Awake!, September 8, 1991

Awake! — September 8, 1991

Source: jw.org

Contents

Page Two

What Is Happening at the United Nations?

Why the Need for a League Arose

The United Nations—A Better Way?

I Was a Professional Burglar

‘They Don’t Make Them Like They Used to’—Or Do They?

Why Pornography Is Dangerous

‘If Only I Could Play Like That!’

“Why Can’t I Finish What I Start?”

One of Madagascar’s Special Arts

Watching the World

From Our Readers

A Sea Dying of Thirst

When His Grandfather Died

Page Two

THE UNITED NATIONS—Its Quest for World Peace 3-10

Unusual events have recently taken place at the United Nations, changing the way that many view the organization. What has happened, and what could this mean for the future?

Why Pornography Is Dangerous 18

In country after country, pornography has become more widespread. Since it is so popular, could it really be all that dangerous?

“Why Can’t I Finish What I Start?” 23

Many young people have trouble finishing what they start, such as household chores, homework, and other activities. How can this problem be corrected?

What Is Happening at the United Nations?

SOMETHING is happening at the United Nations. Startling developments are taking place that are going to affect your future. World leaders are very optimistic about them. Consider their words:

“Forty five years after its birth, after being long paralyzed, the [United Nations] is unfolding itself before our eyes, and is now emerging as a true judge, setting forth the law and endeavouring to enforce it.”—President François Mitterrand of France to the 45th session of the UN General Assembly, September 24, 1990.

At this same meeting, former Soviet Minister for Foreign Affairs Eduard Shevardnadze observed that “one cannot help being satisfied at the unprecedented unity of the [UN] Security Council . . . The positions taken by members of [the United Nations] Organization give the Security Council the mandate to go as far as the interests of world peace will require.”

A few days later, President George Bush of the United States addressed the UN General Assembly. The changes he saw inspired him to say: “Not since 1945 have we seen the real possibility of using the United Nations as it was designed—as a center for international collective security.” He said this because “the United Nations reacted with such historic unity and resolve” to the Persian Gulf crisis. “For the first time, the U.N. Security Council is beginning to work as it was designed to work.” He also said: “The United Nations can help bring about a new day” if its members ‘leave terrible weapons behind.’ By doing this, they can complete the “historic movement towards a new world order and a long era of peace.”

Mr. Guido de Marco, president of the General Assembly of the United Nations, shared this optimism. He proclaimed glowingly: “The dawn of a new system based on friendship and cooperation between the major powers is on the horizon. . . . These developments have revitalized the United Nations Organisation.” He said that “the role of the General Assembly as the focal point of international discussion and deliberation, has been reaffirmed in an impressive manner.” Because of this, he further stated: “The world no longer lives in the shadow of a possible Armageddon sparked by ideological competition.”

What were “these developments” that catapulted the United Nations into this long-hoped-for position of prestige and influence? What sparked such optimism that prompted world leaders to speak hopefully of “a new world order and a long era of peace” free from the risk of a nuclear Armageddon?

What Brought the Change?

“The ending of the cold war [in Europe],” answered UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar in his 1990 report on the work of the United Nations. For decades that tense situation “bred chronic suspicion and fear and polarized the world.” He noted that the “concept of security [that] has begun to emerge is precisely the one the United Nations has been expounding all through the years.”

Yes, it seemed that the nations were finally learning, the secretary-general said, that “an obsession with military security results in a self-perpetuating arms race, . . . constrains political dialogue, . . . and aggravates the sense of insecurity in all nations.” And what did this new attitude produce?

A spirit of warm cooperation and mutual trust began pervading the summit meetings of the superpowers. As this spirit developed, they no longer felt the need for the same level of heavily armed military forces to serve as deterrents in strategic locations in Europe. The Berlin Wall came down. Germany was united. A number of Eastern European countries set up new governments, giving their citizens freedoms they had never enjoyed before. Closed borders were opened to tourism, cultural exchanges, commerce, and trade. And to top it all off, the Soviet Union and the United States began praising the United Nations and trumpeting the need to use it as a viable force in the world’s quest for peace and security.

Keeping a Realistic View

Were you surprised by these sudden changes? Did you begin to think that, at last, peace and security are on the horizon and that the United Nations is going to play a key role in achieving such aims? In view of what has happened, the optimism is understandable. However, wisdom and history dictate that we keep a realistic view of this possibility.

Note what Mr. Pérez de Cuéllar said in his report: “Twice in this century, after two devastating wars, the possibilities of building a peaceful global order were not fully realized.” President Bush used almost the same words in his address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 6, 1991. “Twice before in this century, an entire world was convulsed by war. Twice this century, out of the horrors of war hope emerged for enduring peace. Twice before, those hopes proved to be a distant dream, beyond the grasp of man.”

