Awake!, November 8, 1984

Awake! — November 8, 1984

Source: jw.org

Contents

Page Two

Prejudice—Everyone’s Problem

The Workings of Prejudice

Prejudice Can Be Conquered!

Church Mural Repair Bill

Honey Heals

Life and Peace—By What Means?

A Look at Canada’s New Constitution

Is There Anything I Can Watch on TV?

Word-Search Game

A Tragic “Holy Week” in Popayán

Problems in “Paradise”

Jehovah’s Praise Heard in the Islands

How About a Meal-in-One Pancake?

From Our Readers

Watching the World

Does It Matter Which Bible You Use?

Does God Torment Souls?

Page Two

In our age of enlightenment, prejudice should be a thing of the past. Yet more and more individuals and groups feel that they are victims of prejudice. What is the cause of prejudice? Can it be overcome? Thought-provoking information on these questions are presented in the following articles

Prejudice—Everyone’s Problem 3

The Workings of Prejudice 4

Prejudice Can Be Conquered! 7

Prejudice—Everyone’s Problem

“WHY don’t you come on in tomorrow?” asked the prospective employer. “I’m sure we can fix you up with a job.” Yvonne hung up the phone, confident that the job was hers. Office work was going to be a nice change of pace from the housekeeping jobs she had done since quitting college.

Arriving for her new job the next day, Yvonne found the woman she had spoken to over the phone and introduced herself. But as the woman again heard Yvonne’s “odd” last name, this time connecting it with her obviously Oriental features, the woman’s jaw dropped. “She nervously hemmed and hawed,” recalls Yvonne, “and finally she told me there was no job available.” But Yvonne knew why it was back to scanning the “help wanted” ads: racial prejudice.

Whose Problem?

Talk of prejudice understandably makes most of us feel a bit uneasy. Few topics are so controversial—or emotional. Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored or shrugged away as if it were someone else’s problem. Bias infects almost every sphere of human relationships. Long-held myths of male superiority sentence many women to low wages and minimal job opportunities. Religious differences fuel violence in Ireland. French-speaking Canadians clash with their English-speaking countrymen. In India, though the caste system is outlawed, caste Hindus refuse to walk on the same side of the street as “Untouchables.” European social levels based on wealth and traditional prestige pit upper classes against commoners. Even in countries such as Brazil, where black and white mingle freely, some observers report an undercurrent of racial hostility.

Exaggerated cultural pride erects barriers even among members of the same race, as illustrated by the experience of Kalu and Dupe. Though both native Nigerians, Dupe’s mother (of the Yoruba tribe) forbade her to marry someone from the Igbo tribe. Kalu’s father likewise rejected Dupe, saying: “If you marry a Yoruba girl, do not consider yourself my son.”

Prejudice is therefore more than an issue of race or a conflict of black versus white. It is a seemingly universal reaction to different languages, cultures and social levels. And whether erupting into violence or simmering below the boiling point, prejudice can have painful consequences: poverty, harassment, loss of human dignity for its victims, and pangs of guilt and a troubled conscience for a majority of its perpetrators. Where prejudice exists, so too does a climate of fear, uncertainty and anxiety. Whole areas are declared off limits because of racial tension. Potential friendships are poisoned by needless distrust and misunderstanding.

Prejudice, therefore, truly is “everyone’s problem.” But from where does prejudice come? Why have man’s best efforts to eradicate it failed? In order to gain some insight into these questions, let us focus on a widespread form of prejudice: racial bias.

The Workings of Prejudice

A researcher asked a man his opinion of a certain ethnic group. “They are moody and quick-tempered,” he replied. “It is in their blood.”

“Have you ever known any . . . personally?” the man was asked.

‘Yes, one. He was our class president in high school.’

‘Did this “class president” fit your image of them?’

“No,” he admitted, “he was calm and pleasant.”

‘Then the “moodiness and quick temper” could not really have been “in his blood,” could they?’

After a pause the man replied: “He was an exception.”

TO BE prejudiced (to “prejudge”) is to judge others without giving them the benefit of a fair trial. A perfect stranger is thus summarily pronounced “lazy,” “devious” or “dangerous” without any evidence, only a preconceived idea. This is because the biased person sees, not individuals, but groups. To him, members of an ethnic group are “all alike,” clones, with no individuality. And as in the example above, the prejudiced one will often defend his bias to the bitter end, even when the facts prove him wrong. As the magazine Psychology Today noted, prejudiced people “tend to notice and remember the ways in which [a] person seems to fit the stereotype, while resisting evidence that contradicts the stereotype.”

Prejudice feeds on itself. People cast into an unfavorable mold so often lose their self-esteem that they actually live up to low expectations. Or what the Bible says at Ecclesiastes 7:7 results: “For mere oppression may make a wise one act crazy.” Victims of oppression can become consumed with resentment. They can become so sensitized to bias that they at times overreact and see prejudice where none really exists. Any person of another race is viewed either with undue suspicion or as a potential enemy. Bigotry is thus not monopolized by any one race or nationality.

Once prejudice gets a hold on a person’s thinking, he can find himself disliking just about all ethnic groups. Some college students were once asked to express their feelings toward 32 real nations and races plus 3 fictitious groups (“Daniereans,” “Pireneans” and “Wallonians”). Strange as it may seem, students who were prejudiced against real ethnic groups found “Daniereans,” “Pireneans” and “Wallonians” just as distasteful.

Prejudice—How Manifested?

A prejudiced person is not necessarily hostile. Nor is he necessarily like the man who hypocritically declares that ‘some of his best friends’ belong to this or that group but recoils at the thought of having such ones as neighbors—or in-laws. There are degrees of bias. A prejudiced individual may indeed have friends of another race but ever so subtly reveal lingering feelings of superiority. He may try their patience by making tasteless, racially oriented remarks. Or rather than treating them as equals, he might assume a patronizing air, acting as though by making them his friends he is conferring a favor upon them.

