Awake!, July 22, 1958
Download: PDF — Awake!, July 22, 1958
THE MISSION OF THIS JOURNAL
News sources that are able to keep you awqke to the vital issues of our timet must be unfettered by censorship and selfish Interests. "Awoke!" has no fetters. It recognizes facts, facet facts, is free to publish facts. It is not bound by political ambitions or obligations; it is 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 not abuse its freedom. It maintains integrity to truth.
"Awake!” uses the regular news channels, but is not dependent on them. Its own correspondents are on oil 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 oil ages. Through its pages many fields of knowledge pass in'review—government, commerce, religion, history, geography, science, social conditions, natural wonders—why, its coverage is as broad as the earth and as high as the heavens.
"Awake!" pledges itself to righteous principles, ta 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 righteous New World.
Get acquainted with "Awake!" Keep awake by reading “Awake!"
MM MHije- I „ mM
Publish bd Semimonthly by
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW k’ORK, INC. 117 AdajBB Street Brooklyn 1, N.Y., U.S.A.
N. H. Knobb. Preside* Grant Suitmr, Secretary
Printing this Issue: 2,800,000
Five csnts a copy
“Await*!” It pill I ibid In th* ftllowlng 18 laB*ua«es: SimJbKnthly—Afrikaans, Danish. Dutch, EnsJlah, Finn-Uh. French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Fnrtugwe, Spanish, Swedish, Tagalog.
Monthly—CinyanX Indonesian, Ukrainian.
Yearly subsctipLloi) ralen tfllMI for semimonthly edtUons
AM«ri«a, ILS., 11F Adama Ht., Brooklyn 1. N.Y. |1 Aiftalti, 11 Beresford Rd., Str*thfleld. N.S.W. fi/-Canadi, ISO BridgilaJid Aye., Toronto 19, (hit. SI EMland, 84 Craven Terrace, London W. 2 7/-
N*w iMlantf, 021 New North fid.. Auckland. 8.W.J. ?/-South Afrl«t, Private Bag, Elindsfonteiu, Tri. $/.
ftimltlancM for aubdcrlpUona should be sent to the office In your country. OlherwlM send your remittance to Brooklyn. Nttlee of ncpbitlon la sent at leaat two tsfiUF-M before lutwlptlon etplrq-
CHANGES OF ADDREB8 ihMld Ptach it thirty day* Wore yoar rmvIm Me. Give it year tfd ud new addrm (If Hufth, your «ld addrm label), Write Watchtower, 117 Adij» Streit, Brooklyn 1, New York, U.S.A,
Moalhlr editions cwt half Lhe there rate*.
Entered a* secrad-cl aa matter at Brooklyn, N. Y. Printed in U.S.A.
The
Bible frinalatlM in! Fa *
Awake!1' Ii th* New World Tramlation *f the NeFy Stflatare*.
When *th< translation* are
IM th* follewFnd symbeli will
upeu behind the citation*:
AS
- American Standard Version
Dv - Catholic Dow veralon
Afo — James Moffatt's version
AT
_ An American TransliUofi
ED — Tha Emphatic Dfaglott
Pc? — J. B. Bothcrham's version
AU
- Authortwd Version (1611J
JP - Jewish Publication Soc.
E8 - Hevlsed Standard Vereion
Da
- J. N. Darby's reraloo
Le - Isaac Leeser'i version
Yg — Robert Young's version
CONTENTS
Cherish. Your Life
Ideas for Indoor Gardens
Stomach Ulcers
Superstitious Scientists
Adore the Cross or Abhor the Stake?
Traveling by Sea or Aij-7
Supreme Court Under Attack
'■Your Word Is Truth’’
The Norwegian Church Squabbles over
“The Only-begotten God’’—Jesus
Hell
Christ
What to See in New York
Jehovah’s Witnesses Preach in All
Missile Bases in Britain
the Earth—Greece
Rice, the Staff of Life in
Freedom’s Foundation
Sierra Leone
Watching the World
If YOU had a precious irreplaceable gem, would you not guard it and
preserve it? Since your life is more precious than a gem, should it not be guarded and cherished with greater jealousy?
Should it be cast away in a moment of emotional upset or despondency?
Life is too precious to be treated lightly or to be thrown away; yet in America approximately 100,000 people make unsuccessful attempts to destroy themselves every year, and 16,000 to 20,000 succeed in the attempt. It is estimated that there is one suicide in this country every twenty-four minutes.
Why is it that so many people go against the basic desire to live? Why do they not cherish life? A reason that may explain this phenomenon appeared in the magazine Cosmopolitan. The article said:
“The men whose business it is to probe into the recesses of the modem mind think there is an explanation, one which sheds light on almost every case of suicide, and offers a possible solution to a number of other enigmas of human behavior as well. There is, they say, an unconscious impulse toward self-destruction in the mind of every individual which operates with varying intensity throughout the person’s life. The man or woman who dies by his own hand is yielding to this impulse in its most naked form. This seems ridiculous and farfetched at first, for we know that the most basic of all human drives is the opposite of the destructive impulse—the will to live.... Yet the fact that men and women do destroy themselves is irrefutable proof that it can be overwhelmed by this other force within the mind.”
The person who broods over a feeling of guilt because of something he did or imagines that he did breaks down his defenses against this impulse. The longer he condemns himself the stronger becomes his belief that he is not worthy of life. The impulse of self-destruction may then overpower him.
His thinking is obviously all wrong. Selfpunishment does not remove sin. It does not compensate for what was done. A person has no right to inflict a punishment of death upon himself. His life is not his own to do with as he pleases. It belongs to God.
What a person should do who has feelings of guilt bearing heavily upon him is
to go to Jehovah God in prayer. With a sincere heart ask for his forgiveness. Once this has been done trust in his mercy and loving-kindness and his promise to forgive. Do not continue brooding over it* Remember what the Bible says: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous so as to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”—1 John 1:9.
