Stop knocking on peoples' doors

[Anonymous]

So angry atheist, are you going to stop showing up on religion threads to trash heaven/circumcision/Muslim rules about women? You’d have a lot more credibility if you weren’t so hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We check the camera and ignore anyone we don’t know. It’s what normal people do these days. They can knock for and ring and call out and we ignore. The only person I open my door for is someone we know or law enforcement. Even then we ask for id before we open.

That's fine, but it begs to be pointed out yet again that the issue of the thread is about the person at the door and whether they are right to do so, not your choice to ignore them. That's a separate topic. As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

So, please, from now on, no more stories of not answering the door. Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

That has been answered. The Supreme Court voted 8-1 that it was.

Can you not read?

Above it says:

As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

Very frustrating. Not sure how I could have been more clear.

Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

So you think the SCOTUS voted 8-1 for immorality?

The SCOTUS' decision had nothing to do with morality, but if you think they are not capable of making an immoral decision, you have a lot to learn. We could start with Dread Scott and continue to present day... but this is not a thread for that.

You don’t like living in a free country under the rule of law with religious freedom and freedom of speech.

If you think freedom of speech and religion are immoral, I can’t help you. No one can.

Strawman. And a repulsive, nasty and disgusting one at that.

If you don't see the difference between the legality of "freedom of speech and religion" and "being a rude d-bag even though it is 100% legal" then I can’t help you. Because you don't want help.

Moreover, in many instances the Court has upheld the right of individuals to engage in door-to-door solicitations for noncommercial causes, especially those of a religious nature.

In Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938) and Schneider v. State (1939), the Court struck down ordinances requiring Jehovah’s Witnesses and others to obtain the city manager’s permission prior to engaging in door-to-door solicitations.

It reiterated these rulings in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) and Largent v. Texas (1943). In Martin v. City of Struthers (1943), the Court overturned a blanket prohibition on the door-to-door distribution of literature.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/door-to-door-solicitation/#:~:text=Court%20often%20upholds%20religious%20solicitation,those%20of%20a%20religious%20nature.

American courts have consistently affirmed our rights to go door to door and speak to people about religion, hand out tracts, invite people to church, etc.

I have a feeling few on this thread know/ understand that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So angry atheist, are you going to stop showing up on religion threads to trash heaven/circumcision/Muslim rules about women? You’d have a lot more credibility if you weren’t so hypocritical.

Oh wait, angry atheist is just using her freedom of speech on DCUM’s religion threads.

See how that works, angry atheist? The Supreme Court has your back just like it has the JWs’ backs.

Don’t be a total hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. With so many solicitors of all stripes (and why isn't OP complaining about them),

What makes you think they aren't? And in many towns (like mine) solicitors are illegal, but the preachers are constitutionally exempt. (no one disputes this is their right, just that it is extremely rude).

who answers the door these days unless you're expecting someone?

Pretty much every normal human being I know.

You can’t be serious. Nobody answers the door to complete strangers, at least around here. The solicitors, the JW, the people wanting money for their orgs, and the violent crazies—you should know better than to open your door to complete strangers, if you’re doing that.

So don’t answer the door. Problem solved. Stop whining about religious rights on DCUM and go back to your life.

I am fortunate to not live in a world of "violent crazies who let people who don't answer the door go", and I am certainly not paranoid about it. But even if I did, your "whataboutism" and avoidance of the question is very transparent.

It's rude and you know it. And I can't imagine it is very fruitful either. IMHO It's more about controlling the missionaries than the results of the mission.

Your "just ignore the problem" approach is very shortsighted and I don't know many people who are satisfied with that type of solution for any problem.

Huh? What’s your “type of solution” then? The Supreme Court says you can’t stop them.

Do you have a practical idea? Your attempt to shame them on DCUM isn’t going very well. Probably because, frankly, your insults and day of raging about this make you seem a little unhinged. That and the whole Supreme Court disagreeing with you thing. I’d suggest ignoring them and going about your business instead of raging here, but you don’t seem to have the maturity for that.

As for your little derailment into whether it’s “morally right” for them to show up on your door, you’re OT but I’ll play. They apparently think it’s morally right, even morally imperative.

Here's my type of solution:

Communicate to people that it is discourteous to you, unwanted by you and distasteful to you, and hope that they stop.

Up to them of course. Just as you can choose the be a courteous driver of not, or someone who does not cut in line and returns his shopping cart... help people make better choices and be more considerate of others.

