Revision as of 08:39, 11 May 2015 editJeffro77 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,570 edits →Government interactions: moved from main article← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:03, 23 November 2024 edit undoPanamitsu (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users53,520 editsm →France: add link(s)Tag: AWB | ||
(115 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|Jehovah's Witnesses view on governments}} | |||
{{Jehovah's Witnesses}} | {{Jehovah's Witnesses}} | ||
⚫ | {{See also|Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses}} | ||
⚫ | |||
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that ] 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".{{sfn|Hoekema|1963|pages=295–296}} 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.{{sfn|Rogerson|1969|page=106}} It is said to have been the focal point of Jesus' ministry on earth.<ref>{{cite magazine|date=October 15, 2000|magazine=The Watchtower|page=10 |title=God's Kingdom—Earth's New Rulership|url=https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2000763}}</ref> They believe the kingdom was established in heaven in 1914,<ref>{{harvnb|Hoekema|1963|page=298}}</ref> and that Jehovah's Witnesses serve as the kingdom's representatives on earth.{{sfn|Rogerson|1969|page=105}} | |||
⚫ | 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.{{sfn|Chryssides|2022|page=89}} They refrain from saluting the flag of any country or singing ] songs,<ref>{{cite journal|title=Salvation Belongs to Jehovah|journal=Watchtower|date=September 15, 2002|pages=21|volume=104}}</ref> which they believe are forms of worship. They refuse to participate in military service—even when it is compulsory.<ref>{{cite book|title=God's Kingdom Rules!|publisher=Watch Tower Society|page=153|quote=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.}}</ref> 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.<ref>"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"</ref><ref>"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."</ref> Their policies for ] have been the subject of various formal inquiries. | ||
==Civil liberties== | |||
== Asia == | |||
⚫ | According to the book ''Judging Jehovah's Witnesses'',<ref>''Judging Jehovah's Witnesses'', Shawn Francis Peters, University Press of Kansas: 2000</ref> the Witnesses have helped to widen the definition of civil liberties in most western societies, hence broadening the rights of millions of people, due to their firm stand and determination. According to the preface to the book ''State and Salvation'': |
||
===Philippines=== | |||
In 1990, 68 Jehovah’s Witness elementary students were expelled for refusing to participate in daily flag-raising ceremonies. In '']'', the court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses are permitted to refrain from saluting the Philippine flag and singing the national anthem. In 1993, the ] upheld the decision in favor of the denomination.<ref>{{cite news |title=Right Not To Salute Flag For Religious Reasons Upheld |url=https://www.ucanews.com/story-archive/?post_name=/1993/03/16/right-not-to-salute-flag-for-religious-reasons-upheld&post_id=42974 |access-date=28 January 2023 |work=UCA News |date=15 March 1993 |language=en}}</ref> | |||
⚫ | == Australia == | ||
==Government interactions== | |||
In 2015, the ] examined the handling of child sexual abuse cases by ] 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."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/religious-institutions |title=Common institutional responses to child sexual abuse across religious institutions |date=15 August 2017 |access-date=17 February 2021 |archive-date=26 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210226151327/https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/religious-institutions |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney |title=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. |date=27 July 2015 |access-date=17 February 2021 |archive-date=20 November 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171120163938/http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad&type=openingaddresspdf&filename=case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney-opening-address&fileextension=pdf |title=Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, opening submissions, Case 29 |access-date=17 February 2021 |archive-date=18 June 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170618004435/http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad&type=openingaddresspdf&filename=case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney-opening-address&fileextension=pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> 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".<ref name="rcsub">{{Cite web|url=https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585&type=openingaddresspdf&filename=case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney-opening-address&fileextension=pdf|title=Australia Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse – Submissions of Senior Counsel|date=March 2017|page=12|website=Child Abuse Royal Commission|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170922002645/https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585&type=openingaddresspdf&filename=case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney-opening-address&fileextension=pdf|archive-date=September 22, 2017|url-status=live|access-date=5 October 2017}}</ref> The royal commission found that it " 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."<ref>{{cite report|url=https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case%20Study%2029%20-%20Findings%20Report%20-%20Jehovahs%20Witnesses.pdf|title=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|publisher=Commonwealth of Australia|year=2016|page=77|access-date=17 February 2021|archive-date=12 December 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201212030351/https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case%20Study%2029%20-%20Findings%20Report%20-%20Jehovahs%20Witnesses.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> In its final report, the royal commission added, "As long as the Jehovah's Witness organisation continues to ... ... 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."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/religious-institutions|title=Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse – Religious institutions – Final Report|date=15 August 2017|publisher=Commonwealth of Australia|access-date=17 February 2021|archive-date=26 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210226151327/https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/religious-institutions|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
