NationStates Jolt Archive

How are the limits on religious freedom drawn? Some religions include illegal (in the USA) aspects like polygamy and drug use. The government strictly probits most of them from operating. The only exception is the Native American Church, which is permitted to use peyote. Why are these things limited while other religions are permited to exercise the right to knock on my door at 7am and disturb my rest with a conversation about jesus?

How are the limits on religious freedom drawn? Some religions include illegal (in the USA) aspects like polygamy and drug use. The government strictly probits most of them from operating. The only exception is the Native American Church, which is permitted to use peyote. Why are these things limited while other religions are permited to exercise the right to knock on my door at 7am and disturb my rest with a conversation about jesus?

It probably has something to do with how tricky it is to legally define a "religion". Having started one myself once, I can tell you it's a great big can of worms. What if someone started a religion which espoused the belief that it was a sin to pay tax? Do you think they'd have any trouble making converts?

Basically, if your religion begins to seriously piss off the establishment, then your religious freedoms will disappear so fast it'll make your head spin. Finding out just exactly what pisses off the establishment is the tricky part -- although usually anything that threatens to interfere with their cashflow is a good bet.

basically there arent any restrictions on religious freedoms, who to worship etc. It's only the activities like drug use that are illegal, and thats the same for everyone, no matter what religion you're in.

basically there arent any restrictions on religious freedoms, who to worship etc. It's only the activities like drug use that are illegal, and thats the same for everyone, no matter what religion you're in.
That's not true in the USA. The Native American Church is permitted to possess and use peyote. Peyote is a schedule 1 controlled substance. This puts it in the same category as heroine in the eyes of law enforcement. Other religions can't have peyote in their ceremonies.

That's not true in the USA. The Native American Church is permitted to possess and use peyote. Peyote is a schedule 1 controlled substance. This puts it in the same category as heroine in the eyes of law enforcement. Other religions can't have peyote in their ceremonies.
but thats not a religious concession, it is a native american reparations concession

but thats not a religious concession, it is a native american reparations concession

Damn, we don't get to eat peyote in Canada...but then again it isn't a tradition of ours...but since all us Indians are the same....:).

Law first, religion second. Simple as that.

That's not true in the USA. The Native American Church is permitted to possess and use peyote. Peyote is a schedule 1 controlled substance. This puts it in the same category as heroine in the eyes of law enforcement. Other religions can't have peyote in their ceremonies.

Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans do not have the right to use peyote and they can be drug tested and fired because of it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=872

He got fired from his job. He didn't get prosecuted. You or I would get prosecuted.

He got fired from his job. He didn't get prosecuted. You or I would get prosecuted.

Not really. A lot of people get fired for testing positive for drugs and are never prosecuted. Things like that are just generally not worth the policeman's time. Now, if they had been pulled over for driving recklessly and then tested positive for peyote, they would've been prosecuted.

My point is that a member of the Native American Church can legally own/use peyote with no _legal_ consequences. He can never be arrested or imprisoned for it.

He got fired from his job. He didn't get prosecuted. You or I would get prosecuted.
Yoou cant be prosecuted for what is on a drug test, that does not count as possesion.
If you piss dirty, you would lose your job. That's it.

My point is that a member of the Native American Church can legally own/use peyote with no _legal_ consequences. He can never be arrested or imprisoned for it.

Except you are wrong. The court found that using peyote for relgious reasons does not automatically exempt you from the law against peyote. You could argue that a member of the Native American Church is unlikely to be arrested or imprisoned for owning/using peyote, but to say that he cannot is wrong. The law has been determined to hold for anyone, whether they are doing it for religious reasons or not.

Law first, religion second. Simple as that.

That's stupid. Laws shouldn't tell you what to believe.

That's stupid. Laws shouldn't tell you what to believe.

Laws don't tell you what to believe, they tell you what you cannot do. There are religions that believe a human sacrifice is a necessity, but the law says murder is illegal, so your religious freedom doesn't extend to making human sacrifices.

Laws don't tell you what to believe, they tell you what you cannot do. There are religions that believe a human sacrifice is a necessity, but the law says murder is illegal, so your religious freedom doesn't extend to making human sacrifices.

