by ARoarer 76 Replies latest jw friends
Hello ARoarer,
thanks for the information.
Similar things are happening in Europe. In
some places the JW's will have to apply for permits
and possibly ...will ahev to wear ID badges!!
After all, ...security reasons are very much in
the front, these days!
Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
" One who has an accurate knowledge
of God's Word will have no problem
in refuting false religious ideas".
Very interesting subject, and comments from all. In the last congregation I was in, it was necessary to call the local Police Dept. of certain towns before we went from door-to-door. The brother leading the group made the call, gave police the license plate #'s of all cars involved. He also gave his name. Personally I thought that such an arrangement was sufficient.
It is a very sensitive balancing act when it comes to personal rights as opposed to the rights of the community.
Unfortunately, too often we allow government to limit our rights in what is usually a knee-jerk reaction to one crisis or another. Many times its a "feel-good" move.
I am just wondering, is the Ohio situation due to an outcry from the community, or is the city just trying to collect $$ from permits? (hmmm, imagine if they charged by the hour?)
By way of example, I remember when they made SEAT BELTS the law here in NJ. "It will never be a reason for a primary stop", is what the lawmakers told us, "we just want to save lives."
Five years later, it DID become a reason for a PRIMARY STOP by State Troopers and local cops, and you get points on your license. It is also a bargaining chip in court-prosecuters routinely allow motorists to "plea down" to a seat belt infraction. The raeson??? The ALMIGHTY DOLLAR in municipal courts. But another aspect of this seat belt crap is, that by letting cops stop folks for such a dumb infraction, they also got the chance to search vehicles-does NJ's RACIAL PROFILING debacle come to mind?
We must be very careful where we let our government tread when it comes to personal rights and freedoms-DONT let them "feel-good" us to death!!!
Boozy
preaching aside they are a registered charity,
and anyone volunteering for a reputable charity that
I've opened my door to has the required ID and charity no,
so I wrote to a reputable charity and asked about it
and got
I've always assumed that house to house fundraisers, who are mostly
volunteers, have to carry ID - it's in the relevant legislation. I can
remember handing out hundreds of such tags in my time with Oxfam.You'll probably find more info at
nelly
(((boozy)))))))
I do see and appreciate the points you and Seeker made. It becomes such a fine line doesn't it?
And yes,of course I agree. Another way for the govt to get their greedy hands on more revenue.
Thanks for the added inisights! luv,Tina
si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
((((TINA))))),
TY. There are good points all around on this issue. But it is up to the people to make sure the courts, politicians, etc. dont cross the line.
boozy
Some of you folks should actually read the background info on this court case before making multiple posting.
This case is before the USSC, not the OSC.
There is no permit fee, and that is a MAJOR ISSUE favoring the procedure.
I'll go find the link and post it, since noone else seems able???
EDIT:
. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/01a0045p.html
SECOND EDIT:
This was probably posted previously, but here is the AP story:
. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61637-2001Oct15.html
THANK YOU, MadApostate, for publishing the link to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court Opinion.
outnfree
Par dessus toutes choses, soyez bons. La bonte est ce qui ressemble le plus a Dieu et ce qui desarme le plus les hommes -- Lacordaire
Good going MadApostate! There is a lot of information and issues to absorb and I do understand Seeker, and BoozeRunner's concerns. Freedom of speech and expression is a basic right to all of us. But I have a question. I don't mean to sound ignorant here, but If Watchtower lawyer sharpies are arguing the issue of First Ammendmant freedom of speech, should that law not just apply to them? Those whom they have disfellowshipped for expressing their religious opinions and banning them from associating with the church members for fear members could be made to listen, just goes against everything they claim the First Amendment is about.
MacHisslop, do you know of any cases that the Supreme Court has awarded in favor of WTBTS regarding freedom of expression not applying to thier own members within their congregations? This has always irked me that they demand their rights and yet give none to their members. Even in the case involving victims of abuse within the church, I've read comments by Mario Marino making sarcastic remarks about victims wanting their rights. If I am not mistaken aren't there aritcles in the Awake! and Watchtower on this subject of "rights"?
The many and various Constitutional issues relate to the interaction between the various U.S. governmental entities and its' citizenry. As we are well aware, the WTS litigates practically EVERY perceived governmental infringement of their Constitutional rights.
However, while demanding full protection of their own U.S. Constitutional rights, they blatantly deny those same rights to "WTS citizenry".
Frankly, thus far, the USSC has interpreted the Constitution to permit Religions to effectively deny the same rights to their members. The USSC essentially says that if you don't like what a Religion does, your solution is simple: QUIT!!!
In Paul v. WBTS, the Court approved the WTS brand of shunning, although there is State case with another Religion that went too far with shunning, and the Religion got slapped.
while i will be the first to say that jw are Wacky- this law is a bad law and it will come back to bite them in the A$$= the problem is not so much the "LAW" as the "Application of it"
case in point- now Little League, girls scouts, lemonade stands , kids selling candy to raise money for the band at school, etc
they are opening a very bad door-
reading the dissenting view the judge points out that there are already laws on the books to take care of persons who don't want jw at thier door.
THE NO TREAPASE SIGN LAWS need to be enforced- if the householder didnt; want sales folks and jw at thier thier- then they hang a sign out - take down the car tag number and turn them in
in view of the fact that most small towns don't have a legal dept to pursue these types of cases- they pass these FLY BY NIGHT LAWS
it was real dumb to put ONLY JW on the form in a town with many religions- they need to fire thier lawyer for even allowing them clowns to put JW on a form- didn't anyone say:
"Don't this look like we are singling out the jw- DUHHHHH"
I'M SURE THE legal desk in brooklyn rejoiced when they saw the JW were the only group mentioned on the form-
well just my 2
