Awake!, March 22, 1982

Awake! — March 22, 1982

Source: jw.org

Contents

Page Two

What Are the Churches and Others Saying?

What Do the Facts Show?

Why Religion Is Involved

True Religion—A Force for Peace

How Dangerous Is Atomic Radiation?

“Secular Humanism”—New Religion or Old Philosophy?

Evolution and Passion

How Can I Make Real Friends?

My Life as an Australian Aborigine

Psychiatry Goes to the Dogs

Dungeons and Dragons—Dangerous Entertainment

From Our Readers

Watching the World

“Let your Kingdom Come”—Where?

April 8th—The Night to Remember

Page Two

A series on religion. Is it a force for peace or for war? What do its various leaders say? What do the facts show?

What Are the Churches and Others Saying? 3

What Do the Facts Show? 4

Why Religion Is Involved 6

True Religion—A Force for Peace 7

What Are the Churches and Others Saying?

Religion—A Force For Peace Or For War?

WE LIVE in an age of science and technology. Yet religion still is a powerful force in the lives of people and in world affairs. Most people still belong to one religion or another. And it still is commonly believed that all religions work for the good of mankind.

At times the different religions come together to talk about peace. For example, in August 1979, 338 delegates from 47 countries met in Princeton, New Jersey, at the Third Assembly of the World Conference on Religion and Peace. They represented all the major religions of the world: Buddhist, Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, Zoroastrian and others.

At such meetings the religious leaders express their concern for world peace. And much is said about each religion’s contribution to it. However, time and again the speakers hit on a common note: not all practice what they preach.

Speaking on Hinduism’s role in world peace, Swami Ranganathananda of Calcutta, India, said: “A study of the aims and objects of religion reveals it to be essentially a discipline for peace. Yet even a cursory study of the history of religion shows that all the religions of the world have contributed to war as much as to peace in varying degrees.”

Professor K. G. Saiyadain of New Delhi, India, said: “In the history of man, so many conflicts and persecutions have been provoked and so many wars precipitated in the name of religion that many quite well-meaning persons have turned away from it and are unwilling to seek its cooperation in their efforts for peace.” Then, regarding the Islamic religion, the professor, himself a Muslim, continued: “When I speak of Islam and its contribution to peace . . . I am not offering any defense of misguided or irreligious Muslim rulers or others who may have strayed away from the path and defied Islam’s insistence on peace as the only right way of life.”

Speaking of Christendom’s role in world peace, clergyman John H. Burt of Ohio, U.S.A., said that the actual record of Christians is “a record that is full of unhappy and unfaithful chapters when it comes to war.”

These are indeed thought-provoking statements. But even more thought-provoking is the question: Is religion a force for peace or for war? What do the facts show?

[Blurb on page 3]

Religion is discredited by the many wars fought in its name

What Do the Facts Show?

Religion—A Force For Peace Or For War?

THOUGH the world at large appears to be at peace, “more than two dozen small wars flicker and rage around the globe . . . taking thousands of lives,” says an Associated Press dispatch. Closer examination reveals the “dismal truth that probably half or more of the wars now being fought around the world are either openly religious conflicts or involved with religious disputes,” says newspaper columnist C. L. Sulzberger. For example:

In Lebanon, one of the battlegrounds of the Crusades, Christian and Muslim political factions are still engaged in what the Associated Press dispatch called “wars rooted in age-old enmities.” The fighting is principally between the Maronite Christians and the Sunni Muslims. But also involved are Greek Orthodox and Uniate Christians, Shiah Muslims and Secret Druzes. The death toll since 1975 is at least 42,000. Considering the size of the country, this could well be one of the bloodiest civil wars in history.

“People killing people in the name of religion in Northern Ireland has cost 2,079 lives in 12 years; 144 of those policemen,” says the Los Angeles Times. Though the basic issue is civil rights—the rights of the Catholic minority versus that of the Protestant majority—religion is deeply involved, and both sides have resorted to a militant solution. The result? The country has been transformed “from a quiet backwater and stronghold of strict moral standards to a free-living, mid-20th century society, corrupted and changed by violent words and deeds,” writes Barry White in the Toronto Star.

In the Philippines “the Defense Ministry has offered rewards of $4,000 [U.S.] each for the capture, dead or alive, of two Filipino ‘rebel’ priests,” reports the New York Times. Another news dispatch says that “four Roman Catholic priests who abandoned their parishes . . . have been seen leading communist insurgents in skirmishes with government troopers.” While “activist priests have taken to carrying guns” in the north, according to Newsweek, Muslims in the south are fighting their ‘holy war’ against Catholic majority rule.

Conflicts involving religion are by no means limited to these few places. There are the struggles between Turks and Greeks on Cyprus, between Hindus and Muslims in India, between Arabs and Israelis in the Middle East, between Christians and Buddhists in Burma, between Muslims and Coptics in Egypt. And there is clergy involvement in political and guerrilla movements in Central and South America. Of course, there are other factors involved in such wars. But why is religion involved? And why is religion unable to stop them?

[Map on page 5]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Trouble Spots

El Salvador

Northern Ireland

Cyprus

Egypt

Lebanon

Pakistan

Cambodia

Philippines

[Picture on page 4]

Religious youths in Ulster with gasoline bombs

[Picture on page 5]

Religious Filipino insurgents at training session

Why Religion Is Involved

Religion—A Force For Peace Or For War?

FACED with the fact that the involvement of religions in war is an undeniable reality, the inevitable question is: Why? Many persons feel that the fault lies, not with the religions, but with those who fail to practice what their religions teach. They feel that if more people would apply their religious belief in their daily lives, peace would be attainable.

While there may be some truth in this, let us not overlook the fact that many of those engaging in religious wars do so with such zeal and conviction that they put soldiers in ordinary warfare to shame.

Over the centuries the notion of “holy,” or “just,” war has had an immense influence on the followers of many religions. The Crusades of Christendom and, on the other side, the jihad of Islam are notable examples. Promoters of the Crusades have customarily referred to the Bible to support their arguments. But it is acknowledged by historians that “the view was widely prevalent in the early Church that war is an organized iniquity with which the Church and the followers of Christ can have nothing to do.”—Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.

