Awake!, January 8, 1954

Download: PDF — Awake!, January 8, 1954

THAT GOD MAMMON

Some of the things you may not know about money -

Puerto Rico’s Fantastic "Fatima”

Religious fiasco proves monumental illustration of credulity ---------** --------

Eyes That See

Marvels of animal sight compared with human vision

——— ■' —

For Whom Was the Bible Written?

Are you in one of the favored classes?

JANUARY 8, 1954 SEMIMONTHLY

THE MISSION OF THIS JOURNAL

New* fourctt that are able to keep you awake to the vital Imum of our time* tnuri be unfettered by eenamh&p and’ selflsh tatcrerta, ^Awake!" haa no fetters, It recognizee facta, faoez facta, la free to pubUah facte. It if not bound W podtical ambitions or obligations; it if unhampered by advertisers whose toes must not be trodden on; it Is unprejudiced by traditional creeds. This journal keeps Itself free that it may speak freely to you. But it does nef abuse its freedom. It maintains integrity to truth,

"Awake lrt uses the regular news channels, but Is not dependent on them* Its own correspondents are on all continents, in scores of nations. From the four corners of the earth their uncensored, on*the*scenes reports come to you through these columns. This Journal’s viewpoint Is not narrow, but is International It is read in many nations, in many languages, by persons of all ages. Through its pages many fields of knowledge pass In review—government, commerce, religion, history, geography, science, social conditions, natural wonders—why, its cover* age is as broad as the earth and as high as the heavens.

“Awake I” pledges itself to righteous principles, to exposing hidden foes and subtle dangers, to championing freedom for all, to comforting mourners and strengthening those disheartened by the failures of a delinquent world, reflecting sure hope for the establishment of a right* eouf New World,

Get acquainted with “Awake!” Keep awake by reading “Awake!”

Published Semimonthly Bt WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, INC.

117 Adama Street Brooklyn 1, N, ¥., 0. 3. A.

N. H. Knorr, Pr«Hdent Gsint Suites, Secretary

Printing this iaaue: 1j200,000

Five cents a copy

Itmlttum ih&uld b« ml to office in your country In compliicce with TeguUtfons to fuatantefl ■ife dallrery of money. Remittances are accepted at Brooklyn from countries where no office Is looted, by international money order only. Subscription rates In different countries ar* here stated In local currency. Netlow of txalratlM (vlth renewtl blank) fa sent at least two wuu before subscription expires. Chaitie of addrm when sent to our office may be expected effective within one month. your cid u well »u new adOreae.

Entered m swond-dM* matter at Brooklyn, N. Y. Act of March 3, 1819. Printed in IL 8, A

CONTENTS

Quiz Show “Charity”

The Bathtub Revolution

That God Mammon—Of What

Development and'Decline

Is It Composed?

of Mayan Civilization

Various Kinds of Money

Gamma Globulin versus Poliomyelitis

The Part Faith Plays

“Your Word Is Truth"

Eyes That See

For Whom Was the Bible Written?

The Most Excellent Eye

Jehovah’s Witnesses Preach in

Christendom’s Divided House

All the Earth—Hong Kong

Puerto Rico’s Fantastic “Fatima”

Iio You Know?

Where Lies the Responsibility?

Watching the World

Volume XXXV

Brooklyn, N« January 8, 1964

Number 1

Quiz Show "Charity”

ONE of radio’s many problems is who should be able to broadcast what. America has a wide selection of programs, and U. S. stations are supposed to operate “in the public interest, convenience and necessity.” But the stations’ actual adherence to this standard comes into question when they frequently subject their listeners to long and often ridiculous advertising claims. Britain got away from this by nationalizing radio and having no commercials, but as a result it does not have a wide selection of programs, one’s being able to choose from only three BBC broadcasts.

One frequently criticized American innovation in radio and television is the quiz program, which selects from the studio audience contestants who are willing to face the microphones for a chance at prizes. Once these were even banned by the Federal Communications Commission, but the ban was withdrawn. Their purpose, of course, is to provide entertainment until the sponsor’s advertisement is put on.

Though the more or less new idea of making these programs sound “charitable” has been tried, this is obviously still with the basic view in mind of adding to the sponsor’s sales. Charity draws on the listener’s emotions, builds up their interest and gives them a good feeling about a rich corporation helping a small person in need. But Life magazirie recently asked: “Is it true charity?^’

Take the example of a girl of Mexican-Navaho parentage who recently told a pathetic story on Strike It Rich about being in danger of losing her gift shop in Washington because she was behind on the rent. When, in telling her story, she began to sob, the television cameras moved in close so everyone could watch. And they stayed there while the program gave her the chance to win money by correctly answering questions. She did know whether a lemur was an air or land animal, gave President Cleveland’s first name and remembered the name of the tune “Speak to Me of Love,” thus winning $165 plus another $100 that a dairy president promised her over the phone. So grateful she was that she kissed the announcer’s hand.

Life said it felt sorry for the woman, “but far sorrier for U. S. civilization” where “defenders of giveaway shows are loud in praise of the charity bestowed” while the Bible says “Charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.” It asked: “If a roller skate manufacturer is moved by the plight of a paraplegic, why doesn’t he buy him a wheelchair, instead of smothering him with brand-name roller skates?” It further showed the bad taste involved in some such programs: facing an elderly couple on Place the Face with young people who had been paying them a small sum each week for injuries in an automobile accident, and confronting a would-be suicide with the man who rescued him.

Such “charitable” acts are not just heralded with a trumpet in the streets, they are emblazoned upon the screens of millions of television sets—an emotional pull on the listeners to buy more of the sponsor’s product. How great a contrast with Jesus’ instructions regarding charity: “When you start making gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, just as the hypocrites do . . . But you, when making gifts of mercy, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, that your gifts of mercy may be in secret; then your Father who is looking on in secret will repay you.” —Matthew 6:2-4, New World Trans.

There is nothing secret about a national television program. The sponsor expects a reward. That is why he paid for it. His is a sound investment, a carefully considered dollars-and-cents advertising scheme. But his reward of financial gain will not equal the blessings that come to those whose gifts are of mercy, are real charity, the kind given out of love and remembered by God.