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker was more specific when he was addressing the UN Security Council. In calling for a UN resolution on using force in the Persian Gulf, he reminded his colleagues that the 1936 Ethiopian “appeal to the League of Nations fell ultimately upon deaf ears. The League’s efforts to redress aggression failed and international disorder and war ensued.” Mr. Baker then pleaded: “We must not let the United Nations go the way of the League of Nations.”

What was the League of Nations? Why was it organized? Why did it fail? The answers to these questions will enable us to appreciate the changes happening at the United Nations.

Why the Need for a League Arose

WORLD WAR I was a four-year holocaust of death and devastation, the likes of which had never before been seen. Split into two opposing alliances, all the great powers of the world, and others, marched off to battle, each side confident of victory, encouraged by the hurrahs of deluded populations that thought war a glorious adventure.

But within a few months, the world learned only too bitterly the terrible price of war. And when it ended, the carnage, the wanton waste of lives and materials, left the world reeling under a gigantic war debt. Something had to be done to prevent such a conflict from breaking out again. Why not an arrangement through which the nations could resolve their disputes peacefully rather than militarily? A new idea? Not really.

Why Previous Efforts Failed

Before World War I, a court had been set up to try to resolve disputes peacefully. It was the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in the Netherlands. In the early 1900’s, many people were hoping that it might become a center where mediation would replace war. But what happened at the Hague Peace Conferences in 1899 and 1907 that led to the establishment of this court, popularly called the Hague Court?

At both meetings the nations represented would not agree to submit to compulsory arbitration, nor would they limit or reduce their stockpiles of armaments. In fact, they rejected any proposal for disarmament and blocked any plan that would obligate them to settle their differences by mediation.

Thus, when the Hague Court finally began functioning, the nations had seen to it that it did not limit their complete independence. How? By a simple expedient: They made optional the bringing of a case before the judges. And countries that did take their quarrels to this court were not obligated to abide by any of the decisions it handed down.

However, this wary shielding of national sovereignty was jeopardizing the peace and security of the world. So the arms race ran on unchecked until it finally flung mankind headlong into the salvos that shattered the world’s peace in the summer of 1914.

It is ironic that as the last minutes of peace were ticking away, Serbia, in her reply to an Austrian ultimatum, expressed her willingness “to accept a peaceful agreement, by referring this question . . . to the decision of the International Tribunal of the Hague.” But since the use of the Hague Court was optional, Austria did not feel compelled to accept this potential “peaceful agreement.” So war was declared to keep the peace—and over 20 million civilian and military corpses paid for it!

Clergy Call for League

In May 1919, Episcopal bishop Chauncey M. Brewster declared at a diocesan convention in the United States that “the world’s hope of a righteous and abiding peace lies in the reconstitution of the law of nations in a new authority. . . . International law must be invested with an authority more binding than the conclusions of the Hague Conference [which set up the Hague Court]. The co-operation of the nations, therefore, must be in some association together having the characteristics of a covenant or league.”

Roman Catholic cardinal Mercier of Belgium was of the same opinion. “It seems to me,” he said in an interview in March 1919, “that the chief duty of Governments toward the future generation is to render impossible a renewal of the crimes from which the world still bleeds.” He called the negotiators of the Versailles peace treaty “reconstructors of the new world” and encouraged the formation of a league of nations to achieve this goal. He hoped that this league would become a perfect preserver of peace.

The front page of The New York Times of January 2, 1919, ran the following headline: “Pope Hopes for Foundation of League of Nations.” Its first paragraph announced: “In a New Year’s message to America, . . . Pope Benedict expressed the hope that the Peace Conference might result in a new world order, with a League of Nations.” The pope did not use the actual phrase “new world order” in his message. However, the hopes he expressed for the League were so grandiose that either the Associated Press or the Vatican Press Office apparently thought the phrase an appropriate one.

Consider these hopes in the context of their times. Beleaguered mankind was crying out for an end to war. Too many wars in too many centuries had taken their terrible toll. And now the greatest of them all had finally ended. To a world yearning desperately for hope, the pope’s words rang out: “May there be born that League of Nations which, by abolishing conscription, will reduce armaments; which, by establishing international tribunals, will eliminate or settle disputes, which, placing peace upon a foundation of solid rock, will guarantee to everyone independence and equality of rights.” If the League of Nations could accomplish all of that, it would indeed create a “new world order.”

Why It Failed

On paper the aims and methods of the League sounded so beautiful, so practical, so workable. The Covenant of the League of Nations stated that its purpose was to “promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security.” Achieving peace and security depended on the nations’ cooperating with one another and on their “acceptance of obligations not to resort to war.”

Thus, if a critical dispute arose, the member nations involved, having pledged themselves to keep the peace, were to submit their case “to arbitration or judicial settlement or to inquiry by the Council” of the League. In addition, the League of Nations had incorporated the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in The Hague, into its peacekeeping system. Surely, it was thought, all of this would eliminate the risk of another great war. But it did not.

