Awake!, October 22, 1963

Download: PDF — Awake!, October 22, 1963

Will You Humble Yourself to Serve God?

PAGE 5

How Much Does the Test-Ban Treaty Mean?

PAGE 8

“Trick or Treat!”—Juvenile Blackmail

PAGE 17

“Everlasting Good News” Assembly Arrests

Attention Around the World

PAG E a 1

OCTOBER 22, 1963

THE MISSION OF THIS JOURNAL

News sources that are able to keep you awake to the vital issues times must be unfettered by censorship and selfish interests. “Awake!" has no fetters. It recognizes facts, faces 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 all continents, in scores of notions. From the four corners of the eorth 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 oges. 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.

“Awoke!’’ 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 righteous New World.

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

Published Simultaneously in the United States by the WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK. INC. 117 Adams Street Brooklyn 1, N. Y., U. S. A.

AND IN E NOLAND BY WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY

Watch Tower House, The Ridgeway London N.W. 7, England

■N. H. Knosh. President Grant Suiter, Secretary

Printing this issuer 3,800,000 *0

"Awak$!” Is published H the following 25 fanpiaiwt SomEmonthly—Afrikaans, Ciuyanju, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, Frennli, German. Greek, Italian, Japanpue, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish. Tagalog, Zulu-ffinnthly—Cebu-Visayan, C11 i?if , llocano, Korean, Malayalam, Polish, Tamil, rkraiuian.

Yearly siibmTiTitlOi] rates

Offices fui' semimonthly editions

America, U.S,. 117 Adams St., Brooklyn 1, N-Y. $1 Australia, 11 Bei'fififmil Rd,, Strathiidd, N.8.W.

CanadaT l.'O BiWland Ave.. Toronto 19, Ont $1 England, Watch Tower House, The Ridgeway'. London N.W. 7

ttew Zealand, 02L New North Rd., Aucktend, S.W. 1

South Africa, Private Bag 2, P.O. Ebir»df.fontein, Tvl. "Oe Monthly editions, cost, half ttk<? ah->vn i'at.«,

■ copy (Australia, 5d; South Africa, 3^o> Remittances tor Enibscrlptlons slioiild bn uent. 10 the riffltr In yuur country. wi s-e Fetid your icinittaiice Lo

London. Notice of expiration h sent at Ih^s! two Isislics MiWi'tpt.Inn iixpii'M.

CHANGES OF ADDRESS sh&gld reach us thirty days before your moving date. Give us your old and n«w address (If possible, your old address label). Write Wateh Tower, Watch Tower House, The Ridgeway, London i.W. 7, England.

Entered as second-class matter at Brcukb'ti. N.Y Pi'iiitcd in England

The Bible translation used In MAwake I” is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1961 edition When other translations are used the tollcwinu symbols will appear behind the citations:

AS - American Sui mla rd Version AT - An American I rails t it lion xV - Authorised Version (1611) Da - J. N, Darty’s version

Dy - Cmlwilii- Dmiay vcj slon ED - The Emphatic D lag Lott JF - Jewish Publkalkm fetoc.

Le - Isaac laser's version

Mo - JamcN Mnffatt’s version Ra - J. B. Rotherham's version RS - Revised Standard Vefsloti Yff - Robcrr Young’s rersinn

Uii^—iin^— । i —^uii—,bhi ui — mi.^_iiii Ik

CONTENTS

Do You Have Friends or Just

Acquaintances?

Will You Humble Yourself to Serve God? 5 How Much Docs the Test-Ban

Treaty Mean?

Unwed Mothers

Good Sense for the Diabetic—

and for Everyone Else I

Thieving Children

“Trick or Treat!’’—Juvenile Blackmail 17 “Everlasting Good News" Assembly

Arrests Attention Around the World 21

“Your Word Is Truth’’

What Can Separate Us from

God's Love? 27

Watching the World 29

Volume XL1V London, England, October 22, 1963 Number 20

Do you have

SOCIABILITY is one of the most outstanding characteristics of man and, whether he realizes it or not, one of his greatest needs. Heading the list of man’s outstanding emotional needs is the need for love, approval and recognition. Who are those who fill this need but our friends? Fading friendship has produced an emotionally sick world for this twentieth century, and people are becoming colder and colder because, even though they live, eat and sleep within inches of others who also have the gift of speech, “they have no one to talk to," They are surrounded by acquaintances but do not have a friend in the world. Man’s Creator knew what this would mean as he looked down sympathetically at the first of our race and said simply, “It is not good for the man to continue by himself."—Gen. 2:18,

Now, do you have friends, or just acquaintances? Look around you, reflect on your daily routine. Think of all the persons you greet “Good morning” day after day and week after week. You may be tempted to call them your friends, but if you were to take a trip a few hundred miles away and accidentally meet one of these persons, would you recognize him for who he is or would you think, ‘Where

| ACQUAINTANCES?

have I seen that face before?’ Life is full of acquaintances; nodding acquaintances, holiday acquaintances and, yes, even “close” acquaintances. But the abundance of these or their absence has little or no effect on our wellbeing. Not so with friends.

Real friends make our best counselo rs. Isn’t it true

that the words of a friend are generally received by us with greater evaluation than the opinions, however expert,, of those who are just acquaintances? Why? Because we know this person so well and we appreciate that he knows us. There is a common understanding between us and we can approach each other in confidence. We tell our story in a free and offhand way and listen with a not oversensitive ear. We are able to sift out what was said thoughtlessly but not really meant, and add the savor and feeling that was meant but left unsaid. There are no feelings of resentment, because, as it has been said, “a friend is one who knows al] about us, but is loyal to us just the same.” Of course, this freedom of friendship should not be overworked, taken for granted and abused. Consider friendships like fragile finery; careful handling will keep them whole.

