And I understood it that way. It was me that was not entirely clear, not you. Sorry for the confusion.
Well, this isn’t a “merits of Mormonism thread” so I’m not going to address all of your writing, but I am going to give you one little factoid. That passage was changed, not because it had anything to do with Cain or whatever (that’s a completely different subject actually), but because the original manuscript said “pure” --the “white” wording was a printer’s error. It was changed in a second printing, but later printings used the first one as a guide, so the error remained for years until the original manuscript was double-checked. Just thought you’d like to know. 
But it’s still there, dangermom!
That’s direct from the official LDS website. And the current version of the Book of Mormon.
Looking at the context (other passages), I think that was just a “white” lie told to you .
Well, if you’d like to check the manuscript and various editions personally, that’s entirely possible. Go ahead. It’s a well-documented part of the history of the BoM editions. My note was about that exact verse, not any other one, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to ‘get’ me for. And the question of Lamanite coloring still has nothing to do with the question of Cain’s lineage (which was simply part of history and science back in the 1840’s–nothing to do with our actual scriptures but a cultural assumption that all Americans shared.) Two different topics.
Anyway this still isn’t a GD thread about the LDS Church, so it’s not the place for this discussion.
Ah- we don’t have door to door LDS in my parent’s area, just JWs, and my parents got put on the “never go to those people” list after my mother invited some in and spent 3 hours dissecting their beliefs (mum is a basic born-again Presbyterian), before my staunchly Catholic granny spent another hour telling them how converting to Catholicism was the best thing she had ever done…confused the heck out of them.
Seriously, now the JWs stop at every house in town except my folks!
Nice? Polite? I think they’re rude and obnoxious. These people are door to door
peddlers w/ nothing to sell. I think our state department should find a way to restrict
them from traveling to other countries. Their purpose is subversive and detrimental to
the best interests of this country and our foreign relations.
They invade my privacy and they will be told, not asked, to leave immediately and
not return.
I will respect your right to believe as you please, and I demand that you give me the
same. Proselytizing is a violation of my right unless I seek out the information.
Their “polite” behavior and their 'niceness" is a ruse, a deception, to get the
opportunity to try and sell you on their superstitious gobbledygook.
Three hours! And another hour with granny!
Hmmmm Would they be the same JWs who were knocking on Miller’s door at 6:00 a.m.?
With all due respect, this is the height of ignorance.
These issues have ended up at the US Supreme Court. It is exactly this freedom to proseltyze that separates us from Iran. This freedom of expressing and practicing one’s religion is sacrosanct in our law, and has been upheld by the SCOTUS again and again.
You don’t like the missionaries? Call them up and tell them that you don’t wish to be contacted. They’ll gladly comply—and in fact be pleasent about it. Put a small sign by your door that says, “No LDS/JWs etc.”
You don’t agree with them? cool. But it is not your business to tell them that they cannot practice their religion.
Practice your religion all you like, it DOES NOT give you ANY right to enter my private property to do so. I do not need to call anybody or post any signs. You trespass on my property and I will give you warning, ignore it and suffer the consequence. The Supreme Court has upheld that right many times also.
It hasn’t been an issue with me, but maybe there should be something like the universal “do not call” phone list, but for door-to-door salesmen, including those peddling religion. Or multiple lists for different categories, in case you still want the Fuller Brush man to come by but not the JWs.
No, I don’t know if there are still Fuller Brush salesmen, that’s just an example. Now excuse me, I have to go take some Smeckler’s Powder and attach the curative galvanic belt.
I worked for a PIRG last summer, and you should know that the kids doing the canvassing, at least the vast majority of them, have zero control over the campaign, campaign goals and proposed formats for data. I’m not familiar with the campaign that you’re referring to (I worked on global warming), but it sounds like it may not have been adequately researched. Hard to say, since I know nothing about the issue. It is surprising, since the state PIRGs that I’m familiar with are pretty careful about doing good research and proposing reasonable changes.
In any case, it’s just a job, and it’s a tough job. It’s the same low-hanging apple referred to by a poster earlier - if the person isn’t interested, there’s no point in sticking around. Why argue with them? They can’t do anything about the information and proposals they’ve got to work with, so if you think there’s something wrong, feel free to say that you’re not interested. By the by, they’re not really looking for signatures, they’re looking for memberships and money, both of which are what make the world go 'round in the lobbying business.
