“Before you shut the door on a Jehovah’s Witness,” says an article in the newspaper USA Today, “pause to consider the shameful persecution they suffered not too long ago, as well as the rich contribution they have made to the First Amendment freedoms we all enjoy.” Jehovah’s Witnesses were persecuted in the United States throughout the 1940’s for, among other things, refusing to salute the flag.—Exodus 20:4, 5.

Some 30 cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses came before the U.S. Supreme Court in the five-year period between 1938 and 1943. The article says: “So frequently did Witnesses raise core First Amendment issues that Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, ‘The Jehovah’s Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties.’”

Thus, near its conclusion the article states: “All religions have the Jehovah’s Witnesses to thank for the expansion of [religious] freedom.” (The Watchtower May 15, 2001 page 32)

According to the book “Church and State in the United States”

“It would not be fair to dismiss this brief survey of the troubles of Jehovah’s Witnesses with the State without referring to the service to the cause of religious freedom under our Constitution which has been rendered as a result of their persistence. In recent years they have taken the time of the courts more than any other religious group, and they have appeared to the public to be narrow-minded, but they have been true to their conscientious convictions, and as a result the Federal courts have rendered a series of decisions which have secured and broadened the religious-freedom guarantees of American citizens, and have protected and extended their civil liberties. Some thirty-one cases in which they were involved came before the Supreme Court in the five years from 1938 to 1943, and the decisions in these and later cases have greatly advanced the cause of the freedoms of the Bill of Rights in general, and the protection of religious freedom in particular.”—“Church and State in the United States,” by Anson Phelps Stokes, Volume III, 1950, page 546. (Jehovah’s Witnesses – Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom page 699)

With such a glowing recommendation one would think Jehovah’s Witnesses would be the foremost champions of the rights of all men to pursue religious freedom. But ironically, that is not the case when it comes to dealing with persons within the organization who decide they no longer agree with certain biblical interpretations of the leadership. Unfortunately, if you belong to their nation and find that your conscience no longer permits you to give unquestioning loyalty to the governing body, you will be ostracized and treated as dead by any family and friends that choose to remain within the organization due to their enforced policy of shunning. Witnesses are told that this is a form of loving discipline aimed at motivating you to come to your senses, suppress your nagging conscience and obey God’s representatives. And there is no provision for appealing to the First Amendment. Persons deemed by the organization to be apostates are not allowed to argue their case using the Bible as their constitution and cannot be heard by a jury of their peers. Persons leaving the organization for matters of conscience are treated in the same manner as persons disfellowshipped for unrepentantly committing gross sins. How are such disfellowshipped persons to be treated?

In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear an appeal involving a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Calgary. Randy Wall, a real estate agent was “disfellowshipped” from the Highwood Congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.

While not attempting to defend the conduct of Randy Wall, or whether or not the government should get involve in deciding matters of a religious nature, I would simply like to draw your attention to how the case was argued in court. In the video that follows, David Gnam, lawyer for the Watchtower society, tries to educate the court about the practice of “disfellowshipping”.

His statements, however do not agree with printed statements in The Watchtower:

“IF A FAMILY MEMBER LEAVES JEHOVAH

17 When a family member is disfellowshipped or he disassociates himself from the congregation, it can feel like the stab of a sword. How can you cope with the pain that this brings?

18 Keep up your spiritual routine. Build yourself up by regularly reading the Bible, preparing for and attending Christian meetings, sharing in the field ministry, and praying for the strength to endure. (Jude 20, 21) But what if you feel that your heart is not in your activity, that you are just going through the motions? Do not give up! A good spiritual routine can help you to gain control of your thoughts and feelings. Consider the experience of the writer of Psalm 73. He had developed a wrong viewpoint and had become greatly troubled, but he was able to correct his thinking when he entered God’s place of worship. (Ps. 73:16, 17) Your faithfully worshipping Jehovah can help you to do the same.

19 Respect the discipline of Jehovah. His arrangement can bring the best long-term outcome for all, including the wrongdoer, even though the immediate effect is painful. (Read Hebrews 12:11.) For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media. (The Watchtower October 2017 study edition page 16 pars. 17-19)

This policy came under scrutiny during the Australian Royal Commission Inquiry into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. That commission received numerous complaints from victims of abuse that felt they could no longer remain in the religion because of their case being handled inadequately. As a result they were shunned by all those desiring to remain members of the organization. In 2015 governing body member Geoffrey Jackson tried to explain in his testimony that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not shun former members as long as they leave unofficially by merely ceasing to attend meetings. But if they formally wish to disassociate themselves so as to no longer be recognized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses they will experience the consequences of shunning. The question was raised as to whether those who simply cease attending meetings have indeed resigned. Are they not still viewed as members and hence subject to the rules of the organization? If not, this would effectively erase the distinction between disassociation and inactivity.