But how could it be considered charity at all? Was not the woman from Washington a better attraction than a highly paid comedian would have been? The comedian would not have considered the pay he received for being on the program as charity; why should the money paid to a better attraction be considered as such? While a comedian might tickle the funnybone, she played on the heartstrings. And the cost for such a striking program was trivial. Figures produced by the American Research Bureau in March showed an average cost of $34,000, exclusive of broadcasting time, for the top seven network television shows. The only one of this top seven that was a quiz program had cost its sponsors the least of all, $14,000 less than the average and $30,000 less than the highest! Quiz shows are cheap because only the master of ceremonies needs talent and because elaborate sets are not needed. Now there certainly is no objection to economy, but under such circumstances a few hundred dollars to a deserving contestant is profit to the sponsor, not bigheartedness. It is only a part of what he would have paid had he used professional performers.

Britain’s BBC broadcasts its intellectual “Third Programme” comfortably on a very limited budget “because professors, even in England, cost less than comedians.” Could it be, too, that in America charity is cheap? If so, then not charity but purely commercial gain is the primary motive. The quiz show may give the job of providing entertainment to someone who is in need rather than to professional entertainers, but true charity does not need to make a public show of the one who is suffering hardship, nor make a nationwide television announcement of the help given. It is done out of love for the one in need, not love for listener-ratings or advertising stunts. Jesus instructed: “Take good care not to practice your righteousness in front of men in order to be observed by them; otherwise you will have no reward with your Father who is in the heavens.”—Matthew 6:1, New World Trans.

There is, of course, no objection to giving the job to those who are in need, nor to having the audience participate, nor to rewarding them for successful answers to quizzes, though there may be a question of taste about how much of an individual’s troubles should be broadcast to the nation. There is, however, a need to keep the record clear: radio’s “giveaway” shows are not Christian charity.

The first of a series of articles discussing things that you may not know about money

EVERYONE is interested in money: the housewife who tries to stretch it over the week’s purchases, the father whose labors earn it and the children who would like their parents to give them more of it. A great deal of most people's life centers around money—earning it so they can buy their needs, storing some of it up for futuresecu-rity. Today it is one of the most common, yet least understood things in the world.

Here is an example that illustrates one point about money, an example that involves an average man, whom, for our illustration, we will call Jones. Jones spends all his time making money. At first thought that may sound good, because almost everyone could use a bit more money. But take a closer look. He goes so far in his money-making that he is grumpy and irritable all the time; he is too busy to enjoy his family, and they do not really enjoy him. What is worse, he has no time for more important things. He just wants “security”; and jingling the coins in his pocket, watching the bank teller make beautiful marks in his bankbook, or stuffing his old sock with money are the only ways Jones knows how to spell it.

Along comes someone with a different aim jn life, another man who also supports his family, provides for necessities and reasonable wants, and really takes his obligations seriously, but who is not obsessed with Jones’ insane dollar-drive. This man,

in addition to his being a good and conscientious worker, enjoys his family and is loved by them,

improves his mind and serves his God. But Jones thinks the happier man is crazy.

To a Christian who spends time teaching others God’s Word, and warmheartedly helps them, Jones sneers: “What does It get you? Who pays you? There has to be a catch to it somewhere!”

Yet, which man has real security? Jones thinks he has, thinks he is “materialistic,” and would be highly insulted if you told him he is living on faith. But he is, for the foundation of his “good solid cash” is termite-ridden. How so? To understand, one must first understand what money really is and what does or does not stand behind it.

What Ig Money?

Money has been defined in many ways: “purchasing power,” “a medium of exchange,” a common denominator of value between what men have to offer and whal other men desire, and even “the nothing you get for something before you can gel anything.”

Money, however, may be “something/ It may be gold, silver or other preciout metals that are desired by all, recognizee as of value and easy to transport. If yot get such valuable metals for your labors then you get something of value thai you can keep until you exchange its valui

JANUARY 8, 1954

for something you want to buy. Today, though, money Is more apt to be “nothing,” a printed piece of paper, a scribbled check, a number written on the banker’s books—nothing that has value in itself, just promises to pay. These, of course, are promises that can be kept, but that, under certain circumstances, will be readily broken.

'While the value oi gold or silver normally changes slowly, the value of these promises fluctuates wildly, and sometimes their value collapses completely. If, like our friend Jones, ypu are trusting in them for the future, you may find that when you go to spend them their value has so dwindled that an amazing amount of your “security” is gone. Even in the’United States our friend Jones has lost in purchasing power more than 40 per cent of every dollar he confidently put away in 1939.

But, protests Jones, supporting all this paper money is gold or silver, and that is what gives the money its worth. With this precious metal standing behind it and its bemg stored in government vaults to assure the money’s value, Jones thinks this paper money should be literally as good as gold. But, we ask, where is all this gold that supports his money? On January 27, 1953, the gold and silver held by the U. S. Treasury amounted to just over $25 billion, less than half the amount that is invested in U. S. savings bonds, about a twelfth of the nation’s approximately $300 billion total savings!1

It is not precious metals, but it is the faith that everyone has that the next person will take in payment the same printed pieces of paper that he accepts that gives the greatest portion of the world’s money its value. As long as everyone has this faith, the money is sound. Without it, money's value would collapse.

Various Kinds of Money

This brings up the value of different kinds of money. Obviously, the firmest kind is full-bodied or commodity money, metal coins that contain enough gold or other precious metal to equal their full value. These are more than a promise, being literally “worth their weight in gold” (or silver). This type of money has all but disappeared.

Next in value would be paper money that can be exchanged for gold or silver, representative money that represents a certain amount of precious metals. This is more convenient to handle, but sometimes the government changes the amount of gold the paper represents, or repudiates entirely its promise to pay you the gold. This kind of money also is becoming rare. Bank of England notes were formerly of this type, as were gold certificates in the United States until 1933.

