**************

In a recent Department of the Interior Press Release, the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site announced the hiring of John Black as the site’s first Facility Operations Specialist, effective March 17, 2008.  John Black, a National Park Service employee for nine years, is also an active member of the Philip, South Dakota, Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Minuteman Missile National Historic Site was established by Congress in 1999 to tell the story of the Minuteman ICBM system, including the development of the system, the personnel who served at the 1,000 nuclear missile sites throughout the upper Great Plains, and the impact the system had on the communities nearby.  The U.S. Air Force transferred administration of the site to the National Park Service in 2002, and staff began planning and developmental operations in October 2003.

In addition to contemporary buildings, Minuteman Missile National Historic Site includes two assets on the National Register of Historic Places, 35 features on the List of Classified Structures, two Cultural Landscapes, and historic furnishings and reproductions. In addition to Black's demonstrated abilities with restoring and rehabbing historic sites, Black will also oversee the design and construction of the site’s future visitor center/administration facility. Black says that, “he is very excited about the new position and is anxious to join the site’s management team in establishing Minuteman Missile as a major historic site in South Dakota for the visiting public.”   

******************

JW FIGHTER PILOT COMMITTED SUICIDE BY CRASHING AIR FORCE JET. In 1997, the Craig Button saga was played out in the media for several months. Craig Button was reared as a Jehovah's Witness, but supposedly never became an "active" member. His mother was a Jehovah's Witness, and his father joined the Jehovah's Witnesses after retiring from the Air Force.

As a 23 year-old Air Force ROTC cadet, Button wrote to a commander: "My mother who is a Jehovah's Witness raised me to think that joining the military is wrong." The Air Force's "psychological autopsy" revealed that Button was a "perfectionist" who was inwardly torn by his relationships with his JW mother and a former girlfriend. A ROTC classmate stated that Mrs. Button "would not allow him to wear his ROTC uniform in the house." Susane Button, a half-sister, stated that his mother had wanted him "to leave the military for the airlines."

In the weeks before Button's suicide, he seemed to some people to have become disillusioned with his life in the military. A former landlord recalled that in two telephone conversations before his death, Button seemed "out of character," saying he was "learning to kill people." A fellow USAF pilot who shared an apartment with Captain Button at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, near Tucson, Arizona said that in the month before Button committed suicide that Button's "mother became increasingly vocal in her negative feelings towards her son's job and role in the military."

Button's parents had visited him for a weeklong stay the week preceding his suicide. On April 2, 1997, Button was scheduled for a training run, in what would have been the first time that Button had ever dropped live ordnance. However, in the early stages of the exercise, Button broke formation from his unit, and then flew from southern Arizona to the Colorado Rockies, which he loved. There, Button flew his jet into the side of a mountain near Vail.

**************

******************

EEOC v. DRESSER-RAND COMPANY is an ongoing 2004-6 New York federal lawsuit involving a Jehovah's Witness named Harry Davis. Davis was employed as a Machine Tool Operator by the Dresser-Rand Company from 1974 to 1982, and from 1986 until December, 2002. Davis has been a member of the Jehovah's Witness faith for more than 25 years. One of the tenets of Davis' faith is that he may not perform work on any part or product that could be used as an implement of war. As a result, on any occasion that he had been asked to work on projects that involved orders from any of the Armed Services, Davis refused to work on such projects, and the projects were assigned to other machine operators. In December 2002, Davis was asked to work on a project for the United States Navy. As he had in the past, Davis informed his supervisor that he could not work on the project. Because he refused to carry out an assignment, Davis was immediately placed on suspension. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement in place at the time, a meeting was held between a company representative, a union representative, and Davis. According to the employer, in an effort to accommodate Davis' religious beliefs, he was offered a position in the shipping department. The employer contends that this was the only position available that could have accommodated Davis' beliefs. Davis contends that he was not officially offered a position in the shipping department, and in any event, the shipping department position was not a reasonable accommodation. Because the parties were unable to reach an agreement with respect to how Davis' religious beliefs could be accommodated, Dresser-Rand terminated Davis' employment. Thereafter, Davis filed an administrative complaint with the EEOC claiming that the employer discriminated against him on the basis of his religious beliefs. The EEOC then commenced this action in June 2004. Dresser-Rand's motion for summary judgment was denied in July 2006. Outcome unknown.