FIFY because most of us don’t have our panties in a twist about this and/or we’ve developed the adult skills of ignoring and moving on.

Maybe your approach will get them to take you off their list (especially you’re in character with shrill rudeness). But I kinda doubt your “solution” will actually work because, as pointed out above, they see a moral component in this too and you telling them they’re rude isn’t going to outweigh that. (Besides which, the JW who come to my door are sweet old ladies and “rude” just doesn’t work.)

good post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We check the camera and ignore anyone we don’t know. It’s what normal people do these days. They can knock for and ring and call out and we ignore. The only person I open my door for is someone we know or law enforcement. Even then we ask for id before we open.

That's fine, but it begs to be pointed out yet again that the issue of the thread is about the person at the door and whether they are right to do so, not your choice to ignore them. That's a separate topic. As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

So, please, from now on, no more stories of not answering the door. Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

That has been answered. The Supreme Court voted 8-1 that it was.

Can you not read?

Above it says:

As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

Very frustrating. Not sure how I could have been more clear.

Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

So you think the SCOTUS voted 8-1 for immorality?

The SCOTUS' decision had nothing to do with morality, but if you think they are not capable of making an immoral decision, you have a lot to learn. We could start with Dread Scott and continue to present day... but this is not a thread for that.

You don’t like living in a free country under the rule of law with religious freedom and freedom of speech.

If you think freedom of speech and religion are immoral, I can’t help you. No one can.

Strawman. And a repulsive, nasty and disgusting one at that.

If you don't see the difference between the legality of "freedom of speech and religion" and "being a rude d-bag even though it is 100% legal" then I can’t help you. Because you don't want help.

You hate religious freedom and freedom of speech. You are absolutely seething that Americans have both of those freedoms.

DP and honestly, you not liking these people at your door basically translates as not liking their religious freedom and wanting to take their religious freedom away from them. This isn’t a complicated equivalence.

You couldn't have stretched that much further if you tried. I don't think it's OK that they have a right to bother me in or at my home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We check the camera and ignore anyone we don’t know. It’s what normal people do these days. They can knock for and ring and call out and we ignore. The only person I open my door for is someone we know or law enforcement. Even then we ask for id before we open.

That's fine, but it begs to be pointed out yet again that the issue of the thread is about the person at the door and whether they are right to do so, not your choice to ignore them. That's a separate topic. As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

So, please, from now on, no more stories of not answering the door. Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

That has been answered. The Supreme Court voted 8-1 that it was.

Can you not read?

Above it says:

As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

Very frustrating. Not sure how I could have been more clear.

Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

So you think the SCOTUS voted 8-1 for immorality?

The SCOTUS' decision had nothing to do with morality, but if you think they are not capable of making an immoral decision, you have a lot to learn. We could start with Dread Scott and continue to present day... but this is not a thread for that.

You don’t like living in a free country under the rule of law with religious freedom and freedom of speech.

If you think freedom of speech and religion are immoral, I can’t help you. No one can.

Strawman. And a repulsive, nasty and disgusting one at that.

If you don't see the difference between the legality of "freedom of speech and religion" and "being a rude d-bag even though it is 100% legal" then I can’t help you. Because you don't want help.

You hate religious freedom and freedom of speech. You are absolutely seething that Americans have both of those freedoms.

DP and honestly, you not liking these people at your door basically translates as not liking their religious freedom and wanting to take their religious freedom away from them. This isn’t a complicated equivalence.

You couldn't have stretched that much further if you tried. I don't think it's OK that they have a right to bother me in or at my home.

So you tell them to leave.

Why does that not work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We check the camera and ignore anyone we don’t know. It’s what normal people do these days. They can knock for and ring and call out and we ignore. The only person I open my door for is someone we know or law enforcement. Even then we ask for id before we open.

That's fine, but it begs to be pointed out yet again that the issue of the thread is about the person at the door and whether they are right to do so, not your choice to ignore them. That's a separate topic. As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

So, please, from now on, no more stories of not answering the door. Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

That has been answered. The Supreme Court voted 8-1 that it was.

Can you not read?

Above it says:

As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

Very frustrating. Not sure how I could have been more clear.

Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

So you think the SCOTUS voted 8-1 for immorality?

The SCOTUS' decision had nothing to do with morality, but if you think they are not capable of making an immoral decision, you have a lot to learn. We could start with Dread Scott and continue to present day... but this is not a thread for that.

You don’t like living in a free country under the rule of law with religious freedom and freedom of speech.

If you think freedom of speech and religion are immoral, I can’t help you. No one can.