Another way a person reveals prejudice is by demanding a higher standard of performance from certain ones, though giving them less recognition. And if such ones fail, he might be prone to attribute the failure to reasons of race. Or he may condemn in one race conduct that he tolerates in his own. Nevertheless, such a person would fiercely resent any suggestion that he is prejudiced, so complete is the self-deception. As the psalmist once said: “He has acted too smoothly to himself in his own eyes to find out his error so as to hate it.”—Psalm 36:2.

“By the Time They Are Four Years Old”

Why, though, do people become prejudiced? How early in life is prejudice acquired? In his classic work entitled The Nature of Prejudice, social psychologist Gordon W. Allport noted the tendency of the human mind to “think with the aid of categories.” This is apparent even in small children. They soon learn to discern between men and women, dogs and cats, trees and flowers—and even “black” and “white.” Contrary to the notion that small children are “color blind,” researchers agree that toddlers exposed to a variety of races will soon begin noticing “differences in physical attributes such as skin color, facial features, hair types, and so forth. Children . . . generally achieve full awareness of racial groups by the time they are four years old.”—Parents magazine, July 1981.

But does simply noticing these differences make children prejudiced? Not necessarily. A recent study reported in Child Development, however, claimed that “5-year-olds enter kindergarten with clear preferences for interacting with same-color peers.” Even more disturbing was the observation that “the tendency of children to select play partners of the same color increases during the kindergarten year.” (Italics ours.) Other researchers have similarly concluded that small children are often aware not only of race but also of the implications of race. A four-year-old girl named Joan once made this chilling statement: “The people that are white, they can go up. The people that are brown, they have to go down.”

How children develop such bias is a puzzle to researchers. Strongly suspect, though, is the influence of a child’s parents. True, few parents may directly order their children not to play with children of another race. Nevertheless, if a child observes that his parents are biased toward or just ill at ease with someone of another race, he might similarly assume negative attitudes himself. Cultural differences, peer and media influence, and other factors can then combine to reinforce this prejudice.

Bad Experiences

For some people, though, prejudice appears to be an overreaction to a bad experience. One young German woman accompanied her husband on a work project in Africa. There she ran into problems. She felt that some of the people were prejudiced against her both as a woman and as a European. The attitudes of some also shocked her Europe-bred sensibilities. Dwelling on the problems caused by just a few resulted in her coming to dislike all black people!

Likewise with a West Indian student who was living in the United States some 20 years ago. Although neatly dressed and courteous, he was refused service in a restaurant, being told: “We do not serve people like you here.” Not having previously been exposed to racial discrimination and unaware of the racial tensions existing at the time, he tried to demand service—resulting in his immediate arrest! Although the mayor of the city ordered his release and reprimanded the police, this incident embittered him. Years later he still harbors animosity against white people.

In other cases, as pointed out in The Nature of Prejudice, putting others down seems to gratify man’s insatiable hunger for status. It is to ‘think more of himself than is necessary.’ (Romans 12:3) Myths of racial superiority might also be developed so as to “justify” the oppression of a certain group. For example, during the infamous years of the slave trade in the United States, it was popular for blacks to be declared mentally inferior, or subhuman. So common were these beliefs that even American President Thomas Jefferson, an outspoken critica of slavery, once expressed a “suspicion” that “the blacks . . . are inferior to the whites in the endowment both of mind and body.” Though science has proved such notions untenable, racism lingers.

Why? The most basic reason is clearly shown in the Bible, though overlooked by researchers: “That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” (Romans 5:12) Inherited sin has warped the way man thinks and views matters. Rather than be intrigued or delighted by differences, man reacts with fear and insecurity. And even out of a small child’s imperfect heart there can come a frightening array of “wicked reasonings” that grow into destructive prejudices. (Matthew 15:19) Is it possible, then, for prejudice to be conquered?

[Footnotes]

Jefferson authored the American Declaration of Independence that declared “all men are created equal.” He once called slavery “an assemblage of horrors” but was himself a slave owner.

[Blurb on page 6]

Dwelling on the problems caused by just a few resulted in her coming to dislike all people of another color!

[Picture on page 5]

Prejudice can cause people to be suspicious of one another

Prejudice Can Be Conquered!

PREJUDICES, according to sociologist Frederick Samuels, “become a basic part of an individual’s personality structure . . . They involve his self-esteem, his self-image . . . It would be as difficult to surrender certain attitudes and group images as it would be to surrender an arm or a leg.”

Many, though, imagine that if the races could just be made to work together and get to know one another, prejudice would somehow vanish. Unfortunately, this works somewhat better in theory than in practice. Integration at times boomerangs and amplifies racial hostilities. On the other hand, consider one integrated school in the southern part of the United States. There black and white students work together in relative peace. An end of prejudice? The authors of Desegregated Schools: Appraisals of an American Experiment observe that students still choose to sit with and almost exclusively socialize with members of their own race. “Informal segregation,” researchers call it.

Racial harmony is therefore often little more than peaceful coexistence. If the different races are ever to learn to love and understand one another, more will have to be done than merely bringing them in contact with one another. But what? The United Nations made a feeble attempt by sponsoring the “Second World Conference to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.” (August 1-13, 1983) But as expected, all that came of it were more theories and high-sounding rhetoric.

New Perspectives on Race and Nationality

People are not about to relinquish their deep-seated attitudes and prejudices unless they have powerful motivation to do so. And for many thousands such motivation has developed through studying the Bible. It can reach hearts and move to action like no other book in the world. “For the word of God is alive and exerts power.” (Hebrews 4:12) Suppose, for example, that you were one who harbored animosity toward a certain race or nationality. If you began studying the Bible, you would soon realize that it teaches that “God does not go by a man’s outward appearance,” “but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.”—Galatians 2:6; Acts 10:34, 35.

Accepting that God “made out of one man every nation of men,” is bound to make you reevaluate your views toward people of other races. (Acts 17:26) How can one view as inferior people with different skin color, hair texture and shape of eyes and nose that are characteristic of different races if he has developed a friendship with God who created out of one man every nation of men?

True, the different races seem to have prominent personality traits—good and bad. The Bible, however, cautions: “Keep these things without prejudgment [“prejudice,” Today’s English Version], doing nothing according to a biased leaning.” (1 Timothy 5:21) A Christian thus lets each one “prove what his own work is” rather than judge a man’s worth by his color or race.—Galatians 6:4.

