It is hypocritical, just as expecting freedom of religion but claiming neutrality.
What if, for instance, everyone in America took a neutral stance during World War II? What if the rest of the world except Germany and their allies did as well? Nazis under Hitler would have ruled the world. The majority of religions, including Jehovah's Witnesses would have been wiped out. The publishing company would have been broke and destroyed. If not for soldiers who fought for freedom, Jehovah's Witnesses would not have the liberties they enjoy today. They'll wear their neutrality stance as a badge of pride while crying to the hilltops about their religious rights and freedom to exist, all while dismissing the obvious and simple conclusions and reasoning.
The irony is they are able to claim neutrality and not be killed or imprisoned because of the people who actually fought in wars for such a freedom.
A very similar scenario with Police Officers and the fact that you cannot make progress in the organization while carrying a gun contains a parallel irony. They discourage such a profession, believing it is not proper for Christians, yet expect the full protection of the law.
So does “Jehovah” then see all Police Officers and military service people with disapproval? If yes, how do you justify or explain it especially in view of reality of both today’s world and historically? If no, what is the deciding factor?
Sorry, didn’t mean to derail or go off on a tangent, but your post triggered this response. And the questions certainly are not directed to you Theocratic Sedition – It is to any would be defenders of their stance on the matters.