Strawman. And a repulsive, nasty and disgusting one at that.

If you don't see the difference between the legality of "freedom of speech and religion" and "being a rude d-bag even though it is 100% legal" then I can’t help you. Because you don't want help.

You hate religious freedom and freedom of speech. You are absolutely seething that Americans have both of those freedoms.

DP and honestly, you not liking these people at your door basically translates as not liking their religious freedom and wanting to take their religious freedom away from them. This isn’t a complicated equivalence.

You couldn't have stretched that much further if you tried. I don't think it's OK that they have a right to bother me in or at my home.

So you tell them to leave.

Why does that not work?

+100. That or don’t answer the door to every solicitor. Boggles the mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We check the camera and ignore anyone we don’t know. It’s what normal people do these days. They can knock for and ring and call out and we ignore. The only person I open my door for is someone we know or law enforcement. Even then we ask for id before we open.

That's fine, but it begs to be pointed out yet again that the issue of the thread is about the person at the door and whether they are right to do so, not your choice to ignore them. That's a separate topic. As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

So, please, from now on, no more stories of not answering the door. Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

That has been answered. The Supreme Court voted 8-1 that it was.

Can you not read?

Above it says:

As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

Very frustrating. Not sure how I could have been more clear.

Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

So you think the SCOTUS voted 8-1 for immorality?

The SCOTUS' decision had nothing to do with morality, but if you think they are not capable of making an immoral decision, you have a lot to learn. We could start with Dread Scott and continue to present day... but this is not a thread for that.

You don’t like living in a free country under the rule of law with religious freedom and freedom of speech.

If you think freedom of speech and religion are immoral, I can’t help you. No one can.

Strawman. And a repulsive, nasty and disgusting one at that.

If you don't see the difference between the legality of "freedom of speech and religion" and "being a rude d-bag even though it is 100% legal" then I can’t help you. Because you don't want help.

You hate religious freedom and freedom of speech. You are absolutely seething that Americans have both of those freedoms.

DP and honestly, you not liking these people at your door basically translates as not liking their religious freedom and wanting to take their religious freedom away from them. This isn’t a complicated equivalence.

That is the most ridiculous equivocation I have ever heard in this forum, and that is saying a lot. Complete and total fail.

People have the legal right to smoke things. I support their right to smoke things. I don't want them doing it AT MY HOUSE. See the difference? Tell me you do...

Would you like a list of other things I support the right for people to do but don't want them doing at my house?

Can I come to your house and do anything I want as long as it is legal? Can I say anything I want - my legal right - to you and your family? (I can give you examples if you need them) . And you'd be OK with that?


You are DISHONEST.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We check the camera and ignore anyone we don’t know. It’s what normal people do these days. They can knock for and ring and call out and we ignore. The only person I open my door for is someone we know or law enforcement. Even then we ask for id before we open.

That's fine, but it begs to be pointed out yet again that the issue of the thread is about the person at the door and whether they are right to do so, not your choice to ignore them. That's a separate topic. As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

So, please, from now on, no more stories of not answering the door. Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

That has been answered. The Supreme Court voted 8-1 that it was.

Can you not read?

Above it says:

As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

Very frustrating. Not sure how I could have been more clear.

Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

So you think the SCOTUS voted 8-1 for immorality?

The SCOTUS' decision had nothing to do with morality, but if you think they are not capable of making an immoral decision, you have a lot to learn. We could start with Dread Scott and continue to present day... but this is not a thread for that.

You don’t like living in a free country under the rule of law with religious freedom and freedom of speech.

If you think freedom of speech and religion are immoral, I can’t help you. No one can.

Strawman. And a repulsive, nasty and disgusting one at that.

If you don't see the difference between the legality of "freedom of speech and religion" and "being a rude d-bag even though it is 100% legal" then I can’t help you. Because you don't want help.

You hate religious freedom and freedom of speech. You are absolutely seething that Americans have both of those freedoms.

DP and honestly, you not liking these people at your door basically translates as not liking their religious freedom and wanting to take their religious freedom away from them. This isn’t a complicated equivalence.

You couldn't have stretched that much further if you tried. I don't think it's OK that they have a right to bother me in or at my home.

They’re on your porch, not in your living room drinking your coffee. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YOUR religion doesn't belong on my front door OR IN MY GOVERNMENT.

