Conscientious objection by Jehovah's Witnesses

Alongside other religious communities (such as the Mennonites , Quakers, etc.), Jehovah's Witnesses (before 1931: Bible Students ) are considered conscientious objectors .

History of conscientious objection by Jehovah's Witnesses

Wrestling about the attitude to military service in the First World War

During World War I, Bible Students' attitudes toward military service were not uniform. First of all, it was recommended to comply with a draft order, preferably to do medical service and not to kill the enemy. In 1915, conscientious objection was recommended as a better choice. In 1917, the Bible Students' Movement finally spoke out clearly against military service.

The initiator of the Bible Students' Movement, Charles Taze Russell , had called war an injustice and in 1904 prescribed the following attitude to Christians (he called the "new creation", that is, newborn):

“But if a New Creation should be ordered to serve in the line, it would have to obey the command and assume that the Lord, who allowed this, wants to do something good for the dug out or for others. If in this case it is not possible to be transferred to the medical troops by briefly informing the officer in charge of your principles, stay in line, but remember that the order to shoot a fellow man is not owed to obedience. "

Accordingly, Bible Students did not volunteer for military service. But wherever conscription was mandatory at the beginning of the First World War, as was the case in Germany, they mostly obeyed it. “The majority of the German Bible Students followed the draft for military service.” They were in an internal conflict: They wanted to obey the prohibition “Thou shalt not kill”, but also obey the government ( Romans 13: 1). As a result, many put on uniforms but tried to shoot in the air while fighting. Relatively few consistently refused. In 1915, the German publishing house der Bibelforscher (the Watchtower Society ) published a songbook version especially for the "Brothers in the Field". In 1915 the German edition of The Watchtower quoted several Bible Students by name who were "in the field". Those who died in acts of war were also named by name.

But in the fall of 1915 Russell reconsidered his earlier statements about military service. In the article “Christian Duty and the War” in the English Watchtower of September 1, 1915, he expressed concern that his earlier statements would have been too conservative. He wrote that Christians who would take part in the war had little understanding of the teachings of Christ. Better for a Christian to be executed as a conscientious objector than to be killed in war. Accordingly, when conscription was introduced in Great Britain in early 1916, hundreds of Bible Students tried to obtain exemption from military service for reasons of conscience. Many were imprisoned; some were even sentenced to death, but those sentences were commuted to long prison terms. From around 1916 onwards, the first Bible Students to expressly refuse to do military service can also be identified in Germany. For example, a soldier from Lübeck who had become a Bible researcher in the course of the war refused further military service in 1916 due to his religious convictions and was therefore sentenced to five years imprisonment. The magazine for the whole of neurology and psychiatry describes another "case study": A Bible researcher did military service from around 1915, but after a vacation in June 1917 declared his refusal.

The vast majority of Bible Students then lived in the United States. When the United States entered the First World War in April 1917, Joseph Franklin Rutherford , president of the Watchtower Society , spoke out in favor of conscientious objection: “No Christian can do military service while remaining a Christian.” In July 1917, on the initiative of Rutherford published the book The Complete Secret , in which war was denounced as a violation of the New Testament prohibition of murder: "War is an open desecration of Christianity." Since then, Jehovah's Witnesses have consistently refused not only to use weapons, but also, for example, medical service in the Army and work in armaments factories. Rutherford and other members of the Watchtower's board of directors were then sentenced to several years in prison for inciting refusal to serve in the United States Army , but were released soon after the war ended.

Second World War

During the Second World War , many Jehovah's Witnesses refused to do military service. Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany were banned under the National Socialists. Their refusal to participate in the military service resulted in 260 executions. Some had already been imprisoned in prisons and concentration camps at that time. Nine Jehovah's Witnesses from Alsace-Lorraine were executed by the German Reich as conscientious objectors; some of them had previously been arrested by the French state for refusing to do military service. More than two-thirds of conscientious objectors detained in the United States during World War II were Jehovah's Witnesses.

