1, 2. (a) The religious leaders succeeded in doing what to the preaching work, but how did the apostles react? (b) Why did the apostles refuse to obey the ban on preaching?

IT IS shortly after Pentecost 33 C.E. The Christian congregation in Jerusalem is only a few weeks old. Clearly, Satan sees this as the right time for action. Before the congregation grows strong, he wants to stamp it out. Quickly, Satan maneuvers events in such a way that the religious leaders ban the Kingdom-preaching work. The apostles, however, courageously preach on, and many men and women become “believers in the Lord.”​—Acts 4:18, 33; 5:14.

² Enraged, the opposers strike again​—this time by jailing all the apostles. However, during the night, Jehovah’s angel opens the prison doors, and by daybreak the apostles are back out preaching! Again they are arrested and taken before the rulers, who accuse the apostles of breaking the decree against preaching. In response, the apostles boldly declare: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.” The rulers are so infuriated that they want to “do away” with the apostles. But at that critical moment, the esteemed Law teacher Gamaliel speaks up, warning the rulers: “Be careful . . . Do not meddle with these men, but let them alone.” Surprisingly, the rulers take his advice and let the apostles go. What do those faithful men do? Undaunted, they continue “without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus.”​—Acts 5:17-21, 27-42; Prov. 21:1, 30.

3, 4. (a) What time-tested method has Satan used to attack God’s people? (b) What will we consider in this chapter and the following two?

³ That court case back in 33 C.E. was the first occurrence of official opposition to the Christian congregation, but by far not the last. (Acts 4:5-8; 16:20; 17:6, 7) In our time, Satan still stirs up opposers of true worship to incite the authorities to place bans on our preaching work. Opposers have leveled a variety of charges against God’s people. One is that we are disturbers of public order​—troublemakers. Another is that we are seditionists; still another, that we are commercial salesmen​—peddlers. At the appropriate times, our brothers have gone to court to prove such accusations to be false. What has been the result of these cases? How do court verdicts delivered decades ago affect you personally today? Let us examine a few court cases to see in what ways they have helped “in the defending and legally establishing of the good news.”​—Phil. 1:7.

⁴ In this chapter we will focus on how we have defended our right to have the freedom to preach. The following two chapters will examine some of the legal battles that we have fought in our struggle to remain no part of the world and live by Kingdom standards.

Troublemakers​—Or Loyal Advocates of God’s Kingdom?

5. In the late 1930’s, why were Kingdom preachers arrested, and what action was considered by those taking the lead?

⁵ In the late 1930’s, cities and states throughout the United States of America sought to force Jehovah’s Witnesses to obtain some form of legal permit or license in order to engage in their ministry. But our brothers did not apply for licenses. A license can be revoked, and they believed that no government had the authority to interfere with Jesus’ command for Christians to preach the Kingdom message. (Mark 13:10) Consequently, hundreds of Kingdom preachers were arrested. In response, those taking the lead in the organization considered going to court. They hoped to demonstrate that the State had imposed unlawful restrictions on the Witnesses’ right to practice their religion freely. And in 1938 an incident occurred that led to a landmark court case. What happened?

6, 7. What happened to the Cantwell family?

⁶ On Tuesday morning, April 26, 1938, Newton Cantwell, aged 60; his wife, Esther; and their sons Henry, Russell, and Jesse​—all five of them special pioneers—​set out for a day of preaching in the city of New Haven, Connecticut. Actually, they were prepared to be away for longer than a day. Why? They had already been arrested on several occasions, so they realized that they could be arrested again. Yet, that prospect did not dampen the desire of the Cantwells to preach the Kingdom message. They arrived in New Haven in two cars. Newton drove the family car loaded with Bible literature and portable phonographs, while 22-year-old Henry drove a sound car. Indeed, as anticipated, within hours they were stopped by the police.

⁷ First, Russell, aged 18, was arrested, and then Newton and Esther. From a distance, Jesse, aged 16, looked on as his parents and brother were led away by the police. Henry was preaching in another part of town, so young Jesse was left by himself. Still, he picked up his phonograph and continued preaching. Two Catholic men let Jesse play a record of Brother Rutherford’s lecture entitled “Enemies.” But as they listened to the lecture, the men got so angry that they wanted to strike Jesse. Calmly, Jesse walked away from them, but shortly thereafter, a policeman stopped him. So, Jesse too ended up in custody. The police did not charge Sister Cantwell, but they did charge Brother Cantwell and his sons. However, they were released on bail that same day.

8. Why did the court find Jesse Cantwell guilty of being a troublemaker?

⁸ A few months later, in September 1938, the Cantwell family appeared before the trial court in New Haven. Newton, Russell, and Jesse were convicted of soliciting donations without a license. Despite appeals to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, Jesse was found guilty of inciting a breach of peace​—of being a troublemaker. Why? Because the two Catholic men who had listened to the record testified in court that the lecture insulted their religion and provoked them. To challenge the convictions, the responsible brothers in our organization appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court​—the highest court of the land.

9, 10. (a) How did the U.S. Supreme Court rule in the case of the Cantwell family? (b) How do we still benefit from that ruling?

⁹ Starting on March 29, 1940, Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes and eight associate judges listened to the arguments presented by Brother Hayden Covington, a lawyer for Jehovah’s Witnesses.a When the attorney for the state of Connecticut presented his arguments in an effort to prove that the Witnesses were troublemakers, one justice asked: “Was it not true that the message that Christ Jesus proclaimed was unpopular in his day?” The state’s attorney replied: “It was, and, if I remember my Bible correctly, it also tells what happened to Jesus for proclaiming that message.” What a revealing statement! Unwittingly, the attorney grouped the Witnesses with Jesus and grouped the state with those who convicted him. On May 20, 1940, the Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Witnesses.

¹⁰ What was the significance of the Court’s ruling? It expanded protection of the right to the free exercise of religion so that no federal, state, or local government could lawfully limit religious freedom. Further, the Court found in Jesse’s conduct “no . . . menace to public peace and order.” Hence, the ruling clearly established that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not disturbers of public order. What a decisive legal victory for God’s servants! How do we still benefit from it? A lawyer who is a Witness notes: “The right to exercise our religion freely without fear of unfair restrictions allows us as Witnesses today to share a message of hope with others in the communities where we live.”

Seditionists​—Or Proclaimers of Truth?

11. What campaign did our brothers in Canada carry out, and why?

¹¹ During the 1940’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada faced fierce opposition. Hence, in 1946, to publicize the State’s disregard for the right to freedom of worship, our brothers there held a 16-day campaign in which they distributed a tract entitled Quebec’s Burning Hate for God and Christ and Freedom Is the Shame of All Canada. This four-page tract exposed in detail the clergy-instigated riots, police brutality, and mob violence committed against our brothers in the province of Quebec. “Lawless arrests of Jehovah’s witnesses continue,” stated the tract. “There are about 800 charges stacked up against Jehovah’s witnesses in Greater Montreal.”

