From: jww@circe.inmos.co.uk (John Wadsworth)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Reply-To: jww@inmos.co.uk (John Wadsworth)
Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:53:02 GMT

I have been observing the conversations concerning the judge's comments in
a child custody case involving Jehovah's Witnesses with some bemusement.
The judge felt that the lifestyle of Witnesses was not 
good for children, and that the booklet "Preparing for Child Custody
Cases" promoted "untrue testimony". Walter Smith wants to
make something of it saying of a booklet produced by the WTBTS:
	"This is a good example of the group having "2 faces"; one for
public view, and one for insiders; with the attempt made to
have the public face "glossed over", and more palatable to
outsiders."

As for this case being a "good example" of having "2 faces" I disagree
entirely. From the point of view of someone who is trying to paint
Witnesses in general as liars 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, 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. 

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, whereas the Society encourages everyone to pioneer. Is this
promoting "untrue" testimony? Witnesses have high moral standards, and this
includes not lying. 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. ..."
Therefore, there must be a proviso that whatever goals Witness children say
they have, it must be the truth. The reality of the situation is that the
majority of Witnesses are not pioneers due to various reasons and factors.
Therefore, it is only reasonable that in presenting a general overview of the
lifestyle of Witnesses it should demonstrate that some pioneer and some do not.
If the booklet had said that pioneering should not be mentioned at all, then
that would sound strange but it didn't.

One could go on "ad nauseam" trying to counter the various slurs that have 
been made under this subject heading against Witnesses and I have no doubt that
this posting will get the same treatment, however, I thought I would "acquaint"
people with the fact that not all the judiciary view Witnesses as this judge
in Kansas did.

What have the courts said regarding Jehovah's Witnesses?

Are their beliefs harmful?

"We do not doubt the right of the state to suppress religious practices
dangerous to morals, and presumably those also that are inimical to public
safety, health and good order, but so far as appears from the testimony in
this case, the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses cannot, in our opinion, be
classed in any one of these categories."
	Stone v. Stone, 16 Wash. 2d 315, 133 P.2d 526 (1943)

"There is no basis on the evidence to conclude that the religious upbringing
of the two children in the Jehovah's Witnesses has proven to be detrimental
to their health or emotional status."
	Koerner v. Koerner, No. 002793 (Conn. Superior Court, October 2, 1979)

"I cannot find that they will suffer from being with their father on his field
ministry ... I have not been able to find evidence in this case which 
convinces me that a Jehovah's Witness, by the practice of his religion, tends
to destroy social order."
	Evers v. Evers, 19 F.L.R. 296 (Supreme Court of New South Wales,
							    Australia, 1972)

"To deprive Mrs. Ayers of custody ... would be tantamount to finding that the
lifestyle espoused by non-Jehovah's Witnesses is preferable to that of
Jehovah's Witnesses; that Jehovah's Witnesses are not proper parents. Such a
suggestion is patently preposterous and would be an intolerable restriction
of religious freedom."
	Ayers v. Ayers, (Provincial Court of British Columbia, Canada,
						Family Division, April 8, 1986)

But has the judiciary ever delivered prejudiced decisions?

A Missouri court found that a Witness mother "has love for the children and
attempts to properly provide for them. However, her beliefs as a Jehovah's
Witness come first, and by her actions and beliefs she is jeopardizing the
health and best interests of the children."

On appeal, the six judges of the Missouri Supreme Court gave her daughters
back to her. Appellate judge John Bardgett expressed the "firm conviction
that the trial court was wrong" in concluding "that the members of the
Jehovah's Witnesses religion, as a class and because of the tenets of that
faith, are unfit to have custody of children."
	Waites v. Waites, 567 S.W.2d 326 (Mo. 1978)

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

JWW
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc