CNN mentions Jehovah's Witnesses Today

by ARoarer 76 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bluesapphire

  Seeker, nobody's rights are being violated. They can still canvass. They just have to register first. So maybe it wont protect us from Anthrax or terrorists. But it can protect children from pedophiles. Don't you agree?

  Whose rights are being violated? They just have to register. Were your rights violted when you registered for the draft?

  Personally, I would like anyone who comes to sell anything at my doorstep to be registerd. My kids are alone for 30 minutes each day until I get home from work. I don't let them open the door to anybody. But you never know. What if they went outside to empty the trash or feed the dog. It's a good law.

  And BTW, I hope some pedophile lawsuits are lost before this goes to trial. Might have some bearing on the outcome. This could set a precedent nationally. Just think, every dub coming to your door has to come during work hours only. They have to wear a name badge and be registered. If they break the law, you can call the city and let them know about it. It's a good law.

  Just my opinion.
• 

  MadApostate

  Just now had time to look at this thread.

  I had previously posted the link to the Court of Appeals Opinion in one of the earlier "DO NOT CALL" threads.

  Wannahelp and others have made an EXCELLENT SUGGESTION! SilentLambs should contact the Attorneys for VILLAGE OF STRATTON and provide them EVIDENCE that the WTS encourages pedophiles to participate in Field Service. The Village's attorneys should WELCOME such evidence. It is my opinion that the USSC Justices will eat up that evidence!

  IF, for some reason the Village attorneys do not welcome and USE such EVIDENCE, then SilentLambs.Org should DO THE EXACT SAME THING that the WTS did in the SWAGGART CASE. SL.ORG should file a AMICUS CURIE BRIEF, except it should be as a "friend" of the Village.

  By the way, Esgargot is WRONG! The 193/40s cases wich the WTS won all involved similar, yet different, issues. Otherwise, the USSC would not be hearing this case. This case will be very interesting. The USSC will determine which "right" is greater: The Village's right to protect its citizenry from possible criminals calling at homes using "burdens" on free speech and free practice of religion, or the WTS's right of free speech and religion.
  My earlier reading of the Appellate Court Opinion gives me a 50/50 odds estimate at this time. I will reread such later when I have time.

  HOWEVER, SOMEONE NEEDS TO BRING THIS TO SL's ATTENTION.

  I sincerely believe the "pedophiles knocking doors" scenario can weigh heavily in the USSC's decision.
• 

  Tina

  Hi Blue,
  You're correct here. No one is saying or advocating their right to free speech. Asking one to have some identifier to who or what you are represent ,is not taking their right to 'preach' away.
  The public has a right to 'awareness',who is at their door.
  I get visits from baptists and mormons. They too,should have some observable identifier.
  I want to see and know who is at my door.I don't think that is asking much at all. Geez,we can even ask a police officer/detective /investigator for a badge number to check ,precinct to call. recently we had 2 men,dressed similar to Jw's in FS,going d-d charity scamming. They unfortunately fooled several residents till they got found out.
  There are home repair/builder scammers who target the lederly by going d-d.... Times and urban living have created a need for identifiers. For our protection. As liberal as I feel I am,I think Jw's and others like them should be required to carry/have an identifier. Why do they need'anonymity"? Anonymity in this day and age,when you are intruding upon private property/a persons privacy ?No longer makes sense to me.Many of us don't live in small towns,where you know everyone. In vast urban areas,crowded with so many transients,it seems to make really good sense to have an identifyer.
  regards,Tina

  si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
• 

  Seeker

  Seeker, nobody's rights are being violated.

  Yet. I'm thinking two moves ahead.

  They can still canvass. They just have to register first. So maybe it wont protect us from Anthrax or terrorists. But it can protect children from pedophiles. Don't you agree?

  No. I've never heard of a pedophile going from door-to-door to announce themselves as such. Most pedophiles attack family members or children of neighbors and friends. With such an ID arrangement, salespersons and JWs will have to register, but pedophiles will not, for they don't go door-to-door.

  Yes, yes, I know, there are many pedophiles among JWs. This may help prevent them from going door-to-door once they are convicted (rarely happens), served their time, and returned to the congregation. Assuming the local community decides to go beyond the court-ordered punishment and say that the pedophile may not register. Entirely possible this will happen, of course, in which case some good will come of this. But that's the only possible good outcome I can see from this measure.

  I take that back. There are crooks that go door-to-door to offer home repairs and then rip off their customers. I suppose this method could help prevent crooks from going door to door too.

  So yes, I can see some good, but not the slightest bit against terrorism, which was where I originally jumped into the conversation.

