Institutional Hypocrisy — Do as We Say, Not as We Do

Jehovah's Witnesses are told they must be "no part of the world." A Witness who joins the YMCA commits apostasy. A Witness who works at a tobacco counter can face judicial action. A Witness who votes, holds a political card, or joins a political organization may be disfellowshipped.

And it told the European Commission of Human Rights that Witnesses face no sanctions for accepting blood transfusions — while its own elders' manual prescribed exactly such sanctions. This article documents the pattern: one set of rules for the rank-and-file, another for the organization itself.

The United Nations NGO Scandal (1992–2001)

The Application

On January 28, 1992, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York was granted status as an associated Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) with the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI). The application had been submitted in 1991. This was the closest formal relationship an NGO could establish with the United Nations — the same United Nations that Watchtower publications had spent decades identifying as the "image of the wild beast" and the "disgusting thing that causes desolation" from the books of Revelation and Matthew.^[1]

The association was not passive. By accepting NGO status with the DPI, the Watchtower agreed to meet specific criteria, including — in the words of a 2004 letter from Paul Hoeffel, Chief of the UN's NGO Section — "support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience about UN activities."^[2]

The Watchtower renewed this association annually for ten years.

What the Watchtower Taught Its Members

To understand why the NGO association constitutes hypocrisy, consider what the organization was publishing during this same period:

"The United Nations is actually a worldly confederacy against Jehovah God and his dedicated Witnesses on earth." — Watchtower, September 1, 1987^[3]

"It was in the post-World War I period, in 1919, that Christendom's clergy began giving support to the League of Nations — and to its successor, the United Nations. This amounts to giving worship to the symbolic wild beast." — Watchtower, June 1, 1991^[4]

That June 1991 article was published the same year the Watchtower applied for NGO membership. Even while preparing its UN application, the organization was actively condemning other religions for their United Nations involvement.

The Favorable Publicity Campaign

Once affiliated, the Watchtower's tone toward the United Nations shifted conspicuously in its public-facing Awake! magazine. Between 1991 and 2001, a series of articles praised the UN's work in ways that would have been unthinkable in the 1980s:

These articles conveniently coincided with the DPI's requirement that affiliated NGOs publicly support the UN Charter and disseminate information about its activities. Each year, the Watchtower submitted these publications as evidence it was meeting its NGO obligations. The articles were hand-delivered to UN officials and recorded in UN archives as fulfilling the annual compliance requirement.^[5]

Meanwhile, Watchtower study articles — read internally by congregations at weekly meetings — continued to describe the UN as satanic.

The Exposure

On October 8, 2001, Stephen Bates, the religious affairs correspondent for The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, published an article with the headline: "Sect accused of hypocrisy over association with organisation it has demonised." Bates reported that the Watchtower had been a registered UN NGO for nearly a decade while continuing to denounce the UN in apocalyptic terms to its own members.^[6]

The UN itself expressed surprise. According to Bates, UN officials were taken aback that an organization so openly hostile to the United Nations had been accepted on its NGO list for ten years.

The next day — October 9, 2001 — the Watchtower requested termination of its NGO status. The speed of the withdrawal was itself telling. If the association had been innocent, there was no reason to abandon it within 24 hours of press exposure.

The Cover Story

The Watchtower offered its members and the public a series of explanations that ranged from misleading to demonstrably false:

Claim 1: "We only joined to access the UN library." In a letter to branch offices and to The Guardian, the Watchtower stated that registration as an NGO was required to access UN library facilities. However, multiple UN officials confirmed that library access did not require NGO status. Lyutha Al-Mughairy, Chief of the UN's Public Liaison Service, stated plainly: "The United Nations does not force or 'trick' any NGO to be associated with DPI."^[7]

Claim 2: "The criteria changed without our knowledge." Paul Gillies, the Watchtower's UK spokesman, told The Guardian that the NGO requirements had changed "unbeknown to the Governing Body." Bates rejected this explanation and The Guardian refused to publish the Watchtower's letter, with Bates writing directly to Gillies: "The Guardian will not publish your letter because it appears to us to be untruthful." Al-Mughairy confirmed that the criteria for association had not changed since 1991 — the year the Watchtower applied.^[8]

Claim 3: "No signature was required." The Watchtower stated that no signature was required on the initial application. Even if true for the 1991 form, the organization renewed annually for ten years, submitting accreditation forms and compliance documentation each year.