When it comes to dealing with any kind of prosyletizer, salesman or canvasser, I think that a firm ‘no thank you’ is the best way to deal with it if you know that aren’t interested in what they have to sell. If people get pushy, I can see getting firmer after that, but I know from experience that this door-to-door stuff can be REALLY hard to do. The poor kids are already going to have enough bad experiences in one day, thanks to the number of blowhards in the world. Why make it one more than necessary?
When I lived in D.C., I kind of wished the LDS church had a “been there, done that” list. There’s a huge LDS temple right on the Beltway, the second biggest in the country, so must be a place where a lot of youths congregate before going on their missions, or something. My suspicion was a lot of them targeted my neighborhood because of its “licentious” reputation (I lived in Dupont Circle, a.k.a. “The Fruit Loop”). The first, oh, three or four times they knocked on my door weren’t really a big deal. I must admit after that, though, I started to get a little impatient. “What am I doing wrong, here? What number of no-thank-yous is sufficient?”, I wondered.
One day, thinking I spied some missionaries headed our way from up the street, I quickly ducked back into my apt. and drew up an obnoxious sign declaring, in big red letters, that “Satan RULES”. I stuck it in the window of our door.
Soon, I heard the doorbell. It was two ladies, both Jehova’s Witnesses. “It’s true! Satan does rule this world! Which is why we’d like to talk to you about…”
AHHHHHGH!
The Supreme Court has weighed in on challenges to missionaries who were required, among other things, to register with the local authorities before going from door to door, or to obtain licenses. Repeatedly the courts have struck down these attempts to restrict free speech or the practice of one’s religion. This includes the right to proseltyze–including door to door.
You are severely misguided if you believe that you may do as you wish because someone enters your private property. I’m not aware of any missionaries who would not heed a demand to leave private property. Still, their presence alone does not give you any license to do anything you wish. Further, even if they refused, your remedies under the law are limited to the threat they pose to you.
Talk tough all you want on a message board, but if these “consequences” you speak of are disproportionately severe based on their actions or threat to you, it may likely be you that is in legal trouble.
In lieu of a polite (or even an impolite) “I’m not interested, please leave”, these threads invariably lead to juvenile comments about masturbation, devil worship and the like; progress seamlessly to sundry levels of hostility and abuse; and end up with proposals the like of which can only be seen in places like Iran.
The irony is palpable.
In a MB that is in constant fear of a right wing theocracy, it’s particularly ironic that your solution is to restrict free speech, to restrict freedom, to restrict the practice of religion.
It’s even more ironic that many of the ‘freedoms’ that we all take for granted were established by the convictions and trials of missionaries who suffered arrest, abuse and trials to establish freedoms we all enjoy----all of us, not simply those religiously inclined.
Among the dozens of cases that were argued before the SCOTUS, here are just a couple that involved Private Property Rights vs. Religious Freedom.
Tucker v. State of Texas
Martin v. Struthers
Marsh v. State of Alabama
the raindog, I don’t think anyone here is talking about escalating to physical violence against proselytizers. It would take a special kind of evil to do that.
On the other hand, the three cases you’ve cited and a fourth I found that’s a little more recent, *Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v the Village of Stratton, Ohio* all speak to various municipal ordinances requiring permits for door-to-door solicitors; the SCOTUS says that’s a violation of the First Amendment. Marsh came the closest to debating private property rights, but that’s because the town in question was a company-owned town.
OTOH, property rights are just as sacred to us as our religious freedoms. I don’t have to let anyone into my home if I choose not to. I can put out as many “Hail Satan!” signs in my windows as I choose; it’s my house.
Do I agree with people who invite proselytizers into their homes to be rude with them? Of course not. Do I think proselytizers have carte-blanche rights to enter my property? Same answer.
In fact, it’d be nice if municipalities would offer a sanctioned “do not solicit” sign that could be posted in the window. It would cover all solicitation, including religious, and violators would face a smallish fine. Since it’s voluntary for the homeowner, I don’t see how it couldn’t pass constitutional muster.
