Detwiler 1
Aaron Detwiler
Mr. Worth Weller
ENG W233
29 March 2004
Jehovah’s Witnesses and American Freedoms:
The Fight for Speech and Religion
Researching court cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses, and being one myself, I had to decide the best places to look for accurate information. I had to be both thorough and objective. As with any topic, though, I had to be cautious; if not careful, it would be easy to diverge from my topic into debates that are not important, or at least, not relevant to my topic. The basic premise of my argument was legal, so I needed to remain in that arena. Many people disagree with the doctrinal reasons for Witness beliefs, but those topics are inappropriate for this discussion. I hoped to better understand both the legal reasons for the freedoms I enjoy, and the process for obtaining those freedoms.
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom. New York: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1993.
My first thought in researching was to go to the most authoritative source. Looking at the history of court cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses, I concluded the most authoritative source would be with the Witnesses themselves. Having been an avid reader, I had read this book cover-to-cover a few years ago, despite its 700+ pages. I found the history and the perspective enlightening, because it placed within a historical context the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I could trace how the issue of, for instance, neutrality and how came to a head just before World War II, whereas during World War I, the issue was not clearly addressed in Witness beliefs. The publishers of this book had a vested interest in preserving the accounts of their struggle for various rights, and the experiences of those individuals involved. In examining this work critically, my faith in the honesty of its publishers was heightened. First, it is very candid about any changes in belief or mistakes that were made by Witnesses. Its tone is not one of self-aggrandizement. Second, in examining the chapter “Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News” could not be a more transparent topic. Any material cited and any cases referred to are a matter of public record, easily verifiable. This publication was an excellent starting point, one published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, itself the legal entity of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Peters, Shawn Francis. Judging Jehovah’s Witneses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.
I was immediately excited when I saw the title of this book: it seemed to fit exactly with my topic. As I read through the table of contents, I found out I was right. Reading the accounts that Peters describes, I was struck by the nature of the clashes between Witnesses and police in the 1940s. Today, we would never consider that police had the authority to take the action that they took back then, but sixty years ago, this action held up even in the light of public scrutiny. As I read, I was unsure of one thing that was important to my critical understanding of Peters and his book – was he one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? Reading further, though, I found out not only that he was not, but that he disagreed with some of the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I was extremely pleased by this finding, because now I recognized that I had the perspective of someone with a different background. I could compare this book to other publications by Jehovah’s Witnesses and see how they matched up. Even better, the notes and references that Peters provided were comprehensive and scholarly. Among these, he included several references to Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, a book I was using in my research. Later, he also cited a work from the Library of Congress’ document collection that I had found in search the Library’s online archive.
Gobitas, Billy. Letter to Minersville School Directors. November 5, 1935. American Treasures of the Library of Congress. http://lcweb.loc.gov/loc/kidslc/images/klbg0001.jpg.
I found this primary source in the Library of Congress’ collection online. First, I was shocked by its placement in the American Treasures section, as it was a very simple note, and not something I would expect to be recognized in this manner. Looking at the note itself, the words are written in a stilted cursive, with all the lines trailing down as they proceed across the page. The grammar is, at best, tenuous and there’s even one sentence with an inserted “not” to correct the meaning. This is only one of a collection of Gobitas papers available at the Library of Congress. After examining the note and thinking about it, I too was struck by the emotional impact that it had. Here, a young boy had written to his school directors why it was he refused to salute the flag. His letter was brief, respectful, and clearly showed why he felt the way he did. From the content, it is hard to imagine that this is a note his father wrote for him, which only adds to the impact that it has. While remaining respectful of the position of the school directors, he in no way compromises his position or waters down what he has to say. To the reader, through some 70 years of distance, it is hard to imagine that this type of student would pose any threat to the school, his classmates, or to the United States.
Greenhouse, Linda. “Atheist Presents Case for Taking God From Pledge.” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/politics/25SCOT.html. The New York Times 25 March 2004.
Linda Greenhouse serves as Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times. She also takes part in the PBS program Washington Week. Seeing the headline concerning the pledge of allegiance and religion, I was of course intrigued. I had also heard Nina Totenberg’s piece on these arguments, so I knew that this debate was relevant to my research. In a piece on the same subject in Monday’s paper, Greenhouse had mentioned the Gobitas case only as a landmark 1943 decision, with no explanation or credit. Here, however, she clearly explains that the case involved Jehovah’s Witnesses and compulsory flag saluting. Perhaps Witnesses share little in common with Dr. Newdow, who brought the original suit on behalf of his daughter because he is an atheist and feels the phrase “under God” places the pledge under the heading of state sponsored religious expression. Witnesses, on the other hand, have a firm belief in God, but object to the political aspects of the pledge. What truly serves to bring the 1943 case to the present, though, is its use in the oral arguments. Justice O’Connor referred to this case when stating that the child had a right not to participate. Dr. Newdow argued that opting out in manner placed “a huge imposition” on a small child. These few paragraphs also provide a powerful emotional impact, especially when they are coupled with the note from Billy Gobitas, written in 1935.
Polidora, Paul D. et al. “Brief for Petitioners” Watchtower v. Village of Stratton. http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower_petitioner_brief.pdf.
