Stop knocking on peoples' doors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s ok for people to knock on my door of my personal property and interrupt me to tell me about their god.

But it is not ok for me, in this free and open forum, to say there isn’t a god.

Well that makes perfect sense.

Do you not believe in God, or do you know for certain there is no God?

I thought atheists didn’t believe in God personally? I didn’t think they decided there was no God and everyone who believed in God was wrong.

What possible relevance could your question have to the point you are responding to?

For the record, most atheists are also agnostic, but many will get stronger depending on the definition of the god in question.

Now can we get back to the topic of the thread, which is why it is OK for people to come onto personal property and interrupt someone's life to preach?

The answer is, yes, they are allowed. If you want to form a squad of proselytizing atheists, you’re allowed to do that too. Honestly if you didn’t already know that I have to wonder if you’re quite dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s ok for people to knock on my door of my personal property and interrupt me to tell me about their god.

But it is not ok for me, in this free and open forum, to say there isn’t a god.

Well that makes perfect sense.

Do you not believe in God, or do you know for certain there is no God?

I thought atheists didn’t believe in God personally? I didn’t think they decided there was no God and everyone who believed in God was wrong.

What possible relevance could your question have to the point you are responding to?

For the record, most atheists are also agnostic, but many will get stronger depending on the definition of the god in question.

Now can we get back to the topic of the thread, which is why it is OK for people to come onto personal property and interrupt someone's life to preach?

The answer is, yes, they are allowed. If you want to form a squad of proselytizing atheists, you’re allowed to do that too. Honestly if you didn’t already know that I have to wonder if you’re quite dumb.

We know they are allowed. That's not been questioned. The question is why is it OK?

I wouldn't ask a bunch of atheists to do that because I think it would be an extremely rude and improper thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s ok for people to knock on my door of my personal property and interrupt me to tell me about their god.

But it is not ok for me, in this free and open forum, to say there isn’t a god.

Well that makes perfect sense.

Do you not believe in God, or do you know for certain there is no God?

I thought atheists didn’t believe in God personally? I didn’t think they decided there was no God and everyone who believed in God was wrong.

What possible relevance could your question have to the point you are responding to?

For the record, most atheists are also agnostic, but many will get stronger depending on the definition of the god in question.

Now can we get back to the topic of the thread, which is why it is OK for people to come onto personal property and interrupt someone's life to preach?

The answer is, yes, they are allowed. If you want to form a squad of proselytizing atheists, you’re allowed to do that too. Honestly if you didn’t already know that I have to wonder if you’re quite dumb.

We know they are allowed. That's not been questioned. The question is why is it OK?

I wouldn't ask a bunch of atheists to do that because I think it would be an extremely rude and improper thing to do.

It isn't ok. Not at all. They get a pass because otherwise they complain about religious rights and freedom of speech.

Post a No Tresspassing sign. Our neighbors have a Beware of Dog sign. They rarely get bothered.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

If anybody's interested, there are a number of ex-mormons who write about the kind of abusive conditions that young mormons on mission sometimes contend with. They suggest that even if you're opposed to the belief system, it might be nice to offer these young people a bottle of water or a snack. They also suggest you might want to invite them in and ask if they want to use your phone to call their families -- since they're not allowed to have cell phones or talk to their families very much. They also have very little money and some women who have been missionaries suggest offering the girls sanitary supplies since sometimes they can't afford to buy them. Kind of sad really.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Bible_%26_Tract_Society_of_New_York,_Inc._v._Village_of_Stratton#:~:text=.%2C%20et%20al.-,Opinion%20of%20the%20Court,advocacy%20violated%20the%20First%20Amendment.

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a town ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with town officials and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.

On June 17, 2002, the Court ruled in an 8–1 decision that the requirement of the Village of Stratton's ordinance for solicitors to "register" before engaging in door-to-door advocacy violated the First Amendment. The Court stated "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." The Supreme Court did not address the remaining provisions of the ordinance, which remain valid and legally enforceable.

Justice Appointment history Agreement with judgment Opinions filed
Seniority Name President Date confirmed % # Total
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Richard Nixon[7] January 7, 1972 88% 73/83 8 0 0 4 12
Associate Justice John Paul Stevens Gerald Ford December 19, 1975 78% 64/82 9 11 3 7 30
Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Ronald Reagan September 25, 1981 87.8% 72/82 9 6 2 0 17
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia Ronald Reagan September 26, 1986 79.5% 66/83 8 7 2 8 25
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy Ronald Reagan February 18, 1988 84.1% 69/82 7 6 2 5 20
Associate Justice David Souter George H. W. Bush October 9, 1990 88% 73/83 9 5 2 6 22
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas George H. W. Bush October 23, 1991 73.2% 60/82 7 7 2 11 27
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Bill Clinton August 10, 1993 81.9% 68/83 7 3 1 6 17
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer Bill Clinton

[Anonymous]

NO ONE DISPUTES IT IS LEGAL! Case citations do not address the question and show you are gish galloping.

Is it right for them to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s ok for people to knock on my door of my personal property and interrupt me to tell me about their god.

But it is not ok for me, in this free and open forum, to say there isn’t a god.

Well that makes perfect sense.

Do you not believe in God, or do you know for certain there is no God?

I thought atheists didn’t believe in God personally? I didn’t think they decided there was no God and everyone who believed in God was wrong.

What possible relevance could your question have to the point you are responding to?

For the record, most atheists are also agnostic, but many will get stronger depending on the definition of the god in question.

Now can we get back to the topic of the thread, which is why it is OK for people to come onto personal property and interrupt someone's life to preach?

The answer is, yes, they are allowed. If you want to form a squad of proselytizing atheists, you’re allowed to do that too. Honestly if you didn’t already know that I have to wonder if you’re quite dumb.

We know they are allowed. That's not been questioned. The question is why is it OK?

I wouldn't ask a bunch of atheists to do that because I think it would be an extremely rude and improper thing to do.

Okay… with who? Obviously it’s not ok with you. It’s fine with me. What do you want, jail time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE DISPUTES IT IS LEGAL! Case citations do not address the question and show you are gish galloping.

Is it right for them to do?

I don’t like being panhandled but I don’t think there’s any reason to have a conversation about it’s propriety or whatever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO ONE DISPUTES IT IS LEGAL! Case citations do not address the question and show you are gish galloping.

Is it right for them to do?

I don’t like being panhandled but I don’t think there’s any reason to have a conversation about it’s propriety or whatever

That's odd. But OK, I believe you don't think there's a reason to have a conversation about it.

What's baffling to me is then why did you enter and participate in a forum doing exactly that?