I am well aware that people posting here hate religion and freedom of speech. You are wrong, as usual.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/6/16/23165897/inside-the-supreme-court-case-that-saved-door-to-door-missionary-work-jehovahs-witnesses

On June 17, 2002, the court ruled against a small Ohio town’s restrictions on door knocking, deciding that efforts to make religious missionaries, political canvassers and others obtain permits violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

“It is offensive not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the majority opinion.

The decision sent a message to government officials trying to limit unpopular or controversial public expression, said Frederick Gedicks, a law professor at Brigham Young University. He added that the case also showed why it’s important to speak up in defense of constitutional rights, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have repeatedly done.

“Often, our practices don’t live up to our ideals. The Witnesses are some of the folks who expose that. Through this case, they forced (the country) to live up to the ideals of the freedom of speech clause,” he said.

Atheists are on the wrong side of freedom, both of speech and religion.

A Supreme Court brief filed in support of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outlined how difficult it could be to navigate anti-solicitation laws. Depending on the town you were in, you might have to provide anything from character witnesses to fingerprints to $25 in cash to gain the right to go door to door.


“A citizen shouldn’t have to go to the government to ask permission to go to their neighbor” to raise a concern or share what they believe, Polidoro said.

Four months after oral arguments, the court issued an 8-1 decision against the permit rules. It said Stratton’s ordinance unlawfully interfered with both anonymous and spontaneous speech and did little to address security concerns.

So keep raging against freedom and making up stories about Mormons and Warren Jeffs, it shows who you all really are: people who hate everything our country was built on.

The Supreme Court finding for religious evangelists in 2002 does not place atheists on the "wrong side of freedom." The Supreme Court is fallible, just like people. In 1896, the Supreme court decided that segregation was perfectly legal (Plessy v Ferguson). The Supreme Court also decided in 1857 that Black people were not US Citizens (Dred Scott v. Sandford). Hopefully we well one day all be free from others' religious beliefs being thrust upon us against our will. People of faith need to mind their own damn business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We check the camera and ignore anyone we don’t know. It’s what normal people do these days. They can knock for and ring and call out and we ignore. The only person I open my door for is someone we know or law enforcement. Even then we ask for id before we open.

That's fine, but it begs to be pointed out yet again that the issue of the thread is about the person at the door and whether they are right to do so, not your choice to ignore them. That's a separate topic. As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

So, please, from now on, no more stories of not answering the door. Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

That has been answered. The Supreme Court voted 8-1 that it was.

Can you not read?

Above it says:

As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

Very frustrating. Not sure how I could have been more clear.

Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

So you think the SCOTUS voted 8-1 for immorality?

The SCOTUS' decision had nothing to do with morality, but if you think they are not capable of making an immoral decision, you have a lot to learn. We could start with Dread Scott and continue to present day... but this is not a thread for that.

You don’t like living in a free country under the rule of law with religious freedom and freedom of speech.

If you think freedom of speech and religion are immoral, I can’t help you. No one can.

Strawman. And a repulsive, nasty and disgusting one at that.

If you don't see the difference between the legality of "freedom of speech and religion" and "being a rude d-bag even though it is 100% legal" then I can’t help you. Because you don't want help.

You hate religious freedom and freedom of speech. You are absolutely seething that Americans have both of those freedoms.

DP and honestly, you not liking these people at your door basically translates as not liking their religious freedom and wanting to take their religious freedom away from them. This isn’t a complicated equivalence.

That is the most ridiculous equivocation I have ever heard in this forum, and that is saying a lot. Complete and total fail.

People have the legal right to smoke things. I support their right to smoke things. I don't want them doing it AT MY HOUSE. See the difference? Tell me you do...

Would you like a list of other things I support the right for people to do but don't want them doing at my house?

Can I come to your house and do anything I want as long as it is legal? Can I say anything I want - my legal right - to you and your family? (I can give you examples if you need them) . And you'd be OK with that?


You are DISHONEST.

terrible post.

you lost. game over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YOUR religion doesn't belong on my front door OR IN MY GOVERNMENT.

I am well aware that people posting here hate religion and freedom of speech. You are wrong, as usual.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/6/16/23165897/inside-the-supreme-court-case-that-saved-door-to-door-missionary-work-jehovahs-witnesses

On June 17, 2002, the court ruled against a small Ohio town’s restrictions on door knocking, deciding that efforts to make religious missionaries, political canvassers and others obtain permits violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

“It is offensive not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the majority opinion.

The decision sent a message to government officials trying to limit unpopular or controversial public expression, said Frederick Gedicks, a law professor at Brigham Young University. He added that the case also showed why it’s important to speak up in defense of constitutional rights, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have repeatedly done.