**************

"... the record discloses that Powell received training from her co-worker, Ken Small, and from her immediate supervisory instructor, Diane Glass. These endeavors are sufficient to sustain a factual finding that any problems encountered in this training resulted from Powell's personality, temperament, and attitude, rather than from her race, religion, or gender.  Moreover, Powell was offered the opportunity to receive additional training by attending several government-sponsored seminar, but could only offer conflicting explanations as to why she declined these offers.

 

"... the evidence shows that she encountered difficulty in dealing with several co-workers--difficulties apparently caused by Powell's lack of interpersonal skills, not by her race, religion, or gender. There is also no indication that Powell received discriminatory allocations of work.  As to her initial assignment it is clear that Wolff [a white male hired at the same time as Powell] was placed into a different area involving more field work because he had more field experience.  Powell's own substandard performance prevented her from accepting work with more responsibility. Moreover, Powell's complaints of having to perform clerical work appear disingenuous given the fact that she declined an earlier offer to delegate these duties to a secretary.

 

"... Powell was unable to provide any credible evidence that she was subjected to unfair or discriminatory evaluations. The record is replete with testimony of her substandard work performance. The only defense Powell offered was her own testimony as to the lack of training she received. This uncorroborated and self-serving testimony, however, was controverted by other testimony and documentary evidence which indicated that Powell had in fact received proper training.

 

... ...

 

"From the outset Powell's stint at Kelly AFB was rife with dissension. The record reveals that Powell became alienated shortly after arriving at Kelly AFB, and that this alienation continued and occasionally worsened during the remainder of her employment. What the record does not disclose, however, is evidence of any type of discriminatory or retaliatory animus by her employer that would constitute a Title VII violation."

Freedom of religion is a constitutional right; and this employee's exercise of that freedom is constitutionally guaranteed. However, unemployment compensation benefits may not be awarded simply as a reward for the free exercise of one's religion. Neither may they be withheld as a penalty for that free exercise.

 

This claimant knew at the time he accepted AVCO employment that his religion prohibited activities furthering the national defense effort. What he claims he did not know was the extent of AVCO's involvement in that defense effort. If he wished to justify, for benefits purposes, leaving work on the basis of those religious beliefs, he was under some obligation to inform himself about the employment.

 

The whole community has known for a decade that AVCO is involved in defense work. It required a singularly detached individual to avoid the acquisition of any particle of such knowledge until he had been employed for more than a year by that employer. Such detachment may be a desirable philosophical attribute, but it can win no unemployment benefits prizes in our modern industrial economy. Had the claimant found out about the nature of the work and quit AVCO within several months, then his religious scruples would have constituted sufficient work-connected cause. However, he did not do this, and must be denied benefits ... .

**************

In 1952, an unnamed Jehovah's Witness in New York sought employment as a welder with an employer that he knew manufactured both non-military and military products. The JW Employee specified work in the non-military section. However, six months later, the JW Employee was assigned to the military section due to changes in operations. The employer was unable to accomodate the JW Employee due to union seniority rules, so was forced to lay him off. Unemployment benefits were initially denied twice before being granted based on this legal reasoning: "The test as enunciated by these cases is not whether or not the standing of the claimant in his church would be affected but rather as to whether or not the acceptance of the work would be an offense to claimant's conscience on the basis of religion and morals. There is no question in this case, and the referee so found, that claimant is sincere in his objections to work on military implements on the basis of his religious beliefs and that the acceptance of such work would be in fact an offense to his religious and moral conscience. Under such circumstances, his refusal to accept work on that nature was justifiable and the lay off which resulted therefrom cannot be deemed a voluntary leaving of his employment without good cause."

**************

MOURSI v. NCR CORP was a 1992 Colorado federal lawsuit involving a Jehovah's Witness named Michael Moursi. Moursi began working for NCR in 1986 as automotive marketing manager. In 1989, he was offered a promotion to military marketing, but he refused the promotion to the military-related job that he says violated his religious beliefs. Moursi claimed in his lawsuit that he was demoted and forced to resign. Outcome unknown.

DeREMER v. UNITED STATES was a 1963-5 Minnesota federal appellate court decision. Dale Verne DeRemer, of Mankato, Minnesota, was a Jehovah's Witness who battled the military draft system for more than a decade. First, DeRemer battled to have himself classified as a "conscientous objector". The running battle, which started when DeRemer first registered in 1954, was interrupted around 1957/8, when he claimed and was granted a IV-F classification due to an unknown disability.

