Refine Search

Federal Court of Appeals Rebukes Unfair Board

On October 18, 1950, the United States Court of Appeals at Cincinnati again reversed the convictions of two ministers of Jehovah’s witnesses. Twice convicted, Peter Niznik and Raymond Comodor, part-time missionary evangelists (company publishers) in Pennsylvania, were discharged with the judgments against them reversed. Basis of the reversal was the refusal of their Selective Service board to classify them as ministers of religion. The court held that the action of the board was invalid and void, contrary to the regulations, arbitrary and discriminatory.

Upon the second trial the board members had attempted to justify their refusal to grant exemption from training and service. They testified that they had looked through the files and, after having done so, ruled that these registrants should not be given a minister’s classification. They did not dispute or question the overwhelming evidence submitted by the registrants as to their background, training and activity in the ministry. The truthfulness of the statements submitted by them orally and in writing was not questioned. But solely upon the grounds that they were Jehovah’s witnesses, had not attended an orthodox religious seminary and had not been “regularly” ordained according to orthodox ceremony and ritual, the board ignored the regulations pertaining to ministerial classification in such cases and denied exemption. In setting aside the convictions the court said:

“Although the members of the draft board performed long, laborious, and patriotic duties, nevertheless, their ruling in this regard, that appellants were not entitled to classification as ministers of religion, was based not upon the evidence or information in appellants’ files, or upon a belief in the truthfulness of the statements made by appellants, but upon the fact that they were members of Jehovah’s witnesses. The regulation pertaining to ministerial classification in this case was plain.

“‘(a) In Class IV-D shall be placed any registrant who is a regular or duly ordained minister of religion . . . (b) A regular minister of religion is a man who customarily preaches and teaches the principles of religion of a recognized church, religious sect, or religious organization of which he is a member, without having been formally ordained as a minister of religion; and who is recognized by such church, sect, or organization as a minister.’ Section 622.44 of the Selective Service Regulations.

“Disregard of this provision, and refusal to classify as a minister of religion solely on the ground that appellants were members of a religious sect and that they had not attended a religious seminary and had not been regularly ordained, was arbitrary and contrary to the law and regulations. ‘In classifying a registrant there shall be no discrimination for or against him because of his race, creed, or color, or because of his membership or activity in any labor, political, religious, or other organization. Each registrant shall receive equal and fair justice.’ Section 623.1(c) of the Selective Service Regulations.

“The classification of the local board, accordingly, was invalid, and its action void. The judgments are, therefore, reversed, the convictions are set aside, and appellants are discharged.”

The religious magazine The Christian Century recalled the thousands of other cases involving Jehovah’s witnesses, which resulted in their being denied classification as ministers and sentenced to long terms in prison. Commending the court for stopping such arbitrary and capricious determinations in these cases, the editors wrote: “This paper has contended since the first of these Witness cases came up, that the designation of ministers is a church and not a state function. We trust Selective Service will accept this ruling by the federal court. The government agency should never have allowed itself to become entangled in an ecclesiastical issue of this sort, and now that the court has opened a way out . . . should hasten to take advantage of the opportunity.”

Court and publication agree that whether a person should be recognized as a minister must not be determined according to orthodox standards of the popular religious organizations or prejudice. Both call upon boards to administer fairly the act and regulations.