Category: Neutrality

  • Engardio, Gobitus, and the Flag Salute

    As a teenager, Joel Engardio broke his mother's heart. He declined to pursue the Witness faith in which he was raised, diving into journalism, which he imagined could change the world now, not later.

    As a young man, he broke it again. He declared he was gay. That’s a problem within JW congregations. Scriptures are scriptures and we're not authorized to change them. We don't go on anti-gay rants and witch hunts, like the fundamentalist groups, but to say we "discourage" homosexual practices would be an understatement.

    But as an adult, he's done his mama proud.

    Mr. Engardio has written, produced and narrated Knocking, probably the best documentary ever about Jehovah's Witnesses. Others think so, too, not just me.

    Best Documentary, Jury Award, 2006 USA Film Festival (Dallas)

    Best Documentary, Jury Award, 2006 Trenton Film Festival (New Jersey)

    Best Documentary, Audience Award, 2006 Indianapolis International Film Festival

    Its website, www.Knocking.org, lists 10 other film awards.

    Some aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mr. Engardio relates better than the Witnesses themselves do. For example, while it's well known that the U.S. leads the world in protecting basic freedoms from government abuse – freedom of speech, of press, of assembly, of expression, of worship – the reason is less well known. It is, in large measure, Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Towards the end of ensuring freedoms, Jehovah's Witnesses have tried 50 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Except for the government itself, no other group has done so more often. The victories they've wrestled trickle down to groups of all stripes, including some with principles quite opposed to those of Jehovah's Witnesses. Such groups owe a large debt to JWs, but instead they take pot shots at our beliefs! Freedoms defined in the U.S. set the standards for other nations as well, particularly emerging ones.

    An example of a basic freedom defined:

    We all know that there is true patriotism and there is phony patriotism. There is the flag salute that reflects true love of country and the flag salute that is just going through the motions. The symbol means nothing in itself; it’s what the symbol means to a person which is significant. We all know that terrorists, spies, scoundrels, and what-have-you feel no compunction about saluting someone's flag, if only so as to avoid drawing attention to themselves.

    All the same, politicians are sometimes satisfied, not with true patriotism, but with the appearance of true patriotism. In the late 1930's, shortly before America's entrance into WWII, "patriots" [real or phony?] thought it a good idea to make all schoolchildren salute the flag. Some communities wrote it into school bylaws. It was to be obeyed upon pain of expulsion. This created a problem for the children of Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not salute any country’s flag. Their reason is religious, not political. It’s based on the Ten Commandments. (1 and 2)

    You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them…       Ex 20:4,5  (NIV)  Saluting a flag, for them, violates this command.

    Granted, not everyone interprets those verses as we do, yet it is clear that JWs’ not saluting the flag has nothing to do with love of country. It’s a religious stand, based on avoiding "idolatry."

    Their motives made no difference to a certain Pennsylvania school board. With World War II threatening to draw in the United States, they wanted patriotism, or at least the appearance thereof. Further, they imagined that forcing students to salute the flag would instill the real variety. Religious conscience was of no concern to them. There was the flag – salute it! Two Witness children, William and Lillian Gobitus, would not. They were 12 and 10 years old, respectively. They stood their ground, and were expelled from public school. Through their father, they took the matter to court.

    Early court decisions went in favor of the Gobitus children. Two lower courts ruled in their favor. The second wrote into its decision the words of a certain Colonel Moss, who had authored several WWI training manuals:

    "Another form that false patriotism frequently takes is so-called Flag-worship – blind and excessive adulation of the Flag as an emblem or image – super-punctiliousness and meticulosity in displaying and saluting the Flag – without intelligent and sincere understanding and appreciation of the ideals and institutions it symbolizes. This of course is but a form of idolatry – a sort of "glorified idolatry," so to speak. When patriotism assumes this form it is nonsensical and makes the "patriot" ridiculous."

    "The court also noted that "there are schools all over the United States in which the pupils have to go through  the ceremony of pledging allegiance to the flag every school day. It would be hard to devise a means more effective for dulling patriotic sentiment than that. This routine repetition makes the flag-saluting ceremony perfunctory and so devoid of feeling; and once this feeling has been lost it is hard to recapture it for the "high moments" of life."