Human sacrifice is wrong, but not because the government says so (though the government sacrifices thousands of people for its own gain). It's wrong because killing is wrong. No need to invoke government force.

Human sacrifice is wrong, but not because the government says so (though the government sacrifices thousands of people for its own gain). It's wrong because killing is wrong. No need to invoke government force.
Who decides whats wrong and whats not?

Whoever's in control ATM. Currently our government believes directly killing someone is wrong, therefore it's illegal.

I don't think any religions should be given exceptions to the laws.... if they want to practice their religion so badly and can't stand this country's laws, they can move elsewhere, no one's stopping them.

Who decides whats wrong and whats not?
the FCC, duh

I'd like to refer everyone to a case a few years ago, in which a court ruled that some Jehovah's Witness parents did not have the right to prevent their seriously ill daughter from receiving an organ transplant, on the basis that blood would be transfered during the operation (Jehovah's witnesses, for whatever reason, cannot receive another's blood during an operation). The child ended up receiving the operation against her parent's wishes. It's quite plain to see in this case that the government stifled some religious freedom in the name of protecting a person's life and wellbeing. What do people think about this?

I'd like to refer everyone to a case a few years ago, in which a court ruled that some Jehovah's Witness parents did not have the right to prevent their seriously ill daughter from receiving an organ transplant, on the basis that blood would be transfered during the operation (Jehovah's witnesses, for whatever reason, cannot receive another's blood during an operation). The child ended up receiving the operation against her parent's wishes. It's quite plain to see in this case that the government stifled some religious freedom in the name of protecting a person's life and wellbeing. What do people think about this?

Laws are there exactly for this kind of situation. The government rules with the consent of the governed to figure this kind of stuff out. So while killing is indeed wrong, it also has a detrimental effect on society. THAT's why it's illegal. Medicine and health care help society, so we save people's lives.

How are the limits on religious freedom drawn? Some religions include illegal (in the USA) aspects like polygamy and drug use. The government strictly probits most of them from operating. The only exception is the Native American Church, which is permitted to use peyote. Why are these things limited while other religions are permited to exercise the right to knock on my door at 7am and disturb my rest with a conversation about jesus?

Well those other religions tend to practice things that are against US laws anyway. And those witnesses, just throw things at them, or invite them in, either way they will go away.

I'd like to refer everyone to a case a few years ago, in which a court ruled that some Jehovah's Witness parents did not have the right to prevent their seriously ill daughter from receiving an organ transplant, on the basis that blood would be transfered during the operation (Jehovah's witnesses, for whatever reason, cannot receive another's blood during an operation). The child ended up receiving the operation against her parent's wishes. It's quite plain to see in this case that the government stifled some religious freedom in the name of protecting a person's life and wellbeing. What do people think about this?

Interesting, I've always heard the opposite - that the courts have ruled that a parent can refuse medical treatment for their child. I'll have to look it up to be sure.

Either way, they have devised ways that organ transplants can be given without blood transfusions now. My advisor was involved in the first liver transplants on Jehovah's witnesses - so the medical community does try to deal with religious views while still healing people. The reason Jehovah's Witnesses will not take transfusions is the line in the Bible that says you can't imbibe another's blood (or something along those lines). I'm not sure why organs are ok and blood isn't, but I don't ask questions.

The basic theory behind when the government can restrict religious practice is that the government has to prove that it has a compelling interest in making the restriction.

What's a compelling interest? Well, in the case of the Amish belief against using modern inventions, the government used the argument that public safety was impaired if they didn't use some sort of reflective devices on their carriages while on public roads. They didn't go so far as to require electric lights (although some wanted to) out of respect for the religious beliefs of the Amish. They found a compromise.