Most money today, however, is fiduciary money, money that is based on trust rather than on the value of precious metals. This includes the world’s paper money, sinice it is based on the public’s trust rather than on any redemption in gold. It also includes the majority of coins, since they stand for more value than the metal of which they are made. Sometimes this is called fiat money, because its value stems from government fiat (or decree) that it shall become legal tender, which means that it must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt. In its most extreme sense, however, this latter term applies to the “printing press” money that governments turn off on printing presses when they are in need, and which they require that people accept in payment of the government’s debts. Examples are the Greenbacks issued in the United States during the Civil War and the Treasury Notes issued in Britain in 1914.

A major objection to such unbacked currency, especially to our friend Jones, who is wearing himself down while building up his stocks of it, is that there is- no guarantee that it will retain its value. Unlike gold or silver that could be melted down and sold for approximately what was given up for it in the first place, unbacked currency is just a receipt or an “I.O.U.,” an “I.O.U.” whose value may change at any time as a result of governmental policies, deliberate devaluation, or inflationary pressure. And if its value does change, our friend Jones can do nothing about it.

Franz Pick, publisher of the annual $25-a-copy World Currency Report, says that the business balance sheets prepared in "paper dollars of annually diminishing value"—the very thing in which Jones trusts —are “financial comic books.'2

Bank Money

Thus far, however, we have dealt with only the smaller portion of modern money. Most of what is spent to pay bills and the rent and to buy houses, construct buildings and turn the wheels of industry is nol the government-produced bills and coins discussed above, but is "bank money." In parts of Europe this is basically the bank note; in the United States, Canada and Britain it is primarily the check. Cheeks and bank notes do the work of money because people have faith that they can be converted into money on demand.

Long ago, however, as the next article in this series will discuss in more detail, the banks learned that as long as people would use checks or bank notes the banks could lend out far more money than they actually have, in a sense “creating” this bank money on their books. A prospective borrower promises the bank that he will repay the loan that he is asking the bank to make. If the bank thinks his promise is sound it can turn this man’s promise to repay into spendable money. If they lent out something tangible, like dollar bills, they could not do this, but instead they merely list the amount of the loan on the client’s account, letting him write checks on it. The reason they dan let their clients write checks for more money than the bank has is that rarely does the bank have to pay out money for these checks; most people will want them deposited in their own accounts. This being the case, when the average borrower pays others by check the bank merely transfers the amount of that check from the borrower's account to the account of the one to whom payment was made. Thus, no money passed at all, the bank was able to lend out something that, for ell practical purposes, served as money, and it will eventually get this back with interest when the loan is repaid.

TTie bank, of course, receives and.pays out cash, and keeps a reserve on hand to pay those who do want coins or bills, but it does not need too great a supply of money at any one time, since most of its business is just transferring records,"

For every dollar the bank has it can safely, according to what is considered sound banking principle, loan out the right to draw checks on four, five or more dollars (or, in parts of the world where checking accounts are not so common, might loan out bank notes to this amount). The thing that limits the amount of money the bank can thus “create’' is the reserve it must keep in actual money for those persons who will demand payment in cash. And, amazingly, far al) norma) cirrum-

stances this procedure of adding to the amount of money in circulation is sound. Since it ties up only a small amount of real money, it keeps the interest rates down. It enables businessmen to borrow to expand their businesses, providing work for more people, enabling them to buy more things. Also, it allows for seasonal fluctuations in the amount of money that is available, so that at peak periods, like at harvesttime, the banks can expand the amount of money to meet the greater need.

However, the entire system is based on trust, and if ever again the system were to falter, as it did in the United States in 1933, or as inflations have caused it to do in other lands, our friend Jones could find himself a broken man whose faith was misfounded, whose security has collapsed, and whose ulcers and irritableness are the only remaining evidences of his former wealth.

The Part Faith Playx

While he may successfully hold his money, he is living on the faith that he can do so, not the security of it. Today’s money is not the “solid cash” Jones thinks, but is merely a promise to pay, and since the promises are not supported by something solid like gold, they may not always prove sound. The government can fail to hold down inflation, the elected leaders can fail to deal wisely with the nation’s financial interests. Franz Pick, referred to above, says: “People cannot accept arbitrary confiscation through inflation, as practiced by every government in the world today.” But Jones must accept it, or else go into black marketeering in violation of government currency laws—the activity Pick was explaining with this statement.

Pick’s early interest in money’s value came from a personal experience, which was described in this way in the Saturday Evening Post, May 2,1953: In Austria “.the day he was born, July 6,1898, his father, a grocery salesman, provided for his university education by taking out an endowment-insurance policy. It had a face value of 15,000 kronen, then equivalent to $3,000. Twenty-two years later, when Pick was ready for a university, the policy yielded the price of two good meals.”

In many lands our Mr. Jones could have suffered a loss of wealth similar to Pick’s. On last May 30, as a result of a government decree, for every 50 crowns he had saved in Czechoslovakia he suddenly had only one left. In Germany in 1923 the value ■ of the mark fell so far that for every 1,000,000,000,000 paper marks he saved, he had the' equivalent of just one old gold mark. If his home had been in China in 1948 he would have found that the value of his money had so dwindled that a newspaper cost $25,000. It cost the Chinese government more to print a $1,000 bill than that piece of money was worth. When a new monetary system was instituted there in 1948, for every 3,000,000 of the old dollars he had saved he would have gotten just one new gold yuan. Then, within a year, this gold yuan was so nearly worthless that for every 500,000,000 of them he had saved he would have gotten just one new silver yuan'.

When the foundation of faith in a nation’s money collapses, or when inflation’s cancerous tentacles penetrate its financial system, the whole structure can disintegrate. Savings disappear overnight. The fruits of years of labor dissolve. Our theoretical Mr. Jones has found his faith misfounded, his security collapsed, himself a broken man; having seen the one thing in which he trusted crumble to ashes and blow away.