Much is being missed by those who lack friends, yet many people still hole themselves up in a self-imposed solitary confinement “People bother me” seems to be their attitude. And there is a surprisingly large number of persons who do actually think that a man’s best friend is his dog. But certainly this is not God’s thought. Remember, Adam had lots of pets when God said, “It is not good for the man to continue by himself,”

Then there are others who would love to have more friends but for whom making friends is not the easiest thing in the world and, no matter how much they long to be able to confide in others, years of life come and go and they find it no easier to get beyond the stage of having acquaintances, This, of course, also makes it more difficult for others to make friends with them, because feelings tend to be reciprocal. Yet, such persons who are frequently considered by others to be cold and aloof often make deep friendships and even enjoy happy marriages. But what is gained at length and in a limited degree could be enjoyed earlier in life and more abundantly. Why not expand? Making friends is usually just a matter of getting started.

Of course, the best way to make a friend is to be one. Now, do not expect your friends to be without failings, even as you are not without shortcomings. Nevertheless, if your associations are well chosen, your friends will be basically wholesome. If this is so, and you look at the better traits possessed by your acquaintances, they may very soon become your friends. The change of relationship will creep up on you and you will suddenly find your life to be so much more satisfying. Take, for instance, a case where you are accustomed to seeing the same persons at a regular meeting place. An acquaintance fails to show up and you miss him. You may even remember to tell him so. But if a friend fails to appear you not only miss him, you are concerned. An early visit to his home or an inquiring phone call shows your concern and deepens the bond of friendship. If you want to be a friend to more people, show like concern for them.

Deep friendships are often slow-growing things, but they have to start somewhere. Initial approaches may even have to be forced. It may not come naturally to you to smile at a stranger, but do it anyway. And, if you should be on the receiving end of a smile, do not take the attitude, ‘What is he grinning at anyway?’ No, smile back and think of a few words to accompany your smile if you can. If you find difficulty in being conversant with newcomers to your life, this need not be such a drawback. In fact, the “great conversationalist” is often friendless because of his verbosity. Be an inquirer and take a keen interest in what the other person has to say. When you ask a question do not do it merely to talk and then, as you receive the answer, sit wondering, ‘Now what can I ask him next?’ You will find that if you really listen with interest you will soon be participating in the conversation without even thinking about it.

Friendship is truly rewarding. Not the least of its benefits is that mentioned by wise King Solomon: “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their hard work. For if one of them should fall, the other one can raise his partner up. But how will it be with just the one who fails when there is not another to raise him up?” Aside from this practical benefit, friendship is to be sought because it is sweet and refreshing. “Oil and incense are what make the heart rejoice, also the sweetness of one’s companion due to the counsel of the soul”—EccL 4:9, 10; Prov. 27:9.

People practice religion for many reasons. Some do it to serve God;

Some religious persons look down on others. Still others look down on themselves. What does serving God require?

men who were upon the surface of the ground” at the time of his ministry, and

others, to serve themselves. Not a few persons have made a habit of going to church from early childhood and may not even have stopped to ask themselves why. How can they be sure their motives are right? Humility is a good touchstone. Does your practice of religion require you to humble yourself? If not, something may be wrong.

‘But,’ you may ask, ‘why should I have to humble myself, lower myself, to serve God?’ The answer lies in what the apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome; “I tell everyone there among you ’ not to think more of himself than it is necessary to think.” You see, before we really begin to serve God, that is what most of us do. But God sees us as we really are, and that is the way in which he is going to deal with us. So to be acceptable to God and appreciate why he may require certain changes in our ways humility requires us to estimate ourselves as we really are in his eyes. This humbles us.—Rom. 12:3.

But this does not mean that we become lower in God’s estimation. Rather, our sincere humbling of ourselves adds to God’s estimate of us. The most prominent of his servants have been men noted for their humble attitude. Think of men like Moses and Jesus. God’s approval of their service is unquestioned. Yet the Bible speaks of Moses as “by far the meekest of all the one of the prophecies regarding Jesus said that he would come “humble, and riding upon art ass.”—Num. 12:3; Zech. 9:9.

Examples from the Past

That it takes a humble frame of mind for one to serve God was well appreciated by Jesus. He had the evidence before him in the different types of people that he had to deal with—his friends and his enemies. It is generally accepted that most of those who served God alongside Jesus were from the poor and humble class of people. But not all of Jesus’ friends were poor, and not all poor people were his friends. So it was not the poverty of the people but the humbleness of their attitude that caused Jesus to be drawn to these ones and they to him.

Among those who made themselves Jesus’ enemies were the generally proud scribes and Pharisees. The Pharisees were men learned in the Jewish laws of the times. Jewish history has it that “the Pharisees created an aristocracy of learning,” and how elevated this made them feel! The common people of Jesus’ day were called 'em ha-arets, a Hebrew word meaning “people of the earth,” and this well describes how the Pharisees considered these poor laborers—as if they were dirt to be trodden upon. The Jewish Encyclopedia informs us that admission to the league of the Pharisees was permitted only to "those who . . . pledged themselves to strict observance of Levitical purity, to the avoidance of closer association with the ‘Am ha-Arez” and that ‘‘only in regard to intercourse with the unclean and ‘unwashed’ multitude, with the 'am ha-arez, the publican, and the sinner, did Jesus differ widely from the Pharisees.”

This was far from being the only way in which Jesus and the Pharisees differed, but it was one of significance. The pseudosuperiority that the Pharisees felt over the common people made an appropriate setting for Jesus to give, through illustration, an object lesson in the need for humility. Speaking to these men of influence, Jesus raised the question: “ ‘What do you think? A man had two children. Going up to the first, he said, “Child, go work today in the vineyard.” In answer this one said, "I will, sir,” but did not go out. Approaching the second, he said the same. In reply this one said, “I will not.!’ Afterwards he felt regret and went out. Which of the two did the will of his father?’ They said: ‘The latter.’ Jesus said to them: ‘Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and the harlots are going ahead of you into the kingdom of God. For John came to you in a way of righteousness, but you did not believe him. However, the tax collectors and the harlots believed him, and you, although you saw this, did not feel regret afterwards so as to believe him.’ ”—Matt. 21:28-32.