Robin
MsRobyn, I agree with you actually. However in these threads there is always someone who suggests some draconian remedy like having the state department restrict religious freedoms. *
But what A.R. Cane is suggesting is that because he isn’t receptive to proseltyzers, no proselytyzer should be allowed to practice their faith. he’s speaking for himself, and everyone else. Sounds like Iran, huh? And no one has overtly suggested violence, it has been implicit. And, many times there have been suggestions that have been menacing or carry the threat of violence.
The rights here goes much, much further than allowing JWs/LDS or others to go door to door in your neighborhood. In Lovell v City of Griffin the courst said in part, “…The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Company, supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra. 2 …”
And this it not just in ‘company towns.’ Lovell said, in part, “When we balance the Constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position. 7 As we have stated before, the right to exercise the liberties safeguarded by the First Amendment ‘lies at the foundation of free government by free men’ and we must in all cases ‘weigh the circumstances and appraise … the reasons … in support of the regulation of (those) rights.’” highlighting mine
The Martin case said in part,* “…The appellant admitted knocking at the door for the purpose of delivering the invitation, but seasonably urged in the lower Ohio state court that the ordinance as construed and applied was beyond the power of the State because in violation of the right of freedom of press and religion as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 2 [319 U.S. 141, 143] The right of freedom of speech and press has broad scope. The authors of the First Amendment knew that novel and unconventional ideas might disturb the complacent, but they chose to encourage a freedom which they believed essential if vigorous enlightenment was ever to triumph over slothful ignorance. 3 This freedom embraces the right to distribute literature, Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 , 58 S.Ct. 666, 669, and necessarily protects the right to receive it. The privilege may not be withdrawn even if it creates the minor nuisance for a community of cleaning litter from its streets. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 162 , 60 S.Ct. 146, 151. Yet the peace, good order, and comfort of the community may imperatively require regulation of the time, place and manner of distribution. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304 , 60 S. Ct. 900, 903, 128 A.L.R. 1352. No one supposes, for example, that a city need permit a man with a communicable disease to distribute leaflets on the street or to homes, or that the First Amendment prohibits a state from preventing the distribution of leaflets in a church against the will of the church authorities…”*
and;
*
"…We are faced in the instant case with the necessity of weighing the conflicting interests of the appellant in the civil rights she claims, as well as the right of the individual householder to determine whether he is willing to receive her message, against the interest of the community which by this ordinance offers to protect the interests of all of its citizens, whether particular citizens want that protection or not…
…**Ordinances of the sort now before us may be aimed at the protection of the householders from annoyance, including intrusion upon the hours of rest, and at the prevention of crime. **Constant callers, whether selling pots or distributing leaflets, may lessen the peaceful enjoyment of a home as much as a neighborhood glue factory or railroad yard which zoning ordinances may prohibit. In the instant case, for example, it is clear from the record that the householder to whom the appellant gave the leaflet which led to her arrest was more irritated than pleased with her visitor. The City, which is an industrial community most of whose residents are engaged in the iron and steel industry,4 has vigorously argued that its inhabitants frequently work on swing shifts, working nights and sleeping days so that casual bell pushers might seriously interfere with the hours of sleep although they call at high noon…
… Freedom to distribute information to every citizen wherever he desires to receive it is so clearly vital to the [319 U.S. 141, 147] preservation of a free society that, putting aside reasonable police and health regulations of time and manner of distribution, it must be fully preserved. The dangers of distribution can so easily be controlled by traditional legal methods, leaving to each householder the full right to decide whether he will receive strangers as visitors, that stringent prohibition can serve no purpose but that forbidden by the Constitution, the naked restriction of the dissemination of ideas…
