Awake!, July 8, 1972

Download: PDF — Awake!, July 8, 1972

Awake! — July 8, 1972

Source: jw.org

Contents

Animals Are Wonderful—in Their Place

Getting a Balanced View of Pets

In Defense of Freedom

Living Ornaments for Your Home

“Hey—Taxi!”

“Good News” Is Being Preached in Prisons

What Can Be Done About Gum Troubles?

A Danger of Laziness

Naming Children—the African Way

“Pushing Against a Ceiling”

“Keep Abstaining from . . . Blood”

Watching the World

Why Does Astrology Flourish?

Do You Dream of Traveling to Distant Places?

Animals Are Wonderful—in Their Place

THROUGHOUT the ages, man has benefited from the animal creation. Besides providing dairy products and wool for clothing, some animals, such as the camel, donkey, horse, elephant and water buffalo, have long furnished power for transportation or heavy work. Man’s interest in animals, however, has not been limited to their utilitarian value.

Back in the second millennium before our Common Era, the patriarch Jacob used a variety of animals—from the lion cub and strong-boned ass to the horned snake and slender hind—to describe characteristics among certain of his twelve sons. (Gen. 49:9, 14, 17, 21, 27) And in his far-ranging wisdom, King Solomon spoke not only of the trees, from the cedar to the hyssop, but also “about the beasts and about the flying creatures and about the moving things and about the fishes.” (1 Ki. 4:32, 33) So, man has long appreciated the animal creation for more than its material benefits. He has found it an intriguing subject for investigation and a genuine source of enjoyment.

Yes, how much richer in interest life on this planet is because of the animal creation. A walk through the cool shade of a forest is pleasant in itself. But when you see an occasional squirrel or chipmunk or hear their chatter, or listen to the song of a thrush, or watch a woodpecker drilling his way in to his meal in the bark of a tree, does this not add greatly to your pleasure of being there?

Best of all, these creatures reveal something to us about our Creator. The enormous variety of creatures inhabiting earth’s land and seas simply staggers the imagination. And their different forms, colors, living habits and abilities give reason to marvel at their Creator’s wisdom, the incredible scope of his artistry and inventiveness.

Source of Companionship

Men have also found a measure of companionship among animals. Particularly on farms, a boy and his dog sometimes seem inseparable. At night, the lonely shepherd finds enjoyment in the presence of his sheep dog. Similar relationships develop between the cowherd and his horse, or the Arab bedouin and his camel. But in these cases the creature usually serves some basic purpose other than just companionship. That leaves another category of animal relationships: that of “pets.”

Not just dogs and cats, but baby alligators, boa constrictors, panthers, otters, monkeys and just about any creature you might find in a zoo can also be found in some homes around the earth. The disciple James’ words are as true today as they were nineteen hundred years ago: “For every species of wild beast as well as bird and creeping thing and sea creature is to be tamed and has been tamed by humankind.”—Jas. 3:7.

However, as an article in Life magazine (April 9, 1971) pointed out: “The experts agree [that] wild animals make poor house pets—and most homes make very poor zoos.” One dealer in “exotic” animals states that “75% of all imported animals die within the first year.” The noise, frequent damage to the home, as well as the smell, often leave the owners of wild animal pets disenchanted. Frequently the “pet” winds up in a backyard cage, a roadside zoo, or is destroyed. Large zoos generally do not want these animals, since they have been spoiled as far as living peaceably with other zoo animals is concerned.

A major problem is that the owner’s freedom is often greatly limited by having a so-called “exotic” pet. Owners of large cats, such as leopards and lions, find they not only cannot afford to have good furniture or rugs, but they often are afraid to leave on a vacation, finding it extremely difficult to have the wild animal cared for in their absence. Life quotes a lady who owns a South American jungle cat as saying: “For all the lack of freedom you have by owning them, and for all the lack of freedom they have by being owned by you, you might as well make them into fur coats.”

It seems evident that, in many cases at least, certain animal pets are simply “out of place” in homes. Some are of such size and nature that they were obviously made to roam the wide open spaces or slink through the deep forest or jungle regions. Others, like the alligator and otter, were designed to be around bodies of water. Others need trees (not living-room chandeliers or curtains) to climb about in. Still others need food that is simply not native to the area of the owner’s residence. When they are brought into the residence of humans, something, as it were, ‘has to give.’ This is true to a lesser degree when the animal is kept in the family yard. The ‘giving’ is largely on the part of the owner and may involve remolding one’s way of living to accommodate the animal.

Owners sometimes go to amazing extremes to accommodate a pet. One family with a pet otter had two bathrooms in their home. The humans all shared one and turned the other over to the private use of the otter. As the Life article reports: “Slowly, many owners find the pet has become the master.”

Getting a Balanced View of Pets

PERHAPS you do not have a leopard, an otter or a boa constrictor in your home or backyard. Perhaps you have one of the more usual, small, domesticated type of animal—maybe even just a dog or cat. Though this be the case, there still may be a question as to whether or not the animal is “out of place,” either physically or in other ways. Your own attitude and dealings with the pet could be the cause of such wrong relationship. How can we determine that? By considering the purpose for which animals were designed by their Creator and ours, and the relationship with man to which He assigned them.

The Bible account shows that, of all earth’s creatures, only man was made in God’s image and likeness. He was given dominion over all others of earth’s creatures. (Gen. 1:26-28) Though interested in the animal creation and in naming its many members, Adam “found no helper as a complement of him” among them. (Gen. 2:19, 20) They were all subhuman, well described by Jesus’ disciples Peter and Jude as “unreasoning animals.”—2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10.

True, animals play, they display emotions such as pleasure, depression, affection, fear, anger and anxiety. They also differ from one another as individuals, showing distinctive characteristics between kinds and within kinds. Yet, as Hans Bauer, on the basis of much evidence and research, points out in his book Animals Are Quite Different (translated from German by James Cleugh): “However much [an animal’s] actions may resemble, in their effects, those of human beings . . . it is never upon abstract ideas that an animal bases its career or even the separate acts of which that career is composed. . . . Nothing an animal does or omits to do ever happens anywhere in consequence of a train of ideas, deliberate consideration or belief.” Rather, he concludes, “It is a result of the environmental conditions with which the animal has to cope.”—Page 34; compare Psalm 32:9.

