Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."

by TerryWalstrom 24 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  _Morpheus

  Wow!  Its always enlightning to see the other side of things. As a born in dubbie you hear the stories about court victories and dont question the actual details. Very enlightning indeed.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Terry, I have read the article by Henderson and I think that your opening post misrepresents her paper and focus of research.

  It appears, both from your title and your selection of text to use for quotes, that she is in agreement with the statements that you selected. The statements you selected from her paper were presented as opposing views to her thesis.

  Henderson is not in agreement with the selected text - she is stating those things as pre-existing views in scholarly circles, and her paper is an attempt to correct those misconceptions.

  The thesis of her paper is that the First Amendment legal cases that were won by the WTS were carefully planned, and that the WTS had a legal strategy that was not at all "accidental".

  
  

  
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  The text that gives context to the selected quote (of quotes) in the OP:

  To these scholars and others, the Jehovah's Witness had no legal strategy.
  They simply fell headlong into Supreme Court litigation.
  These simple explanations for Witness legal activities disregard the complex plan devised by Watchtower executives and carried out by hundreds of men and women to combat local literature distribution and permit ordinances. In reality, the Witnesses' success in the Supreme Court was more organizational than accidental.
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  I have written the following letter and e-mailed it a minute ago.

  
  

  
  
  

  Professor Henderson,

  I had the pleasure of reading the above attested article on the legal stratagems of the Watchtower Society in the 30's and 40's under J.F. Rutherford, Olin Moyle, Hayden C. Covington, et al. I am moved to bring three things to your attention to fill in some gray areas which are not mentioned in your well-researched paper.

  Beginning in 1929, Watchtower President J.F.Rutherford unilaterally changed the historically accepted interpretation of Romans 13: 1,2.  This verse had, for over 2,000 years, been taken at face value; to wit: obedience to government was incumbent upon Christians because it was God who had appointed them in their authority. In the Watchtower magazine Judge Rutherford reversed the interpretation summarily! ("The Higher Powers", Watch Tower, June 1929, pages 163-169, 179-185) 

  The official history of Jehovah's Witnesses, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE DIVINE PURPOSE, says about this change,

   " There were many false doctrines and practices that had not yet been cleaned out

  of the organization . Not all of them were recognized at once, but gradually over the

  years that followed it became evident to what extent the brothers had been in Babylonish captivity at that time . With considerable misunderstanding they had

  accepted earthly political governments as the "superior authorities" that God had

  ordained according to Romans 13 :1 ; and as a result the Witnesses had been held in

  fear of man, particularly the civil rulers ."

  (Chapter 14, Par. 1) As you can see, even in 1959, Jehovah's Witnesses were still convinced the governmental and civil authorities were not to be submitted to, nor feared.

  Why am I calling this to your attention? Because this capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical corruption of interpretation (measured by the fact it was later revoked in 1962) was solely instrumental in bringing enormous catastrophe into the lives of very trusting adherents to this faith who felt themselves bounden by Rutherford as the 'anointed' of God standing IN PLACE OF secular government. 

  During the Nazi era, Rutherford instructed German Bible Students to ignore Hitler's curtailment of public distribution of printed materials. 

  From the year 1922, the German branch of the Bible Students (called Earnest Bible Students) had been banned for their door-to-door peddling and preaching in the streets. 5,000 arrests were made. By 1932, charges were still pending in 2,300 cases.

  Rutherford insisted German Witnesses hold a high profile and engage in banned public preaching campaigns leading to their arrest. Watchtower articles practically encouraged martyrdom. In the November 1, 1933 issue, printed a month later in German, Rutherford wrote:

  “Some will say: ‘If in the face of so much persecution and opposition we continue to go out amongst the people and publicly tell these truths, then I fear we may be killed.’

  That is true; and probably many of the faithful will be killed because they continue to faithfully proclaim the truth which they have learned in the secret place of the Most High.”(Watchtower, November 1, 1933. p. 328)

  Additionally, in his Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 73, by George D. Chryssides states: "Of the 25,000 Witnesses and Earnest Bible Students in Germany, 13,400 spent at least some time serving prison sentences.

  According to Gestapo files, more than half recanted."

  13,400 German Witnesses spent time in prisons, often for years. 2,000 died. 270 were executed. (History of the Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary, pp. 218, 239, 266, 448, by Abraham J. Edelheit and Hershel Edelheit (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994)

  Why did this happen? Because the President of the Watchtower had reversed the traditional Christian understanding of Romans 13: 1,2 and substituted his own authority in its place.

  In your paper, Professor Henderson, your conclusions were affirming by my reading of it. I've sent this e-mail in hopes you might reflect up this additional information in moderating this affirmation of Jehovah's Witness legal tactics. Why? It was predicated upon fraudulent premise of authority.

  I'll make one further point in support of this thesis, if you'll kindly indulge me. On November 23, 1954 in Scotland, Douglas Walsh was selected to be a test case regarding conscripted Jehovah's Witnesses. In the course of this trial, Vice-president Frederick Franz, and attorney Hayden C. Covington testified under oath. Within the questioning and testimony, a definitive statement was made, to wit: Jehovah's Witnesses are required, upon penalty of disfellowship (excommunication), to accept, believe, and carry out as though true, teachings which they personally do not conscientiously accept as legitimate, even if those teachings are later changed, nullifying the original 'truth'. (Transcript of trial: https://archive.org/details/WalshTrial)

  
  

  I would argue, and you are free to differ, the actions of Jehovah's Witnesses against their own interests, and the interests of their local community, as well as nationally, were coerced by fear of excommunication at one extreme, or at least insidiously coaxed into their beliefs through loyalty and disinformation.

