Frank, and others:
Again, I'm not trying to incite any arguments. And I can see there are impassioned positions on this subject.
It could be I didn't make myself clear. I was trying to seperate the perceived responses in the issue from the concept of the issue.
Whenever a government is disobeyed (what in the Bible might be called 'sinned against,' when God is the government), that government sees it as its right to extract a penalty. In theory, the wrongdoing is seen by the government as a form of rebellion against its rulership, or its right to rule, or set the rules.
So, in effect, when you get caught for, say, speeding, you've raised an 'issue' with the state's 'sovereignty' or their 'right to set the rules' (in the case of the USA, where traffic laws are mostly the province of states). Now, whether the fines imposed are fair, or whether they are imposed consistantly, or whether the government came into power legitimately or needs replacing are all seperate issues.
If, as some contend, there is no God, then, there is no issue of 'universal sovereignty' - not because the concept is faulty, but becasue there is no rulership to be offended.
If God, as ruler, has been rebelled against but has reacted badly, then, again, the issue of injured sovereignty is still valid. The problem would rest in another area.
At least, this is how I'm seeing it. All the responses above focus on how God has reacted or how the WT has explained God's reaction. None of that, in my mind would change the basic issue of sovereignty that would be raised by a rebellion.
But thanks for the responses. I'm going to look over them carefully to see if I'm failing to see something that appreasrs to be plain to everyone else.
Take Care