The Double Standard

The hypocrisy is sharpened by the Watchtower's own rules for individual members. The organization has been explicit that membership in organizations with political or interfaith objectives constitutes apostasy:

"Is it true that for religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses may not become members of the YMCA? ... For one of Jehovah's Witnesses to become a member of such a so-called Christian association would amount to apostasy." — Watchtower, January 1, 1979^[9]

"A person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as becoming part of an organisation whose objective is contrary to the Bible." — Watchtower, September 15, 1981^[10]

If a rank-and-file Witness had joined a political organization — let alone the entity their religion identified as the prophetic "wild beast" — they would face disfellowshipping. The Governing Body faced no consequences.

Investments in Tobacco and Military Technology

The Henrietta M. Riley Trust

The Henrietta M. Riley Trust is a U.S. charitable trust whose sole beneficiary is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Established with assets left by Henrietta Riley — who died in 1948 — the trust exists for the primary purpose of generating investment income to transfer to the Watchtower. The trust is managed by Comerica Bank in Detroit and files annual IRS Form 990-PF returns, which are publicly accessible through ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer.^[11]

For the fiscal year ending April 30, 2001, the trust generated $2,939,731 in income and donated $3,285,050 to the Watchtower. For the year ending April 30, 2002, it generated $1,740,127 and donated $1,945,645.^[12]

The trust's investment portfolio, documented in its IRS filings, included holdings in a diversified range of corporate stocks — Exxon Mobil, Coca-Cola, Barclays, and others. But one name stands out: Philip Morris Companies Inc., one of the world's largest manufacturers of cigarettes and tobacco products, appeared in the 2002 investment schedule.^[13]

Philip Morris stock also appeared in the trust's filings for 2001/02, 2002/03, and again in 2009/10 under the Altria Group name (Philip Morris's parent company). In 2018/19, the portfolio included stocks in defense and armaments companies.^[14]

Why This Matters

The Watchtower has been emphatically clear that tobacco use is a disfellowshipping offense and that any involvement in the tobacco industry — even indirect — is unchristian:

"What a contrast, though, with an employee in the same store who works at the tobacco counter!" — Watchtower, April 15, 1999 (explaining that even working at a cigarette counter can be grounds for discipline)^[15]

"By considering the background of a company, an investor can also ensure that his money will not be used to support an unethical enterprise." — Awake!, October 8, 2000 (advising Witnesses to screen investments for moral compliance)^[16]

If an individual Witness invested in Philip Morris and this became known to their congregation, it would very likely result in a meeting with the elders. If a Witness worked at a tobacco counter, they could face judicial action. Yet the organization's own trust — existing for the sole purpose of generating income for the Watchtower — invested directly in the world's largest cigarette manufacturer.

The technical defense: Apologists note that the Watchtower does not directly manage the trust's investment decisions; Comerica Bank does. This is legally accurate. However, the Watchtower receives detailed annual reports showing every stock held.

Its lawyers and accountants are aware of the portfolio composition. If the organization genuinely believed tobacco investments were morally impermissible — as it teaches individual Witnesses — it could have requested that the trust exclude tobacco companies. It has never done so. As of the most recent available filings (2019–20), the trust distributed approximately $825,000 to the Watchtower and held remaining assets of approximately $3.1 million.^[17]

Rand Cam Engine Corp. — Military Technology

A more direct investment connection involves Rand Cam Engine Corp., a privately held company developing rotary engine technology for commercial, recreational, and military applications — including engines for U.S. Navy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs/drones).

