Changes

===Pledge of Allegiance===

===Pledge of Allegiance===

Their view of idolatry led to their refusal to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America (or other governments) and participation in military service.<ref>Rutherford: “God, Jehovah, is the only source of life. No one else can give life. The State of Pennsylvania cannot give life. The American Government cannot. God made this law [forbidding the worship of images], as Paul puts it, to safeguard His people from idolatry. That is a small thing, you say. So was the act of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit. It was not the apple that Adam ate, but it was his act of disobeying God. The question is whether man will obey God or obey some human institution. . . - Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom p.684</ref> Jehovah's Witnesses base this belief on their understanding of [[Book of Romans|Romans]] 13:1,5-7; [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 12:17; and [[Book of Acts|Acts]] 5:28, 29.  

Their view of idolatry led to their refusal to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America (or other governments) and participation in military service.<ref>Rutherford: “God, Jehovah, is the only source of life. No one else can give life. The State of Pennsylvania cannot give life. The American Government cannot. God made this law [forbidding the worship of images], as Paul puts it, to safeguard His people from idolatry. That is a small thing, you say. So was the act of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit. It was not the apple that Adam ate, but it was his act of disobeying God. The question is whether man will obey God or obey some human institution. . . - Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom p.684</ref> Jehovah's Witnesses base this belief on their understanding of [[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 13:1,5-7; [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 12:17; and [[Book of Acts|Acts]] 5:28, 29.  

In 1935, two young Witnesses Lillian Gobitas and her younger brother William refused to salute the American flag in school in Minersville, Pennsylvania; both were expelled from public school. Their father found relief in the 3d Circuit Court of Appeals, but the children were still not accepted back in school. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the court held for the school board in an opinion written by Justice [[Felix Frankfurter]].  The Supreme Court ruled that the flag salute could be made mandatory despite religious convictions. The ruling led to assaults on Jehovah's Witnesses,  Three years later the court reversed its ruling against the Witnesses in 'West Virginia State Board of Education' v. 'Barnette' (1943). The Witnesses' trials support the position that American liberty does not emanate so much from localities and states taking their stand against a potentially tyrannical federal government as from an elite legal culture that places the Constitution and individual rights above the passions of communities and crowds.<ref>See Francis (2000)</ref>  

In 1935, two young Witnesses Lillian Gobitas and her younger brother William refused to salute the American flag in school in Minersville, Pennsylvania; both were expelled from public school. Their father found relief in the 3d Circuit Court of Appeals, but the children were still not accepted back in school. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the court held for the school board in an opinion written by Justice [[Felix Frankfurter]].  The Supreme Court ruled that the flag salute could be made mandatory despite religious convictions. The ruling led to assaults on Jehovah's Witnesses,  Three years later the court reversed its ruling against the Witnesses in 'West Virginia State Board of Education' v. 'Barnette' (1943). The Witnesses' trials support the position that American liberty does not emanate so much from localities and states taking their stand against a potentially tyrannical federal government as from an elite legal culture that places the Constitution and individual rights above the passions of communities and crowds.<ref>See Francis (2000)</ref>  

The many legal battles waged by the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Supreme Court during the 1930s-40's were not accidental but rather a result of a strategy employed by leaders of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to secure the right to proselytization through winning key 1st Amendment cases in the high courts. Judge Joseph Franklin Rutherford envisioned using the law to empower and protect Jehovah's Witnesses against canvassing prohibitions and mob violence, but it was Hayden Covington of the group's legal department who actively steered Witnesses into legal confrontations nationwide. Covington deliberately sent Witnesses into areas where their activity was either prohibited or unpopular.{{citation needed}} Witnesses were aptly prepared for arrest and were given legal guidance about how to get their cases appealed to higher courts. The end result of this strategy was that 19 cases regarding Jehovah's Witnesses reached the Supreme Court during 1939-50.<ref>Jennifer Jacobs Henderson, "Witnesses and their Plan to Expand First Amendment Freedoms," ''Journal of Church & State'' 2004 46(4): 811-832, in [[EBSCO]]</ref>  

The many legal battles waged by the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Supreme Court during the 1930s-40's were not accidental but rather a result of a strategy employed by leaders of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to secure the right to proselytization through winning key 1st Amendment cases in the high courts. Judge Joseph Franklin Rutherford envisioned using the law to empower and protect Jehovah's Witnesses against canvassing prohibitions and mob violence, but it was Hayden Covington of the group's legal department who actively steered Witnesses into legal confrontations nationwide. Covington deliberately sent Witnesses into areas where their activity was either prohibited or unpopular.{{citation needed}} Witnesses were aptly prepared for arrest and were given legal guidance about how to get their cases appealed to higher courts. The end result of this strategy was that 19 cases regarding Jehovah's Witnesses reached the Supreme Court during 1939-50.<ref>Jennifer Jacobs Henderson, "Witnesses and their Plan to Expand First Amendment Freedoms," ''Journal of Church & State'' 2004 46(4): 811-832, in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

 

===Canada===

===Canada===

The Canadian government treated Jehovah's Witnesses harshly during World War II, outlawing their organization from 1940 to 1943. Some Witnesses were denied the opportunity to do alternative service, were drafted into the army, and then imprisoned for pacifism. The Jehovah's Witnesses antagonized the Canadian government and other Christian faiths by claiming that all governments were controlled by Satan, by dismissing any distinctions between clergy and laity, and by refusing to admit that they belonged to a religious group.<ref>Penton (1976)</ref>

The Canadian government treated Jehovah's Witnesses harshly during World War II, outlawing their organization from 1940 to 1943. Some Witnesses were denied the opportunity to do alternative service, were drafted into the army, and then imprisoned for pacifism. The Jehovah's Witnesses antagonized the Canadian government and other Christian faiths by claiming that all governments were controlled by Satan, by dismissing any distinctions between clergy and laity, and by refusing to admit that they belonged to a religious group.<ref>Penton (1976)</ref>