How well the illustration fit the situation! On the one hand, the self-righteous traditionalists who, by profession, had so freely offered themselves to the service of God but who, when it actually came to doing and teaching God’s will, were found to be ‘making the word of God invalid by their tradition,’ and, on the other hand, those who had made no such outward offer or pretense but, on more serious reflection, were ready to turn around and adjust to what they now recognized to be the correct course. Put yourself in the place of the second son. Think of him approaching his father in the vineyard. He needed humbleness to say, ‘I was wrong, father, and I have changed my mind. May I help you?’ And, what about his brother who had apparently been on his father’s side all the time? Would there be ridicule to face? Whatever his thoughts may have been, it is evident that the repentant son was humble enough to conform to what he now recognized to be the proper, logical and just course, and this brought him peace of mind and a clear conscience.—Matt. 7:13, 14.

Attitudes to Be Avoided

Opposed to humility is stubborn-heartedness. Note how Jesus drove this point home in his illustration when, after showing the repentant course of the humble ones in the face of the teaching of John the Baptist, he said to the influential men, “And you, although you saw this, did not feel regret afterwards so as to believe him.” In this the Pharisees had their forerunners in the days of the prophet Jeremiah. Through him Jehovah speaks of “this bad people who are refusing to obey my words, who are walking in the stubbornness of their heart.” To illustrate the position in which this refusal to humble themselves placed this people, Jehovah instructed Jeremiah to procure a beautiful linen belt and put it upon his hips, thus representing how the Israelite nation was at one time girded to the hips of Jehovah, as it were, as an adornment and a praise to him. But Jeremiah was told to take this belt and hide it in a crag by the river Euphrates. Returning later to retrieve it, he found it musty, soggy, worm-eaten and falling to pieces. “The belt had been ruined; it was not fit for anything.”—Jer. 13:1-11.

Among many who claim to be Christians today we are often aware of a mock humility, and this is to be avoided. The apostle Paul warned of this when he wrote, “Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a mock humility . . . ‘taking his stand on’ the things he has seen, puffed up without proper cause by his fleshly frame of mind.” So you see, it is possible to put on an outward appearance of humility and yet be “puffed up without proper cause.” What makes people this way? Listen to Paul as he continues: “He is not holding fast to the head, to the one from whom all the body, being supplied and harmoniously joined together by means of its joints and ligaments, goes on growing with the growth that God gives.” (Col. 2:18,19) Here the Christian congregation is likened to a body with a head, making for interdependence among all its members. There are people who inwardly object to this. They do not want to “belong” to something; they want to “be” something. Among religious circles of today there are not a few prominent ones so imbued with the desire to stand out that, far from holding fast to the head of all Christians, they downgrade his teachings by presenting their own philosophies as equal or superior to the Word of God.

Pride is sometimes found where a humble attitude is most needed. Jesus foresaw this danger among his own followers and spoke a solid truth to offset the tendency. The disciples had asked him: “ ‘Who really is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?’ So, calling a young child to him, he set it in their midst and said: ‘. . . whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one that is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens.’ ” (Matt. 18:1-4) Here is a principle for all Christian overseers to keep in mind. A humble frame of mind was listed by the apostle Paul as one of the principal requirements for those who exercise oversight over other Christians, and this attitude must be maintained if one is to retain such a privilege. Again we remember Jesus and Moses as examples for overseers of God’s people. In Moses we have both a positive and a negative lesson in this regard when we recall that just one hasty display of lack of humbleness marred his reputation in God's sight to the extent of having his privileges cut short at the time when he might otherwise have enjoyed them most.

God has a purpose in wanting to see humbleness in his people. Moses knew this well from personal experience, so it was with feeling that he reminded Israel of how “Jehovah your God made you walk these forty years in the wilderness, in order to humble you, to put you to the test so as to know what was in your heart.’1 (Deut. 8:2) Certainly God has a right to know what is in the heart of each one who will receive unending life in his new world of righteousness. And he is the one who searches out the innermost thoughts of man. If we are truly humble, he knows it; if what we display is merely a mock humility, he knows that too; if we are proud and arrogant, well, everyone knows that. We should certainly know it ourselves and be willing to recognize it in time to correct matters. So, will you humble yourself to serve God? As you read God’s Word, will you admit that you did not appreciate before all that was required of you? Will you be humble enough to go out into the “vineyard” and work regardless of what others may say or think? If you do this, you are truly being exalted. —Matt. 23:12.

How tnuckdMA i

Desperate- 1

LY groping B^ 1

for some ray of B M bT.^J » light in a world ■ B darkened by the specter of nuclear annihilation, the nations rejoiced at the signing of the nuclear-test-ban treaty on August 5. This is the first treaty since World War II that has held out the prospect of any significant control of armaments.

In much of the world, reaction was highly emotional. It was regarded as “an event of enormous importance.” One report stated, “Treaty Hailed at U.N.” Another said it was “welcomed in the Vatican as the most important step toward peace since the beginning of the cold war,” Headlined a London paper, “It’s a Triumph!” Tokyo’s largest newspaper expressed the joy of the Japanese people when it exclaimed, “Sayonara, Mushroom Clouds.”

What is this nuclear-test-ban treaty that has caused such worldwide interest and optimism? What does it cover? What does it not cover? What prompted the major powers to agree after so many fruitless years of negotiating? How reliable is such a treaty? What are the real prospects for peace now?

The Treaty

The signing came in Moscow after previous sessions had finally pounded out a text that could be agreed upon. On August 5 the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union, the United States and Britain formally affixed their signatures to the treaty. Standing behind them were about seventy Soviet, American and British dignitaries, led by Premier Khrushchev. U Thant, the United Nations secretarygeneral, was also present. Later the party walked into one of the Kremlin’s glittering ballrooms for a reception “as a Soviet band played Gershwin’s ‘Love Walked In,’ ” stated the New York Times of August 6. Friendly toasts to “peace and friendship” were offered with Soviet champagne. One diplomat called it a “unique day” in East-West relations. “Peace—it’s wonderful,” said another. Khrushchev even posed for pictures with elders of the Russian church.