According to SEC filings by REGI U.S. Inc. (a related company), the Watchtower Society owned 50% of Rand Cam Engine Corp. The filing states: "Rand Cam Engine Corp. is a privately held company whose stock is reportedly owned 50% by The Watchtower Society, a religious organization, 34% by James McCann and the balance by several other shareholders."^[18]

James McCann, a Jehovah's Witness, donated the shares to the Watchtower but retained voting proxy rights — presumably to obtain a significant tax deduction. Through this ownership chain, the Watchtower also held 44.9% of REGI U.S. Inc., and Rand Cam Engine Corp. owned 49% of Rand Energy Group Inc. — making the Watchtower a significant stakeholder in a network of companies pursuing military contracts.^[19]

The military applications were not hypothetical. In December 2001, these companies announced a U.S. Navy contract to develop a ceramic engine for the Smart War-fighter Array of Re-configurable Modules (SWARM) — a low-cost unmanned aerial vehicle program.

Additional Navy contracts followed. A licensing agreement with Radian Milliparts included a 6% royalty on sales of engines utilizing Rand Cam Technology in UAVs, "including 6% of all funding received from the Government and Military sources."^[20]

When questioned, the Watchtower denied ownership, claiming it "was erroneously listed as a stockholder." This directly contradicted the SEC filings, which had listed the Watchtower as a 50% owner across multiple annual reports spanning more than a decade.^[21]

The significance: Jehovah's Witnesses are conscientious objectors. Witnesses have gone to prison rather than perform military service. In Malawi, thousands of Witnesses were tortured and killed because the Watchtower told them that holding a government-required political card was unchristian.

Yet the organization itself was listed as a major stakeholder in a company developing drone engines for the U.S. Navy.

Political Lobbying

"We Do Not Lobby"

The Watchtower has repeatedly stated that Jehovah's Witnesses do not engage in political activity of any kind:

"We do not lobby, vote for political parties or candidates, run for government office, or participate in any action to change governments." — jw.org, "Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Maintain Political Neutrality?"^[22]

Witness children sit through flag salutes and national anthems without participating. Witnesses in some countries have endured imprisonment, assault, and death rather than engage in political activity. This is not abstract theology — it is enforced doctrine that costs real people real suffering.

Hiring Professional Lobbyists in New York City

Public records from the New York City Clerk's Lobbying Bureau show that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York hired the law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP to lobby on its behalf regarding real estate development:

These are not informal conversations. This is paid professional lobbying — registered with the city — targeting the NYC Planning Commission and the NYC Council. The lobbyists, including attorneys Melanie Meyers and Stephen Lefkowitz, were engaged specifically to influence government decisions regarding Watchtower-owned property in Brooklyn's DUMBO neighborhood.^[23]

A search of the NYC lobbyist database (nyc.gov/lobbyistsearch) for "Watchtower" reveals an extensive list of properties for which the organization engaged lobbyists. This represents precisely the kind of political influence the organization tells its members they must never exercise.

OSCE and Council of Europe Participation

The Watchtower's political engagement extends well beyond New York real estate. The organization — operating through The European Association of Jehovah's Christian Witnesses (TEAOJCW) — has maintained ongoing participation in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), a political body closely aligned with the United Nations that encompasses 57 participating states.^[24]

Watchtower representatives, including Paul Gillies, Marcel Gillet, and Luca Toffoli, have regularly attended OSCE conferences since at least the mid-2000s. They have participated in OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meetings and Supplementary Human Dimension Meetings on Freedom of Religion or Belief. These are political conferences attended by representatives of sovereign nations. The Watchtower has submitted formal statements on religious freedom in countries including Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Bulgaria, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Egypt — lobbying for policy changes favorable to their operations.^[25]

Similarly, through the IBSA (International Bible Students Association) in London, the Watchtower lobbied British politician David Atkinson, a Member of the House of Lords and UK representative to the Council of Europe, who tabled motions on the organization's behalf in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe beginning in 1999.^[26]

The U.S. Department of State itself describes Watchtower International as an affiliated NGO in its International Religious Freedom Reports.^[27]

The pattern is unmistakable: The Watchtower organization actively lobbies governments, attends political conferences, submits policy position papers, hires professional lobbyists, and maintains NGO status with international political organizations — all while telling its members that any political involvement constitutes betrayal of God. A Witness child who refuses to stand for a flag is obeying the same doctrine that the Governing Body routinely violates on a global scale.