12. (a) How did opposers react to the tract campaign? (b) Our brothers were charged with what crime? (See also footnote.)

¹² Quebec’s Premier Maurice Duplessis, working hand in glove with Roman Catholic Cardinal Villeneuve, reacted to the tract by declaring a “war without mercy” against the Witnesses. The number of prosecutions quickly doubled from 800 to 1,600. “The police arrested us so many times that we lost count,” said a pioneer sister. Witnesses who were caught distributing the tract were charged with the crime of publishing “seditious libel.”b

13. Who were the first to be tried on charges of sedition, and how did the court rule?

¹³ In 1947, Brother Aimé Boucher and his daughters Gisèle, aged 18, and Lucille, aged 11, were the first to be tried in court on charges of sedition. They had distributed Quebec’s Burning Hate tracts near their farm in the hills south of Quebec City, but it was hard to picture them as lawless troublemakers. Brother Boucher was a humble and mild man who quietly tended his small farm and occasionally traveled into town by horse and buggy. Still, his family had endured some of the very abuses mentioned in the tract. The trial court judge, who hated Witnesses, refused to admit evidence that proved the Bouchers’ innocence. Instead, he accepted the prosecution’s position that the tract stirred up ill will and that thus the Bouchers should be found guilty. So the judge’s view boiled down to this: It is a crime to tell the truth! Aimé and Gisèle were convicted of seditious libel, and even young Lucille spent two days locked in jail. The brothers appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, the land’s highest court, which agreed to hear the case.

14. How did the brothers in Quebec react during the years of persecution?

¹⁴ Meanwhile, our courageous brothers and sisters in Quebec continued to preach the Kingdom message in the face of unrelenting and violent attacks​—often with outstanding results. During the four years after the start of the tract campaign in 1946, the number of Witnesses in Quebec increased from 300 to 1,000!c

15, 16. (a) How did the Supreme Court of Canada rule in the case of the Boucher family? (b) What effect did this victory have on our brothers and on others?

¹⁵ In June 1950, the full Supreme Court of Canada, made up of nine justices, heard the case of Aimé Boucher. Six months later, on December 18, 1950, the Court ruled in our favor. Why? Brother Glen How, a lawyer for the Witnesses, explained that the Court agreed with the argument presented by the defense that “sedition” requires incitement to violence or insurrection against government. The tract, however, “contained no such incitements and was therefore a lawful form of free speech.” Brother How added: “I saw firsthand how Jehovah gave the victory.”d

¹⁶ The Supreme Court’s decision was, indeed, a resounding victory for God’s Kingdom. It eliminated the basis for all the other 122 pending cases in which Witnesses in Quebec had been charged with seditious libel. Further, the Court’s ruling meant that citizens of Canada and the Commonwealth now had the freedom to voice their concerns over the manner of government. Moreover, this victory broke the back of Quebec’s Church-State attack on the liberties of Jehovah’s Witnesses.e

Peddlers​—Or Zealous Heralds of God’s Kingdom?

17. How do some governments try to control our preaching activities?

¹⁷ Like the early Christians, Jehovah’s servants today “are not peddlers of the word of God.” (Read 2 Corinthians 2:17.) Still, some governments try to control our ministerial activities by means of laws that regulate commerce. Let us consider two of the court cases that ruled on the question of whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are peddlers or are ministers.

18, 19. How did authorities in Denmark try to restrain the preaching work?

¹⁸ Denmark. On October 1, 1932, a law took effect that made it illegal to sell printed material without a peddler’s license. Our brothers, however, did not apply for any license. The next day, five publishers spent the day preaching in Roskilde, a town some 20 miles (over 30 km) west of Copenhagen, the capital. At day’s end, one of the publishers, August Lehmann, was missing. He had been arrested for selling goods without a license.

¹⁹ On December 19, 1932, August Lehmann appeared in court. He testified that he had called on people to offer Bible literature, but he denied that he was peddling. The trial court agreed with him. It stated: “The defendant . . . is able to support himself financially, and [he] has not received any economic benefit nor had any intentions to receive such, but instead his activities have caused him financial loss.” Siding with the Witnesses, the court ruled that Lehmann’s activity could not “be characterized as trade.” The adversaries of God’s people, though, were determined to restrain the preaching work throughout the land. (Ps. 94:20) The public prosecutor appealed all the way to the country’s Supreme Court. How did our brothers respond?

20. How did the Supreme Court of Denmark rule, and what was our brothers’ reaction?

²⁰ In the week leading up to the Supreme Court hearing, Witnesses throughout Denmark stepped up their preaching activities. On Tuesday, October 3, 1933, the Supreme Court announced its decision. It agreed with the lower court that August Lehmann had not broken the law. This ruling meant that the Witnesses could continue to preach freely. To express their gratitude to Jehovah for giving this legal victory, the brothers and sisters increased their preaching activities even more. Ever since that Court decision, our brothers in Denmark have been able to carry out their ministry without government interference.

21, 22. What was the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Brother Murdock?

²¹ United States. On Sunday, February 25, 1940, pioneer Robert Murdock, Jr., and seven other Witnesses were arrested while preaching in Jeannette, a city near Pittsburgh, in the state of Pennsylvania. They were convicted of failing to buy a license to offer literature. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

²² On May 3, 1943, the Supreme Court announced its ruling, which came out in defense of the Witnesses. The Court objected to the requirement of obtaining a license because that imposed “a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” The Court invalidated the city ordinance as “an abridgment of freedom of press and a restraint on the free exercise of religion.” In delivering the Court’s majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas stated that the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses “is more than preaching; it is more than distribution of religious literature. It is a combination of both.” He added: “This form of religious activity occupies the same high estate . . . as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits.”

23. Why are the court victories of 1943 important for us today?

²³ This Supreme Court ruling constituted a major legal victory for God’s people. It affirmed what we truly are​—Christian ministers, not commercial salesmen. On that memorable day in 1943, Jehovah’s Witnesses won 12 of their 13 cases before the Supreme Court, including the Murdock case. These court decisions have served as a powerful precedent in more recent court cases in which our opposers have again challenged our right to preach the Kingdom message publicly and from house to house.

“We Must Obey God as Ruler Rather Than Men”

24. How do we react when a government bans our preaching work?

²⁴ As Jehovah’s servants, we deeply appreciate it when governments grant us the legal right to preach the Kingdom message freely. However, when a government bans our preaching work, we simply adjust our methods, continuing our work in any way possible. Like the apostles, “we must obey God as ruler rather than men.” (Acts 5:29; Matt. 28:19, 20) At the same time, we appeal to the courts to lift the ban on our activities. Consider two examples.

