Argentina: Champion of Freedom​—Or of Religious Intolerance?

“JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES BANNED IN ARGENTINA!” That was the news carried across the Argentine nation and around the world by newspapers, television and radio during the first week of September 1976.

Time-consuming legal proceedings followed as Jehovah’s Witnesses appealed the ban through the Argentine court system. At last, in February 1978, the result of this legal action became known, as news sources declared: “SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS EXECUTIVE DECREE BANNING JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES.”

In nations of the Western world where the Christian activity of the Witnesses is well known, this shocking news brought forth protests​—and questions. Many asked: ‘Why this religious persecution and discrimination in Argentina?’ Others wondered: ‘Does not the Argentine Constitution guarantee freedom of worship?’

official response

How were such questions answered by official spokesmen for the military government? These officials, and many newspapers too, were quick to reply that freedom of conscience and of religion continued to prevail as cherished traditions in Argentina​—this in spite of the fact that a total ban had just been upheld on the Christian activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses!

An example of this amazing official response was noted in a form letter issued by the Argentine Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa. The letter stated, in part: “Freedom of conscience has been and continues to be fully guaranteed under the Constitution and Laws of Argentina. ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses,’ in common with other religious bodies, have found . . . complete freedom for the practice of their beliefs.” Yet the Witnesses were at the time under ban!

The embassy form letter added: “It has never been the intention of the Argentine Government to curb or deny individual freedom of conscience, and much less to persecute any person for his religious convictions.” But these very curbs, denials of individual freedoms and persecutions were already inflicted on Jehovah’s Witnesses!

contradictions abound!

La Nación, a leading Argentine newspaper, in an editorial of February 17, 1978, asserted: “The Argentine Nation can exhibit before the world, with legitimate pride over its history, the tolerance of its laws and of its people for the practice of religion.” It added: “As in few places in the world . . . the law protects and permits [other religions] ‘to freely practice their religion,’ according to the wise Constitutional prescription.”

It is claimed that religious tolerance is ‘prescribed by the Argentine Constitution.’ Yet, let us examine these facts:

The September 1976 ban, together with the February 1978 Supreme Court ruling, has deprived Jehovah’s Witnesses in Argentina of their freedom to worship God;

The meeting places for Christian worship and Bible study of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been closed by law;

The publication and distribution of Bibles and Bible literature by Jehovah’s Witnesses have been prohibited;

Hundreds of the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been expelled from primary and secondary schools. Similarly, adult Witnesses in the employ of the government at federal, provincial and municipal levels, as well as in public utilities and schools, have been dismissed without pay;

A growing number of police raids have taken place on the private homes of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They have been arrested and detained for hours, days and even weeks;

Jehovah’s Witnesses have been victims of insults, blows and attempted intimidation on the part of the constituted authorities. On some occasions even the basic elements for their physical needs have not been provided.

Now, then, is all of this the religious tolerance ‘prescribed by the Argentine Constitution’?

what does the constitution say?

Just what does Argentina’s Constitution say about the rights of its citizens relative to freedom? Note some of the following articles incorporated in the law.

Article 14 states: “All of the inhabitants of the Nation enjoy the following rights, in conformity with the laws that govern their exercise; . . . to publish their ideas in the press without previous censorship; . . . to associate together for worthwhile purposes; to freely practice their religion; to teach and to learn.” [Italics ours]

Article 19 states: “The private actions of men that in no wise offend the public order and morals, nor injure a third party, are reserved only for God, and exempt from the authority of the Magistrates.”

Then Article 20 declares: “Foreigners . . . can . . . freely exercise their religion.”

what have they done?

In the face of such clearly established freedoms, why the total ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses? What have they done to incur such government opposition? What have they been teaching in Argentina for the past 54 years? Let us examine the record.

In all these years, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Argentina, and everywhere else too, have carefully adhered to the principle set down in God’s Word at Titus chapter 3, verse 1. There it says: “Continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers.”

