Jehovah's Witnesses and governments

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Part of a series on
Jehovah's Witnesses
Overview
Organizational structure
History
Demographics
Literature
Places
People
Watch Tower presidents
Formative influences
Notable former members
Notable scholars
Criticism
Opposition
See also: Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's kingdom is a literal government in heaven, ruled by Jesus Christ and 144,000 "spirit-anointed" Christians drawn from the earth, which they associate with Jesus' reference to a "new covenant".[1] The kingdom is viewed as the means by which God will accomplish his original purpose for the earth, transforming it into a paradise without sickness or death.[2] It is said to have been the focal point of Jesus' ministry on earth.[3] They believe the kingdom was established in heaven in 1914,[4] and that Jehovah's Witnesses serve as the kingdom's representatives on earth.[5]

Due to their belief in God's kingdom as the only legitimate form of governance, Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in political activities, such as voting in elections.[6] They refrain from saluting the flag of any country or singing nationalistic songs,[7] which they believe are forms of worship. They refuse to participate in military service—even when it is compulsory.[8] Witnesses are taught that they should obey the laws of the governments where they live unless such laws conflict with their beliefs, such as operating covertly in countries where their activities are banned.[9][10] Their policies for handling cases of child sexual abuse have been the subject of various formal inquiries.

Asia

[edit]

Philippines

[edit]

In 1990, 68 Jehovah’s Witness elementary students were expelled for refusing to participate in daily flag-raising ceremonies. In Ebralinag, et al. vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, the court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses are permitted to refrain from saluting the Philippine flag and singing the national anthem. In 1993, the Supreme Court upheld the decision in favor of the denomination.[11]

Australia

[edit]

In 2015, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse examined the handling of child sexual abuse cases by Jehovah's Witnesses and other organizations in Australia. Their "case studies showed that it was a common practice of religious institutions to adopt 'in-house' responses when dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse."[12] During the hearing, the Watch Tower Society had produced 5,000 documents relating to 1,006 case files of allegations of child sexual abuse reported to Jehovah's Witness elders in Australia since 1950—each file for a different alleged perpetrator of child sexual abuse, including 579 cases in which the perpetrator confessed. None of these allegations were reported to the secular authorities.[13][14] Officers of the royal commission "referred information in relation to 514 alleged perpetrators to police", adding that "of the remaining 492 alleged perpetrators identified in the case files, officers at the Royal Commission determined that there was either insufficient evidence in the case files to warrant referring matters to police or that the matters had already come to the attention of police".[15] The royal commission found that it "[did] not consider the Jehovah's Witness organisation to be an organisation which responds adequately to child sexual abuse. ... The organisation's retention and continued application of policies such as the two-witness rule in cases of child sexual abuse shows a serious lack of understanding of the nature of child sexual abuse."[16] In its final report, the royal commission added, "As long as the Jehovah's Witness organisation continues to ... [rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible and 1st century principles to set practice, policy and procedure] ... in its response to allegations of child sexual abuse, it will remain an organisation that does not respond adequately to child sexual abuse and that fails to protect children."[17]

Europe

[edit]

France

[edit]

In 1995, French law designated Jehovah's Witnesses to be a "dangerous sect". In 1999, the country demanded back taxes on donations to the religious group's organization from 1993 and 1996, which would have been €57.5 million.[18]

In Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah v. Direction des Services Fiscaux challenged the denial of tax-exempt status for Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah, the not-for-profit corporation used by Jehovah's Witnesses in France. Religious associations (“associations cultuelles”, the legal status defined by the 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and the State) in France can request exemption from certain taxes, including taxes on donations, if their purpose is solely to organize religious worship and they do not infringe on public order. According to the French tax administration, tax-exempt status was denied because:

The association of Jehovah's Witnesses forbids its members to defend the nation, to take part in public life, to give blood transfusions to their minor children and that the parliamentary commission on cults has listed them as a cult which can disturb public order.[19]

On October 5, 2004, the Court of Cassation—the highest court in France for cases outside of administrative law—rejected the Witnesses' recourse against taxation at 60% of the value of some of their contributions, which the fiscal services assimilated to a legal category of donations close to that of inheritance and subject to the same taxes between non-parents.[20] In the case of two local associations of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Council of State, the supreme court for administrative matters, ruled that denying the legal status of associations cultuelles on grounds of accusations of infringement of public order was illegal unless substantiated by actual proofs of that infringement.[21]