    Nonetheless, those who wanted the appearance of patriotism appealed each victory. The case reached the United States Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court decisions by an 8:1 vote.  [!]  "…We live by symbols," the Supreme Court declared. "The flag is the symbol of our national unity…" The school board could indeed compel students to salute the flag. Get over it, they seemed to say to minorities. Religious (or any other) conscience, though it harmed nobody, was stomped upon so as to please the majority.  Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, the only one who voted against the decision, wrote the dissenting opinion. Three years later that dissent would become the majority opinion. 

    The year was 1940, and war fever ran high, a mood hard to imagine today. Any action thought to be snubbing the flag brought public vengeance,  and everyone knew by then that Jehovah's Witnesses would not salute it. The Court decision lit a fire of intolerance. Mobs formed, waving the flag and demanding Witnesses salute it. When they would not, they were attacked and beaten, even into unconsciousness. Their homes, automobiles and meeting places were torched or wrecked. In small towns run by the “good ‘ol boys,” some were rounded up and jailed without charge. In four years over 2500 mob-related incidents occurred.

    The Solicitor General of the United States took to the NBC airwaves:

    “Jehovah's Witnesses have repeatedly been set upon and beaten. They have committed no crime; but the mob adjudged that they had, and meted out punishment The Attorney General has ordered an immediate investigation of these outrages.

    “The people must be alert and watchful, and above all, cool and sane. Since mob violence will make the government's task infinitely more difficult, it will not be tolerated. We shall not defeat the Nazi evil by emulating its methods.”

    First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt echoed the plea of the Attorney General. The ACLU also spoke out:

    “It is high time we came to our senses regarding this matter of flag-saluting. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not disloyal Americans….They are not given to law-breaking in general, but lead decent, orderly lives, contributing their share to the common good.”

    Was it this vigilante atmosphere that led three of the justices to declare, in another case, that they believed Gobitus had been wrongly decided? Yet another two justices retired, and they were replaced by ones thought to be more on the side of individual liberty. If compulsory flag salute was presented anew to the Supreme Court, would the decision be the same?

    The children of Walter Barnette, Paul Stull and Lucy McLure, in West Virginia were expelled from school for non-salute, and their parents were threatened with prosecution for raising delinquents. In response, they filed suit, just as the Gobitus children had done three years prior. The first court to hear the case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia – has this ever happened before? – refused to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court decision and ruled in favor of the Witness children!

    Ordinarily we would feel constrained to follow an unreversed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether we agreed with it or not…. the developments with respect to the Gobitus case, however, are such that we do not feel it is incumbent upon us to accept is as binding authority….The tyranny of majorities over the rights of individuals or helpless minorities , has always been recognized as one of the great dangers of popular government. The fathers sought to guard against this danger by  writing into the Constitution a bill of rights guaranteeing to every individual certain fundamental liberties….We are clearly of opinion that the regulation of the Board requiring that school children salute the flag is void insofar as it applies to children having conscientious scruples against giving such salute…

    The issue was again appealed up to the Supreme Court, and this time that body reversed itself! By at 6:3 majority, the Court ruled that compulsory flag salute was unconstitutional. Their verdict was announced on June 14, 1943 – flag day!

    In writing the dissenting opinion, Justice Frankfurter grumbled: “As has been true in the past, the Court will from time to time reverse its position. But I believe that never before these Jehovah’s Witnesses cases [there were several more besides those concerning flag salute] …..has this Court overruled decisions so as to restrict the powers of democratic government.”

    Yes, that’s how it is with these governments, democratic or not. They want more power. They don’t want to give it up. A certain amount is necessary, of course, so as to maintain public order and safety. We cede it to them willingly and render obedience. But when they grab for yet more – the consciences and souls of their citizens, someone has to call them on it. And that someone has often been Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    …………………………………………

    Knocking concludes with the observation that Jehovah's Witnesses are, at present, litigating 400 human rights cases worldwide.

     

    ………………..

     

    More on Knocking here

    ***************************************

    Tom Irregardless and Me     No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash

  • Ambassadors, Abraham, and Christian Nuetrality

    They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.  John 17:16

    Jesus spoke these words with regard to his followers. What does that mean, to be “no part of the world?”