If he continues to brood over his guilt he will destroy himself spiritually by mentally torturing himself. That, in turn, will tear down resistance to the self-destructive impulse, which is no doubt spurred on by wicked spirit forces. Once forgiveness has been asked, put the matter out of mind and then carefully follow Scriptural principles that give protection from repeating the error.
Whether it be a guilt complex or something else that causes despondency, it is essential for a person to recognize the existence of the self-destructive impulse and to resist it. He should remember that he is imperfect and will make mistakes. When they are made he must depend upon God for forgiveness.
Love is a very important factor in resisting the self-destructive impulse. Here is what Cosmopolitan said about it: “The best and the strongest antidote to negativity toward ourselves is love for others. The man or woman who cares about another person cares about life itself. But we should not stop here. Throughout our lives we should continue to widen and deepen our enthusiasm for other people, for good art and literature and music, for all the things in life that make happiness a positive reality.”
When there is love tor God and love for other people a person cherishes life. But when a person expects love from others but does not exercise it himself he begins to find life empty. Self-pity builds up despondency and lowers his resistance against self-destruction.
The Bible gives good advice when it says: “Love one another.” When there is love, life becomes valuable, something to cherish. It gives a person something to live for, something to think about besides himself. Love was ranked by Jesus Christ as the greatest of all commandments: “ ‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’”—Matt. 22:37-39.
This love is more than emotional feeling. It is genuine devotion. It is looking out for the best interests of others, being long-suffering and forgiving. The exercising of, this quality is the best protection against the impulse of self-destruction.
Your life is precious. It is the most valuable possession you have. Protect it by cultivating love for God, love for other people, and love for the other beautiful and marvelous things of God's creation. Embrace the hope of eternal life on a Paradise earth that God has promised to those who love him. It will help you to cherish your life.
STOMACH ULCERS
(I. An ulcer is essentially an irritated or inflamed area in the lining of the stomach. The exact cause is not known, but several factors may be involved. One is the abuse of the stomach through the eat-and-run treatment, or eating food too highly seasoned, or too hot or too cold. Also prolonged emotional tension could cause an ulcer. Ulcers occur more frequently in men than women. The ulcer leader among nations is Japan. England is next; then Wales, Scotland and Sweden. The United States is fourteenth on the list.
York Times, April 3, 1958, car-
—Summa Theologica, Part HI,
ried a picture of three crosses formed by Article 4.
lighting up certain windows of three Manhattan skyscrapers.
On April 14, 1958, the same newspaper told of the adoration that Spaniards were
Zeal for the cross on the part of some, however, has occasioned hard feelings in certain parts of the United States, particularly in recent years. The plan to put the
giving to what was supposed to be a fragment of the very cross on which Jesus died. “The relic has received the highest honors this intensely religious nation can pay. ... During Holy Week and Easter [it] has been visited by tens of thousands of worshipers. It has been borne through the streets preceded by 10,000 penitents.” This is in keeping with what the Catholic theologian Augustine once
cross in the medal commemorating the State of Minnesota's 1957 Centennial celebration was strongly opposed not only by Jews and by secular civil and human rights groups but also by spokesmen for such religious, organizations as Episcopal, Lutheran, Seventh-day Adventist, Unitarian and Universalist.
The surreptitious raising of large crosses in public parks by Roman Cath-
ollc groups In certain cities in Indiana late In 1955 stirred violent passions. Commenting on this, The Christian Century, November 9, 1955, stated: “The industrial communities of Gary, Highland, Hammond, East Chicago and Whiting, on the Indiana edge of Chicago, have been stirred to a high pitch of excitement by the sudden, unannounced erection of giant crucifixes in public parks in the first two, with statements from officers of the Knights of Columbus that similar crucifixes would be placed in parks in the others.... Tension has reached a point where, a friend tells us, there is widespread name-calling, reckless tossing about of ugly charges, and swift growth of a you-pull-the-dad-blasted-thing-down-or-we’ll-blow-it-to-kingdom-come state of mind, with replies in kind.” And the mere talk about placing crosses in public places in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and in Des Moines, Iowa, created such a stir that the plans to do so were dropped.
Is the traditional cross truly the Christian symbol? Was Jesus Christ nailed on such a cross? Should the cross be adored? What answers do the facts and the Scriptures give?
Of Pagan Origin
Far from being peculiarly Christian, the cross has widespread roots in paganism. Says Gibbon, the English historian, in his History of Christianity: “It was the most sacred symbol of Egyptian idolatry. . . . and was believed to possess all the devilexpelling virtues which have since been ascribed to it by Christians. The monogram, or symbol of the god Saturn, was the sign of the cross . . . Jupiter also bore a cross with a horn, Venus a cross with a circle. The famous Crux Ansata is to be seen in all the buildings of Egypt; and the most celebrated temples of the idol Crishna in India, like our Gothic cathedrals, were built in the form of crosses.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, which devotes upward of twenty pages to the subject of the cross, also tells that the sign of the cross “greatly antedates, In both the East and the West, the Introduction of Christianity. It goes back to a very remote period in human civilization,” and from the earliest times had a “symbolico-religious—significance.”—Vol. 4, p. 518.
So, first of all, let it be noted that the symbol of the cross is by no means peculiar to Christendom. And in view of the plain Scriptural statements for Christians not to have anything to do with false worship, the cross cannot be a symbol of true Christianity.—2 Cor. 6:14-18.
Nor is that all. There is absolutely no proof that Jesus was put to death on the traditionally shaped cross. Thus Our Sunday Visitor, September 11, 1955, states that “originally the cross was a stake to which later a transverse bar was added.” The Catholic Encyclopedia states the same. And says Sanford’s A Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge regarding the term “cross”: “This word has so thoroughly acquired the meaning of two lines forming angles with each other, that it is difficult to realize that it does not mean this of necessity. The most ancient cross was a stake to which the malefactor was fastened; the arms and feet were either tied with cords or nailed to the wood,... Sometimes, for dispatch, persons were crucified on trees. There are several instances of this kind of execution: the Emperor Tiberius, when pro-consul in Africa, thus executed the priests of Saturn who crucified children.”