The following video shows how Jackson responds to this question:

As a result, the commission made the following observations:

“The Jehovah’s Witness organisation addresses child sexual abuse in accordance with scriptural direction, relying on a literal interpretation of the Bible and 1st century principles to set practice, policy and procedure. These include the ‘two-witness’ rule as discussed, as well as the principle of ‘male headship’ (that men hold positions of authority in congregations and headship in the family). Scripturally, only men can make decisions. Other scripture-based policies include the sanctions of reproval (a form of discipline that allows a perpetrator to remain in the congregation), disfellowshipping (exclusion or excommunication as a form of punishment for serious scriptural wrongdoing), and shunning (an instruction to the congregation not to associate with a disfellowshipped person). As long as the Jehovah’s Witness organisation continues to apply these practices in its response to allegations of child sexual abuse, it will remain an organisation that does not respond adequately to child sexual abuse and that fails to protect children.

We recommend that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation abandon its application of the two-witness rule in cases involving complaints of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.27), revise its policies so that women are involved in processes relating to investigating and determining allegations of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.28), and no longer require its members to shun those who disassociate from the organisation in cases where the reason for disassociation is related to a person being a victim of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.29).

In the video that follows, two branch representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia are asked in 2017 if the society has made any of the recommended changes to their policies:

It is painfully obvious that the two representatives repeatedly avoided answering the question but, rather, chose to place the blame on the victim for making the wrong technical choice for resigning. What is the difference between making a verbal statement and putting such in writing? Why rely on such a technicality? It is simply false to say by resigning from a religion a person desires to cut off all contact with family members and friends that remain part of that religion. But why is it necessary for the organization to tell adherents to shun persons desiring to disassociate themselves? Why did these two representatives resist so strongly giving a simple answer to that question? Is the question unanswerable? Note this answer given in the book Remain in God’s Love:

WHEN SOMEONE IS DISFELLOWSHIPPED

19 In a loving family, each member does his part to make the others happy. But imagine that one person rebels. Everybody in the family tries again and again to help him, but he rejects the help. He may decide to leave home, or the head of the family may have to ask him to leave. Something similar can happen in the congregation. A person may choose to keep doing things that displease Jehovah and harm the congregation. He rejects help and shows by his actions that he no longer wants to be part of the congregation. He may choose to leave the congregation himself, or he may have to be disfellowshipped. If this happens, the Bible clearly says that we should “stop keeping company” with him. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11) This can be very difficult if he is a friend of ours or a member of our family. But in a situation like this, our loyalty to Jehovah must be stronger than our loyalty to anyone else.[1]

20 The disfellowshipping arrangement is a loving provision from Jehovah. It keeps the congregation safe from those who do not care about Jehovah’s standards. (1 Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 12:15, 16) It helps us to show love for Jehovah’s holy name, for his high standards, and for Jehovah himself. (1 Peter 1:15, 16) And the disfellowshipping arrangement shows love for the person who is no longer a member of the congregation. This strong discipline may help him to realize that what he is doing is wrong and motivate him to change. Many who were once disfellowshipped later returned to Jehovah and were warmly welcomed back into the congregation.—Hebrews 12:11. (Remain in God’s Love pages 39-40)

However, the society shows a complete lack of ability to recognize the possibility that a person, while wanting to resign from the organization, nevertheless could continue to have a deep love for God. This black and white thinking causes them to distrust anyone outside of the organization as being evil. Persons leaving the organization are viewed as worse than non-witnesses since they are considered as having rejected God. The organization then feels it is important to protect its members from corruption. This is the real reason why shunning is practiced. With this background information, it is not difficult to see the predicament both Rodney Spinks and Terrance O’Brien found themselves in. How could they possibly say that the congregation needed to be protected from a victim of child sexual abuse? What danger did the victim pose? Especially, when it is clear the victim was only taking measures to protect herself from an institution that failed to protect her from abuse!

Yet in their literature the organization frequently denounces other religions for suppressing the right to freedom of worship of their members when such want to accept a Bible study with Jehovah’s Witnesses. The following appeared in a 2009 Awake article entitled: “Is It Wrong to Change Your Religion?”

“Although the Bible makes a clear distinction between true and false teachings, God allows each person the freedom to choose how he or she will respond. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family. Does study of the Bible lead to family breakup? No. In fact, the Bible encourages a husband and wife who practice different religions to remain together as a family.—1 Corinthians 7:12, 13.” (Awake July 2009 pages 28-29)

So, in answer to the question at the outset, it would appear that Jehovah’s Witnesses indeed do champion the right to freedom of religion, but only for themselves. For those that disagree with the leadership, the organization appeals to the constitution for the right to exercise their freedom of worship to put in place a policy requiring adherents to cut off all social contact with dissenters.

[1]The book contains this endnote: DISFELLOWSHIPPING

When someone who has seriously sinned does not repent and refuses to follow Jehovah’s standards, he can no longer be a member of the congregation. He needs to be disfellowshipped. When someone is disfellowshipped, we have no more dealings with that person and we stop talking to him. (1 Corinthians 5:11; 2 John 9-11) The disfellowshipping arrangement protects Jehovah’s name and the congregation. (1 Corinthians 5:6) Disfellowshipping is also discipline that can help someone to repent so that he can return to Jehovah.—Luke 15:17. (See also information in the appendix.)