It has been demonstrated time and again that the “wisdom” of animals, displayed in ability to do such things as construct dams (beavers), build honeycombs (bees), spin intricate webs (spiders), and similar things, is instinctive wisdom. These feats are performed by the creatures even though raised separately from others of their kind. That wisdom was built into their genetic makeup by the Creator.

Many animals, of course, can be trained to do things that are new to them, not part of their inherited abilities. But this is always limited by, and dependent on, the natural qualities of the particular animal kind involved. A monkey, for example, can be trained to ride a bicycle or skate on ice; yet it can never be trained to do the work of a sheep dog in watching over a flock or bringing the flock in or out of a pen. Nor do all breeds of dogs lend themselves equally well to be trained for sheep work.

Humans, by contrast, can form ideas, they can use deductive and inductive reasoning, reaching conclusions that require going from a specific case or incident to the formation of a general rule, or they can reason from cause to effect or effect to cause. Man can therefore use knowledge and understanding gained from past experiences to solve new problems that arise. He can thus consciously and of his own will build on his knowledge and understanding. He can also comprehend, believe in and hold to standards of right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice. Animals can do none of these things.

Need for Caution

If we are concerned about pleasing God in our lives, there is need for caution with regard to the pets we may have. We may note that a wrong attitude toward the animal creation was involved in the first woman’s fall into rebellion against God. She let herself be swayed by words appearing to come from the mouth of a serpent, a creature instinctively “cautious,” yet still an ‘unreasoning animal.’—Gen. 3:1-6.

Throughout the centuries since, false worship has often involved a wrong view of animal creation. Crocodiles, baboons and bulls have been kept in temples, there being bathed, perfumed and fed the finest of foods, while humans in the same area lived in wretched conditions with hunger. Mighty nations have taken a certain animal or bird as the proud symbol of their government and people, jealously venerating that animalistic symbol.

Even though not deifying an animal as sacred, what if we should treat a pet animal as though it were virtually on a level with humans? What if we showed even greater interest and concern for it than we did for other humans, slighting their interests on behalf of the animal? What if we were willing to go to great lengths and expense to alleviate animal suffering in general but failed to ‘love our neighbor as ourselves’ and compassionately aid others in the way God’s Son did while on earth? (Mark 6:34) In any such case, would this not be putting the animal in a position where it does not belong?

While perhaps rare, cases are reported of persons who let their pet animal sit at the meal table with them and eat from a plate with the human members of the household. Some persons make out wills bequeathing sums running into thousands of dollars for the care of some pet animal. Others will go to great expense to keep alive some aged and diseased animal, even risk endangering the health of others in the home by retaining the animal there.

We may recall that the inspired writer Jude expresses God’s condemnation and judgment of those angels that “did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place,” doing that which was “unnatural” to their spirit nature and divinely assigned status. (Jude 6, 7) When humans attempt to elevate animals to a human level they are, in fact, degrading themselves, not keeping the dignified, superior position in which God originally placed man. At the same time they are putting the animals in a relationship that is “out of place” with God’s purpose, in an “unnatural” one with man.

But might not the account at 2 Samuel 12:1-6 be cited as a justification for some of the practices mentioned earlier in dealing with pets? There the prophet Nathan told King David of a poor man who bought a small female lamb, preserving it alive while it grew up with him and his sons. The account says: “From his morsel it would eat, and from his cup it would drink, and in his bosom it would lie, and it came to be as a daughter to him.” Then a rich man possessing many sheep took the lamb away from the man and used it to feed a visitor. David found the account believable, not farfetched, for at the story’s conclusion he said in heated anger: “As Jehovah is living, the man doing this deserves to die! And for the female lamb he should make compensation with four, as a consequence of the fact that he has done this thing and because he did not have compassion.” What about this?

First, the expression “from his morsel it would eat, and from his cup it would drink” does not say that the lamb sat at the table with the family or that it shared the same drinking vessel with the man. It merely says that the man gave up some of his food and drink on behalf of the lamb. “Cup” in the Bible often does not refer to the drinking vessel itself but to what it contains, the ‘portion’ in the cup, and evidently the man poured out some of his drink for the lamb to lap up. (Compare Matthew 26:39, 42; John 18:11; Mark 10:38-40.) The man also kept it warm at night by letting it sleep next to him. Why? It was obviously to keep the young creature alive, separated as it was from its mother.

Did David in his anger sentence the rich man to die for killing a lamb? No, the account shows that he expressed his personal feeling that such a man deserved to die “because he did not have compassion.” On whom? On a lamb? No, for if the poor man’s lamb had not been used for the meal, a lamb of the rich man’s would have. Rather David’s hot anger was because the rich man did not have compassion on the needy man, the human and his family. From his meager funds the poor man had bought this animal which could, in time, supply the family with wool and milk and possibly serve as a start toward a flock of sheep. Now all the needy man’s care and sacrifice were brought to nothing. David’s actual sentence was that the rich man should compensate for the lamb with four more, in harmony with the law at Exodus 22:1. (Of course, at this point the prophet Nathan showed that the story really had been related to illustrate the greedy lack of compassion David himself had shown toward the man Uriah.)

This is not to say that God has no concern about animals themselves. To the contrary, in the Law covenant he gave to Israel there were several statutes requiring that kindness and considerate care be shown to one’s animals or those of a fellow Israelite. Animals were to have rest periods, be helped out when in distress, not be unequally yoked nor muzzled when threshing grain. (Ex. 20:10; 23:4, 5, 12; Deut. 22:10; 25:4) The twenty-third Psalm 23:1-6 beautifully describes the kind care shepherds in Israel customarily gave to their sheep. Cruel disregard for animals was not to be found among the righteous, but among the wicked.—Prov. 12:10.

