Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses
157971
221033159
2008-06-22T19:27:17Z
Vgranucci
3469966
/* United States */ dab fix
{{Jehovah's Witnesses}}
Internationally there have been numerous '''Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses'''. The cases revolve around three main subjects:
*practice of their religion,
*displays of patriotism and military service, and
*[[blood transfusion]]s.
Jehovah's Witnesses base their practice of evangelism on scriptures, such as [[Matthew 28:18]]–[[Matthew 28:20|20]]; they cite [[Acts of the Apostles|Acts]] 20:20,21 as scriptural support for the manner in which this activity is carried out, and receive additional encouragement in this activity from their literature and local congregations. The Supreme Courts of many lands have established their rights to proceed with this activity.<ref> “Jehovah’s Witnesses – Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom” –1993, chap. 30 pp. 679-701 | “Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News” | . © Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania</ref>
==Canada==
The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] has made a number of important decisions concerning [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]. These include the striking down of [[Quebec]]'s [[Padlock Law]] and other anti-Witness laws in the 1950s and more recent cases dealing with whether Witness parents had the right to decide what medical treatment was in the best interest of their children based on their faith.
==El Salvador==
In 1998, [[El Salvador]]'s Supreme Court of Justice struck down a Social Security Hospital rule that required patients to donate blood in order to receive medical treatment. Previously, hospital policy called for all patients to provide two units of blood prior to a surgical procedure. After this, those who wish to receive medical treatment in the Social Security Hospital have the legal right to choose not to give blood.
==Germany==
In December of 2000, [[Germany]]'s Supreme court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses did not have to pass a test of "loyalty to the state", laying the foundation for greater freedoms of worship for German citizens.<ref>
{{cite press release
| title =Federal Administrative Court grants long-awaited recognition to Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany
| publisher =Jehovah's Witnesses; Office of Public Information
| date =February 17, 2006
| url =http://www.jw-media.org/region/europe/germany/english/releases/religious_freedom/ger_e060217.htm
| accessdate =2006-12-31 }}
<br /></ref><Ref>
{{cite web
| title =Jehovah's Witnesses Granted Legal Status
| publisher =Deutsche Welle
| date =March 25, 2005
| url =http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1530197,00.html
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2006-12-31 }}
</Ref>
==India==
In [[July 1985]] in the state of [[Kerala]], some of the Jehovah's Witnesses' children were expelled from school under the instructions of Deputy Inspector of Schools for having refused to sing the national anthem, [[Jana Gana Mana]]. A parent, V. J. Emmanuel, appealed to the [[Supreme Court of India]] for legal remedy. On [[August 11]], [[1986]], the Supreme Court [[overruled]] the [[Kerala High Court]], and directed the respondent authorities to re-admit the children into the school. The decision went on to add: "Our tradition teaches [[tolerance]], our [[philosophy]] teaches tolerance, our [[Constitution of India|Constitution]] practices tolerance, let us not dilute it". <Ref>
{{cite web
| title =Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors V. State of Kerala & Ors [1986] INSC 167
| publisher =World Legal Information Institute
| date =[[August 11]], [[1986]]
| url =http://www.worldlii.org/in/cases/INSC/1986/167.html
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = }}
</Ref>
==Japan==
On March 8, 1996, the Supreme Court of [[Japan]] ruled that [[Kobe]] Municipal Industrial Technical College violated the law by expelling Kunihito Kobayashi for his refusal to participate in [[Kendo]] lessons. He felt that these drills were not in harmony with such Bible principles as the one found at Isaiah 2:4, which says: "They will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore." The Court's decision established a precedent for future cases.
Misae Takeda, one of Jehovah's Witnesses, was given a [[blood transfusion]] in [[1992]], while still under sedation following surgery to remove a malignant tumor of the liver. On [[February 29]], [[2000]], the four judges of the Supreme Court unanimously decided that doctors were at fault because they failed to explain that they might give her a blood transfusion if deemed necessary during the operation, thus depriving her of the right to decide whether to accept the blood transfusion or not.
==Philippines==
In 1993, the Supreme Court of the Philippines held that exemption may be accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs.<ref> {{ cite web
|url=http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/mar1993/gr_95770_1993.html
|title=1993 RP Supreme Court ruling in Roel Ebralinag, et al. vs. Superintendent of Schools of Cebu
| date=March 1, 1993
}}</ref>
In [[1995]] and [[1996]], in a landmark case having far-reaching implications for the [[Status of religious freedom in the Philippines#Benevolent Neutrality-Accommodation|status of religious freedom in the Philippines]], the Supreme Court of the Philippines granted an exception to laws regarding marriage to a practicing Jehovah's Witness because enforcement of those laws would have inhibited free exercise of religious beliefs.<ref name=escritor2003> {{ cite web
|url=http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/am_p_02_1651.htm
|title=2003 RP Supreme Court ruling in ''Estrada vs. Escritor''
| accessdate =2006-12-31
| date=August 4, 2003
}}</ref><ref name=escritor2006> {{ cite web
|url=http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.M.%20No.%20P-02-1651.htm
|title=2006 RP Supreme Court ruling in ''Estrada vs. Escritor''
| accessdate =2006-12-31
| date=June 22, 2006
}}</ref>
==Russia==
After the fall of the communist block of nations in [[Eastern Europe]] and [[Asia]], Jehovah's Witnesses were allowed to worship freely in those nations for the first time since WWII. However, recent years have seen a resurgence of political resistance to minority religions prompting several court cases in the [[Moscow]] courts which have led to the denial of registration for Jehovah's Witnesses in the Moscow district.
==United States==
{{main|United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses}}
[[U.S. Supreme Court]] [[Associate Justice]] [[Harlan Fiske Stone]] wrote, "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."
In the [[United States]] numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] law. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between [[1938]] and [[1946]].
The most important U.S. Supreme Court legal victory won by the Witnesses was in the case ''[[West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette]]'', in which the court ruled that school children could not be forced to [[Pledge of Allegiance|pledge allegiance]] to or [[salute]] the [[Flag of the United States|U.S. flag]]. The ''Barnette'' decision overturned an earlier case, ''[[Minersville School District vs. Gobitis]]'' (1940), in which the court had held that Witnesses could be forced against their will to pay homage to the flag.
The [[fighting words]] doctrine was established by ''[[Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire]]'' (1942). In that case, a Jehovah's Witness had reportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching "You are a God-damned [[racketeer]]" and "a damned [[fascism|fascist]]" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest, thus establishing that "[[insult]]ing or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate [[breach of the peace]]" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
In a more recent case, Jehovah's Witnesses refused to get government permits to solicit door-to-door in [[Stratton, Ohio]]. In 2002, the case was heard in the U.S. Supreme Court (''Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton — {{ussc|536|150|2002}}''). The Court ruled in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses, holding that making it a misdemeanor (to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit) violates the first Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
==References==
<references/>
==External links==
* [http://www.jw-media.org/ Jehovah's Witnesses news releases]
* [http://www.jw-media.org/ Jehovah's Witnesses video news ]
[[Category:Jehovah's Witnesses]]
[[Category:Case law]]
[[ja:エホバの証人絡みの最高裁訴訟事件]]