25, 26. What events in Nicaragua led to a Supreme Court case there, and what was the outcome?

²⁵ Nicaragua. On November 19, 1952, missionary and branch servant Donovan Munsterman stepped into the Office of Immigration in Managua, the capital. He had been ordered to appear before Captain Arnoldo García, who headed the office. The captain told Donovan that all of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Nicaragua were “prohibited to continue preaching their doctrines and promoting their religious activities.” When asked why, Captain García explained that the Witnesses did not have permission from the minister of government to perform their ministry and that they were accused of being communists. Who were our accusers? The Roman Catholic clergy.

²⁶ Brother Munsterman immediately appealed to the Ministry of Government and Religions as well as to President Anastasio Somoza García, but to no avail. So the brothers adjusted their methods. They closed the Kingdom Hall, met in smaller groups, and stopped street witnessing, but they still preached the Kingdom message. At the same time, they filed a petition for injunction with the Supreme Court of Nicaragua, asking the Court to invalidate the ban. Newspapers widely reported the ban and the contents of the petition, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. What was the outcome? On June 19, 1953, the Supreme Court published its unanimous decision in favor of the Witnesses. The Court found that the ban violated constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, conscience, and manifestation of beliefs. It also ordered that relations between the government of Nicaragua and the Witnesses be restored to their former state.

27. Why were the people of Nicaragua amazed at the Court’s decision, and how did the brothers view this victory?

²⁷ Nicaraguans were amazed that the Supreme Court had sided with the Witnesses. Until then, the influence of the clergy had been so strong that the Court avoided conflicts with them. Also, the power of government officials was so great that the Court seldom went against their decisions. Our brothers were confident that they received this victory because they had received protection from their King and had continued preaching.​—Acts 1:8.

28, 29. In the mid-1980’s, what turn of events took place in Zaire?

²⁸ Zaire. In the mid-1980’s, there were about 35,000 Witnesses in Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. To keep up with the steady growth of Kingdom activities, the branch was constructing new facilities. In December 1985, an international convention was held in the capital city, Kinshasa, and 32,000 delegates from many parts of the world filled the city’s stadium. But then, conditions for Jehovah’s servants began to change. What happened?

²⁹ Brother Marcel Filteau, a missionary from Quebec, Canada, who had experienced the persecution of the Duplessis regime, served in Zaire at the time. He related what took place: “On March 12, 1986, the responsible brothers were handed a letter that declared the association of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Zaire illegal.” The ban was signed by the country’s president, Mobutu Sese Seko.

30. The Branch Committee needed to make what weighty decision, and what did they decide to do?

³⁰ The next day the national radio announced: “We shall never again hear of Jehovah’s Witnesses in [Zaire].” Instant persecution followed. Kingdom Halls were destroyed, and our brothers were robbed, arrested, imprisoned, and beaten. Even Witness children were put in prison. On October 12, 1988, the government seized our organization’s belongings, and the Civil Guard, an army unit, occupied the branch property. The responsible brothers filed an appeal with President Mobutu, but they did not receive a reply. At that point, the Branch Committee had to make a weighty decision, “Shall we appeal to the Supreme Court, or shall we wait?” Timothy Holmes, who was a missionary and the country’s Branch Committee coordinator at the time, recalls, “We looked to Jehovah for wisdom and direction.” After prayerful deliberation, the committee felt that the time for legal action was not right. Instead, they focused on caring for the brotherhood and on finding ways to continue the preaching work.

31, 32. What remarkable decision did the Supreme Court of Zaire make, and what effect did it have on our brothers?

³¹ Several years passed. Pressure on the Witnesses lessened, and respect for human rights increased in the country. The Branch Committee concluded that the time had come to challenge the ban by appealing to the Supreme Court of Justice of Zaire. Remarkably, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Then, on January 8, 1993, nearly seven years after the presidential ban order, the Court ruled that the government’s action against the Witnesses had been unlawful, and the ban was lifted. Just think of what that meant! Putting their own lives at risk, the justices had annulled a decision of the country’s president! Says Brother Holmes, “During the period of that litigation, we saw how Jehovah can change things.” (Dan. 2:21) This victory fortified the faith of our brothers. They felt that the King, Jesus, had directed his people to know when and how to act.

³² With the ban lifted, the branch office was allowed to bring in missionaries, build new branch facilities, and import Bible literature.f What a joy it is for God’s servants worldwide to observe how Jehovah protects the spiritual welfare of his people!​—Isa. 52:10.

“Jehovah Is My Helper”

33. What do we learn from this brief review of a few court cases?

³³ Our review of some legal battles proves that Jesus has lived up to his promise: “I will give you words and wisdom that all your opposers together will not be able to resist or dispute.” (Read Luke 21:12-15.) At times, Jehovah has evidently raised up modern-day Gamaliels to protect his people or has moved courageous judges and lawyers to stand up for justice. Jehovah has blunted the weapons of our opposers. (Read Isaiah 54:17.) Opposition cannot stop God’s work.

34. Why are our legal victories so remarkable, and what do they prove? (See also the box “Noteworthy High Court Victories That Advanced Kingdom Preaching.”)

³⁴ Why are our legal victories so remarkable? Consider this: Jehovah’s Witnesses are not prominent or influential. We do not vote, support political campaigns, or lobby politicians. Moreover, those of us drawn into high court cases generally are considered “uneducated and ordinary.” (Acts 4:13) So, humanly speaking, the courts have little incentive to rule against our powerful religious and political opposers and to come to our aid. Nevertheless, courts have repeatedly decided in our favor! Our legal victories prove that we walk “in the sight of God and in company with Christ.” (2 Cor. 2:17) Hence, with the apostle Paul, we declare: “Jehovah is my helper; I will not be afraid.”​—Heb. 13:6.

1, 2. (a) What principle has guided Jesus’ followers down to our day? (b) How have enemies tried to conquer us, and with what result?

JESUS stood before Pilate, the Jewish nation’s most powerful secular judge, and stated a principle that has guided His genuine followers down to our day. “My Kingdom is no part of this world,” he said. “If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.” (John 18:36) Pilate had Jesus executed, but the victory was short-lived. Jesus was resurrected. Emperors of the mighty Roman Empire tried to crush Christ’s followers, but their efforts were futile. Christians spread the Kingdom message throughout the ancient world.​—Col. 1:23.