Regarding stauros, the only Greek word translated “cross” in the Authorized Version, we are told: "The early usage of the term stauros corresponded to its primary meaning,” that is, “poles for fencing” and “stakes for fortification. ... As a means of execution it was first used In the form of a stake (crux simplex) for impaling the victims—the custom being practiced by the . . . Romans.”—A New Standard Dictionary of the Bible (1925).
That the stauros on which Jesus died was a simple stake or crux simplex and not a traditional cross is further seen by the fact that we repeatedly read of his dying on “the (a) tree.” (See Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24, AV.) The original Greek word in such texts is xylon, which simply means a staff, club, beam or tree. The mob that came for Jesus carried xylons or clubs. (Matt. 26:47, 55) Had Jesus been crucified on the traditional cross he would not have been referred to as dying on a xylon.
Leading authorities admit, even though holding that Jesus died on the traditional cross, that “no degree of certainty is possible”; there is “no definite data,” only “general tradition.” In fact, it is “only the Church writers after Justyn Martyr who indicate the composite four-armed cross as Christ’s vehicle of torture.”—New Schaff £ Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 3, p. 313.
The cross does not appear in the catacombs earlier than the fourth century. Only after the time of Constantine, who claimed to have seen a vision of the cross, did it become the symbol of Christendom. Still the cross he saw was not the traditional cross but one X-shaped with a “P” superimposed upon it. Certainly Jesus was not impaled on such a cross.
Incongruous, Unchristian
The fact is that to venerate the cross is most incongruous. No Roman was ever fastened to a torture stake, and Jews looked upon such a stake with the greatest horror. Pointedly, Lutheran clergyman Foelsch observed: "The cross was, in the days of Jesus, a sign of shame, introduced by the Romans and used to put thieves and scoundrels to death. Its use for a religious symbol then would be like putting a small-sized electric chair in front of our church now.”—New York Times, April 15, 1957.
And, finally, regardless of its shape, there is no Scriptural authority for venerating, honoring or adoring the cross or stake Jesus died on, or any likeness of it; or what is supposed to be a part of it, as was recently done in Spain and as taught by Augustine. Certainly the disciples of Jesus could have procured the stake on which their Master hung had they felt so inclined, but they did not.
Not only is there no mention of their doing so, but all such adoration of an inanimate object is a form of idolatry that is disgusting to Jehovah God. Thus when the unfaithful Israelites began adoring the copper serpent that Moses had made and erected in the wilderness, faithful King Hezekiah destroyed it so that they could no longer practice such idolatry.—2 Ki. 18:4.
So the Scriptures, the facts and reason unite in forcing us to conclude that the traditional cross is basically a pagan symbol, that Jesus died on a stake or crux simplex and that far from adoring the instrument that tortured him to death we should abhor it.
You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is tn the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion,—Ex. 20:4, S.
indiffej^4 to
ie?
is the cen‘
?*th^'-are
The
A brief look at th£’Jenifer bill will explain much of the abtaek. S^pator Jenner’s JWfi would have tl^e Supnqp?eCourt stripped of the power tO/heafrCfees on appeal in
’M
Manchester unaware of the
. Such lack of
jeting.” With
ian took a look at a signal attack inston Churchill has called
on “the the world,” ’fig
,ir
can^H^W^S^emely those warning words
Court to touctt
^.judicial tribunal in tatiohs for contempt of Congress.
This heavy-caliber shell in the Jenner
Court. '
Attacks on the Supreme Court are not new; criticism has often been severe. But this time the attack is more thari talk. Congressmen are dragging in their heavy cannons—bills designed to strip the Supreme Court of some of its vital powers.
The Jenner bill, a Congressional cannon Eiimed at the Supreme Court, would forbid the court to touch a wide range of cases. Though the Jenner bill’s chances of getting through Congress were dubious, there is this significance about it: The fact that such an extreme proposal has been seriously considered shows how prevalent is the dissatisfaction with the preme Court decisions.
recent Su-
out by the by 10 to 5
The Butler bill—reported Senate Judiciary Committee —is another Congressional cannon pointed at the Supreme Court. It also indicates the deep resentment against recent Supreme Court decisions.
' 5? What decisions have drawn So much firej^^iy the resentment at thsfe^jisions? What
[ ’forbid the Supreme i arising from
bill cannon was Congressional reaction to a Supreme Court verdict in the Watfcins case. The Supreme Court reversed a conviction for contempt of the House Committee on Un-American Activities on the ground that the committee had exceeded its authority. Watkins had refused to disclose information regarding past associates suspected of communism. Though he had co-operated generally with the committee, he charged that some of its probings were irrelevant to legislative requirements. In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Supreme Court said that though the power of Congress is broad, “it is not unlimited” and there “is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” The committee had fallen under the “vice of vagueness.” Thus the Supreme Court laid down the principle that Congressional committees must be guided by a clearly defined legislative purpose in their investigations, and that they may not force witnesses to testify against their will on subjects that do not pertain to that purpose.
In Congress there was great hue and cry. "The House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Sub-Committee on Internal Security,” Representative Donald Jackson said in a House speech, “have been rendered as innocuous as two kittens in a cage full of rabid dogs." Senator Norris Cotton said: "The. court has gone a long way to protect the wolf from Little Red Riding Hood.”
A second area from which the Jenner bill would bar the Supreme Court are those cases involving the antisubversion program for federal employees. This was reaction to the Supreme Court decision ruling that the government, in 1951, had wrongfully discharged John S(. Service, a foreign service officer, as a security risk.
A number of other high court decisions led to the third and fourth proscriptions of the Jenner bill. These ould forbid the Supreme Court ceive cases that involve state
laws de voiving sch do with subvert
subversion and cases in-id regulations having to activities by teachers.
Congress feels that sbme Supreme Court decisions upholding the rights of the individual have made the hunt for Communists far too difficult.
Finally, the Jenner bill would deny the Supreme Court the right to touch cases concerning the admission of lawyers to practice in state courts. This was ^e-f action to a series of decisions that limited legal penalties for past association with fee Communist party. The high court ruled; that former association was not sufficiently related to moral character to justify an individual’s being permanently ostracized.