The reason for all this joy was the agreement to ban some types of nuclear explosions. The key part of the treaty, found in Article I, states: “Each of the parties to this Treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control: (A) In the atmosphere, beyond its limits, including outer space, or underwater, including territorial waters or high seas; or (B) In any other environment if such explosion causes radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the state under whose jurisdiction or control such explosion is conducted.”

Hence, the test-ban treaty prohibits further testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, in outer space and underwater, Scores of other nations rushed to affix their signatures to the document also, indicating they too would abide by its provisions.

Reasons for Signing

One of the compelling reasons for such a treaty is the genuine fear of what radioactivity in the atmosphere can do to human life and the lives of generations to come. The nuclear powers have already announced the exploding of over 400 nuclear devices. These have had a destructive force of well over 500 megatons, the equivalent of 500,000,000 tons of conventional explosives. Radioactive material from these blasts has been spewed into the atmosphere. This fallout has not yet completed its descent to earth and will take several years to do so. From the viewpoint of dangerous atmospheric contamination, the treaty was desired by all people.

Another reason for desiring such a treaty is the need to halt the spreading of nuclear weapons. Within fifteen years, it has been said, at least fifteen other countries will have the resources and technical skill to produce their own atomic weapons. These nuclear arms in the hands of many smaller nations would increase the chances of small disputes developing into nuclear wars that the major powers do not want, but which would likely involve them anyway. The present nuclear powers have a real interest in preventing this. Signing of the treaty by these other countries means they will not be able to test weapons in the atmosphere. It is hoped that this will discourage their developing such weapons.

Also presented by some observers as a reason why the Soviet Union wanted this treaty now is the difficulty it is having with Communist China. The quarrels between these two Communist giants seem to have reached a point where Moscow may feel it is caught in a two-front cold war, between the West and the East. As a result, some feel the Soviet Union has a real desire to reach a detente with the West so her hands will be free to settle the China dispute.

The reasons for signing the agreement after so many years of fruitless negotiations are varied and complex, not the least of which is that both sides realize how frighteningly close they came to nuclear war during the Cuban crisis of 1962, They may recognize the need to prevent such incidents from growing into a nuclear holocaust.

What It Does Not Cover

The treaty is an agreement providing for a limited ban on nuclear testing. It is limited because it does not prohibit the testing of nuclear weapons underground. Because these underground detonations are much more difficult to detect than atmospheric or underwater blasts, the Western powers insisted upon inspections where underground explosions were suspected. Russia agreed in principle, but would not permit the number of inspections the West requested. As no agreement could be reached, underground nuclear tests were eliminated from the treaty.

The treaty is of unlimited duration. However, it contains a serious shortcoming in this regard, as Article IV states: “Each party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other parties to the Treaty three months in advance.” This means that if any one of the signatories decides its national interests are endangered it can withdraw from the treaty after giving three months’ notice. If, for example, France continues her testing of nuclear weapons, or if Communist China explodes an atomic device, this could be interpreted as jeopardizing the national interests of one or of all the signers. They could then withdraw from the treaty.

An additional sobering shortcoming is that the limited test-ban treaty does not in any way bring a halt to the arms race. It does not place any limit on the number, destructive force, or production of nuclear armaments. The treaty does not reduce the fantastic stockpile of arms by one bullet. So the buildup and stockpiling of terror weapons continue unabated.

How Reliable?

Will the treaty be successful? Is it the beginning of a new era of peace between the East and the West that will lead to lasting peace in the world? Of course, it is better to be optimistic than to be pessimistic However, better than either of these attitudes is the need to be realistic, truthful. On the basis of such reality, what can be said of the reliability of the testban treaty and its leading to peace on earth? What do the facts show?

History tells us of a dismal record of broken treaties down through the centuries. But what of our “enlightened” age of diplomacy? Has it fared any better? Have the peace treaties and alliances of recent times proved to be reliable and of long duration?

In 1899 and 1907 two international peace conferences were held in The Hague, Netherlands. The purpose of these conferences was to control armaments and limit defense budgets. The many nations that attended agreed to arbitrate international differences and to prohibit the launching of explosives from balloons and the use of poison gas. These agreements were violated when World War I made a shambles and mockery of these two peace conferences.

To prevent another world war, the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 regulated tightly the armaments of Germany. But in 1936 Germany completed the throwing off of these restrictions by occupying the Rhineland, a demilitarized zone under the treaty.

In 1921 the Washington Conference of major nations agreed to fix the ratio of large warships between the signatory powers. This was soon broken when Japan refused to be bound because her allotment proved to be lower than she desired.

In 1928 the historic Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed. This was hailed as a monumental achievement. It outlawed war “as an instrument of national policy.” It classified war as illegal under international law. Sixty-two nations signed it. The results? Most of these nations participated in the slaughter of World War II.

The Soviet Union signed nonaggression pacts with Poland, Finland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Within a short time she took over all or part of these nations.

In 1939 Germany and Russia signed the famous “Stalin-Hitler” nonaggression pact. Within two years these powers were butchering each other on the field of battle.

More recently, in 1958, the Soviet Union, the United States and Britain declared a moratorium on nuclear testing. They unilaterally promised not to resume testing. In 1960 France began her atomic tests. Then, without prior announcement, the Russians resumed massive testing in 1961, followed by the United States.

Furthermore, what assurance do people have that these governments will honor their commitments and not lie to each other, when they have lied to their own people for “security” reasons? In 1960, when a United States aircraft called the U*2 was first announced as missing, the American government declared it was a weather craft that had accidentally strayed over the Russian border. When the aircraft was downed deep inside Russia and its true purpose exposed, the government of the United States had to admit that it was deliberately sent over the Soviet Union for spying. In 1962 Russia assured the world that there were no offensive missiles in Cuba, but this was proved to be a falsehood. Recently the British war minister deliberately lied to the House of Commons and to the entire British nation over a morals scandal. So when nations and government officials lie to their own people at times, an enemy must assume that they will lie to them, as has proved to be the case time and again.

Thus, while the human desire for peace is great, from the historic standpoint the prospects for it are extremely poor.