² After the Kingdom was established in 1914, some of the strongest military powers in history tried to wipe out God’s people. But none have conquered us. Many governments and political factions tried to force us to take sides in their conflicts. They did not succeed in dividing us. Today, subjects of the Kingdom live in virtually every nation on earth. Even so, we are united in a genuine global brotherhood, remaining strictly neutral as to the world’s political affairs. Our unity provides compelling evidence that God’s Kingdom rules and that the King Jesus Christ continues to direct, refine, and protect his subjects. Consider how he has done so, and note just some of the faith-strengthening legal victories he has given us as we continue to remain “no part of the world.”​—John 17:14.

An Issue Thrust to the Fore

3, 4. (a) What events took place at the time of the Kingdom’s birth? (b) Have God’s people always fully understood the issue of neutrality? Explain.

³ Following the Kingdom’s birth, war raged in heaven, and then Satan was cast down to the earth. (Read Revelation 12:7-10, 12.) A war also raged on earth, one that tested the resolve of God’s people. They were determined to follow Jesus’ example and be no part of the world. But at first they did not fully understand how much it would require of them to keep out of all political matters.

⁴ For example, Volume VI of the Millennial Dawn series,a which was published in 1904, encouraged Christians to avoid participation in war. However, it reasoned that if a Christian was conscripted, he should strive to obtain some form of noncombatant service. If that failed and he was sent into combat, he should ensure that he did not commit murder. Commenting on the situation at that time, Herbert Senior, who lived in Britain and was baptized in 1905, said: “There was a lot of confusion among the brothers and no clear advice as to whether it would be right to join the army as a soldier but only for noncombatant work.”

5. How did The Watch Tower of September 1, 1915, begin to refine our understanding?

⁵ However, The Watch Tower of September 1, 1915, began to refine our understanding of this issue. Regarding the recommendations made in Studies in the Scriptures, it said: “We wonder if such a course would not mean compromise.” But what if a Christian were threatened with being shot for refusing a uniform and military service? The article reasoned: “Would it be any worse to be shot because of loyalty to the Prince of Peace and refusal to disobey His order than to be shot while under the banner of these earthly kings and apparently giving them support and, in appearance at least, compromising the teachings of our Heavenly King? Of the two deaths we would prefer the former​—prefer to die because of faithfulness to our Heavenly King.” Despite that forceful statement, the article concluded: “We are not urging this course. We are merely suggesting it.”

6. What have you learned from the example of Brother Herbert Senior?

⁶ Some brothers saw the issue clearly and met it head-on. Herbert Senior, quoted earlier, said: “To me, there was no difference in principle between unloading shells from a ship [noncombatant service] and putting those shells into a gun to be fired.” (Luke 16:10) As a result of his conscientious objection to military service, Brother Senior was sent to prison. He and 4 other brothers were among a group of 16 conscientious objectors, including men from other religious denominations, who served some of their time at Richmond prison in Britain and later became known as the Richmond 16. At one point, Herbert and others like him were secretly shipped to the front lines in France. There, they were sentenced to be shot. He and a number of others were lined up in front of a firing squad, but they were not killed. Instead, their sentence was commuted to ten years in prison.

7. By the start of World War II, what had God’s people come to see?

⁷ By the time World War II broke out, Jehovah’s people as a whole had come to see more clearly what it meant to be neutral and what was required if they were to follow Jesus’ example. (Matt. 26:51-53; John 17:14-16; 1 Pet. 2:21) For instance, the November 1, 1939, issue of The Watchtower carried the landmark article entitled “Neutrality,” which stated: “The rule by which Jehovah’s covenant people must now be governed is that of strict neutrality between the nations at war.” Regarding that article, Simon Kraker, who later served at headquarters, in Brooklyn, New York, said: “I learned to appreciate that God’s people were to be at peace with everyone, even amid threats of war.” That spiritual food was provided at the proper time and helped to brace God’s people for an unprecedented assault on their loyalty to the Kingdom.

Threatened by a “River” of Opposition

8, 9. How was the apostle John’s prophecy fulfilled?

⁸ The apostle John prophesied that after the Kingdom’s birth in 1914, the dragon, Satan the Devil, would attempt to wipe out the supporters of God’s Kingdom by spewing out a symbolic river from its mouth.b (Read Revelation 12:9, 15.) How was John’s prophecy fulfilled? From the 1920’s onward, there was a surge of opposition against God’s people. Like many other brothers who lived in North America during the second world war, Brother Kraker was thrown into prison for his loyalty to God’s Kingdom. In fact, during the war, Jehovah’s Witnesses made up more than two thirds of all inmates who because of religious objections to the war were being held in federal prisons in the United States.

⁹ The Devil and his agents were intent on breaking the integrity of Kingdom subjects no matter where they lived. Throughout Africa, Europe, and the United States, they were brought before courts and parole boards. Because of their unwavering determination to remain neutral, they were imprisoned, beaten, and maimed. In Germany, God’s people faced enormous pressure because they refused to heil Hitler or join the war effort. An estimated 6,000 were detained in prison camps during the Nazi era, and more than 1,600 German and non-German Witnesses died at the hands of their tormentors. Even so, the Devil was unable to inflict any permanent harm on God’s people.​—Mark 8:34, 35.

“The Earth” Swallows “the River”

10. What does “the earth” symbolize, and how has it intervened in behalf of God’s people?

¹⁰ The prophecy recorded by the apostle John revealed that “the earth”​—elements of this system that are more reasonable—​would swallow “the river” of persecution, thus coming to the aid of God’s people. How has that part of the prophecy been fulfilled? In the decades following World War II, “the earth” has often intervened in behalf of the faithful supporters of the Messianic Kingdom. (Read Revelation 12:16.) For example, various influential courts have protected the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse military service and to decline when asked to participate in nationalistic ceremonies. First, consider just some of the major victories that Jehovah has given his people regarding the issue of performing military service.​—Ps. 68:20.

11, 12. What issues did Brothers Sicurella and Thlimmenos face, and what was the outcome?

¹¹ United States. Anthony Sicurella was one of six children raised by Witness parents. At age 15, he was baptized. When he turned 21, he registered with the draft board as a minister of religion. Two years later, in 1950, he applied for a reclassification as a conscientious objector. Although the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s report found nothing unfavorable, the Department of Justice denied his claim. After several court proceedings, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Brother Sicurella’s case and reversed the lower court’s decision by ruling in favor of Brother Sicurella. This ruling helped to set a precedent for other citizens of the United States who were conscientious objectors to military service.

¹² Greece. In 1983, Iakovos Thlimmenos was convicted of insubordination for refusing to wear a military uniform and was sentenced to prison. After his release, he applied to become an accountant, but his application was rejected because he had a criminal record. He took the matter to court, but after losing his case in the Greek courts, he applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In 2000, the Grand Chamber of the ECHR, a panel consisting of 17 judges, ruled in his favor, setting a precedent against discrimination. Before this ruling, over 3,500 brothers in Greece had criminal records because of being imprisoned for their neutral stand. After this favorable decision, Greece passed a law to clear those brothers of any criminal charges. Also, a law giving all Greek citizens the right to perform alternative civilian service, which had been passed just a few years before, was reaffirmed when the Constitution of Greece was revised.