  Finally, as I said originally, I don't think this system would be abused immediately. But I strongly suspect it would be abused eventually. Unless we as a society are convinced that so much good will be done by this measure, I am not willing to give up a civil right too easily. We'll see what the Supreme Court decides. Traditionally, they would throw this out immediately. In recent years they have changed, and are much less supportive of individual rights.
• 

  Francois

  .. http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/15/scotus.jehovahs.witnesses.ap/index.html
• 

  Sam Beli

  Some, who do not wish to be bothered by door to door types build in gated communities. Others buy in high-rise buildings with secure entrances. JWs and other door to door types seldom gain access to these occupants.

  What we are saying here is that an entire community, or at least a large majority may want to erect a legal barrier to some unwanted pestering. Yet a minority can overturn that legal barrier, but can not overturn a physical barrier to their door to door canvassing.

  Money “talks,” eh?

  Sam Beli

  I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind. What is crooked cannot be straightened and what is lacking cannot be counted. Solomon
• 

  Sunspot

  No one is saying or advocating their right to free speech. Asking one to have some identifier to who or what you are represent ,is not taking their right to 'preach' away.
  The public has a right to 'awareness',who is at their door.

  Tina, this is exactly what I was going to say! Let's face it, when someone knocks at your door....WHAT TWO BASIC QUESTIONS do you have??? Who ARE you and what DO you want?? Right? It's human nature.

  This is a protection to ALL, and does NOT "single out" any particular group or individual.

  I remember the "deceptive tactics" that *I* used, like;

  "we're doing a Bible education work",

  "we're volunteers here to promote more Bible reading",

  "we're involved in a worldwide Bible education program"

  All of which WERE evasive (because we KNEW that saying we're Jehovah's Witnesses would result in a negative response) We were TOLD (Service Meetings)not to say the JW title......(hanging my very ashamed head right now)

  I earnestly hope that the Supreme Court Justice in Ohio will uphold the present law as it stands......or it will set a precedent for JWs everywhere to follow suit!

  Shredded families and ruined lives;
  The WBTS has MUCH to answer for......

  Hugs,

  Sunspot
• 

  jelly

  I have two takes on this.

  If they have to register to preach in public areas then I disagree with the registration process.

  If the have to register to knock on my door then I agree with the registration; solely because I don’t believe anyone has a constitutional right to knock on my door. I hope nobody is registered if this is the case.

  Jelly
• 

  Tina

  Hi ((((((((sun)))))))))))and welcome aboard!!
  Wow,I really slaughtered the language in that post(I'm usually in a tearing hurry) glad what I meant to say came thru! lol
  Yep! I certainly remember practicing those evasive ,essentially very dishonest tactics at the door,and not at all proud of the memory.We we're frauds,akin to scam artists IMHO>(hangs head with you on this one :<

  I think that's why JW's of all groups will fight this.That anonymity,secretness is essential in getting access to people. Because we know,that when we had identified who we were in the past,very very few would want to hear our 'message'.

  It seems to me the law and common sense don't often match. I do hope it will in this case. Registration will hopefully prevent such fraudulent behavior. hugs,Tina
  ((((((ARoarer)))))))) Well said!! And beautifully too! Thanks so much! luv,T

  si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
• 

  Thirdson

  I think the laywers representing Stratton should be helped out with some Watchtower Society publications. I don't have an OM book any more and its not contained on the CD-ROM. However, there are planety of quotes from the WTS publications that show that they are model citizens who obey the law when it doen't conflict with God's law. Since, the local law is not in violation of God's law they must have to challenge the fact that they are somehow being discriminated against.

  On the topic of the sort of people who might be visiting your home this what the Kingdom Ministry said in December 1974:

  Question Box

  • In a case in which a person, because of genuine repentance, is not disfellowshipped, is it nonetheless proper to restrict him from the preaching work under certain circumstances?

  When one is privately or publicly reproved, the information on page 168 of the Organization book applies. While it is true that certain restrictions may be placed on such individuals, it is good to note what is said on page 168 regarding the preaching work, namely: "The person would be free to engage fully in the preaching work and to report such . . . " Likely in the case of a notorious situation where one is publicly reproved, it would be the course of wisdom for that one to engage in the preaching work in a section of the territory where the problem is not widely known, at least for a while. It is good to keep in mind that the preaching work is a basic part of our service to God, and all who serve Jehovah should be sharing in it.-Matt. 24:14; 28:18-20.

  What about a person who has been reinstated following disfellowshiping? Should he be allowed to engage in the field service immediately? Yes, in harmony with the above thoughts he should be allowed to engage in the field service following reinstatement. As to other privileges in this regard we can be guided by what is stated in the Organization book, page 177.

  Slightly off the subject. Don't you see a restiriction on FS would be gladly endured by the repentant wrong-doer. However, since FS is a huge chore and effort why would they want to remove that as punishment?

  It makes you think!

  THirdson

  'To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing'