Jehovah's Witnesses applied for 'Religious Status' (this gives tax deductions. donations and grants to the home office) to Bulgaria in the late 90's. The government refused to grant JW's Religious status unless they stated there was no sanction for taking a blood transfusion along with other stipulations. Jehovah's Witnesses are all well aware that the willful taking of a blood transfusion is considered a sin against God and the basis for automatic expulsion. In the year 2000 a brother wrote to the Branch Office in Germany to ask for an explanation of the public document statements about Jehovah's Witness beliefs to the Bulgarian government, as opposed to what their actual beliefs were. Below are the letters sent and the response given by the German Branch Office.

The reader can determine if "Theocratic Warfare" was employed to gain religious status in Bulgaria.

Mr. Michael Bruder [alias M. Bibleres]

Cäcilienweg 17

46537 Dinslaken

Germany

Phone: 01149 2064/18023

email: par1914@aol.com

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society March,3, 2000

of Jehovah's Witnesses; E.V.

-Writing department-

Am Steinfels

65618 Selters (Niederselters)

Germany

Re:The yearbook 2000 about Jehovah's Witnesses versus Bulgaria and the report of theEuropean Commission of Human Rights I have before me.

Dear Brothers,

The yearbook 2000 briefly describes on page 24 what finally lead Jehovah's Witnesses to become legally recognized, although quite different circumstances have lead to the legal recognition. As the yearbook states:

An appeal to the Bulgarian Supreme Court had been denied because, among other things, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity and in other non-Biblical doctrines of Christendom. (Yearbook 2000,page 24, underline and emphasis mine)

What kind of reasons "among other things" were in fact really responsible for the denial of recognition of Jehovah's Witnesses?

It is mentioned here just on the margin that the refusal of the belief in the "trinity" and "other non-Biblical doctrines of Christendom" caused the denial of recognition of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not (preferably not?) stated in the yearbook which "other non-Biblical doctrines" caused the denial of recognition. A hardly convincing construction, since there would be a reason far more important to withdraw from a recognition of Jehovah's Witnesses on the part of the Bulgarian Government. No information is given in the yearbook, which conclusion the European Commission of Human Rights has come to on March 9' 1998. By letters of 10th and 11th February 1998 the parties informed the European Commission of the final text, in which they have reached a friendly settlement regarding the terms of settlement. This text, compiled by the European Commission, should have been picked up, at least in extracts, in the yearbook. In this way, all Brothers and Sisters would have come to read the following lines:

[source language: French; Note from the Translator]

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

ApplicationNo. 28626/95

KhristianskoSdruzhenie "Svideteli na Iehova"

(Christian Association Jehovah's Witnesses)

against Bulgaria

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 9 March 1998)

17. By letters of 10 and 11 February 1998 the parties informed the Commission of the final text of the friendly settlement.This text, compiled on the basis of the correspondence received from the parties, reads as follows:

I. Concerning the substitution of mandatory military service with alternative service, the Government of Bulgaria is undertaking to submit to Parliament a draft of the legislation, as soon as possible, instituting a civil service as an alternative to military service.

1.1 The draft, according to the judgement of the petitioner, responds to the demands of conscientious objectors, members of Jehovah's Witnesses, who wish to partake of alternative civilian service in lieu of military service.

1.2 The final draft of this legislation, introduced by the Council of Parliamentary Ministers, will be submitted immediately to the European Commission on Human Rights.

II.Concerning the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on blood, the petitioner undertakes to draft a statement which will become part of the bylaws of Jehovah's Witnesses of Bulgaria, in view of their registration, stipulating that:

2.1- Jehovah's Witness patients resort to the use of the medical system for themselves and their children; each member having the right to make use of this [medical system] freely at their own discretion, without any controls or sanctions on the part of the petitioner;(emphasis andUnderline mine)

2.2- acting according to the Bulgarian health legislation, the Christian Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Bulgaria undertakes to respect the application of said legislation, which comprises:

2.2.1-to not furnish an advance medical directive refusing blood transfusions to minor persons; [this means that baptized and unbaptized minors will be prohibited from carrying a no-blood card] [emphasis and underlinemine]