Yet animals were for the service of man, never the other way around. God did not hesitate to use animal skins to clothe the first human pair. (Gen. 3:21) He was pleased with Abel’s offering of a sacrifice of a sheep. (Gen. 4:4) The apostle Peter, in fact, speaks of the unreasoning animals as “born naturally to be caught and destroyed.’’ (2 Pet. 2:12) This does not say that God’s only purpose in creating the animals was for them to be destroyed, nor does it justify wanton slaughter of animals, as in hunting for mere sport. But, at least from the end of the global flood forward, God granted man the right to use “every moving animal that is alive” to serve as food, just as the green vegetation so served. (Gen. 9:3) Eating them would be ‘destroying’ them in the sense described at Colossians 2:21, 22.

Not only this, but God’s law also provided for the destruction of any animal that came to constitute a real danger to man. (Gen. 9:5, 6; Ex. 21:28, 29) Foxes damaging a vineyard could be trapped and animals attacking a man’s flocks could be slain. (Song of Sol. 2:15; 1 Sam. 17:34, 35) Man’s rightful interests and welfare always took precedence; when animals seriously interfered with these they could properly be disposed of, without guilt before God the Creator.

Death of Pets

It is only natural that a creature, be it a dog, a horse, or any other animal, that has provided some measure of companionship over a period of years, will be missed by its owner when it dies. But here again there is need to keep a balanced view.

In various parts of the earth one can find “pet cemeteries,” with gravestones and epitaphs over the burial sites of various animals. This calls to mind the elaborate funeral and burial the ancient Egyptians gave to their sacred Apis bulls, as well as their special cemeteries containing literally hundreds of thousands of mummified cats, baboons, crocodiles and jackals.

Such practices are totally foreign to Bible teachings. The Bible shows that only man was given the prospect of living forever. Adam was to die only if he proved disobedient. (Gen. 2:16, 17) We, his descendants, are in a dying state due to inheriting sin from him, “for the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23; 5:12) Other creatures,’ as “unreasoning animals,” are not capable of conscious or willful sin against God. Hence their death is simply due to natural processes; the general life-span built into their genetic makeup from the beginning. Thus, while a rhinoceros may live as much as half a century, a short-tailed shrew has a life-span seldom passing two or three years. Some insects live only a few hours. This will continue to be true even in God’s promised new order by his Son’s righteous kingdom, when death inherited by humans from Adam “will be no more.”—Rev. 21:4.

The resurrection provided for sinful mankind by Christ’s ransom sacrifice obviously does not apply to the animal creation, which is incapable of understanding and putting faith in that divine provision. Animals in Israel were not buried in cemeteries at death, but dragged outside the city and thrown away. (Compare Jeremiah 22:18, 19; 36:30.) They were never viewed as going into Sheol (the common grave of all mankind) from which they could be resurrected.

Yes, animals are wonderful—in their place. But they can never really substitute for humans. To avoid becoming off balance in our viewpoint or emotional attitude we should appreciate that it was the world of mankind that God so loved that he gave his only-begotten Son. (John 3:16) True, the majority of humans today are not reflecting God’s qualities and acting in His ‘image and likeness.’ They thereby cause much sadness, frustration, irritation and heartache. But not all are that way. We can find persons who will provide splendid companionship, persons who are admirable and lovable, who prove worthy of God’s love. If we are willing to make the effort to find such, we need never be lonely or commit the error of turning to animals to receive what only humans can give.

In Defense of Freedom

DO YOU live in a country where there is a bill of rights? If you do you may believe that your freedoms are secure. But how secure are they in actual fact? Can you be certain that you can always exercise them?

Suppose you felt obligated to speak out publicly about corrupt activities carried on by men holding political power in your town. Would you be able to exercise your right of free speech or would you find yourself harassed by the police? Suppose you lived in a town where most of the people belonged to labor unions, but you had strong objections to labor unions. Would you be able to express your views publicly for very long? What if you went to a town where there were racial tensions and began speaking out in favor of racial integration? How long would you be able to exercise your freedom of speech?

A real test of how secure guarantees of freedom are is to try to exercise them where your viewpoint is in conflict with that of the majority or of those in power. People are subject to self-interest, prejudices and other human weaknesses that influence their attitudes toward outspoken individuals and disliked minorities. It is not uncommon for local politicians and police to ignore Constitutional rights when confronted with such persons.

What would you do if you were illegally denied your Constitutionally guaranteed rights? Would you defend them peacefully by going to the courts? But what about people who do not have the money for long court battles? More than likely they would grit their teeth in bitter anger, concluding that violent demonstrations or armed revolt against the “Establishment” is their only recourse.

But will resorting to violence bring them greater freedom? Not likely. Violence breeds more violence that can lead to a suspending of Constitutional freedoms. If a revolutionary government gains power, freedoms are not likely to be extended to opposers. Even those who helped to put the new government into power may find that they have fewer freedoms than before. Thus the quest for human freedoms can become frustrating.

However, many bloodless battles have been fought in defense of freedom in the courts. Some of these have been victorious and have become historical precedents. One of these helped to strengthen Canadian freedoms.

Jailed for Speaking the Truth

On December 7, 1946, Louise Lamb, one of Jehovah’s witnesses in Canada, was visiting the homes of people in Verdun, Quebec, and speaking with them about the hope-inspiring things in the Bible. At the time Premier Maurice Duplessis was enjoying a sixteen-year rule as the political boss of the province. It displeased him to see people not of his religion talking with Quebec people on religious matters. So he used the police to deny Jehovah’s witnesses their freedoms of speech and religion. Miss Lamb was one of the many who were arrested for exercising these freedoms.

She was held in jail over the weekend without a charge against her, without being permitted to call her friends or legal counsel. She was photographed, fingerprinted and treated as a common criminal for having exercised freedoms that have long been cherished in Canada.

