Why banning the Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t work for Russia

[Ann O'Maly]

Why banning the Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t work for Russia

• BY EMILY B. BARAN
• APRIL 20^TH 2017

The Supreme Court of Russia has a decision to make this week about whether to label the Jehovah’s Witnesses an extremist organization and liquidate its assets. This act would transform the religious community into a criminal network, and make individual Witnesses vulnerable to arrest simply for speaking about their faith with others. While the court case has attracted recent media attention, this move is the culmination of two decades of increasing state hostility to Witnesses. In the late 1990s, Moscow took the Witnesses to court to deny them legal standing in the city limits. After several years of court hearings, the city banned the organization. In more recent years, anti-extremism laws drafted in the wake of domestic terrorism have been turned against Witness magazines and books. Currently, over eighty publications have been placed on the federal list of extremist materials. Even their website is now illegal. So is My Book of Bible Stories, an illustrated book for children, listed alongside publications by terrorist organizations.

If the state criminalizes the Witnesses, it will represent a major deterioration in religious toleration in post-Soviet Russia. It will also put Russia at odds with the European Court of Human Rights, which has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Witnesses in the past two decades. It may make other minority faiths vulnerable to similar legal challenges. In the 1990s, scholars spoke of a newly opened religious marketplace, in which post-Soviet citizens, freed from the constraints of state-enforced atheism, shopped around among the faith traditions. It is fair to say that these days, this marketplace has fewer customers, fewer stalls, and more regulations.

If history is any guide, Russia will find it nearly impossible to eliminate Jehovah’s Witnesses. Soviet dissident author Vladimir Bukovsky once admiringly wrote of the Witnesses’ legendary persistence under ban. When the Soviet Union barred religious literature from crossing its borders, Witnesses set up underground bunkers to print illegal magazines for their congregations. When Soviet officials prohibited Witnesses from hosting religious services, they gathered in small groups in their apartments, often in the middle of the night. Sometimes they snuck away to nearby woods or out onto the vast steppe, where they could meet with less scrutiny. When the state told believers that they could not evangelize their faith to others, Witnesses chatted up their neighbors, coworkers, and friends. When these actions landed them in labor camps, Witnesses sought out converts among their fellow prisoners. Witnesses are certain to revive many of these tactics if placed in similar circumstances in the future.

Moreover, technology makes it far more difficult for Russia to control the religious practices of its citizens. Although the Witnesses’ official website is no longer available in Russia, individual members can easily share religious literature through email or dozens of other social media platforms and apps. While Soviet Witnesses had to write coded reports and hand-deliver them through an underground courier network, Witnesses today can text this information in seconds. Technology will also facilitate meeting times for religious services in private homes.

The Russian government simply does not have the manpower to enforce its own ban. It is hard to imagine that local officials could effectively prevent over 170,000 people across more than 2,000 congregations from gathering together multiple times per week, as Witnesses do worldwide. The case of Taganrog is instructive. Several hundred Witnesses lived there in 2009, when the city declared the organization illegal. A few years later, it convicted sixteen Witnesses for ignoring the ban and continuing to gather their congregations for services. The state spent over a year in investigations and court hearings for sixteen people, a tiny fraction of the total congregation, and then suspended the sentences and fines rather than waste more resources in following through on its punishment guidelines. There are not enough police officers in Russia to monitor the daily activities of each and every Witness, and the Witnesses know it. Under a ban, everyone will face more scrutiny, a few will be dealt more serious consequences, and most will continue practicing their faith regardless.

Russia may nonetheless decide that all of this conflict is worth it. After all, Soviet officials were fairly successful in relegating Witnesses to the margins of society. Few Russians will complain if Witnesses no longer come to knock on their door. After all, even Americans rarely have kind words for religious missionaries at their own doorsteps. In my own research, I have never heard a single Russian, other than a scholar, say anything positive about Witnesses. For the record, my experience with Americans has been similar. On a more basic level, Russian citizens may not even notice the Witnesses’ absence from public life. While the post-Soviet period saw a religious revival for all faiths, far fewer joined the Witnesses than the Russian Orthodox Church. For all their recent growth in membership, the Witnesses remain a tiny minority in a largely secular society.

