Pudgy

To be fair, I have ADD, and a 77 year old with ADD really needs to write with crayons.

I tend to break Juan’s and even JWI and their writing up in paragraphs at a time..just cannot do it in one hit …but it’s usually worth it even if I don’t understand everything…

yeah …. like that silly requirement the Romans had in the Coliseum that you just put a pinch of incense on the alter to the Roman Emperor and you could go free … OR … you could refuse and you and your family would be torn apart and eaten by lions.
Whadda sense of humor!
When you make a statement “.. so help you God… “ it may be a formality to some civil clerk, but if you take an oath before God and man the presumption is that God will enforce it.
There are times when the sands of the Arena are soaked with the blood of Christians who would not make the simple gesture of putting a pinch of incense on the Alter of the Emporer … and there are times when Church Leaders don’t get to go to Europe.
If Oaths before God are meaningless … you get to go to Europe.
See?

Another thing to consider is that everything we do in life is experimental, and just like Jehovah was surprised when the people rolled their children into the fiery stomachs of Molech, we are often surprised and sucker punched.
It’s not that we “love the Truth”, quite often what we love, we label as “ The Truth”. 
This is true for Saints and Monsters.
If a person is WRONG … but believes himself that what he in good conscience tells you is true …. that is NOT A LIE.
A lie has to be a DELIBERATE lie, and hearing something wrong from a self-deluded person, if you believe it, does NOT mean you have been lied to.
So, I believe that 95% of what we think is correct, that turns out to be wrong, in History, Astronomy, (Astronomer Percival Lowell believed he saw “Canals” on Mars …and for decades everyone on Earth believed it.), Chemistry, Physics … AND THEOLOGY, is not an attempt at deception.
Attempts at deception are lies.
Being cluelessly ignorant and self-delusional may make someone a certified fool … but labeling them as liars may be unfair …. and wrong!

Thank you Juan and I definitely got the gist of your words, I’m sort of getting used to the way you write…and I sure hope when I speak in short bursts you get my awkward gists 

Juan, that's a lot of words, and to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.
Because above you write:
"The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?" [Underlining added]
Let's start with something simple. Check the box that applies:
We should believe teaching "x" because:
[______] it's rational.
[______] the society says so.
[______] some other reason other than because it's "rational" or "the society says so".

Well, GB does not prohibit the carrying of weapons for private or official use. But those JWs who have it are not ideologically eligible/acceptable for any ministry in the congregation. With Jesus, the apostles were eligible/acceptable for service. So GB does not follow Jesus. Clear as a sunny day. lol