After spending the weekend in jail she was told that she could go free, but she must sign a release agreeing not to take action against the provincial police officer for jailing her. If she refused to sign, a criminal charge would be brought against her. She refused, and the charge was filed. A court later dismissed it.

Miss Lamb then took civil action against the police officer in defense of her right of free speech and of religion. This proved to be a long and difficult battle that finally ended in the Supreme Court of Canada. The court’s opinion vindicated her by saying: “The arrest and prosecution were quite without justification or excuse and the detention of the appellant over the weekend was carried out in a manner and in conditions little short of disgraceful.”

The victory she won in a long legal battle was acknowledged by Professor Frank Scott in his 1959 book Civil Liberty and Canadian Federalism as a victory in the defense of freedom, a victory that helped to make democratic freedoms more secure for all Canadians. He said:

“The Lamb case is merely another example of police illegality, but it is part of the dismal picture that has too often been exposed in Quebec in recent years. . . . When reading such a story one wonders how many other innocent victims have been similarly treated by the police but have not had the courage and the backing to pursue the matter through to final victory—in this instance 12-1/2 years after the arrest had taken place. We should be grateful that we have in this country some victims of state oppression who stand up for their rights. Their victory is the victory of all of us.”

As observed by Professor Scott, not everyone who has been denied the fundamental freedoms has had the determination, the financial means and the legal backing to push a court fight clear to the Supreme Court. Thus this case that was pushed there to victory is of historical significance in Canada.

Bill of Rights

It is generally believed that a bill of rights will ensure justice for minorities. This was the view expressed by John Diefenbaker in 1960, when he was the Canadian Prime Minister and when a bill of rights was enacted in Canada. He stated: “This Bill is a major step forward. It will set up an altar of freedom that will ensure that the minority will not be unjustly treated by the majority, which is of the essence of freedom.”

There can be no doubt that by having a bill of rights the Canadian people are better off, as it gives them a legal basis for the freedoms they cherish. But does its existence in itself mean that these freedoms will be respected automatically, that everyone will be granted them? Does it mean that no minority will be unjustly treated by the authorities in some town? Not necessarily. There are always self-seeking public officials and emotional groups among the public who are not willing to grant the freedoms of a bill of rights to persons with unpopular viewpoints. That means such persons have to defend their freedoms legally or suffer the loss of them.

Fight for Freedom in the U.S.

The United States has had a bill of rights for 180 years, but Jehovah’s witnesses have had to resort to the courts repeatedly in order to enjoy the freedoms it guarantees. Its existence has given legal basis for pressing many cases to the Supreme Court of the United States that became landmark cases in legal history. Commenting on this, Leon Friedman, in his book The Wise Minority, wrote:

“In the twenty-odd cases won, this small, weak, and unpopular minority made fundamental changes in American law. They firmly established the right of all minorities to use the streets and public parks to deliver their messages. And they made clear that the government could not compel any overt expression of obedience or loyalty from its citizens. These precedents advanced political freedom in this country by several degrees.”

Concurring with this view, Professor Milton R. Konvitz observes in his book Fundamental Liberties of a Free People:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses became perfect guinea pigs for the testing of the limits of the First Amendment freedoms. They were charged with ‘excesses and abuses.’ Beginning with 1938, they provided the Supreme Court with a long series of cases in which various phases of these freedoms were subject to careful examination. The result, on the whole, has been the establishment of precedents which have strengthened the foundations and reaches of freedom of religion and, no less, of freedom of speech, press, and assembly.”

Although these legal battles by Jehovah’s witnesses accomplished much in the defense of Constitutional freedoms in the United States, there are still situations in which those freedoms are threatened. A recent example is a bill passed in 1971 by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. It made the saluting of the flag by public schoolchildren compulsory and did not provide for the exempting of students who view the saluting of any flag as against their religious conscience. This bill threatens the right of schoolchildren to enjoy freedom of religion.

Since the saluting of the flag is associated with patriotism, many people become emotionally upset when they hear of anyone declining to salute it. Even though the majority have a different viewpoint, should they not grant this minority the freedom to refrain from doing something that is against their religious conscience? Would not respect for the religious conscience of a minority be showing appreciation for the freedoms represented by the flag?

Commenting on the Pennsylvania bill, the Philadelphia Inquirer of June 16, 1971, said editorially:

“The bill is unconstitutional on its face. Similar compulsory flag salutes have been struck down time after time by the U.S. Supreme Court, most notably in the 1943 case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, when the late Justice Robert Jackson delivered an opinion in which he eloquently declared:

“‘If there is any fixed star in our Constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.’”a

The legislators in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives are unquestionably sincere in their desire to instill patriotism in schoolchildren, but the fact remains that they ignored the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. Continuing its comments, this newspaper editorial said:

“And patriotism certainly cannot be promoted when legislative bodies themselves flout the Constitution. The issue, declared Rep. Ray Hovis, is simple: ‘It is whether this legislature wishes to commit what is virtually an act of civil disobedience because it does not like the present constitutional law on saluting the flag.’”

The freedoms of the Bill of Rights give a person the right to express his beliefs, but they also give him the right to refrain from expressing beliefs that he does not hold. Commenting on this, Professor Konvitz states in his book Fundamental Liberties of a Free People:

“The freedom not to speak, not to profess beliefs, may be more important than the freedom to speak, since the profession of beliefs that one does not maintain may do more violence to the conscience than the failure to express the beliefs that one does maintain.”

Where there is a strong spirit of nationalism it is often the tendency to expect everyone to speak and act in the same manner as the majority, with no allowances being made for religious conscience. This is a form of thought control that is carried to extremes under certain types of governments. But where a government prides itself in the freedoms it grants its people, why should people in power try to force a minority to do something that is against their religious conscience? Is this not inconsistent with patriotic expressions about liberty for all?