According to some historians, one reason why the League did not succeed as a peacekeeper was the failure of many of its “members to recognize the price that had to be paid for peace.” Limiting armaments was an important part of this price. But the nations would pay no such price. So history repeated itself—with a vengeance. The nations once again began an arms race. The League could not convince the nations to cooperate in stopping it. All appeals and arguments fell on deaf ears. The nations forgot a great lesson of 1914: Huge arsenals tend to create a smug sense of military superiority.

Having to recognize the value of “collective security” was another vital part of the price of peace. An attack on one nation was to be viewed as an attack on all. But what actually happened when one of them resorted to aggression rather than negotiation? Instead of working unitedly to stop the conflict, the nations divided themselves into various alliances, seeking mutual protection. That was the same delusion that had sucked them into the 1914 whirlpool!

The League was also weakened by the refusal of the United States to join. Many think that it was “the one great power that had the means to make it effective” and that America’s presence in the League might have given it the degree of universality so vital to its success.

But there were other reasons why the League failed. Consider this negative clause at the beginning of its Covenant: “Any Member of the League may, after two years’ notice of its intention so to do, withdraw from the League.” (Article 1(3)) This option, however well meant, gave the League no sense of stability, and this, in turn, eroded the nations’ resolve to stick loyally to it.

This open door of withdrawal put the League’s life at the mercy of its members, who could quit whenever they wished. The parts became more important than the whole. And so, by the time May 1941 rolled around, 17 nations were no longer in the League. The big guns of World War II were shattering the hope for a “new world order” and causing the League to collapse.

There had to be a better way!

[Blurb on page 7]

The League of Nations failed to prevent World War II

[Picture on page 7]

Cassino, Italy, under bombardment, March 15, 1944

[Credit Line]

U.S. Army

The United Nations—A Better Way?

THE preamble to the United Nations Charter expresses these noble aims: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, . . . and [desiring] to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.”

Did the UN “accomplish these aims”? Did it get the nations to unite their strength and maintain peace and security? No, not so far, although the UN has sincerely tried to be a significantly better way than the League of Nations. However, the generation that saw its establishment in 1945 has since been scourged by wars, revolutions, invasions, coups, and aggression in many parts of the earth. And this violence involved many of the nations that had resolved to “maintain international peace and security.”

Not the Better Way Yet

Critics who decry the failure of the United Nations to prevent these woes, though, may be forgetting an important fact—the strength of an organization depends on the power its charter gives it and on the commitment of its constituents to carry out their obligations under said charter. First of all, the United Nations Charter does not set up the UN as a world government with supreme power over all its member nations.

Article 2(7) decrees: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” UNCIO (United Nations Conference on International Organization), which met in San Francisco from April 25 to June 26, 1945, to finalize the charter, deemed it necessary “to make sure that the United Nations under prevalent world conditions should not go beyond acceptable limits or exceed due limitations.”

Did you notice that qualifying phrase, “under prevalent world conditions”? If these were to change, UNCIO claimed that this ruling could be developed “as the state of the world, the public opinion of the world, and the factual interdependence of the world makes it necessary and appropriate.”

The chartered purpose of the United Nations to maintain “international peace and security” expresses a desirable goal for mankind. The world would indeed be far more secure if the nations obeyed Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” But self-interest of member nations has repeatedly hamstrung the efforts of the UN toward achieving its purpose. Rather than living up to their UN commitment to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means,” nations or whole blocs of nations have often resorted to war, claiming that the ‘matter was essentially within their domestic jurisdiction.’—Article 2(3,7).

Not only have nations ignored UN peace procedures but they have flouted and openly defied its rulings for settling conflicts. And their statesmen have frequently mounted the UN rostrum and delivered long speeches trying to justify their acts of aggression. This skirting of rules that were enacted to maintain peace has all too often paralyzed the UN at critical times and has severely damaged its credibility. UN officials who sit through such sessions are often frustrated. In the end, such talk usually proves to be mere sophistry that attempts to minimize or justify the violence and bloodshed taking place. No wonder UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar said that the UN “was regarded in some circles as a tower of Babel and at best a venue for often fruitless diplomatic parleys.”

There is another reason why the UN has had difficulty proving itself to be that better way. When it began functioning on October 24, 1945, “no coherent strategy of peace was put in place,” observed Pérez de Cuéllar. Without this, how could the United Nations become the viable force for securing world peace that it was intended to be?

What Kind of Peace Could It Achieve?

Pérez de Cuéllar answers: “Peace will not bring the cessation of all conflict. It will only make conflicts manageable through means other than force or intimidation. . . . The United Nations seeks to train our vision towards that end.” So the only peace that the UN can achieve is control of violence.