This document, more than nay other, provides an excellent understanding of Jehovah’s Witnesses reasoning on the matter of civil rights. Comparing this document to the magazine cited below, I could see the similarities in structure. This brief, though, was by far more comprehensive and cited quite a few sources. Any court document displays an extremely high level of scholarly research, and this brief was by no means an exception. In reading it, I found a practical example of the IRAC system, discussed in the text, and how it applied in a real world example. The text was straightforward and unaffected by aggressive religiosity. In examining other sources, I had found that authors often refer to the non-legal explanations of faith that were exhibited in the courtroom. While I cannot comment on the motivation of previous Witness lawyers, I did not find that sort of tone in this document. The brief demonstrates a clear examination of the history of constitutionally protected speech, and refers to more than fifty other cases throughout its text. While the motivation in writing is clearly to protect the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses to preach in the village, it acknowledges how the precedent set by this ordinance would affect all sorts of speech, primarily political speech, a form of discourse in which Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves do not engage. The lawyers for the Witnesses cite a particularly compelling argument on page 43, where an ordinance from 1939 is compared, section by section, with the current ordinance that the Village of Stratton had passed. The document is compelling legally and morally, and the efforts of the village officials to restrict Witness freedoms are clearly laid out.
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. “U.S. Supreme Court and Free Speech.” Awake! January 8, 2003. New York. P 3 – 11.
After the favorable decision in the Stratton Case in the summer of 2002, the publishing agent of Jehovah’s Witnesses put the issue on the cover of their magazine Awake! The issue provides excellent background on the case. I was interested in this because it detailed the animosity toward the Witness’ preaching in the village as far back as 1979. The articles were written simply, but they covered the issues quite well. The format was essentially chronological in nature, beginning with the background I spoke of above and proceeding through the legal wrangling in the various courts. Although two cases were argued before the Supreme Court case, these are dealt with only peripherally. It is interesting that in this issue of the Awake!, the matter of political speech is also addressed. An illustration on page 5 places the Witnesses in the same position as a candidate for political office, a semiotic choice that serves to graphically illustrate the link between anonymous religious and anonymous political speech. This recognition is linked to the past activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses by a box the talks about Cantwell v. Connecticut, a case decided in 1940. The placement of this box next to the picture of political speech puts the Witnesses in a historical context as defenders of basic Constitutional rights. The article ends by discussing the basis for the Court’s decision and how this affects the future.
Jaffe, Erik S., Esq. “Free Speech Means No Having to Play ‘Mother May I’ with the Government.” Center for Individual Freedom. 21 June 2002. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/
legal_issues/legal_activities/policy_papers/mother_may.htm>.
In contrast to the court documents cited elsewhere, this article is written from the perspective of someone looking at the case after the fact. Especially significant to my research was the fact that the article was written by Erik S. Jaffe, author of the amicus curiae brief filed by the Center for Individual Freedom. From the beginning of my research, I was interested in the amicus briefs in this case, because they represented the opinions of non-Witness stakeholders in the case. This perspective allowed me to see what individuals who were not interested in the rights in question infringing upon their personal religious beliefs. Rather, they could tell me how people in general viewed, not the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but the merits of the case brought by the Witnesses. Jaffe here offers his summary of the case, which is much in line with the other summaries I have read. The last few paragraphs of this document, though, provide interesting “what-ifs” about the effect this ordinance would have on future cases. He goes on to link the case to more than just civil rights. Jaffe speaks of the role of government as being more clearly defined by the decision in this case.
Kobil, Walt and Betty. Personal interview. April 2004.
This is the item with which I am still struggling. I have spoken with the Kobils personally and they agreed to an interview, and I emailed them a list of the questions that I proposed asking. However, they are in Europe for a short time, so I have not been able to meet with them for the interview. Because I have spoken with them so many times before, I have an idea of their thoughts on the topic, but I am definitely looking forward to speaking with them on the subject. Here are the questions I propose to ask: How many cases involving Witnesses have you been involved in? What were the legal grounds for some of these cases? What were the major issues around which these cases revolved? Did you feel the cases had legal merit? Did you feel that the cases were dealt with in an objective manner by judges and the opposition? What legal issues did you address when arguing? What scriptural issues did you address when arguing? What effects did you notice from the major Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Gobitis)?
Oral Aruguments. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton. The Oyez Project. 27 March 2004 http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1498/
argument.mp3.
In researching how to research legal topics in general, I came upon many guides that pointed to various archives and projects, but the one I found most useful was the Oyez Project. There were more than just documents here: the Oyez Project is an archive run by Northwestern University, lending it a great deal of credibility. The files available are not commentary on court cases, but rather files of the court cases themselves. What blew me away was that available here were actual audio recording of the Court proceedings. I found this another primary source by which I could judge the attitudes of the people involved in this case. Listening to the arguments from both sides, I heard for myself what I had only heard filtered through other media, such as magazines, or reported on by others, such as Nina Totenberg. While I trust the sources I have investigated, this recording afforded me a golden opportunity to examine the merits of each side in this case on my own. I can listen for myself to those subtle clues in tone and urgency that relate the thinking and leaning of the individuals. I enjoyed the way in which the Justices played, as it were, “devil’s advocate” in discussing the case with the lawyers from both sides. What came through quite clearly, though, was the tone that had been reported on in brief. The Justices were quick and incisive when dealing with the Witness lawyers, but when dealing with the oppositions lawyers, they were almost adversarial. Some of their comments bordered on the sarcastic. This interchange allowed me to see how the drama played out, and gave me a clue to the personalities of the Justices themselves, especially Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the lone dissenting opinion in the case.