Thus the Supreme Court ruled out efforts by two states to refuse admission to the bar either because <jf past Communist membership OR oecaustf of Fifth Amendment refusal to answer questions.
The Butler Bill
The Butler bill, a modified version of the Jenner bill, would take effect in four fields: (1) It would forbid the court to review any case involving state rules for admission to the bar. (2) It would make Congressional committees final judges whether their questions to witnesses are pertinent to the purpose of lawmaking. (3) It would allow states to enforce their own laws against sedition (this was reaction against the court’s ruling that Congress had pre-empted this field of legislation by the Smith Act). (4) It would apply the Smith Act against Communists to “theoretical advocacy” of government overthrow as well as to advocacy that is “incitement to action.”
The Smith Act case was based on a federal statute prohibiting conspiracy to teach or advocate overthrow of the government by means of violence. In 1951 the Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional; but in a recent second look at the law the court drastically redefined it. The new decision emphasizes the difference between teaching the overthrow of the government as an abstract idea and of advocating action to that end. The high court ruling resulted in the acquittal of five Communist defendants on the ground of "palpably insufficient” evidence and sent nine others to a new trial. Congressmen by the dozens were furious.
than words
A large part of the Congressional apprehension stems from the fact that those who have benefited by the decisions upholding individual rights have been, to a considerable degree, Communists, suspected Communists or criminals.
Here are a few more decisions in which the Supreme Court upheld the rights of individuals and rejected the claim of authority: In Rowoldt vs. Perfetto the court ruled that Congress had intended to reach only “meaningful political association” with the Communist party when it made membership at any time in the past a ground for an alien’s deportation.
In the famous “double jeopardy” case, Green vs. United States, the Supreme Court re-emphasized its deep concern for protecting the rights of individuals against the power of the state. In reversing a District of Columbia murder conviction, the court rendered a broadened reading of the double jeopardy provision of the Constitution. “The state with all its resources and powers,” said Justice Black, “shall not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense ... thereby compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.”
In Lambert vs. California the Supreme Court held that a Los Angeles ordinance requiring convicted felons to register with police was unconstitutional as applied because the defendant had not had fair notice of the requirement.
Another case upholding individual rights drew so much fire that Congress has already modified the decision. This was the Jencks case. The high court held in this case that the government must either dismiss its charges against Jencks or make available to him or to his lawyer Federal Bureau of Investigation reports about which government witnesses had given oral testimony. The case broke down a barrier that had long shielded F.B.I. reports in court prosecutions. So furious was Congress that it rushed through legislation to prevent a feared wholesale exposure of F.B.I. files. Nonetheless, the Jencks case is still regarded as a judicial milestone for individual rights.
A Shift to Liberalism
From a look at some of the recent Supreme Court decisions it is apparent that the high court is showing an impressive degree of liberalism. The turn to liberalism is quite new. It has taken place since the chief justiceship of Earl Warren.
Previously the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Vinson, usually favored the side of officialdom. Under Chief Justice Vinson the court decided, from 1946 to 1953, 113 civil liberty cases that were not unanimous. Of these only 40 (35 percent) were decided favorably to civil liberties.
In the Vinson court Associate Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo L. Black were generally regarded as “the liberal nucleus” of two. Now that nucleus usually includes Chief Justice Warren.
So impressive has been the turn to liberalism that Walter Lippmann wrote last year: “The Supreme Court has waited a long time—some ten years—before it has intervened in what is unconstitutional process, resorted to on the grounds that fire must be fought with fire, that the end, which is to stop communism, justifies any means.” And a former clean of law, Senator Wayne Morse; has said: “In the inevitable march of history, we have reached the point where the Supreme Court has proclaimed the right of equality of justice under the 14th and 15th Amendments.”
The Central Issue
Well, then, why the attack? Why attack the Supreme Court when today, of all times, liberalism is needed and the rights of the individual need to be safeguarded?
The issue has come into focus. It is this: To what extent can every guarantee of the Constitution be upheld at a time when these safeguards seem to work in apparent favor of persons who would undermine or destroy that Constitution? Many persons in officialdom fear that the power of the state to protect itself against subversion has been weakened by the enlargement of individual rights.
Critics of the court also fear that, in turning to a definite liberalism, the court tends to ignore precedent and to make its own laws, “The Supreme Court is making law,” says Senator Jenner. “It is making political decisions and embodying them in rules of general applicability. It has no right to do this.” And Bernard Schwartz, professor of law at New York University, says: “Carried to its extreme . . . judicial libertarianism can lead the court to assume undue authority over the other branches. . . . Even restrictions on individual freedoms must be upheld when they are required for the preservation of other, more vital interests of society. If there is a danger in the recent tendency of the Warren court, it is that the justices may overlook this and permit their personal libertarian convictions to override even necessary restrictions on individual rights.”
Answering the Critics
How does the court answer its critics? Justice Douglas disagrees with the criticism on precedent. Instead of being blinded by precedent, Justice Douglas says, the court should “keep one age unfettered by the fears and limited vision of another."
There is really an eloquent defense of liberalism in Justice Douglas’ recent book The Right of the People. As Justice Douglas sees it, at stake is the entire First Amendment in the Bill of Rights—at stake are the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of press and the freedom of assembly.
Summing up Justice Douglas’ book, the New York Times Book Review says: “Almost every page of the book shows how callously various legislative, executive and administrative authorities have encroached and continue to encroach on First Amendment rights. Though the courts, as guardians of the Amendment, have occasionally yielded or retreated, it is clear that without their intervention fundamental liberties would have been stripped bare. One does not enjoy contemplating what might happen to nonconformists, religious minorities, ethnic minorities and freedom of the press if Hamiltonian philosophy should induce the judges to lay down their shields.”
