I owe you one, Kent. This gem is all about the next JW Frontier, Asia.
The legal brief cited almost seems like a cut and paste job that appeals to Confucianism in connection with an attempt to change legislation to accommodate JW needs in Korea and Asia, to provide for some form of alternative service, in lieu of military service, which the Watchtower now says is perfectly acceptable.
The appeal is to Caesar relies on an appeal to consider Confucius! Here's the beef, in a huge sandwich of Asian history and thought:
In Taiwan "1,307 Jehovah's Witnesses have been sentenced to imprisonment, and nine of them are still not qualified for prohibition from military service under the [new] amendment. As the SIAS is applicable only to those who have never been conscripted, the MND is studying how to accommodate the new legislation to these nine Jehovah's Witnesses."
"There is also a need for similar legislative action in Korea. Korea’s Christian population is estimated to be 30% of the general population. Among them are over 87,000 who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are known worldwide for their refusal to participate in any military service based on their understanding of the Bible. Among these 87,000 Witnesses, some 1,400 young Christian men now serve in Korean prisons for following their conscience and religious beliefs.
Articles 19 and 20 of the Korean constitution protect the right of all citizens to “enjoy freedom of conscience” and “freedom of religion.” On December 21, 1965, the South Korea Supreme Court has ruled that military service is mandatory for every citizen as stipulated in the Military Service Law, and every citizen is constitutionally liable for national defense as stipulated by law. Although freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to reject the liability for military service is not included in this guarantee. Therefore, it appears that the constitutional duty to perform military service implies that every citizen has the absolute duty to complete military training using rifles, and has no right to refuse to carry out the military commander’s orders. This moral dilemma so quickly resolved in 1965 under very different political and economic climate must be reexamined. If the Korean constitution is to be read in light of Confucian principles, then both the legislature and the courts must reconsider how to make this reconciliation for the sake of the consciences of its citizens and the protection of its rich Confucian heritage."
Here's part of Wah's conclusion:
"Of course, no fair minded reader can honestly claim that the rights of the individual, as are defined in the Western political and legal structure, are a dominant theme in Confucius thought or in the political and social traditions of China. Confucius wrote of social relationships and man as a social creature in relationship with his community, primarily his family. Nevertheless, a careful consideration of Confucius teachings and Chinese history does reveal that his teachings do support the thesis relevant to today’s discussion; namely, that Confucius’s teachings support the individual’s natural and inherent right to oppose legitimate governmental authority when the governmental authority is not in harmony with the moral sense of the individual."
Boggles the brain, doesn't it?
Maximus