“Often, our practices don’t live up to our ideals. The Witnesses are some of the folks who expose that. Through this case, they forced (the country) to live up to the ideals of the freedom of speech clause,” he said.

Atheists are on the wrong side of freedom, both of speech and religion.

A Supreme Court brief filed in support of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outlined how difficult it could be to navigate anti-solicitation laws. Depending on the town you were in, you might have to provide anything from character witnesses to fingerprints to $25 in cash to gain the right to go door to door.


“A citizen shouldn’t have to go to the government to ask permission to go to their neighbor” to raise a concern or share what they believe, Polidoro said.

Four months after oral arguments, the court issued an 8-1 decision against the permit rules. It said Stratton’s ordinance unlawfully interfered with both anonymous and spontaneous speech and did little to address security concerns.

So keep raging against freedom and making up stories about Mormons and Warren Jeffs, it shows who you all really are: people who hate everything our country was built on.

The Supreme Court finding for religious evangelists in 2002 does not place atheists on the "wrong side of freedom." The Supreme Court is fallible, just like people. In 1896, the Supreme court decided that segregation was perfectly legal (Plessy v Ferguson). The Supreme Court also decided in 1857 that Black people were not US Citizens (Dred Scott v. Sandford). Hopefully we well one day all be free from others' religious beliefs being thrust upon us against our will. People of faith need to mind their own damn business.

Waaaah, I’m offended by this angry atheist coming into my screen unbidden. Hopefully (sic) we well (sic) one day be free from others’ atheism being thrust upon us against our will.

/s

Angry atheist, you want freedom of speech for yourself but not for others. You post makes that abundantly clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YOUR religion doesn't belong on my front door OR IN MY GOVERNMENT.

I am well aware that people posting here hate religion and freedom of speech. You are wrong, as usual.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/6/16/23165897/inside-the-supreme-court-case-that-saved-door-to-door-missionary-work-jehovahs-witnesses

On June 17, 2002, the court ruled against a small Ohio town’s restrictions on door knocking, deciding that efforts to make religious missionaries, political canvassers and others obtain permits violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

“It is offensive not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the majority opinion.

The decision sent a message to government officials trying to limit unpopular or controversial public expression, said Frederick Gedicks, a law professor at Brigham Young University. He added that the case also showed why it’s important to speak up in defense of constitutional rights, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have repeatedly done.

“Often, our practices don’t live up to our ideals. The Witnesses are some of the folks who expose that. Through this case, they forced (the country) to live up to the ideals of the freedom of speech clause,” he said.

Atheists are on the wrong side of freedom, both of speech and religion.

A Supreme Court brief filed in support of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outlined how difficult it could be to navigate anti-solicitation laws. Depending on the town you were in, you might have to provide anything from character witnesses to fingerprints to $25 in cash to gain the right to go door to door.


“A citizen shouldn’t have to go to the government to ask permission to go to their neighbor” to raise a concern or share what they believe, Polidoro said.

Four months after oral arguments, the court issued an 8-1 decision against the permit rules. It said Stratton’s ordinance unlawfully interfered with both anonymous and spontaneous speech and did little to address security concerns.

So keep raging against freedom and making up stories about Mormons and Warren Jeffs, it shows who you all really are: people who hate everything our country was built on.

The Supreme Court finding for religious evangelists in 2002 does not place atheists on the "wrong side of freedom." The Supreme Court is fallible, just like people. In 1896, the Supreme court decided that segregation was perfectly legal (Plessy v Ferguson). The Supreme Court also decided in 1857 that Black people were not US Citizens (Dred Scott v. Sandford). Hopefully we well one day all be free from others' religious beliefs being thrust upon us against our will. People of faith need to mind their own damn business.

Lawd yes! Someday atheists will
be free, free at last, from oppressive religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We check the camera and ignore anyone we don’t know. It’s what normal people do these days. They can knock for and ring and call out and we ignore. The only person I open my door for is someone we know or law enforcement. Even then we ask for id before we open.

That's fine, but it begs to be pointed out yet again that the issue of the thread is about the person at the door and whether they are right to do so, not your choice to ignore them. That's a separate topic. As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

So, please, from now on, no more stories of not answering the door. Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

That has been answered. The Supreme Court voted 8-1 that it was.

Can you not read?

Above it says:

As is the "legal" aspect of the mission, no one disputes that it is a legal right.

Very frustrating. Not sure how I could have been more clear.