That's not true in the USA. The Native American Church is permitted to possess and use peyote. Peyote is a schedule 1 controlled substance. This puts it in the same category as heroine in the eyes of law enforcement. Other religions can't have peyote in their ceremonies.
If it's legal, it's probably written into legislation. Remember, drug control was created years after the constitution was written. At the time the first drug laws were written, Congress probably made exceptions for the natives. Exceptions for Native Americans are common. For example, Alaskan natives are allowed to hunt a few whales a year, as written into many anti-whaling treaties.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/peyote/peyote_law.shtml

there are laws on peyote and the rest of the drugs (it explains the legal status of them too) erowid is the best place to find these things.

Peyote (lophophora williamsii) is Schedule I in the United States. This means it is illegal to buy, sell, or possess without a DEA license.

The CSA states:
(22) Peyote Meaning all parts of the plant presently classified botanically as Lophophora williamsii Lemaire, whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, any extract from any part of such plant, and every compound, manufacture, salts, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or extracts (Interprets 21 USC 812(c), Schedule I(c) (12))
Federal Native American Church Exemption
TITLE 21-Food And Drugs
Administration, Department of Justice
PART 1307--MISCELLANEOUS--Table of Contents

Sec. 1307.31 Native American Church.

The listing of peyote as a controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church so using peyote are exempt from registration. Any person who manufactures peyote for or distributes peyote to the Native American Church, however, is required to obtain registration annually and to comply with all other requirements of law.


Laws regarding peyote vary from state to state, with many states allowing "bona fide religious use" of peyote as an exception to the controlled substance laws. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming all offer some limited exceptions to the peyote laws for religious use. See Peyote Foundation's State Law Page (cache)http://www.peyote.net/archive/law.htm

In states such as Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah, peyote may be used by any bonafide relgious organization. In Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, use of peyote is only protected within Native American Church ceremonies. In Kansas, Texas, and Wyoming use is only protected for members of the NAC, and Idaho and Texas require some "Native American Heritage" in order to be exempt.

Utah #
Utah Supreme Court ruled that peyote use in "bona fide" religious ceremonies, regardless of the race of the participants, is protected under Utah and Federal Law in Utah. The court wrote: "On its face, the exemption applies to members of the Native American Church, without regard to tribal membership. The bona fide religious use of peyote cannot serve as the basis for prosecuting members of the Native American Church under state law." See: Salt Lake Tribune, June 23 2004, Utah State Supreme Court Decision


Canada # (legal to grow, but not to use as a drug)
According to the 2001 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (which replaced the older Narcotics Control Act) mescaline is listed as a schedule III drug, while peyote is specifically exempted from Canada's Controlled Substances list. If peyote is prepared for use, however, it can be treated as "mescaline". We have an Ask Erowid answer looking at this.


17. Mescaline (3,4,5-trimethoxybenzeneethanamine) and any salt thereof, but not peyote (lophophora)

Laws regarding peyote vary from state to state, with many states allowing "bona fide religious use" of peyote as an exception to the controlled substance laws. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming all offer some limited exceptions to the peyote laws for religious use. See Peyote Foundation's State Law Page (cache)http://www.peyote.net/archive/law.htm

Out of curiosity, when did Oregon change its law? Because, as of 1990, peyote use was completely banned. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=872

In states such as Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah, peyote may be used by any bonafide relgious organization.

Ok, if this is true, I'm alright with that.

In Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, use of peyote is only protected within Native American Church ceremonies.

Ok, if this is true, it could be challenged on the basis of 1st amendment.

In Kansas, Texas, and Wyoming use is only protected for members of the NAC, and Idaho and Texas require some "Native American Heritage" in order to be exempt.

These could be challenged on 1st amendment or 14th amendment, depending on which state it is.

Personally, I think if your religion tells you to use peyote and you do so in your religious ceremony and that's it - it should be exempted from the law. If it isn't exempted from the law where you are, you should fight to get it exempted from the law (but don't be surprised if you get arrested for it before you get the law changed). However, this must hold true for any government-recognized religion, which would open the door to people starting new religions just so they could do drugs ::shrug::.

Meanwhile, if you drive/go to work still hopped up on it (whether legal or not), you should be prosecuted/fired.

Human sacrifice is wrong, but not because the government says so (though the government sacrifices thousands of people for its own gain). It's wrong because killing is wrong. No need to invoke government force.