2.2.2 - concerning persons who have achieved the age of majority, in observing the dispositions of said legislation recognizes that each individual retains the freedom of choice. [emphasis and underline mine]

18.At its session on 9 March 1998, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.[and underline mine]

For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

M. de SALVIA S.TRECHSEL

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

At least the points 2.1 to 2.2.1 (very important!) should have been picked up in the yearbook. I think we may shelve the pretext of the "trinity"and the "other non-Biblical doctrines". There is no certain creed at issue in the report of the European Commission. The "friendly settlement" reached between the parties was made on the "basis of respect for Human Rights" that fits the blood issue quite well. The Yearbook keeps silent about this fact.

By the way, I have handed over a copy of the Report of the European Commission -which I have had let me have right from France - to our former circuit overseer who was very grateful for that, commenting: "we have only received a press release [censured?]"

With kind regards

Michael Bruder

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

Am Steinfels, 65618 Selters, OT NiederseltersPhone 01149 6483 41-0

Mr. MichaelBruder LC:LSC March 15, 2000

Cäcilienweg 17 Direct dialling: 41-28 64

46537 Dinslaken Fax: 41-2860

Germany

Dear Brother Bruder,

Thank you very much for your letter from March, 3,2000 referring to page 24 of the yearbook 2000.

As the report of the Commission enclosed by you indicates, the wording of the text was compiled by the Commission "on the basis of the correspondence received from the parties". With the following exposition the misunderstandings in this phrasing becomes clear:

Under point 2.1 it is stated that Jehovah's Witness patients resort to the use of the medical system for themselves and their children; each member having the right to make use of this [medical system] freely at their own discretion, without any controls or sanctions on the part of the petitioner. As you know, as Jehovah's Witnesses we seek the best medical treatment for our children and ourselves. Neither the choice of the medical treatment will be controlled on part of the religious association nor sanctions imposed. When knowing the background of the agreement it becomes clear that on the sessions the term "SANCTION" was equated with an arbitrary disfellowshippment carried out automatically. It does not lead to disfelloshippment automatically, even if it should become known that someone has chosen a medical treatment that requires a blood transfusion. Rather, what is much more decisive are the circumstances and the attitude the affected person shows. The statutes of the religious association in Bulgaria approved by the Bulgarian Government literally say:

……"The Denomination of Jehovah's Witnesses in Bulgaria does not exercise any control over the free will of believers but allows them to exercise their conscience consistent with godly Bible principles. Nor does the Denomination arbitrarily apply sanctions in connection with the medical care that Jehovah's Witnesses conscientiously seek for themselves and their children. The Denomination adheres to the loving and righteous principles of God's Word in this aspect of Christian life." (Translation of citation not mine).

In view of point 2.2.1 of the report, stating that no advance medical directive refusing blood transfusions to minor persons must be furnished, the following explanation has to be added.

The legal position in Bulgaria does not, in contrast to that in Germany,provide the option for so called "mature minor persons" to have the chance for making decisions on their own regarding medical treatment. Hence,baptized minor persons are legally not able to submit a consent form about the method of medical treatment, but are still under subject of parental care.Thus, minor Jehovah's Witnesses in Bulgaria will not be in need of Medical Directives (Medical Directive/Release Document)).

With the expression"among other things" the Governing Body emphasizes that the reason given was just one beside the other reasons. We are sure that the Brothers carefully weighed what was proper for the encouragement of the international brotherhood and possible within the limited scope of the framework.

We hope these additional explanations were helpful to you. Should you have further questions, you are welcome to refer to us under above given department ID.

While being absorbed in preaching the good news we send you our Christian love and greetings.

Your brothers

Religious Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany e.V

(Religionsgemeinschaft derZeugen Jehovas in Deutschland e.V)

My second letter because of some question Ihave regarding the first response of the Society:

Mr. Michael Bruder

Cäcilienweg 17

46537 Dinslaken

Germany ( 01149 2064/18023

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society March,30, 2000

of Jehovah's Witnesses; E.V.