I hear you, there is a fundamental difference between that for which a person is culpable before Jehovah, and that by which we (humans) may judge another human. I don’t think anyone here would claim that apart from the guidance of the Congregation, people cannot read and understand Scripture to some degree, a degree that allows them to have a conscious saving faith in Jehovah and Christ. Thankfully, they can. Knowing Jehovah and Christ is a matter of degree (not all or nothing). Jehovah and Christ can be known in various ways through different means, Scripture, worship, prayer, tradition, community, service. Jehovah can even be known (in some degree) through incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Hearing His voice does not necessarily mean perfectly hearing his voice correctly about every truth within the content of our faith. So a person can truly come to know and love Jehovah, without yet knowing that the Congregation is what Jehovah established and into which all Christians should be incorporated.
Even the notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded answer, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Jehovah and Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of true worship, to be taught false doctrine (to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), to be deprived of the fulness of the truth, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Congregation.
So far as I know, people like that prostitute you encountered, or James White, TD Jakes, Billy Graham, Greg Stafford, Raymond Franz, or Rolf Furuli were doing the best they could with what they knew, and bringing a message of Jehovah and Christ to many people. And in that way, they are good guys. But it is not for me (or any other JW) to judge the hearts of our fellow man and determine that this one or that one has placed himself in a state of sin by such a choice. We cannot read hearts, only Jehovah can. The principle of love calls us to believe the best about someone, all other things being equal, and to pray for those we see in error, rather than judge them. Not presuming that there is some intellectual dishonesty in their heart at the level of the will regarding this question, and not presuming that they are violating their conscience, but instead with the assumption that they are following their conscience as best as they can, and desire to know the truth, and will in fact sacrifice all to find and follow the truth no matter what it is. 
But such persons are in a gravely deficient condition, especially and to the degree that their understanding of Jehovah is incorrect. It is much more difficult to be saved without the fullness of the Good News and the means of help available in the Congregation which are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ.
I know that because the holy spirit is at work in the hearts of all men, and because Jehovah is omnipotent, the Congregation does not rule out the possibility that persons in a condition of ignorance concerning the fullness of the Good News and the Congregation, can be saved. And the testimony of Scripture supports that teaching, which is not universalism but rather a recognition of the power and mercy of Jehovah who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Paul wasn’t being redundant there. Knowledge of the truth about Jehovah is very important, but it is not the essence of salvation, we’re not saved fundamentally by gnosis, but by love and faith.
Correct doctrine allows us more perfectly to know Jehovah, and thus more perfectly to love Him. The more one knows the truth about Him, the more one is able to love Him, because we cannot love what we do not know. Similarly, the more one knows the truth about Jehovah, the more reason one has to love him. Moreover, not all theological error is equal, and not all theological error completely eliminates the possibility of loving Jehovah. It is possible for our beliefs to be imperfect and believe some falsehoods about Him, and still love Him. Yet the more distorted one’s understanding, the more difficult it is to love Him. 
What I have argued is that if Jehovah and Christ want us to be united in faith and love, then He would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation He has provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. So for me a Governing Body it’s not just extremely valuable and convenient, which would amount to a pragmatic ad hoc way of thinking, but rather organic and intrinsic to the Christian faith.
@Many Miles @JW Insider @TrueTomHarley @Anna
Perhaps I should write this under the Galatians thread. Here’s anyways😅 
I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?
@Many Miles I understand that that our Congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses) takes pride in not articulating/ categorizing or claiming of having any explicit background philosophy (like Thomism, Scotism or Platonism) or theology per se. And that we Witnesses say that no background philosophy is needed, but prefer to base our beliefs on the Bible without philosophizing. But even though our Congregation says that no explicit philosophy drives our understanding of Scripture. I think we all agree that no belief developed in a vacuum and the Watchtower movement grew from different roots (In my opinion, from rationalist ideas from the enlightenment, humanism, democratic individualism and was influenced by different traditions according to at least one study -Rachel de Vienne and B. W. Schulz: Volumen I & II Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887.)
When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate. There is no traditionless theological vacuum, abstract view from nowhere from which to read or interpret Scripture, we come to it with some sort of glasses (tradition). There is no initial space where the reader brings nothing to the text, and where his interpretation is not contingent on what he brings to the text. Even biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum (that is, their tools, techniques, principles and methods, all presuppose a framework). Theology and religion always start from certain hermeneutical principles whether explicitly or implicitly. And if we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, I don't think we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. Only then I think we'll realize that we need some way of evaluating these assumptions. Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that we would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question begging, and thus worthless.
When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. I believe the discussion hinges on whether there is an authoritative interpretive authority and how that authority is determined. This is why I'm starting to believe that our attempts to resolve our disagreements by way of proof texting or exegesis is futile. The root of the disagreement is not fundamentally in an exegetical error, but instead within philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text. So this idea of approaching scriptures only thru hermeneutics presupposes that kind of rationalism and that hermeneutics and exegesis would solve interpretative problems. But there is more than exegesis that is at work in interpretation and it's not just exegetical tools but underlying philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text even if unaware.
Here's what a friend and philosophy professor (who won an award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis) challenged me on.
Let's test this claim Juan (that exegesis alone, without any reliance on philosophy or theology can first determine the meaning of Scripture, to which we can then subject our philosophical and theological assumptions). Lay out any exegetical argument you think resolves a substantive doctrinal disagreement that presently divides us, and I'll show you the hidden (or not so hidden) theological/philosophical assumption in that argument, an assumption either immediately brought to the text or built on an interpretation that is itself based on a prior theological/philosophical assumption brought to the text.