Do those words sound like a revolutionary manifesto with intent to destroy the established order? On the contrary, they clearly tell Bible believers, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, to obey the laws of all governments. They are not to search out ways to overthrow established governments by human means.

Such thoughts are part of the teachings that Jehovah’s Witnesses have been spreading throughout Argentina since 1924. It was in that year that Juan Muñiz, who had recently arrived from Spain, began to preach the “good news” to the people who were praying and looking for God’s kingdom to come in accord with the words of the Lord’s Prayer taught by Jesus Christ.​—Matt. 6:9, 10.

From that year on, as the Founder of Christianity commanded, the making of “disciples of people of all the nations” prospered in Argentina. (Matt. 28:19, 20) Large quantities of Bibles and Bible study aids in many languages were eagerly received by the Argentine people. In addition, free Bible lectures were delivered in person and by radio transmission. And in 1946, the legal entity called La Torre del Vigía (The Watch Tower, in Spanish) was organized and, later, officially recognized by the Argentine government.

legal recognition revoked in 1950

In 1949, the government formed a department of cults or religion within the Ministry of Foreign Relations. All religions were required to register with this newly formed agency. However, on May 26, 1950, this registration was denied to Jehovah’s Witnesses! And on July 12 of the same year their legal recognition was revoked!

Since then, during all these past 28 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have repeatedly appealed to the authorities. They have appealed to ministers of Foreign Relations, to governors and even to presidents. Part of their appeal has been that they at least be given the opportunity to explain their position. Yet, all these appeals have fallen on deaf ears! Jehovah’s Witnesses have been judged and condemned without even a hearing!

What reason has been given for such treatment? They have been told that their organization “is against the sacred principles of the Magna Charta due to teaching a doctrine contrary to the Armed Forces and to the respect that should be paid to the symbols of the Nation.”

questions of conscience

In all parts of the world, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not take part in such ceremonies as the saluting of the flag and the singing of national anthems. Why not? Because to them this would constitute an act of worship in direct violation of the first and second of the Ten Commandments.​—Ex. 20:3-5.

They take a stand similar to that of the three Hebrews in Babylon. (See Daniel, chapter 3.) During such ceremonies, Witness schoolchildren stand quietly and respectfully. And they never interfere with others participating in such ceremonies.

Also frequently questioned is the conscientious objection to compulsory military training by male members of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yet, Witness youths are neither deserters nor anarchists. They present themselves to the military authorities on the date that they are called up. But they request exemption because of their Bible-based beliefs. And such exemption is granted to them in many countries, particularly in the Western world.

This refusal to bear weapons of war is based on numerous Bible principles. One of these is found at Matthew 22:39, where Jesus said to his followers: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” Another command is given at Matthew 5:21, where Jesus said: “You must not murder.” Similarly, in the Bible book of Isaiah, chapter 2, verse 4, God’s people are told: ‘You must beat your swords into plowshares and not learn war anymore.’

history and the Bible speak

History and the Holy Bible show that the first-century Christians had beliefs identical to those of Jehovah’s Witnesses today. They refused to perform what they considered acts of worship toward the emperor and his state emblems. And they would not participate in military service or in war.

This stand of the early Christians has been verified by many historians down through the ages. One of these is Juan Bautista Alberdi, who shared in framing the Argentine Constitution. In his work El Crimen de la Guerra (The Crime of War), he said: “Present society is a mixture of two types: warring or pagan [type], peaceful or Christian [type].”

Because of this “mixture,” opposition is not unexpected by Christians. Jesus Christ clearly forewarned that the “Caesar” governments of the world would try to encroach upon the worship of true Christians. That is why the Christian apostle Peter said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”​—Acts 5:29.

positive balance

The small band of Christians in the first century were misunderstood, maligned and persecuted. Yet they left a positive balance of benefits for humankind.

