Stop knocking on peoples' doors

[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.

I notice you did not respond to the question in the post. I know why. I am good with my position and how I represented it and I wish you a good day.

[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.

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

They're still annoying me.

Tell me, do you respect No Trespassing signs?

[Anonymous]

Not wanting someone peddling their religion at their door does not make someone an atheist. You really reach. I know Catholics who get quite upset with it. "I don't bring my beliefs to your door, don't bring yours to mine".

I'm thinking we found a former JW. Still very religious, just not part of that system anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not wanting someone peddling their religion at their door does not make someone an atheist. You really reach. I know Catholics who get quite upset with it. "I don't bring my beliefs to your door, don't bring yours to mine".

I'm thinking we found a former JW. Still very religious, just not part of that system anymore.

NP. I'm not a former Jehovah's Witness, but I still respect that people have a right to ring my doorbell to share their beliefs. I have the right to ignore them or ask them to leave (and they'll be trespassing if they ignore those requests). That's a good balance that respects everyone's rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not wanting someone peddling their religion at their door does not make someone an atheist. You really reach. I know Catholics who get quite upset with it. "I don't bring my beliefs to your door, don't bring yours to mine".

I'm thinking we found a former JW. Still very religious, just not part of that system anymore.

What was found was someone who understands that the courts have repeatedly upheld the right to go do to door and talk about religious beliefs and distribute literature.

Your recourse is to say, I don’t agree with your religion, leave my property.

Or don’t answer the door.

fin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not wanting someone peddling their religion at their door does not make someone an atheist. You really reach. I know Catholics who get quite upset with it. "I don't bring my beliefs to your door, don't bring yours to mine".

I'm thinking we found a former JW. Still very religious, just not part of that system anymore.

NP. I'm not a former Jehovah's Witness, but I still respect that people have a right to ring my doorbell to share their beliefs. I have the right to ignore them or ask them to leave (and they'll be trespassing if they ignore those requests). That's a good balance that respects everyone's rights.

DP and I’m not a former Jehovah’s Witness either. Ad hominems by definition don’t support your argument, and make you look ridiculous, so maybe rethink those.

Some of us just have the maturity to ignore opinions we disagree with. Especially as they’re not inside your house proselytizing, smoking pot or trash talking your family, contra your ridiculous argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not wanting someone peddling their religion at their door does not make someone an atheist. You really reach. I know Catholics who get quite upset with it. "I don't bring my beliefs to your door, don't bring yours to mine".

I'm thinking we found a former JW. Still very religious, just not part of that system anymore.

What was found was someone who understands that the courts have repeatedly upheld the right to go do to door and talk about religious beliefs and distribute literature.

Your recourse is to say, I don’t agree with your religion, leave my property.

Or don’t answer the door.

fin

This. Besides the legal angle, this is basic adulting: learn how to ignore people who disagree with you.

I’m still waiting for atheist pp to agree to stop trashing threads about religion. There’s little difference, and that makes her a huge hypocrite who appreciates freedom of speech for herself but not for others. 24 hours here complaining about others’ freedom of speech is wild.

[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.

When the Supreme Court has gotten these things wrong is usually not in favor of small, often oppressed groups like Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not wanting someone peddling their religion at their door does not make someone an atheist. You really reach. I know Catholics who get quite upset with it. "I don't bring my beliefs to your door, don't bring yours to mine".

I'm thinking we found a former JW. Still very religious, just not part of that system anymore.

What was found was someone who understands that the courts have repeatedly upheld the right to go do to door and talk about religious beliefs and distribute literature.

Your recourse is to say, I don’t agree with your religion, leave my property.

Or don’t answer the door.

fin

This. Besides the legal angle, this is basic adulting: learn how to ignore people who disagree with you.

I’m still waiting for atheist pp to agree to stop trashing threads about religion. There’s little difference, and that makes her a huge hypocrite who appreciates freedom of speech for herself but not for others. 24 hours here complaining about others’ freedom of speech is wild.

How do you know the person is an atheist?

Don't worry about other people's time on the thread, you've been here just as long. Also likely in multiple threads spewing the same angry atheist stuff.

You never did answer, do you respect no trespassing signs? Are proselytizers supposed to respect them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not wanting someone peddling their religion at their door does not make someone an atheist. You really reach. I know Catholics who get quite upset with it. "I don't bring my beliefs to your door, don't bring yours to mine".

I'm thinking we found a former JW. Still very religious, just not part of that system anymore.

What was found was someone who understands that the courts have repeatedly upheld the right to go do to door and talk about religious beliefs and distribute literature.