On June 30, 2011, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unanimously ruled that France's imposing a retroactive tax for the years 1993 and 1996 had violated Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freedom of religion[22] under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[23] On July 5, 2012, the ECHR ordered the government of France to repay €4,590,295 in taxes, plus interest, and to reimburse legal costs of €55,000. On December 11, 2012, the government of France repaid €6,373,987.31 ($8,294,320).[24][25]

Other court cases have concerned the rights for patients, or of minor patients' legal guardians, to refuse medical treatment even if there is a risk of death. For example, in a 2001 case, doctors at a French public hospital who gave blood products to a patient with an acute kidney injury were found not to have committed a mistake of a nature to involve the responsibility of the State.[26] The Council stated that "there does not exist, for the doctor, an abstract and unalterable hierarchy between the obligation to treat the patient, and that to respect the will of the patient," concluding that faced with a decision to treat patients against their will, doctors do not have a legally predefined obligation to treat the patient, nor do they have a legally predefined obligation to abide by their wishes. One year later, after the adoption of the Kouchner Law on patients' rights and quality of the health system,[27] the Council of State recalled that not respecting the patient's wishes violates his individual freedom, but the doctor did not commit a fault if under extreme conditions he performs an intervention "necessary and proportionate to its state" in order to try to save the patient's life.[28]

In a child custody case following a divorce, a woman was denied custody of her children outside of holidays for various reasons, including her membership of Jehovah's Witnesses; the court of appeals of Nîmes considered that the educational rules applied by the Witnesses to their children were essentially inappropriate because of their hardness, their intolerance, and the obligation for children to practice proselytism. The case went before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which ruled that the court should have based its decision on the mother's actual handling of her children and not on abstract, general notions pertaining to the mother's religious affiliation.[29] Following a lengthy administrative procedure initiated by Jehovah's Witnesses, on October 16, 2013, the Council of State condemned the refusals of the French administration to accept their religious ministers as prison chaplains, explaining that the detainees "may exercise the religion of their choice, in accordance with the suitable conditions for organising the premises, within solely the limits imposed by security and good order in the institution".[30] According to the French Ministry of Justice, Jehovah's Witnesses currently have 111 chaplains for their own service in prison.[31]

Spain

[edit]

In December 2023, a lawsuit filed by the Jehovah's Witnesses against the Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses was dismissed.[32] This lawsuit was filed because the religion considered that the association of victims included in its statutes "a series of offensive statements against the honor of Jehovah's Christian Witnesses and all its members".[33] It also requested the elimination of the victims' association from the National Registry of Associations.[34]

North America

[edit]

Canada

[edit]
Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada

In the early 1900s, radio stations were operated by congregations in Saskatoon, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Toronto. In 1927, the federal government minister responsible for radio licensing, Arthur Cardin, revoked the licenses for these radio stations because they shared airspace with the Ku Klux Klan in Canada. According to Gary Botting, this "strange alliance" was formed due to a mutual opposition against the Roman Catholic church.[35] In response, Rutherford bought airtime from other radio stations. When Hector Charlesworth banned this activity as well, he was "indirectly attacked" in an issue of the Golden Age and Jehovah's Witnesses launched a petition to regain their licenses that resulted in 406,270 signatures. Charlesworth's actions were debated by the House of Commons in 1933. While multiple members expressed concern that this prohibition was censorship of free speech, the ban was not lifted.[36]

In 1940, a year after Canada entered World War II, the denomination itself was banned under the War Measures Act as a subversive organization.[37] This ban continued until 1943.[38][39] A separate ban on the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was not lifted until 1945.[37] More than 100,000 dollars in assets were seized by the Canadian government and tonnes of literature produced by the group were confiscated.[40] Hundreds of adherents were prosecuted as members of an illegal organization.[41] Jehovah's Witnesses were interned in camps along with political dissidents and people of Chinese and Japanese descent.[42] During this period, many Jehovah's Witness children were expelled from school, while others were placed in foster homes or juvenile detention.[43] After the ban was lifted, men who had been jailed tried to apply for the ordained minister exemption of the National Selective Service Mobilization Regulations without success.[44] This led to a legal case being filed, R. v. Stewart, which ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses were participants in a "commercial undertaking" and did not qualify as ministers.[45] A similar outcome was reached in Greenlees v. A.G. Canada, where the judge decided that Jehovah's Witnesses could not be ministers because they considered every member to be one and that they did not have an organizational structure independent of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.[46]