Justice Black puts it quite succinctly in his concurring opinion in the Smith Act case. “The choice expressed in the First Amendment in favor of free expression,” he writes, “was made against a turbulent background by men such as Jefferson, Madison and Mason—men who believed that loyalty to the provisions of this amendment was the best way to assure a long life for this new nation and its government, Unless there is complete freedom for expression of all ideas, whether we like them or not, concerning the way government should be run and who shall run it, I doubt if any views in the long run can be secured against the censor. The First Amendment provides the only kind of security system that can preserve a free government—one that leaves the way wide open for people to favor, discuss, advocate, or incite causes and doctrines however obnoxious . . . such views, may be to the rest of us.”
"Sinister Import”
What could happen should Congress curb the powers of the Supreme Court, especially a court that has shown a liberal trend? Discussing the ‘‘sinister import” of the success of any such bills as the Jenner bill, the Manchester Guardian said: “Legal chaos would inevitably result under a system which forbade the Supreme Court on these subjects to declare the law of the land. The principle of equal justice for all American citizens, no matter where they may live, would be in constant jeopardy even when it was not actually overthrown. . . . Some of the lower courts and some courts of appeal, pondering the chastisement of the Supreme Court by Congress, may read the signs of the times in a craven spirit and may disregard the findings of the supreme tribunal lest their own courts should feel the swift and imperious anger of Congress. Judicial review would yield to political expediency. Senator Jenner is making a barren gesture, or else he is engaged in a calculated assault on the Supreme Court.”
Ironically, the same day that the Senate received from its Judiciary Committee the Jenner bill to strip the Supreme Court of vital powers, Attorney General William P. Rogers called on the public to support the courts against a “kill the umpire” attitude, The attorney general spoke on May 1, the newly proclaimed Law Day. With the Supreme Court under attack the major theme at the principal celebrations of Law Day was the need to maintain effective instruments of justice. Before a gathering of lawyers and judges, including several Supreme Court justices, Attorney General Rogers said:
“Periodically, even lawyers have to remind themselves that there can be no adequate protection of individual rights without the alert supervision of the courts. . .. It is the courts in this country that are the last bulwark agamst intolerance, passion, and usurpation of power. . . . Many of the significant, and what today are regarded as the wisest and most profound, decisions of the courts were very unpopular at the time they were made. There have been periods in our history when the ‘kill the umpire’ attitude made considerable headway. "Fortunately, except in minor ways, the legislature has never taken these attacks seriously enough to alter the judicial system or retaliate against the judiciary.”
But this time Congress has taken the attack seriously. The Jenner and Butler bills show how profoundly serious some congressmen are in their attack. Yes, these bills show that there are influential men who would indeed alter the judicial system.
A successful assault on the Supreme Court could have far-reaching consequences. Gradually the Supreme Court could lose its power as guardian of the Constitution. Right now Justice Douglas feels that the whole First Amendment is at stake.
Sss1
By oorro«pon<Unt
in Norway
FOR several years now in Norway there has been a hot dispute over the validity of the doctrine of hell torment and whether the teaching should be considered a necessary part of the ' confession of the Norwegian state church or not. The controversy began ' January 25, 1953, when Ole Hallesby, a theology professor, gave an old-fashioned hell-fire sermon over the Norwegian broadcasting system. A few days later Bishop Schjelderup voiced his opinion against such a teaching. That lit the fuse, and the feud within the Norwegian church was on!
The phrase “the confession of the church” appears to be of deep significance and in the center of the controversy. It is repeatedly mentioned in the squabble. Professor Hallesby declared that Bishop Schjelderup had, by what he had said, renounced the confession of the church. Schjelderup appealed to the Department of Church and Education to clarify if he had by his statements placed himself outside the Evangelical Lutheran Church confession. After consulting with the other bishops of the country, the department stated that Schjelderup was within the church confession when he expressed an opposing view. With that it was thought that the matter was closed; but not so.
At the eighteenth voluntary church conference held in Oslo, October, 1957, a new torch was thrown Into the church strife. Ilie conference passed a resolution that said: “That which has been voiced about the eter
nal penal sufferings as being contrary to the spirit of the revelation of God in Christ has never been recognized as the view of the Christian church, and the Norwegian church must hold fast to its confession and submit itself to the word of the Lord.”
The bishops of the land pointed out that the purpose of the resolution was not to force Bishop Schjelderup into retirement but to clarify the position of the church, that it had to stick to its confession. However, a group of zealous church members stated that they did not want to co-operate with Bishop Schjelderup or anybody else who deviates from the confession of the church.
It is obvious that the Norwegian church attaches a great deal of importance to the confession and to one’s abiding by it. When priests are ordained they are called upon to give a solemn v$w to “preach the word of God plain and pure, as it is given to us in the Holy Writ, and as our church bears witness of in its confession.” At a special inauguration the bishops additionally promise to “adhere to the sound doctrine according to the confession of our church.”
Since the confession is so vital to the Norwegian church it should prove of interest to find out exactly what it is and how the church got It. Also, it would be well for people to know just how the Evangelical Lutheran Church was established in Norway as a state church.
The Confession Is Established
When “Saint” Olaf, king of Norway, “Christianized” his nation he did not do it by preaching Bible truths. He did it by wielding the sword. If was by sword and fire that the Catholic Church got its dominion over the people. When the Evangelical Lutheran Church was established, it too was forced upon the Norwegians. According to the book Norsk kirkerett (“Norwegian Canon Law”), by Kristian Hansson: “The reformation was in Norway as in Denmark carried out by order of the state. The evangelical teachings had been preached in a few places, since 1529, even with the permission of the king, but its acceptance by the people was not worth mentioning. The reformation work was initiated by the imprisonment of three Catholic bishops in Copenhagen in connection with Christian Hl’s coup d’Etat, August 11, 12, 1536, Shortly thereafter the other Danish bishops underwent the same fate. . . . The ecclesiastical turnover was sanctioned by the so-called reces of October 30, 1536, ... A corresponding new arrangement was carried through in Norway within the year 1537 after Archbishop Olav Engelbrektsson had fled and the remaining bishops had laid down their offices or had been taken prisoners.”