Good company is definitely a bonus. But if we put poison on our plate that's going to be a real bummer.

And that might be a blind spot for some of us, including me. Perhaps there are more people than we realize who're just looking for a base to call home, while they're left alone to live their life, which is their real worship. I don't know. But I know I was once in Chicago and witnessed a street prostitute fervently praying for a homeless man. I'm telling you, that woman's prayer was real! As real as it gets! Was I supposed to feel judgemental toward her, or for her having the audacity to think her prayer might be heard by the Almighty? There is a witness somewhere that once said God is a there for those who have no helper.
So, maybe there's something we miss if we're looking through rose colored glasses. That's why we need vision that is not dependent on our own biases, whatever those biases might be.
Don't let what's on your plate be the result of personal taste (preference). Let it be the result of sound reason. Regardless of the subject, apply sound reason, and listen to the result.

How simple everything would be if we only had the old “Make Sure Of All Things …” book, the NWT before it was paraphrased, and the whole “.. stay alive till ‘75 …” fiasco was apologized for, and the Congregations were governed per Matthew the 18th Chapter.
…… sigh …..

Is there something in particular you're looking for in that book. I can look it up and share it.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but in my experience most religions are businesses. They end up selling what sells. It's good for business.
I'm not trying to generalize. There are good people found amongst various religions. It has always struck me that individuals can belong to a religion, attend its services and engage in its activities, yet openly speak of disagreements of which they hold diametrically opposed views. They don't see the religion they associate with as an anchor for their souls. They just see it as a place where they can be with people who want to do right and love people. For these people, the church they associate with is just a rendezvous point. Their personally held beliefs are something else altogether.
The hurt does not come from the fact of mistakes. The hurt comes when religious leaders pound an idea of basis-of-teaching that is then ignored by the same leaders to preserve a preferential position. Take, for example, the basis of 'soundly reasoning from the scriptures'.(1) That implies teachings will conform to rational conclusions. As an example, a teaching of what "soul" is. It's not a single thing by itself. Rather, it's two things in a state of composition that equate to "soul", when and only when those two things remain together as one. In the case of "soul", those two primary components are 1) a body formed from the earth and 2) breath of life. Together, those components were "soul". Apart neither is "soul". Only together is there "soul".
But the notion that a thing is not itself when it's decomposed is not treated equally across all teachings, even ones related to the subject of "soul".
1. "Reason from the Scriptures in a way that is convincing. Using heartfelt entreaty and sound logic, Paul convincingly ‘reasoned with others from the Scriptures.’" (Underlining added) (Ref https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20100215/Skillfully-Wield-the-Sword-of-the-Spirit/
 

Within the Christian tradition, there is nothing inconsistent about these two statements. Except for a few scattered early mentions—no more than mentions—in early history, there is no place in which one can learn of Christianity but the Bible.
The ‘lies’ and ‘false teachings’ of the vast bulk of Christendom can immediately be identified as such. That the ‘soul’ is mortal and dies when the person dies, that with a single exception, ‘hell’ come from one of three original language words, none of which mean eternal suffering. That Jesus’s followers should be ‘no part of the world,’ whereas most Christian churches are fully part of the world—that God is not one-in-three persons, that the grand overall theme of the Bible is not, ‘be good, so you will go to heaven when you die,’—these teachings can be instantly identified by scripture as ‘false.’
Such ‘false’ religious teaching unfailingly paint those who espouse them into outrageous moral corners—such as ‘comforting’ bereaved parents that the reason their baby died was that God needed another angel in his garden, which is why he picked the very best—your child.
Most of the main teachings of churches are not found in the Bible. It is the attempt to read them in that causes persons to throw up their hands in frustration and even disgust. Deprived of nourishment, flooded with junk spiritual food, inquiring minds are left to scavenge elsewhere. Some settle for atheism, some for agnosticism, some settle on churches that pay scant attention to biblical things in favor of a social gospel, even a political one.
So, they are not just lies. They are harmful lies. They are lies that are near-universal in the church world. The GB has mounted a successful sustained, and worldwide assault on them. To ignore this and instead flail away about mistakes they may or may not have made is astoundingly small-minded to me.