Jehovah's Witnesses faced discrimination in Quebec until the Quiet Revolution, including bans on distributing literature or holding meetings.[47][48] Roncarelli v Duplessis was a 1959 legal case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. The court held that in 1946 Maurice Duplessis, Premier and Attorney General of Quebec, had overstepped his authority by ordering the manager of the Liquor Commission to revoke the liquor licence of Frank Roncarelli, a Montreal restaurant owner and Jehovah's Witness who was an outspoken critic of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec. Roncarelli provided bail for Jehovah's Witnesses arrested for distributing pamphlets attacking the Roman Catholic Church. The Supreme Court found Duplessis liable for $33,000 in damages plus Roncarelli's court costs.[49] Another legal case heard that year was Lamb v Benoit, where a Jehovah's Witness woman was arrested for distributing religious pamphlets.[50]

United States

[edit]
Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States

Many United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses have shaped First Amendment law. Significant cases affirmed rights such as these:

By 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court had reviewed 71 cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization, two-thirds of which were decided in their favor. In 2002, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society disputed an ordinance in Stratton, Ohio that required a permit in order to preach from door to door. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the Witnesses.[51]

Other cases

[edit]

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in favour of the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses in many cases. For example:

In 2005 the Presiding Judge of the Provincial Court in Ruhengeri, Rwanda ruled that Witnesses should not be imprisoned for refusing to bear arms in civil defense 'night patrols' since they were willing to participate and had participated in other forms of community service. 297 Witnesses had been imprisoned on such charges in an 8-month period in 2004. 143 of those imprisoned had been severely beaten.[52]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Hoekema 1963, pp. 295–296.
  2. ^ Rogerson 1969, p. 106.
  3. ^ "God's Kingdom—Earth's New Rulership". The Watchtower. October 15, 2000. p. 10.
  4. ^ Hoekema 1963, p. 298
  5. ^ Rogerson 1969, p. 105.
  6. ^ Chryssides 2022, p. 89.
  7. ^ "Salvation Belongs to Jehovah". Watchtower. 104: 21. September 15, 2002.
  8. ^ God's Kingdom Rules!. Watch Tower Society. p. 153. Jehovah's people remain loyal to the Messianic Kingdom not only by refusing military service but also by respectfully declining to join in nationalistic ceremonies.
  9. ^ "Watchtower" 11/15/00 p. 15 par. 18 Christians Find Happiness in Serving "There are many people who claim to worship God, but their worship is really directed to the gods of nationalism, tribalism, wealth, self, or some other deity"
  10. ^ "Watchtower" 2/15/67 p. 115 par. 15 "(Dan. 2:44) "Thus the nationalistic governments on which the various religious systems depend so heavily for support are destined to be crushed by God's heavenly kingdom."
  11. ^ "Right Not To Salute Flag For Religious Reasons Upheld". UCA News. 15 March 1993. Retrieved 28 January 2023.
  12. ^ "Common institutional responses to child sexual abuse across religious institutions". 15 August 2017. Archived from the original on 26 February 2021. Retrieved 17 February 2021.
  13. ^ "Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, summary of Case Study 29 into Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd". 27 July 2015. Archived from the original on 20 November 2017. Retrieved 17 February 2021.
  14. ^ "Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, opening submissions, Case 29". Archived from the original on 18 June 2017. Retrieved 17 February 2021.
  15. ^ "Australia Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse – Submissions of Senior Counsel". Child Abuse Royal Commission. March 2017. p. 12. Archived from the original on September 22, 2017. Retrieved 5 October 2017.