In later times, however, prominent church leaders such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas argued strongly for the case of “just” war. “Augustine (early 400s) created the first great synthesis of Christian faith and the practice of war,” writes theology professor Robert Culver in Christianity Today. This “became the standard position of all major branches of the church from that day to this.”

The doctrine of “just,” or “justified,” war starts with the premise that rulers have the God-given duty and power to maintain law and order in an imperfect society by forcible means—police, courts, prisons and gallows—when necessary. If so, then they are also justified in using the army, navy and whatever else to maintain national peace and security when necessary.

It can be easily seen why such a doctrine would meet with great favor among the ruling class. But it also met with popular acceptance because it relieved the ordinary person of the burden of making conscientious decisions. All he needs to do is follow what the state tells him. His cooperation, in fact, may make him feel that he is doing God’s will or that God is on his side. Is this not how practically every soldier at war feels?

Misconception of Millennial Kingdom

“The search for the Millennium, often led by a messianic figure, has sparked numerous revolutionary movements many of which have produced significant political and social innovation,” writes Gunter Lewy in Religion and Revolution.

An especially interesting and illuminating example is the Taiping Rebellion of 1850-64 in China, during a time of foreign oppression and internal corruption. The cult was a strange mixture of Confucianism and Christian Evangelism. The leader, Hung Hsiu-Chuan, claimed that, as a son of God and brother of Jesus, he was sent by God to earth to establish the Tai-ping Tien-kuo, the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace. The movement eventually penetrated 16 of the 18 provinces, captured some 600 cities and occupied Nanking, making it the “heavenly capital” on earth. It has been called “the greatest pre-modern mass movement in history,” and with its downfall went possibly as many as 40 million lives.

In other places and at other times there were the Maccabeans and the Zealots of Judaism, the political Buddhist monks of Burma and Ceylon, the Fifth Monarchy Men of the Puritan Revolution in 17th-century England, the Mahdists of Islam in Sudan, which led to the infamous siege of Khartoum—the list can go on and on.

Religious leaders continue to call for interreligious cooperation for the sake of world peace. Evidently they feel that if only they can work out their religious differences, peace will be assured. But the facts show that few wars are fought solely over doctrinal differences. Rather, they have much to do with social, economical, territorial, political and numerous other issues. But rather than preventing such wars, religion has become involved in these issues and, in the hands of some misguided clergy, infused multitudes of ‘the faithful’ with such fervor and zeal that they take up arms.

Clearly, religion has failed as a force for peace. But what about God’s Word, the Bible? Is it really a force for peace?

[Box on page 6]

“Religious wars tend to be extra furious. When people fight over territory for economic advantage, they reach the point where the battle isn’t worth the cost and so compromise. When the cause is religious, compromise and conciliation seem to be evil.”—Roger Shinn, professor of social ethics, Union Theological Seminary

True Religion—A Force for Peace

Religion—A Force For Peace Or For War?

THE Bible inspires peace not in words only. To those who follow its teachings, it is a powerful force for peace.

The early Christians not only talked about peace but also were known for their firm neutral stand in military and political affairs and for the mistreatment they endured because of it. “From the end of the New Testament period to the decade 170-180 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army,” writes historian Roland Bainton of Yale University. “It is quite clear that prior to about A.D. 174 it is impossible to speak of Christian soldiers,” adds Guy Franklin Herschberger.

What about in our day? Is the Bible still a force for peace in the lives of those who wholeheartedly follow its teachings?

In his book A History of Christianity, Paul Johnson wrote about the activities of the churches in Nazi Germany during World War II and said: “The bravest were the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who proclaimed their outright doctrinal opposition from the beginning and suffered accordingly. . . . Many were sentenced to death for refusing military service . . . or they ended in Dachau or lunatic asylums. A third were actually killed; ninety-seven per cent suffered persecution in one form or another.”

More recently the following remarks appeared in a leading newspaper in a South American country: “Religious freedom is denied to several thousand Jehovah’s Witnesses in this country because their religion does not allow them to salute the flag, sing the national anthem or bear arms. Members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses have, in consequence, been arrested, have complained that they have been beaten and their children have been expelled from schools and denied education.”

Last April the Arkansas Gazette published an article about the Cuban refugees in Fort Chaffee, Arkansas. According to it, one refugee, when asked why Jehovah’s Witnesses in Cuba were treated as outcasts, replied: “I know of no Witness in Cuba who was in the militia. . . . That’s not true with any other religion in Cuba.” He also said that the reason the Witnesses had so much trouble was “their neutral stand.”

Benefits of Pursuing Peace

What has been accomplished by their “neutral stand”? Some may feel that it has brought them nothing but troubles. However, their firm stand by Bible principles has also brought recognition and commendation. Here are a few such instances:

After reading an account on Jehovah’s Witnesses in Nazi concentration camps, a Jewish rabbi who survived the Sachsenhausen camps wrote: “Knowledge that there were men and women [Jehovah’s Witnesses] who chose death rather than sacrificing their innermost faith and their deeply held convictions will forever remain for me one of the truly inspiring and ennobling experiences of my life.”

The London Times published a letter from Dr. Bryan Wilson of Oxford University concerning the neutral position of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Zambia and other African countries. In part, Dr. Wilson said: “Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the most upright and diligent of the citizenry of African countries. Were the values that they endorse and by which they live so consistently more widely diffused in Africa, some of the worst social problems from which African countries suffer would be considerably mitigated.”

Regarding the Cuban Witness refugees in Fort Chaffee, the report in the Arkansas Gazette said: “They were the very first to be relocated into new homes because their American ‘brothers and sisters’—fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses—sought them out. . . . When Witnesses call their spiritual counterparts in any land ‘brothers and sisters,’ they really mean it.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses, by putting their trust in God’s kingdom, testify to the fact that true religion, based on the Bible, is a powerful force for peace when it is consistently followed.