Is this really peace with security? True, “membership in the United Nations is open to all . . . peace-loving states.” (Article 4(1)) But will a nation that is peace-loving when it joins the UN stay that way? Governments change, and new rulers bring in new policies. What if a member turns radical, with extreme nationalistic aims and covetous territorial ambitions? And what if it begins arming itself with nuclear and chemical weapons? The United Nations would now have a ticking time bomb on its hands. Yet, as recent events in the Middle East show, such a turn of events may be the very thing to move the nations to empower the UN to remove this threat to their security.

Can the Nations Make It a Better Way?

As never before, the nations are becoming increasingly aware of what UNCIO called “the factual interdependence of the world.” No state can live unto itself anymore. The nations are all members of one international community. All are contending with a series of common problems: the devastating effects of ecological pollution, poverty, debilitating diseases, illicit drug trade on every continent, terrorism, sophisticated nuclear weapons in the arsenals of a growing list of nations. These factors are forcing the nations either to seek peace and security through the auspices of the United Nations or to commit global suicide.

Former Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze observed: “The United Nations can function effectively if it has a mandate from its members, if states agree on a voluntary and temporary basis to delegate to it a portion of their sovereign rights and to entrust it with performing certain tasks in the interests of the majority.” He added: “Only in this way can we make the period of peace lasting and irreversible.”

If this could be done, then the UN’s voice of jurisdiction could authoritatively denounce any nation threatening the peace of the world. With real power at its disposal, it could suppress such aggressors forcefully and swiftly. But will UN member nations ever give it this mandate, ‘making available their armed forces, assistance and facilities’ to secure peace? (Article 43(1)) They might—if a crisis threatened to undermine the very foundation upon which their respective national sovereignties rest. If the nations see that ‘uniting their strength to maintain international peace and security’ under UN auspices could remove such threats, this might increase their respect for it.

Perhaps you are wondering, ‘Was the UN’s role in the Persian Gulf crisis a start in this direction?’ It could be. Many nations were confronted with the possible calamitous collapse of their economies. And if their interwoven economies crashed, so would the entire world’s. So the nations rallied together under the United Nations. The Security Council passed a series of UN resolutions to end the crisis peacefully, and when this failed, it backed a UN resolution on the use of force in the Gulf.

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, in calling for this resolution, said: “History has now given us another chance. With the cold war behind us, we now have the chance to build a world which was envisioned by the founders of . . . the United Nations. We have the chance to make this Security Council and this United Nations true instruments for peace and for justice across the globe. . . . We must fulfill our common vision of a peaceful and just post-cold-war world.” And he observed concerning their debate about the use of force in the Gulf: “[It] will, I think, rank as one of the most important in the history of the United Nations. It will surely do much to determine the future of this body.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly believe that the United Nations is going to play a major role in world events in the very near future. No doubt these developments will be very exciting. And the results will have a far-reaching impact on your life. We urge you to ask Jehovah’s Witnesses in your neighborhood for more details on this matter. The Bible clearly paints a picture showing that the United Nations will very shortly be given power and authority. The UN will then do some very astonishing things that may well amaze you. And you will be thrilled to learn that there is yet a better way near at hand that will surely bring eternal peace and security!

[Picture on page 9]

Guido de Marco, president of the UN General Assembly (right), and Secretary-General Pérez de Cuéllar at the 45th session of the Assembly

[Credit Line]

UN photo 176104/Milton Grant

I Was a Professional Burglar

BANG! The judge’s gavel echoed through the courtroom. His next words, though spoken softly, seemed to roar at me. “I hereby sentence you to 15 years in prison.” I’ll never forget those words nor the events that followed. The police officer quickly escorted me from the courtroom back to the holding cell that had been my home for the past three months.

Early the next morning, I was led from my cell, down a corridor and into a small room, where I was fitted with a leather belt that was about five inches [13 cm] wide and that buckled in the back. On the front were two large metal rings onto which my hands were cuffed. On completing this procedure, the two officers took me down another hallway, where I joined a group of men who were handcuffed in the same way. The men were standing in two rows, side by side. I was led to my position in line, and a chain that ran between the two lines was lifted and locked onto a third ring, on the side of the leather belt.

Afterward, the six officers now on hand led us to the elevator that would take us to a specially built bus. Here I was, sitting next to a murderer and in front of drug dealers, rapists, and robbers. All of us were going to the same place—prison!

What, you may wonder, led up to these circumstances? Let me tell you about my background and the events that landed me in prison.

I Wasn’t Born a Criminal

My parents were married just after World War II, and in 1947 my older brother was born. Two years later I came along, followed by another brother 18 months later. So with three babies, my parents made the long journey west from Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A., to the state of Oregon on the Pacific Coast. Then we trekked north to Washington State and settled in the city of Bellevue. Back then, life seemed normal to me. Although we weren’t a very close-knit family, we had regular outings together and attended the local Lutheran church. Respect for God, Jesus, and the Bible was customary in a family from Virginia. In January 1960 my baby sister came along. How excited my mother was to have finally the little girl she had always wanted!