Overlooked

There is another factor not mentioned in the press reports, one far more important than any other and not taken into account at all by the treaty makers. What was omitted that is so vital if the peace pact is to work? God. Not once is God mentioned anywhere in the treaty. Instead, peace is viewed as coming from Moscow, Washington and London.

However, any peace pact that does not take God’s purposes into consideration is doomed to failure, Psalm 127:1 states: “Unless Jehovah himself builds the house, it is to no avail that its builders have worked hard on it.” Proverbs 19:21 adds: “Many are the plans in the heart of a man, but the counsel of Jehovah is what will stand.”

Peace can come only as a product, or fruitage, of God’s holy spirit. Galatians 5:22 states: “The fruitage of the spirit [of God] is . . . peace.” Unless the nations have this spirit of God, they cannot have the peace they seek. Do the Communists have God’s spirit? Do they look forward to God’s way of bringing peace? Have they consulted the document God has given to humanity as a guide to peace? Would God use this atheistic power to bring peace? The Bible states: “Where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.” (2 Cor. 3:17) No, God is not to be mocked. He would hardly bless a state that openly proclaims its hatred for Him, brags about its atheism, and openly states its intention to destroy all forms of religion.

Nor does the rest of the world, manifest God’s spirit. If it did, we would not see the conditions of hatred, war, prejudice, crime, delinquency and corruption prevailing on earth. As the Bible indicates, Satan is the “god of this system of things.” —2 Cor. 4:4.

Do not be deluded by a false hope, no matter how brightly it may blossom in the days to come. Peace will come soon, in our very generation, but in God’s way, not by any test-ban treaty. Christians know that this old world and its nuclear weapons are to be wiped out at the battle of Armageddon, at which time God himself will rid the earth of all peacebreakers and will usher in his righteous new world, where peace lovers will live forever in happiness. —Ps. 37:10,11,34.

UNWED MOTHERS

• The moral problem among teen-age girls cannot be dismissed as being Insignificant. As reported in The Saturday Evening Post at March 23, 1963, 40 percent of American unwed mothers are between the ages of fifteen and nineteen.

GOOD SENSE for the

IT HAS been said that to live long one should acquire some such ailment as diabetes and then use good sense in taking care of it. Yes, good sense is that important. With it the diabetic can hope to live even longer than the average non-diabetic.

How important good sense- is for diabetics is told by an authority who has seen upward of 52,000 patients in the past sixty years: “This is a disease that tests the character of the patient, and for success in withstanding it, in addition to wisdom he must possess common sense, honesty, self-control and courage.’’ By using common sense, thousands of diabetics have lived longer than they could have expected to live had they not had it and far longer than overweight non-diabetics. Clearly, what is good sense for the diabetic is good sense also for the non-diabetic.1

Diabetes generally is taken to mean “sugar” diabetes, although there is also another kind. The term “diabetes” means ‘a flowing through,’ and it is marked by excessive hunger and thirst and the passing of large quantities of water. Among other symptoms are sudden loss of weight and strength, sugar appearing in the urine, and, most decisive of all, excess sugar in the blood, known as hyperglycemia. In what follows, “diabetes” refers to “sugar” diabetes or diabetes mellitus.

History and Prevalence

Papyrus scrolls indicate that the diabetic state was recognized as far back as

DIABETIC

—'fa efocf

the time of Moses. It received its name “diabetes” about the time of Christ, and, years later, sweetness of the urine was found to be one of its symptoms. In more recent centuries the effect of starches and sugars on diabetes was discovered, the difference between diabetes in which the urine is honey-sweet, mellitus, and that in which the urine is insipid or tasteless, insipidus, was established, and the relation between diabetes and the pancreas became apparent.

Then came the notable discovery that the pancreas was a double organ, producing not only pancreatic juice but also a hormone by means of tiny “islands” of cells named after their discoverer, the “islands of Langerhans.” Although the pancreas is a small organ, weighing only a few ounces, in it are found from 500,000 to one million of such tiny islands of cells.

The hormone these “islands” secrete or pour into the blood passing through them is insulin (from the Latin insula, meaning “island”), and its lack was found to be the key to diabetes. (Today, however, this conclusion is held by many to have been greatly oversimplified.) Treatment with insulin, by means of injection—it is in. effective if taken by mouth—marked a new day for diabetics. They obtained still more relief when it was discovered that by adding chemicals the effect of one injection could be stretched from six to twenty-four or more hours. Within the past five years still more relief has come to many diabetics through medicine taken by mouth, such as tolbutamide, which stimulates the secretion of insulin. Its long-term effects, however, have yet to be determined.

Much research is being done in the field of diabetes. Among recent discoveries is that reduction of trace metals in the body restores peripheral circulation of diabetics and cuts down their need for insulin. Such discoveries lend weight to the complaint of some leaders in the research that too much attention is still being paid to the role that the pancreas plays in diabetes.

Remarkable progress has been made during the past fifty years in treating diabetes. The life-span of diabetic children has increased from 1.2 to twenty-six years and of mature diabetics from five to eighteen more years. Then there were few diabetic women who could become pregnant, but today the ratio of pregnant women among diabetics is about the same as among non-diabetics, 87 percent of such pregnancies resulting in the birth of live babies. Deformities, however, among such babies are far above the average.

Diabetes is on the increase throughout the world and is especially common in the United States, where it is estimated that between two to three million persons have it. It is the only major disease more prevalent in women than in men, and that at the ratio of two to one. It is also twice as prevalent among married women as among single ones, although less prevalent among married men than among single ones. Women having had many pregnancies and those feeling always tired are more likely than others to become diabetic.

Why should diabetes be increasing at the same time that progress is being made in treating it? Known as the ‘disease of civilization,’ it is associated with overnutrition and lack of exercise; therefore, as the standards of living rise throughout the world diabetes becomes more prevalent. Then, too, since most persons having diabetes are between forty-five and sixty-five years old, as the life-span keeps on increasing there are more and more persons living within that age bracket. The facts that diabetics live much longer and that diabetic women now bear children who inherit the predisposition to diabetes, also help account for the increase in the number of diabetics.