The apostle Paul, for example, noted that the inhabitants of Crete had the unsavory reputation of being “liars, injurious wild beasts, unemployed gluttons.” (Titus 1:12) This did not mean, however, that these traits were somehow inherent or that they existed in all Cretans. For Paul instructed Titus to search there in Crete for men who had risen above this and appoint such ones to responsible positions in the congregation.—Titus 1:5.

Admittedly, it is tempting at times to conclude that certain ethnic traits are “in the blood.” A certain racial group, for example, may have a number of idle and unemployed members. ‘They’re just lazy,’ some hastily conclude. A Christian, though, has compassion for people. He realizes that many are “skinned and thrown about” by this vicious, uncaring world. (Matthew 9:36) Why, in many lands racial bias and economic conditions lock people out of suitable jobs! So, what often appears to be laziness turns out to be hopelessness and despair. Such ones need spiritual help and understanding—not harsh criticism.

This brings to mind the apostle Paul’s counsel to do everything with “lowliness of mind considering that the others are superior to you.” (Philippians 2:3) Accepting this advice may require a radical change in one’s thinking. As in the first century, many feel “superior” because they have a secular education or high social standing. Yet Paul reminded first-century Christians that “God chose the foolish things of the world . . . and the things looked down upon.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-28) These lowly ones had a humility and sincerity that in God’s eyes made them “superior.” Can a person be prejudiced if he takes this godly view of others?

On the Receiving End

On the other hand, perhaps you have for a long time been the victim of prejudice and realize that few indeed will ever try to overcome their biases. The Bible can help you appreciate that it is futile to expect justice in this present, crooked social order. “That which is made crooked cannot be made straight,” said Solomon. (Ecclesiastes 1:15) God therefore has promised to eradicate all injustices eventually, and knowledge of this can be a real source of comfort to you!—Psalm 37:1-11; 72:12-14.

For the time being, though, you may need to find ways to cope with prejudice. In response to bigotry, some develop a prejudice of their own, concluding that everyone of another race is biased. They become overly sensitive, taking offense at the most innocent of remarks. The Bible, however, warns at Ecclesiastes 7:9: “Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended.” Learn to give others the benefit of the doubt and you’ll spare yourself much irritation.

Recall, too, that Jesus often experienced rejection from his Jewish countrymen. Yet he encouraged his disciples to approach people optimistically. “Wherever you enter into a house,” Christ said, “say first, ‘May this house have peace.’” (Luke 10:5, 6) Surely it is better to approach people with the expectation and desire of having peace than to arm yourself emotionally for conflict.

What, though, if you are a victim of injustice, like one Nigerian couple whose prospective landlord in England reneged on a promise to rent them an apartment? (People complained they did not want to have black neighbors.) What an affront to a person’s dignity! The Bible nonetheless cautions against “forcing one another to a showdown.” (Galatians 5:26; footnote of 1984 New World Translation, Reference Bible) This usually serves only to entrench bias and hate more deeply. And responding with anger usually just makes a bad situation worse.

Jesus gave this advice: “Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek [acts insultingly toward you], turn the other also to him.” Paul adds: “Return evil for evil to no one . . . If possible, as far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men. . . . Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.” (Matthew 5:39-44; Romans 12:17-21) Responding to hatred with kindness takes real moral strength. But by refusing to let bigotry fill you with resentment, you rise above it.

Seeking the Advantage of Others

One Jamaican bride learned yet another lesson about conquering prejudice. When her African husband’s family more or less ostracized her, she started looking at things from their viewpoint. She recalls: “I saw that the finger of prejudice could also be pointed toward me. I wouldn’t wear their clothes, disliked their food and made no effort to learn their language. So I decided to try to learn some expressions in their language. Whenever I said anything in their language, they would respond enthusiastically: ‘Ah, you are becoming one of us now!’”

Yes, one loses nothing and gains a lot by honoring the wholesome aspects of other people’s cultures. Thus if you come from a country where people tend to be spirited, make some adjustments if you move to a country where people tend to be reserved. The Bible says appropriately: “Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.” (1 Corinthians 10:23, 24, 31-33) Remember, it is selfishness and intolerance that are often at the root of prejudice.

Prejudice Conquered!

The Bible is therefore full of practical counsel that can help individuals both to conquer and to cope with prejudice. Doing so is not always easy, even for devout Christians. Consider what happened some time ago during an intermission at a convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A woman carrying a tray of food bumped into a chair and spilled her drink all over another woman’s legs. This might have seemed insignificant except for one fact: One woman was black, the other white.

The brief but angry exchange that followed revealed a pent-up racial animosity. Under ordinary circumstances an apology might have been out of the question! With the aid of an onlooker, these two women were reminded that they were Christians. They knew racial prejudice was wrong and that they could not remain in God’s favor if they did not make peace with each other. (1 John 4:20) It was touching indeed to see these two women tearfully embrace and apologize to each other. More importantly, they put the incident behind them and conversed like old friends.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have thus taken great strides toward eliminating bias. See for yourself. There are literally millions of them who bear living testimony to the fact that God’s Word indeed has power—power enough to conquer even prejudice.

[Blurb on page 8]

How can you view as inferior people of different races when God “made out of one man every nation of men”?

[Blurb on page 10]

Responding to hatred with kindness takes real moral strength

[Blurb on page 10]

By refusing to let bigotry fill you with resentment, you rise above it

[Picture on page 9]

Studying the Bible forces a person to reevaluate his feelings toward people of different races

Church Mural Repair Bill

Centuries ago the church in Telscombe in southern England had its wall paintings repaired. As usual, the murals featured some unscriptural and false doctrines. However, the ancient bill presented to the church officials itemizing the work done is rather interesting.

“To renovating heaven and adjusting the stars; washing servant of the high priest and putting carmine on his cheeks; and brightening up the flames of hell, putting a new tail on the devil and doing odd jobs for the damned, and correcting the Ten Commandments.”

And how much did all of this cost? A whopping $23!