However, something happened about six months later that changed our way of life. We moved again, this time to the heavily wooded town of Maple Valley. We stopped going to church, there were no more family outings, and my father started drinking heavily. It still saddens me to recall that move. We were depressed for a long time afterward. I believe that this contributed to my wayward life as a teenager.

Why I Chose a Life of Crime

Maple Valley, as you can imagine just from hearing the name, wasn’t an exciting place for a rambunctious teenager in the 1960’s. So I would make my own excitement. This was easy for me because of the bad crowd I associated with in school. After-school events would turn into drunken parties, followed by fistfights and drugs. On a number of these occasions, I would stumble home at three or four in the morning—drunk. Or I would not come home for several days, staying with my friends. Strangely enough, I knew I was doing wrong, yet my parents never seemed to notice.

Sometimes, we would steal just to see if we could get away with it. Once, I stole a car and went joyriding. But I was caught and spent over a year in the local juvenile institution, Green Hill.

By the time I was released from Green Hill, I was in high school. Here I thought I could put to use the things I had “learned” from my juvenile ‘crime school.’ Little did I realize that the Biblical saying, “Bad associations spoil useful habits,” was having its effect.—1 Corinthians 15:33.

I was about 16 years old when I met someone different, a young man named Jim Carley. He and his family had recently moved from Idaho to my town. Very few knew him as Jim; he was better known as Spud, nicknamed after the famous Idaho potato. He was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Jim and I attended the same school. By observing him, I could tell that he was different from my other friends. He got along with everyone but did not engage in their wrongdoing. This impressed me. I remember clearly his telling me why this wicked system would soon end and be replaced by a new world of peace under the rule of God’s heavenly Kingdom.

I wanted to hear more, so I attended his “church,” called the Kingdom Hall, a couple of times. This was in 1967. What I heard there was interesting, but I felt that this new world was something that was far into the future. Besides, I was having fun now. I was in the business of filling “orders” for anything someone wanted—tools, car parts, stereos, television sets. Of course, these “orders” were filled by thievery and cunning. Why should I go to a church that condemned my exhilarating “business”?

At the age of 19, I quit school and married my high school sweetheart. One year later I was the father of a baby girl, Rhonda Jean. With this added responsibility, I felt the need to provide for them but only through dishonest means.

I Have Found the Truth!

I was still in the “business” of using and selling drugs, stealing cars, and burglarizing homes, but the “business” finally caught up with me. I was arrested and soon found myself in the handcuffed position described earlier and on my way to prison. Here I was, 20 years old, with a wife and a six-month-old daughter. And now I was going to prison for the next 15 years! I realized I had to do something to get control of my life. I began to think back to what Spud had said about the Bible.

While in prison, I began to read the Bible along with secular self-help books. ‘Reading these books will help me grow up,’ I thought. They did not help. Nothing helped until another inmate in the Corrections Center in Shelton, Washington, asked if I would like to sit in on a Bible discussion with some of Jehovah’s Witnesses from the local congregation. I was told they came into the prison weekly. I agreed. From the first time I met the two Witnesses, I knew that what I was learning from the Bible and the study book The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life was right. I had found the truth!

Witnessing in Prison

At times as many as 15 inmates would join me in my weekly Bible studies with the Witnesses. During this time my wife decided I had gone crazy in jail, and she began divorce proceedings. This greatly tested my newfound faith.

I decided to strengthen my faith by taking in more spiritual food. I began by reading the entire Bible along with Bible publications, including back issues of the Watchtower and Awake! magazines. I was developing a strong faith. Also, I began preaching to anyone who would listen. Soon I was avoided by many of the inmates. Looking back, I see it was a real protection for me.

I did, however, have many interesting conversations with others in prison. One was with the Catholic priest, who said that I was being taught twisted things and that people could make the Bible say whatever they wanted. To prove his assertion, he said he would show me that the Bible states that there is no God. I accepted his offer. He opened his Bible to the book of Psalms and positioned his hand so that his index finger would cover part of the verse. I said: “Please move your finger so that I can read the entire verse.” He answered: “Just read below my finger.” I did so, and to my amazement it said: “There is no God.” “There,” he said, “that proves it. There is no God!” Again I asked to see the entire verse. This time he moved his hand. And there it said: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”—Psalm 14:1, King James Version.

Paroled and Determined

Because of my changed attitude and conduct, I was granted parole after only two years of confinement. That was late in 1971. Maybe some thought I had ‘got religion’ just to fool the parole board. But now I was out and more determined than ever not to fall back into bad associations. I deliberately chose to live in an area where I knew that my former associates would not be. I knew it would not be wise to contact any of my old buddies. They also avoided me because they had heard that I had become some kind of “priest” and was preaching to everyone.

