From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:14:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.075302.12599@inmos.co.uk> jww@inmos.co.uk (John Wadsworth) writes:
>As for this case being a "good example" of having "2 faces" I disagree
>entirely. 

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I wouldn't expect you to agree,
since you are a Jehovah's Witness; any more than I, as a Catholic,
would agree with the JWs when they say WWII was the Pope's fault.
Unsubstantiated claims (like Andreas' claims about the reliability
of the JWs who write their anti-blood transfusion pamphlets) are,
and should be, dismissed.   All people can do is hear the substantiations,
and decide for themselves.

>From the point of view of someone who is trying to paint
>Witnesses in general as liars 
 
Not "in general".  Only when it comes to either defending their own
religion (and its leaders), or attacking other's religions. (Or their
leaders)  In other areas, I'd say JWs are as honest as anyone else.

>it is a very poor example since none
>of the Witnesses who have commented so far have actually seen the booklet,
>and therefore could hardly be influenced by it,

Who said they were influenced by it?  The articles related specifically
to JWs involved in custody cases.  The JWs here are not (that I know
of), but they do appear to have been influenced in the same manner,
from the same source.  The pattern of saying whatever, to make the
group look less fanatic, does seem to hold in this group as well.

>particularly to the extent that
>they would feel "lying to God's enemies is not really lying but `War Strategy'".
>That last statement was alleged a few weeks back to have come from a WT and 
>might have been argued to be a "good example" of having "2 faces". Only it 
>wasn't true. It was a lie. 

Was a lie?  It did come from a Watchtower, correct?  Your complaint was
with the way it was used, correct?  

>As to whether the booklet promotes "untrue" testimony, the argument
>offerred is that in court, Witness children used should not all say they are
>going to pioneer,

John, as I've re-iterated several times, the "pioneer" testimony is only
one of the areas they suggest "untrue" testimony for, and it is one
of the weaker ones.  I can't help but wonder why the JWs who respond
continue to harp on the weaker case, and avoid the stronger...

>In fact the June 1st 1960 WT which was alleged to have
>advocated "lying to God's enemies" actually said regarding court testimony:
>   " ... Should circumstances require a Christian to take
>   the witness stand and swear to tell the truth, then, if he speaks
>   at all, he must utter the truth. ..."

Yes, I've read that.  Too bad in practice "truth" gets pushed aside.

>One could go on "ad nauseam" trying to counter the various slurs that have 
>been made under this subject heading against Witnesses 

But I might get "nauseous" reading about how Witnesses are so "slurred" against,
after reading them attack every other group in the book...bought any
Lutheran-controlled milk lately?   Had to deal with any members of the
other "filthy" religions, who breathe that "satanic air" which causes
the "satanic thinking that permeates every aspect of life outside
Jehovah's organization"?  Are the "slurs" against you part of the
"spiritual harlotry" the JW's Revelation book talks about?  How
"shocking and disgusting" are the things all us non-JWs do!!  One
could go on "ad nauseam" about the JWs constant tirades against other
religions, but it would take a few meg of disk space to do the
subject justice.   So let's not get haughty about 'slurs', m' fruit...

>
>What have the courts said regarding Jehovah's Witnesses?
>Are their beliefs harmful?

[excerpts from several cases deleted for space]

Harmful to society as a whole, no; which was the point of one
of the cases.  (JWs had actually been [erroneously] accused
of being such)  As a blanket statement, unfit parents?  No.
Each case must be looked at individually.  But if the non-JW parent
actively practices another religion, there is a very real danger
that the JWs will influence the child in such a way as to be
harmful to the relationship between the child and the non-JW
parent.  That is something the court has to look at.

>It seems that decision hasn't reached Kansas yet ...

Actually, it would seem that the court in Kansas had more information
about the beliefs and practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses than some
of the earlier cases.  Indeed, the Kansas court has now tread on
sticky grounds, and I'd expect an appeal based on the sort of things
you've brought up here.  It will be interesting to watch.

The question is, how does the court not make religion an issue,
when the religion in question could have such an impact on the
parent-child relationship, and hence on the child's well-being?
That's the sort of question that the courts haven't dealt with
well till now; hopefully this Kansas case is a step in the
right direction.  Not "showing a preference" for one parent's
religion over the other (which is the "better/proper" one)
does NOT have to mean ignoring the mental effects they could
have on the child, and weighing them.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com