Yuyutsu

So, we have established the correctness of the act from a legal perspective and could conclude from the novice level of law, that leaving a Bible at a front door crosses no line of illegally under most circumstances.

I agree with your list of objections to the act of charity ( let’s call it) which has obvious good intentions attached to it. There is no malice or I’ll intent in the act.that’s a positive.

But… there may be harm done with the good intention.

Under those circumstances I’ve outlined, I believe the donators of the bibles are justified in their actions, and thus are morally correct.

But as you and I are reflecting on the possible harm of the act of charity, those who donate bibles in this way are (we suppose) are oblivious to any harm to others in their act of generosity., ( assuming that the act of giving is treated as an act of generosity.

Until those who may object to the act of generosity on their doorstep , erect signs prohibiting entry to their premises, for such purposes, then whatever the personal circumstances of the receiver, be they Orthodox Jews or anybody else that would be insulted by the free gift of a Bible, then I would consider them in breach of an act of civility, to abuse the giver of the Bible.

Surely it’s a responsibility of self protection for the offended to fortify themselves against intrusion, rather than the reverse.

Excuse minimal editing).

Thanks Issy,

Its a community effort, "shock horror", The hamper bags 200 of them, didn't arrive as scheduled Friday, I though they had, then no show yesterday from Australia Post Ah! panic stations, enquires with AP from Coordinator; "They went on the truck Friday, the up shot, if they're not delivered by Jan 3rd get back to us." Ahhhhhh! panic! Well remember, The manager of the local Woolies (just across the road) called in, and asked is there's anything we need, she'll see what she can do!"

Thank you, 200 green Woolworths bags, not the cheapy 15c plastic jobs, but the good strong ones! For those who may not believe me you can ring Wynnum Central Woolworths store here in Brisbane, and ask for the store manager yourself, a lovely young lady. Can I say a miracle happened. 163 hampers packed this morning, singles and doubles, toys wrapped, 60 brand new loaded backpacks arrived. The business owner brought them to us personally, they came in a Red "Ford Raptor' (brand new), fair dinkum it looked like Santa's slay on big wheels. I said; "Look Santa has gone all modern". The donor brought along his wife, his two little girls and his PA, and another guy who drove the Raptor, beautiful folks. Photos all round, Fantastic!

p/s I though he owned some kind of "bag" business. Not so he owns one of the largest logistic businesses in Brisbane, just a donation got to be $10 grans worth. Anyway if those bags do arrive from AP, we'll keep them for next year.

Dear Dan,

«leaving a Bible at a front door crosses no line of illegally under most circumstances.»

In Australia.

«There is no malice or I’ll intent in the act.»

One can also steal without malice - they just need the money.
Or drive 100k/h above the limit and kill without ill-intent - they just need to arrive on time.

«I believe the donators of the bibles are justified in their actions, and thus are morally correct.»

Being justified falls short of being morally correct.

It's like the banks and insurance companies that give you 40 pages of small print: nobody is really expected to read them, but if circumstances allow them to take advantage, they will wave that document in your face and tell you, "you should have known, we are justified".

Are you telling the home-owners: "look, you cannot say that you did not receive the Bible - I placed it right there at your door: do you claim that have not read it? well that's your problem, no heaven for you, go to hell!". Is this your act of goodwill and charity? Do you think God will tick off your name saying "You have completed your good deed for the day, welcome to heaven"?

«assuming that the act of giving is treated as an act of generosity.»

Indeed, is it true generosity or a selfish desire to please God and go to heaven?

«I would consider them in breach of an act of civility, to abuse the giver of the Bible.»

Nobody here suggested to abuse the giver - that's rare, the common scenario is for the house-owner to sulk and suffer quietly (or possibly beat their wife/children/dog in their anger), then come to hate anything to do with Christianity, maybe even religion in general.

«Surely it’s a responsibility of self protection for the offended to fortify themselves against intrusion, rather than the reverse.»

Do we want to erect and live with high walls just because our neighbours are insensitive? Is this the Christian way?
How high should their wall be for them to be considered responsible?

Yuyutsu

You would need to prove to me that the moral imperative lives outside the judicial imperative, in this instance.

Because the moral imperative is really it’s own universe, with its own moral codes of law , entirely based on an individuals view of his own moral code, and in many instances is divorced from human rights and societies judicial judgements.

Using your example of the offended Orthodox Jew and his abhorrence of the gift of a Bible, wasn’t it a historical fact that the orthodox Pharisees were responsible for the execution of Christ on the cross?

Does this war continue?

My argument for civil rights aligned to morality in this instance, is based on the rights of an individual to legally transgress a threshold of a property to peruse his lawful business, in this instance, distributing bibles.

I support my argument further by forgiving any transgression of the charity over the personal foibles of the property owner and his objection to the act of charity.

(Again, minimal editing).

Dear Dan,

You assert that distributing Bibles is necessarily a charitable action solely on the grounds that the object given (the Bible) is good. The Bhagavad Gita speaks of three kinds of givers: the Highest (in the mode of goodness), the Middling (in the mode of passion) and the Lowest (in the mode of nescience):

"Charity given to a worthy person simply because it is right to give, without consideration of anything in return, at the proper time and in the proper place, is stated to be in the mode of goodness.
But charity given with reluctance, with the hope of a return or in expectation of a reward, is said to be in the mode of passion.
And that charity, which is given at the wrong place and wrong time to unworthy persons, without showing respect, or with contempt, is held to be of the nature of nescience."
[BG 17:20-22]

Your givings may be legal, your givings may be socially acceptable, your givings may comply with some people's personal moral codes, your givings may not be in conflict with human rights even - but do judge them yourself and decide under which of the above three categories they fall, because even if nobody else is able to judge your givings, God sees to the heart unfailingly!

«Using your example of the offended Orthodox Jew and his abhorrence of the gift of a Bible»

I didn't claim that the Orthodox Jew necessarily abhors that gift, only that they would find themselves in trouble because of it.

Why? Because they follow Jewish Law (Halakhah), which they believe was commanded by God through Moses, according to which a Jew must stay away from and destroy all articles of idolatry. According to Judaism, Jesus is treated [by Christians] as an idol, thus books containing his name are articles of idolatry and must be dealt with accordingly.
That's their Law, whether they like it or not, regardless whether they like the book or abhor it.

P.S. Nothing justifies the despicable act of the orthodox Pharisees causing the execution of their political opponent, Jesus Christ.

Were I asked what I thought people were most frightened of these days, I would say Christianity and Donald Trump. The American Democrats are more frightened of Trump because they are going to bring criminal charges against him (concerning other people's behaviour) in another desperate attempt to keep him out of politics.