Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2002, Page 93
The court also implied that one of the Jehovah‘s Witness elders who testified in this case
claimed that the Watchtower does not teach the theocratic warfare doctrine. If this had
occurred and the theocratic warfare doctrine was indeed JW teaching, then the elder would
have been applying the doctrine to defend the Watchtower. In fact, however, this Elder did
not dispute the doctrine in court, but claimed only that it is no longer applied in
contemporary court cases in America. The other elder was evasive and claimed the highly
unlikely situation that he was unfamiliar with the doctrine even though he was an active
Witness for about a half a century.
As noted, the Watchtower teaches in print that it is proper to withhold information from
those who they feel have no right to know if such knowledge could damage the
Watchtower‘s interests. This is in direct violation of the court oath that requires one to tell
―the whole truth and nothing but the truth.‖ Watchtower religious beliefs were critical in
this case, and there is no purpose in having a trial in these types of cases unless the effects
of the theocratic warfare belief can be evaluated. Furthermore, if asked about this doctrine,
the proper response is to tell the truth as required by the court oath, but a JW following
Watchtower teachings would not necessarily honor that oath because the court is part of
Satan‘s system.
The court appears to have concluded — incorrectly in my view — that the theocratic warfare
doctrine did not influence JW witnesses to a degree that would make their testimonies
suspect. Moreover, the court seems to have implied that even if it had been convinced that
the theocratic warfare doctrine was currently operative and influencing testimony, it still
would have disallowed expert testimony on the matter because ―evidence of the beliefs or
opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that
by reason of their nature his credibility is impaired or enhanced.‖ Both of these rulings, in
my view, invite serious abuses in future court cases and ought not to have been made in
Redman.
Consider for example, the Yahweh Ben Yahweh sect, which teaches that it is proper to
murder to defend their church (U.S. v. Beasley 72 F.3d (11th Cir. 1996)). To be fully
consistent with the Ohio Supreme court ruling, if the prosecutors note this religious teaching
in court, evidence rule No. 610 would indicate that the murder conviction would be reversed
on appeal. The court ruled that the followers of Yahweh Ben Yahweh were involved in at
least 14 murders, and that their religious beliefs were critical in establishing the motivations
for the murders, a decision that the courts have upheld (U.S. v. Beasley, 72 F. 3d 1518
(11th Cir. 1996) cert. denied, James v. United States, 518 U.S. 1027, subseq. appeal,
United States v. Yahweh, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 24977 (11th Cer.), and cert. denied,
Yahweh v. United States, 519 U.S. 866 (1996)).
The courts also ruled that teaching that promotes or justifies murdering dissidents (Yahweh
Ben Yahweh‘s religious teaching) was a proper area of inquiry. Furthermore, the reasons
for a death must be established to determine if a murder or a manslaughter conviction is
most appropriate. The circuit court also ruled that one cannot hide behind one‘s religion in
committing illegal acts, in harmony with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the American
Indian Religious use of Peyote case (Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources v.
Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990)). The court in the Redman case has condoned hiding behind the
theocratic war beliefs. Other commentators have concluded that both the appellate court
decision and the Ohio Supreme Court decision would appear to give carte blanche
permission to lie when lying is based on religious beliefs if the religious belief is brought out
in court by the prosecution:
The Ohio Supreme Court in April, 1994, ruled that evidence that Jehovah‘s
Witnesses use ―theocratic war strategy‖ (i.e., deceive or lie, even in court if
necessary to protect the interests of the organization) cannot be used in
The court also implied that one of the Jehovah‘s Witness elders who testified in this case
claimed that the Watchtower does not teach the theocratic warfare doctrine. If this had
occurred and the theocratic warfare doctrine was indeed JW teaching, then the elder would
have been applying the doctrine to defend the Watchtower. In fact, however, this Elder did
not dispute the doctrine in court, but claimed only that it is no longer applied in
contemporary court cases in America. The other elder was evasive and claimed the highly
unlikely situation that he was unfamiliar with the doctrine even though he was an active
Witness for about a half a century.
As noted, the Watchtower teaches in print that it is proper to withhold information from
those who they feel have no right to know if such knowledge could damage the
Watchtower‘s interests. This is in direct violation of the court oath that requires one to tell
―the whole truth and nothing but the truth.‖ Watchtower religious beliefs were critical in
this case, and there is no purpose in having a trial in these types of cases unless the effects
of the theocratic warfare belief can be evaluated. Furthermore, if asked about this doctrine,
the proper response is to tell the truth as required by the court oath, but a JW following
Watchtower teachings would not necessarily honor that oath because the court is part of
Satan‘s system.
The court appears to have concluded — incorrectly in my view — that the theocratic warfare
doctrine did not influence JW witnesses to a degree that would make their testimonies
suspect. Moreover, the court seems to have implied that even if it had been convinced that
the theocratic warfare doctrine was currently operative and influencing testimony, it still
would have disallowed expert testimony on the matter because ―evidence of the beliefs or
opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that
by reason of their nature his credibility is impaired or enhanced.‖ Both of these rulings, in
my view, invite serious abuses in future court cases and ought not to have been made in
Redman.
Consider for example, the Yahweh Ben Yahweh sect, which teaches that it is proper to
murder to defend their church (U.S. v. Beasley 72 F.3d (11th Cir. 1996)). To be fully
consistent with the Ohio Supreme court ruling, if the prosecutors note this religious teaching
in court, evidence rule No. 610 would indicate that the murder conviction would be reversed
on appeal. The court ruled that the followers of Yahweh Ben Yahweh were involved in at
least 14 murders, and that their religious beliefs were critical in establishing the motivations
for the murders, a decision that the courts have upheld (U.S. v. Beasley, 72 F. 3d 1518
(11th Cir. 1996) cert. denied, James v. United States, 518 U.S. 1027, subseq. appeal,
United States v. Yahweh, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 24977 (11th Cer.), and cert. denied,
Yahweh v. United States, 519 U.S. 866 (1996)).
The courts also ruled that teaching that promotes or justifies murdering dissidents (Yahweh
Ben Yahweh‘s religious teaching) was a proper area of inquiry. Furthermore, the reasons
for a death must be established to determine if a murder or a manslaughter conviction is
most appropriate. The circuit court also ruled that one cannot hide behind one‘s religion in
committing illegal acts, in harmony with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the American
Indian Religious use of Peyote case (Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources v.
Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990)). The court in the Redman case has condoned hiding behind the
theocratic war beliefs. Other commentators have concluded that both the appellate court
decision and the Ohio Supreme Court decision would appear to give carte blanche
permission to lie when lying is based on religious beliefs if the religious belief is brought out
in court by the prosecution:
The Ohio Supreme Court in April, 1994, ruled that evidence that Jehovah‘s
Witnesses use ―theocratic war strategy‖ (i.e., deceive or lie, even in court if
necessary to protect the interests of the organization) cannot be used in