Switzerland (during the Second World War)

In Switzerland, when the Second World War broke out, citizens were called up for military service. There, too, Jehovah's Witnesses refused, which was the exception in the rest of the population because of the danger of a lightning attack by the German Reich and caused incomprehension. In 1940 the printing and office building in Bern, many private apartments and shortly afterwards the refugee homes operated by Jehovah's Witnesses were searched. The authorities suspected that a central authority had issued a call for refusal. There was no evidence of this. The contact with the management in Brooklyn broke off. The Watchtower was no longer allowed to be printed because Jehovah's Witnesses refused to have it censored from outside. Parts of the Swedish edition were translated in Switzerland and privately copied with typewriters and distributed, including to Germany. The magazine Trost (later Awake! ) Continued to appear, but only with its own material from Switzerland and with the influence of the censorship authorities. Criminal proceedings have been initiated against Franz Zürcher and Alfred Rütimann, who were part of the leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland. Two years later, Zürcher was sentenced to two years in prison for "undermining military discipline" and Rütimann to three months in prison for refusing to take the military oath. For years, both were denied the right to honor civil rights. The sentence for people from Zurich was reduced in April 1943.

In October 1943, the Swiss edition of Trost published a statement in which, among other things, a. was called:

“We expressly state that our association neither commands, recommends nor suggests in any way to act against military regulations. Such questions are not addressed in our congregations or in the scriptures published by the association. We do not concern ourselves with such questions at all. We see it as our duty to bear witness for Jehovah God and to preach biblical truth to all people. Hundreds of our members and fellow believers have completed and continue to perform their military duties.
We have never presumed and will never presume to see in this performance of military duty a violation of the principles and aspirations of the Jehovah's Witnesses Association as set out in its statutes. We ask all our members and friends of the faith to continue to strictly limit themselves to the preaching of biblical truths when preaching the message of the kingdom of God (Matthew 24:14) and to avoid anything that gives rise to misunderstanding or even as an invitation to Disobedience to military regulations could be misinterpreted. "

This statement was later justified by the Swiss office of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania as follows:

“When the situation for the plant in Switzerland became more and more critical (a general ban was expected), our lawyers advised to go public with a statement in order to counteract this climate of slander and to show that our organization was not achieving its goals got to fight the army. This then also happened through the said 'declaration'. It was certainly well meant and largely correctly worded, unfortunately not to a small extent because the brothers allowed themselves to be influenced a little too much by the lawyers, even if they meant it very well and tried to avert the ban that threatened the work. "

This statement also interprets:

"With the hundreds of 'members and religious friends' who fulfilled the military duty, of course primarily meant the interested friends of the truth who had not yet taken a position on the question of neutrality."

Under President Nathan Homer Knorr , these points of the declaration were officially revoked at a congress and in the report published in the Watchtower of January 15, 1948, “because they do not represent the position of society and are not in harmony with Christian principles like them are clearly contained in the Bible. "

Community service

For a long time, Jehovah's Witnesses were total objectors and also refused alternative civil service:

“Christians are not ready to do such a service, […] The Christian also refuses to do community service, which is a substitute for military service. In reality he would become part of the world through this service, but Jesus commanded to be separated from the world ”

In 1996, the religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses opened up to alternative civilian service. Jehovah's Witnesses who choose to do alternative service are no longer considered expelled or withdrawn. Since then, Jehovah's Witnesses have been doing community service in many countries.

Conscientious objection by states

Federal Republic of Germany

With the introduction of compulsory military service in 1956, the Witnesses refused to do both military service and alternative military service . Since the early 1960s, this refusal has regularly led to legal proceedings and convictions for violating conscription. In total, over 800 Jehovah's Witnesses were punished several times with imprisonment for several months.

Due to the increasing lack of understanding at home and abroad, the so-called Lex Jehovah (Section 15 a ZDG) was incorporated into the Civil Service Act in 1969. A voluntary, long-term employment relationship in the social sector spared those affected the legal consequences of a refusal. The problems of the Jehovah's Witnesses with compulsory military service in the Federal Republic were basically eliminated (see however).

In 1996, the leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses fundamentally revised their position on community service. Since then, Jehovah's Witnesses have been free to do community service in social institutions or in civil protection . The then spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany later claimed that this was made possible by allegedly changed ministry responsibilities in the FRG.

In July 2011, military service and civil service were as alternative military duty suspended in Germany, bringing a conscientious objection has become redundant.