I continued my Bible studies and began regularly attending the meetings of the Covington Congregation in Kent, Washington. The preaching work played an ever-increasing role in my life, and in June 1972, I was baptized. I was trying to maintain balance in secular matters while at the same time serving God and teaching my daughter the Bible. She was now almost three years old and was living with her mother, my former wife. It proved to be a real challenge that lasted 16 long and frustrating years. I will admit, there were times I would feel that things were not going fast enough to suit me. Then I would recall the Scriptural admonition: “As far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men. . . . ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah.’”—Romans 12:18, 19.

Many nights were spent weeping and praying. My world at that point was very much like the typical weather of the Puget Sound area, gray and dreary with some occasional sunshine. My “sunshine” came in the form of theocratic activities, such as meetings and assemblies where one can form new friendships and renew old ones. At one such assembly, I met someone who would make a lasting impression on me, and after two years of getting to know each other, Mary Hughes and I were married in August 1974.

In July of the following year, we had a son whom we named Trey (from Tom III). I knew that in this marriage, God would always be first, especially since I had just recently been appointed as a ministerial servant in the Christian congregation. Because of this privilege, I realized that a new door of opportunity was open to me in the service of Jehovah. I was determined to take full advantage of it and continue to serve him. I applied myself, always relying on God to teach me how to grow spiritually. Whenever I was asked to handle an assignment, I would accept, trusting in him to give me the needed wisdom. Then, in 1987, I was appointed as an elder.

I have learned over the years that doing things Jehovah’s way is always the wisest course. Do not become impatient. This was further impressed on me when, in the spring of 1990, my daughter Rhonda, then 20 years old, came home to live with us and became a baptized Witness. I was once again reminded how powerful the truth is. For legal custody reasons, I had had no contact with her for the previous eight years. Jehovah blessed my efforts of years ago when I planted seeds of Bible truth with my daughter during the short visitations granted by the courts.

Rhonda seemed to remember almost everything Mary and I had taught her about the Bible. And what an impression our family life had made on her! Since that spring day, Rhonda has progressed rapidly in Bible knowledge.

When I look back at what my life was and then look at what it is now, I have to say that keeping busy in serving God is truly the best safeguard from Satan’s snares. Instead of that restraining leather belt that I so despised, I now experience a great liberating, a liberation from imprisonment to the freedom of being a peace-promoting minister of God.—As told by Tom McDaniel.

[Picture on page 12]

When I was prisoner 626023 in a Washington State correctional center

[Picture on page 13]

The McDaniel family—Mary, Tom, daughter Rhonda, and son Trey

‘They Don’t Make Them Like They Used to’—Or Do They?

“There is a malfunction in the computer,” groans the owner of a sleek, new automobile as he returns from the dealer service department. “They sure don’t make them like they used to!” His wife nods in agreement, adding: “I can hardly tell our car from all the others. They are all so much alike.”

I AM a restorer and collector of old cars, so I often hear such complaints from new-car owners. Many of them have a fondness for a model they owned in the past, even though the car they now use is generally more reliable, safer, and easier to operate. Could it be that their warm feelings about “Old Betsy” stem from sweet memories of good times, rather than from the car’s actual performance?

Collecting Old Cars

In my case, appreciation for old cars—their restoration and preservation—comes from seeing them as objects of art and as statements of taste and technology from the times and countries in which they were produced.

If many collectors find the same model desirable and it happens to be in short supply, then the automobile’s worth skyrockets. For example, on November 19, 1987, at an auction in London, England, a rare 1931 Bugatti Royale sports coupe fetched $9,900,000, U.S.!

In most instances, however, friends and neighbors usually stare in bewilderment as the latest objet d’art is dragged home by the collector. They wonder if the rusting, insect-infested hulk might have been better left wherever it was found. The collector, though, already sees the automobile restored to its former radiant beauty. So he smiles and says to himself: ‘They sure don’t make them like they used to.’

Is It True?

Yes, it is true. ‘They do not make cars like they used to.’ In some ways we can be glad for that and in other ways sad. Let us take a look at some models. For instance, one old Rolls-Royce had been advertised as the “Best Car in the World” and “the safest fast car in the world.” It could accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per hour [97 km/hr] in about 24 seconds and had a top speed of about 80 miles per hour [130 km/hr]. Not bad for a motorcar tipping the scales at two and a half tons! But how would you stop it? The maker accurately boasted that by means of a specially designed servomechanism attached to the gearbox, the car had “enormously increased stopping power.” But while a restored example of that Rolls is still capable of original specification performance, it would not be suitable for today’s driving conditions.

Although a credit to its designer, that Rolls-Royce did not have the benefit of another 60 years of accumulated automotive knowledge and experience. Thus, it lacked hydraulic and antilock power brakes, and it did not have seat belts, stoplights, turn signals, sealed-beam headlights, internal crash pads, headrests, and many other innovations that improve performance and safety—things we take for granted today or view as the latest technology.

The Latest Technology?