13, 14. What lessons do you feel we can learn from the cases involving Ivailo Stefanov and Vahan Bayatyan?

¹³ Bulgaria. In 1994, Ivailo Stefanov was 19 when he was drafted into the army. He refused to join the army or to perform noncombatant duties directed by the military. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison but appealed the decision, based on his right as a conscientious objector. His case was eventually referred to the ECHR. In 2001, before the case could be heard, a friendly settlement was reached with Brother Stefanov. The Bulgarian government not only granted amnesty to Brother Stefanov but also to all Bulgarian citizens who were willing to perform alternative civilian service.c

¹⁴ Armenia. Vahan Bayatyan became eligible for compulsory military service in 2001.d He conscientiously objected to serving in the military but lost every appeal in the domestic courts. In September 2002, he began serving a two-and-a-half-year sentence but was released after serving ten and a half months. During that time, he appealed to the ECHR, which heard his case. However, on October 27, 2009, that Court also ruled against him. The verdict seemed to be a crushing blow to the brothers in Armenia who faced this issue. However, the Grand Chamber of the ECHR reviewed the ruling. On July 7, 2011, the Court ruled in favor of Vahan Bayatyan. This was the first time that the ECHR recognized that conscientious objection to military service based on one’s religious beliefs should be protected under the right of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. That ruling protects the rights not only of Jehovah’s Witnesses but of hundreds of millions of people in countries that are members of the Council of Europe.e

The Issue of Nationalistic Ceremonies

15. Why do Jehovah’s people refuse to join in nationalistic ceremonies?

¹⁵ Jehovah’s people remain loyal to the Messianic Kingdom not only by refusing military service but also by respectfully declining to join in nationalistic ceremonies. Especially since the outbreak of World War II, a wave of nationalistic fervor has swept the globe. Citizens of many countries have been required to vow allegiance to their homeland by reciting a pledge, singing a national anthem, or saluting a country’s flag. However, we give our exclusive devotion to Jehovah. (Ex. 20:4, 5) As a result, we have experienced a flood of persecution. Even so, Jehovah has again used “the earth” to swallow up some of this opposition. Note just a few of the remarkable victories that Jehovah through Christ has granted us in this matter.​—Ps. 3:8.

16, 17. What issue did Lillian and William Gobitas face, and what have you learned from their case?

¹⁶ United States. In 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 against Jehovah’s Witnesses in the case known as Minersville School District v. Gobitis. Lillian Gobitas,f aged 12, and her brother William, aged 10, wanted to remain loyal to Jehovah, so they refused to salute the flag or recite the pledge. As a result, they were expelled from school. Their case came before the Supreme Court, and the Court concluded that the school’s actions were constitutional because they were in the interest of “national unity.” That ruling ignited a firestorm of persecution. More Witness children were expelled from school, adult Witnesses lost their jobs, and a number of Witnesses suffered vicious attacks from mobs. The book The Lustre of Our Country states that the “persecution of Witnesses from 1941 to 1943 was the greatest outbreak of religious intolerance in twentieth-century America.”

¹⁷ The victory for God’s enemies was short-lived. In 1943, the Supreme Court considered another case similar to the Gobitis case. It is known as West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. This time, the Supreme Court granted victory to Jehovah’s Witnesses. It was the first time in U.S. history that the Supreme Court had reversed itself in such a short period of time. After that ruling, the overt persecution of Jehovah’s people in the United States drastically decreased. In the process, the rights of all citizens of the United States were strengthened.

18, 19. What did Pablo Barros say helped him to remain strong, and how can other servants of Jehovah imitate his example?

¹⁸ Argentina. Pablo and Hugo Barros, ages eight and seven respectively, were expelled from school in 1976 for not participating in a flag-raising ceremony. On one occasion, the headmistress shoved Pablo and hit him on the head. She made both boys stay after school for an hour, trying to force them to participate in patriotic ceremonies. Recalling the ordeal, Pablo said: “Without Jehovah’s help, I would not have been able to withstand the pressure to break my integrity.”

¹⁹ When the case came to court, the judge upheld the school’s decision to expel Pablo and Hugo. However, their case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Argentina. In 1979, that Court reversed the lower court’s decision, stating: “Said punishment [expulsion] contradicts the constitutional right to learn (Article 14) and the duty of the State to ensure primary education (Article 5).” That victory benefited approximately 1,000 Witness children. Some had their expulsions stopped and others, like young Pablo and Hugo, were readmitted to public schools.

20, 21. How does the case involving Roel and Emily Embralinag strengthen your faith?

²⁰ Philippines. In 1990, Roel Embralinag,g aged 9, and his sister Emily, aged 10, along with approximately 66 other Witness students, were expelled from school for not saluting the flag. Roel and Emily’s father, Leonardo, tried to reason with the school authorities, but to no avail. As matters intensified, Leonardo filed a petition to the Supreme Court. Leonardo had no money and no lawyer to represent him. The family prayed fervently to Jehovah for direction. All the while, the children were being ridiculed and taunted. Leonardo felt he had no chance of winning the case because he had no legal training.

²¹ As events turned out, the family was represented by Felino Ganal, an attorney who had previously been employed by one of the most reputable law firms in the country. At the time of the case, Brother Ganal had left his corporate work and become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. When the case came before the Supreme Court, the Court unanimously decided in favor of the Witnesses and annulled the expulsion orders. Again, those who tried to break the integrity of God’s people failed.

Neutrality Leads to Unity

22, 23. (a) Why have we won so many landmark legal victories? (b) Our global, peaceful brotherhood is evidence of what?

²² Why have Jehovah’s people won so many landmark legal victories? We have no political influence. Yet, in country after country and court after court, fair-minded judges have protected us from the onslaught of tenacious opposers and, in the process, have set precedents in constitutional law. Without a doubt, Christ has backed our efforts to gain those victories. (Read Revelation 6:2.) Why do we fight such legal battles? Our intent is not to reform the legal system. Rather, our goal is to ensure that we can continue to serve our King, Jesus Christ, without hindrance.​—Acts 4:29.

²³ Amid a world divided by political strife and warped by ingrained hatred, our reigning King, Jesus Christ, has blessed the efforts of his followers worldwide to maintain their neutral stand. Satan has failed in his efforts to divide and conquer us. The Kingdom has gathered millions who refuse to “learn war anymore.” The very existence of our global, peaceful brotherhood is a miracle​—it provides irrefutable proof that God’s Kingdom rules!​—Isa. 2:4.