Armenia

In Armenia , military service was compulsory, and Jehovah's Witnesses were targeted by the Armenian authorities for their refusal to do military service. By the time a real alternative civilian service was introduced in 2013, more than 450 Jehovah's Witnesses had been convicted of conscientious objection to military service.

It is true that Armenia was ordered by the General Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2000 to introduce alternative military service within three years. The civil service that was introduced in 2003 was subject to the supervision of the military, which is why it was refused by Jehovah's Witnesses. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe therefore issued a resolution in 2007 calling on Armenia to offer a “real” civil service. In 2011 the ECtHR convicted Armenia in the Bayatyan v. Armenia case (Vahan Bayatayn had been sentenced to 30 months in prison for refusing to serve) for violating Article 9 of the ECHR . The ECHR stated that Bayatyan's rejection of military service was an expression of his religious freedom and thus covered by the scope of Article 9 § 1 ECHR. In 2012, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern that Armenia still did not guarantee alternative military service of a purely civil nature, and that conscientious objectors, mostly Jehovah's Witnesses, would continue to be detained. In 2013, an amendment to the law created 36-month community service that is not subject to the supervision of the military.

Azerbaijan

Between December 24, 2006 and January 31, 2014, Jehovah's Witnesses filed 3 complaints against Azerbaijan with the European Court of Human Rights . The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe published detailed recommendations on December 15, 2014 on how the Azerbaijani Law on Religious Freedom should be amended so that it would be in line with international human rights standards.

Belgium

From the 1950s until the abolition of compulsory military service in 1994, several thousand Belgian Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted of conscientious objection, usually to two years in prison.

Eritrea

Because of their religious orientation of refusing to use weapons, civil rights of Jehovah's Witnesses in Eritrea are curtailed. Jehovah's Witnesses offer the Eritrean government an alternative service without a weapon. As there is no alternative to national military service , this is not granted. Although members of other religious communities also refuse to do military service and they are arrested as well, the punishment of Jehovah's Witnesses is more extensive, as they are deprived of their civil rights. Among other things, the penalty for conscientious objection in Eritrea is limited to a maximum of 2 years. Some Jehovah's Witnesses have been imprisoned for more than 15 years, some of them being taken to military prisons without judgment from a regular court. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) reported in April 2010 that around a third of Jehovah's Witnesses arrested for conscientious objection were over 60 years old. This leads to the conclusion that they were imprisoned for religious reasons.

Furthermore, Jehovah's Witnesses in Eritrea are not able to get a higher education because students have to complete their final year of school in the Sawa Military Training Camp . As the United States Department of State noted in its 2010 Report on International Religious Freedom, economic difficulties and job search problems are foreseeable.

Italy

The first ever documented case of a conscientious objector being convicted by an Italian court involved a Jehovah's Witness: Remigio Cuminetti was sentenced to 38 months in prison in 1916. Jehovah's Witnesses who refused military service in fascist Italy were sentenced to several years in prison. From 1945 to the early 1970s, Jehovah's Witnesses made up 80 percent of conscientious objectors in Italy. They were often called up for military service after serving a prison sentence and were sentenced to prison terms again; with some of them this was repeated five or six times, so that even when they were over 30 they were still called up and imprisoned again. From 1972 onwards, there were no more multiple convictions, but Jehovah's Witnesses were only sentenced once to twelve to fifteen months' imprisonment as conscientious objectors. In 1998, community service acceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses was introduced in Italy.

Spain

Nineteen-year-old Jehovah's Witness Antonio Gargallo Mejia was executed for conscientious objection in August 1937. From the 1950s to the 1970s, conscientious objectors in Spain received new draft warrants after serving their prison sentences, so that they had to serve several sentences in a row. The Jehovah's Witness Alberto Contijoch spent a total of more than 19 years in prison for refusing to do military service. Hundreds of Jehovah's Witnesses were therefore in prison, many in penal camps, for example in the Spanish Sahara, where the prisoners were cruelly mistreated.

Turkey

Until 1994, Jehovah's Witnesses in Turkey were punished by government agencies for their religious activity. Refusal to do military service continues to result in punishment, as there is no right to conscientious objection in Turkey. A member of Jehovah's Witnesses was convicted a total of nine times by Turkish courts for refusing to do military service.