Having diabetes is no grounds for pessimism regarding one’s career. Among diabetics have been or are leaders in literature, art, science, politics and sports. Before 1940 no United States insurance company would issue a policy to a diabetic, but today 75 percent of them do, on varying terms. The United States Civil Service has a thousand kinds of jobs open to diabetics. However, such jobs as driving trucks or operating power machinery are not recommended for diabetics who require rather large doses of insulin.

It will be helpful for the diahelic to take note of the fact that his affliction does not disfigure and is neither infectious nor particularly painful. Its worst aspect is the effect of long-term diabetes on the eyes. Some authorities, however, insist that this is so only because of poor control of the disease. They also state that diabetes might be said to be largely a matter of relativity: “We have only to increase somewhat the -severity of our tests for diabetes to discover that practically all of us are diabetic.” This is another fine reason why good sense for the diabetic is good sense for everyone else.

Heredity and the Glands

Diabetes is a hereditary disease; according to some, there is a genetic defect present in each and every case. It follows Mendel’s laws. If both parents are diabetic, all their children will become so, even though it may take years to show. If one parent is diabetic and the other had a parent who was, then 50 percent of the children will have this genetic defect, and so forth. Diabetics, therefore, should not intermarry nor even marry into families having diabetes, unless they do not intend to have any children.

Many are the genetic defects that can cause diabetes. Basically, these interfere with the supply of insulin the body needs to utilize glucose, the most common form of sugar. This interference might take various forms: It could be a failure to produce insulin sufficiently, or it could be a lack in any of the various processes involved in liberating, transporting or utilizing insulin. Or the flaw may lie with the liver, which changes glucose to glycogen, stores it and then reconverts it to glucose as needed. Such leaders as Best, co-isolator of insulin, state that their ideas about diabetes are still changing.

But more and more it is being appreciated that genetic defect, especially in serious diabetes, is the production of too many anti-insulin hormones by either the pituitary, the adrenals or the thyroid glands. (An anti-insulin enzyme produced by the liver has also been discovered.) This explains why some diabetics require as much as two hundred units of insulin daily, whereas the normal body needs only forty to fifty each day. This also accounts for the fact that many victims of acromegaly, in which the feet, hands and face grow abnormally large, are also diabetic; why children who are diabetic are physically eighteen months ahead of other children of the same age, and why mothers who give birth to very large babies invariably become diabetic.

The more serious this hormonal imbalance is, the earlier in life it appears and the more serious the diabetes, it also being termed the “thin” diabetes. The diabetes that appears in middle age or later is termed the “fat” diabetes, for well over 80 percent of its victims are overweight. This would seem to indicate that for these diabetics it might be simply a matter of overeating. But why do they overeat? It has been found that the brain has an appetite regulator, the hypothalamus, which has a satiety center. For this satiety center to stop the sensation of hunger, there must be a certain amount of sugar in the cells of the body. In the diabetic state the cells do not get enough sugar because of a flaw in the body’s metabolism; and so the hypothalamus keeps calling for more food, accounting for why diabetics (and others) eat too much. Incidentally, the amount of sugar normally in the blood is both extremely small and precise, only about .1 of 1 percent. After a meal it rises temporarily to around .15 of 1 percent

The glandular imbalance of diabetes can also be brought about by the emotions. Because of the psychosomatic principle, the effect of the mind upon the body, the body’s sugar metabolism can easily be upset by emotional stress. Such stress may cause the adrenals to release more antiinsulin hormones into the blood, resulting in more sugar in it. If the emotional stress continues for a time, the condition may well become chronic diabetes. Even here, however, there must first be the prediabetic state caused by a genetic defect.

Good Sense in Drug Therapy

Good sense for diabetics and everyone else indicates not depending upon drugs more than absolutely necessary. In treating diabetes with insulin good sense further indicates balancing it with food and exercise; for which reason handling diabetes has well been likened to driving a three-horse team. Less food and/or more exercise without decreasing one’s insulin shots can result in insulin shock, a condition due to too little sugar in the blood. Among its most common manifestations is the appearance of being drunk. On the other hand, less exercise and/or more food and not more insulin can result in acidosis and even a coma. The three—insulin, food and exercise—must at all times be balanced to avoid either complication.

Particularly for middle-aged or elderly diabetics there are drugs that can be taken by mouth, such as tolbutamide (Orinase). But strongly to be condemned is the practice of some physicians to pamper their patients by prescribing these when diet alone would serve. Those concerned with the side effects of drugs recommend that the more recently marketed drug Diabenes be used only if Orinase proves ineffective and recommend DBI only if Diabenes fails.

True, some physicians claim that the diabetic need give no thought to sugar in his blood or urine so long as he takes insulin or other medication regularly and he is free from serious diabetic symptoms. But others point to complications, such as blindness, that so often accompany long-term diabetes and which appear most frequently when treatment is limited to medication or drugs. However, it would seem that there could be a happy medium between ignoring sugar in the urine and examining it every day. Would not once a week do if the patient is honest and exercises self-control?

That limiting diabetic therapy to drugs is unsound is indicated by recent research, which has identified a definite prediabetic state. Thus the various complications that once were thought to be the result of faulty ‘sugar’ metabolism, such as involvements of the eyes, kidneys, blood vessels and those that go with pregnancy in diabetes, are frequently present before the patient’s carbohydrate metabolism breaks down, forcing the conclusion that diabetes “emerges as a generalized complex fundamental disease process of which the abberation of carbohydrate metabolism is but one facet.”2

This calls to mind the saying of the physicians of yesterday: “There are no illnesses but only ill people.” Interestingly, both osteopathy and chiropractic view diabetes as a state that involves all of man’s life processes. Osteopathy adds to the accepted therapy of diabetes direct manipulative treatment to the muscles and bones to improve the circulation and nerve control of the body. Chiropractors, where permitted to treat diabetes, add spinal adjustments.

Good Sense and Diet

To avoid overweight is good sense for everyone and, in particular, for diabetics. With them health may often be as simple as merely getting rid of their overweight. And especially for them should treatment begin with a “starvation” and rest period, to give the insulin-producing islands of Langerhans an opportunity to recuperate.