…**Traditionally the American law punishes persons who enter onto the property of another after having been warned by the owner to keep off. *General trespass after warning statutes exist in at least twenty states,10 while similar statutes of narrower scope are on the books of at least twelve states more. 11 We know of no state which, [319 U.S. 141, 148] as does the Struthers ordinance in effect, makes a person a criminal trespasser if he enters the property of another for an innocent purpose without an explicit command from the owners to stay away. 12 The National Institute of Municipal Law Officers has proposed a form of regulation to its member cities13 which would make it an offense for any person to ring the bell of a householder who has appropriately indicated that he is unwilling to be disturbed. This or any similar regulation leaves the decision as to whether distributers of literature may lawfully call at a home where it belongs-with the homeowner himself. A city can punish those who call at a home in defiance of the previously expressed will of the occupant and, in addition, can by identification devices control the abuse of the privilege by criminals posing as canvassers. 14 In any case the problem must be worked [319 U.S. 141, 149] out by each community for itself with due respect for the constitutional rights of those desiring to distribute literature and those desiring to receive it, as well as those who choose to exclude such distributers from the home…"
highlighting mine
Justice Murphy put it eloquently:
"…I believe that nothing enjoys a higher estate in our society than the right given by the First and Fourteenth Amendments freely to practice and proclaim one’s religious convictions. Cf. Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 , at page 621, 62 S.Ct. 1231, 1250, 141 A.L.R. 514. The right extends to the aggressive and disputatious as well as to the meek and acquiescent. The lesson of experience is that-with the passage of time and the interchange of ideas-organizations, once turbulent, perfervid and intolerant in their origin, mellow into tolerance and acceptance by the community, or else sink into oblivion. Religious differences are often sharp and pleaders at times resort ‘to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy.’ Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 , 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 128 A.L. R. 1352. If a religious br- [319 U.S. 141, 150] lief has substance, it can survive criticism, heated and abusive though it may be, with the aid of truth and reason alone. By the same method those who follow false prophets are exposed. Repression has no place in this country. It is our proud achievement to have demonstrated that unity and strength are best accomplished, not by enforced orthodoxy of views, but by diversity of opinion through the fullest possible measure of freedom of conscience and thought….
.*… Also, few, if any, believe more strongly in the maxim, ‘a man’s home is his castle’, than I. Cf. Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129 , at page 136, 62 S.Ct. 993, 996. If this principle approaches a collision with religious freedom, there should be an accommodation, if at all possible, which gives appropriate recognition to both. That is, if regulation should be necessary to protect the safety and privacy of the home, an effort should be made at the same time to preserve the substance of religious freedom…"
… No doubt there may be relevant considerations which justify considerable regulation of door to door canvassing even for religious purposes,-regulation as to time, number and identification of canvassers, etc., which will protect the privacy and safety of the home and yet preserve the substance of religious freedom. And, if a householder does not desire visits from religious canvassers, he can make his wishes known in a suitable fashion. The fact that some regulation may be permissible, however, does not mean that the First Amendment may be abrogated.
…Freedom of religion has a higher dignity under the Con- [319 U.S. 141, 152] stitution than municipal or personal convenience. In these days free men have no loftier responsibility than the preservation of that freedom. A nation dedicated to that ideal will not suffer but will prosper in its observance…"*
The law already has already made a reasonable accomodation for canvassers of every stripe—religious and otherwise—and has [successfully] found the balance between property rights and the rights of free speech.
So A.R. Cane is wrong. He does need to ‘call someone’, or ‘post a sign’ to give canvassers constructive notice that they are not allowed on private property. In the absense of prior constructive notice it is lawful for for canvassers—whether they be JWs/LDS or Girls Scouts----to enter your front yard for the purpose of sharing their message. As the courts have clearly stated, the government can place reasonable restrictions as to time, safety etc. Further, a property owner can give constructive notice that JWs/LDS, for example, are prohibited.
And so I do agree with you. Proseltyzers should not have carte blanche rights to enter your property. Nor do you have to let them into your home. More importantly you have the right to put up a sign of any sort, including a sign that [gives constructive notice] says “No JWs, No LDS”, and it is reasonable that JW/LDS respect the wishes of a property owner that states clearly that they are not welcome. (and suffer a reasonable criminal penalty for non-compliance—like a simple trespass charge)
The irony in all this, is that the rights that these ‘missionaries’ have fought so hard to protect are the same rights that allow people to canvass for petitions, political causes, charities, environmental causes, and churches. Many of the court cases which make the backbone of out First Amendment rights were born from court cases involving groups like the JWs. ** Justice Stone** wrote, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties.”