[Blurb on page 8]

“The weapons of our warfare are not fleshly.”—2 Corinthians 10:4

How Dangerous Is Atomic Radiation?

YOU don’t see them or feel them, but right now your body is in a relentless crossfire of subatomic particles. Like tiny machine-gun bullets, these particles score enormous numbers of direct hits on your body cells every day. Although they come in different sizes and shapes, hitting you at different speeds and with different effects, they are collectively known as atomic radiation. What is that radiation doing to you?

A simple question, is it not? Perhaps you would like a simple answer. Sad to say, no simple answer is available. The issue of what radiation is doing to people today is one of the most hotly debated subjects in modern science, medicine and even politics.

Perhaps you recall the American nuclear reactor that broke down at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania back in 1979. No one was directly hurt when the accident took place, but some radioactivity was released in the following days as a result of it. Some scientists estimated that the radioactivity might ultimately cause thousands of deaths to local people from cancer. On the other hand, the official report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island stated: “There will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them.”

Who is right? Nobody knows for sure. This is largely because people near Three Mile Island received relatively low doses of radiation from the accident. Scientists generally agree on what happens when you get a very large dose of radiation. High-level radiation will quickly make you very sick, and if you survive, you will have a significantly increased chance of getting cancer in the future. It is the effect of low-level radiation that is not so well understood.

What Is Radiation, Anyway?

Not all radiation is alike. Atomic radiation is basically made up either of tiny pieces of atoms, such as electrons, or of little energy packets called photons. The nuclei of some atoms are unstable and break apart, giving off radiation in the process. These unstable nuclei are said to be radioactive. When atomic particles strike a cell, they give up some energy, just as a speeding bullet gives up some energy when it hits a target.

The cell is usually not prepared to handle this sudden collision. Cells are made of many different kinds of very complicated molecules that must work together in perfect harmony. A particle of atomic radiation will often knock an electron off one of those complicated molecules, turning the molecule into an ion. Ions can be very dangerous to a cell because they tend to get violently involved in reactions with other molecules as they desperately seek to replace the electrons they have lost. These molecular “muggings” can be disastrous for the cell. Unless the cell’s repair systems restore matters, the cellular harmony is disrupted, dangerous combinations of molecules can result and the cell can even die.

Radiation capable of causing these dangerous ions is called, as you may have guessed, ionizing radiation. Lower-energy radiation, such as microwaves, is nonionizing.

Some atomic radiation is made up of particles that are weightless and travel very fast, such as high-energy photons or gamma rays. Similar high-energy photons can be generated by man, without using a radioactive source, and these are usually called X rays. Perhaps your doctor or dentist has taken an X ray of you. Both X rays and gamma rays could be compared to high-velocity rifle bullets. Interestingly, those same photons that are sometimes dangerous as gamma rays are harmless at certain lower energies. Light, for example, is also made up of photons, but we don’t mind a little light! At still lower energies, the photons are called microwaves and these can be dangerous, even though they are nonionizing.

A very different type of atomic radiation comes in the form of beta particles. These particles are heavier than photons and they travel more slowly. In fact, beta particles are just electrons, like the electrons that run down wires to make your toaster work. The only difference is that these high-energy electrons have been violently expelled from a radioactive nucleus. Beta particles and gamma rays tend to produce similar effects when striking one of your cells.

Still different is the alpha particle. Alpha particles are thousands of times heavier than beta particles; so they generally don’t travel as fast or as far. But when your cell is hit by an alpha particle, watch out! If gamma-ray photons and beta particles are like rifle bullets, then alpha particles are like cannonballs, and they can do a great deal of damage inside a cell. While the cell can often repair damage from beta particles or gamma rays, alpha-particle damage is much harder for the cell to repair. Alpha particles are formed when a radioactive atom throws off two protons and two neutrons, all stuck together.

Sometimes radiation can consist of protons and neutrons by themselves. Cosmic rays that bombard the earth from space are mostly caused by high-energy protons, and neutron bombs have been designed that would use high-energy neutrons to penetrate buildings or tanks and kill people.

Since different types of atomic radiation have different effects on people’s cells, scientists do not all agree on just how doses of low-level radiation compare with one another. Are neutrons (which can cause ordinary atoms to become radioactive), twice as bad for your cells as gamma rays, or are they eight times as bad? Are alpha particles eight times or twenty times as bad as gamma rays? Scientists are not sure.

This is significant because different people are exposed to different types of atomic radiation. People who have X rays receive mostly one type, while uranium miners might get heavy doses of another type, and nuclear-fallout victims still another.

Background Radiation

There is one type of radiation to which we are all exposed. That is natural “background” radiation. It comes from the soil we walk on, and from the bricks in our houses, which contain small amounts of radioactive atoms. A little more comes from cosmic rays striking earth’s atmosphere. Another dose is from our own bodies! People contain lots of carbon and potassium, and a tiny fraction of it is radioactive.

The average North American gets about one fourth as much background radiation as do people living in parts of Brazil or India, where there is more radioactive material in the local soil. Is the extra radiation found in Brazil or India dangerous? It might be. On the other hand, background radiation is higher in Colorado than in New York, but cancer rates are lower.

It is very hard to measure the effects of small amounts of radiation. A small dose of radiation does not make you feel bad or make your hair fall out, but it might increase your chances of getting cancer someday. However, suppose you do get cancer. How would you know it was caused by the radiation? It might have been caused by several things. As Dr. Karl Morgan, a nuclear engineer, points out: “A given type of leukaemia may require as many as three successive events (like throwing three electrical switches connected in series). Some of these switches may be thrown by viruses, bacteria, chemicals, mechanical damage or radiation.”

A small dose of radiation might be much more dangerous to one person than to another. A child with severe allergies might be three or four times as likely to get cancer as would a normal child. Perhaps a third child was exposed to radiation when his mother was x-rayed while pregnant with him. This child’s risk of getting leukemia would be 50 percent higher than that of the normal child. But what would happen if the child with allergies had been exposed to those X rays in the womb? His cancer risk would now be, not three or four times, or even six or eight times as high, but fifty times as high as that of the normal child!