Honey Heals

A letter to the editor of JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) from Dr. Robert Blomfield of Chelsea, London, in the British Isles, presented this unusual report about honey: “I have been using pure natural honey for the past few months in the accident and emergency departments where I work, and I have found that, applied every two or three days under a dry dressing, it promotes the healing of ulcers and burns better than any other local applications I’ve used before.”

Dr. Blomfield continued that “it can also readily be applied to any other surface wounds, including cuts and abrasions, and I can recommend it to all doctors as a very inexpensive and valuable cleansing and healing agent. It even has a delicious taste!”

Life and Peace—By What Means?

“LIFE AND PEACE.” That was the theme of a unique world conference held at Uppsala University, Sweden, April 20-24, 1983. What made it unique? For the first time in history, church leaders at the highest international level met in an effort to reach agreement on how their churches would view war, violence and nuclear armament, as well as promote life and peace in the world.

About 160 leaders representing the Orthodox Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Lutheran state churches and free churches of 60 nationalities participated. Some 200 journalists from all over the world were also present.

Peace Through Armed Resistance?

One of the main questions was concerning how the churches would view involvement in armed resistance. Archbishop Olof Sundby, the leader of the Swedish State Church and a member of the Host Committee of the conference, declared that it is proper for Christians to take part in armed resistance if the purpose is to stop violence from triumphing. And Vitalij Borovoj, Orthodox representative and a professor of theology, openly admitted in an interview: “The Russian Orthodox Church has no pacifist history. Many priests fought hard against the revolution, and the revolutionaries viewed the priests as representatives of the czar regime.” He added: “Naturally, as a Christian I am against all wars. It is, however, right to fight as we did during the second world war.”

Indicating that their churches do not have a good reputation as promoters of life and peace in the world is the final resolution, called The Message. Adopted by the conference delegates, it reads in part: “We humbly confess that as Christians we have been unfaithful to the Lord. Our own divisions as Christians weaken our witness to peace. As citizens of nuclear states some of us bear a greater shame. We repent, all together.” Taking the Lord’s forgiveness for granted, it continues: “But now we must accept the forgiveness of the Lord.”

Unable to Agree

The final resolution of the conference had to be adjusted and rewritten several times before it could be accepted for adoption. It did not show agreement on the part of all the delegates.

For example, in a preliminary version, one statement read: “But from the Christian stand-point reliance upon the threat and possible use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable as a way of avoiding war.” But, this had to be changed to: “Most of us believe that from the Christian stand-point reliance upon the threat and possible use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable as a way of avoiding war. Some are willing to tolerate nuclear deterrence only as a temporary measure in the absence of alternatives.” Evidently, some church leaders were not against nuclear deterrence as a way to avoid war!

This attitude concerning nuclear weapons was also borne out in the next statement of the resolution. In the early version it read: “Even their possession is inconsistent with our faith in God.” This had to be changed, as follows: “Some are willing to tolerate nuclear deterrence only as a temporary measure in the absence of alternatives. To most of us, however, the possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with our faith in God.” Also changed was the declaration: “We are agreed, therefore, that the existence of these weapons contradicts the will of God.” It ended up reading: “Most of us therefore believe . . .”

God’s Kingdom or the UN?

Interestingly, the resolution of this world conference of churches did not express recognition of God’s Kingdom as the only means to bring lasting life and peace. In fact, it did not even mention God’s Kingdom. Instead, the resolution followed the traditional position taken by Christendom’s churches in support of the United Nations organization and other human endeavors. It stated: “As further measures we urge: 1. The upholding and extension of the authority of the United Nations, international law and support to full implementation of the Helsinki agreement.” And, giving “guidelines for action by the churches,” it appealed to them to “support politicians and governments in plans to develop strategies for peace and systems of common security.”

How different was the position taken by Jesus Christ, who taught strict neutrality in worldly political affairs and instructed his disciples to look to God’s Kingdom as the only means of establishing lasting world peace! (John 17:14, 16; 18:36; Matthew 6:10; Revelation 21:3, 4) True Christians recognize the need for those who “would love life and see good days” to “seek peace and pursue it.” (1 Peter 3:10, 11) In doing this, they follow the Bible’s injunction: “As far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men.”—Romans 12:18.

The “Life and Peace” resolution called for the nations to make peace by bringing their “negotiations to positive conclusions” and by “the total elimination of all nuclear weapons within five years.” It has now been over a year and a half since the “Life and Peace” conference. Will this goal of peace be achieved in the less than three and a half years remaining? Will their efforts truly result in eventually bringing peace and security to the world? Or will God’s Kingdom have to intervene to wipe out all existing governments with their threats to life and peace and restore this earth to peaceful paradisaic conditions? The years just ahead will no doubt supply the answer.—1 Thessalonians 5:3; Daniel 2:44; Isaiah 9:7.

A Look at Canada’s New Constitution

By “Awake!” correspondent in Canada

“TRULY Canadian at last,” said the speaker. A crowd of 30,000 people heartily cheered in response. The speaker? Queen Elizabeth II of England. The crowd? Those gathered in Ottawa, capital of Canada, on April 17, 1982, to hear the proclamation of the “Constitution Act, 1982.” Yes, Canada finally had its own constitution!

But has not Canada been a nation for more than a century? Why is it that only at this late day is a constitution proclaimed? Good questions. To understand the matter we will have to take a brief look at Canadian history and see how, for a time, Canada came to be (in a sense) a country without a constitution of its own.

Why a Constitution Needed?

Canada was formed as a nation in 1867 when several British colonies north of the United States of America formed a federation and requested the Parliament of Great Britain to create the country legally. This was done by the BNA (British North America) Act. Since it was an act of the British Parliament, the Houses of Commons and Lords had to be approached for any needed amendments in the future.

Even though amendments usually passed without question, yet the fact that the founding document was a statute of a “foreign” country was, in time, “not good enough,” according to some Canadians. They felt that the BNA Act should be brought home to Canada and be amendable there. There were other reasons for wanting it “patriated.”

The Constitution that Canada had was a combination of many thousands of laws and conventions developed over the years, in addition to the great body of law inherited from England. The latter includes the Magna Carta of 1215 C.E., the first statute of English law and a restraint on the authority of the Crown. The founders of the United States fell back on the Magna Carta when framing their constitution so as to include fundamental rights for the protection of all citizens. Thus, courts are able to decide cases based on the broad principles of their Bill of Rights. Canada had no such well-defined guarantees.