The vocal determination of Witnesses not to acquiesce to state demands should not cause observers to overlook the very real damage a ban would do to this community. Yes, Witnesses have faced similar challenges before and have dealt with them. For decades, they held their baptisms in local rivers and lakes under cover of night. In the post-Soviet period, new members were finally able to celebrate their baptisms in full view of their fellow believers at public conventions. A long-time Witness who attended one of these events in the early 1990s recalled, “What happiness, what freedom!” A new ban would mean a return to this underground life, to a hushed ceremony in cold waters. This is not what freedom of conscience looks like in modern states.

Emily B. Baran is the author of Dissent on the Margins: How Jehovah’s Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It. Her work explores the shifting contours of dissent and freedom in the Soviet Union and its successor states. She is Assistant Professor of History at Middle Tennessee State University.

[Srecko Sostar]

It is good to note that bans also have their counter effects. There is no guarantee that bans are successful, that is what experience tells us. People drink alcohol and drive motor vehicles relentlessly even though prohibitions are clearly posted and penalties are enforced.

Ideologically oriented and convinced people, in this case with religious beliefs, will resist the prohibitions of their religious freedom. JWs are not an only example of that. And other people, because of different beliefs, are ready to endure contempt and various prohibitions of society.

One question is always asked, is it worth suffering? When GB bans the wearing of beards for men or trousers for women, we wonder if the ban is worth enduring? JWs have proven it's worth. Because they also received liberation from those prohibitions. lol

But, Is it useful for a Russian brother to wear a beard? And Orthodox priests in Russia also wear beards, so maybe the end of the ban on wearing beards will not significantly affect JW men in Russia, because they could be mistaken for members of the "false religion".
GB abandons some of its bans, and there are various motives and reasons behind this. The fact that something is true, just, moral and pleasing to God plays the least role in all of this. It is about pragmatic reasons and the issue of money and material possessions. Also damage control, primarily due to the specific policy of running a massive international corporation, which is a religiously-ideologically colored hierarhical administration.

Each ideology is interwoven with its own extremisms, which are accepted by members within that ideology. WTJWorg and GB keep proving their own extremism which they project to their followers. And some JWs rebel within themselves against it, but then they become "apostates" and are expelled from the "society" because they are under "ban". Some leave and others stay despite the bans. Some remain in WTJWorg and balance the ban with their freedom.

So, as written in the article, bans are of limited effect. But in the meantime, you have to endure. Is it possible? Is it necessary?

[George88]

10 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It is good to note that bans also have their counter effects. There is no guarantee that bans are successful, that is what experience tells us. People drink alcohol and drive motor vehicles relentlessly even though prohibitions are clearly posted and penalties are enforced.

Indeed, this is true. The decision to cease the preaching work lies in the hands of God, not in the hands of governments.

12 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Each ideology is interwoven with its own extremisms, which are accepted by members within that ideology. WTJWorg and GB keep proving their own extremism which they project to their followers. And some JWs rebel within themselves against it, but then they become "apostates" and are expelled from the "society" because they are under "ban". Some leave and others stay despite the bans. Some remain in WTJWorg and balance the ban with their freedom.

Are you suggesting that true Christians should emulate Jesus' actions with the apostles and the apostles' interactions with the people? And, in your opinion, which aspects of Christianity should authentic Christians steer clear of?

14 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

One question is always asked, is it worth suffering? When GB bans the wearing of beards for men or trousers for women, we wonder if the ban is worth enduring? JWs have proven it's worth. Because they also received liberation from those prohibitions.

Have you ever noticed how few people you see wearing fashion from the 1920s, 1930s, or even the 1800s? And let's not even get started on the number of Model Ts we encounter on the roads these days, a true rarity!

[BTK59]

I'm curious to know if Srecko would consider it likely for a contemporary woman to don a bathing suit from 1910. lol!