And what is the real cost of these freedoms? To say, “I’m not interested, please leave”; or to simply post a sign that says, “No religious canvassers of any sort.”
Maybe the response should be, “You know, I’m not interested. Please leave. And…oh by the way…I’m leaving in a few minutes with my daughter to sell Girl Scout Cookies, and this afternoon I’m collecting petition signatures to have Bush impeached over that whole wiretapping mess. Thanks for the dozens of court cases you’ve fought that guarantee me that right. Now, please go away.”
(interdispersed between ‘Wayne’s World’ type posts like chasing them with a broadsword or shaking hands with hand lotion on your hands, (…“oops, sorry, I was just masturbating…”) even replete with Wayne/Garth type comments. ("That was fcking brilliant, just fking brilliant…))
The important point that’s being overlooked is that these people are very agressive. They have been trained to ignore rejection and continue in their attempt to sway you w/ their patronizing zingers. If you ask them to leave they always have to respond w/ one last try.
I recall one incident where I was working nights. I made a sign for my door that said “Day Sleeper, Please do not disturb”. I was awakened on day by a holy roller and, when I called his attention to the sign, he replied w/ some crap about having an important message from god. When I told him I was agnostic (as I was closing the door) he told me that god loved athiests too.
Most recently, I was working in my yard, when these two young guys road up my drive on bikes. They were sporting their white shirts and ties and I knew what they were. They attempted to engage me in conversation w/ some generic greeting. When I responed that I wasn’t interested, they tried to push it further by telling me I didn’t even know what they wanted and then offering to help me w/ my yard work. I’m not fond of people who try to manipulate me and I told them to leave in no uncertain terms. They still persisted and I then told them that I was going to turn on the garden hose and if they weren’t gone by the time I did so that they were in danger of getting wet.
If you want me to respect your rights, then you must respect mine. I find it smarmy and arrogant to believe that you can knock on my door, or walk up to me on the street, and think you have the right to challenge my basic beliefs and philosophies. Practice your religion in your church, in your home, among those of like beliefs. Post signs welcoming others to join you. Advertise in the media, hell, even send me flyers if you want, but stay the hell off my private property and out of my face.
As far as exporting christianity to other cultures in other countries, yes I think it should be discouraged by our government. The freedoms of our Constitution do not extend to other governments and they have every right to consider it subversive activity, which is often exactly what it is.
Just Friday I had a couple of well-dressed men appear at my door bearing paperwork. They show up about once a month.
I had just gotten out of the shower, had Biore strips on my nose and chin and a hair towel wrapped tight. I peered through the peer-out-door on my door and recognized one of the gentlemen. Or maybe I thought I did. A look of recognition was obvious to him anyway. He honed in on the kill.
I interrupted, nicely stating that:
a. I just got out of the shower
b. I don’t do religion via door
c. Hi Opal!
& d. That hub is Catholic and I’m agnostic (almost said atheist, glad I caught that!) and we’re quite happy with our beliefs.
They laughed and tried to say they’d come back. I told them “no, please don’t”. I doubt I’ll see those men again, but I’m sure more will follow. We have a “Kingdom” just up the hill.
It IS hard to be rude to people that have a genuine interest in sharing good will but sheesh, I will definitely be calling the church and asking about that “do not call” list! Thanks for the info.
It is hard to say to someone who is pleasent and sincere, “I’m not intersted.”
I don’t know about other missionary type groups, but JWs are organized around territories, like the RCC is organized into parishes. Whovever is calling on you is always from a specific congregation; the congregation whose territory you live in.
The absolute best way to have them not call you anymore is to tell them when they’re at your door. Someone in that group will have a ‘territory card’ which is a breakdown of your neighborhood------your neighborhood being a small part of the overall territory.
When they come to your door, simply ask them if they will put your address down as a “Do Not Call” on the territory card/record. Someone in the group in your immediate neighborhood will have the territiry card with them right then—including your address. Tell them to write down your address right then, and add it to the “Do Not Call” list when the group reconvenes. They will be polite. Everyone once in a while someone will make a mistake and call on someone in the Do Not Call list. But generally it is very much respected. Generally in a year someone will call to see if the homeowners are still the same and if the wishes are still the same.
Or, you can just chase them down the street with a broadsword.