Canadian Bill of Rights

However, the desire of Canadians for such a document was proved in 1949 when Jehovah’s Witnesses circulated a petition calling for a Canadian Bill of Rights. More than 625,000 names were presented to Parliament that year by those who sensed a threat to the freedoms of all Canadians in the abuses they saw heaped upon Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Province of Quebec. They believed a solution would be found in constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights for all.

On August 10, 1960, the Canadian Bill of Rights was enacted. It did not have the strength many Canadians had hoped for. (See Awake!, February 8, 1961.) Then Professor Bora Laskin (later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada) described the Bill as “disappointing in its approach, unnecessarily limited in its application and ineffective in its substance.” Thus, not only could Canadians then not amend their Constitution but they were also rightly concerned about the preservation of their civil liberties.

This is not to say that they had no freedoms. Indeed, the Supreme Court over the years had ably decided in favor of freedom of religion, of assembly, of speech and of the press, cases mostly involving the freedoms of Jehovah’s Witnesses, though affecting all citizens. For example, in the landmark decision of Saumur v. Quebec, one of the cases of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mr. Justice Rand stated: “Freedom of speech, religion and the inviolability of the person, are original freedoms which are at once the necessary attributes and modes of self-expression of human beings and the primary conditions of their community life within a legal order.”

To ensure that no law can be enacted that contravenes such rights, it was felt that it was necessary to “entrench” them in the Constitution. As former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau pointed out: “As a constitutional provision it would be not just an ordinary law but . . . a rule by which the making of laws is governed. By guaranteeing certain rights free from interference, it would limit the power of governments and would override ordinary governmental action—even duly enacted statutes—which invaded those rights.”

What the Constitution Act Contains

What does the Constitution Act contain? The first 34 sections are entitled: “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” covering such basic freedoms as “(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.” The balance deals with the status of aboriginal peoples, the balancing of regional disparities and constitutional amendments.

Of concern to some are the override clauses that restrict freedoms to certain limits or that allow provinces to have laws exempt from conforming to the Charter. The American Bill of Rights has no such limitations. Only time will tell the effect of these clauses on basic rights and freedoms.

Far-Reaching Consequences

In the two years that followed the proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982, there have been far-reaching consequences. More than a thousand decisions dealing with the Charter have been handed down in the lower courts. These have mainly been cases on technicalities of the criminal law and some procedural matters. Due to the time required for appeals to reach higher courts, only one case has reached the Supreme Court, and that did not involve a major issue.

Canadians are to be commended for their desire to establish their society on principles of justice “that recognize the supremacy of God.” It is hoped they will follow in spirit the provisions of their Constitution. As a Canadian lawyer and expert on civil liberties told us in an interview: “No law is stronger than its means of enforcement, and the means of enforcement is only what the people will allow.” Hence, Canadians must now be alert to apply the Charter of Rights in the new Canadian Constitution.

[Blurb on page 15]

“No law is stronger than its means of enforcement, and the means of enforcement is only what the people will allow”

Is There Anything I Can Watch on TV?

Young People Ask . . .

Is There Anything I Can Watch on TV?

Dear Watchtower Society:

I have a question. Is there anything on television that I can watch and not be affected in a bad way?—Monica

MONICA is not the only one asking this question. Scores of scientists, educators and parents are wondering the same thing. Unfortunately, coming up with an answer is not that simple.

For one thing, not even the so-called experts always agree as to whether TV helps or hurts. Some say it inhibits reading. Others say it stimulates interest in reading. Some advocate controlling TV programming. Others say it’s harmful no matter what you watch. On and on the debate goes. Nevertheless, those who claim that TV hurts seem to have made the stronger case. Let’s therefore take a look at just some of TV’s possible perils.

TV’s Violent Appeal

Within just a few short years, TV has become immensely popular. In fact, “more Americans have television than have refrigerators or indoor plumbing.” It is beginning to catch on in even the poorer nations. Ethiopia, for example, reportedly has only 27,000 TV sets for its population of 35 million. Yet this has not stopped Ethiopia from announcing the start of color TV service! What, then, is the almost universal appeal of TV?

A report by the Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee called TV a “sound-and-light show appealing to the [dominant] senses of vision and hearing.” As a result, “it draws attention like a magnet. Infants as young as 6 months gaze at it; little children sit in front of it for hours at a time.” Why, in one poll of teenage youths, 53 percent admitted to watching shows they didn’t even like! For some reason, TV seems to have an almost hypnotic effect upon some.

Nevertheless, TV networks naturally want you to watch their programs. And they have found that there is one surefire way to keep an audience glued to their sets: Feature violence—and lots of it. People just can’t seem to get enough of car crashes, explosions, stabbings, shootings and karate kicks. According to one estimate, a young person in the United States will witness 18,000 people being killed on TV by the time he is 14 years old, not to mention fistfights and acts of vandalism. But can one take in a steady diet of this and not be harmed?

“Overwhelming” Evidence

Just a few years ago, British researcher William Belson and his team took a close look at 1,565 British teenage boys. To no one’s surprise they found that boys who thrived on violent TV shows were more likely to “engage in violence of a serious kind.” They also concluded that TV violence could incite “swearing and the use of bad language, aggressiveness in sport or play, threatening to use violence on another boy, writing slogans on walls, [and] breaking windows.” The National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.) likewise concluded that there is “overwhelming” evidence that televised violence begets violence.a

‘But I’ve watched some of those shows with shooting and car chases,’ you might say. ‘That doesn’t mean I think it’s all right to hurt somebody.’ But one of the most disturbing discoveries in Belson’s study was that exposure to TV violence did not “change boys’ conscious attitudes toward” violence. Apparently the steady diet of violence chipped away at their subconscious inhibitions against violence.

The Bible says at Psalm 11:5: “Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one, and anyone loving violence His soul certainly hates.” Does your taste in TV programs show you to be a lover of peace or of violence?b—Matthew 5:9.