This in no sense condemns saving or thrift. Money that is put aside can protect in an emergency; insurance can protect from unforeseen difficulties. As long as

money stands, it provides a defense. There is nothing wrong with having it if it is gotten honestly and if getting it does not keep you out of God's service. Bu{ the point is that man’s best securities today prove most insecure. When they do, the man whose wealth is in his love of God finds his wealth is real. He has followed the wise example and, while taking his obligations seriously and providing for his family and their security, has kept foremost in mind the great Master’s admonition given in the sermon on the mount: "Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consume, and where thieves do not break in and steal For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matthew 6:20, 21, New World Trans.) His heart Is in doing good works, in righteousness and justice. He knows that the god Mammon has too often been composed of vanity and false promises, that even if Jones holds on to his money, if through wise investments and sleepless nights he is able to keep it, he will often wonder if it has really been worth while. One who has put God’s service foremost never faces that question. He has contentment, peace of mind. He knows that he has done good, and that he has had both joy and security—the things Jones' false god only claims to provide.

ALMOST everywhere one goes eyes are seeing. Take a walk through a forest and hundreds of unseen eyes will be scrutinizing you, the eyes of insects, reptiles, birds and mammals. Should you take a swim in a river or lake, eyes will see you; some from above, some from below. And when you look beneath the ocean’s surface, millions of eyes will be doing their work of seeing. There will be eyes as tiny and odd as the bright-red "eye-spot” at the end of the five rays of the common starfish. There will be eyes as huge and glaring as those of the giant octopus. Yes, eyes are seeing all around us, in the water, in the air and on the ground. Some eyes have built-in bifocals. Some have built-in telescopes. Some have built-in windshields. Some have built-in periscopes. Some can see forward and backward. Some can see only upward. And there is one pair of eyes that is the most beautiful^ the most versatile and the most excellent of all the eyes that see.

What a marvelous variety of eyes is seen in Jehovah’s creation! In general, these eyes resemble simple cameras, in that the lens of the eye forms an inverted image of objects in front of it on the sensitive retina, which corresponds to the film in a camera. Even the not-so-complex eyes of insects have remarkable abilities. They can perceive a color we are blind to. They can see things that we can never see. They can detect ultraviolet light and can discriminate it from light of longer wave length that is visible to us. How few realize that bees can detect the plane of polarization

of light and the extent to which it is polarised—something man can do only with the help of instruments! To get a compass bearing, all a bee needs is one small patch of blue sky, then it can use such a bearing to direct other bees from the same hive to sources of honey!—Science Digest, November, 1953.

Some Amazing Features of Eyes

All snakes have good eyes. Africa’s spit-ling cobras, at a range of six to twelve feet, can aim and shoot a twin stream of poison, hitting a man square in his eyes almost every time! Snakes never close their eyes: they have no eyelids. Yet they sleep, all right. Among mammals this ability to sleep with eyes open is really rare, but there Is at least one animal that apparently does this. It is the African elephant shrew, a tiny mammal that looks like a miniature elephant. Another odd feature, rare in mammals but found in birds and reptiles, is the third eyelid or built-in windshield. Crocodiles have eyes placed sufficiently high in the head to be completely clear of water while they float. Now if a person tries to tickle Mr. Crocodile’s eye, a third eyelid will rapidly draw across the surface of the eye—a built-in transparent windshield has gone into operation. These third eyelids, or nictitating membranes, are of vital importance to birds, since they must often fly against the wind. Most mammals do not have these built-in windshields. So, how fortunate is the camel! Jehovah created this animal with a transparent eyelid that can be drawn down at will over the eyeball without impairing the sight. Without its built-in windshield the least sandstorm would cause much discomfort to the “ship of the desert."

Fishes depend largely on eyes for finding food and escaping enemies. Vision in water and vision in air are vastly different. Thus the normal “air eye” is very longsighted in water. And the normal “water eye” is pathetically nearsighted in air. Famous for its nearsighted actions on land is the penguin; yet it sees well in water. Water-dwelling creatures have eyes made especially for the depth in which they live. Thus the eyes., of fishes that live on the bottom of the ocean can look only upward. How fitting, for they have no need to look downward!

Deep-sea fishes are often "day blind”; that is, their eyes, specialized for seeing in the murky depths, are blinded by the glare of strong light. Most fish have eyes that are situated in the side of their head, hence their vision is monocular; that is, only one eye can be used at a time for viewing an object. However, fish that chase fleeing Pfey can use both eyes looking forward. Extremely amazing is the archer fish. Its eyes can be directed sideways, upward and backward but not downward. It has no need for downward vision, for the archer fish earns its living by its acute aerial vision. Swimming at the surface, it is able to see small insects flying above the water. Then like an expert archer it will shoot a jet of water, knocking the flying insect into the stream, providing a tasty morsel for fishland’s William Tell!

Another outstanding pair of eyes' is found on the tropical fish called anableps, or the four-eyed fish. Here is a fish with built-in bifocals! Anableps captures prey both above and below the surface, so it needs to see in the air as well as in the water. Its specialized eyes are divided horizontally. The upper half, which normally projects into the air, is made for air vision, while the lower half is well suited for under water vision. So anableps is well equipped for winning its bread and butter. It swims almost continuously at the surface with its “air eyes” thrust above and its “water eyes” directed downward. When anableps encounters very muddy water its

"air eyes” are often a lifesaver. Persons having to wear bifocal spectacles would certainly feel fortunate if, like anableps, the two parts of their glasses were part of themselves and hence uplosable and unbreakable.

The sea horse is a strange little fish with a head like that of a tiny horse. Its eyes sense very slight changes of form and illumination.. So mobile are the sea horse's eyes that it can apparently see both forward and backward at the same time— marvelous for catching a bite to eat. TTie sight of even the lowly snail is not to be laughed at, for many snails have built-in periscopes: their eyes are at the end of tentacles that are extended or withdrawn much as a telescope is lengthened or shortened. With these periscopelike eyes the snail can look around a corner without exposing its body. If danger is sensed, the eyes are swiftly pulled in and the animal completely retreats into its protective shell-house.