    To Jehovah’s Witnesses, it means strict political neutrality, among other things.

    Some look askance at that. Is that not hiding one’s head in the sand? Is it not irresponsible? We must change the world for the better: that message comes through loud and clear from most of the world‘s decent people. And how can we do that if we’re apolitical?

    But here is an analogy that will perhaps help one to see the JW point of view.

    You must pretend that you are an ambassador from a foreign country…..say Krukordistan. As such, you live in Washington DC or London, or Ottawa, or Paris. You learn to adapt to all laws and customs locally. You come to love the land in which you live, and its people. But…when it comes to the politics of your host country, you don't really take a position…nor does anyone expect you to. It is not your business…your business is to represent Krukordistan. Even if heavy issues develop and positions evolve for which, since you live here, you may have some feelings, still, it is not your job to take sides. Your lack of involvement is not because of callousness, or apathy, or lack of interest in fellowman…but it is simply not your place, representing Krukordistan, to take sides in the disputes of your host country.

    The Bible uses that exact analogy with respect to Christians representing God’s Kingdom.

    We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: “Become reconciled to God.  2 Cor 5:20

    In fact, it is not unlike a verse describing Abraham:

    By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed in going out into a place he was destined to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, although not knowing where he was going. By faith he resided as an alien in the land of the promise as in a foreign land, and dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the very same promise. For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, the builder and maker of which [city] is God.   Heb 11:8-10

    Now, God’s Kingdom is something very real to Jehovah‘s Witnesses. It is the government with which God will bring an end to human rule, unite all peoples, restore earth to it’s original paradise state, and extend everlasting life to all those under it’s rule. We view it as the only hope for mankind. No amount of tweaking of human governments will ever approach what God brings through his own rule.

    We believe that it rules from heaven now, and will shortly extend its rule earth wide. Those who believe in it are charged to represent it, to announce it….in effect, to act as ambassadors of that government.

    And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite…   Dan 2:44

    It’s not that Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t care about current events. That’s not what makes them apolitical. Instead, we are convinced that we can best serve humanity by announcing this incoming government. We don’t bring about this government. God does. We only try to represent it. As you might imagine, this stance keeps us united. You might consider our faith to be of a more fundamental variety. (Not to be confused with fundamentalists. We disagree with them in almost every respect, other than the existence of God, and they with us.) Our faith is not a tool for reforming the hopelessly corrupt and selfish ruling systems of today. It is a tool for announcing a superior arrangement of God. We do not think that Adam and Eve were repentant. (the Muslim viewpoint) Rather, their rebellious spirit continues to this day, and is manifested in today’s governments.

    There is something in the air today….a belligerence, an unreasonableness, a spirit of vengeance. All are in it’s grip. Do you sense it?

    But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be ….blasphemers…. unthankful, disloyal….not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness….betrayers, headstrong….having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power….     2 Tim 3:1-5

    Will nations, peoples, tongues ever come together of their own accord? Is there the slightest evidence of that happening now or any reasonable expectation that it will?

    Or will peace come only when God extends his Kingdom rule earth wide?

    Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done
    On earth, as it is in heaven.
         Matt 6: 10

    *************************

    Tom Irregardless and Me            No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash

  • Neutral People and Pacifists

    When nations start pounding the war drums, you’d better snap to. Even when they’re not pounding, but merely tuning them up, they don’t put up with much dissent. Thus there are peaceful countries (as countries go) such as South Korea in which young people are drafted into the military. Our people don’t go. So they routinely do jail time instead, since no exemption for conscience is granted.

    From the preceding, a person might conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses are pacifists. But we’re not. We are neutral.

    If you were merely a pacifist, you might just do food service. Or Hummer repair. Or patch up wounded troops. Or mend uniforms. But if you’re neutral, you don’t do any of those things.

    Neutral is a tougher sell to governments. Many can deal with pacifists. But not neutrality.

    For too long a time my soul has tabernacled with the haters of peace. I stand for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.    Ps 120:6,7   

    The neutrality stems from our view of God’s Kingdom. We take it seriously. We take it literally. It is the government that will, at long last, bring peace and restore earth to God’s original purpose. We endeavor to represent that kingdom.

