The Jehovahs Witlesses called today

[raindog]

You know, I was reading the “Slate” link I posted to What Exit?, and I noticed a comment that was pretty insightful.

Here it is:

*My doorstep is part of my home, on my private property. However, it is there both literally and figuratively as a means of egress between myself and the rest of the world. While it is not quite the same as a soapbox in a public park, neither is it quite the same as the privacy of my living room. Walls and fences are built for a specific reason but so are doors. I think we tend to confuse the right to privacy with some sort of inherent right to be left alone. Constitutional privacy protections have always struck me as geared toward preventing unreasonable–not all–intrusions into our personal lives…

The thing I tend to dislike about broad restrictions against solicitors, like the Stratton registration requirements, is that–for all their claims to protect people from criminal or hateful activities–they are not calculated so much to protect citizens’ rights as to protect citizens from having to exercise their rights. When the solicitor comes to the door, you can choose whether you want to allow them to intrude significantly into your privacy. **If you stand there or invite them inside and are miserable for an hour while they pitch because you are too shy or sensitive to reject them, you are not a victim. The solicitor has done nothing but exercise their right to free speech. You, on the other hand, are negligent in exerting your right to privacy. **The other thing about the Stratton restrictions, like so many restrictions of this kind, is that despite it attempts to stay content-neutral it ends up tipping its hand in practice as a means to ban specific types of speech/solicitations with which people in a community are uncomfortable. The separation of church and state doctrine contains nothing to suggest that people cannot attempt to talk with you about their religion, in my opinion. It only says that they cannot take unreasonable steps to force it upon you, once you have declined (the burden of what constitutes unreasonable force being particularly strict on state-owned property).

Does that mean we are required to hear sales pitches from solicitors whose products we consider whacko or reprehensible? No: however, it does mean that we are required to hear their requests to make a pitch. **Being a citizen in a republic means that you have to be willing both to safeguard the rights of others as well as standing up for your own rights. *Therefore, if you are a JW or any other type of solicitor and you come to one of our doors, knock and the door shall be opened; ask and you shall be answered. Just understand that the answer may be “No takers today, thank you.” Then the door shall close again.

Speaking as a citizen, and not as a JW, this commentator displays a level of insight that is mostly unheard of here.

ETA highlighting mine

[raindog]

@simster

No, we won’t.

You are doing what you always do - You refuse to answer the questions posted to you. When you are challenged on your answers, you refuse to back them up, instead reflecting questions back.

The simple question that has been put to you, that you have not answered is simple:

Why do the JW choose to ignore a PRIVATE citiizen’s request that they not be bothered by “Solicitors”.? (eg, having the “No Solicitors” sign on the door).

The Cases you’ve cited only speak to the ability for a law/regulation to be put forth banning the activity - It is up to you to provide evidence otherwise.

It doesnt take a lot of review to see what these cases were about. I’ve read them all before, my review this time was simply to see if there was something that I had not seen.

The only other thing you have to stand on will be nit picking what a “Solicitor” is, and how you feel that the JW are not. (That they aren’t selling something, that they only ask for donations, etc.) All of which ignores the spirit of the “No Solicitor” sign that I might put on my door.

Have a pleasant day.

Thank you!

I’m not being snarky, I swear. But I posted 12—count 'em: 12----supreme court rulings and you posted a response to them 6 minutes later—with a post that would have taken up 3 of the 6 minutes.

Your post, IMO, was drive by. If you want to discuss it, I’d be pleased to. But jeez, you can’t expect me to take this seriously when you’re putting so little into it are you?

[simster]

@the raindog

You know, I was reading the “Slate” link I posted to What Exit?, and I noticed a comment that was pretty insightful.

Here it is:
Speaking as a citizen, and not as a JW, this commentator displays a level of insight that is mostly unheard of here.

So, you only ‘just’ read it, when you posted it hours ago to back up your claim?

(Now, normally I would insert a smiley icon here, but with the digs you’ve taken at me, I dont believe they are warrented).

And here again, this article is talking about the big picture - preventing LAWS that inhibit free speech (in whatever form) and has absolutely nothing to do with wether or not the “solicitor” should pay heed to the sign on the private ciitizins home that says “Don’t bother”.

[simster]

@the raindog

Thank you!

I’m not being snarky, I swear. But I posted 12—count 'em: 12----supreme court rulings and you posted a response to them 6 minutes later—with a post that would have taken up 3 of the 6 minutes.

Your post, IMO, was drive by. If you want to discuss it, I’d be pleased to. But jeez, you can’t expect me to take this seriously when you’re putting so little into it are you?

First, I type fast - and you are still missing and evading the point.

[raindog]

@AngelSoft

Maybe that’s the solution to all life’s ills. Cake. Or Brownies…hard decision…cake has frosting but…so does my favorite brownie recipe… But apparently it’s not in their budget. You’d think they’d have oodles stashed away from all they saved by not putting windows in their halls…

Not just windows. Back up lights and generators.

However, the secret tunnels are quite expensive.

[raindog]

@simster

So, you only ‘just’ read it, when you posted it hours ago to back up your claim?

(Now, normally I would insert a smiley icon here, but with the digs you’ve taken at me, I dont believe they are warrented).

And here again, this article is talking about the big picture - preventing LAWS that inhibit free speech (in whatever form) and has absolutely nothing to do with wether or not the “solicitor” should pay heed to the sign on the private ciitizins home that says “Don’t bother”.

Actually, I made a comment to What Exit? and he asked me to cite it.