Mammals depend greatly on their sense of hearing and smelling to stay alive. But there are some that also possess acute eyesight. The animals with the most farsighted eyes are probably the large grazers on the plains, such as deer, antelope, giraffes and horses. But they, like many other mammals, can use only one eye at a time. However, animals with eyes in front and that hunt prey can use both eyes at once. Of these, the keenest-eyed are perhaps the wolves and foxes.

Night-seeing Eyes

Do some animals really see in the dark? In absolute darkness no animal can see. But many animals see more than we do at nighttime because the pupils of their eyes are much larger than ours, thus they can let into their eyes more of what dim light there is. When man considers it really dark, the Cat can still see because there is always a little more light left and Miss Pussy Cat just opens the pupils of her eyes to make them larger and let more light in. Thus one can notice that the pupil Of b cat’s eye is simply a narrow up-and-down slit during the daytime, but at night the pupil covers almost the entire eye. At the back of the cat’s eye is a reflecting surface that catches such dim light as there is, and by reflecting it the cat is able to use it twice. It is this reflected light that gives the peculiar green glare to the eyes of all cats when seen in the dark.

Because of an overworked simile, people often think that bats are blind. But, really, they have excellent sight during semidarkness, and moderately good sight even in bright sunlight. But while the bat, because of a sort of acoustic sonar system, can fly blindfolded and never hit any obstacle, birds need their eyes to direct them. In fact, they, with the exception of some night-seeing ones, are liable to hit obstacles if they start flying while it is still dark, since then they are not able to use their eyes to full advantage.

The eyesight of birds is remarkable. Indeed, birds are the most farsighted of all living creatures! So keen are the eyes of birds that man often lauds their vision by calling his fellow man “hawk-eyed” or “eagle-eyed.” Birds have eyes with built-in telescopes, used both for securing prey and eluding enemies. One of the most conspicuous objects in nature, the white swan, depends almost entirely upon its "telescope eyes” for keeping enemies at a safe distance. To be sure, even accurately locating a careless worm requires keen eyesight. Utterly marvelous is the eye work of an eagle or vulture that, while soaring so high in the sky that it appears to us as a mere speck, sees and defines an object on the ground that we would hardly notice or recognize at a mere hundred yards. Then, with almost the speed of a bullet, the eagle or hawk goes into a dive, all the while keeping the prey in clear vision.

Thus not only is it the birds* built-in binoculars that are so amazingly wonderful, but It is also their extraordinary power of swiftly alternating the focus of the eye to change distances, so that they are able to keep the object in clear view and stop precisely at the right instant to escape colllstotL

The Most Excellent Eye

Of all the myriads of eyes, what eyes can be considered the most versatile and the most beautiful? Birds have truly beautiful eyes, but what eyes are more expressively beautiful than those found in the human face? As to all-round usefulness, the human eye wins. For birds are restricted to either day eyes and accurate vision or night eyes and sensitivity. But with man there is a perfect blend: The human eye has one part like that of the robin and one like that of the night hawk. The result is matchless versatility.

Even the owl's eye does not overshadow the usefulness of the human eye. For the owl’s accuracy of day vision has been sacrificed in favor of extra sensitivity required at night. Also, his eyes are so big he cannot turn them in their sockets; he has to rotate his head to change direction of gaze. Finally, even the owl’s much-vaunted night vision is only a little better than man’s.

Clearly, then, the eyes of animals are restricted in comparison with the human eye* But what of the extolled eyesight of the cat? The cat's way of improving sensitivity, in the opinion of many authorities, cannot help but detract from the performance of the eye under conditions of good illumination. Now where does the human eye stand? Declared Science Digest magazine, November, 1953: “The human eye is a magnificent compromise in being almost as good as the eagle’s by day, and almost as good as the cat’s by night?’ There is the perfect blend, the crowning combination! How thankful man should be that Jehovah made the human eye the most beautiful, the most versatile, indeed, the most excellent of all the earthly eyes that see!

christendom: a divided house

Through its interfaith movement Christendom is striving for a "unity of diversity." But what diversity the interfaithers have found! For the individual houses that make up Christendom’s divided house are ofteh themselves hopelessly shattered into hundreds of diverse groups. For example; the Awake! of November 8, 1952, listed some twenty*three different major Baptist groups. And recently, when the Churcb of God movement had its golden jubilee, a statement was made by Bishop Willie I. Bass of Fayetteville, North Carolina, concerning the group’s bearing the name "Church of God": "We’ve gone 2,000 different ways, breaking over doctrines and properties. An enemy has been working among us, sowing discord." {The Christian Century, September 23, 1953} After that bishop’s statement we cannot help but reflect on the words of the apostle of Christ Jesus: "I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.

Does the Christ exist divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:10, 13, New World Trans.) How obvious it is, then, that Christendom’s divided houses are not following the narrow way of true worship!—Matthew 7:13, 14.

HFAN’ITJ^.S'iriECD

By *‘Awok«lM urrutpondwf in Puerto lire

WHAT happened in the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico during the months of April and May, 1953, may seem well-nigh incredible. The newspaper El Mundo editorialized after the affair drew to a close: "Yesterday’s journey closed an episode that may well stand as a monument to the credulity, imagination, and excitability of our people when they go in for the supernatural."

What would you think of an “episode” that, over a period of five weeks, caused thousands of persons to travel distances of up to 150 miles by land, others to fly 1,700 miles by air to see a person who never appeared and that resulted in an estimated crowd of-100,000 persons gathering to see a supernatural event that never took place? Do you think the use of the word “fraud” is too strong?

It all began on April 23, 1953, when Juan Angel, a small boy nine years of age, let it be known about the rural school he attended that he had ‘seen “the Virgin” over by a certain spring not far from the school.’ This school, located in a rural section called Barrio Rincon, is near the town of Sabana Grande. Within the next few flays six more of his schoolmates, little girls seven to ten years old, announced that they too had seen the “Virgin.” All of them were faithful attenders at the Catholic church. News of the children’s claims spread like wildfire from town to town. People began visiting Sabana Grande. The newspaper and radio picked up the story and broadcast it throughout the

island. A few days later the little children made a startling announcement: 'The “Virgin” had told them that a miracle would take place on May 25 at about 11 a.m.’ When May 25 was still weeks away, visitors by the thousands began to throng to the site of the “Virgin's” alleged appearance. Spanish newspapers in New York city published accounts of the activity, and a number of Puerto Ricans there began making plans to fly to the island.