Without resorting to violence and war weapons, true Christianity transformed the very lives of those who embraced its teachings. It resulted in people’s replacing practices that hurt themselves and their neighbors with beneficial practices of the highest moral and spiritual caliber.

Commenting on Jehovah’s Witnesses in Argentina, the Buenos Aires Herald of March 31, 1978, observed: “However irritating their practices may be to government officials, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have proven throughout the years to be hard-working, sober, thrifty and God-fearing citizens of the kind the nation manifestly needs.” A high-ranking naval officer expressed it this way: “Regarding the morality and honesty of the Witnesses, there exists no doubt.”

Yet, in spite of this fine record of honesty, morality, integrity and obedience to law, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been singled out for cruel treatment. Intolerance against them has intensified. Some of the events that have taken place are noted in the following article.

Religious Intolerance Intensifies

THE time: July 9, 1976. The place: a small rural school in northeast Argentina. The event: an Argentine national holiday.

Reporters for the weekly news magazine Gente were visiting the school. Why? They were interested in the precarious conditions of the school, especially because it was near the Brazilian border. Reporters had written that many people were entering the country illegally. So they visited the school to see what the situation was.

However, the reporters felt that they needed to make their article more sensational. So what did they do? They placed some children with their backs to the flag while other pupils participated in the flag ceremony. With the students in these positions, the reporters took pictures.

Their article was published on July 15. It stated that the children with their backs to the flag were Jehovah’s Witnesses! Was this so? Absolutely not! Why, the four children of Witnesses had not even attended school that day! And even if they had been there, it would have been contrary to their Christian training to show any such disrespect for the country’s flag.

So this distorted story of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ apparent lack of respect for the flag appeared in the press. And it quickly spread across the nation.

a chain reaction

The following month another incident took place in the same province of Misiones. There, two high school students and a teacher, together with the parents of the students, were arrested and jailed for 16 days. They were charged with “[contemptuous] slighting” of the country’s emblems.

Why was this charge made? Because the students had excused themselves from singing the national anthem and also the March of San Martín. Immediately, legal defense for these Witnesses was set in motion.

Meanwhile, many of their public meeting places in the provinces of Misiones, Entre Ríos and Formosa were being forcibly closed. These actions were taken by federal and provincial authorities.

The Witnesses contested this open obstruction to freedom of worship. On August 23 they filed for a writ of “amparo” (injunction) in the Federal Court in Buenos Aires.

justice triumphs​—briefly

A few days later, on August 27, Federal Judge Francisco Kalicz issued a ruling. He ordered that the Misiones Witnesses who were charged with “slighting” the national emblems be released from prison. He also ordered that they be exonerated of all charges against them!

The judge observed that “contemptuous slighting is performed with material acts.” Among these acts he listed “destroying, burning, breaking, cutting, soiling, spitting, tearing and trampling.” He also noted that such contemptuous slighting is performed “verbally (whistling, hissing) or by writing and even with offensive gestures.”

Were the Witnesses guilty of any of these things? The judge noted that “no element of weight comes forth from the proceedings that any of the ones charged might have had that intention.” He added: “To the contrary all are unanimous in asserting their respect for all the national emblems, as well as for the laws.”

Certainly, on that day, justice gained ground. But the triumph was brief​—very brief. It lasted only four days!

the blow falls

On August 31, 1976, the government issued its coup de grâce. It issued Presidential Decree #1867.

Part of this decree stated: “The freedom of religion consecrated by articles 14 and 20 of the National Constitution of course finds itself limited in the sense that religious ideas should not imply the violation of laws or an attempt against public order, national security, morals or good customs.”

Yet none of those charges have ever been sustained against Jehovah’s Witnesses, as Judge Francisco Kalicz indicated in his decision.

Nevertheless, the decree went on to say: “For this reason . . . THE PRESIDENT OF THE ARGENTINE NATION DECREES:

“ARTICLE 1: The activity of the religious association ‘JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES’ or ‘THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE TRACT ASSOCIATION’ and all groups, entities, or associations directly or indirectly related to said association is prohibited in all of the territory of the Nation.