“Extra” Radiation

Most people today receive “extra” radiation in addition to what they get from the normal radioactive background. In the United States the average yearly dose of radiation is nearly doubled because of these extra sources, mostly in the form of medical X rays. Could that chest X ray you got last month give you leukemia five years from now? Possibly, but before you panic, remember that all medical procedures—even taking an aspirin—entail some risk. If the benefits of an X ray outweigh the slightly increased cancer risk, then your doctor may advise an X ray with good reason.

Another increasingly common source of extra radiation is energy conservation in the form of home insulation! How can that be? Well, most common building materials contain a few radioactive atoms of radium. These atoms gradually decay into lead, passing through several stages in the process. At one point the radium atoms have turned into radon, which is a radioactive gas. As long as the radium atoms remained radium, they were trapped inside crystals in the bricks or stones of your house. But when they turn into radon they get loose, and some of them diffuse into the air in your home.

When you breathe air with radon atoms in it, some of those atoms may get trapped in your lungs, where they will quickly decay into lead, giving off alpha particles in the process. Remember the alpha particles? These are the subatomic “cannonballs” that can do so much damage to your cells. If a radium atom decays into lead while it is trapped in your wall, the alpha particles it gives off will never get to you. Alpha particles have a hard time traveling very far even through the air. But once you have breathed in a former radium atom (in the form of radon) and those alpha particles are fired right inside your body, they can be very harmful.

The dangers of radon gas have been established by generations of uranium miners who have suffered high levels of lung cancer. No one would be too surprised to learn that uranium miners have high levels of cancer, but why lung cancer? Because uranium mines contain high concentrations of radon gas (modern mines are now much better ventilated) and the alpha radiation from the gas contributes to lung cancer.

So radiation is not just something you get from your local nuclear power plant. You get it from your own slightly radioactive bones, from medical X rays, from your color TV (which gives off a few X rays), from your airplane flight (cosmic rays are more intense at high altitudes) and from your well-insulated, energy-efficient home.

How dangerous is low-level radiation? Nobody knows for sure, but taking reasonable precautions against needless exposure cannot be a bad idea!

[Blurb on page 10]

If X rays and gamma rays are like high-velocity rifle bullets inside the cell, then alpha particles are like cannonballs

[Blurb on page 11]

If the benefits of an X ray outweigh the slightly increased cancer risk, then your doctor may advise an X ray with good reason

[Box on page 12]

Precautions You Can Take

Avoid watches and clocks with glowing radium paint. Radium emits alpha particles and gives off radon gas. Discard such items if the crystal is cracked.

Keep radioactive identification cards or driving licenses in a proper protective cover.

Keep track of your X rays and don’t ask your doctor for X rays he doesn’t think you need. When given an X ray, ask for proper shielding.

If you have a color TV, keep it in good repair and watch it from a distance.

If you have to work around radiation, follow safety precautions strictly.

Make sure your house is properly ventilated to guard against radon-gas buildup. This can be done without sacrificing energy efficiency by using heat exchangers.

[Picture on page 9]

Three Mile Island

“Secular Humanism”—New Religion or Old Philosophy?

Protestant preachers accuse ‘secular humanism’ of conspiring against belief in God and moral values. Self-proclaimed ‘humanists’ say they are victims of a witch-hunt. Just what is humanism, and how should a Christian respond to it?

“SECULAR humanism has become the religion of America,” says television evangelist Jerry Falwell. “We must remove all humanists from public office and replace them with pro-moral political leaders” warns preacher Tim LaHaye, who has written a book about ‘the humanist threat.’

Such statements have recently attracted attention and generated alarm in the American press. “The fundamentalist New Right has shifted its . . . tactics to confront a new bogyman,” comments Newsweek magazine. “The target is what Christian fundamentalists label ‘humanism’—and their campaign against anyone they regard as a humanist threatens to become as virulent as the anti-communist crusade of the 1950s.”

Just what is “secular humanism”? According to Time magazine: “It has grown into a New Rightist code word for the precepts and practices of almost anyone this side of Communism who disagrees with them.”

Actually, there are almost as many definitions of “humanism” as there are “humanists”—or “antihumanists.” Traditionally, humanism is associated with the Renaissance. At that time Europe, and especially Italy, was being flooded by ancient manuscripts from Byzantium, which was under siege by the Turks. This resulted in a wave of enthusiasm for ancient Greek and Roman culture by people who were tired of dreary medieval scholasticism. After a thousand years of studying God under the oppressive hand of the Catholic Church, Renaissance Europeans were thrilled to imitate the ancients and glorify man for a change.

“The free thought and conduct of Periclean Greeks or Augustan Romans filled many humanists with an envy that shattered in their hearts the Christian code of humility, otherworldliness, continence,” observes historian Will Durant, “and they wondered why they should subject body, mind, and soul to the rule of ecclesiastics who themselves were now joyously converted to the world.”

But the Renaissance humanists threw out the Christian baby with the religionist bathwater. “By and large,” as Durant notes, they “acted as if Christianity were a myth . . . not to be taken seriously by emancipated minds.”

In the following centuries the study of the ancient classics became almost a new religion for European humanists. But the more the ancients were studied, the more it had to be admitted that their ideas were often mistaken, and even the greatest classics were far from perfect. By the 19th century “the classical civilizations . . . had to be transferred from an ideal realm to one of historical relativity,” as the Encyclopædia Britannica notes. What could the humanists believe in now?

The answer, at least for some humanists, came in 1933 with the publication in the United States of a document called the Humanist Manifesto. “It was substantially a profession of anthropological atheism based on the theory of evolution,” according to scholar Cornelio Fabro. This was followed in 1973 by Humanist Manifesto II, which denounced religion in favor of the scientific method. Science had become the new god for these humanists. Among those signing Humanist Manifesto II were several clergymen.

So it is easy to understand why conservative preachers of Christendom are upset with humanism. Of course, documents such as the Humanist Manifestos do not reflect the beliefs of all humanists, and this very confusion among humanists about their identity indicates trouble. “The unity and identity of humanistic scholarship are now finally shattered,” admits Professor of Philosophy Georges Paul Gusdorf.