However, the disability classification was lifted in 1959, and Dale DeRemer re-started his quest for classification as a "conscientous objector". The specifics are unclear, but in 1961, DeRemer was possibly granted "conscientous objector" status, but then objected even to being assigned to "non-combatant" service, to which "conscientous objectors" were routinely assigned as an alternative to regular military assignment. Apparently, after DeRemer even refused to comply with his "conscientous objector" status requirements, in September 1963, DeRemer was tried, convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment by the Minnesota USDC. On DeRemer's appeal, the USCA affirmed.

What is so interesting about this Jehovah's Witness court case, other than the fact that it was one of the longest running draft cases, was that all during this case DeRemer was employed by Northern Ordnance, Inc., a known military defense contractor, which worked almost exclusively for the U.S. Navy.

**************

UNITED STATES v. BURGUENO was a 1970 California federal appellate court decision. A Jehovah's Witness named Louis Edward Burgueno was convicted on various draft evasion charges after failing to report for duty due to his claim that he objected to all forms of war. The USCA gave this appeal the quick heave-ho, but not before noting that Louis Burgueno was employed at Douglas Aircraft, a major manufacturer of military aircraft.

**************

HUNTER v. UNITED STATES was a 1968 Washington federal appellate court decision. Paul MacArthur Hunter apparently had been reared as a Jehovah's Witness, since he was baptized in 1958, when he was 14 or 15 years old. When Paul Hunter turned 18, in 1961, he registered for the draft, and applied for "conscientious objector" status rather than "minister" status, because by that time, his meeting attendance had become irregular, and his "field service" was practically nil.  After being denied even "conscientious objector" status, Paul Hunter was convicted on draft evasion charges after he failed to report.

The USCA affirmed Hunter's conviction. First, several of Hunter's fellow JWs were unduly critical of Hunter's shortcomings with regard to meeting attendance and field service. (Par for the course. Jehovah's Witnesses have a "salvation-by-works" culture, under which Christ himself would be criticized for doing too little.)  Second, and pertinent to this webpage, is the fact that after applying for CO status, Hunter relocated to California, where he went to work in a defense plant operated by Hobeck Precision Metals.

**************

KEEFER v. UNITED STATES was a 1963 Arizona federal appellate court decision. In 1961, a Jehovah's Witness, named Craig Allen Keefer, was convicted of various draft evasion charges. The saga first began in 1953, in the state of Washington. Craig Keefer subsequently moved to California, and eventually to Arizona. The USCA affirmed Keefer's conviction, stating in part:

"In this case there are several matters in the record which may be said to reflect adversely upon the credibility and sincerity of appellant. The record also shows without contradiction that in November, 1953, less than a year after he filed his claim for a conscientious objector classification, appellant accepted employment with the Boeing Airplane Company, Seattle, Washington. During his employment with Boeing, which ended in April, 1955, he worked in a maintenance shop on military aircraft. A Boeing supervisor advised that appellant was aware that he was working on military airplanes and never objected to doing so. He also worked for Mitchell Avionics Corporation in Chico, California, from July 18, 1957, to October 18, 1957. This firm was then mainly engaged in the repair and rebuilding of airplane motors under a contract with the Air Force. Appellant's willingness to do work under military contracts could have been considered by the Board to be inconsistent with his claim that he was opposed to the participation in war in any form, thus casting doubt upon his sincerity. ... ."

**************

UNITED STATES v. MANKE was a 1958 Maryland federal USCA court decision. Herbert William Manke, of Baltimore, Maryland, first registered with the Selective Service in 1949, when he was a freshman in college. Manke requested and was granted Conscientious Objector status. Soon thereafter, Manke's draft board learned that Manke was enrolled in Air Force ROTC, and changed his classification to I-D. Manke thereafter "officially" joined his parents as one of Jehovah's Witnesses by getting "baptized". Manke then reapplied for and was granted Conscientious Objector status again. However, Manke also supposedly became a "pioneer" (fulltime recruiter) for the WatchTower Society, and applied for "Minister" status with his draft board, in 1953. Thereafter, Manke was assigned "alternative service" as a CO, but he refused to perform, and he and the Selective Service went at it until this 1958 hearing before the USCA, during which the federal appellate court made this ruling:

" ... we find no merit in appellant's contention that the denial of ministerial and conscientious objector classification by the Appeal Board was without basis in fact. Ministerial classification might have been and evidently was denied chiefly because of the comparatively little time which appellant spent about his work as a "Pioneer" for Jehovah's Witnesses and the relatively long hours which he spent during the same period in secular work. ... Likewise, there was a basis in fact for denial of conscientious objector classification in that the file showed his participation in Air ROTC at the University of Maryland at the time he asserted his conscientious objector claim and [thereafter] his full-time secular employment as an instrument mechanic's helper in the fuel department of the Bethlehem Steel Company, a defense plant closely connected with the production of war materials.