“ARTICLE 2: Likewise are prohibited (a) the papers, magazines, and all publications that openly or otherwise contribute to the doctrine under consideration; (b) the acts of proselyting and indoctrination.

“ARTICLE 3: All places where the afore-mentioned association holds meetings as well as the places where such material mentioned in Article 2 is printed, distributed or sold will be closed.

“ARTICLE 4: Through the Ministry of the Interior provisions will be adopted and instructions will be given for the carrying out of this decree.”

In connection with the government’s actions, the legal brief filed by the Ministry of the Interior’s General Direction of Legal Matters asserted: “It has not been proven . . . that the sect is devoted to religious worship, that such worship is in accord with our morals and good customs.”

Of course, the facts are just the opposite. It has been clearly proven throughout this century that Jehovah’s Witnesses are intensely devoted to religious worship. And that worship is of the highest moral caliber. Nor does it interfere with the way anyone else chooses to worship or the customs they may want to practice. Authorities all over the world, including the United States Supreme Court, have long ago established the truth of these matters.

The legal brief also contained this amazing statement: “Liberty cannot be thought of in the case of a religion that admits cannibalism, ritual murder, or polygamy, and, by the same token, a religion such as is present in this case cannot be admitted regardless of the form it takes.”

The wording of that statement might make it appear to the uninformed that somehow Jehovah’s Witnesses are connected with such things as cannibalism, ritual murder or polygamy. But that is totally false. Yet, such insinuations as these do damage, as many who are not familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses may feel that there is some basis for these innuendos.

legal fight continues

Legal proceedings initiated by Jehovah’s Witnesses proceeded through the courts. On March 10, 1977, Federal Judge Dr. Jorge E. Cermesoni rendered a decision. He declared illegal the first article of the ban. He showed that the Executive Power had gone beyond its jurisdiction in issuing the decree. Yet, he also declared that “the sect is already prohibited . . . as a result of not being inscribed in the Registry of Cults.”

The Ministry of the Interior appealed the decision; so did Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Ministry claimed that the Executive Power does have the right to regulate constitutional guarantees. The Witnesses appealed the ruling because it had not removed the ban against them.

The matter was taken to the court of appeals. On June 23, Federal Judges Alberto Azcona, Juan Carlos Béccar Varela and Valerio R. Pico modified the decision of the lower court. They declared null and void the presidential decree!

The reason these judges gave was reported in the publication La Nación of June 24th, as follows: “Religious liberty is one of the most important human rights . . . in consequence, in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, their cult . . . cannot be validly restricted, unless its exercise affects the morals or public order.” The judges noted that “the statutes of the [Jehovah’s Witnesses] state that its purpose is ‘public Christian worship of the Most High God and Christ Jesus.’”

Thus the noble ideals expressed in the Argentine Constitution were respected and applied! However, the law allows 10 days for registering an appeal. The question was: Would the State appeal?

to the supreme court

Just under the deadline, the government’s appeal motion was presented to the Supreme Court. The case aroused much interest on the part of persons concerned with freedom and human rights, both in Argentina and abroad. Such persons confidently felt that the nation’s highest court would champion constitutional freedom.

On February 8, 1978, the five justices of the Supreme Court issued their decision. They refused to set aside the ban!

The decision was shrouded in legal terminology that, to the layman, frequently bordered on pure contradiction. The justices claimed: ‘Decree 1867 did not show arbitrariness nor apparent illegality.’ Yet, the decree was arbitrary and illegal because it flatly contradicted the Constitution.

The justices said that ‘the Witnesses had other administrative and judicial avenues for the defense of their rights, namely, inscription in the Registry of Religions.’ But on nine previous occasions Jehovah’s Witnesses had petitioned the government to be included in this Registry of Religions and had been turned down!