Humanists are fond of quoting ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras, who said that “man is the measure of all things.” By this he meant that absolute truth cannot be found. Such thinking cannot coexist with true Christianity, for Christians are convinced that they have indeed found the truth, and that it has set them free. (John 8:32) Christians appreciate that Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus Christ, are the “measure of all things.”—Ephesians 5:1; 1 Peter 2:21.

It is appropriate, then, for Christians to speak out against humanism, whether in its atheistic or in its “classical” guise. A true Christian could not accept the tenets of humanism without compromising his own integrity to God.

But does the Bible authorize Christians to confront humanism on a political battlefield, as the so-called religious right seeks to do? No! When battling false ideas in the first century, did the Apostle Paul turn to politics? Not at all. “The weapons of our [spiritual] warfare are not fleshly,” he said. “For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.”—2 Corinthians 10:4, 5.

The various forms of humanism popular today are certainly ‘lofty things raised up against the knowledge of God,’ but true Christians do not battle humanism with ‘fleshly weapons’ such as political warfare. How can they, when Jesus made it clear that his followers are “no part of the world”? (John 15:19) Instead, true Christians are happy to carry on spiritual warfare against humanism and all the other “isms” of our confused times. How? By going directly to people all over the earth with God’s Word, the only real source of truth, and the reliable “measure of all things.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

[Blurb on page 14]

True Christians conduct spiritual warfare against humanism, but they don’t confront it on a political battlefield

[Blurb on page 14]

Humanist Manifesto—‘atheism based on the theory of evolution’

Evolution and Passion

BRITISH columnist Christopher Booker takes a neutral position in the creation-evolution controversy. Recently he commented on the “passion” he has observed on both sides. “The Creationists passionately deny that there was any such thing as evolution,” he wrote in his “Saturday Column” for London’s Daily Telegraph. So he reasoned that a thinking person might “turn to the scientific world for a more plausible, rationally argued explanation—only to find an equal display of passion behind every kind of ‘evolutionist’ position, many of them quite incompatible with one another.”

“The trouble is that, for all the sophistication it has gathered from research into molecular biology, Darwinian ‘natural selection’ is just a theory,” Booker observed, “and furthermore, it is a theory riddled with the most enormous holes and question marks.”

Booker illustrated with the problem of “‘jumps’ in the evolutionary ladder . . . such as the emergence of the eye, or of all the factors which distinguish birds from every other kind of creature.” He noted that even the latest theory, which suggests relatively large evolutionary jumps among isolated groupings, must admit to “some intermediate stage, of a creature lumbered with a membrane as yet insufficiently developed to enable it to fly, while so retarding the former agility . . . that it would have hindered rather than aided survival.” The columnist then charged:

“The more orthodox Darwinians not only manage not to ‘see’ the importance of such questions. Revealingly they simply fall back with redoubled fervour on mere dogmatic assertions, and take refuge yet again in those one or two favourite case-histories . . . which seem to confirm them in their comfortable faith, while leaving all the really interesting questions totally unanswered.

“The key word is ‘faith.’ To the reasonably detached observer there is nothing more obvious about Darwinians, in all their varieties and sects, than that ultimately they are just as much resting their account of the origins and evolution of life on sheer faith and unsubstantiated belief as the ‘Creationists’ they so hotly deride.

“Their ‘myth’ is one which enables them to see the whole mystery of life as the product of blind, mechanistic forces without any guiding ‘mind’ or ‘purpose’—and that therefore we can enjoy our place as the triumphant end-product of this process without feeling that we ‘owe it to anyone.’ Comforting this may be—but there is nothing in the strictest sense ‘scientific’ about this set of beliefs.”

[Picture on page 15]

Evolution Is Fact!!!

How Can I Make Real Friends?

Young People Ask . . .

How Can I Make Real Friends?

JEFF felt that making friends was simple. After all, while in school, he had as many as anyone could want. But fresh out of school he moved to a new city. Then an unusual thing happened—he discovered how difficult it was for him to make new friends.

“I was absolutely lonely,” said Jeff. “The skills that I needed to be relaxed and comfortable to meet new people were skills that I simply didn’t have. I stayed for six months—and it was the toughest time of my life.”

This young man’s experience is common. As a young person, you too may realize that you don’t need to go to a new city to feel friendless. Making friends can be hard. Why is this?

You Cannot Rush It

Some feel that a real friendshipa can blossom and become full grown overnight. We live in an age where we have come to expect “instant service”—everything from instant foods to instant friendship. But real intimacy comes about by the sharing of experiences and feelings over a period of time.

However, certain skills can help you to get the process started and make progress smoother. These skills were exemplified by a man who built friendships so binding that his friends willingly died for him. He also suffered and died because of his deep love for his friends. What did this man, Jesus Christ, do to create such deep friendships? How can we imitate him and have similar success?

“An Active Interest in Others”

Jesus cared for people. He reached out and actively helped others. His interest in others was not merely a wishful notion, but he got involved because he ‘wanted to.’ (Matthew 8:3) This built deep friendships then and will do the same today.

For example, a modern-day young man who was especially successful in making friends was asked how he did it. He imitated Jesus’ interest in others. “It’s having a real love for people and taking an active interest in others,” said David. “One of the biggest things is to know the person’s name. Others are often impressed that you cared enough to remember their name. Because of this they may share some experience or problem with you and the friendship starts to build.”

‘Does this mean I have to be a hand-pumping extrovert? That’s just not me!’ may be the reaction of some. Care for people is not always shown in this way. Jesus was “lowly in heart,” so he was not flamboyant or showy. (Matthew 11:28, 29) It is the sincere interest in others that ‘reaches’ them. For instance, there was an obscure grower and seller of plants, who was described by a fellow townsman as the “shyest man I ever met.” However, when this nurseryman died, his funeral was the largest in the history of his little hometown. Why?