    We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us….2 Cor 5:20

    If you were an ambassador from, say…. Krukordistan, you would live in Washington, or Ottawa, or London, or Paris. You would adapt to all laws and customs of your host country. You’d come to love the land in which you live, and its people. But…when it comes to the host’s politics, you wouldn’t really take a position…nor would anyone expect you to. It is not your business…your business is to represent Krukordistan . Even if heavy issues develop and positions evolve for which, living in the host country, you may have some sympathy, still, it is not your job to take sides. Your lack of involvement is not because of callousness, or apathy, or lack of interest in fellowman…but it is simply not your place, representing Krukordistan, to take sides in the disputes of your host country.

    That is our position regarding God’s Kingdom. It’s not entirely dissimilar to Abraham’s position:

    By faith Abraham, when he was called….resided as an alien in the land of the promise as in a foreign land, and dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the very same promise. For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, the builder and maker of which [city] is God.   Heb 11:8-10

  • The Flag: Salute/Respect

    Driving home one night, I saw a flag flying upside down. I did a double-take. Maybe the wind had caught it some odd way and wrapped it around the pole. But no, here was another one! And I’ve seen a few since. Turns out it represents some protest, if not about Iraq, then about Patriot Act restrictions of rights we’ve grown accustomed to.

    Still, it’s jolting to see, even when we’ve grown used to flags serving as jackets, bandanas, patches, underwear, and even fuel at the occasional flag-burning.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses would never do any of the above to the flag. At all times, we treat it with respect. And yet we do something which, to many people, is worse. We decline to salute it.

    This is a hot button issue for many. If, in your mind’s eye, you can see troops hoisting the flag at Iwo Jima, then you may not take kindly to people who won’t salute. Maybe they should find another country in which to live, you might fume.

    It might help to realize that JWs refrain from saluting any flag in any land, not just that of a particular country. Thus, whatever their reasoning may be, it is obviously not one of disrespect, much less subversion, toward any nation. The obedience of Jehovah’s Witnesses to civil authorities is well known.

    Their stand can best be summarized by reading the ten commandments. Found in Exodus chapter 20, here is the second commandment: 

    Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I, the LORD thy God, am a jealous God…  (Exodus 20:4,5 bold type mine, 21st Century King James Version

    Thus the flag salute is seen as an act of worship, an act of idolatry, and if there’s one thing that God makes clear he doesn’t like, it’s idolatry.

    One might suppose that flag salutes go back to antiquity. In fact, it’s a relatively modern trend. The present hand-on-heart salute dates back only to 1942. It replaced what was known as the Bellamy salute (named for Francis Bellamy, who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance) instituted in 1892. The Hitler salute of the 1930’s so closely resembled the Bellamy salute that the latter was modified to its present form. Thus, while flags are old, flag saluting is not.

    The 1990 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses tells of a Canadian Witness child who they tested with regard to flag decorum. She and another child were summoned separately to the principal’s office, where they found a Canadian flag draped across his desk.  The non-Witness child was told to spit on the flag, and she did so, notwithstanding that she saluted it every day. Spitting must be okay….her teacher had told her to do it.  The Witness child was brought in and told to do the same. She would not do it. They tried to coax her. Since she didn’t salute, there’s no reason not to spit, they suggested. She held her ground. No, spitting would be desecrating the national symbol, she explained. Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the flag, though they do not worship it. Results were announced in class, hopefully not with the other child’s name. Apparently, it was part of some civics lesson.

    So what is in a gesture, anyway? If a child who salutes the flag can just as readily spit on it, how meaningful is the salute?

    The well known

    English historian Arnold Toynbee warned of the development in our time of the “grim shape of a pagan worship of sovereign national states,” describing this also as “a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism.” Those who claim that their own nation is superior to all others, even to the point of worshiping the State, have been manipulated by rulers and regimented in order to carry out their policies, whether good or bad…..[This results in occasional trials for Jehovah’s Witnesses]….who love the land of their birth but decline to worship the State and its symbols.
    Watchtower  1989 1/1 p 22, par 17, brackets mine