**************

BLALOCK v. UNITED STATES was a 1957 North Carolina federal appellate court decision. Alva Eugene Blalock, a Jehovah's Witness, was convicted on various draft evasion charges. Hayden C. Covington represented Alva Blalock on appeal. The USCA affirmed the conviction, stating in part:

"At this interview, Mathis asked the registrant if he would work in a defense plant, and Blalock's reply was that he would, because the use made of the products 'isn't my responsibility' and 'is no concern of mine.' In view of this admission, coupled with a declared intention not to perform any civilian work in the national interest if so ordered by the board, the State Director reopened the case. The local board reclassified him I-A, and again the case was appealed and referred by the appeal board to the Department of Justice for investigation, hearing, and recommendation.

"At the departmental hearing which followed, the examiner asked a question similar to that propounded at the earlier draft board interview pertaining to Blalock's willingness to work in a defense plant. He again answered that his religious beliefs would not prevent him from engaging in such work if it were necessary. ... the Special Assistant to the Attorney General, on review of the file, recommended denial of the claim in view of the registrant's statement that he would work in a defense plant. ...

"Afforded an opportunity to reply to the Department's recommendation, Blalock altered his position regarding defense work, stating that he would not engage in such work if the materials were to be used in war. Thereupon, the appeal board, as the Department had suggested, classified appellant I-AO, rendering him subject to non-combatant military service. On being ordered to report, he reported, but refused to submit to induction; and this criminal proceeding followed.

... ...

"Not only could the appeal board consider the decision of the local board which had had an opportunity to view the registrant's demeanor, but it could determine and evaluate any incongruity in his condemnation of war on the one hand, and his willingness, on the other, to do defense work with avowed indifference to the destructive use of the products of his labor. Had Blalock actually worked in a defense plant, that circumstance would have been a pertinent one in evaluating the conscientiousness of his objection to non-combatant duty. ... His willingness to do so, though he has not in fact done so, is also pertinent. ... The Board could consider, in addition, that his attitude regarding defense work was later modified when the adverse effect of his admission became known to him."

**************

JONES v. UNITED STATES was a 1957 South Carolina federal appellate court decision. Doyle Julian Jones, a Jehovah's Witness, was convicted on various draft evasion charges. The USCA affirmed the conviction, and published this quote from the District Judge:

"It also appears from the record that the defendant was employed for approximately a year at the Savannah River Plant of the United States Atomic Energy Plant Commission, commonly known locally as the 'H-Bomb Plant'. I find that the defendant's willingness to work at an installation so closely connected with the national security activities of the United States as the Savannah River Plant of the Atomic Energy Commission is peculiarly inconsistent with a claim of conscientious objection to participation in war in any form, ... . This fact in itself to me appears sufficient to justify denial of the defendant's claim. This is particularly true in view of the fact that the defendant sought and obtained employment at the Savannah River Plant only some three or four months after he first made his claim of conscientious objection."

 

**************

UNITED STATES v. DEAN was a 1957 California federal court decision. A Jehovah's Witness "Conscientious Objector", named George Thomas Dean, 23, pleaded "guilty" to draft evasion charges, but received five years probation. Details are missing, but probation was possibly granted so that George Dean could return to his previous employment, which was described as a Police Officer for the City of Taft.

**************

BATELAAN v. UNITED STATES was a 1954 California federal appellate court decision. William Joy Batelaan was a Jehovah's Witness who also battled with the draft system to be classified as a "conscientous objector". Typical of many Jehovah's Witness cases, numerous arguments and issues were raised and developed at each level, but as in the DeRemer case above, this Jehovah's Witness "draft dodger" was found to be employed in a defense contactor manufacturing plant in California -- Lockheed. When confronted with the hypocrisy that his job involved the making of war munitions, Bill Batelaan defensively stated that "the job at Lockheed is only to get money to live on."

**************

UNITED STATES v. JACKSON was a 1955 Texas federal court decision.  In July 1955, a Jehovah's Witness, named Fred D. Jackson, of Commanche, Texas, was sentenced to two years in prison on draft evasion charges. Jackson had been granted "conscientious objector" status, but he refused to perform alternative service at a Texas hospital. Interestingly, Fred Jackson was employed at a defense contractor plant which manufactured military aircraft.