Are all the devices we see on today’s cars really new developments? No. Many options and accessories on your automobile were developed years ago. You could have bought this 1936 Packard with the following features: chassis lubricator, which oiled the chassis continuously; ride control, which allowed the driver to adjust the shock absorbers to match road conditions; motor-oil cooler, which circulated the crankcase oil in a special housing through which engine coolant flowed, thereby stabilizing oil temperature.

The models of the ’60’s, like the 1966 Ford Mustang, saw a variety and quantity of optional equipment made available as never before. Moderately priced high-production cars could be ordered with a number of different engine sizes, in many different colors, and with a seemingly endless list of performance and creature-comfort accessories. In many cases, the same car could be had as a sedan, a convertible, or a fastback. Even though hundreds of thousands of a particular model were manufactured, if you chose, you could order one equipped just the way you wanted.

They All Look Alike!

Today’s cars do look alike for a variety of reasons. Current designs seem to be influenced more than ever by technology and economy. The resulting body design is a product significantly influenced by wind-tunnel tests whereby engineers measure wind drag coefficiency. A lower drag coefficient results in improved gas mileage and contributes to greater road stability.

Final body design, therefore, is greatly influenced by physical laws related to road and air resistance, inertia, and weight-to-volume ratio. Add to these certain safety requirements and various passenger needs, and the result is many cars with similar silhouettes. But, of course, the public’s perceptions of what is stylish can change, and manufacturers would have to change accordingly.

So, with mixed emotions, we can say, ‘They don’t make them like they used to.’—Contributed.

[Pictures on page 16, 17]

1929 Rolls-Royce P1 Faux Cabriolet

[Credit Line]

Rolls Royce Heritage Trust

1936 Packard Model 1401

1966 Mustang GT Fastback

[Picture Credit Line on page 15]

Rolls Royce Heritage Trust

Why Pornography Is Dangerous

The Bible’s Viewpoint

Why Pornography Is Dangerous

PORNOGRAPHY is no longer confined to smut shops and sex shows. It has gone public. In country after country, it is pushed before the eyes of the average citizen in magazines, newspapers, books, TV programs, movies, and videos. Can anything so widespread really be all that dangerous?

What, though, is pornography? Pornography is defined as “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.” That definition is clear. But arguments arise when it comes to determining what arouses sexual excitement and what does not. True, to a degree, what constitutes pornography is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, what is sexually stimulating to one person may not be to another. Nevertheless, a recent survey of 5,000 persons in Germany revealed that at some level, erotic material affects almost everyone, both men and women.

Is the Arousing of Desires Wrong?

Exciting a legitimate desire—of whatever nature—is unwise if there is no way of properly satisfying it. For example, if one of your favorite foods is unavailable, you will probably not feel content if you constantly stare at pictures of it in magazines or books. On the other hand, if you—perhaps for health reasons—are not allowed to eat it, constantly preoccupying yourself with it will most likely lead to dangerous transgressions. Likewise, a smoker trying to kick the habit will not increase his chances of doing so by spending time longingly watching other people smoke.

As regards sexual desires, from the Bible’s viewpoint, happiness results from properly satisfying them within the bounds of a loving marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:2-5; Hebrews 13:4) So how unwise for a single person to arouse desires that he cannot satisfy! This only leads to frustration or, even worse, to satisfying them by resorting to masturbation or fornication, thereby overstepping divine laws and principles.—1 Thessalonians 4:3-7.

Does this mean that pornography is not dangerous if you are married? No, those Scriptural rules of conduct apply to married people too. Also, pornography appeals to selfish passions, pandering to the satisfying of personal desires, whereas love centers on satisfying the needs of one’s mate. Pornography leads to inconsiderate and self-centered sex, which, even within the relationship of marriage, becomes demeaning and unloving.—1 Corinthians 13:5.

Rather than strengthening marital love, pornography kills it by degrading it, distorting it. Sexual relations as portrayed in pornography is fantasy of the worst kind because it communicates incorrect and harmful messages about marital intimacies. Besides, real-life relationships are much more than sexual; they are built on tenderness, humor, communication, and caring. In contrast, pornography may even become a wedge between a married couple.

Pornography reduces humans to the level of animals acting solely on instinct. It does not encourage self-control, a fruit of God’s spirit. (Galatians 5:22, 23) It may pave the way for sexual perversions. These are but a few of the reasons why Christians shun pornography.

The Bible’s wise counsel, therefore, is: “Rejoice with the wife of your youth . . . Why should you, my son, be in an ecstasy with a strange woman or embrace [literally or vicariously by way of pornography] the bosom of a foreign woman?”—Proverbs 5:15-20.

How, though, can a person avoid or break free from the grip of pornography?

How to Break Its Grip

To counteract pornography’s pull, the Bible counsels: “Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite.” (Colossians 3:5) Here, the word “deaden” vividly conveys the idea of striking dead—not simply suppressing—any body member that would be used in those vices.