That's not the point. There are religions (or at least were) that believe human sacrifice is necessary (ie Aztec religion). Would you argue that the government can't prosecute someone who murders another if that person claims to be an Aztec?

The government shouldn't regulate religion.
If I want to keep a sacrificical pit in a 5-acre lot in the middle of nowhere, then why sould the government get to say "boo" about it?
I don't feel that government should be in the saying boo business anyway, "oogalaboogala", maybe, but not "boo".

Yes, I am being sarcastic.
No, I am not a deep thinker.
Yes, I am an ass-hat.
No, I don't want your respect.

How are the limits on religious freedom drawn? Some religions include illegal (in the USA) aspects like polygamy and drug use. The government strictly probits most of them from operating. The only exception is the Native American Church, which is permitted to use peyote. Why are these things limited while other religions are permited to exercise the right to knock on my door at 7am and disturb my rest with a conversation about jesus?

Note on Polygamy: It is not officialy sanctioned by the Mormon church. The polygamists are actually fringe groups that were excommunicated from the Mormon Church proper decades ago. The only reason they continue on is because in the towns they live in, everyone (even the law) shares their views.

It probably has something to do with how tricky it is to legally define a "religion". Having started one myself once, I can tell you it's a great big can of worms. What if someone started a religion which espoused the belief that it was a sin to pay tax? Do you think they'd have any trouble making converts?
Right...

Hey Doom777--it's not hard to start your own religion. Hell, you can get registered as a minister online for a buck, and it'll be recognized in some--very few, but some--places. I had a friend who did it just to be able to get the clergy license plate--they get great parking spaces.

The only reason they continue on is because in the towns they live in, everyone (even the law) shares their views.
That explains the population explosion in Mesa.

first there is a prevailing idea found in government that the government owns most things such as land, water, air space, bandwith (television & radio freqencies), etc... you get the idea.

about the only thing the government doesn't claim to own is the people, it can claim the actions (work) they do but not them.

this ideology explains alot about why they feel they are right to outlaw things on their land even though you may own the land the government owns it more than you and can regulate what you do with it and charge you for your use of it.

first there is a prevailing idea found in government that the government owns most things such as land, water, air space, bandwith (television & radio freqencies), etc... you get the idea.

about the only thing the government doesn't claim to own is the people, it can claim the actions (work) they do but not them.

this ideology explains alot about why they feel they are right to outlaw things on their land even though you may own the land the government owns it more than you and can regulate what you do with it and charge you for your use of it.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion at hand. In general, the only points at which the government puts any restriction on religious practice is when said practice is harmful or dangerous. Any further restrictions should be done away with.

Of course, if something is against the law, religious "exemptions" should not be made, as this would be a violation of the 1st amendment (by favoring one religion above others).

Its all based on bias.
We are still working toward religious freedom.
Originally, in America, religious freedom meant you had the right to choose a mainstream christian protestant religion. Hence groups like the Mormons, Hindus, and muslims were often persecuted in 19th century america and in the early part of the 20th.
Polygamy will eventually be legalized by the courts cause they will rule the govt. is violating the seperation of church and state by banning it.
Peyote is another issue. The Native American churches can do it cause they've been able to prove it was for a religious reason.
The reason its banned for others, is that is very dangerous to one's health. And most people don't know how to use peyote.
And most non NA peyote churches would be mostly fronts for drug dealers anyway.

Polygamy will eventually be legalized by the courts cause they will rule the govt. is violating the seperation of church and state by banning it.

Church-recognized polygamy is not banned. Banning it in civil marriage has nothing to do with church and state, as the only reason the government has to recognize marriage in the first place is for its own convenience. The only way that recognition of polygamy would be convenient for the government is if the majority of people in this country did it, which is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Peyote is another issue. The Native American churches can do it cause they've been able to prove it was for a religious reason.

The courts have held that if it is illegal, it is illegal for everyone. This is not a violation of the 1st amendment. Some states do have laws with expemptions, which is fine as long as it is an exemption for any religion that can demonstrate true religious use for it, and not just Native American churches. Any state with a Native American-specific exemption can have that law challenged based on 1st amendment problems.