**************

WHITE v. UNITED STATES was a 1954 California federal appellate court decision. Clair Laverne White was represented in a losing effort by WatchTower Society lead attorney, Hayden Covington. The Jehovah's Witnesses challenged the draft board's classification of Clair White as a "Conscientious Objector available for noncombatant military service only".

It was likely that the following ruling played a major role in the WatchTower Society's crackdown on JWs working in war-related industries. This court also picked up on the fact that the JWs main objection to military service is not "war", but rather the doing of the bidding of the government. As the point is made all through this section, most arguments that JWs make publicly are "public relations" arguments. The actual reason for JWs not doing most of the covered topics is because JWs are "anti-government".

In part, the USCA stated:

"Furthermore, the board was cognizant of the fact, disclosed in the questionnaire, and in the registrant's personal appearance before it, that registrant was engaged as an employee of a concern making parts for Douglas Aircraft. The report of the hearing officer shows that these were war contracts on which he was thus employed from 1949 to 1951. The Board's minutes of what transpired at the time of his personal appearance did not purport to be a verbatim account of all that was then said or done. It is obvious, however, that the board was given to understand from the information then furnished it that the registrant was engaged in the manufacture of military equipment.

In view of his experiencing no difficulty working upon the manufacture of munitions for war, the board was not without justification in concluding that White had no conscientious objection to participation in war through the manufacture of arms and munitions, just so long as he did so for a private company and not for the government. It was therefore but natural for the boards to believe that if the registrant's conscience was not bothered while working on war contracts he could not justly claim he was conscientiously opposed to noncombatant participation in war activities and that his mere objection to wearing a uniform because it marked him as one working for the government was not the kind of objection contemplated by the statute. Objection to serving a country, even on religious grounds, is not the standard under the statute. The registrant's facility in forwarding the cause of war, force and killing through activity in a war plant, may well demonstrate his failure to establish his status as a person conscientiously opposed to noncombatant duty.

We think that it cannot be adjudged that the local board with its opportunity to size up the registrant upon his personal appearance, which could evaluate his sincerity as it observed his manner and demeanor, and which moreover was confronted by a young man whose obvious objection was not so much to making instruments of death as to doing anything for or on behalf of the government, can be said to have acted without basis in fact when it concluded the appellant's conscientious objection did not extend to noncombatant service.

**************

CLARK v. UNITED STATES was a 1954 California federal appellate court decision. Roger Dean Clark was another Jehovah's Witness who battled with the Selective Service to be classified as a "conscientous objector".  Typical of many Jehovah's Witness cases, numerous arguments and issues were raised and developed at each level. Part of the Draft Board's reasoning for denying Clark's CO classificiation request was due to:

"Registrant told the Hearing Officer that among the customers of the company for which he works is a military establishment. On interrogation registrant stated that he would willingly work in a war plant as a civilian but not if enrolled by the Government. The contribution he would be making to the war effort was immaterial in his consideration. Registrant admitted that he would use force in self defense, defense of family and fellow church members. ... Registrant testified that he devoted eight hours a week to his religion."

**************

UNITED STATES v. KOBIL was a 1951 Michigan federal court decision. A Jehovah's Witness, named Walter Kobil, 25, of LaSalle, Michigan, received a directed verdict in his favor in his jury trial on draft evasion charges, because of a number of errors committed by his local draft board. However, the federal judge noted that Kobil was still a hypocrite, regardless of whether he was classified as a "minister", or as a "conscientious objector", given that this JW draft dodger was employed at a Toledo, Ohio factory that manufactured parts for military vehicles.

**************

UNITED STATES v. GOLEMGESKE was a 1945 Wisconsin federal court case. An 18 year-old Jehovah's Witness, named Clifford Golemgeske, of Waukesha, was indicted on draft evasion charges. Cliff Golemgeske stated that he "didn't believe in war, and refused to fight for his country."  Golemgeske was arrested at his job at the Waukesha Motor Co., a "war plant" that manufactured aircraft engines.

**************

As examples of court cases similar to the above that I have NOT posted due to unclear details, there is the 1943 court case in which a Massachusetts JW was convicted of draft evasion. He was arrested at his job in a factory located in a Massachusetts city that was known as a hub of defense plants. Yet, I don't have source material that specifically states that the factory where he worked was a defense plant, so I won't post that case.