Answer the question: is it morally right for missionaries to knock on your door to spread their beliefs?

So you think the SCOTUS voted 8-1 for immorality?

The SCOTUS' decision had nothing to do with morality, but if you think they are not capable of making an immoral decision, you have a lot to learn. We could start with Dread Scott and continue to present day... but this is not a thread for that.

You don’t like living in a free country under the rule of law with religious freedom and freedom of speech.

If you think freedom of speech and religion are immoral, I can’t help you. No one can.

Strawman. And a repulsive, nasty and disgusting one at that.

If you don't see the difference between the legality of "freedom of speech and religion" and "being a rude d-bag even though it is 100% legal" then I can’t help you. Because you don't want help.

You hate religious freedom and freedom of speech. You are absolutely seething that Americans have both of those freedoms.

DP and honestly, you not liking these people at your door basically translates as not liking their religious freedom and wanting to take their religious freedom away from them. This isn’t a complicated equivalence.

That is the most ridiculous equivocation I have ever heard in this forum, and that is saying a lot. Complete and total fail.

People have the legal right to smoke things. I support their right to smoke things. I don't want them doing it AT MY HOUSE. See the difference? Tell me you do...

Would you like a list of other things I support the right for people to do but don't want them doing at my house?

Can I come to your house and do anything I want as long as it is legal? Can I say anything I want - my legal right - to you and your family? (I can give you examples if you need them) . And you'd be OK with that?


You are DISHONEST.

terrible post.

you lost. game over.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YOUR religion doesn't belong on my front door OR IN MY GOVERNMENT.

I am well aware that people posting here hate religion and freedom of speech. You are wrong, as usual.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/6/16/23165897/inside-the-supreme-court-case-that-saved-door-to-door-missionary-work-jehovahs-witnesses

On June 17, 2002, the court ruled against a small Ohio town’s restrictions on door knocking, deciding that efforts to make religious missionaries, political canvassers and others obtain permits violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

“It is offensive not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the majority opinion.

The decision sent a message to government officials trying to limit unpopular or controversial public expression, said Frederick Gedicks, a law professor at Brigham Young University. He added that the case also showed why it’s important to speak up in defense of constitutional rights, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have repeatedly done.

“Often, our practices don’t live up to our ideals. The Witnesses are some of the folks who expose that. Through this case, they forced (the country) to live up to the ideals of the freedom of speech clause,” he said.

Atheists are on the wrong side of freedom, both of speech and religion.

A Supreme Court brief filed in support of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outlined how difficult it could be to navigate anti-solicitation laws. Depending on the town you were in, you might have to provide anything from character witnesses to fingerprints to $25 in cash to gain the right to go door to door.


“A citizen shouldn’t have to go to the government to ask permission to go to their neighbor” to raise a concern or share what they believe, Polidoro said.

Four months after oral arguments, the court issued an 8-1 decision against the permit rules. It said Stratton’s ordinance unlawfully interfered with both anonymous and spontaneous speech and did little to address security concerns.

So keep raging against freedom and making up stories about Mormons and Warren Jeffs, it shows who you all really are: people who hate everything our country was built on.

The Supreme Court finding for religious evangelists in 2002 does not place atheists on the "wrong side of freedom." The Supreme Court is fallible, just like people. In 1896, the Supreme court decided that segregation was perfectly legal (Plessy v Ferguson). The Supreme Court also decided in 1857 that Black people were not US Citizens (Dred Scott v. Sandford). Hopefully we well one day all be free from others' religious beliefs being thrust upon us against our will. People of faith need to mind their own damn business.

Their have been multiple court rulings on this issue and they have all agreed that your opinion is wrong.

Moreover, in many instances the Court has upheld the right of individuals to engage in door-to-door solicitations for noncommercial causes, especially those of a religious nature.

In Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938) and Schneider v. State (1939), the Court struck down ordinances requiring Jehovah’s Witnesses and others to obtain the city manager’s permission prior to engaging in door-to-door solicitations.

It reiterated these rulings in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) and Largent v. Texas (1943). In Martin v. City of Struthers (1943), the Court overturned a blanket prohibition on the door-to-door distribution of literature.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/door-to-door-solicitation/#:~:text=Court%20often%20upholds%20religious%20solicitation,those%20of%20a%20religious%20nature.

The opinion of disgruntled atheists means nothing because American has the rule of law, and religious freedom and freedom of speech.

You don’t have to talk to these people or take their literature. There’s nothing being done to harm you or take away your right to not believe. Grow up.