Additionally, the judges asserted that they did not ‘pass judgment on the legality of the pretentions substantiated by the Witnesses nor on the legality of the measures adopted in the decree banning them; the Court simply declared inadmissible the legal avenue used by the Witnesses’! And yet the courts are the legal avenue, properly used by Jehovah’s Witnesses!

Why did the Supreme Court resort to such argumentation? For 15 months the case had been under close study by the State’s experts in law, including the attorney general, and by the federal judges who heard the case. Yet, NOT ONCE was the legal recourse invoked by the Witnesses called into question or disputed!

Was the High Court simply ‘washing its hands,’ as did Pontius Pilate in the case of Jesus? Was it seeking to avoid the responsibility of defining a constitutional issue?

How different was the attitude expressed by the renowned Argentine educator and statesman Domingo F. Sarmiento a century ago. He had said: “If there is a minority of the population, and I say even one person who honestly and sincerely disagrees with the sentiment of the majority, the law protects him if he does not try to violate the laws.” Sarmiento further declared: “For the protection of his thinking the . . . Constitution has been constructed.”

Thus, the Supreme Court, shirking its duty, had rendered a heavy blow against freedom, and against Jehovah’s Witnesses. What it did was to give its seal of approval to the many acts of intolerance that had already taken place when the ban was first imposed in September of 1976, and that would yet take place. And what were some of those acts?

What Happened After the Ban

THE ban against Jehovah’s Witnesses went into effect at the beginning of September 1976. At dawn on September 7, the federal police, acting on orders from the Ministry of the Interior, arrived at the branch headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Buenos Aires.

The police sealed off the printery, office, shipping and storage areas. Police guards were posted. And on that same day, about 600 Kingdom Halls of the Witnesses were systematically closed down in all of Argentina.

freedom disappears

Since the ban, religious intolerance has flamed up in some 38 cities and towns from the far northern provinces of Misiones, Formosa and Salta to the southern provinces of Río Negro, Chubut and Santa Cruz. To date, over 320 persons have been arrested, many of them elderly men and women, and small children. Other people have been detained merely because of being relatives or friends of the Witnesses.

Do these actions befit a nation that professes to champion freedom? A courageous answer was given by the Buenos Aires Herald in its editorial “Religious persecution.” It said: “These reports [of arrests of Jehovah’s Witnesses] suggest that Argentina is now in the midst of the biggest outbreak of religious persecution in its history as an independent nation. This is deplorable in itself and will do nothing whatever to enhance Argentina’s reputation in the outside world.”

The newspaper’s editorial also stated that the government’s actions were “treating the world to the loathsome spectacle of armed police breaking up prayer meetings, the sort of thing one might accept as normal in Soviet Russia but which should have no place at all in pluralist Argentina.”

But this “loathsome spectacle” has taken place. Following are but a few of the cases that will help you to determine for yourself the reality of religious intolerance in Argentina.

the facts speak

“30 Witnesses Captured.” So read a news account on March 29, 1978, from Andalgalá (Catamarca province). Ramón Alvarez, members of his family and invited guests were arrested following the closing prayer of the annual Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper. They were detained six days. Men and women alike passed the first night in the open-air patio of the police station. Their personal copies of the Bible and Bible literature were confiscated.

At the seaside resort of Mar del Plata, a group of 19 adults and three minors were studying the Bible. Suddenly, some 15 policemen stormed in and ordered all to leave with their hands above their heads. Hector Mariño and other adults were held for 45 hours. When four other Witnesses came with food and clothing for their friends, they too were arrested! One man, though not a Witness, declared: “I am proud that my father is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” For saying this, he was arrested also.

A notorious case took place in Puerto Rico (Misiones province). There 16 adults, parents of students expelled over the flag-salute issue, were jailed. They were kept for 55 days in the company of every sort of lawbreaker. Those who were fathers were thus deprived of working for the support of their families. The jailed mothers were forced to leave their small children in the care of other Christian families!