I am a JW and I’m well acquainted with most of the SCOTUS rulings over free speech. That’s why I was able to make the comment, and cite it too.

It was my cite!

[raindog]

@simster

So, you only ‘just’ read it, when you posted it hours ago to back up your claim?

(Now, normally I would insert a smiley icon here, but with the digs you’ve taken at me, I dont believe they are warrented).

And here again, this article is talking about the big picture - preventing LAWS that inhibit free speech (in whatever form) and has absolutely nothing to do with wether or not the “solicitor” should pay heed to the sign on the private ciitizins home that says “Don’t bother”.

Those issues are inseparable!

Can I assume you’re all for the “big picture”—free speech----as long as no one actually uses it?

[OneCentStamp]

@Icerigger

I wonder what happens when Mormons and JWs pass each other on the street?

(Ex-Mormon and onetime missionary checking in.)

Honestly? Usually a smile and a wave, unless someone’s doing something patently dickish like following the other team around and knocking on doors five minutes after they leave.

Occasionally we would bump into Witnesses at the bakery in the morning, or headed home in the evening, and we would chat. The chats occasionally included a few mild barbs (“So, Elder Stamp, you Mormons do [practice]. How do you reconcile that with [scripture passage]…”), from both sides, but they were always delivered with a smile.

I always fantasized about confounding a JW missionary with my Biblical acumen, converting him to Mormonism, and sending him home a humbled man (I was 19, what do you want). I would have kept his copy of Reasoning From The Scriptures like the scalp of a fallen foe. I imagine a few of them felt the same way about me.

But I have to say that, as a former missionary and current atheist, I’ve never met a Jehovah’s Witness who was as pushy or annoying as people seem to say. It’s never taken more than one “no.”

[raindog]

@simster

First, I type fast - and you are still missing and evading the point.

LOL

Yea, that makes all the difference in the world. That 6 minutes doesn’t look so bad now.

[raindog]

@OneCentStamp

(Ex-Mormon and onetime missionary checking in.)

Honestly? Usually a smile and a wave, unless someone’s doing something patently dickish like following the other team around and knocking on doors five minutes after they leave.

Occasionally we would bump into Witnesses at the bakery in the morning, or headed home in the evening, and we would chat. The chats occasionally included a few mild barbs (“So, Elder Stamp, you Mormons do [practice]. How do you reconcile that with [scripture passage]…”), from both sides, but they were always delivered with a smile.

I always fantasized about confounding a JW missionary with my Biblical acumen, converting him to Mormonism, and sending him home a humbled man (I was 19, what do you want). I would have kept his copy of Reasoning From The Scriptures like the scalp of a fallen foe. I imagine a few of them felt the same way about me.

But I have to say that, as a former missionary and current atheist, I’ve never met a Jehovah’s Witness who was as pushy or annoying as people seem to say. It’s never taken more than one “no.”

You’ll pry my Reasoning From The Scriptures from my cold dead fingers.

[simster]

@the raindog

Those issues are inseparable!

Can I assume you’re all for the “big picture”—free speech----as long as no one actually uses it?

No, you cannot assume anything - and clearly you’ll never see the distinction.

The fact that you can’t see the difference is compelling, and I am done trying to explain it to you.

[Captain_Carrot]

@the raindog

They are not trying to irritate you,

They’re doing a damn good job at it.

@the raindog

and they are trying to find a reasonable balance.

They need to keep trying.

[raindog]

@Captain_Carrot

They’re doing a damn good job at it.
They need to keep trying.

They will.

On both counts, I’m afraid.

[OneCentStamp]

@the raindog

You’ll pry my Reasoning From The Scriptures from my cold dead fingers.

I actually ended up with my sought-after copy of Razonar A Partir de las Escrituras, but it was part of a peaceful exchange of prisoners. No cold dead fingers involved.

[raindog]

@simster

No, you cannot assume anything - and clearly you’ll never see the distinction.

The fact that you can’t see the difference is compelling, and I am done trying to explain it to you.

Well, I appreciate the effort.

[Captain_Carrot]

@the raindog

They will.

On both counts, I’m afraid.

If that means they change their strategies, fine. If that means they’re going to keep doing the same things, only more so, then they need to understand that they’re not winning any friends by doing this.

[What_Exit]

@OneCentStamp

But I have to say that, as a former missionary and current atheist, I’ve never met a Jehovah’s Witness who was as pushy or annoying as people seem to say. It’s never taken more than one “no.”

I am not one of the posters ranting about JWs. They were a minor nuisance I haven’t had to deal with for years. But they did not take polite phrases like “I’m sorry I busy.” or “I have to go” or even “Please leave” very well back when I being bugged by them. It was nearly impossible to get them to leave politely and usually required rudeness, shutting the door on them or stepping out, locking up and jumping in my car to go elsewhere. I asked them please do not come back and they did within a few weeks or months. Maybe the JWs in NJ are more aggressive, I don’t know. I also know I have not encountered one at my door for a long time now and I am happy about it. So maybe the group has changed its methods.

BTW: This happened in two different towns so it wasn’t just one group.

[raindog]

According to dactylic hexameter, they made at least 37,000 friends last year in the US, although it’s clear you’re not one of them…

[What_Exit]

weird board error

[cosmosdan]

I agree with raindog. I think saying “not interested” once a year is a small price to pay. I do think JWs should take “No Solicitors” seriously and move on.

BTW, when someone uninvited knocks on my door I don’t have to wait for their permission to close my door. I don’t think it’s rude too say “not interested” and close the door whether it’s in their face or otherwise. Given some free time I’d be glad to invite them in for a healthy discussion.