Water is very important for the diabetic. In an attack of acidosis and, prior to hospitalization, drinking plenty of water can spell the difference between life and death. Another great aid for diabetics is salt, unless the blood pressure is high. Unsaturated fats and unrefined foods, such as unpolished rice and whole wheat bread, are recommended because of their vitamin content Diabetics need more of the various B vitamins than do others.

According to diabetic authority Allen, “the actual nature of the diabetic disorder" now seems to be a hormonal imbalance that has an adverse effect upon the activity of the enzyme hexokinase, "which catalyzes the first step in glucose utilization.” This adds weight to the position taken by C. P. Lamar and others who recommend the use of fruit sugar, fructose or levulose, which is found in all fruits, honey, and so forth, in order to bypass glucose utilization that is so dependent upon insulin. Those proceeding along this line have reported amazing results. It would therefore also seem that the problem of diabetes should be viewed as one of glucose utilization rather than carbohydrate metabolism per se.

The Good Sense of Exercise

While the medical profession is no more agreed on the best way to treat diabetes than it is on how to treat the many other ills of humankind, it is remarkable the amount of good sense that is found in the writings of those authorities that recommend strict control of diabetes. They stress the value of courage, self-control, honesty and good sense and frequently quote from the Bible.

These authorities stress not only diet but also exercise. Thus Bourchardt, one of the greatest diabetic clinicians of all time, stressed to his patients the words of Genesis 3:19, about eating one’s bread in the sweat of one’s face. E. P. Joslin, by his use of the three-horse team illustration, makes exercise as important as diet and insulin. And writes G. G. Duncan, another leading modern authority on diabetes: ‘‘Physical exercise judiciously employed by patients who have no contraindicating symptoms, is of inestimable value in the treatment of diabetes. It improves the total food and carbohydrate tolerance and reduces the need of insulin.” But it must be exercise that will cause sweating, and for this reason occupations requiring considerable physical exercise are to be preferred.

The value of physical exercise in diabetes is underscored by statistics regarding occupation. Thus married women who lead less active lives than do either single women or their husbands also have twice as much diabetes prevalent among them. There is also more diabetes among city folk than among farmers, and more among farm owners than among their hired hands, and so forth. Needless to say, physical exercise is good sense for all and, in particular, for sedentary workers.

Among other things that are good sense for diabetics and for everyone else is avoiding tobacco, getting enough rest and exercising control of the emotions. So a young woman should understand that a love affair will often play havoc with control of her diabetes. And the boy who is diabetic should appreciate the need of having a loyal friend interested in and looking out for him. But when he grows to manhood, “if he has a wise, devoted and loving wife, there is almost no limit to his future career.”

Yes/ good sense is most important to the diabetic, and much of what is good sense for him is also good sense for everyone else!

THIEVING CHILDREN

• According to the Wall Street Journal of March 7, 1963, teen-agers committed 65 percent of all auto thefts in the United States during 1962. CtfTlRICK or Treat I will be their battle cry as they bravely ascend front porches... clench their fists and resound-lyrap or resolutely ring. It will be impossible to escape . . . these creatures from make-beli e v e land, draped in every conceivable outlandish dress, off times hooded in hideous masks. ‘Trick or Treat’ will be their demand.”

In this way the

Los Angeles Times warned its readers of the Halloween-night invasion by waves of trick-or-treaters. But how to ward off disaster? The paper advised: ‘‘Wise counsel suggests an ample supply of cookies and candy and other goodies, lest they carry out threatened consequences.” For “how many have even the faintest inkling what dire deeds might be in the offing if householders fail to acquiesce to the repeated requests of these little people?”

Yes, on the night of October 31, householders across North America face the prospects of broken windows, garbage strewed over their yard, paint hurled at their homes, and even more serious consequences if they do not pay what is asked. And every year the story is the same. When the early rays of the morning sun disclose the full extent of the damage, many are the howls of complaint from the victims. What can be done?

The New York Times once informed its readers “that they might have fewer complaints about Halloween pranks if they were prepared for the traditional ‘trick or treat’ demands and if they organized parties for their children and young friends.” In line with this suggestion, one year the police of Greensboro, North Carolina, tried to pacify the city’s youth with presents. An AP dispatch reported that they gave “treats” “in an attempt to cut down on the Halloween number of ‘tricks.’ Patrol cars were loaded with about 5,000 packages of cookies to be distributed to groups of children on the streets.”

Effects upon Youth

But is this the answer? Will bribing children to be good ensure against property damage? And of even more importance, Will this practice serve to develop upright citizens of integrity?

For a long time now the prominent feature of Halloween night in the United States and Canada, and to a lesser extent in some other countries of Christendom, has been the requesting threat of masked youngsters, “Trick or Treat!’’ But children are no longer satisfied with just any treat. The practice of trick-or-treating has made them selfish and greedy.

“Our household invested in apples,” one woman complained, “but did the children want apples? No, they have become selective and a little greedy. They wanted candy bars, big ones.” The Miami Herald made this same observation last year: “They made their annual Halloween raid Wednesday night on homes from one end of Miami to the other. . . . Victims of the mass assault noticed a trend toward more ‘selective’ booty.” And when the desired “treat” is not forthcoming, youngsters often “trick.”

Some youths have gone a step farther, and, so, following a recent Halloween, a headline in the Los Angeles Times blared: “Three Trick or Treat Bandits Being Hunted.” In the first case, “Two women repulsed a young, masked bandit in an Altadena motel after they found he really wasn’t joking when he asked for their money.” And in another instance, “The clerk, Charles Andrews, 50, had responded with candy when the handit said ‘Trick or Treat,’ but the visitor quickly added: ‘I want your money.’ ”

Yes, it is a relatively short step from defacing another’s property for not paying what is wanted to more serious crimes and acts of violence. Halloween foolishness, such as soaping windows and sticking pins in doorbells to keep them ringing, is quickly outgrown. The following year greater excitement is sought, perhaps shooting out street lights with a BB gun, puncturing tires, pouring water in gasoline tanlcs, or even putting a garden hose through the mail slot and flooding a person’s living room.