“Unrealistic, Glowing and Rosy”

‘Surely there is no harm in watching nonviolent shows,’ you might think. Perhaps not. Dr. George Gerbner nonetheless says: “Many things (on television) are idealized. They’re presented in an unrealistic, glowing and rosy way.” Note the effect of all of this on one youth: “I’d never given much thought to how I was affected by television, until I started to have problems at home. . . . I realized the reason I was so unhappy with my relationships with my family was that, somewhere in the back of my mind, they didn’t measure up to the perfect family life I saw on television.”—Teen magazine.

Life is far from perfect. Unlike the all-wise TV parents who never seem to worry about rent or doctor bills, your parents may have heavy financial and emotional burdens to contend with. Why, then, unfairly compare them to characters that are no more than products of a writer’s imagination? The Bible’s advice is: “Honor your father and your mother.” (Ephesians 6:2) This you can best do by talking to and getting to know them, rather than by being absorbed in the lives of make-believe characters.

Can TV Drive You to Drink?

Have you ever noticed how often your favorite TV actor or actress reaches for an alcoholic drink? Yet for all this drinking, few are portrayed as suffering the dizziness, hallucinations and degradation that the Bible says accompanies overdrinking.—Proverbs 23:29-35.

Dr. Thomas Radecki, a psychiatrist who chairs the National Coalition on Television Violence, says: “TV advertising and program use of alcohol is playing a major role in the increasing abuse of alcohol. The average child will see alcohol consumed 75,000 times on TV before he is of legal drinking age.” Could merely viewing all this indulgence in alcohol affect you? Dr. Radecki reminds us that “alcohol abuse, and violence are the two most rapidly rising causes of death in the U.S.”

And what about those flashy, one-minute spots called commercials? Says writer Vance Packard: “By the time the average U.S. youngster has finished high school he has been the target of more than fifteen hundred hours of TV commercials.” A gullible public is brainwashed into believing that if one has the slightest ache or pain, one must take this or that remedy. If one is unattractive, the solution is the right mouthwash, toothpaste or underarm deodorant. Why even getting a job can depend on using the right shampoo! ‘I’m not affected by any of this,’ you say. Indeed? How many of such products, though, have you bought or been tempted to buy?

What Can I Watch?

The likelihood that people will dispose of their TV sets, though, is rather slim. Besides, as writer Vance Packard points out, “parents who put their TV sets in the attic are probably overreacting.” Why? Packard observes: “Much that is on U.S. television can be rewarding . . . Often there are early evening programs that are magnificent achievements in photography showing nature at work—from the activities of bats, beavers, bison to those of blowfish. Public television has stunning ballet, opera, and chamber music. TV is very good at covering important events . . . Occasionally TV comes up with illuminating dramatic productions.” Is such programming available where you live? Then the key to safe TV viewing is your being selective. Wholesome TV programs can be relaxing and genuinely refreshing for many people.

No doubt your parents are concerned about what you watch and how much time you spend doing so. Why not suggest a family discussion about TV and how to control it better? Some families make it a rule to turn on the set only when there is something worth seeing. Further, some experts recommend that parents watch TV with their children. In this way they can help you see through any erroneous or unrealistic views being taught. Viewing TV can thus be a family experience.

Remember: TV is a fascinating instrument, but the programs can be dangerous. Learn to control it. Otherwise, it can control you.

[Footnotes]

See “The Roots of Violence—Is It Television?” in the July 22, 1982, issue of Awake! for further information.

Interestingly, Belson claimed that the shows that were the most harmful included: realistic violence, violence for its own sake and violence committed by so-called good guys. Do these descriptions fit any of your favorite programs?

[Pictures on page 17]

Some experts believe that viewing violence on TV can make you violent

Word-Search Game

Prophecies Concerning “Messiah the Leader”

In the letter maze shown at the lower right are to be found 31 words or expressions identifying features in fulfillment of prophecies concerning the Messiah. Identify these with the help of the scripture texts and clues and then locate them in the word maze. They are found spelled forward, backward, up and down as well as diagonally. When you have located all of them, put the unused letters in the spaces beneath to form a scripture text. (Solutions on page 27.)

1. Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:1-3. Voice in the wilderness. ____ ___ _______

2. Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:5, 6. City of birth. _________

3. Genesis 49:10. Tribal source. _____

4. Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:22, 23. Born of a virgin, or______.

5. Isaiah 9:7; Luke 1:32. An ancestor. _____

6. Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18. “She” wept. ______

7. Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15. Land of Refuge. _____

8. Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18, 19. Authorized to preach. ________

9. Psalm 2:7; Matthew 3:17. Relationship to Jehovah. __ ___

10. Isaiah 9:1, 2; John 8:12. A guiding _____.

11. Psalm 40:9; Matthew 4:23. He would preach this. ____ ____

12. Psalm 69:9; John 2:17. He would be eaten up by it. ____

13. Psalm 78:2; Matthew 13:34. Used proverbial sayings or ____________.

14. Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4, 5. Came riding upon an ___.

15. Psalm 69:4; John 15:24, 25. Was despised, or _____.

16. Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18. Will bring justice to the _______.

17. Psalm 41:9; Matthew 26:21-25, 46. Judas was the ________.

18. Zechariah 11:12, 13; Matthew 26:15. Betrayal was paid in ______.

19. Psalm 118:22; Mark 12:10. Was ________ as the stone.

20. Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:13, 14. Was ____ before accusers.

21. Psalm 22:18; John 19:23, 24. For his inner garment they ____ ____

22. Psalm 16:10, 11; Matthew 16:21. To be ___________ on the third day.

23. Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:33-35. Raised in honor, or _______.

24. Daniel 9:26, 27. Messiah to be ___ ___ during first appearance.

25. Psalm 34:20; John 19:36. His _____ were to be guarded, not broken.

26. Zechariah 12:10; John 19:37. Lanced, or _______.

27. Isaiah 53:5, 11; John 1:29. Was to bear our sins or ______.

28. Psalm 69:21; Matthew 27:48. Given sour wine or _______ to drink.

29. Psalm 22:16. Evildoers attacked his lower extremities, or ____.

30. Psalm 22:16. They attacked his upper extremities, or _____.

31. Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:38, 57. He was buried with the ______ ones.