It is exceedingly difficult for freedom to be enjoyed by all people impartially even in democratic lands. Usually a person who is out of step with the majority on certain things will have to defend his Constitutional rights. While a peaceable defense can be made in the courts, this does not necessarily mean that he will be victorious. Judges are imperfect humans as everyone else is and are swayed by personal interests and emotions and are subject to making errors in judgment. Even the Supreme Court of the United States has had to reverse itself at times because of perceiving that it had erred in previous decisions, a classic example being when it reversed its former Pennsylvania flag salute decision in the case of Minersville School District v. Gobitis, of June 3, 1940 (310 U.S. 586), which had become the signal for a general upsurge of violence throughout the country, against Jehovah’s witnesses.

Although Jehovah’s witnesses in years past established many legal precedents by their legal fights in defense of freedom, the freedoms of minorities are still not absolutely secure. Injustices can be expected as long as imperfect humans are exercising authority over other humans. So while the people in Canada and the United States have benefited from the decisions that Jehovah’s witnesses have obtained in legal fights, the defense of freedom continues.

Freedom for All

Circumstances will change for the better, but this will require a general change in thinking and a change in moral values. There must be a basic love for one’s fellowman and fellow feeling for him among peoples all over the earth. This is concisely expressed in the Bible when it says: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matt. 22:39) But how can such a change come?

The only hope for the change that is needed is in the Scriptural promise that a government of God’s making will soon rule the earth in justice and righteousness. Only under this divine government will freedoms no longer be threatened by prejudices, unrestrained emotions, hatreds, misunderstandings, injustices and human errors in judgment. This divinely established government will not be subject to the many flaws, personal mistakes and selfish interests that are inherent in man-made governments. With all mankind under the righteous rule of God’s kingdom, no one will ever again have to fight in defense of the freedoms due him.

[Footnotes]

Reported in Volume 319 of official United States reports, at pages 624, 642.

Living Ornaments for Your Home

THE great outdoors is ornamented with living, growing plants. Even the desert, seemingly devoid of anything green and growing, responds to the infrequent rain with a blaze of desert flowers and plants. It is not surprising, then, that many persons, appreciating living ornaments, enjoy adding the special touch of foliage or flowering plants to their homes. Others, perhaps less inclined to care for the needs of living plants, choose arrangements of dried plant materials, such as pine cones, seedpods and ornamental grasses.

You may have noticed that display rooms in furniture stores often include living plants to enhance their furniture settings. Should you decide to have living ornaments for your own home, you will want to consider first the needs of your particular plant, and then the setting in which it will look best.

Appropriate in Any Room

There is a splendid variety of plants from which to choose. And there is hardly a room in your home that cannot be benefited by a well-chosen specimen.

A tall palm, rubber plant, or split-leaf philodendron placed in an entryway or foyer will welcome your guests with impressive dignity. Even if your entrance hall is rather dark, these plants do well if given good light for a few days at regular intervals. If you feel that a large plant is out of place in such a small area, try placing a handsome little peperomia or maranta on a small table or on a wall-hung shelf. A mirror behind it not only highlights the plant, but can also make the foyer itself appear more spacious.

A kitchen window can become a real beauty spot with a collection of African violets blooming continuously. They do well in this warm, humid atmosphere even if your window receives very little light. A small herb garden can also be appropriate.

As a centerpiece for the dining table, you need not have an expensive floral arrangement. A few small plants of varying shades of green attractively arranged in a low dish or bowl make an eye-pleasing ornament.

Usually bedrooms are cooler, and as far as plants are concerned that is just fine. Most houseplants, with the exception of some tropical beauties, do their best in a room that is a bit cooler. While a stately palm or imposing philodendron monstera would likely look out of place in a small bedroom, lovely trailing vines such as English ivy, pothos or creeping fig lend a tranquil note. Blooming plants look especially attractive placed beneath a table lamp where the illumination shows up the beauty of their blossoms, while at the same time providing light needed for good growth.

Some persons like to have even the bathroom decorated with living ornaments. Plants thrive in the moisture of this room. Begonias do well in the humid atmosphere if bright light can be provided. Asparagus fern is another good choice if there is enough space. Of course, you would want to alternate your plants so that none would be left too long in a poorly lighted spot.

Choosing the right living ornament for your living room is not difficult. Your present decorating scheme can indicate an appropriate plant choice. Massive Mediterranean furniture may suggest a large plant with shiny leaves, while the delicate curves of the French Provincial style may be more compatible with a small flowering ornament. For a modern room consider a spiky flaming-sword bromeliad, and for an Early American setting perhaps an airy Boston fern.

There is, however, no “wrong choice” so far as décor is concerned. Generally plants fit in well wherever you put them. Yet plants are individualistic. Vines have a softening effect, alleviating the angular lines of modern furniture. Ferns bring with them a cool, tranquil atmosphere. Palms are more formal. Bright-leaved coleus holds its own in even the most colorful surroundings.

Special Effects

Unusual living ornaments can be created with a little imagination. An interesting vine tree can be formed by training a vine around a piece of driftwood. Or you might use an upright branch. Nail a crosspiece to the base of your branch, stand it upright in a pot and add soil. Plant several cuttings of vines and arrange them as they grow.

You can take advantage of the natural growth pattern of certain plants for special living ornaments. Baby’s tears tend to drape over the sides of its pot. Why not set two or three pots in graduated sizes atop one another for a cascade of greenery? Other such tiered arrangements can be made by piling up clay pots and saucers filled with trailing plants, such as sedum or spider plant.

Even though individual plants can make a room more attractive, the trend today is toward grouping plants for an even greater decorative effect. Several dissimilar plants arranged together for height, depth and focal interest are more ornamental than four or five plants of the same kind set in a row. A container, such as a wickerwork basket, large enough to hold four medium-sized potted plants, may be lined with plastic film or foil to allow for watering. In it you may put a selection such as snake plant for height, white blossoming anthurium for focal interest, and ivy, or perhaps green and white wandering Jew to trail over the front and side for depth.