⚫ | == |
||
In Australia in 1930, the Watch Tower Society had controlling interests in several radio stations, including ], where employees were instructed "to proclaim through radio 'the message of the Kingdom of Christ'", and in 1931 began playing the sermons of ]. In 1933, the Australian government banned Rutherford's sermons, which included diatribes against the Catholic Church, the British Empire, and the United States. On 8 January, 1941, its stations were closed down as dangerous to national security. The Witnesses were declared an illegal organization on 17 January, with World War II described as "an ideal opportunity to get rid of licensees long regarded as deviant".<ref>Bridget Griffen-Foley, "Radio Ministries: Religion on Australian Commercial Radio from the 1920s to the 1960s," ''Journal of Religious History'' (2008) 32#1 pp: 31-54. </ref> | |||
⚫ | ===United States=== | ||
⚫ | Many ] have shaped ] law. Significant cases affirmed ] such as these: | ||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | * Right to Refrain from Compulsory Flag Salute |
||
⚫ | * ] to ] service | ||
⚫ | * ] | ||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | By 1988, the ] 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 ] in ] that required a permit in order to preach from door to door. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the Witnesses.<ref>Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton. See </ref> | ||
⚫ | === |
||
In 2004, the Moscow City Court banned the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses in ], their legal entity was liquidated.<ref></ref><ref></ref> | |||
On August 7, 2013, the Tsentralniy District Court of the city of Tver, located 100 mi (approx. 160 km) north of Moscow, ruled that the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses should be banned throughout the Russian Federation. Jehovah's Witnesses appealed the decision to the Tver Regional Court, which on January 22, 2014, concluded that the decision of the Tsentralniy District Court was unjustified.<ref name=Jehovah's Witnesses Official Website | Latest News></ref> | |||
===Singapore=== | |||
:''See ]'' | |||
In 1972 the ] government de-registered and banned the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses on the grounds that its members refuse to perform military service (which is obligatory for all male citizens), salute the flag, or swear oaths of allegiance to the state.<ref name="state.gov">http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5732.htm</ref><ref>"Singapore", ''International Religious Freedom Report 2004'', U. S. Department of State, </ref> Singapore has banned all written materials (including Bibles) published by the ] and the ], both publishing arms of the Jehovah's Witnesses. A person in possession of banned literature can be fined up to S$2,000 (US$1,460) and jailed up to 12 months for a first conviction.{{Citation needed|date=April 2010}} | |||
== Europe == | |||
===France=== | ===France=== | ||
In 1995, French law designated Jehovah's Witnesses to be a "dangerous sect". In 1999, the country demanded ] on donations to the religious group's organization from 1993 and 1996, which would have been €57.5 million.<ref>{{cite web |title=Court backs Jehovah's Witnesses against France |url=https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/78933/court-backs-jehovah's-witnesses-against-france |website=] |access-date=6 August 2024}}</ref> | |||
In ], a number of court cases have involved Jehovah Witnesses and their organizations, especially on the question of their refusing blood transfusions to minor patients. These questions had far-reaching legal implications regarding the tax status of their organizations. | |||
⚫ | 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. ]s (“{{lang|fr|associations cultuelles}}”, the legal status defined by the ]) 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: | ||
==== ''Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah'' ==== | |||
⚫ | {{blockquote|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.<ref></ref>}} | ||
⚫ | {{ |
||
⚫ | ''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. ]s ( |
||
⚫ | {{ |
||
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 ] and subject to the same taxes between non-parents.<ref> (French)</ref> |
On October 5, 2004, the ]—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 ] and subject to the same taxes between non-parents.<ref> (French).</ref> In the case of two local associations of Jehovah's Witnesses, the ], the supreme court for administrative matters, ruled that denying the legal status of {{lang|fr|associations cultuelles}} on grounds of accusations of infringement of public order was illegal unless substantiated by actual proofs of that infringement.<ref> (French).</ref> | ||
⚫ | On June 30, 2011, the ] (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<ref></ref> under Article 9 of the ].<ref> HUDOK</ref> 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).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.jw.org/en/news/by-region/europe/france/france-returns-funds-collected-illegally/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121214201845/http://www.jw.org/en/news/by-region/europe/france/france-returns-funds-collected-illegally |archive-date=2012-12-14 |title=France Returns Funds Collected Illegally From Jehovah's Witnesses}}</ref><ref> Human Rights Europe</ref> | ||