The Bulgaria Blood Deception (1998)

The Background

In 1994, the Bulgarian Council of Ministers refused to renew the Watchtower's registration as a recognized religion. Two primary reasons were cited: the organization's prohibition on blood transfusions and its prohibition on military service. Without registration, Witnesses in Bulgaria faced prosecution, confiscation of literature, and dissolution of meetings.^[28]

A four-year legal battle followed, culminating in a friendly settlement before the European Commission of Human Rights on March 9, 1998, under Application No. 28626/95.

What the Watchtower Promised

To obtain registration, the Watchtower agreed to specific terms regarding blood transfusions. The settlement stated that "members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association."^[29]

The language was unambiguous: no controls, no sanctions for accepting blood.

The Watchtower also agreed that it would not make advance medical declarations preventing minors from receiving transfusions, and that adult Witnesses would be free to make medical decisions in compliance with Bulgarian health law.

A Watchtower representative stated on Finnish radio in April 1998 that the agreement meant "every individual has a full freedom of conscience to do, and Jehovah's Witnesses do not tell in a centralized way what someone does or does not do."^[30]

What Actually Happened

Nothing changed. The Watchtower's internal policies — detailed in the elders' manual — continued to treat the acceptance of a blood transfusion as grounds for judicial action. While technically reclassified from "disfellowshipping" to "disassociation" (the member is deemed to have voluntarily left the faith), the practical outcome is identical: complete shunning by family and congregation.

In a Watchtower press release dated April 27, 1998, the organization stated: "The terms of the agreement do not reflect a change in the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses."^[31]

This was simultaneously true and deceptive. The doctrine had not changed — the Watchtower had simply told the European Commission of Human Rights something that did not reflect its actual practices. Internally, Witnesses who accepted transfusions continued to face the exact "controls and sanctions" the settlement prohibited.

Lee Elder, founder of the Advocates for Jehovah's Witness Reform on Blood (AJWRB), contacted former Governing Body member Raymond Franz to discuss the Bulgaria situation. Franz suggested contacting journalist John Dart at the Los Angeles Times. Dart's response was blunt: "There is nothing newsworthy about the Watchtower lying." He explained that Watchtower officials had a well-documented history of dishonesty and that this was widely known among journalists who covered the organization.^[32]

"Theocratic Warfare" in Action

The Bulgaria episode is a textbook example of what the Watchtower calls "theocratic warfare" — the doctrine that it is permissible to mislead those who are not entitled to truthful information:

"Hiding the truth from God's enemies is not lying ... this would come under the heading of war strategy." — Watchtower, June 1, 1960

"It is proper to cover over our arrangements for the work that God commands us to do. If the wolfish foes draw wrong conclusions from our maneuvers to outwit them, no harm has been done to them by the harmless sheep." — Watchtower, February 1, 1956^[33]

In Bulgaria, the "wolfish foes" being misled were the European Commission of Human Rights and the government of a sovereign nation. The consequences fell on Bulgarian Witnesses who might have believed they genuinely had freedom to accept blood — and on Witnesses worldwide whose lives have been shaped by a doctrine the organization was willing to quietly disown when legal recognition was at stake.

The Overarching Pattern

These episodes are not isolated incidents. They form a coherent pattern of institutional behavior:

The common thread is not mere inconsistency. It is the consistent application of a dual standard: strict enforcement of rules against individual members, combined with systematic exemption of the institution itself when those same rules become inconvenient.

When the Watchtower needed library access and political standing, it joined the UN. When it needed legal registration in Bulgaria, it disavowed blood sanctions. When it needed zoning changes in Brooklyn, it hired lobbyists.

When it needed military-technology investments, it held the stocks. And in each case, when caught, the response followed the same script: denial, minimization, technical legal distinctions, and — when all else failed — quiet withdrawal with no accountability.

No rank-and-file Witness has ever received the same latitude. A Witness child sits silently during a flag salute because political involvement is forbidden. A Witness teenager dies refusing a blood transfusion because the doctrine is absolute. A Witness mother is shunned by her family because she joined the YMCA.

The organization that enforces these rules does not live by them.

References