So it was a coup d’etat that gave rise to the teaching of new doctrines. A later Dano-Norwegian king laid down the statutory provision that established and still defines the confession of the Norwegian church. In the Norwegian law of King Christian V, April 15, 1687, it is written: “The only Religion allowed in the Kingdoms and the Countries of the King shall be that which is in accordance with the Holy Biblical Writ, the Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian Symbols, and the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, submitted in the Year one thousand five hundred and thirty, and Luther’s Small Catechism” Thus the Evangelical Lutheran religion became and remains the public religion of the state.
This religion holds to the Athanasian Creed, which teaches that the “good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith which, except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.” The Augsburg Confession enlarges on this dogma of the church. It says that the godly and elect shall be given “eternal life and evenlasting joys; but ungodly men and the devils he [Christ] shall condemn unto endless torments.” There you have the official “confession” as to the punishment in hell, and it is this confession that the priests and the bishops vow to abide by in their preaching.
The Bible on Bell
Priests and bishops of the Norwegian church appear to be more devoted to the confession than they are to the Bible and what it teaches. The very way the Norwegian Bible, which they claim to abide by, uses the word “hell” (helvete) disproves the teaching of eternal torment in hell. The word occurs only twelve times in the Norwegian Bible, each time translated from the Greek word Gehenna, which actually means "the Valley of Hinnom," This valley was situated outside Jerusalem. It was used as a crematory or incinerator, where the Jews dumped all kinds of refuse and the bodies of dead animals and the corpses of some criminals whom they considered too vile to have a resurrection from the dead. Living humans were never thrown into the valley. When Jesus spoke about the "judgment of Gehenna” the Jews would not associate his words with a life in the hereafter, but with a disgraceful death without a possibility of recovery or resurrection.
Ask yourself, What is God going to torment after death? The priests say the soul; the soul, being immortal, can be tormented eternally. But the Bible does not mention any immortal soul. The creation account says: “Man came to be a living soul.” It says nothing about his receiving a soul. It was this soul, the creature Adam, who, being disobedient, was judged worthy of death. Being descendants of Adam, we have all inherited the same condemnation. Death is the penalty for sin: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” “Death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” Death is not life in torment, but a cessation of existence altogether. The Bible says: At death "you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”—Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 18:4, AS; Rom. 5:12; Gen. 3:19; Eccl. 3: 19; 9:5,10.
Martin Luther himself was aware of the fallacy of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. He said: “I permit the Pope to makes articles of faith for himself and his faithful—such as ‘the soul is the substantial form of the human body,’ ‘that the soul is immortal,’ with all those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals.” It was in the twentyseventh of his original ninety-five theses that Luther thus denied immortality of the human soul, but his followers slashed it out together with another one, and then divided two others so as to keep the number of these theses up to the original ninety-five. The Alphabetical Appendix of The Emphatic Diaglott has this to say about the word soul: “In all the 700 times which nephesh occurs, and the 105 times of psuchee [words from which "soul” is translated], not once is the word immortal, or immortality, or deathless, or never-dying, found in connection, as qualifying the terms.” Immortality is held out as a reward to be gained, not something that Christians inherently possess in themselves.
Professor Hallesby and his like-minded companions stand on the sand foundation of the confessional of the church, not on the rock foundation of God’s Word, the Bible. To be found standing on the solid rock foundation of God’s Word necessitates our separating ourselves from al! falsehoods, including this God-dishonoring doctrine of hell torment. “ ‘Separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing,’ ‘and I will take you in.’ ‘And I shall be a father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah the Almighty.”—2 Cor. 6:14-18.
Stop, Sfoofe and
A famous Senate chaplain told of the time he was approached by a friend just after a Senate session: “I suppose, Reverend, you've looked at the country and then prayed for the Senate?” “No,” replied the chaplain, “I’ve looked at the Senate and then prayed for the country,”
■■OME of the thousands of delegates com-tjiing to New York for the international EJ assembly of Jehovah's witnesses will ar a few days early and others may stay a'few days after the assembly. These will be interested in looking about this great city-
A few suggestions of what to see may help them plan their sight-seeing.
4] A ferry trip out to the Statue of Liberty is well worth the time It takes and the fare of seventy-five cents for adults and thirty-live cents for children. Nothing additional is charged to go up in the statue. An elevator as well as a circular stairway permits visitors to ascend to the statue's crown, nearly three hundred feet above the water, where they can get a breath-taking view of the harbor and the Manhattan skyline. The 225-ton statue wag a gift from the French people in 1884. ^Near where the ferry docks at the tip of Manhattan is the city’s oldest park, Bowling Green. This was the spot where Peter Minuit bought Manhattan from the Indians in 1626 for a mere $24 in trade goods. Near Bowling Green is Fraunces Tavern, where General Washington gathered with his officers after the Revolution in 1783 and bade them farewell.
While in this section of the city it would be advisable to walk over to Wall Street and see the New York Stock Exchange. Tours of the Exchange start every fifteen minutes and last one hour. This part of the city is very impressive because of its very narrow streets and extremely tall buildings. This was where the first settlers lived in a small Dutch village 332 years ago. Wall Street mark® the place where they built a wall in 1653 to protect the village.
Rockfeller Center at 50th Street and Sixth Avenue is a popular tourist attraction. It is possible to take a guided tour of six of its fifteen buildings. The tour ends at the observation roof on the seventieth floor of the
RCA Building, where a person can get a magnificent view of New York city. Another tour that is most interesting is that of the NBC radio and television studios. This network has some twenty-one studios in Rockefeller Center.
< The Empire State Building also provides a marvelous view of the city. It has two observation platforms, one on the 86th floor and another on the 102d floor. On a clear day it is possible to see for more than fifty miles.
Those persons who like animals will not want to miss the Bronx Zoo. This zoological park has the Ia?gest collection of creature life of all American zoos. On twenty-five acres of land it has more than 992 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, 2,700 specimens in all. In its aquarium there are 10,000 specimens of 450 kinds of sea life. The great variety of creatures in this zoo is living evidence of the wisdom and creative power of Jehovah God.
