, it has been decided, outweighs my need for anonyity. And don't even get me started on healthcare, which is very much socialized, and does in no way reflect our capitalistic ideals--because we decided that a human being's right to healthcare rfar outweighed the right of an individual to make a fortune healing the sick. I happen to think this is a good thing. *sigh* We live under and have adopted the philosophy of "Majority rules". If I want to make you wear an ID badge when you're canvassing my neighborhood with an agenda, and more citizens than not, agree with me, then, in theory, we should be able to prevail and have you wear an ID badge. America is very much a work in progress. I think balance is the key.
    Pax,
    B.
    p.s. While we're at it--down with TELEMARKETERS!!! I'd even take JW's over them (if I absolutely HAD to make the choice)

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    Bridgette,

    You make many excellent points, and I can't really argue against any of them. It is a balancing act needed, and in some cases compromises are necessary. I've often used the example of being searched at the airports. Technically this is unconstitutional, as it is an "unreasonable search" as we are assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise. Yet I do not argue against this custom as I demand less privacy for myself in public than I do in my own home. And it does help us fly safer.

    I suspect you and I think very much alike in this area. Thanks for responding.

  • Bridgette
    Bridgette

    Seeker,
    You said: "I suspect you and I think very much alike in this area." I've had that feeling from some of your posts as well.
    Pax,
    B.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit