October 29, 2001

Jehovah's Witness dispute comes knocking on Supreme Court's door
___WASHINGTON (RNS)--The Supreme Court has decided to consider a case that questions whether an Ohio town has violated the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses, who are required to gain permission from a mayor before knocking on doors.
___The Jehovah's Witnesses believe the ordinance in Stratton, Ohio, aims to limit their mission work, which includes going door-to-door to hand out free literature and recruit believers.
___The 3-year-old law requires potential solicitors to reveal their names, addresses for the past five years, and the names and addresses of the groups with which they are affiliated. The mayor grants the permits, which can be demanded by a homeowner.
___The high court will determine if the restrictions are unconstitutional.
___"Are religious ministers engaged in a scripturally based, centuries-old practice of communicating their religious beliefs from door-to-door constitutionally equivalent to peddlers of merchandise?" attorneys for the Jehovah's Witnesses asked the court.
___Leaders of Stratton told the court the ordinance is reasonable in "weighing the First Amendment rights of canvassers against the right of homeowners to security, privacy and peacefulness in their homes." They also said that the permits are free and no one has been denied one.
___An appellate court upheld the ordinance earlier this year, saying it did not discriminate because it was a requirement of all people, no matter what their purpose or message.
___Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, issued a statement supporting the position of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
___"People wishing to share their faith with others shouldn't have to ask the government for permission first," he said. "The First Amendment protects the right of religious groups to spread their views."
___Meanwhile, the high court also ordered a federal appeals court to review a case concerning a National Day of Prayer rally at a city park in Tucson, Ariz.
___The high court issued the decision Oct. 9, throwing out a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said taxpayers should not cover $340 in expenses for the 1997 rally. Prayer day organizers had argued the city should have covered costs for park equipment and services as it has for other groups.
___Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, the law firm that represented a couple who organized the rally, was encouraged by the court's action.
___"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to free speech includes the right to deliver a religious message," Sekulow said in a statement. "Equal access for religious speech is a matter of constitutional right."
___In other action, the high court:
___ Declined an appeal of a Texas police officer who was fired for wearing a pin in the shape of a gold cross on his uniform.
___ Declined an appeal of a fired Mississippi hospital counselor who said she refused to advise a lesbian client because of her religious objections to homosexuality.
___ Reinstated the death penalty for a Tennessee killer whose new attorneys hoped his case would test the quality of legal help for those facing capital punishment.

Get printer-friendly version of this story


Send this story to a friend



News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.

---

Contents/ Masthead / Why We're Here / Links / Archive / E-mail us/ SUBSCRIBE!/ Signup for FirstLook