Activity of the “Virgin*’

The “Virgin” became more active as days went by, though remaining invisible to all but the seven little children. She accompanied them into the little one-room school, sat on the teacher’s desk, and one day instructed the teacher to dismiss the children early so they could rest—this message, of course, being delivered through one of the little girls. Occasionally, disputes arose among the children, one being accused by the others of not being able to see the “Virgin,” and the one accused arguing back that she did. A reporter who visited the school one day was standing by one of the girls when two others shouted to him that ‘the Devil was by his side? When he questioned them, they said that Margarita, the girl he was standing by, had ‘disobeyed the “Virgin” and so the Devil appeared at her back and tried to grab her? Their description of “el malo" as they called him, was quite uncomplimentary

and followed the usual popular conception,

horns included.

Each day the children who were in the '‘Virgin’s” favor would lead long processions from the town out to the spring where she first appeared. Juan Angel usually took the lead, making frequent stops, since the “Virgin," ‘who was walking just ahead of him,’ often paused. Once he stopped In front of a jeep used by the police and instructed a newspaper photographer to take a picture, since ‘the “Virgin” was at that moment seated on the jeep’s bumper.’ A couple of weeks from the time of the original apparition Juan Angel became ill. An El Mundo reporter, .visiting him in his home, asked him how he felt. Juan replied that *he was feeling better since the “Virgin" had visited him accompanied by two angels, and one of them had given him an injection under his ear, in his right arm, as well as in a few other places.’

All these things were published in the newspapers and read by the people. El Mundo reminded its readers that “a child’s mind is very impressionable," adding that, “under the suggestive effect of questions, as well as in the competition, arising between one another, the little children have made manifestations that put to test the credibility of the whole beautiful account.”

Strangely, this information seemed to have little effect on the crowds of persons making their “pilgrimage" (as the newspapers called it) to the “fountain of the Virgin.” The children had announced that the spring where the “Virgin” first appeared had been sanctified by her, so almost every pilgrim came equipped with a bottle or jar. Lines formed and lengthened until people were soon standing in line eight and ten hours in order to reach the spring and get some “sanctified water,” which slowly dripped .from a rock. All through the night people were there filling their bottles by the light of the many candles lit arotind the sanctuary. Some had the misfortune to fall and thus not only lost their “sanctified water” but cut themselves on the broken bottles.

The newspapers advised all pilgrims to equip themselves with food and water before setting out for the “Fountain of the Virgin,” since these items were scarce there. Soft drink stands, set up all along the way to the spring, teemed with thirsty customers. The local officials did their best to clear out the many beggars who, arriving on the scene, began to practice their art. At the spring itself vendors did a brisk business with rosaries, crucifixes, printed prayers, images and most other religious objects. Most of their customers made an effort to have their purchases sprinkled with some of the “sanctified water.”

What Really Drew the Crowd

Undoubtedly, the reports of “miraculous cures” did the most to fire the people’s interest and draw the huge crowds. Almost daily the newspapers carried accounts and pictures of individuals who claimed to have been healed by drinking “sanctified water” or by rubbing it on their affected parts. The reports and rumors drew hundreds of paralytics, cripples, deformed persons and others with all manner of illnesses. F athers and mothers hopefully brought their deformed or idiot children. The Impartial carried a report of one boy pitifully deformed with twisted arms and legs and said that after the water treatment he could walk "without much difficulty." The picture accompanying the article, however, showed the boy being held up by two friends, practically hanging in the air; his legs, still twisted, barely touching the ground. This was typical of the "miracles” that stirred the hopes of thousands and drew a swarming crowd.

Tension heightened as May '£> drew near. Throughout Puerto Rico all conversations centered around Sabana Grande. A few days before, El Mundo quoted the youngest of the little girls as stating that the predicted miracle would be an earthquake that, strangely, would be perceptible only to the Adventists! The Catholic Church, for the most part, had very little to say about the happenings, seeming to maintain a "hands off" attitude—or possibly one of “wait and see.” But on May 22 a very brief statement from the bishop of Ponce was published in the newspapers; he counseled the people not to go to Sabana Grande on May 25.

Big Day Arrives

Monday, May 25, finally arrived. Already the night before, the roads leading into Sabana Grande were filled with cars and buses loaded with pilgrims who, ignoring the bishop’s counsel, came from all parts of the island. One.big department store in San Juan reported a five per cent absenteeism among its employees. One major court case was postponed because three of the women jurors wanted to go to Sabana Grande. By Monday morning the roads were choked; long lines of cars were parked for miles out from the town. Some had to park their cars as much as four miles away and walk the rest of the distance on foot. At 7 a.m. a special train, which had departed from the capital at ten o’clock the night before, arrived and discharged some 600 passengers.

On the farm where the “Fountain of the Virgin” was located practically every square inch was filled by the thick-pressed crowd, which one newspaper estimated at 100,000. Though this figure seemed exaggerated, the newspaper photos definitely reminded one of the beach at Coney Island on one of its busier days. Many fainted from the crowded conditions and long wait in me dazing sun. Three shifts of doctors and nurses worked feverishly to care for the cases of fainting, sunstroke, suffocation, heart attack, etc., brought to them on stretchers by the Civil Defense workers busy among the crowd. Five long Unes of men and women of all social classes slowly inched their way to the spring for “sanctified water.” The length of time required to reach their goal had, by now, increased to anywhere from 15 to 18 hours. Some tried to get out of turn, and the policemen were hoarse from yelling in an effort to keep order. A loud-speaker not only urged the people to be calm but warned them against pickpockets.