In another locality of the same province, soldiers searched the homes of Witnesses and confiscated their literature, including non-Witness translations of the Bible. The police arrested 15 persons, one of whom was not a Witness but merely had their literature. Other homes nearby were visited by soldiers who threatened to arrest anyone who did not burn the Witness literature that they may have had.

The chief of police in Pirané (Formosa) picked up Witness Mosconi at his home, took him to the edge of town, and warned him that he would go to prison if he dared to return to his own home. In the same province, armed soldiers invaded a private home, resorting to blows and foul language, and arrested the seven members of the family, holding them for three days.

In Villa Constitución (Santa Fe), a private home was searched. Literature was confiscated, including Bibles printed by other religions. All present were ordered to appear at the police station. They were warned that it could mean 10 years in prison if they were again found with literature of the Witnesses.

In Córdoba a Witness was jailed for 13 days. He was questioned at great length, many times blindfolded so that he would not recognize his interrogators.

Señora Luisa Moretti and a woman companion were held in custody by the police of Bahía Blanca for 10 days. Their crime? Talking to other persons about the Bible!

To the far south, in Pico Truncado (Santa Cruz), the home of a Witness was searched. His Bible literature was confiscated. After that he was held in isolation for five days.

In Las Catitas (Mendoza) a Witness was taken from his place of work for questioning by the police. When his answers did not satisfy the police, he was hit in the face until he bled.

no subversive elements

What evidence did the police find when they raided private homes or closed the branch office and meeting places of the Witnesses throughout Argentina? NOT ONE WEAPON WAS FOUND, NOT ONE PIECE OF SUBVERSIVE LITERATURE!

In addition, none of the Witnesses offered resistance. Nor did they evidence any lack of respect toward the police and other authorities.

Among the 33,000 active Jehovah’s Witnesses in Argentina there has yet to be found EVEN ONE SUBVERSIVE!

But this is not surprising to anyone who is familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their lives have been patterned after the Christian principles set forth in the Bible, the basic textbook of the Witnesses in all countries of the world. Living by Bible principles certainly is not subversive. Yet, to study and talk to others about this Sacred Book is now considered a crime in Argentina!

loss of employment

Dozens of Witnesses have been dismissed from their jobs since the ban. Public-school authorities were instructed to suspend immediately any member of the teaching staff who did not participate in ceremonies such as the flag salute.

In the province of Buenos Aires, Señora Enriqueta Domínguez, an auxiliary third-grade teacher, was suspended on a 48-hour notice. In another school, Señora Elsida DaCosta was relieved of her position as vice-principal.

Señora Beatriz Muñoz was a kindergarten principal with 24 years of seniority as a teacher in the western province of Mendoza. She is a widow with two children. Yet, she was dismissed on the spot when she inserted a conditional clause in a patriotic oath she signed.

Señora Mercedes D’Alesandro was dismissed from her job at the national telephone company. Witnesses Román and Fernández lost their employment in the municipality of Buenos Aires. Ernesto Navarro and Jorge Brun, civilian employees in the provincial penitentiary of Tucumán, were likewise suspended, without any compensation for their many years of service. And to this list many more cases could be added.

deprived of schooling

Over 300 children have been expelled from or simply denied admittance to public and private schools. However, in some localities federal judges have condemned this notorious discrimination and have ordered the reinstatement of the Witness children. And recently the Supreme Court ruled illegal the expelling of a student on the mere grounds of religious affiliation.

Legal briefs filed in defense of Witness youths have included this most interesting citation from an eminent Argentine authority on constitutional law: “If each person has the right to express himself, he has the corresponding [right] to abstain from an expression that does not answer to his convictions or desires . . . At times the requiring of the mere presence of a person in an act can mean an arbitrary compelling of the person to participate, even though passively, in a ceremony or circumstance that is not to his liking; this violates the freedom to not express oneself. To impose the obligation of an oath that violates religious convictions and the conscience of the person results in the same and is an arbitrary principle.”​—Manual de Derecho Constitutional (Manual of Constitutional Law), pages 220/221:355.