According to the Watch Tower Society, the taxed contributions include donations for the support of humanitarian relief efforts in ] in 1994. French law makes a distinction between normal non-profit associations (whose donations for humanitarian aid are not tax-exempt), non-profit associations of public usefulness (whose donations for humanitarian aid are tax exempt), and associations supporting religious activities (whose donations are tax exempt). Humanitarian aid is not considered to support religious activities and thus, accordingly, is not considered to be tax-exempt under the rules governing associations supporting religious activities. Typically, religious organizations in France providing humanitarian aid found a separate association devoted to that purpose; it may then be declared of public usefulness. | |||
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 ] were found not to have committed a mistake of a nature to involve the responsibility of the State.<ref>.</ref> 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 ] Law on patients' rights and quality of the health system,<ref>.</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal | pmid = 15685910 | volume=23 | title=Patients refusing medical attention: the case of Jehovah's Witnesses in France | journal=Med Law | pages=715–723 | last1 = Rougé-Maillart | first1 = C | last2 = Jousset | first2 = J | last3 = Gaches | first3 = T | last4 = Gaudin | first4 = A | last5 = Penneau | first5 = M| year=2004 | issue=4 }}</ref> | |||
The ], the supreme court for administrative matters, ruled that denying the statute of ''association cultuelle'' on grounds of accusations of infringement of public order was illegal unless substantiated by actual proofs of that infringement.<ref>; )</ref> | |||
⚫ | 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 ] 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 ]. The case went before the ] (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.<ref>.</ref> 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 ]s, 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".<ref>.</ref> According to the French Ministry of Justice, Jehovah's Witnesses currently have 111 chaplains for their own service in prison.<ref>, Directorate of Prison Administration, p. 12.</ref> | ||
⚫ | On June 30, 2011, the ] (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<ref> |
||
=== |
===Spain=== | ||
In December 2023, a lawsuit filed by the Jehovah's Witnesses against the Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses was dismissed.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Molinero |first=F. |date=December 14, 2023 |title=Jehovah's Witnesses are a "destructive cult" and the former members are "victims," according to a ruling |work=] |url=https://www.larazon.es/sociedad/testigos-jehova-son-secta-destructiva-exintegrantes-victimas-segun-sentencia_20231214657b002bf03b8e0001ec1399.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231214145717/https://www.larazon.es/sociedad/testigos-jehova-son-secta-destructiva-exintegrantes-victimas-segun-sentencia_20231214657b002bf03b8e0001ec1399.html |archive-date=December 14, 2023}}</ref> 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".<ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Alcantud |first=Luis |title=Jehovah's Witnesses are a "destructive sect", according to a court ruling |work=] |url=https://www.antena3.com/noticias/sociedad/testigos-jehova-son-secta-destructiva-segun-sentencia-tribunal_20231214657ae12829f3180001769e7d.html |access-date=}}</ref> It also requested the elimination of the victims' association from the National Registry of Associations.<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |last=Fàbregas |first=Laura |date=June 18, 2021 |title=Los Testigos de Jehová denuncian a sus ‘disidentes’ tras crear la Asociación de Víctimas |work=vozpopuli |url=https://www.vozpopuli.com/espana/testigos-jehova-denuncian-disidentes.html}}</ref> | |||
{{Unreferenced section|date=July 2010}} | |||
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 ] insufficiency were found not to have committed a mistake of a nature to involve the responsibility of the State (, ). 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. | |||
== North America == | |||
⚫ | 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 ] 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 ]. The case went before the ] (ECHR |
||
⚫ | === Canada === | ||
⚫ | According to the book ''Judging Jehovah's Witnesses'',<ref>''Judging Jehovah's Witnesses'', Shawn Francis Peters, University Press of Kansas: 2000</ref> the Witnesses have helped to widen the definition of civil liberties in most western societies, hence broadening the rights of millions of people, due to their firm stand and determination. According to the preface to the book ''State and Salvation'': "One of the results of the Witnesses' legal battles was the long process of discussion and debate that led to the ], which is now part of the fundamental law of Canada. Other battles in countries around the world have involved the rights to decline military service or martial arts training, to decline to participate in political parties or governmental elections, to exercise free and anonymous speech, to exercise freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, medical ], etc. Witnesses continue to, in their words, 'defend and legally establish the Good News' around the world."<ref>''State and Salvation'', William Kaplan, University of Toronto Press: 1989</ref> | ||
⚫ | ===United States=== | ||