Eleven o’clock arrived, but not the “Virgin.” Many knelt and prayed. Some removed their shoes. Old women began saying their rosaries. An atmosphere of nervous expectancy prevailed. Suddenly someone pointed to a distant hill down which a woman dressed in black came walking. Cries of "La Virgen! La Virgen!" burst forth. But the woman turned out to be someone from that neighborhood coming to join the gazing crowd. Others excitedly pointed to what looked like a figure of a woman with outstretched arms over on another hill. Further examination showed this to be a tree. Over at the spring itself Juan Angel and the little girls were entertaining people who were up close, leading them through a series of movements with their hands, touching their cheeks, rubbing their heads, etc. The adults nearby obediently imitated the children.

By noon some of the crowd began to disperse. The great majority, though, stayed on. Many with loud voices implored the “Virgin” to accomplish the anticipated miracle, in much the same manner, no doubt, as the Baal priests of Elijah’s time did, prompting Elijah to mockingly say: “Cry with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he has gone eside, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened!” (1 Kings 18:27, An Amer, Trans.) By 5 p.m. the “Virgin" had not “awakened,” so the mass exodus got under way. The big “fiasco” was over.

Where Lies the Responsibility?

An editorial in El Mundo summed up the matter: “Our people did not know how to look at the happenings and accounts of Sabana Grande with the calmness and detachment that were so essential. Emotion and credulity ran wild. . . . We trust that the next time our people will act with greater calmness and detachment.” The •next time? Yes, there might very well be a “next time.” Why? Because the whole thing was possible only because of the people’s religious background and training, which covers a period of several centuries.

But did not the Catholic Church stay generally clear of the whole thing? Did not the bishop counsel the people not to go there May 25? Yes, and after it was all over the bishop made statements to the press in which he said that he would not submit a report to the Vatican on the alleged apparitions of the “Virgin.” (Vatican files already contain more than 3,000 cases of admittedly false apparitions from all parts of the world.) The bishop stated further that in this case there were no messages as in the well-known cases of Lourdes and Fatima, where the “Virgin” gave “messages of penitence.” Possibly, if the children had been less talkative about file “Virgin’s” activities and had been able to tell of a “message of penitence” received from her, future years might have seen Sabana Grande take its place along with Lourdes and Fatima.

The responsibility for file whole thing cannot be lightly side-stepped. The people were merely doing on a large scale what they commonly do on a small scale. The fantastic event reflected heavily on the religious training given them by their spiritual guides of the Roman Catholic Church. The bishop had nothing to say about the fanaticism that prompted the people to wait in line as much as twenty hours for a jar of “sanctified” water. Was there nothing he could have said, no clear Scriptural refutation he could have presented that would have put a stop to all the religious frenzy instead of allowing it to go,on for five weeks?

Who, then, bears the main responsibility for all this and for the accidents, the faintings and heart prostrations, the expense of the hundreds of policemen, doctors and nurses? The seven little children? Or the church that taught them and their parents? And what was it the people went there to see? Obviously they hoped for a duplication of the so-called “Miracle of Fatima” so widely advertised by the Catholic Church, for the people frequently referred to it in their discussion of the events. If their religious leaders had taught them the pure truth of God’s Word, then such knowledge would have protected them from being "babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of craftiness in contriving error.” (Ephesians 4:13, 14, New World Trans.) Yes, they would have known the truth and the truth would have made them free.

tub. The majority of them took a bath in the good old traditional style once a week on Saturday night To prepare the bath was quite an ordeal. There was no running water in the house and there were no automatic heaters* The water was carried in from the backyard pump and heated over an old dilapidated stove and then poured into a wooden washtub* The tub was large enough for junior to squat in while mother scrubbed his back. But poor father had to stand and squeeze the sponge over his head and have the water run down his body* That was his shower or bath. How far bathing has come since then!

There are today over a hundred million Americans that bathe at least once every twenty-four hours. They dissipate over twenty-five million man- and woman-hours each day this way. Bathtubs have improved* From the one-ton model of 1840, today's tub made of plastic may weigh less than seventeen pounds* It is ehipproof and comes in many colors. And, too, no longer is bathing considered a luxury, but a necessity, a method of keeping clean and cool. But Americans were not always bathtub conscious.

Only a century ago American newspapers blasted the bathtub “as a luxurious and undemocratic vanity*” Medical men cursed bathing as a menace to the health and well-being of society. Religious leaders denounced it as irreligious, immoral and degrading. The city of Philadelphia by law prohibited its citizens from taking a bath between November 1 and March 15, Boston made it unlawful for anyone to bathe unless the bath was prescribed by a physician, The State of Virginia placed a $30-a-year tax on all bathtubs. A baby received its first bath when the rain fell on it. And a boy received his first drenching when he slipped into a river or puddle. “In all the history of the early colonists,” observes the Kansas City Star, “there is no record of a pioneer being surprised by an attacking Indian while taking a dip In river, creek or pond* The observance of the prohibition against bathing was so general and profound that it just was not an issue at all worth mentioning, until long after the United States had become a nation,” Today the pendulum has swung in the other direction*

The early American settler most likely received his fear of water from his European ancestors. Europe at one time literally went for hundreds of years without a bath, Louis XIV of France was so convinced bathing was injurious that he refused to bathe more than once a year. His palace at Versailles was without plumbing, and reports say that its sanitary facilities “would have made a medieval baron blush.” Queen Isabella is said to have bathed only twice in her lifetime: once when she was born and another time when she was married. The Knights of Bath in England could count on at least one bath in a lifetime, the day they were being inducted into this group. To counteract the evil odors that would arise, the lords and ladles had their scent boxes, which they sniffed delicately. Even the men in velvet and women in silks and satins did not make any pretense at bathing, and for these there were strong perfumes to disguise the odors of uncleanliness. One odor was thereby substituted for another. The ruling classes, especially, preferred perfume to bath.