A planter used as a room divider is both decorative and useful. You may grow your choice of plants directly from the soil of the planter, in which case be sure to choose items with similar needs of light and moisture. Or, to facilitate a change of scenery now and then, you may leave each plant in its individual pot and simply sink the pots into the planter soil.

Miniature Landscapes and Terraria

Miniature landscapes require a thoughtful selection of plants, but the results can be rewarding. For example, a miniature beach can brighten your home. To create such a landscape you need a metal-lined rectangular tray, about eight inches deep, filled with sand. Slope the sand toward the back of the tray and then place in the sand a couple of dwarf palms. A potted pineapple plant, grown from the top of the next fresh pineapple you buy, would make a good focal point. Now scatter around a few small pots of various types of echeveria and a few tufts of variegated oat grass for a shoreline. Add a few colorful beach pebbles, two or three seashells, and your beach scene is completed.

An indoor cactus garden is easy to care for and a pleasure to behold. With so many varieties to choose from, it is not hard to arrange a desert in miniature. Cacti come in many sizes and many forms. Choose taller plants such as cereus, Old Man of Mexico or silver torch as a central point of interest. Tiny cacti, such as the spiny pincushion or the smoother sand dollar and stone-and-window plant, are a pleasing contrast.

Some cacti will bloom, but to ensure this, leave each individual plant in a pot that appears much too small for it, and simply bury the pot in the sand of your miniature desert. After you have arranged your selections in a sand-filled tray, place it in your sunniest window. Water once a week or less and enjoy the scenery.

A terrarium is a beautiful ornament. This old-fashioned garden-under-glass has much to offer a lover of greenery with too little time to care for plants. Almost any large glass container can be converted into a terrarium. A discarded aquarium or goldfish bowl will do. Choose slow-growing plants that have the same light and moisture requirements. Good drainage is necessary, so first place a layer of small stones and charcoal in the bottom of your container. A good layer of potting soil comes next. Small-leaved ferns, fittonia, peperomia, ivy, wax plant, impatiens, maranta, almost any small plant will do well in the microenvironment of a terrarium. Little care is involved once your terrarium is set up, but do avoid setting a covered terrarium in direct sunlight.

Dried Plant Materials

Dried plant materials are often highly esteemed as ornaments. Seedpods, leaves, lichen, berries, cattails, all can become decorative items for your home. An alert collector of such items will find useful material almost everywhere: in fields, gardens, woods, even his own yard.

Cones of pine, fir and spruce trees can be used to make lovely ornaments. They are abundant in forested areas. A single large cone, sprayed perhaps with gilt paint, and glued to a base of weathered wood makes a fine desk ornament. A basket of well-formed cones sprayed with clear lacquer to preserve their natural color makes an attractive display for table or fireplace mantle. Add a few bright dried berry clusters or rose hips for color.

Dried ornamental grasses make lovely bouquets for winter. The silky white plumes of tall dried pampas grass can fill an empty corner with a dignified display. Spiky thistles are often dried and sprayed to complement the color scheme of a given room. Perhaps the simplest decoration of all in this category is a display of bright autumn leaves.

Ornamental gourds are a natural for fall tables. Bright in color, pleasing in form, they come in a variety that is almost without limit. Multicolored ornamental corn also makes a fine harvest table display.

There is no doubt that the Creator has clothed the earth with myriads of living, growing plants. Adding some of these ornaments to our homes can help us to appreciate his loving interest in the earth and its future. Of course, you need to remember that there are more important things in life than ornamenting your home with plants. (Matt. 6:33) To the extent that you have the time, however, you might enjoy the decorative effects of living ornaments.

“Hey—Taxi!”

TAXIMEN, or “cabbies” as they are often called, are by and large a friendly lot. At times they have interesting and unusual experiences, which might be said to be one of the dividends of their occupation. For example, they get to meet many so-called celebrities, noted musicians and government officials, as well as other interesting people from many walks of life and various lands, and often they are able to engage these in conversation. Such experiences had by taximen ever since 1907, when gasoline-powered taxicabs first made their appearance, might well fill many a book.

Long before taxicabs came into use, the jinrikisha was popular in the Orient. It was a light two-wheeled vehicle pulled by a runner between two shafts, much as a horse would pull a buggy. It usually had a top to protect the passengers from sun or rain. Once very popular, it has been declared illegal in many Chinese cities on the ground that ‘human horses’ are undignified. It has largely been replaced by the pedicab, a three-wheeled cycle, which, in turn, is being replaced more and more by taxicabs.

Taxicabs in Western lands have greatly increased since their introduction in 1907, some 150,000 operating in the United States alone. Of this number some 7,000 medallioned or licensed yellow cabs operate in New York city.

Almost all taxicabs have taximeters, although in some cities a zonal arrangement governs the rate taximen may charge. A taximeter is a time-mileage registering apparatus to compute the fare while riding and while waiting. It also records total receipts for the cab owner’s information.

The Taximan’s Wages

“Why did you choose to become a taxicab driver?” a family man who has been driving cabs for ten years was asked. “Because that is the quickest way I know of to make a dollar, and it is very interesting work, especially if you like to talk.” It must be profitable, for in New York city a medallion or license to operate a cab sells for upward of $20,000, the number of cabs there being strictly limited. In that city the fare at present is 60 cents for the first fifth of a mile and 10 cents for each additional fifth of a mile. That makes the first mile cost a dollar and each additional mile 50 cents.

In New York city cabdrivers may earn from 42.5 to 50 cents of every dollar they take in, plus tips, which may run as high as 15 percent of receipts. By working five days a week and from ten to twelve hours a day, taximen earn from $150 to $225 a week. According to one New York taximan, driving taxis on weekends can be a very profitable job, for one may earn as much as $60 a night. Of course, many taximen own their own taxicabs and so do not need to share their receipts with anyone but the government tax collector. Some rent cabs, as does one in San Juan, Puerto Rico. He pays $9 a night for the use of a licensed cab and takes in enough above that to support his wife and children. In many cities taximen have unionized and in exchange for their union dues have received increased wages as well as fringe benefits. But New York city’s latest wage increase, which resulted in almost doubling taxi fares, has not been an unqualified, success, since previously taximen were averaging 65 passenger trips a day on a two-shift basis, whereas now they average just about 49.