The reason its banned for others, is that is very dangerous to one's health. And most people don't know how to use peyote.
And most non NA peyote churches would be mostly fronts for drug dealers anyway.

Peyote is not a highly trafficked drug, so I doubt very seriously that this would be a problem.

Why was polygamy made illegal in teh first place? (fsorry I'm new to this thread)

It's seems pretty stupid to keep people from marrying several people at once. It doesnt seem to hurt anyone as far as I can tell. If they don't like it, it's not like divorce isn't an option.

Also why are things like drugs illegal? Shouldnt people have the right to ruin their lives if they want? It's just as stupid as making suicide illegal.

Why was polygamy made illegal in teh first place? (fsorry I'm new to this thread)

Originally, it was probably prejudice against Mormonism. At this point, the laws regulating marriage would have to be completely and totally rewritten to allow it (in a civil sense). These days, if your church wants to perform polygamous marriage ceremonies, no one will stop them. It's just that only one will be civilly recognized.

It's seems pretty stupid to keep people from marrying several people at once. It doesnt seem to hurt anyone as far as I can tell. If they don't like it, it's not like divorce isn't an option.

Again, all civil marriage laws would have to be completely rewritten. If everyone gets a divorce, how to we decide who gets what? What if only one person is divorcing the rest of the family? How is it decided who gets custody of children? Who is the actual next-of-kin that can make decisions? All of these things would have to be re-legislated before civil recognition of polygamy could occur.

Also why are things like drugs illegal? Shouldnt people have the right to ruin their lives if they want? It's just as stupid as making suicide illegal.

I think people should be able to ruin their own lives, sure - as long as they (a) don't leave the house while doing it, so that they don't endanger others (b) live in a house miles from any forest or any other houses, so that they don't end up burning down other people's property (c) forgo all rights whatsoever to public healthcare relating to their drug use (d) get sterilized, so they are not putting children in danger

Do you see the point? For truly harmful drugs, the government has a compelling interest in keeping them from people, as they are not just ruining their own lives, they are affecting others' as well. Now, as far as drugs that are fairly harmless (other than impairing driving, etc.), I think they should be regulated much like alcohol - in that you can't go to work/drive/operate heavy machinery, etc. while on them.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with peyote use in religious ceremonies, as long as the participants come down off of the drug before getting in a vehicle to leave, and no one is being forced to participate - but that's just my opinion.

Basically, if your religion begins to seriously piss off the establishment, then your religious freedoms will disappear so fast it'll make your head spin. Finding out just exactly what pisses off the establishment is the tricky part -- although usually anything that threatens to interfere with their cashflow is a good bet.

My religion believes it is a sin to pay tax, in fact. Some are in jail because of it. Some pay into an alternative fund in case they get arrested. Some just sin and pay it. (like me).

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion at hand. In general, the only points at which the government puts any restriction on religious practice is when said practice is harmful or dangerous. Any further restrictions should be done away with.

Of course, if something is against the law, religious "exemptions" should not be made, as this would be a violation of the 1st amendment (by favoring one religion above others).
Many banned religious practices are niether harmful nor dangerous.
example: polygamy.

Church-recognized polygamy is not banned. Banning it in civil marriage has nothing to do with church and state, as the only reason the government has to recognize marriage in the first place is for its own convenience. The only way that recognition of polygamy would be convenient for the government is if the majority of people in this country did it, which is unlikely to happen any time soon.



The courts have held that if it is illegal, it is illegal for everyone. This is not a violation of the 1st amendment. Some states do have laws with expemptions, which is fine as long as it is an exemption for any religion that can demonstrate true religious use for it, and not just Native American churches. Any state with a Native American-specific exemption can have that law challenged based on 1st amendment problems.



Peyote is not a highly trafficked drug, so I doubt very seriously that this would be a problem.

Actually the federal and state laws both say that NA churches are the only ones exempt from the ban on peyote.

Originally, it was probably prejudice against Mormonism. At this point, the laws regulating marriage would have to be completely and totally rewritten to allow it (in a civil sense). These days, if your church wants to perform polygamous marriage ceremonies, no one will stop them. It's just that only one will be civilly recognized.