In another 1944 court case, a Pennsylvania JW was convicted of draft evasion. He was employed at a US Steel subsidiary just outside Pittsburgh. Anyone who knows anything about WWII, knows that in 1944, that the vast majority of steel was going into war materials. There would not be any steel plant in the U.S., even the stray specialty plant, that did not manufacture steel for the defense industry at some point in time in any given year of the war. Yet, I don't have source material that specifically states that the JW was involved in manufacturing war materials, so I won't post that case.

In another 1950s court case, a California JW was denied CO status by his draft board after he indicated "that if there were no other work available, he would be willing to accept employment in a Naval Shipyard." It is clear from the appellate opinion that the board was referring to a shipyard where "war materials" were handled, but from the limited summary and verbiage used in the appellate opinion, I cannot be certain that the JW understood such.

Ruppert Leon Sargent was a volunteer "employee" of the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. His status as a Jehovah's Witness is unclear, but both his wife and his mother were Jehovah's Witnesses. That is a known fact, because when Lt. Sargent was posthumously awarded the nation's highest military award for heroism - the CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR, his widow and mother refused to attend the award ceremonies in Washington D.C. (Remember the CMH ceremony in "Forrest Gump".) President Johnson first approved the CMH for Sargent, but because of his family's refusal to accept it, the award had to be approved again when President Nixon took office. The Army evidently did not take "NO" for an answer, and Sargent's widow finally gave in and agreed to accept the award in private. In 1969, a Brigadier General from the Pentagon hand delivered the CMH to the Sargent home in Hampton, Virginia. A Pentagon officer said that he felt Mrs. Sargent had no right to try to keep her husband's Medal of Honor a secret. "He belongs to the country," the officer said.

If the officials at the Pentagon knew the historical facts that are now known, they might have had a better chance convincing Lt. Sargent's JW family to attend the CMH ceremonies. Lt. Sargent was not the first person with JW ties to be awarded the CMH. That honor goes to 3-star General William P. Hall, who also served as the Adjutant General of the United States Army. General Hall was a convert and close friend of the Jehovah's Witnesses' founder, Charles Taze Russell. Hall served as a Watch Tower Society official at the same time he served as Adjutant General in Washington D.C. If that would not have been convincing enough, maybe the Sargent family would have been interested in knowing that 4-star General and U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower was reared as a Jehovah's Witness. Eisenhower's father was an Elder, and their home served as the local "Kingdom Hall" until after Eisenhower went to West Point.

Brothers Jason and Johel Woodliff (slow loading) were Jehovah's Witnesses who were also volunteer "employees" of a U.S. Marine Corp Reserve Battalion that lost 48 members during a 2004-5 tour in Iraq. A mile-long parade, which was attended by thousands of strangers, greeted the Battalion upon its' return in October 2005. However, the Woodliff "heroes" had no family to greet them. Their parents, Thomas and Mia Woodliff, who are devout Jehovah’s Witnesses, were nowhere to be found. Johel told a reporter, "I begged my mother to come, but I knew she wouldn’t." The parents are behaving according to the doctrines of their faith, said a spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses headquarters in New York. "As Christians, we’re neutral with respect to the conflicts that nations have," said J.R. Brown, director of public information for the Watchtower Bible Tract Society. Jehovah’s Witnesses who volunteer for military service have essentially opted to leave the church and abandon neutrality, Brown said. Such a move can mean the end of their relationships with other church members, even family, he said. Jason Woodliff said he was kicked out of the house for telling his parents he wanted to join the Marines when he was 18 years old. He said, "I haven’t had a conversation with my dad in five years. For him, it’s 100 percent about the religion." Johel Woodliff said his parents reacted similarly when he announced plans to enlist.

Readers should be aware that there have been at least two other newspaper articles reporting on other young Jehovah's Witnesses who have chosen to "buck" Watch Tower Society teachings and have enlisted to serve their country in Iraq. Nineteen year old Dontrell Lendsey of Fountain, Colorado was kicked out of his home when he informed his adoptive mother that he was joining the Marines. Another JW unfortunately lost his life, and his family refused to even attend his burial. I will post details if I ever ran across the article again.

Chief Warrant Officer Eric A. Smith told his JW Mother, Lillian Lake, of Lake Placid, Florida, that he was fighting so that she could have the freedom to live as a JW. Lake attended her son's memorial, but apparently offended the other attendees with her WatchTower inspired comments that her son's death was an honor.

******************

<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>

JW LAWSUITS - Page 5

Web Hosting · Blog · Guestbooks · Message Forums · Mailing Lists
Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Site Building Articles · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by bravenet.com