-Writing department-

Am Steinfels

65618 Selters (Niederselters)

Germany

Re: Your response from March 15, 2000/ department ID:LC:LSC

Dear Brothers,

Thank you very much for your factual comments of my letter concerning the case Jehovah's Witnesses in Bulgaria.Referring to point 2.1. of the report of the European Commission again you clarified that neither the choice of the medical treatment will be controlled on part of the religious association nor sanctions imposed. The assurance on your part that such highly personal matter of conscience remains free of sanctions or control concerning medical treatment, for my opinion, is doubtful which I derive from your wording saying, that the assent to a blood transfusion does "not lead to disfellowshippment automatically" (underline mine);the decisive factors are "the circumstances and the attitude the affected person shows" (ibid.).

I would be much obliged, if you could specify the meaning of this terms (especially the terms "not disfelloshipped automatically" and, "rather, what is much more decisive are the circumstances and the attitude the affected person show"; comment from me,does not appear in my letter). This provision, however, does not has an direct impact on the freedom of decision of the concerned person, but it gives me the impression that the making use of it on part of the baptized patient will have an unpleasant consequence.

Furthermore,in you letter you are explaining that the Bulgarian Government obviously wrongly assumed that a Jehovah's Witness would be disfellowshipped automatically if he decides to choose a medical treatment that requires a blood transfusion. It is also clear to me that the enforcement of disassociation is not made directly.

Why have both parties nevertheless come to the agreement in writing respecting the very point2.1 that each member has the right "to make use of this [medical system]freely at their own discretion, without any controls or sanctions on the part of the petitioner" (Report of the Commission, March 9 '98; Underline mine), although it does not come automatically to a disfellowshipment anyway?To ask you in concrete terms, why, then, was an agreement also in this point whatsoever necessary?

Regards

Michael Bruder

Still waiting for response, hence I am reminding them to answer me:

Michael Bruder

Cäcilienweg 17

46537 Dinslaken

Germany ( 01149 2064 18023)

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society July,06, 2000

of Jehovah's Witnesses; E.V.

- Writing department -

Am Steinfels

65618 Selters (Niederselters)

Germany

Re: My second letter from April 30, 2000 to you because of some further questions I have concerning your letter LC:LSC March 15, 2000(Jehovah's Witnesses and Bulgaria)

Dear Brothers,

In March I sent you an additional letter from March 30,2000, since I voiced further questions concerning your writing. Due to the preparations for the assembly you are probably not able to give response to all questions within a proper time. I thought by myself it would be good to recall me in your mind. To make it simple and to contribute to your saving your time,I once again attached my letter from April 30, 2000 as a copy to your hands.While I am confident that you allow Jehovah's spirit to work in you, I remain with Christian love and greetings

Your Brother

Michael Bruder

The following response finally arrived just one week later:

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

AmSteinfels, 65618 Selters, OT Niederselters Phone 01149 6483 41-0

Mr. Michael Bruder LC:LSC July 12, 2000

Cäcilienweg 17 Direct dialing: 41-28 64

46537 Dinslaken Fax: 41-28 60

Germany

Dear Brother Bruder,

We received your letters from April 30, 2000 and July06, 2000, and appreciate your patience for waiting for response.

Unfortunately, we are not able to add information to our response from March 15, 2000, since further details are not known to us. In addition, by means of the Question from Readers of the Watchtower-edition from June 15, 2000 it becomes plain that nothing has changed basically in our understanding of the teaching in connection with the blood issue.

Desiring that Jehovah may help us through his holy spirit to announce the good news zealously, we send you our warm greetings.

Your brothers

Religious Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany e.V

(Religionsgemeinschaft der ZeugenJehovas in Deutschland e.V)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition review the blood cards below. The first was from 2001 and the second from 2002. The term allergenic was used in the 2002 card which means that a person might be able to store their own blood before an operation in the event blood was needed for a surgery. The cards were all confiscated and the ruling was made to return to the old card of 2001 that remains to this day. Apparently the Governing Body reversed their 2002 decision as an after thought that could have saved hundreds of lives.

For assistance with custody and other legal issues contact jwdivorce.com