The Religious View

Jerome, an early "doctor” of the Roman Catholip Church, condemned bathing when he established the principle that "the purity of the body and its garments means the impurity of the soul/’ “In the rules governing the religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church to this day, such as Benedictines, the Cistercians, and the Trappists, baths are forbidden. The Italian monastery of Monte Cassino ... has never had a single bathtub or shower. As Haverlock Ellis puts it: 'The Church killed the bath/” (Ulster Protestant, July, 1947) On this same point, Professor C* E* Winslow of Yale University wrote: “Medieval Europe, in reaction from the emphasis of classical civilisation upon bodily well-being, glorified through the early Church uncleanness and the disease as disciples preparing the soul for eternal mansions* Greek hygiene and Roman sanitation were condemned or ignored, and vast epidemics swept across the face of Europe/’ (Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences) Estelle H. Ries, in her Next to Godliness, states: “Both clergy and laity acquired the superstition that cleanliness was contrary to the idea of holiness, and that filth and squalor were manifestations of piety. To the Christian fathers, this life was only a preparation for the life to come. The body was mortal and to be despised; the soul was immortal and to be cherished. What need to wash this miserable body which holds the soul away from heaven? So bathing became uncommon, Homes and peoples became filthy and sick, and one scourge followed another/’ To this day in many parts of Europe fear of bathing still prevails. Eskimos and Tibetan lamas avoid the bathtub altogether. Islam despises it as unclean, and considers it more hygienic to bathe in running water.

Medical Views

As recently as 19u3 a Chicago physician, John Dill Robertson, maintained that bathing encouraged pneumonia, made people soft and damaged the skin by washing off perspiration. Physicians also charged that bathing caused respiratory ailments, headaches, nervous condition" and heart disease. They argued privately and publicly that soaking removed valuable oils and protective layers from the skin. So many resorted to milk baths to escape the ill effects of water.

On the other hand, as far back as 1759 bath enthusiasts recommended soaking the body in a tub for every ailment in the book: “The warm bath is a certain cure for colds, lowness of spirits, headaches, hysteric complaints, convulsive asthma. Pain and sickness, dejection and weakness are cured by cold baths, the person scarce believing he is the same man.” Some cooked their bodies in hot baths, believing that in this way they would lose weight. But they readily gave up the practice when they learned that sweat was not fat. Finnish people to this day give credit to their sauna (steam bath) for almost everything they have achieved as a nation. Their Olympic records, a composer’s genius, they say, were directly attributable to the clouds of steaming vapor of some bathhouse. Finnish women even gave birth to their babies in smoke-stained, overheated steam rooms, believing it was free of bacilli.

Johnson, in his Travels Through Part o/ the Russian Empire, describes the Russian disposition toward the bath as follows: “Scores of Individuals mingle together in a heated apartment. . . . Each person is accommodated with a small wooden pailful of hot water, and a bunch of the soft twigs of the birch tree, with which he switches his body, at the same time pouring hot water over his head, which is increased in temperature, in proportion to the excess of perspiration. When the body has arrived at the highest state of heat they suddenly rush into the open air, and scour themselves with soap and cold water. The operation of bathing occupies nearly an hour. . . . Many of them rush out of the hot bath in winter and roll in the snow. They look upon the bath as a sovereign remedy for all diseases and complaints.”

Japanese hot spring vapor-baths are somewhat like Russian or Turkish baths, and accent is placed on the bath as a curative and restorative agent Usually, such baths are taken in a room filled with natural steam from the water. The Japanese have also another system of bathing known as jikanyu, or time-bath, because the hours and the duration of the bath are fixed. “The sulphur baths taken at these spas are so hot that in ordinary circumstances it would be humanly impossible for the bathers to endure the dreadful three-minute ordeal through which they are compelled to go about four times a day. The method contrived to meet this is as effective as it is peculiar. The bathers are subjected to a discipline almost military in its strictness. . . . The first process, which lasts anything from 15 to 30 minutes, consists in the bathers, some 30 to 50 in number at a time, taking their places round the oblong tubs and churning up the

er with boards about six feet long and nine inches wide. They sing a folk song in unison, while churning up the water. When the scalding water is thus cooled to the required temperature, the bath-master orders them to stop churning and to wet their scalps and foreheads to prevent a rush of blood to the head. Then he gives the signal to take the tub. Into the water the unfortunates lower themselves, enduring the agony with the patience of Job. While they sit boiling, the bath-master keeps up their courage by notifying them of the passage of the minutes.”—Hot Springs in Japan, by Prof. Koichi Fujinami, M.D.

In India “nature cure” enthusiasts resort to mud and sand baths. Wet clay is usually used, where it can be obtained, in place of ordinary mud or wet dirt. According to Macfadden’s Encyclopedia of Physical Culture, the idea of a mud or sand bath is “to bury the body of the patient bi the ground with his head left out for the air. .The sand is not nearly so effective as the wet clay or mud, although when the sand is well heated through by the sun It warms the body and stimulates perspiration” and the body benefits.

Aside from these "special” baths, one should feel grateful just for the ordinary shower or tub, for the opportunity to keep and feel clean. In the words of Dr. Theodore R. Van Dellen: “The advantages of cleanliness are numerous. The person looks and feels better. Bacteria are eradicated from the skin and infection is kept to a minimum. Dirt and oil are removed fpom the pores, which encourages perspiration. The bath also gives a much needed lift, especially on returning home from a day of hard work. Many find bathing relaxing, particularly before bedtime and in summer; it has a tendency to cool the body. If there were no other reasons than these, the procedure is well worth the time.”

Development and Dedine of mayan Civilization

By “Awakvl1’ canvapcndent tn Guatemala

ROM all indications the Mayan Indians developed one of the highest forms of ancient civilization, one that began in northern central Peten, Guatemala, around 300 B.C., and lasted till about A.D. 1700:

But some may ask: “Where did the Mayas come from?0 Well, some say they were the lost tribes of Israel, Negroes from Africa a bit faded, or swimmers of the Lost Atlantis who paddled over in canoes when their continent sank. However, the accepted theory is that they came from Asia, from the north drifting south, there being physical characteristics that suggest Asiatic origin.

It is thought that perhaps as early as* 1000 B.C. the ancestors of the Mayas inhabited the Yucatan peninsula and that tepsinte, the ancestor of maize, was used by a nomadic group of Maya-speaking people, who, with this means of providing food at hand, abandoned their nomadic life in favor of fanning based on the cultivation of Indian com, which later became the basis for their civilization.

…