“Hubert knew how to make friends,” recalled Alan Loy McGinnis in his book The Friendship Factor. “He had mastered the principles of caring, and for more than 60 years he had put people first.” Is that what you do? By placing more emphasis on people and doing things together, rather than on material possessions, you will develop many lasting friendships. Often the simplest settings, such as sharing a meal together or assisting a friend with some task, can serve to deepen a friendship.

“The Road to the Heart”

“Pay attention to how you listen,” recommended Jesus. He knew the value of his words to those who would listen and heed his message. (Luke 8:18) But being a good listener is also vital to building a friendship. “Sometimes you need somebody who will just listen,” said 22-year-old Guy. “This willingness to listen is what brings the closeness.” Yes, it is just as Voltaire wrote: “The road to the heart is the ear.”

If we are genuinely interested in what others are saying, they usually are drawn to us. But this requires your “keeping an eye, not in personal interest upon just your own matters [perhaps on just what you want to say], but also in personal interest upon those of the others.”—Philippians 2:4.

So ask yourself, When others talk do I really listen or am I thinking of what to say next? Do I ask questions to draw others out? By my gestures or facial expressions, do I show I’m involved in the conversation?

Be Loyal

Jesus stuck with his friends. He “loved them to the end.” (John 13:1) Realizing this, 22-year-old Gordon, after acquiring a close friendship with his companion, said: “The main quality of a friend is his loyalty. Will he really stick with you when times get rough? My friend and I would defend each other when others would say some belittling remarks. We really stuck up for each other—but only if we were in the right.”

Such loyalty is indeed appreciated since today there is so much hypocrisy and backbiting. “There exist companions disposed to break one another to pieces [or, to “break” that one’s reputation by gossip], but there exists a friend sticking closer than a brother.”—Proverbs 18:24.

Share Your Feelings

Jesus’ willingness to reveal his most tender feelings endeared his friends to him. At times he revealed that he “felt pity,” “felt love,” and was “deeply grieved.” He at least on one occasion “gave way to tears.” Jesus was not embarrassed to lay bare his heart to those whom he trusted.—Matthew 9:36; Mark 10:21; Matthew 26:38; John 11:35.

Quite naturally, you can’t wear your emotions like an open book and flood a casual acquaintance with all your apprehensions. “You have to be yourself,” stated 14-year-old Felicia. Be honest with others. When people wear emotional “masks,” they become distant. Learning to have empathy, “fellow feeling,” for others, and to ‘suffer’ with them is essential if you would build meaningful friendships.—1 Peter 3:8.

However, note a word of caution. When you choose as a close friend someone of the opposite sex, there is always the danger of becoming romantically involved. It is easy to become emotionally dependent on that one. Therefore, if either of you is not in a position to marry, untold heartaches can follow. Far better to look for a close friend from among those of your own sex until you are ready to seek out a marriage partner.

Do Not Expect Perfection

There are going to be some awkward moments in making friends. “We all make mistakes in all kinds of ways, but the man who can claim that he never says a wrong thing can consider himself perfect.” (James 3:2, Phillips) Many persons can testify that by working hard at cultivating friends, they have enjoyed many lasting friendships.

Even when a friendship has been made, don’t expect perfection. One young man raised in the countryside, an only child, developed a strong friendship with a young man who had known only big-city life and was one of five children. How did they manage with such different backgrounds? “You have to be willing to give,” said Presley. “That’s a large part of friendship. You have your own feelings about things but you’re willing to give in to make room for your friend’s feelings and opinions.”

Yes, all of this costs time and emotional involvement. But not loving will cost you much more. You will pay with a life of empty loneliness. However, be assured that by imitating Jesus in showing genuine concern for people you will be able to say to some, as did Jesus, “You are my friends.”—John 15:14.

[Footnotes]

a A discussion of what actually is a real friend and the need to be selective in choosing such appeared in the March 8, 1982, Awake!

[Picture on page 16]

Do you have trouble in making friends?

[Picture on page 17]

Do you really listen when others speak?

My Life as an Australian Aborigine

As told by Janet Strange

MY CHILDHOOD memories are of living with my mother on the waterless Nullarbor Plain of South Australia. To white people the Nullarbor, meaning “no tree,” is inhospitable. But to me it was home.

I was the youngest of four daughters. My tribal name is Nabonangu, but the local church missionary called me Janet. Daily we children would go with mother in search of food. We gathered wild berries and hunted small animals. In fact, we could chase a lizard up a tree, literally “walking” up bent double, with our fingers clutching the bark and our toes dug in. With ease, we could mimic animal or bird calls and could track a lizard.

Tracking was taught by my mother’s releasing a lizard and having us follow its tracks. I was good at this, and could even tell if an animal was in a hurry. But I was not so good as Mum. I remember visiting another camp and hearing her remark, “So and So is here.” She knew this from that one’s tracks among many others, but I could see no difference.

Water was always a problem. But we survived by remembering water holes and soaks, by shaking dew from trees, by collecting water gathered in the forks of trees or by tapping the roots of the Casuarina tree.

We cultivated our land, but in a way different from the white man. We endeavored to live with the land; they seemed to live off it. I was taught to preserve, never to destroy. We would not fell a tree or break a branch without good cause, and we sought the propagation of every living species, guarding against their extinction. As an example, in seasons of shortage some tribes would scatter seeds for the wild turkey.

Aboriginal tribes were always on the trek, covering vast circuits and being governed by climate, weather, seasons, game migrations, the seeding of plants and the fruiting of trees. Our lives depended on keeping on the move. On trek the men took the lead, with the aged, the women and the children in the rear.

Mothers would breast-feed their young for up to six years. In times of serious drought, in some tribes an expectant mother might force an abortion with certain herbs, for, unlike those of other races, she had no access to milch animals for an alternative milk supply. For the same reason, if a mother died, her babe might be put to death. This might be done also in the case of malformed babes or one of twins. Sadly so.

Aboriginal children were hardy—they had to be to survive. As soon as they were old enough, they were assigned tasks. Each member of the tribe carried something—the girls carrying babies and the boys toting spears and digging-sticks.