Emphasis is on "current".
lol

Link to book:
https://www.academia.edu/34138714/Ever_changing_teachings_of_Jehovahs_Witnesses_The_most_important_changes_in_the_doctrine_of_the_Watchtower_Society_in_the_years_1879_2015?email_work_card=title
Link to WT magazine:
https://archive.org/details/WatchTowerAndHeraldOfChristsPresence1910-1919/page/n1545/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/WatchTowerAndHeraldOfChristsPresence1910-1919/page/n1547/mode/2up

Another thing to consider is that everything we do in life is experimental, and just like Jehovah was surprised when the people rolled their children into the fiery stomachs of Molech, we are often surprised and sucker punched.
It’s not that we “love the Truth”, quite often what we love, we label as “ The Truth”. 
This is true for Saints and Monsters.
If a person is WRONG … but believes himself that what he in good conscience tells you is true …. that is NOT A LIE.
A lie has to be a DELIBERATE lie, and hearing something wrong from a self-deluded person, if you believe it, does NOT mean you have been lied to.
So, I believe that 95% of what we think is correct, that turns out to be wrong, in History, Astronomy, (Astronomer Percival Lowell believed he saw “Canals” on Mars …and for decades everyone on Earth believed it.), Chemistry, Physics … AND THEOLOGY, is not an attempt at deception.
Attempts at deception are lies.
Being cluelessly ignorant and self-delusional may make someone a certified fool … but labeling them as liars may be unfair …. and wrong!

Two ways of looking at that.
I can’t imagine the Apostles having busts of ANYONE in their homes and it not being a problem, but I can easily visualize the Roman Centurion Cornelias having a bust of Caesar in his home (or perhaps a Labarum) and it not being a problem, because he was SPECIFICALLY defined as a man having God’s approval. 
( The labarum was a military standard used by the Roman Empire, featuring the Chi-Rho symbol, a monogram representing the first two letters of "Christ" in Greek. It was introduced by Emperor Constantine the Great in the early 4th century as a Christian symbol on the battlefield. The labarum typically consisted of a staff topped with a banner displaying the Chi-Rho and sometimes accompanied by other religious symbols.
Before the adoption of the labarum, the Roman military standards included the eagle (aquila) as a prominent symbol. The aquila was a golden or bronze eagle mounted on a pole, serving as a revered emblem for Roman legions. These standards represented the honor and identity of the legion, and losing one in battle was considered a grave dishonor. Each legion had its own distinctive eagle, emphasizing the importance of these symbols in Roman military tradition.
Another standard was the "signum," a type of Roman military standard that featured images of the emperor and his family. These were smaller standards carried by individual cohorts within a legion. The images on the signum emphasized loyalty to the reigning emperor and served as a visual representation of the legion's allegiance to the imperial family. The primary standard, the aquila, was more focused on the legion as a whole, while the signum highlighted the personal connection between the soldiers and the ruling authority.  )
In the middle of a World War, I would imagine having a bust of Abraham Lincoln and two small flags would be a matter of personal conscience … only because the real life example of Cornelius, a man SPECIFICALLY defined as approved by God, trumps ANY contrary esoteric theory.
 