1, 2. (a) What is the proof of your citizenship in God’s Kingdom? (b) Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes had to fight for religious freedom?

ARE you a citizen of God’s Kingdom? As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, you certainly are! And what is the proof of your citizenship? Not a passport, nor some other government document. Rather, the proof lies in the way that you worship Jehovah God. True worship involves more than what you believe. It involves what you do​—your obedience to the laws of God’s Kingdom. For all of us, our worship touches every aspect of life, including the way we raise our families and even the way we respond to certain health issues.

² However, the world we live in does not always respect our most cherished citizenship or its requirements. Some governments have tried to restrict our worship or even stamp it out altogether. At times, Christ’s subjects have had to fight for the freedom to live by the laws of the Messianic King. Is that surprising? No. Jehovah’s people in Bible times often had to fight for the freedom to worship Jehovah.

3. What fight did God’s people face in Queen Esther’s day?

³ In the days of Queen Esther, for example, God’s people had to fight for their very existence. Why? The wicked Prime Minister Haman suggested to Persian King Ahasuerus that all the Jews living in the king’s realm be killed because their “laws are different from those of all other peoples.” (Esther 3:8, 9, 13) Did Jehovah abandon his servants? No, he blessed the efforts of Esther and Mordecai as they appealed to the Persian king to protect God’s people.​—Esther 9:20-22.

4. What will we discuss in this chapter?

⁴ What about modern times? As we saw in the preceding chapter, secular powers have, at times, opposed Jehovah’s Witnesses. In this chapter, we will discuss some ways in which such governments have tried to restrict our way of worship. We will focus on three general areas: (1) our right to exist as an organization and to worship as we choose, (2) the freedom to choose medical treatment in harmony with Bible principles, and (3) the right of parents to raise children according to Jehovah’s standards. In each area, we will see how loyal citizens of the Messianic Kingdom have struggled valiantly to guard their precious citizenship and how their efforts have been blessed.

Struggling for Legal Recognition and Basic Freedoms

5. Legal recognition offers what benefits to true Christians?

⁵ Do we need legal recognition from human governments in order to worship Jehovah? No, but legal recognition makes it easier for us to carry on our worship​—for example, to meet freely in our own Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls, to print and import Bible literature, and to share the good news with our neighbors openly, without hindrance. In many countries, Jehovah’s Witnesses are legally registered and enjoy the same freedoms to worship as do the adherents of other legally recognized religions. What, though, has happened when governments have denied legal recognition or have tried to restrict our basic freedoms?

6. Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia faced what challenge in the early 1940’s?

⁶ Australia. In the early 1940’s, the governor-general of Australia deemed our beliefs “prejudicial” to the war effort. A ban was imposed. Witnesses were unable to meet or preach openly, Bethel operations were closed down, and Kingdom Halls were seized. Merely possessing our Bible literature was prohibited. After operating in secret for several years, the Australian Witnesses found relief at last. On June 14, 1943, the High Court of Australia reversed the ban.

7, 8. Describe the fight for freedom of worship that our brothers in Russia have waged over the years.

⁷ Russia. Jehovah’s Witnesses spent decades under Communist ban but were finally registered in 1991. After the breakup of the former Soviet Union, we were granted legal recognition in the Russian Federation in 1992. Before long, however, some opposers​—particularly those associated with the Russian Orthodox Church—​were unnerved by the rapid growth in our numbers. Opposers filed a series of five criminal complaints against Jehovah’s Witnesses between 1995 and 1998. Each time, the prosecutor found no evidence of wrongdoing. The determined opposers then filed a civil complaint in 1998. The Witnesses prevailed at first, but the opposers rejected the verdict and the Witnesses lost on the appeal in May 2001. A retrial began in October of that year, leading to a decision in 2004 to liquidate the registered legal entity that the Witnesses use in Moscow and ban its activities.

⁸ A wave of persecution followed. (Read 2 Timothy 3:12.) Witnesses faced harassment and assault. Religious literature was confiscated; renting or building houses of worship was severely restricted. Imagine how our brothers and sisters felt as they faced those hardships! The Witnesses had applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2001, and they submitted additional information to the Court in 2004. In 2010, the ECHR reached its decision. The Court saw clearly that religious intolerance was behind Russia’s ban on the Witnesses and ruled that there was no reason to uphold the decisions of the lower courts, since there had been no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of any Witnesses. The Court further noted that the ban was designed to strip the Witnesses of their legal rights. The Court’s decision upheld the Witnesses’ right of freedom of religion. Although various Russian authorities have failed to comply with the ECHR ruling, God’s people in that land have drawn great courage from such victories.

9-11. In Greece, how have Jehovah’s people struggled for the freedom to worship together, and what have been the results?

⁹ Greece. In 1983, Titos Manoussakis rented a room in Heraklion, Crete, so that a small group of Jehovah’s Witnesses could meet there for worship. (Heb. 10:24, 25) Soon, though, an Orthodox priest filed a complaint with government authorities, protesting the Witnesses’ use of the room for worship. Why? Simply because the Witnesses’ beliefs differ from those of the Orthodox Church! Authorities initiated criminal proceedings against Titos Manoussakis and three other local Witnesses. They were fined and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. As loyal citizens of God’s Kingdom, the Witnesses considered the court’s judgment to be a violation of their freedom to worship, so they pursued their case through the domestic courts and eventually applied to the ECHR.

¹⁰ Finally, in 1996, the ECHR delivered a stunning blow to opposers of pure worship. The Court noted that “Jehovah’s Witnesses come within the definition of ‘known religion’ as provided for under Greek law” and that the lower courts’ decisions had a “direct effect on applicants’ freedom of religion.” The Court further found that it was not up to the government of Greece to “determine whether religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs are legitimate.” The sentences against the Witnesses were overturned, and their freedom of worship was upheld!

¹¹ Did that victory settle matters in Greece? Sadly, no. In 2012, a similar case was finally settled in Kassandreia, Greece, after a nearly 12-year-long legal battle. In this case the opposition was mounted by an Orthodox bishop. The Council of State, the highest administrative court of Greece, settled the matter in favor of God’s people. The decision cited Greece’s own constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion and refuted the oft repeated charge that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a known religion. The Court stated: “The doctrines of ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ are not hidden and, consequently, they profess a known religion.” Members of the small congregation in Kassandreia rejoice that they are now able to hold meetings for worship in their own Kingdom Hall.

12, 13. In France, how have opposers tried to frame “trouble in the name of the law,” and with what result?