The “Civilizing” of My People

Around the age of five, changes began to take place in my life. The government had selected our tribal land for nuclear testing and made our tribe move farther south. During the years that followed, we became more and more dependent on handouts of tea, flour, sugar and vegetables distributed through church missions. Efforts were made to “civilize” and educate many of the children, and particularly the part-Aboriginal children, those who had white fathers. I was one of these.

Alert to these circumstances, my mother wanted me to receive some education, but not at the mission schools. The reason for this preference was that children would be taken from their parents and put into these schools to learn to read and write and to be indoctrinated into the creeds of a certain religion. Because it was felt that parental contact and influence hindered that policy, children were often taken away. That happened to my older sister, and mother did not want it to happen to me. At times, such children would escape from the mission, and men would come in search of them, or would get the police to do so. Hence, whenever a stranger came into the camp, Mum would make me lie hidden beneath a blanket, where I hardly dared to breathe until his purpose was known.

It was to get around this problem that Mum fostered me to a kindly-natured white woman who had cared for other Aboriginal children. She had taught them to read and write and had encouraged parental contact. When I was 12, however, this elderly lady died. Mum wept.

Mum did not want to undo the good done so far, and therefore allowed me to go to another white family, in Port Augusta. This family was well known by our people. When I arrived, the lady in this family was studying the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I would sit and listen, and I started accompanying the lady to meetings held at the Kingdom Hall. Later, I began to study the Bible myself, and, still later, we became Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In time, I became a welfare worker among Aboriginal people. A higher education at the Institute of Technology was offered to me, but I did not accept it. By then I had a different kind of ‘welfare work’ in mind. As a dedicated servant of Jehovah, I became a full-time teacher of the Bible. In this work I moved from place to place, on trek now in a much better way. Because of my knowledge of Aborigines, their languages and problems, I concentrated on meeting these.

“Dreamtime”

Most of what I have told you so far is from personal memory. But Aborigines have another memory, a sort of tribal memory that some call “dreamtime.” This embraces tribal history, customs and folklore. There is a saying, “He who loses his dreaming is himself lost.”

This “dreaming” often includes stories of an ancient ancestor who is believed to have traveled through the land forming the physical features of the country. This helps to explain why an Aborigine may be quite lost outside his territory or “country.” He loves his “country” and feels relaxed and happy when he is there, because only there, he believes, is he really at one with his ancestors. The “dreaming” is transmitted from one generation to the next by song, dance and demonstration at special gatherings called corrobories. Beliefs like these are held deeply by many Aborigines down to this day.

Our Languages

In spite of having some 300 different languages (fragmented, they say, from one original), Aboriginal tribes can communicate quite well. Some have reduced their language to what has been called hieroglyphic geometric writing. Our grammar is complex.

One anthropologist writes: “They have the verb ‘to be’ in a sense to which we whites can lay no claim. It unites the perfection of the Latin and Saxon verb with those of the Celtic and goes beyond the powers of either.” He then goes on to say of our sign language: “It has developed to the point where it has become a viable alternative to spoken language, a sophisticated subtlety of intellectual development comparatively rare in patterns of human communication.” We talk in signs between tribes, and when hunting, because silence is important then.

A Sad Story

Besides learning from experience, tuition and tribal “dreamtime,” I had now acquired a new mode of education—a love of reading. It was from books that I learned the history of my people’s early experiences with the white man, and it was not nice reading. It told of Captain Cook’s arriving in 1770 and, from his ship in Botany Bay, sighting smoke rising from shore. The lone smoke signal represented an estimated 300,000 Aborigines then living a full and relatively happy life. Their number now, after 200 years, is down to 50,000 full and 150,000 part Aborigines. The others? That is part of the sad story.

The word “civilized” denotes being civil, courteous, opposed to violence and crime. We were, I feel, civilized. Each tribe had its territories and respected the boundaries of others. We cared for our land, never exploiting it. Periodically, tribes met to trade, exchange information and arrange marriages.

But those early settlers did not view us as being civilized. With the gun and their inadequate understanding of the Bible, they sought to thrust upon us their own concept of civilization, which involved owning, fencing and farming the land—something quite foreign to the Aborigines. However, the Aborigines had good reason for their own methods, as indicated by Mrs. M. Bennet, a member of the Council of Aboriginal Rights, who wrote:

“There are no indigenous animals that can be domesticated, and there are no indigenous plants that can be cultivated for food. You cannot ‘herd’ kangaroos nor plough with them. You cannot in fertile Queensland bring and bury a pine seedling to give you a crop of nuts in your lifetime, nor in Central Australia cultivate nardoo with a five-inch rainfall of doubtful occurrence. Under these limitations, it was impossible for people to be pastoralists, agriculturists or city builders.”

Since the newly arrived boat people violated our tribal laws on trespass, we resisted. Now from coast to coast and sea to sea, atrocities started to abound. Guns confronted spears, and a race was almost completely wiped out.

And so the land was taken over. In the name of progress, development and civilization, our forests fell to the woodman’s ax, and essential rainfall lessened. Sharp-hooved exotic animals, cattle and sheep by the millions, displaced soft-pawed kangaroos, chopping the fragile topsoil and contributing to formation of sand dunes. Chemical farming boosted cash crops but damaged the ecology. Animals unique to Australia and the world have been brought to near or complete extinction. Enormous iron, bauxite and other mines scar the landscape, while their treatment plants pollute land, water and air.

Through all of this, the original inhabitants have been herded into mission and other settlements, or live in shanty dwellings on the outskirts of towns. As what might be termed final indignities, we are now allowed to enter pubs where the owners permit us to drink our government allowances, and a law has now recognized us as citizens in a land that we inhabited long before those who made this law.

A Future That Offers Hope

To an extent, religion has played a part in the developments just mentioned as the settlers sought to “civilize” and supposedly Christianize my people. So can you understand my feelings when I read in my Bible that in “Babylon the Great,” the world empire of false religion, “was found the blood . . . of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth”? (Revelation 18:2, 24) Or can you comprehend my reactions as I go on to read of her near end at the hands of Christ Jesus, or my joy at learning how his kingdom will result in righteous, loving rule over the earth? Do you wonder why I am eager to share this happy news with others of my people?—Revelation 18:20.