 

WTJWorg teaches believers that "truth" must be based on the Bible. Anything contrary to "Bible truth" is called, by WTJWorg, a "lies" or "false teachings". 
Quote from https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2018603?q=religious+lies&p=par
 
6, 7. (a) Why are religious leaders who lie especially guilty? (b) What lies have you heard religious leaders tell?
6 Religious leaders who lie are especially guilty because they endanger the future life prospects of those who believe their lies. If an individual accepts a false teaching and practices something that is actually condemned by God, it can cost that person his eternal life. (Hos. 4:9) Jesus knew that the religious leaders in his day were guilty of such deception. He told them to their face: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel over sea and dry land to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Gehenna [everlasting destruction] twice as much so as yourselves.” (Matt. 23:15; ftn.) Jesus condemned those false religious leaders in the strongest terms. They truly were ‘from their father the Devil, a murderer.’—John 8:44.
7 Whether called pastors, priests, rabbis, swamis, or by some other title, religious leaders abound in the world today. Like their first-century counterparts, they are “suppressing the truth” from God’s Word and have “exchanged the truth of God for the lie.” (Rom. 1:18, 25) They promote such false teachings as “once saved, always saved,” the immortality of the human soul, reincarnation, and the foolish idea that God would condone homosexual lifestyles and same-sex marriages.
I have not noticed here that WTJWorg is full of understanding towards the religious leaders of other religions. They do not credit them with good intentions and sincerity in their belief in "their own truth". What will we do with it then? I believe that WTJWorg is misleading its believers. That is my "experienced truth". With what arguments can someone turn my "truth" into a lie?
Since I do not claim that my knowledge, experience ("truth") came because I was "guided by HS", nor do I claim that it is the only correct and authoritative one for millions of other people, then that does not make me, it doesn't put me in a category of a "false teacher". The most anyone can do is call me an idiot or delusional.
In contrast, GB claims that they are the only ones appointed by God to spread the "only truth" found only in WTJWorg. Then it completely changes the way this group of religious leaders should be viewed/questioned. As far as I know, they did not say that "they believe" how "the truth" was written in the publications. They say that this is "the truth" and that there are no other truths but theirs.
 

Anyone today claiming acupuncture is pseudoscience is uniformed. For instance, scientific methods of information examination shows some peripheral neuropathies are demonstrated to respond to acupuncture. Such a systematic review falls within the realm of scientific method.
That said, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It just tends to have low veracity because though a particular experience may be accurately shared there could be more reasons for the experiential outcome than the individual realizes. I'd dare say that a majority of today's medical therapeutics began as anecdotal evidence used to form a hypothesis to help advance medical treatment. It is one thing to point out the weakness of anecdotal evidence, but no self-respecting scientific researcher would dismiss it out of hand, that is unless the claim has already been thoroughly refuted by systematic review and experimentation.

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such. With your patience—and you are certainly a patient and tenacious fellow—let me try to develop a point: 
Congregations are lately covering the Book of Job. Here, Job is giving his testimony: “Let God weigh me with accurate scales; Then he will recognize my integrity.” (Job 31:6)
His life course is one of integrity toward God. If it was not, downfall would be justified, he believes, but it has been
“If my footsteps deviate from the way Or my heart has followed after my eyes Or my hands have been defiled, … If my heart has been enticed by a woman And I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, … If I denied justice to my male or female servants When they had a complaint against me, … If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans;… If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; … If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; … If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ If I found my joy in my great wealth Because of the many possessions I acquired;” (31: 7-25)
All those things would be bad, meriting God’s disfavor, he believes, but he never did any of them!
“Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him?  I never allowed my mouth to sin. . . Have the men of my tent not said, ‘Who can find anyone who has not been satisfied with his food?’ No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment?” Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families, Making me silent and afraid to go outside?”  (29-34) No, his life is not characterized by any of those things.
It is his testimony. He has always been upright. He’s ready to sign it: “I would sign my name to what I have said.” (31:35)
It is all peremptorily denied by his three interrogators: 
Eliphaz: Is [your suffering] not because your own wickedness is so great And there is no end to your errors? For you seize a pledge from your brothers for no reason, And you strip people of their garments, leaving them naked. You do not give the tired one a drink of water, And you hold back food from the hungry. The land belongs to the powerful man, And the favored one dwells in it. But you sent away widows empty-handed, And you crushed the arms of fatherless children. That is why you are surrounded by traps, And sudden terrors frighten you;  (Job 22:5-10)
Why does he reject Job’s testimony, instead charging just the opposite? Because it conflicts with his own ‘theology:’ “What I have seen,” Eliphaz says previously, “is that those who plow what is harmful And those who sow trouble will reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, And through a blast of his anger they come to an end. . . . Even the teeth of strong lions are broken.”  (Job 4:8-10)
His preformed—faulty, as it turns out—theology tells him Job must have been ‘plowing what is harmful’ for him to be suffering now. Job, who otherwise might have agreed with that theology, undergoes the worst of spiritual crises to accompany his crisis on all other fronts, because he knows he has not been ‘plowing what is harmful’—quite the contrary. So he works out his angst by blaming God for being both cruel and unfair. This further inflames Eliphaz and crew, already riled that Job is resisting their ‘correction.’ Now they read  false positive for apostasy and figure they must attack Job for that reason, too. Presently they are all but hurling epithets at the poor fellow.
Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology.
You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.