Some Witnesses requested that the ''National Union of the Associations for the Defense of Families and Individuals'' not be officially recognized as useful to the public because of its opposition to sectarian excesses which, the plaintiffs alleged persecuted Jehovah's Witnesses. Both the '']'' and the ECHR rejected their claim. | |||
⚫ | Many ] have shaped ] law. Significant cases affirmed ] such as these: | ||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | * Right to Refrain from Compulsory Flag Salute – '']'' | ||
⚫ | * ] to ] service | ||
⚫ | * ] | ||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | By 1988, the ] 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 ] in ] that required a permit in order to preach from door to door. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the Witnesses.<ref>Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton. See </ref> | ||
== |
== Other cases == | ||
⚫ | {{Primary sources section|date=July 2019}} | ||
⚫ | {{ |
||
] sent German and Austrian Jehovah's Witnesses who refused allegiance to the Nazi state and military service to ]s. | |||
===Other=== | |||
The ] has ruled in favour of the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses in many cases. For example: | The ] has ruled in favour of the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses in many cases. For example: | ||
* . Grand Chamber of ECHR affirms right to conscientious objection to military service.(Amnesty International. 7 July 2011) See | * . Grand Chamber of ECHR affirms the right to conscientious objection to military service. (Amnesty International. 7 July 2011) See | ||
* (18 December 1996), Strasbourg 77/1996/696/888 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) | * (18 December 1996), Strasbourg 77/1996/696/888 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) | ||
* (26 September 1996), Strasbourg 59/1995/565/651 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) | * (26 September 1996), Strasbourg 59/1995/565/651 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) | ||
Line 65: | Line 53: | ||
* (25 May 1993), Strasbourg 3/1992/348/421 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) | * (25 May 1993), Strasbourg 3/1992/348/421 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) | ||
In 2005 the Presiding Judge of the Provincial Court in ], 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 2005 the Presiding Judge of the Provincial Court in ], 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.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.jw-media.org/rwa/20050811.htm |title=Jehovah's Witnesses Official Media Web Site: August 11, 2005 |access-date=2012-02-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206082318/http://www.jw-media.org/rwa/20050811.htm |archive-date=2012-02-06 |url-status=dead }}</ref> | ||
Government officials in various countries, including ],<ref>"Brazil", ''1997 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses'', page 183</ref> ],{{citation needed|date=April 2011}} ],<ref>"Educational Programs", ''Jehovah’s Witnesses and Education'', ©2002 Watch Tower, page 11</ref><ref>"Mexico", ''1995 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses'', page 213</ref><ref>"Witnesses to the Most Distant Part of the Earth", ''Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom'', pages 466-467</ref> ],<ref>"Efforts That Promote Good Moral Standards", ''The Watchtower'', November 15, 2002, page 32</ref> and ]<ref>"A Far-Reaching Educational Program", ''Awake!'', December 22, 2000, page 9</ref> have commended Jehovah's Witnesses for conducting literacy classes and for providing religious educational materials. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{ |
{{reflist}} | ||
=== Sources === | |||
* {{cite book |last=Chryssides |first=George |author-link=George Chryssides |title=Jehovah's Witnesses: A New Introduction |year=2022 |place= |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |isbn=978-1-3501-9089-4}} | |||
* {{cite book|first=Anthony A.|last=Hoekema|author-link=Anthony A. Hoekema|isbn=978-0-8028-3117-0|location=Grand Rapids, Michigan|publisher=William B. Eerdmans|title=The Four Major Cults|year=1963}} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Rogerson|first=Alan|title=Millions Now Living Will Never Die |place=London |publisher=Constable & Co |year=1969 |isbn=978-0094559400}} | |||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Line 78: | Line 69: | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] |
Latest revision as of 03:03, 23 November 2024
Jehovah's Witnesses view on governmentsPart of a series on | ||||||||
Jehovah's Witnesses | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overview
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
People
|
||||||||
Criticism |
||||||||
Opposition |
||||||||
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". 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. It is said to have been the focal point of Jesus' ministry on earth. They believe the kingdom was established in heaven in 1914, and that Jehovah's Witnesses serve as the kingdom's representatives on earth.
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. They refrain from saluting the flag of any country or singing nationalistic songs, which they believe are forms of worship. They refuse to participate in military service—even when it is compulsory. 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. Their policies for handling cases of child sexual abuse have been the subject of various formal inquiries.
Asia
Philippines
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.
Australia
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." 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. 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". The royal commission found that it " 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." In its final report, the royal commission added, "As long as the Jehovah's Witness organisation continues to ... ... 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."
Europe
France
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.