Taxicab Regulations

Each city that licenses cabdrivers has its own regulations. In New York city to become a taxicab driver one must be not only a licensed car driver but also one without a serious prison record, and to get a job one must usually be able to furnish three business references. He must become fully acquainted with the Hack Driver’s Manual, upon which he must take a test. Among the things he is supposed to know are the locations of leading hospitals and airports. There are also rules governing the use of the radio, what he may and may not refuse to carry; also he is not supposed to ask before a person enters the cab as to where he wants to go.

It is said that a firm operating taxicabs usually is very helpful to one who wants to become a cabdriver as they often have more taxicabs than drivers. Helping to make up for this shortage is the trend for women to become taxi drivers. But why should there be a problem in recruiting taximen when the wages are quite good and the work interesting? Why? Because of the challenges associated with driving a cab.

The Challenge of Accidents

When working, a cabby must be on guard, especially against youths driving cars, who often are even more prone to take chances than is the taxi driver and who account for more than their share of accidents.

Then, too, people jaywalk. Will the cabby see them in time? On a busy Manhattan street on a rainy evening a woman stepped out on the street in spite of the stoplight and right into the path of a taxicab driver. He slammed on the brakes but could not keep from knocking her down. The police exonerated him from all blame; still the shock was so great that he quit being a cabby; he did not want to go through another such experience!

The Temptation to Violate Traffic Rules

Closely related to the challenge of accidents is the temptation to violate traffic regulations. The temptation is great to beat the traffic light, to cross an intersection just as the light turns red in order to get one’s passenger to his destination in the minimum time. Or when a person hails a cab on the other side of the street there is the temptation to make a U-turn when such is not permitted. But cabbies can drive carefully. One cabby in St. Thomas, V.I., told that in ten years of driving a cab he had yet to receive his first ticket for traffic violations.

Of course, had he lived in some large city such as New York he might have got a ticket in spite of all his carefulness. In such cities at times a traffic officer may suddenly become conscious of the fact that he has been writing out very few tickets and at once goes about trying to improve his record of tickets issued for traffic violations. Then he will be quick to use borderline incidents or those which can be construed as violations, in which case a cabby may get a ticket in spite of all his carefulness.

This is not to say that the police and the cabbies are natural enemies. Just the opposite! Many policemen earn extra money by part-time cabdriving. Typical of the cooperation between the two is the case in which two couples, picked up by a cabby, got very abusive, insisting that the cabby was not taking the shortest route to their destination. He finally drew up to a police car and explained matters to the officers. They ordered the unruly passengers out of the cab.

The Challenge of Crime

In addition to accidents and traffic violations there is the challenge that criminals present to the cabdriver, especially in large cities such as New York. In that city during the first eight months of 1970 seven cabdrivers were murdered, either shot, stabbed or beaten to death, and upward of seventy cabbies were robbed each week.

To combat this hazard to the cabby’s occupation, policemen were given permission to operate cabs during their off hours, the city ordered well-nigh bulletproof shields to be installed between the cabdriver and his passengers and lock boxes attached to the floor for holding the cabby’s receipts and to which he does not have the key. These measures, some of which have also been adopted in other cities, have so decidedly reduced the risk that cabbies faced, that in 1971 not one taximan was murdered on the job.

Regarding this challenge a cabdriver told the following experience to a member of the Awake! staff: “It was New Year’s Eve. A well-dressed youth asked me to take him to his destination. Upon arriving there he got out and while reaching for his change dropped some of it on the pavement. As he seemed to have difficulty finding his money I drove the cab out of the way and played its lights on the spot. I stooped over to help him find his money and as I looked up I saw he was pointing a gun at my head.

“He ordered me up the stoop of his house and upon my getting to the top of the stairs two men came running down from the upper floors. The three took me to the top floor and had me face the wall with my arms stretched out over my head as they took my wallet, watch and ring. They asked if I had more money in the cab—I did have quite a bit on me—and I told them they could go down and look, hoping to be able to get away. But instead one of them said, ‘Let’s kill him!’ I told them that I was a Christian minister, that I had helped many people in my time and would like to continue doing so, but if they wanted to kill me, that was up to them, I could not stop them. With that they asked me if I could identify them, and as it was quite a dark night, I told them I could not, and with that they let me go. It appears they were drug addicts. I reported the matter to the police but heard nothing more about it.”

The Challenge of Honesty

There is also another challenge that taxi drivers have to face—to cheat or not to cheat their employers or their customers. For example, a cabby may go by a roundabout way, when taking a stranger, so as to get a higher fare, the stranger not knowing the difference. Then again, one who owns his cab may suggest a flat rate instead of using the meter, knowing that that rate would be higher than what the meter would show. Or if he is operating the cab from some firm he may offer to take the passenger to his destination for a flat rate less than what the meter would show, because by not using the meter he could pocket the entire amount instead of his percentage.

That some yield to this temptation is apparent from an item that appeared in Taxi News, December 15-30, 1971. Under the heading “Cracks Down on Flags-Up” it stated: “Since Oct. 15 under the new commission, taximen riding flag-up—thus cheating their employer—have been subject to $25 fines for the first offense, $50 for the second and liable to license revocation for the third time.

“The commission reports that during November, 23 taximen were apprehended and fined $25. So far in December, 13 more were caught as first offenders and hit with $25 fines. Four men [were] slapped with $50 fines as second offenders.”

To combat this cheating, some taxis have been equipped with a “hot seat,” which automatically turns on the meter when‘a passenger sits down.

But the public has to bear its share of the blame in this matter. Often a passenger will ask not to have the meter used in order to get a cheaper ride, since the cabby will be able to pocket all of the fare instead of only getting a percentage of it. And there are some who order them to do this in a rather threatening manner. When this happened to one cabby, he replied: “Sorry, sir, but the inspectors are all about tonight. I would be sure to get caught.” This satisfied the passenger.