Quote from your source in Wikipedia:
(Justice) Jackson warned that "[t]hose who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard".
… That’s why it takes 20 MAN YEARS (40,000 hours) of preaching to get ONE new Jehovah’s Witness that will stay his entire life.
Having the Core Truths about God and man, there should be a line of people lined up trying to become Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Instead, they are being chased away almost as fast as recruited.

Many of us know that the early WT held the doctrine that all members of the movement would go to heaven. Then, in the early 1930s, they changed their doctrine. Another example of "old truths and new lies" or "old lies and new truths", take it as you will.
In both cases, we have difficulty literally living with such an idea. From which authority do you have documents such as birth certificate, identity card, passport, etc.? Do not talk about religious fictions and ideas about one's identity.
If a JW in the USA is a foreigner to the USA authorities, then where is his evidence that he is a citizen of Jesus' Kingdom? How can he prove this when according to WTJWorg theology, the invisible Kingdom has existed since 1914 and has not issued any certificates to its believers. Moreover, Jesus said that he would separate the sheep from the goats (separate its citizens from non-citizens) at some future time.
If we want to take it as a measure of belonging to the Kingdom (citizenship), then the personal aspiration and faith of an individual is the only "document" of belonging, but only as an empty form without the signature and seal of the competent service that may accept such an individual as its own citizen.
Even more, the right to citizenship, according to the interpretation, is obtained only after the final test at the end of the 1000-year Kingdom.
Who do today's JWs belong to? To those whose documents you have in your pocket.
The rebelliousness of citizens towards their own authorities has its justification in some matters and circumstances. But that applies to every government.

Quote from your source in Wikipedia:
(Justice) Jackson warned that "[t]hose who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard".
My comment:
What a country can ask of its citizens is no more or less than what WTJWorg asks of its followers. Things are quite clearly placed in the same or very similar frameworks. If you do not submit, you will be rejected and isolated. What then is the fundamental difference between secular and religious? There is no such thing. Both sides are prepared to take drastic measures to eliminate the ineligible.
 

yeah …. like that silly requirement the Romans had in the Coliseum that you just put a pinch of incense on the alter to the Roman Emperor and you could go free … OR … you could refuse and you and your family would be torn apart and eaten by lions.
Whadda sense of humor!
When you make a statement “.. so help you God… “ it may be a formality to some civil clerk, but if you take an oath before God and man the presumption is that God will enforce it.
There are times when the sands of the Arena are soaked with the blood of Christians who would not make the simple gesture of putting a pinch of incense on the Alter of the Emporer … and there are times when Church Leaders don’t get to go to Europe.
If Oaths before God are meaningless … you get to go to Europe.
See?