In recent times Halloween has erupted into a nightmare of crime and violence.

Last year a headline in Canada’s Vancouver Sun read, “Battles Mar Halloween in Kerrisdale, North Van.” “Police fought a two-hour battle with a mob of 500 youths along the business section of Edgemont Boulevard in North Vancouver,” the paper reported. “Police rushed to the scene to find the mob setting street fires and hurling objects—eggs, tomatoes and rocks—at passing cars. ‘Edgemont was like a battlefield,’ said one officer. ‘It was the most disgraceful and shocking display of hooliganism we have ever had to deal with.’ ’’

At the same time, southern California was under attack. Pranksters stuffed matches through a book-return slot to set the Mar Vista library ablaze. Private citizens also suffered. The Los Angeles Times said that “elsewhere Thursday also was mop-up day for some unfortunate residents. Hollywood police reported that a wholesale egg-throwing contest on pedestrians, motorists and buildings resulted in 35 juvenile arrests . , , Pasadena and other communities also reported a rash of egg-throwing incidents.”

And in San Francisco a few years ago one of the city’s leading newspapers had an inch-and-a-quarter-high front-page banner headline: “HALLOWEEN TERROR AS S. F. ROWDIES ROAM.” According to the report: “Rocks, eggs and tomatoes were thrown by roving gangs of youths, some windows were broken, 18 false alarms were pulled, and water was sent gushing from five fire hydrants.”

Conditions were the same across the country in Florida the following year. The Miami Herald reported: “A 14-year-old boy was shot in the foot and a little girl wearing a mask was struck by a car in an unusually violent Halloween night in Miami . , . Throughout Miami and the suburbs kids tossed rocks, shot BB guns, set off cherry bombs, threw eggs and tomatoes at passing cars. Said a Hialeah desk sergeant: ‘You name it. They did it. They ought to be spanked.’ ”

A Christian Celebration?

Could a holiday that has such a demoralizing effect on youth really be Christian? Millions of persons believe that it is. They consider it a holy evening because it precedes the highest ranking Roman Catholic feast, All Saints’ Day. But just a little investigating reveals that Halloween is actually a pagan celebration. This fact has recently been prominently drawn to public attention.

The New York Times reported: “Though celebrated for centuries as a Christian holiday—the vigil or eve of All Saints’, or All Hallows* Day on Nov. 1—Halloween (All Hallow Even) long antedates Christianity and is the product of the merging rituals from several cultures over the centuries. The holiday is believed to have originated from the Celts of the British Isles and Gaul long before the Roman Empire. These people believed that once a year, at winter’s onset, the souls of the wicked who had died in the past twelve months assembled and, led by Saman, the lord of the dead, wandered abroad to harass and bewitch the living.

“Following the spread of Roman influence in the British Isles, characteristics of the annual Roman festival honoring Pomona, the goddess of fruit, held about Nov. 1, were gradually engrafted on the grim Celtic rites ... In the seventh century, AD., the Pantheon at Rome was converted into a Christian house of worship and dedicated by Pope Boniface IV to the Virgin Mary and the Church’s martyrs. The anniversary of the dedication, subsequently celebrated Nov. 1, was set aside as All Saints’ Day. As might have been expected, it was not long before the weird customs of the previous night became part of the Christian observance.”

Last year the Newark, New Jersey, Star Ledger also reported on the pagan origins of Halloween and its practices. “A night like Halloween was going on long before Christian times,” it said. “Furthermore, this pre-Christian night of roaming spirits was always around the first of November, whereas All Saints’ Day, when the Christians finally did bring it into existence, was set for May 13. When Christianity moved it to November 1 it did not create a night of revelry, it merely found one already going, and going strong. . . . Certainly it is the Druid idea rather than anything remotely Christian that sets the tone of Halloween.”

Merely attaching Christian names to the pagan celebration of Halloween does not make it Christian. Instead, it is all the more detestable because it causes people to think that the evil customs and beliefs associated with it are supported by Christian teachings. But to the contrary, nowhere does the Bible teach that the spirits of the dead survive after death to haunt the living. Rather, the Bible teaches that “the soul that is sinning—it itself will die.”—Ezek. 18:4; Eccl. 9:5, 10.

“Trick or Treat!”

The custom of “Trick or Treat!” also has its roots in false religion. The New York Times said that this practice “was a product of the Irish countryside. Every Halloween the peasants of the village would assemble and, donning masks and bearing sticks and clubs, proceeded from house to house collecting money and food for the following day’s holy feast. Put a youngster behind the mask . . . substitute for the religious verses recited by the peasants the phrase ‘Trick or Treat!’— and you have the ritual most characteristic of the Halloween in America.” And, as today’s youngsters do, the Irish peasants would warn the householder “that if he wished to continue to prosper he had best make a generous contribution.”3

But obviously such a practice of begging, and threatening evil consequences to those reluctant to contribute, is contrary to righteous principles. One that goes around begging is not heeding the apostolic order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” Even “practical jokes” or “tricks,” as they are called at Halloween, are un-scriptural. “Just like someone mad that is shooting fiery missiles, arrows and death, so is the man that has tricked his fellow man and has said: ‘Was I not having fun?’ ” Certainly trick-or-treating flies in the face of this inspired proverb!—2 Thess. 3:10; Prov. 26:18, 19.

Panhandling and Blackmail

More and more citizens are rising up to condemn trick-or-treating for what it really is—an education of youth in the principles of panhandling and blackmail. Newspaper columnist Harold Weir wrote last Halloween: “Halloween is completely without significance except as a night of licence and disorder. ... It is an occasion fox1 collecting loot. There is something infinitely pathetic about these cup-sized youngsters toddling from door to door, with great bags in their hands, practising the art of panhandling at such a tender age. . . . Anything that can be done to discourage it and to eventually destroy it is to close another door for the outpouring of the worst, greediest, meanest and most violent instincts in human nature.”

…