What have been mentioned are only a few of many interesting sights in New York city that delegates to the assembly of Jehovah’s witnesses may want to see before and after their assembly. But what will be of primary interest to them will be the Watchtower Society's factory and Bethel home. Here is where more than 121 million magazines, Bibles, books and booklets were printed in 1957 for their use in the ministry.
<i They have heard much about the thirteen-story addition to the factory and will want to see it with their oWn eyes. As they walk through the factory they will be able to watch its twenty-three printing presses turning out Bibles, Bible literature, handbills and other printed matter. One press alone produces 170,-000 magazines a day. They will be able to watch these magazines pour out of the press at a blurring speed. At the same time some other presses are producing 688,000 handbills a day.
< They will see the making of lead plates for the presses, the setting of type by row after row of machines, and the making of ink. They will see the sewing, trimming and binding of books a® well as the many other operations necessary in producing the mountainous quantities of Bibles and Bible literature that is turned out by this factory every year.
< What they see 388 of their Christian brothers doing in this factory will leave an impression that will outlast by far the many other things they wiU see in their tour of New York city.
MISSILE BASES IN
b Kimn
®HE American plan to set up missile bases in Britain has been the subject of lively discussion, especially since, to many folk, they seem to emphasise Britain's dependence on the United States. An added complication is that sjz£ce they are sited on Britain's east coast Russia must obviously regard them as 4 distinct threat to itself and its European satellite countries. A good deal of feeling has been aroused in some quarters—notably among pacifists and the more emotional section of Britain’s Labor, party—because they feel the project might hinder the success of any summit talks.
However, the majority of people, while not welcoming the project, realize it is perhaps unavoidable in the present state of international tension; the more so since Britain, America and many other nations of the West do not take as genuine most of the Russian proposals to lessen it. Deeds, not words, they claim, is their criterion, and trustworthy deeds by Russia are sadly lacking.
y -j The proposal to
'set UP the bases is, •v °f course> tied in
"AvdJBl with Britain’s de
fense policy and the desire to remain closely linked with the United States. Those opposed to further nuclear tests are naturally against the siting of any bases in Britain. However, they are faced with a doubtful alternative, that of Britain’s taking action to ban the hydrogen bomb and all other weapons, trusting that Russia will do the same. As it is, the East has a far greater I
number of men under arms and a greater amount of conventional weapons.
Britain’s Labor party, with the exception of a smalt minority, agrees with the Conservative government’s main defense policy but holds that “no physical step should be taken to set up missile bases in Britain until a fresh attempt has been made to negotiate with Russia.” In contrast to this, the minority group in the Labor party is conducting a campaign to ban the hydrogen bomb and is unconditionally opposed to the setting up of American rocket bases in the country. The Conservative government, in support of its policy, states that peace has been preserved thus far, not because the West has disarmed, but because an equal balance of power has been maintained.
Government Statements
The British prime minister explained the government’s policy recently in a letter to a professor of London’s School of Economics. He wrote the letter in reply to a petition he had received from 204 members of the academic staff of colleges of London University calling for nuclear dis-
armament. He stated: "Missile bases themselves are but a development of the policy of establishing bomber bases from which nuclear weapons can be delivered. This policy was begun by the Labour government after the war.” He added that the whole purpose of the nuclear deterrent, its supreme justification, was to prevent a war by making it obviously futile and unprofitable. Now, he insisted, it was time to use Britain's bargaining position, not to throw it away. He said the government would continue to strive for reduction in tension and for balanced agreement on disarmament.
On an earlier occasion he referred to the argument put forward by some that Britain should continue to rely on American nuclear power rather than develop its own and commented that “there can be no moral value in this. This course would lead to a great diminution of our influence.” About rocket bases he had this to say: “I cannot believe that if we start now to dig the foundations and prepare the cement for rocket bases for weapons which have not yet been delivered, Mr, Khrushchev will be so hurt—or his inner feelings so wounded —that all his policy will change or the whole Russian relationship with Britain and the West be fatally poisoned.”
The ultimate aim of the British government was expressed recently by its minister of defense as being “comprehensive disarmament, both nuclear and conventional, and subject to inspection by a world authority and control by a world police force.” He said he was opposed to unilateral disarmament by the free nations on the grounds that it would leave Russia in a position to dominate the world.
Opposing Arguments
Britain’s Labor party leader has no illusions about the difficulty of negotiating with Russia and agrees that Russian proposals to hold summit talks could be nothing more than propaganda. However, he was careful to say that “if there is any chance of their being serious, it would be criminal folly to neglect the opportunity of summit talks.” He also felt, according to the London correspondent of the New York Times, that Russia’s progress in missile development had made America “rath-' er more dependent” on Britain than Britain was on America in that bases in Britain had become a strategic necessity.
The South Carolina accident when a nuclear bomb dropped from an aircraft provoked a lot of thought and comment in Britain and was even discussed in parliament. To dispel British fears that such an accident might occur in this country, the prime minister explained that only aircraft on special operational exercises and operating from British bases carried nuclear weapons, and these weapons were never made ready for instantaneous use. When some members of the opposition party persisted in their skepticism a member of the government seized on the opportunity to support the plan to have rocket bases in the country, commenting that “rockets do not fly round on operational training.”
Should Britain stop the establishment of missile bases on her territory (a) unconditionally or (b) until new attempts have been made to reach agreement with the Soviet Union? This question was included in a referendum paper on nuclear disarmament circulated among over 8,000 Oxford University undergraduates. Less than half replied. But of these, 31 percent said “Yes” to (a) and 49 percent said “Yes” to (b). “No” was the reply of 40 percent, the remainder being doubtful. This means that rather more support a ban on American missile bases until after summit talks than agree with the government that work on bases should proceed.
A minority group of members of parliament in the Labor party are strongly urging the party to alter its policy and follow a “Ban the Hydrogen Bomb" campaign, but it is unlikely that they will see much success. The official policy of the party is that no physical step should be taken to set up missile bases in Britain until a fresh attempt has been made to negotiate with Russia, lest the attempt be put in jeopardy. The party also calls on the government to set a lead to other nations by suspending nuclear tests in the hope that the banning of nuclear weapons and general disarmament would then result. In the meantime the party is not opposed to the government’s policy that the Western powers must reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first, if necessary, since Russia has far more men and conventional arms.