  16. ^ Report of Case Study No. 29: The response of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to allegations of child sexual abuse (PDF) (Report). Commonwealth of Australia. 2016. p. 77. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 December 2020. Retrieved 17 February 2021.
  17. ^ "Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse – Religious institutions – Final Report". Commonwealth of Australia. 15 August 2017. Archived from the original on 26 February 2021. Retrieved 17 February 2021.
  18. ^ "Court backs Jehovah's Witnesses against France". RNZ. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
  19. ^ Religious Intolerance In France[usurped]
  20. ^ Court of Cassation, October 5, 2004, 03-15.709 (French).
  21. ^ Council of State, June 23, 2000 (French).
  22. ^ "French Tax of Jehovah’s Witnesses hinders rights: Court" (Canada.com, June 30, 2011)
  23. ^ Chamber judgment Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah v. France 30.06.11 HUDOK
  24. ^ "France Returns Funds Collected Illegally From Jehovah's Witnesses". Archived from the original on 2012-12-14.
  25. ^ Judges order €4 million Jehovah’s Witnesses award Human Rights Europe
  26. ^ Council of State, Press release, October 26, 2001.
  27. ^ Loi no 2002-303 du 4 mars 2002 relative aux droits des malades et à la qualité du système de santé.
  28. ^ Rougé-Maillart, C; Jousset, J; Gaches, T; Gaudin, A; Penneau, M (2004). "Patients refusing medical attention: the case of Jehovah's Witnesses in France". Med Law. 23 (4): 715–723. PMID 15685910.
  29. ^ European Court of Human Rights, 16 December 2003, application no. 64927/01.
  30. ^ Jehovah's Witnesses chaplains must be approved for prisons, EUREL.
  31. ^ Prison Administration in Figures as at 1 January 2015, Directorate of Prison Administration, p. 12.
  32. ^ Molinero, F. (December 14, 2023). "Jehovah's Witnesses are a "destructive cult" and the former members are "victims," according to a ruling". La Razón. Archived from the original on December 14, 2023.
  33. ^ Alcantud, Luis. "Jehovah's Witnesses are a "destructive sect", according to a court ruling". Antena 3.
  34. ^ Fàbregas, Laura (June 18, 2021). "Los Testigos de Jehová denuncian a sus 'disidentes' tras crear la Asociación de Víctimas". vozpopuli.
  35. ^ Botting 1993, pp. 21–23.
  36. ^ Botting 1993, pp. 23–25.
  37. ^ a b Botting 1993, p. 29.
  38. ^ Richardson, James T. (2015). "In Defense of Religious Rights: Jehovah's Witness Legal Cases around the World". In Hunt, Stephen J. (ed.). Handbook of Global Contemporary Christianity. Brill. p. 290. ISBN 978-90-04-29102-7.
  39. ^ "Canadian Wrongs: Quebec's Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses". University of Toronto Libraries. University of Toronto. Retrieved 16 July 2022.
  40. ^ Botting 1993, p. 26.
  41. ^ Kaplan, William (1989). State and Salvation—The Jehovah's Witnesses and Their Fight for Civil Rights. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-5842-6.
  42. ^ Yaffee, Barbara (September 9, 1984). "Witnesses Seek Apology for Wartime Persecution". The Globe and Mail. p. 4.
  43. ^ Kaplan, William (1989). State and Salvation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  44. ^ Botting 1993, pp. 29–30.
  45. ^ Botting 1993, p. 30.
  46. ^ Botting 1993, pp. 31–33.
  47. ^ Supreme Court of Canada. "Saumur v Quebec (City of)". [1953] 2 SCR 299. Archived from the original on July 6, 2011.
  48. ^ Supreme Court of Canada. "Roncarelli v Duplessis". [1959] SCR 121. Archived from the original on January 12, 2013.
  49. ^ Scott, Stephen A. (2006-02-07). "Roncarelli v Duplessis". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
  50. ^ Lamb v. Benoit et al.; [1959] S.C.R. 321 (January 27, 1959) (Report). Canadian Government News.
  51. ^ Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton. See Supreme Court Website
  52. ^ "Jehovah's Witnesses Official Media Web Site: August 11, 2005". Archived from the original on 2012-02-06. Retrieved 2012-02-09.

Sources

[edit]
[edit]