Today my people seem to be rootless and without purpose. Overdrinking, quarrels and fights are frequent. We no longer belong to the past, nor have we a satisfying place in the present. But the future holds hope for many of us—the hope of seeing soon the “revealing of the sons of God,” when all human creation—whites and Aborigines, as well as people of all races—”will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God” under the rule of God’s kingdom.—Romans 8:18-21.

My desire is to reach fellow Aborigines with this grand hope. As an Aborigine, I feel suited for this because, understandably, Aborigines are slow to trust whites. In past years, many self-sacrificing white servants of Jehovah such as Des Paterson, Colin Maples and Ben Brickell traveled vast distances to take this hope to my people. There are stories of much personal privation experienced in this activity, and also of appreciative groups assembling to hear the message of God’s kingdom. My desire, and that of my husband, is to continue the work started years ago.

All over the country some of my people are grasping the importance of the Kingdom message and are responding to it. They are discerning that a view held in common by whites, Aborigines and most other people on earth is erroneous. It is that Australia belongs to Aborigines by right of original discovery or to the whites by right of conquest. Neither is true. It belongs to Jehovah God by right of creation.—Revelation 4:11.

Jehovah is the One to say who owns Australia and all the rest of the earth. I am happy that our Aborigines are represented among those who appreciate this truth.

[Blurb on page 21]

We endeavored to live with the land; the white man seemed to live off it

[Blurb on page 21]

We talk in signs between tribes and when hunting

[Blurb on page 22]

Atrocities started to abound. Guns confronted spears, and a race was almost completely wiped out

[Blurb on page 23]

Australia belongs to Aborigines by right of discovery? Or to whites by right of conquest? Neither. It belongs to Jehovah God by right of creation

[Pictures on page 20]

Animals Native to Australia

Kangaroo

Platypus

Wombat

Koala

Psychiatry Goes to the Dogs

—and to the cats and birds and reptiles and rats!

DOGS are succeeding where psychiatrists have failed. They don’t use a couch or drugs, but their bedside manner is overpowering—an open, warm, exuberant, unconditional acceptance. And not just dogs, but also other animals of various shapes and sizes are surpassing the psychiatrists. Pets are invading mental hospitals, nursing homes and institutions for homeless or retarded children.

Dr. Anthony Calabro of the Feeling Heart Foundation explains what the dogs accomplish: “The problem with residents in these institutions often is that they don’t interact with anyone. They live in isolation, it’s emotionally cold, they have nothing to do, they’re unloved. Many have lost all sense of responsibility and in some cases have very few possessions. They’re just existing, not living.” The dogs break through these people’s shells.

Dr. Calabro explains: “Dogs give love—unconditional love. They ask for attention, and when someone responds, they give love and security and warmth in return, with no strings attached.” Some psychiatrists resist pet therapy, Calabro says. “They say, ‘Here we are, spending 10 or 15 years in school learning all about psychiatry and drugs, and all these people do is bring a dog in and look what happens. There’s got to be more to it than that!’”

There is, of course, more to it than that. But when the “that” provides a feeling of love “with no strings attached,” it is potent. Calabro elaborates: “Animals don’t cure people, but they open avenues of communication and caring. They’re ice-breakers, you know, just to get the individual to open up.”

Dr. Samuel Corson, professor of psychiatry, has used dogs and sometimes cats as cotherapists and has “produced encouraging results in 28 of 30 patients who had failed to respond to traditional treatments, including electroshock therapy and drugs.”

Lima State Hospital in Ohio, a maximum security facility for the criminally insane, uses smaller animals in its pet-therapy program: birds, fish, gerbils, guinea pigs, and so forth. Here are some examples:

One patient said nothing for four months. The staff gave him a cockatiel. This parrot slept in a cage by his bed at night and perched on his shoulder during the day. He started talking to the bird, and in two months he was talking with people.

A depressed patient got involved with two baby guinea pigs. Their mother had rejected them, so the patient took over, bottle-feeding them every two hours. They depended on him. He was needed.

A suicidal patient was serving time for armed robbery. He was uncooperative, antisocial. He was given a bird to care for. “I had never felt compassion,” he said. Now this changed. He became a student of ornithology, and upon his release hopes to encourage other institutions to adopt pet-therapy programs.

Patients’ anxieties lessened and they could express love to their pets without fear of rejection. Later they opened up with people, first talking about the care of their pets. They began to feel a responsibility. They felt needed, something depended on them.

Boys from 7 to 18 years of age are sent to a certain children’s home by court order. Some have never had a real home, some were mistreated by parents, some are mentally retarded, and others were transferred from state reformatories. But they all have something in common—Tiger, an ordinary, everyday house cat. One troubled youngster, wild and uncontrollable, began spending all his time with Tiger. Affection grew between them, the boy became calm and trusting, and his relations with students and teachers improved.

In a children’s psychiatric hospital in Michigan, Skeezer, a mixed-breed dog, roams a ward, offering its companionship to any child in need. Few can resist him, and they can offer their friendship without fear of rejection. Stop and think: A dog, looking for affection, may put its head in your lap and look at you with big, brown eyes. Or a cat may purr and rub against your legs. Their requests are unmistakable. And, for most of us, irresistible.

Other studies have shown pets helpful for physical ailments. At the University of Maryland Hospital in Baltimore it was found that heart patients with pets had a much better chance of survival after they left the hospital than did those without pets. Of 92 patients, one year after release 11 of the 39 without pets had died, while only three of the 53 pet owners had died.

Psychiatrist Aaron Katcher of the University of Pennsylvania says: “As people get older they are needed less by family and friends, and often feel abandoned. This feeling of uselessness results in depression. A pet fills the void.”

Other studies show that having a pet reduces blood pressure. On a NOVA telecast about “touching,” Katcher said: “You’re gently calming the animal, and we know the animal’s heart rate falls just the way the person’s heart rate falls.” On another occasion Katcher claimed that “a heart patient’s chances of survival are increased threefold if he has a pet.”

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, March 22, 1982