Turkmenistan

Although Turkmenistan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1997 , which identifies the right to conscientious objection under Article 18 as part of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion , over a dozen Jehovah's Witnesses were sentenced to several years' imprisonment for their conscientious objection sentenced. The arrests and internments in the labor camp in Seydi, Turkmenistan were often initiated by the city court in Dashoguz . However, decisions by the district courts in Dashoguz and 'Ruchabad' in Ashgabat have also become known.

The right to conscientious objection can also be found in the human dimension commitments of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), where Turkmenistan acceded on January 30, 1992. Nevertheless, the UN Human Rights Committee had to declare in the Concluding Observations of the 104th session on March 15 and 16, 2012 after a discussion on the human rights situation in Turkmenistan:

“The State party should take all necessary measures to amend legislation to provide an alternative to military service. He should also ensure that the law clearly defines that individuals have the right to conscientious objection. He should also stop all persecution of people who conscientiously refuse to perform military service and release those who are currently detained. "

This complaint is based on the committee's finding that 'a number of Jehovah's Witnesses are repeatedly persecuted and imprisoned for refusing to do military service' (see Discrimination and Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses )

literature

Marcus Herrberger: Because it is written: “You shouldn't kill!” The persecution of religious conscientious objectors under the Nazi regime with special consideration of Jehovah's Witnesses (1939–1945). Verlag Österreich, Vienna 2005, ISBN 3-7046-4671-7 .
Gary Perkins: Bible Student Conscientious Objectors in World War One - Britain. Hupomone Press 2016, ISBN 978-1-5173-3936-4 .