  I served time in Federal prison from 1967-69 as a 'neutral' Jehovah's Witness as a result of conviction for violation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. I was privately counseled by my congregation leaders to not accept alternate civilian service. I was further counseled to not reveal I had been influenced in any way by other than my own conscience. This same influence was seen to be the case nationwide.

   During the Vietnam war 5,000 draft age men turned in their draft cards rather than be conscripted. These were protests. 200,000 men were accused by the Federal Government of being Draft Offenders. 25,000 were indicted. Out of the 25,000, only 8,750 were convicted. Out of the 8,750 who were convicted, only 4,000 were imprisoned. Most of these, with some exceptions, were young men--Jehovah's Witnesses, like myself.

  Five years before my appearance before a draft board, the Watchtower Society had quietly and unceremoniously changed Romans 13: 1,2 rather quietly, back to the traditional interpretation Christendom had held for two thousand years! Ironically, the JW texts I was operating from had not been updated to include this change. I found out the hard way. The Watchtower headquarters would not provide me with a membership card nor a letter attesting to my ministerial status. I later found out this was only provided in special cases where a "special Pioneer" was involved who spent 100 to 150 hours monthly knocking doors.

  While in prison, I was sexually attacked by a non-JW inmate. I should not have been there in the first place. I had the legal right to serve alternate service working in a hospital--had it not been for the private counsel of my JW elders in strict accord with their covert (by this time) policies on Christian neutrality.

  This policy too, like the previous Romans 13: 1, 2 policy, was later reversed many years later.

  I hope I haven't taken up too much of your time. Whatever personal bias my own treatment may impart to this e-mail, I hope you'll consider the facts and revise your views of the brilliance of Watchtower legal strategy.

  I appreciate your time and wish you well in all future endeavors.

  
  

  Sincerely,

  Terry Edwin Walstrom

  
  

  
  
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  OrphanCrow3 hours ago

  Terry, I have read the article by Henderson and I think that your opening post misrepresents her paper and focus of research.

  It appears, both from your title and your selection of text to use for quotes, that she is in agreement with the statements that you selected. The statements you selected from her paper were presented as opposing views to her thesis.

  Henderson is not in agreement with the selected text - she is stating those things as pre-existing views in scholarly circles, and her paper is an attempt to correct those misconceptions.

  ________________________

  Let's not get too excited!

  Ask yourself how you were able to determine the author was in agreement with the WT and you'll have to answer, "I read it for myself in the link provided by Terry."

  Unlike Watchtower selected quotes which ignore context, I provided the means by which you and all others can read the ENTIRE context and reasoning of the author.

  At the first of the above article, Henderson presents the view of legal scholars which is reflected in my Topic Subject Heading.

  If you can suggest a better subject heading, maybe we can get one of the moderators to change it to your preferred suggestion.

  
  

  Eh wot? 
• 

  truthseeker100

  Five years before my appearance before a draft board, the Watchtower Society had quietly and unceremoniously changed Romans 13: 1,2 rather quietly, back to the traditional interpretation Christendom had held for two thousand years! Ironically, the JW texts I was operating from had not been updated to include this change. I found out the hard way. The Watchtower headquarters would not provide me with a membership card nor a letter attesting to my ministerial status. I later found out this was only provided in special cases where a "special Pioneer" was involved who spent 100 to 150 hours monthly knocking doors.

  While in prison, I was sexually attacked by a non-JW inmate. I should not have been there in the first place. I had the legal right to serve alternate service working in a hospital--had it not been for the private counsel of my JW elders in strict accord with their covert (by this time) policies on Christian neutrality.

  Terry I feel sorry for you, you poor bastard!
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  Well, let's face it--I CHOSE that course after being counseled to do so.

  I trusted. I was loyal. I did not and could not understand the WTS' reasoning on neutrality in any meaningful way, although I could articulate specifically what I was given to say.

  There is an actual term which applies to people like me.

  "USEFUL IDIOT"

  A useful idiot is someone who supports one side of an ideological debate, but who is manipulated and held in contempt by the leaders of their faction or is unaware of the ultimate agenda driving the ideology to which they subscribe.

  
  

  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
  
  
• 

  sir82

  How many JW's today know, in the 30's, membership cards attesting to 'ordained' status as ministers were carried by Brothers and Sisters when they went out in field service?

  Those cards were still in use, at least in the USA, until the late 80's or early 90's.

  I never knew what they were for, though, as once they were issued, they were never referred to or used for anything (that I recall). They just stopped issuing them.
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Ask yourself how you were able to determine the author was in agreement with the WT and you'll have to answer, "I read it for myself in the link provided by Terry."

  Actually, Terry, I didn't read the paper in the link you provided. I read that paper some time ago and the author does take the position that the legal strategy dealing with First Amendment rights was a planned endeavor by the Watchtower Society's legal team. 

  I did not get the impression that the author was "in agreement with the WT." I got the impression that the paper was an attempt to re-contextualize pre-existing opinions within the legal community about these legal cases being purely 'accidental'.

  The quote that you presented was simply the author presenting differing/existing opinions to her thesis. It was a quote of quotes.

  I am sorry if I didn't 'get' the title of your thread - when I read the thread title, it appeared like the thread is about legal scholars who say that the WTS legal strategies were accidental. Henderson's paper you quote from does not support this position.

  
  
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  I am sorry if I didn't 'get' the title of your thread - when I read the thread title, it appeared like the thread is about legal scholars who say that the WTS legal strategies were accidental. Henderson's paper you quote from does not support this position.

  _______________

  I don't disagree you--all of us--need to speak up when we see misrepresentations by anybody at any time. Since you brought this to my intention, I can see how you would form the impression you formed. No fault, no harm, no foul.

  I could have given more prudent thought to my Subject title.

  Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll try to be more perspicacious in the future.