Your recourse is to say, I don’t agree with your religion, leave my property.

Or don’t answer the door.

fin

This. Besides the legal angle, this is basic adulting: learn how to ignore people who disagree with you.

I’m still waiting for atheist pp to agree to stop trashing threads about religion. There’s little difference, and that makes her a huge hypocrite who appreciates freedom of speech for herself but not for others. 24 hours here complaining about others’ freedom of speech is wild.

How do you know the person is an atheist?

Don't worry about other people's time on the thread, you've been here just as long. Also likely in multiple threads spewing the same angry atheist stuff.

You never did answer, do you respect no trespassing signs? Are proselytizers supposed to respect them?

I’m here for pp’s legal expertise that shows just how wrong you are.

And in answer to your questions, yes and yes. So you’ve found a third super-easy solution: post a no trespassing or no solicitation sign.

You never did answer, will you put your money where your mouth is and stop hate-trolling religion threads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not wanting someone peddling their religion at their door does not make someone an atheist. You really reach. I know Catholics who get quite upset with it. "I don't bring my beliefs to your door, don't bring yours to mine".

I'm thinking we found a former JW. Still very religious, just not part of that system anymore.

What was found was someone who understands that the courts have repeatedly upheld the right to go do to door and talk about religious beliefs and distribute literature.

Your recourse is to say, I don’t agree with your religion, leave my property.

Or don’t answer the door.

fin

This. Besides the legal angle, this is basic adulting: learn how to ignore people who disagree with you.

I’m still waiting for atheist pp to agree to stop trashing threads about religion. There’s little difference, and that makes her a huge hypocrite who appreciates freedom of speech for herself but not for others. 24 hours here complaining about others’ freedom of speech is wild.

How do you know the person is an atheist?

Don't worry about other people's time on the thread, you've been here just as long. Also likely in multiple threads spewing the same angry atheist stuff.

You never did answer, do you respect no trespassing signs? Are proselytizers supposed to respect them?

I’m here for pp’s legal expertise that shows just how wrong you are.

And in answer to your questions, yes and yes. So you’ve found a third super-easy solution: post a no trespassing or no solicitation sign.

You never did answer, will you put your money where your mouth is and stop hate-trolling religion threads?

You are confused. I'm not the angry athiest or an athiest. I'm Agnostic. Not wanting people peddling their belief at my door is not hate. I actually follow Miriam, an Orthodox Jew, online. I find her interesting.

The sign by our door says "No religious solicitation". There isn't much where we are now, but the sign handles it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not wanting someone peddling their religion at their door does not make someone an atheist. You really reach. I know Catholics who get quite upset with it. "I don't bring my beliefs to your door, don't bring yours to mine".

I'm thinking we found a former JW. Still very religious, just not part of that system anymore.

What was found was someone who understands that the courts have repeatedly upheld the right to go do to door and talk about religious beliefs and distribute literature.

Your recourse is to say, I don’t agree with your religion, leave my property.

Or don’t answer the door.

fin

This. Besides the legal angle, this is basic adulting: learn how to ignore people who disagree with you.

I’m still waiting for atheist pp to agree to stop trashing threads about religion. There’s little difference, and that makes her a huge hypocrite who appreciates freedom of speech for herself but not for others. 24 hours here complaining about others’ freedom of speech is wild.

How do you know the person is an atheist?

Don't worry about other people's time on the thread, you've been here just as long. Also likely in multiple threads spewing the same angry atheist stuff.

You never did answer, do you respect no trespassing signs? Are proselytizers supposed to respect them?

I’m here for pp’s legal expertise that shows just how wrong you are.

And in answer to your questions, yes and yes. So you’ve found a third super-easy solution: post a no trespassing or no solicitation sign.

You never did answer, will you put your money where your mouth is and stop hate-trolling religion threads?

You are confused. I'm not the angry athiest or an athiest. I'm Agnostic. Not wanting people peddling their belief at my door is not hate. I actually follow Miriam, an Orthodox Jew, online. I find her interesting.

The sign by our door says "No religious solicitation". There isn't much where we are now, but the sign handles it.

Then we have a solution that should work for the angry atheist as well. Lots of fuss and furore over basically nothing but angry atheist preferring to vent rather than do anything practical.

[Anonymous]

We must go forth and make disciples of all nations.

[Anonymous]

Don’t we have a thread like this every six months? Is it the same OP?

[Anonymous]

Knock and the door will be opened unto you...but if not, just keep knocking.