Individual evidence

^ Russell: The New Creation (Scripture Studies; 6). 1922, p. 552. - Discussed with Franz Stuhlhofer : Charles T. Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Berneck 1990, pp. 183-193.
↑ Detlef Garbe: Between resistance and martyrdom. The Jehovah's Witnesses in the “Third Reich”. R. Oldenbourg, Munich 1994, p. 45.
↑ See Jehovah's Witnesses - Heralds of the Kingdom of God , ed. from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Selters / Taunus 1993, page 191 f.
^ Gary Perkins: Bible Student Conscientious Objectors in World War One - Britain. Hupomone Press, 2016.
↑ Elke Imberger: Resistance “from below”. Resistance and dissent from the ranks of the labor movement and the Jehovah's Witnesses in Lübeck and Schleswig Holstein 1933–1945 (= Society for Schleswig-Holstein History [Hrsg.]: Sources and research on the history of Schleswig-Holstein . Volume 98 ). Karl Wachholz, Neumünster 1991, ISBN 3-529-02198-9 , pp. 370 .
↑ Journal for the whole of neurology and psychiatry , Volume 45 (1919) p. 393 f.
^ The Christian's Duty in Time of War. in: The Watch Tower , April 15, 1917, p. 124.
^ Studies in The Scriptures, Series VII: The Finished Mystery , Brooklyn 1917, pp. 247-250.
↑ George D. Chryssides: The A to Z of Jehovah's Witnesses . The Scarecrow Press, Lanham 2009, pp. 135 .
Jump up ↑ George D. Chryssides: Jehovah's Witnesses. Continuity and Change . Ashgate, Farnham / Burlington 2016, p. 85-88 .
↑ Angela Nerlich: And suddenly the Germans were there. The Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in France and Luxembourg. in: Gerhard Besier, Katarzyna Stoklosa (ed.): Jehovah's Witnesses in Europe - past and present. Volume 1. (= Studies on Contemporary Church History, Vol. 5) Berlin, 2013. pp. 127–130.
^ JB Tietz: Jehovah's Witnesses: Conscientious Objectors. in: Southern California Law Review , Vol. 28 (1954-1955), p. 123.
↑ This declaration appeared twice in a row, on October 1st and October 15th; reproduced in facsimile by Manfred Gebhard (ed.): The Jehovah's Witnesses. A documentation about the Watchtower Society. Urania, Leipzig a. a. 1970, p. 145.
↑ ^a ^{b Printed} in facsimile in Herbert Weber's dissertation: Religiöse MOBILITY. Religious special communities and the Catholic Church using the example of Jehovah's Witnesses , Vienna 1990, panel 24/8.
↑ Netherlands: Jehovah's Witnesses Released from Prison! In: Watchtower Biblical and Tract Society of Jehovah's Witnesses V. (Ed.): Awake! March 8, 1975, p. 22-25 ( [1] ).
↑ Caesar's things to repay Caesar . In: Watchtower Biblical and Tract Society of Jehovah's Witnesses V. (Ed.): The Watchtower . May 1, 1996, p. 15-20 ( [2] ).
↑ ^a ^b Pious Fron . In: Der Spiegel . No. 15 , April 8, 1996, pp. 16 ( Jehovah's Witnesses: Pious Fron ).
↑ Hans Hesse (Ed.): The Jehovah's Witnesses were always the bravest. Edition Temmen, Bremen 1998. p. 354.
^ On the refusal of alternative service BVerfGE 19, 135 (1965; accessed on March 12, 2016); BVerfGE 23, 127 (1968; accessed on March 12, 2016)
↑ Exemplary in the published literature: Karl Peters: Concluding remarks on the Jehovah's Witness trials , in: Festschrift for Karl Engisch on his 70th birthday , Frankfurt / M. 1969, p. 468 f
↑ BVerfG - 2 BvL 9/97 ( Memento from February 10, 2013 in the web archive archive.today )
↑ Uta Andresen: "We are not afraid of inconveniences" . In: taz on the weekend - Dossier . November 1, 1997, p. 2 : "Because he was assigned to the Ministry of Defense. Now he is subordinate to the Ministry of Family. And is therefore no longer a taboo."
↑ [3] § 13, Opinion no. 221 (2000) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Armenia's application for membership of the Council of Europe, printed in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of July 7, 2011, Bayatyan v Armenia , marg. 50, July 7, 2011, accessed February 20, 2018.
^ Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of July 7th, 2011, Bayatyan v Armenia , para. 136, European Court of Human Rights , July 7, 2011, accessed February 20, 2018.
^ Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of July 7th, 2011, Bayatyan v Armenia , para. 112, European Court of Human Rights , July 7, 2011, accessed February 20, 2018.
↑ Wolfram Slupina: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Commonwealth of Independent States and in Georgia - An inventory of the post-Soviet era . In: Gerhard Besier, Katarzyna Stokłosa (Ed.): Jehovah's Witnesses in Europe - Past and Present . tape 2 . LIT Verlag, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-643-13039-6 , pp. 256-263 .
↑ Jehovah's Witnesses in Azerbaijan apply to the European Court of Human Rights. In: jw.org. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, accessed January 13, 2016 .
↑ CDL-AD (2014) 043-e Opinion on the Law on non-governmental Organizations (Public Associations and Funds) as amended of the Republic of Azerbaijan, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 101st Plenary Session (Venice, 12-13 December 2014). (PDF) European Commission for Democracy through Law, (Venice Commission), Council of Europe, December 15, 2014, accessed on January 13, 2016 .
↑ Willy Fautre: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses in Belgium. in: Gerhard Besier, Katarzyna Stoklosa (ed.): Jehovah's Witnesses in Europe - past and present. Volume 1. (= Studies on Contemporary Church History, Vol. 5) Berlin, 2013. pp. 31–46.
↑ Alexandra Geiser: Eritrea: Situation of Jehovah's Witnesses. (PDF) Swiss Refugee Aid SFH, January 17, 2011, pp. 1–5 , accessed on December 20, 2011 .
↑ Paolo Piccioli, Max Wörnhard: Italy. Jehovah's Witnesses - A Century of Oppression, Growth, Recognition. in: Gerhard Besier, Katarzyna Stoklosa: Jehovah's Witnesses in Europe - past and present. Volume 1. Berlin 2013. pp. 305-306, 357-373.
↑ Katarzyna Stoklosa: The Franco dictatorship and the Jehovah's Witnesses. in: Gerhard Besier, Katarzyna Stoklosa: Jehovah's Witnesses in Europe - past and present. Volume 1. Berlin 2013. pp. 627-657.
^ Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices -Turkey. US Department of State, March 6, 2007, accessed December 21, 2011 .
↑ ^a ^b Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant - Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee - Turkmenistan. United Nations Human Rights Office of the high Commissioner - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, April 19, 2012, accessed March 6, 2016 .