“ ___ ___ ____ __ ___ _____ ____ ________ ___ ____ ____ __ _______.”

Word-Search-Game Solutions

1. John the Baptist

2. Bethlehem

3. Judah

4. Maiden

5. David

6. Rachel

7. Egypt

8. Anointed

9. My son

10. Light

11. Good news

12. Zeal

13. Illustrations

14. Ass

15. Hated

16. Nations

17. Betrayer

18. Silver

19. Rejected

20. Mute

21. Cast lots

22. Resurrected

23. Exalted

24. Cut off

25. Bones

26. Pierced

27. Errors

28. Vinegar

29. Feet

30. Hands

31. Wicked

Unused Letters: “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn back to Jehovah.”—Psalm 22:27.

A Tragic “Holy Week” in Popayán

By “Awake!” correspondent in Colombia

THE centuries-old celebration began on Christendom’s Palm Sunday. Thousands of tourists had come—even from other lands—to attend the annual “Holy Week” celebration in Popayán, Colombia. In this first of various nightly torch-lit processions, priests, followed by prominent townspeople and schoolchildren, depicted Christ’s triumphal ride into Jerusalem to present himself as King. On succeeding nights processions would represent other events of the last days of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

As large images of Jesus, Mary and other Bible personages were carried solemnly by, crowds of people in hushed silence lined both sides of the narrow streets along the 20-block route where all the city’s important churches are located. Periodically the cargueros (porters) would stop and lower the heavy oak platforms on which the images were mounted, giving temporary relief to their swollen shoulders and aching arms and backs.

No one dreamed that midway through “Holy Week” the huge dome of the centuries-old cathedral would come crashing to the ground, killing some 50 early-morning worshipers; nor that several hundred more persons would suddenly die when 60 percent of the historic sector of this 446-year-old city literally crumbled into dusty ruins.

The Festival’s Origin

Popayán, nestled in a fruitful valley high in the Andes Mountains of southwestern Colombia, was founded in 1537. In keeping with Catholic custom, founder Sebastian de Belalcazar dedicated Popayán to Nuestra Señora del Reposo (Our Lady of Repose) as patron “saint.” From the start, ornate images and statues of religious heroes were made and deposited in temples and churches. On special occasions, particularly at Easter time, they were taken out and carried through the streets in festive processions, as priests took the lead and the townspeople followed behind. As early as 1558, Popayán, in imitation of similar ceremonies of Europe in the Middle Ages, developed her own torch-lit processions and celebrations for “Holy Week.”

As the city grew in size and wealth, the churches and chapels increased in number and elaborateness. More images and statues were added to the collection—some made locally, others brought from Spain, Italy and Peru. The “Holy Week” celebrations and processions of Popayán, an important seat of the Spanish Crown, became renowned. Her churches, temples and museums became repositories of costly works of art. A trip to picturesque Popayán became a must for the 20th-century visitor to southwestern Colombia.

“The End of the World!”

During this “Holy Week” of 1983, the Tuesday- and Wednesday-night processions went off according to schedule. “Holy Thursday,” an official religious holiday in Colombia, dawned to find some early risers off to the cathedral for the celebration of Mass. It was about 8:10 a.m.

Then, following a muffled underground rumbling, the earth began to sway sickeningly. Terrified, people poured out into the streets, some still in their night clothes. The rumble turned into a roar like that of a jet plane, as the shaking and swaying steadily increased in intensity. People were crying, many on their knees invoking the names of favorite “saints.”

Suddenly, there were several hard jolts and a violent shaking. “We thought it was the end of the world!” some said later. Huge statues of Peter and Paul, high on the front of the cathedral, rocked and then plunged face down—smashing on the park pavement below. The high vaulted domes of the cathedral plummeted earthward, leaving only an empty shell of one of the oldest cathedrals in the Americas.

Of the 35 religious temples in Popayán, it was reported that half were destroyed or so badly damaged that they would have to be demolished. In the Central Cemetery, walls of the burial vaults fell outward, and caskets, thrown out and broken open, exposed their gruesome remains to public view, similar to what the Bible records at Matthew 27:51, 52. In just 18 seconds, 446 years of history seemed to come to an end.

Popayán Destroyed

In Cali, 85 miles (137 km) to the north, the tremors that holiday Thursday morning were light. But soon the startling news was announced that a large portion of Popayán had been destroyed. Our thoughts turned immediately to the congregation of about a hundred Jehovah’s Witnesses in that city. Though the Pan-American Highway was closed to all but official traffic, two car groups of Witnesses carrying two medical doctors and a civil engineer—with first-aid supplies and jugs of water—were able to get through the road blocks and checkpoints and reach Popayán.

The devastation resembled a city wiped out by successive bombing raids during the second world war. Buildings leaned crazily, as if being held up by an invisible hand. Some homes looked like life-size doll houses. Their front walls had crashed outward to the ground, leaving their interior furnishings exposed to view. Townspeople were digging in ruins and streets strewn with debris for possible survivors or family possessions. Stunned, hundreds of persons sat outside in the midst of household furnishings that they had been able to save.

Heartrending were the sights in the cemetery. One little eight-year-old lad had somehow brought coffins containing his mother, father and two brothers to be buried. Hundreds were working feverishly to rebury the dead thrown out by the quake and attend to survivors bringing those newly killed—some even in plastic bags—for burial. The stench of death was unbearable!

Witnesses Safe

A small group of Witnesses had gathered at the Kingdom Hall. In less than two hours after the quake, they had contacted all members of the congregation and interested ones. All were safe, and for the most part unhurt. One little girl was sitting at the breakfast table when the quake struck. She fell forward under the table, as if being pushed, just as the brick wall behind her fell onto the tabletop and floor round about. A brick wall of a neighboring house had fallen down onto the Kingdom Hall roof, crashing through the tiles to the floor inside. The houses of some of the Witnesses were badly damaged and a few destroyed.

Donations to help their fellow Witnesses came in from all over the land and from outside Colombia as well. Food and building materials were purchased and trucked to Popayán. Groups of Witnesses from Cali came each weekend for over two months to work long hours in demolition and reconstruction work in behalf of their brothers in need.