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.
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. 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.
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 under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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).
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. 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, 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.
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. 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". According to the French Ministry of Justice, Jehovah's Witnesses currently have 111 chaplains for their own service in prison.
Spain
In December 2023, a lawsuit filed by the Jehovah's Witnesses against the Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses was dismissed. 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". It also requested the elimination of the victims' association from the National Registry of Associations.
North America
Canada
According to the book Judging Jehovah's Witnesses, the Witnesses have helped to widen the definition of civil liberties in most western societies, hence broadening the rights of millions of people, due to their firm stand and determination. According to the preface to the book State and Salvation: "One of the results of the Witnesses' legal battles was the long process of discussion and debate that led to the Charter of Rights, which is now part of the fundamental law of Canada. Other battles in countries around the world have involved the rights to decline military service or martial arts training, to decline to participate in political parties or governmental elections, to exercise free and anonymous speech, to exercise freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, medical self-determination, etc. Witnesses continue to, in their words, 'defend and legally establish the Good News' around the world."
United States
Many United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses have shaped First Amendment law. Significant cases affirmed rights such as these:
- Right to Refrain from Compulsory Flag Salute – West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette
- Conscientious objection to military service
- Preaching in public
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.
Other cases
This section relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (July 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in favour of the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses in many cases. For example:
- Bayatyan v. Armenia. Grand Chamber of ECHR affirms the right to conscientious objection to military service. (Amnesty International. 7 July 2011) See Amnesty International Statement
- Efstratiou v. Greece (18 December 1996), Strasbourg 77/1996/696/888 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)
- Manoussakis and Others v. Greece (26 September 1996), Strasbourg 59/1995/565/651 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)
- Hoffmann v. Austria (23 June 1993), Strasbourg 15/1992/360/434 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)
- Kokkinakis v. Greece (25 May 1993), Strasbourg 3/1992/348/421 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)
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.
References
- Hoekema 1963, pp. 295–296.
- Rogerson 1969, p. 106.
- "God's Kingdom—Earth's New Rulership". The Watchtower. October 15, 2000. p. 10.
- Hoekema 1963, p. 298
- Rogerson 1969, p. 105.
- Chryssides 2022, p. 89.
- "Salvation Belongs to Jehovah". Watchtower. 104: 21. September 15, 2002.
- 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.
- "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"
- "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."
- "Right Not To Salute Flag For Religious Reasons Upheld". UCA News. 15 March 1993. Retrieved 28 January 2023.
- "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.
- "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.
- "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.
- "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.
- 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.
- "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.
- "Court backs Jehovah's Witnesses against France". RNZ. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
- Religious Intolerance In France
- Court of Cassation, October 5, 2004, 03-15.709 (French).
- Council of State, June 23, 2000 (French).
- "French Tax of Jehovah’s Witnesses hinders rights: Court" (Canada.com, June 30, 2011)
- Chamber judgment Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah v. France 30.06.11 HUDOK
- "France Returns Funds Collected Illegally From Jehovah's Witnesses". Archived from the original on 2012-12-14.
- Judges order €4 million Jehovah’s Witnesses award Human Rights Europe
- Council of State, Press release, October 26, 2001.
- Loi no 2002-303 du 4 mars 2002 relative aux droits des malades et à la qualité du système de santé.
- 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.
- European Court of Human Rights, 16 December 2003, application no. 64927/01.
- Jehovah's Witnesses chaplains must be approved for prisons, EUREL.
- Prison Administration in Figures as at 1 January 2015, Directorate of Prison Administration, p. 12.
- 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.
- Alcantud, Luis. "Jehovah's Witnesses are a "destructive sect", according to a court ruling". Antena 3.
- Fàbregas, Laura (June 18, 2021). "Los Testigos de Jehová denuncian a sus 'disidentes' tras crear la Asociación de Víctimas". vozpopuli.
- Judging Jehovah's Witnesses, Shawn Francis Peters, University Press of Kansas: 2000
- State and Salvation, William Kaplan, University of Toronto Press: 1989
- Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton. See Supreme Court Website
- "Jehovah's Witnesses Official Media Web Site: August 11, 2005". Archived from the original on 2012-02-06. Retrieved 2012-02-09.
Sources
- Chryssides, George (2022). Jehovah's Witnesses: A New Introduction. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-3501-9089-4.
- Hoekema, Anthony A. (1963). The Four Major Cults. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-3117-0.
- Rogerson, Alan (1969). Millions Now Living Will Never Die. London: Constable & Co. ISBN 978-0094559400.