This cabby also tells the following experience: “A woman said: ‘Drive me to the Bronx. Here is $5, do not put on the meter.’ I replied, ‘I’m sorry, Ma’am, but I always put the meter on.’ She fussed with me all the way to her destination in the Bronx. The fare was $3.50. She paid it but did not give me a tip even though she saved $1.50 by my putting on the meter, by my being honest.” Yes, the public must share in the blame that some taximen are not honest!

Christian Cabdrivers

Among cabdrivers are to be found Christian witnesses of Jehovah, even as there are to be found in nearly all honest forms of employment. The foregoing experiences by and large were had by such cabdrivers. They tell that being a cabdriver has its advantages for a minister. A cabby who had previously held a responsible office job stated that he considered it an advantage that a cabdriver is not bothered by contentious or lewd work companions. He can easily keep his distance from his fares if he so desires.

More than that, he has quite some freedom. He can take time off to attend Bible assemblies and he can work longer hours if he needs extra money. Some even earn bonuses for being steady workers. In New York city cabdrivers get vacations based on a certain percentage of total fares earned and have many other benefits. And Christian cabdrivers find many opportunities to tell persons, including so-called celebrities, about their Bible-based hope of an earthly paradise, in keeping with Revelation 21:4.

Yes, chances are that the next time you call “Hey—Taxi!” you will find a friendly chap at the wheel, one who will enjoy engaging you in conversation, a family man who is trying to earn an honest dollar.

“Good News” Is Being Preached in Prisons

JESUS CHRIST told his followers: “People will lay their hands upon you and persecute you, delivering you up to . . . prisons.” (Luke 21:12) This is happening to Jehovah’s Christian witnesses today, especially in lands where their work of preaching is under governmental ban. This has not discouraged them. While in prison, they have seized the opportunity to speak to fellow inmates about the Bible. As a result some of these prisoners have become devoted servants of Jehovah God.

One young man in East Germany came to appreciate Bible truth in prison. This man was dissatisfied with living conditions in East Germany. In a letter to his brother he implied that he might leave the country as a refugee. He did not do anything about it, but his letter was intercepted by the authorities. He was therefore put on trial and sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment in a work camp. The officials tried to change his resentful attitude, but to no avail. The young man reacted by refusing to obey their orders. Therefore, on one occasion, they pointed to the exemplary conduct of Jehovah’s witnesses in the camp. This aroused the young man’s curiosity. But the officials did not answer his questions about the Witnesses.

Later this young man was assigned to work with one of the Witnesses for about a year. What he learned from the Witness had a wholesome effect on his attitude. When the officials learned the reason for the young man’s changed attitude, they transferred the Witness to another work assignment. It was, however, already too late. The young prisoner had decided to become one of Jehovah’s witnesses. After his release he finally succeeded in establishing contact with Jehovah’s witnesses and is making fine progress.

The good results that come from preaching in prison are also illustrated by the experiences of a Witness in Malawi.

On his first day of confinement he was approached by an imprisoned ex-member of parliament with the request that he give a Bible sermon. After that the Witness gave six Bible discourses to an average attendance of twenty-six, over half the number in prison.

Later the Witness was transferred to another prison. There he had to share a “detention yard” (measuring 84 feet by 60 feet) with 98 other prisoners. Under a huge tree in the center of this yard, other inmates of various denominations gathered twice a day to hold prayer meetings of their “united church.” When one of the prisoners found out about the Witness he asked him why he did not join in the services. The Witness explained his position toward interfaith. The young man then asked, ‘Don’t you agree that the Israelites, when they were in prison, had to pray?’ The Witness requested that the young man get the Bible, the only book allowed in the detention yard and shared by all the prisoners. It was torn and many parts were missing. Still the Witness was able to show why he could not join in the prayers of the “united church.” He also started a study with the young man, held daily during the next six weeks at a time when the tattered Bible was not being used by others.

The young man made it clear to the Witness, based on what he had learned, that he no longer wished to be a member of the Anglican Church. When he was strong enough to defend his faith he began to speak to other prisoners.

Continuing his preaching, the Witness was able to start a study with a man who had twice been present for the study with the first young man. This man soon joined the Witness in speaking about the Bible to other prisoners. A month later another inmate began studying. In yet another month the leader of the prison’s “united church” approached the Witness and asked him many questions. He, too, began studying the Bible with the Witness. Two months later, the Witness was unexpectedly released to rejoin his family. Though having suffered unjustly, he rejoiced in having had the opportunity to help four persons come to a basic understanding of true worship.

Thus, in lands where legal restraints exist, people are hearing the “good news” even in prison. It is just as the apostle Paul declared: “The word of God is not bound.”—2 Tim. 2:9.

What Can Be Done About Gum Troubles?

DISEASES of the gums afflict great numbers of persons. According to the National Health Survey in the United States, among those between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four, 70 percent of the men and 63 percent of the women are said to have gum troubles. Some five million living Americans have lost all their teeth from gum disease by the time they reached thirty-five. In fact, more adult teeth are lost as a result of gum disease than from decay.

Gum trouble starts with inflammation of the gums. Dentists call this gingivitis. They speak of our gums, the pink tissue below and between our teeth, as gingiva. The inflammation shows up as bleeding gums upon brushing the teeth or even eating some food that requires more vigorous chewing such as a fresh apple. It can also be just a reddening of the margin of the gum tissue nearest the tooth. It is generally painless, and the gums begin to lose their normal firmness and tautness. The trouble can begin early; in fact, one study showed that 85 percent of children between the ages of eleven and eighteen have gingivitis.

Dental investigators say that the causes of bleeding gums are many. But generally the basic cause is lack of good oral hygiene habits. Often there is a packing of food between the teeth. Although a deficiency of vitamin C can cause bleeding gums, the commonest cause of all is improper brushing of the teeth and gums.

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, July 8, 1972