If hating someone is a sign of being a violent person then yes, Jesus would be classified as violent too, because he openly rebuked and cursed the Pharisees.
I have heard at least one professed Christian use this and similar statements of Jesus to justify Christian participation in bloodshed. (To be precise, that person was Catholic by religion, and of Croation descent. The conversation came up back in 1990, just as things were hotting up in the Balkans, and he was alluding to the so-called "Ethnic Cleansing" that was just beginning in the old Yugoslavia).
Other than that, JW non involvement in the world's national armed conflicts has much more to do with their ideas about "Christian Neutrality" than with the principle of non-violence. They do subscribe to the concept that there can be such a thing as an "Authorised War", such as the Israelites were instructed to fight. I well remember this being used against the LDS ("Mormons") when they referred to certain more blood thirsty passages from the Old Testament. The typical JW response was along the lines of "you show me where the Bible authorised WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam?"
When I was "coming into the truth", I was told in so many words that JWS were "Not Pacifists". The old trick question of the Conscientious Objectors Board was also explained to me in detail:
- i.e. "What would you do if somebody attacked your wife?" The correct JW response, I was told, was that you would indeed hand the offender the proverbial bunch-of-five - but that you would not " fight in a war started by politicians."
As for the JW's ideas about child discipline, I now cringe when I recall the frequent scenes of child abuse I observed at meetings, assemblies and the like.
So yes, I very much agree with the OP on this one - the JWs cannot exactly claim to be a non-violent people.