After their expulsion, some Witness students hoped to take their final examinations before a special board. But this right also was denied them, because a note from the General Council of Education, Misiones province, declared: “Such examination is not authorized if the pupils profess the religion of ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses.’”

Ironically, public schools across the nation carry the motto: “DIOS, PATRIA, Y HOGAR” (“GOD, COUNTRY, AND HOME”). Yet, Witness children are denied schooling because they DO put God in first place as the slogan states!

more severe punishment

Most democratic nations include provisions in their laws to exempt conscientious objectors from military training.

But on February 17, 1977, Argentina incorporated a new article into its military code. In addition to the existing penalty for refusing to bear arms (Witnesses usually receive a sentence of three and a half years in prison), such objectors may now be subject to permanent disqualification from holding government and public employment, as well as to the loss of all civil rights, including Argentine citizenship.

This means that the punishment is greater for a person who does not want to learn to kill than for common criminals who kill, destroy property and commit other heinous crimes!

“crime of apology”

In May 1977, Charles Eisenhower, resident of Argentina since 1948 and branch coordinator for the Watch Tower Society, and Argentine-born Lucio Antonuccio, an elder of Jehovah’s Witnesses, were summoned to appear before Military Judge Alberto Martínez. The judge questioned them about a young Witness who refused military training. Later they were summoned before a Federal Court to make statements concerning the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

As a result of these hearings, they were found guilty of the “Crime of Apology,” and could be sentenced to a term of from three months to three years in prison. And an appeals court upheld the decision.

What is this “Crime of Apology”? Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “apology” as: “Something said or written in defense or justification of what appears to others to be wrong.”​—Italics ours.

Thus, in Argentina, it appears to have become a crime to defend one’s Bible-based beliefs in a court of justice!

It must be noted that Charles Eisenhower had never met the Witness objector until the day he met him at the military camp. Lucio Antonuccio, cousin of the prisoner, had studied the Bible with him, but had never counseled him about military service.

In view of all the evidence, can there be any doubt that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Argentina are victims of intense, vicious religious intolerance?

What can be done about it? Indeed, what can YOU do about it?

[Map on page 13]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

●1

●2

●3

4●

5●

●6

●7

8●

9●

10●

11●

12●

13●

14●

15●

Argentina

CITIES (AND PROVINCES) MENTIONED WHERE ARRESTS HAVE TAKEN PLACE

 1. Salta (Salta)

 2. Pirané (Formosa)

 3. Puerto Rico (Misiones)

 4. Tucumán (Tucumán)

 5. Andalgalá (Catamarca)

 6. Santiago (Santiago del Estero)

 7. Córdoba (Córdoba)

 8. Concordia (Entre Ríos)

 9. Villaguay (Entre Ríos)

10. Villa Constitución (Santa Fe)

11. Las Catitas (Mendoza)

12. Mar del Plata (Buenos Aires)

13. Bahía Blanca (Buenos Aires)

14. Pico Truncado (Santa Cruz)

15. Buenos Aires, Capital

What Can Be Done

WHAT can be done to correct religious intolerance in Argentina? The authorities themselves need to pay heed to questions such as the following:

WHEN will it no longer be a crime in Argentina just to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Must we wait months or years until the slow-moving wheels of justice turn out a just decision?

Will the highest authorities of the nation of Argentina personally listen, JUST ONCE, without prejudice, to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ side of the issue?

The invested authorities now have the opportunity to demonstrate before the world which role Argentina really represents on the world scene: that of a champion of freedom​—or of religious intolerance.

Fair-minded people throughout the world hope that Argentina’s leaders will decide on the side of freedom.

Argentine public opinion

Many Argentine people feel the same way. Indeed, on the whole, Argentine people in all walks of life are at a loss to explain why their government has taken such unjust actions against the Witnesses. Friends and relatives, neighbors, business and professional associates, and others whom the Witnesses meet in their daily routines, express themselves sympathetically.