Again, all civil marriage laws would have to be completely rewritten. If everyone gets a divorce, how to we decide who gets what? What if only one person is divorcing the rest of the family? How is it decided who gets custody of children? Who is the actual next-of-kin that can make decisions? All of these things would have to be re-legislated before civil recognition of polygamy could occur.

[QUOTE=Sumamba BuwhanAlso why are things like drugs illegal? Shouldnt people have the right to ruin their lives if they want? It's just as stupid as making suicide illegal.

I think people should be able to ruin their own lives, sure - as long as they (a) don't leave the house while doing it, so that they don't endanger others (b) live in a house miles from any forest or any other houses, so that they don't end up burning down other people's property (c) forgo all rights whatsoever to public healthcare relating to their drug use (d) get sterilized, so they are not putting children in danger

Do you see the point? For truly harmful drugs, the government has a compelling interest in keeping them from people, as they are not just ruining their own lives, they are affecting others' as well. Now, as far as drugs that are fairly harmless (other than impairing driving, etc.), I think they should be regulated much like alcohol - in that you can't go to work/drive/operate heavy machinery, etc. while on them.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with peyote use in religious ceremonies, as long as the participants come down off of the drug before getting in a vehicle to leave, and no one is being forced to participate - but that's just my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Actually if you try to do polygamy today, you will go to jail for it. They prosecute it fiercely cause its considered abnormal according to the archaic laws on the books. They prosecute it under the concept of bigamy even if all involved consented and were informed.

Many banned religious practices are niether harmful nor dangerous.
example: polygamy.

Polygamy in practice is not banned. However, the state has a compelling interest in not recognizing as civil marriage more than one of them, ie. no laws to regulate it, will lead to tieing up the court system, makes things more difficult to keep track of.

Actually the federal and state laws both say that NA churches are the only ones exempt from the ban on peyote.

The person who posted the various state laws showed that some of them exempt only NA churches and some exempt any religious practice. Only the latter is constitutional. As I have said, those that exempt only NA churches could be challenged on the basis of the 1st amendment if any other religious ceremony wanted to use it.

Actually if you try to do polygamy today, you will go to jail for it. They prosecute it fiercely cause its considered abnormal according to the archaic laws on the books. They prosecute it under the concept of bigamy even if all involved consented and were informed.

If you could bring up some cases on this?
If you try to get legal marriage licenses (ie civil, rather than just religious marriage) for it, you may be prosecuted, as marriage law applies only to two people. However, if you marry two people within your church (or just in your own mind) and live with them as if married, there is no law that you can be prosecuted under.

That's not true in the USA. The Native American Church is permitted to possess and use peyote. Peyote is a schedule 1 controlled substance. This puts it in the same category as heroine in the eyes of law enforcement. Other religions can't have peyote in their ceremonies.
You may want to note that it is used exclusively on reservations (witch is NOT part of the United States government’s jurisdiction)

I have a feeling if much were to be trafficked in there would be a bigger issue about it

How are the limits on religious freedom drawn?

As quietly and inconspicuously as possible, at which point it gets difficult to overturn.

Why are these things limited while other religions are permited to exercise the right to knock on my door at 7am and disturb my rest with a conversation about jesus?

There is no "right to knock on someone's door" -- get them for trespassing.

You may want to note that it is used exclusively on reservations (witch is NOT part of the United States government’s jurisdiction)

I have a feeling if much were to be trafficked in there would be a bigger issue about it

That's probably why the only case that I know of dealing with this is of two guys who were drug-tested at work and then fired. They tried to sue for unemployment benefits - because they said that having them denied was a 1st amendment issue. They were shot down.

There is no "right to knock on someone's door" -- get them for trespassing.Actually, there is a right of egress. I only know because I was one of those people for most of my life. You are allowed to approach the main entrance via the sidewalk or pathway, but if you stray from that area and refuse to leave when asked, then you can be charged with trespassing. Believe it or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Jehovah's Witnesses (and other religious groups) cannot be legally impeded from their proselytizing work.