Diverse Opinions
Some clergymen and educators have voiced their opinions about the situation, insisting that the moral issue is of the highest importance. They object to Britain's defense policy out of concern for their fellow humans and because mass killing and mutilation of innocent men, women and children would result from any use of the weapons. The arguments involving expediency, self-interest and strategy are, to them, of secondary concern. That these objectors may themselves be threatened with slavery or destruction by either Russian or American bombs is, they contend, quite irrelevant and does not affect the moral issue.
Other folks, equally emphatic, point out that if nuclear defense policy is to be effective there must be rocket sites in Britain from which the missiles can be fired, and that to refuse to make even this modest contribution might lose her the friendship of America, thus leaving the nation at the mercy of Russia. It is then argued that if Britain ever became occupied by powerful forces of the Soviet Union and there was a government similar to the Vichy government in France during World War n, then Britain could become as legitimate a target for American nuclear weapons as occupied France, Belgium and Holland became targets for Allied bombing in the last war.
A number of people hold the view that the hope of defending the West by means of the hydrogen bomb is illusory in any case, because to use this weapon wpuld mean to commit suicide. Others note that it would be equally suicidal for the Russians, and they are keen to emphasize that so long as both sides have the hydrogen bomb each will realize that to use it will be tantamount to suicide and each will therefore refrain from using it.
These various expressions of opinion certainly focus attrition on the dilemma now facing Britain. The country will undoubtedly pursue the nuclear defense policy that the government has in mind, unless summit talks are held with Russia and there is some agreement on disarmament In any case, Britain and America are not likely to part over the issue and will undoubtedly work together.
By “Awok*]** corrttponderit In Sierra Leone
«41N THE sweat of your face you will eat 1 bread until you return to the ground?'
Those words apply with peculiar force to the rice farmers of Sierra Leone, West Africa, for growing their staff of life is indeed hard work. —Gen. 3:19.
< While one half of the world depends upon wheat bread, the other half depends upon boiled rice. The Sierra Leoneans clearly belong to the latter half, for they are known as the "rice eaters’* of West Africa. True, other starchy foods, such as the plantain, belonging to the banana family, the yam or sweet potato, the cassava root and foo-foo, a dough, are to be found in the markets. Their supply, however, is very limited, while there is an abundance of rice.
<1 In Sierra Leone rice is eaten every day except Saturday, when cassava or foo-foo is enjoyed for a change. In fact, a meal without rice leaves a Sierra Leonean hungry, regardless of what else he may have had. Not that the Sierra Leoneans always ate so much rice. If not all, at least the better strains of rice were first brought in by the Portuguese in the fifteenth century,
C Rice Is grown either in the uplands or on the swampy banks of the rivers. The laud is first cleared of trees and brush and then, by means of religious ceremonies, the aid of gods and ancestors is invoked to ensure good crops. Since the rivers repeatedly flood these swamplands, the rice is first planted on higher ground; then when it is about a foot high it is transplanted to the swamps. While this means added work it is worth it, as the swamps yield as high as ten times as large a crop as the upland regions. In fact, swamplands may yield as much as two thousand pounds an acre.
<1, With the planting of rice the farmer’s work just begins. From the time he has sown the seed until the rice is ready for harvest, among the enemies he has to combat are birds, grasshoppers, rats, frogs, the bush pig and other small animals, and finally the monkeys that attack the standing grain. So for many weeks the rice fields become battlefields between man and beast, the farmer enlisting the help of his children to scare away birds and smaller animals.
Weeding is also imperative. Rice that is planted in May is nearly choked out by weeds by July, So during that month and again in August the women pull out by hand the weeds from among the two-foot-tall rice stalks. As hard as this work is these women labor from dawn to dusk, often with a baby strapped to their back!
. Harvest comes in November and December, and it is a season of joy and gladness. Men, women, children and relatives help. With sharp knives they cut the stalks six or seven inches down from the heads. These are then tied in bundles or put in baskets, which the womenfolk carry on their heads to the village. There the rice is spread out in a stone room, where a slow fire burns to dry out the grain to keep it from rotting and to make it less appetizing to the insects.
e, Once the rice is dried it is placed in nwn-tars, wooden containers made of hard logs and shaped like an inverted cone. Again women, with their babies usually asleep on their backs, pound the rice with long poles to free it from its husks. All day long this pounding can be heard in the villages. Then it is washed in a calabash bowl, which is nothing more than half of a huge pod that grows on the calabash tree. These calabash bowls have ridges inside them that make them peculiarly useful for washing rice.
< After the first rice of the harvest has been cooked in an iron kettle resting on three stones over an open fire, and before any of it may be eaten, the dead ancestors must first be considered. An offering of rice mixed with red palm oil is made to them. Then only may the Sierra Leonean eat his rice.
C Boiled rice is served in many different ways. Monotony is avoided by a variety of sauces, many of which are very tasty. Among the ingredients used are herring, fresh meat, 4 spices and oils. Also providing a change are rice bread, rice water and rice pudding.
1 Once Sierra Leone was known as the rice * granary of West Africa, but in the past three ’ years it has been necessary to import thou-i sands of tons from Italy and Burma, This | shortage may be due to many being lured * from the rice farms to work in the new dla-r. ________
. mond industry. Even though this has caused 1 the price of lice to rise 500 percent, riee is still the staple food.
should be one that can get along on small mounts of light. If the table happens to be near a window where it gets lots of light but not sunshine, there are a large number of foliage plants to choose from that would do well there.
IDEAS FOR INDOOR GARDENS
IF YOU had your choice, would you choose to Window Ideal Spot live in a barren waste where not a plant can Plants do their best when there
grow or would you choose a place where the bare is plenty of light. That makes a ground is carpeted with grass and flowers? No window the ideal spot for them, doubt you would choose to live where the plants They can be attractively arranged are. They have a restful effect upon man, and lie here by individual pots, in window
…