A week after the quake, Jehovah’s Witnesses attending the semiannual circuit assembly in Cali broke into spontaneous applause at the announcement that the whole congregation of over a hundred of their Christian brothers and sisters had just arrived from Popayán to join in the assembly. Gladly, those in attendance contributed to contract buses to carry the congregation members back home on Sunday evening after the last session.

A Different Story to Tell

While the newspapers always emphasized the solemnity and piety of the annual Popayán “Holy Week” celebrations, the townspeople this time had quite a different story to tell. When one reporter interviewed 30 people after the quake, 25 stated outright that the catastrophe was a punishment from God. Of 20 elderly people, 19 replied without hesitation that the destruction of the city was divine punishment for the excesses committed during “Holy Week.” “We deserved it,” they said. “It is just a big carnival, with the processions as the principal spectacle. And afterward many of the cargueros (porters) get drunk.”

As pointed out by El Tiempo, a Bogotá newspaper, many excesses had taken place. Over a hundred prostitutes had traveled to Popayán for the celebration, attracted by the influx of the 10,000 tourists who customarily come to see the famous processions. And night clubs and bars were open all night during the “Holy Week” celebration.

Earthquakes were foretold to occur during this time in mankind’s history but not as a punishment from God. Rather, they are one of the evidences that we have reached the conclusion of the present worldwide system of things and that soon God will remove all wickedness and sorrow and usher in a new system of things earth wide. Down to this year of 1984, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Popayán are actively helping their neighbors to realize that hope.—Matthew 24:3, 7, 14; Revelation 21:1-5.

[Picture on page 20]

The high vaulted domes of the cathedral plummeted earthward, leaving only an empty shell

Problems in “Paradise”

WHEN you get tired of the rat race, do you ever dream of moving to a Pacific island to get away from it all? Can you imagine yourself enjoying the sandy beaches, the deep-blue lagoons, the waving palm trees and the warm, tropical seas? If so, the place you have in mind may be like Belau.

Belau (formerly Palau), a group of more than 200 mostly uninhabited tropical islands seems to have many of the ingredients of Paradise: a temperature that rarely strays far from 80 degrees Fahrenheit (27° C.), fertile land, an abundantly stocked ocean, industrious, friendly inhabitants—and situated far, far away from those centers of international tension, Washington and Moscow.

Unhappily, however, Belau has been scarred by the 20th century. Governed in turn by Germany, Japan and the United States, it was the center of much carnage and destruction during the last world war. Even today, this small island nation of fewer than 15,000 people is feeling the pressure of the problems faced by great, distant nations, and the locals do not like it.

Pollution is one modern blight that may make you want to flee to a Pacific island, but this problem has threatened Belau too. In 1975 one of the world’s foremost industrial powers, Japan, proposed to construct an oil transshipment port and superindustrial complex right there in Belau. It was to be the world’s largest superport, with oil refineries, petrochemical facilities and smelters. The island of Kayangel, perhaps the most beautiful in all Micronesia, was to be the site of a nuclear power station. Construction of such mammoth facilities would require an influx of foreign workers and families almost as large as the native population.

Understandably, most of the people angrily objected to the project, fearing the harm it would wreak on the air, the beautiful beaches and the rich, diverse marine life. They know that their unspoiled reefs and lagoons have sustained them from time immemorial. They do not want them ruined with pollution in exchange for material luxuries of life. One of their leaders said: “Foreigners tempt us with goods which we don’t have because we do not need them. They look at Belau and confuse simplicity with poverty.” Because of strong opposition, this threat was averted.

The Nuclear Arms Issue

But perhaps you would want to settle in a tropical island to escape from the threat of war and the nuclear arms race. If so, Belau may prove to be a letdown. During 1983, that very question was the subject of heated debate in the small nation.

In 1947, after the defeat of Japan, the previous ruler of Belau, the nation became a trust territory under the United States. In recent years the United States has proposed ending its role as administrator. In a document called the Compact of Free Association, autonomy was offered to the small nation, with the superpower maintaining all military rights. This would give the Palauans many material benefits, but the United States would have military facilities in the islands. And implicit in the agreement was the right of the United States to move nuclear weapons through the country.

True, the wording of the agreement said: “The government of the United States shall permit the presence of nuclear weapons in Belau only incidental to transit and overflight, during a national emergency declared by the President of the United States, or the state of war declared by congress in order to defend against an actual or impending armed attack on the United States or Belau.” Nevertheless, Palauans were nervous about what was meant by “transit” and “overflight.”

Belau may be the only nation in the world with a constitution that bans the presence of nuclear (as well as chemical and biological) weapons from its territory and territorial waters. Hence, the islanders were wary of an agreement that would permit large-scale military installations and facilities, possibly including nuclear weapons. A local woman said: “Belau should not be involved in any military activity which might invite aggression against her.” A housewife commented: “I am afraid of a nuclear accident or explosion.” Many feared the adverse social impact of the presence of the United States military. Others worried that the Compact would make the country too economically dependent on the United States.

However, in this controversy it seems that the people of Belau were not united. A 58-year-old mother wanted the Compact so that her children would ‘be able to go to the United States mainland to further their education.’ A former police chief commented: “People are talking a lot about the beauty of the islands. But if you were to put money and beauty before most of them, they would choose money, for it is a necessity. I want to see the Palauan people prosper.”

On February 10, 1983, a majority voted to accept the 50-year agreement with the United States. However, in a separate ballot, only 52 percent voted to approve having nuclear weapons in their republic—far short of the 75 percent necessary for a constitutional amendment. Hence, the Compact was not at that time adopted. The deadlock was only resolved when negotiators signed a treaty allowing the United States to transport nuclear materials through, but not store or test them in, the island nation.

The Kingdom Issue

Thus, sadly, even if you escape to a tropical island, that is no guarantee that you will be able to escape the worries and pressures of the 20th century. Nevertheless, whatever the immediate future holds for Belau, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been busy on the islands, telling people of another issue of this 20th century that offers to bring them great blessings.

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, November 8, 1984