Some ask: “Any news on how your case is coming along?” And they quickly say: “¡Dios quiera que salga bien!” (“God will that it work out well!”) Others comment: “Why doesn’t the government apprehend all the criminals rather than pick on you people who are doing good?” “What an injustice!” “Why don’t they prohibit some of the trash that is sold on the newsstands instead of banning the clean, instructive articles your magazines always carry?”

Worthy of special mention are the kind acts of many non-Witness neighbors and business people. On their own initiative and in goodwill, they have promptly donated food and covering for those in jail, realizing that the police would not provide such things. And they have regularly visited the imprisoned Witnesses to inquire about their needs.

True, most news media in Argentina have chosen to parrot the government’s hostile attitude toward the Witnesses. But there have been notable exceptions. The Buenos Aires Herald, La Opinión (Buenos Aires) and El Territorio (Misiones) are among the newspapers that have sought or granted interviews with Witness representatives and then honestly published their statements.

Nor should it be concluded that all police, judges and other officials have abused their authority and shown prejudice toward Jehovah’s Witnesses. That has not been the case. On many occasions the chiefs of police and other officers have expressed regret to the Witnesses, lamenting the circumstances that forced them to take action. And a number of prison officials, on releasing the Witnesses from confinement, have wished them well.

what the future holds

Jehovah’s Witnesses earth wide await true justice. They know that such will inevitably come soon through the kingdom of the righteous Judge and King, Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile, they put themselves under the protection of the same Being to whom the framers of the Argentine Constitution appealed when they penned these words in the Preamble to the Constitution:

“To assure the benefits of freedom for us, for our posterity, and for all the men of the world that want to live on Argentine soil: invoking God’s protection, Fountain of all right and justice.”

what can you do?

What is your reaction to the trampling underfoot of religious freedom in Argentina? Is there anything you can do about it? Yes, there most certainly is.

If you deplore such unjust action, you will want to write your appeal for justice. Respectfully, you can encourage the invested authorities to take the necessary steps to restore freedom to the Christian minority, Jehovah’s Witnesses.

You may write or telegraph any of the Argentine authorities listed below:

Addresses of officials:

Jorge Rafael Videla

President of the Nation

Casa de Gobierno

Balcarce 50

1064 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Admiral Emilio Eduardo Massera

Casa de Gobierno

Balcarce 50

1064 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Lieutenant General Roberto Eduardo Viola

Casa de Gobierno

Balcarce 50

1064 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Brigadier General Orlando Ramón Agosti

Casa de Gobierno

Balcarce 50

1064 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Minister of Foreign Relations and Religion,

Vice-Admiral Oscar Antonio Montes

Arenales 761

1061 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Minister of the Interior,

General Eduardo Albano Harguindeguy

Casa de Gobierno

Balcarce 50

1064 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Minister of National Defense,

Brigadier Major José María Klix

Paseo Colón 255

1063 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Minister of Culture and Education,

Doctor Juan José Catalán

Avda. Eduardo Madero 235

1106 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Minister of Justice,

Brigadier Julio A. Gómez

Av. Gelly y Obes 2289

1425 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Supreme Court of Justice,

Doctor Horacio H. Heredia

Talcahuano 550

1013 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Supreme Court of Justice,

Doctor Adolfo R. Gabrielli

Talcahuano 550

1013 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Supreme Court of Justice,

Doctor Abelardo F. Rossi

Talcahuano 550

1013 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Supreme Court of Justice,

Doctor Pedro J. Frías

Talcahuano 550

1013 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Supreme Court of Justice,

Doctor Emilio M. Daireaux

Talcahuano 550

1013 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Also, in harmony with 1 Timothy 2:1, 2, you may petition God in prayer that those “in high station” in Argentina may take a tolerant view of Jehovah’s Witnesses in that land, so that again they may lead a quiet and calm life, without the burdensome oppression of this unjust ban.