¹² France. Some opposers of God’s people have used the tactic of “framing trouble in the name of the law.” (Read Psalm 94:20.) For example, in the mid-1990’s, tax authorities in France began an audit of the finances of the Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah (ATJ), one of the legal entities under which Jehovah’s Witnesses operate in France. The minister of the budget revealed the true objective of the audit: “The audit could lead to judicial liquidation or criminal proceedings . . . , which would likely destabilize the association’s operations or force it to cease its activities in our territory.” Although the audit turned up no irregularities, the tax authorities levied a crippling tax against ATJ. If successful, the tactic would have left our brothers with little choice but to close the branch office and sell the buildings in order to pay the huge tax. It was a heavy blow, but God’s people did not give up. The Witnesses vigorously protested this unjust treatment, ultimately submitting the case to the ECHR in 2005.

¹³ The Court handed down its judgment on June 30, 2011. It reasoned that the right to freedom of religion should prevent the State, except in extreme cases, from assessing the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the way they are expressed. Further, the Court stated: “The taxation . . . had the effect of cutting off the association’s vital resources, thereafter preventing it from ensuring its adherents the free exercise of their worship in its practical aspects.” The Court unanimously decided in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses! To the delight of Jehovah’s people, the French government finally returned the tax levied against ATJ with interest and, in compliance with the Court’s order, removed the liens on the branch property.

14. How can you play a part in the fight for freedom of worship?

¹⁴ Like Esther and Mordecai of old, Jehovah’s people today fight for the freedom to worship Jehovah in the way that he has commanded. (Esther 4:13-16) Can you have a part? Yes. You can pray regularly for your spiritual brothers and sisters who are currently suffering on account of legal injustices. Such prayers can be a powerful aid to our brothers and sisters under hardship and persecution. (Read James 5:16.) Does Jehovah act on such prayers? Our victories in court suggest that he certainly does!​—Heb. 13:18, 19.

Freedom to Choose Medical Treatment in Harmony With Our Beliefs

15. What factors do God’s people take into account regarding the use of blood?

¹⁵ As we noted in Chapter 11, citizens of God’s Kingdom have received clear Scriptural guidance to avoid the misuse of blood, which has become so common today. (Gen. 9:5, 6; Lev. 17:11; read Acts 15:28, 29.) Although we do not accept blood transfusions, we want the best medical care possible for ourselves and our loved ones as long as such treatment does not conflict with God’s laws. The highest courts of many nations have recognized that people have the right to choose or to refuse medical treatment as their conscience and religious beliefs require. In some lands, however, God’s people have faced daunting challenges in this regard. Consider some examples.

16, 17. What medical treatment did a sister in Japan receive that proved shocking to her, and how were her prayers answered?

¹⁶ Japan. Misae Takeda, a 63-year-old housewife in Japan, needed major surgery. As a loyal citizen of God’s Kingdom, she made clear to her doctor that she wanted to be treated without blood. Yet, months later, she was shocked to learn that she had been given a blood transfusion during her surgery. Feeling violated and deceived, Sister Takeda filed a lawsuit against the doctors and the hospital in June 1993. This modest, soft-spoken woman had unshakable faith. She gave bold testimony before a full courtroom, remaining on the witness stand for over an hour despite her failing strength. She appeared in court for the last time just a month before she died. Do we not admire her courage and faith? Sister Takeda said that she constantly petitioned Jehovah for his blessing on her fight. She was confident that her prayers would be answered. Were they?

¹⁷ Three years after Sister Takeda died, the Supreme Court of Japan ruled in her favor​—agreeing that it was wrong to give her a blood transfusion against her express wishes. The February 29, 2000, decision stated that “the right to decide” in such cases “must be respected as personal rights.” Thanks to Sister Takeda’s determination to fight for her freedom to choose medical treatment in harmony with her Bible-trained conscience, Witnesses in Japan can now receive medical treatment without the fear of a forced blood transfusion.

18-20. (a) How did a court of appeals in Argentina uphold a person’s right to refuse blood transfusions through use of a medical directive? (b) Regarding the misuse of blood, how might we show submission to Christ’s leadership?

¹⁸ Argentina. How can citizens of the Kingdom prepare in case a medical decision needs to be made while they are unconscious? We can carry on our person a legal document that will speak for us, as Pablo Albarracini did. In May 2012, he was the victim of an attempted robbery and was shot multiple times. He was admitted to the hospital unconscious and was thus unable to explain his stand regarding blood transfusions. However, he had with him a duly executed medical directive he had signed more than four years earlier. Although his condition was serious and some doctors felt that to save his life, blood transfusion was necessary, the medical staff was prepared to honor his wishes. However, Pablo’s father, who was not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, obtained a court order to overturn his son’s wishes.

¹⁹ The attorney representing Pablo’s wife immediately filed an appeal. Within hours, the court of appeals overturned the lower court’s order and ruled that the patient’s wishes, as expressed in the medical directive, should be respected. Pablo’s father appealed to Argentina’s Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court could find “no reasons to doubt that [Pablo’s medical directive expressing his refusal of a blood transfusion] was formulated with discernment, intention and freedom.” The Court stated: “Every capable and adult person has the ability to grant advance directives on [his] health, and may accept or reject certain medical treatments . . . These directives must be accepted by the doctor in charge.”

²⁰ Brother Albarracini has since recovered fully. He and his wife are grateful that he had completed a medical directive. By taking that simple​—yet important—​step, he showed his submission to Christ’s rulership through God’s Kingdom. Have you and your family taken similar measures?

21-24. (a) How did the Supreme Court of Canada come to make a remarkable decision regarding minors and the use of blood? (b) How might this case encourage young servants of Jehovah?

²¹ Canada. Generally, courts recognize the rights of parents to determine the best medical care for their children. At times, courts have even ruled that a mature minor should be accorded respect when it comes to making medical decisions. That was true of April Cadoreth. At the age of 14, April was admitted to a hospital with severe internal bleeding. A few months earlier, she had completed an Advance Medical Directive card with written instructions that blood transfusions should not be administered to her even in the event of an emergency. The attending physician chose to ignore April’s clearly expressed wishes and sought a court order to give her blood. She was forcibly transfused with three units of packed red blood cells. April later likened the experience to rape.

²² April and her parents turned to the courts for justice. After two years, the case came before the Supreme Court of Canada. Though April technically lost her constitutional challenge, the Court awarded her legal costs and ruled in favor of her and other mature minors who seek to exercise their right to decide for themselves their own medical treatment. The Court stated: “In the context of medical treatment, young people under 16 should be permitted to attempt to demonstrate that their views about a particular medical treatment decision reflect a sufficient degree of independence of thought and maturity.”

²³ This case is significant in that the Supreme Court addressed the constitutional rights of mature minors. Before this ruling, a Canadian court could authorize medical treatment on a child under 16 as long as the court felt that the treatment was in the best interests of the child. But after this ruling, a court cannot authorize any treatment against the will of young people under the age of 16 without first offering them the chance to prove that they are mature enough to make their own decisions.

²⁴ Was the three-year battle worth the effort? According to April, “Yes!” Now a regular pioneer and in good health, she says: “To know that I’ve had a small part in trying to glorify God’s name and prove Satan a liar has truly made me happy.” April’s experience shows that our young ones can take a courageous stand, proving themselves genuine citizens of God’s Kingdom.​—Matt. 21:16.

Freedom to Raise Children According to Jehovah’s Standards

25, 26. What situation sometimes arises in the wake of a divorce?

²⁵ Jehovah entrusts parents with the responsibility to raise their children according to his standards. (Deut. 6:6-8; Eph. 6:4) That assignment is challenging, but it may become far more so in the event of a divorce. Views on parenting may differ sharply. For example, a Witness parent feels strongly that a child should be raised according to Christian standards, whereas a non-Witness parent may disagree. Of course, the Witness parent should respectfully recognize that while divorce may sever the marital relationship, the parental relationship remains intact.

²⁶ The non-Witness parent may petition a court for custody of the child or children so that he or she can control their religious upbringing. Some allege that being raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is harmful. They may contend that the children will be deprived of birthday celebrations, holiday festivities and, in the event of a medical emergency, a “lifesaving” blood transfusion. Thankfully, most courts consider what is in the best interests of the child instead of judging whether they consider the religion of one parent to be harmful. Let us look at some examples.

27, 28. How did the Supreme Court of Ohio respond to the charge that being raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is harmful to a child?

²⁷ United States. In 1992, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered a case in which the non-Witness father claimed that it would be harmful to his young son if he was raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The lower court had agreed, granting custody to the father. The mother, Jennifer Pater, was granted visitation rights, but she was directed not to “teach or expose the child to the Jehovah[’]s Witnesses’ beliefs in any form.” This order from the lower court was so broad that it could be interpreted to mean that Sister Pater could not even talk with her son, Bobby, about the Bible or its moral standards! Can you imagine her feelings? Jennifer was devastated, but she says that she learned to be patient and to wait on Jehovah to act. She recalls, “Jehovah was always right there.” Her attorney, aided by Jehovah’s organization, appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

²⁸ The court disagreed with the decision of the lower court, stating that “parents have a fundamental right to educate their children, including the right to communicate their moral and religious values.” The court stated that unless it could be shown that the religious values endorsed by Jehovah’s Witnesses would harm the physical and mental well-being of the child, the court had no right to restrict a parent’s custody rights on the basis of religion. The court found no proof that the Witnesses’ religious beliefs would adversely affect the mental or physical health of the child.

29-31. Why did a sister in Denmark lose custody of her daughter, and what did Denmark’s Supreme Court decide in the matter?

²⁹ Denmark. Anita Hansen found herself facing a similar challenge when her former husband petitioned a court to gain custody of seven-year-old Amanda. Although the district court granted custody to Sister Hansen in 2000, Amanda’s father appealed to the high court, which overturned the district court’s ruling and granted him custody. The high court reasoned that because the parents had conflicting views of life based on their religious beliefs, the father would be in a better position to address those conflicts. Essentially, then, Sister Hansen lost custody of Amanda because of being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses!

³⁰ Throughout this difficult ordeal, Sister Hansen was at times so distraught that she did not know what to pray for. “But,” she relates, “the thoughts in Romans 8:26 and 27 were of great comfort. I always felt that Jehovah understood what I meant. He had his eye on me and was always there for me.”​—Read Psalm 32:8; Isaiah 41:10.

³¹ Sister Hansen appealed to the Supreme Court of Denmark. In its ruling, the Court stated: “The question about custody shall be decided on a concrete assessment of what will be in the best interests of the child.” Further, the Court held that a decision about custody should rest on the way each parent handles conflicts, not on the basis of the “doctrines and positions” of Jehovah’s Witnesses. To Sister Hansen’s great relief, the Court recognized her fitness as a parent and returned the custody of Amanda to her.

32. How has the European Court of Human Rights protected Witness parents against discrimination?

³² Various countries in Europe. In some cases, legal controversies regarding custody of children have gone beyond the highest national courts. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has considered this issue as well. In two cases, the ECHR acknowledged that lower, national courts had treated Witness and non-Witness parents differently simply on the basis of religion. Calling such treatment discriminatory, the ECHR has ruled that “a distinction based essentially on a difference in religion alone is not acceptable.” One Witness mother who benefited from such a decision of the ECHR expressed relief and said, “It hurt so much to be accused of harming my children, when all I was trying to do was give them what I thought was best for them​—a Christian upbringing.”

33. How might Witness parents apply the principle of Philippians 4:5?

³³ Of course, Witness parents facing legal challenges to their right to instill Bible standards in their children’s hearts strive to show a spirit of reasonableness. (Read Philippians 4:5.) Just as they appreciate having the right to train their children in God’s way, so they acknowledge that the non-Witness parent, if he or she chooses, shares the parental responsibilities. How seriously does a Witness parent take the responsibility to train a child?

34. How can Christian parents today benefit from the example of the Jews in Nehemiah’s day?

³⁴ An example from Nehemiah’s day is instructive. The Jews worked hard to repair and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. They knew that doing so would protect them and their families from the enemy nations surrounding them. For that reason, Nehemiah urged them: “Fight for your brothers, your sons and daughters, your wives and homes.” (Neh. 4:14) For those Jews, the fight was worth every effort. Likewise today, parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses work hard to raise their children in the way of the truth. They know that their children are bombarded by unwholesome influences at school and in the neighborhood. Such influences may even creep into the home environment through the media. Parents, never forget that it is worth every effort to fight for your sons and daughters so as to provide a secure environment in which they will flourish spiritually.

Be Confident in Jehovah’s Support of True Worship

35, 36. What benefits have come to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a result of our fighting for our legal rights, and what is your determination?

³⁵ Jehovah has surely blessed the efforts of his modern-day organization in the fight for the right to worship freely. In pressing such legal issues, God’s people have often been able to give a powerful witness in court and to the public at large. (Rom. 1:8) A side benefit of their many legal victories is that they have reinforced the civil rights of many non-Witnesses. However, as God’s people, we are not social reformers; nor are we interested in self-vindication. Above all, Jehovah’s Witnesses have pursued their legal rights in the courts in an effort to establish and advance pure worship.​—Read Philippians 1:7.

³⁶ May we never take for granted the lessons of faith we can learn from those who have fought for the freedom to worship Jehovah! Let us remain faithful as well, confident that Jehovah is supporting our work and continues to give us the strength to do his will.​—Isa. 54:17.