However, this must be understood in a metaphoric, not a physical, sense. Christians are not to mutilate their bodies. If we decisively “kill” improper sexual thoughts, we will not yield to the lure of pornography, thus using our body members, such as the eyes, in a wrong way. (Compare Matthew 5:29, 30.) Thus, counsels the Bible, replace improper desires with “whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste,” and then “continue considering these things.”—Philippians 4:8.

What else can help? Keeping in mind—perhaps even memorizing—Bible texts, such as the following:

“Make my eyes pass on from seeing what is worthless.”—Psalm 119:37.

“Everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes . . . does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world.”—1 John 2:16.

“Each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.”—James 1:14, 15.

Anything that can start a chain reaction ending in death can rightfully be termed dangerous, and pornography fits that description! Remember: “He who is sowing with a view to his flesh will reap corruption from his flesh, but he who is sowing with a view to the spirit will reap everlasting life from the spirit.” Do not let pornography rob you of everlasting life!—Galatians 6:8.

[Blurb on page 19]

Rather than strengthening marital love, pornography kills it by degrading it, distorting it

‘If Only I Could Play Like That!’

SEATED comfortably at the piano, Jon seems to make the music come to life. As the treble chords played by his right hand give increased richness to the melody, the well-controlled bass chords supply harmony and depth. Clever fill-ins and delicate runs, skillfully done, add sparkle to the music. Adrian, Brian, and Brett liven it up with their electric guitars, while Steve provides the finishing touch with his cool saxophone tones.

Such vibrant music stirs the audience to sing with gusto and feeling. This tastefully arranged and pleasing music encourages their best vocal efforts. No wonder someone wishfully exclaims: ‘Ah, if only I could play like that!’

Have you also felt that way when you listened to someone who played music well? Perhaps you have even lamented: ‘I know I could never play like that.’ But how do you know? Have you ever tried to learn to play a musical instrument?

Who Can Learn?

Some people have a greater natural aptitude than do others when it comes to music. But, really, anyone capable of learning to read and write can also learn to play an instrument. First, though, you must have a real desire to play the instrument and make beautiful music. It cannot be a mere passing fancy. You must be prepared to work at it.

Of course, just as not all persons become equally proficient at reading and writing, so not all who learn music will reach the same level of skill or ability to play with feeling and expressiveness. Nonetheless, if you enjoy listening to music, then learning to play an instrument can open up totally new dimensions to you. The difference between playing music and listening to it is the difference between actually playing a game and merely being a spectator.

Nowadays, there are two approaches to learning to play an instrument. In one the emphasis is placed on learning to read music and practicing scales as a foundation. However, many beginners get discouraged using this method. An alternative method is to help the student to play simple tunes by ear and thus become familiar with the instrument. This may encourage the learner enough to want to learn theory and to read music.

Is It Too Late to Start?

“Yes, I would love to play an instrument,” says 46-year-old Roslyn, “but it is no use trying to learn at my age!” Do you feel that way too? And is that really true? Can music be mastered only by the young? Not really. In music, as in all other fields of endeavor, the adage holds true: “You are never too old to learn.”

True, young people do have nimble fingers and eager minds that are usually quick to learn. For example, Frédéric Chopin, a child prodigy, gave his first piano recital at the age of seven! Violinist Yehudi Menuhin gave his first public performance in San Francisco at the ripe old age of eight! Naturally, they are the exceptions.

Our pianist, Jon, started to learn the piano at eight, but he says: “I must admit that the novelty wore off after just a few months, and it was only the persistence of my mother that made me continue. Now, however, I am very glad that she insisted.” Of course, Jon is not alone in his aversion to endless practice. This is one of the chief hurdles young learners have to clear, especially in the first few months when it seems they are getting nowhere with their lessons.

Older persons, on the other hand, often have more determination and motivation. This stands them in good stead when it comes to that indispensable ingredient to success—regular, daily practice. As far as being too old to learn is concerned, be encouraged by the comment of a university professor: “If life is rewarding and people continue to use their talents, they will keep growing intellectually regardless of age.” Arturo Toscanini, who conducted all his concerts from memory, reportedly learned and memorized the entire score of an opera—every word, note, and marking for all the singers and instruments—at the age of 85.

Picking the Right Instrument

Guitarist Brett volunteered this tip: “Don’t bother learning an instrument you don’t love. You will never put your heart into learning and necessary practice unless you are really attracted to the particular instrument you choose.” That is sound advice. So, of all the instruments you have listened to, which one will it be for you?

Like Brett, many young people are drawn to the guitar, surely one of the most popular instruments today. A guitar can provide the accompaniment for singing; it can supply the rhythm and harmony for other instruments; and it can furnish solo music. Another advantage of the guitar is that it can easily be carried anywhere, outdoors and indoors. Learning the basic chords and fingering is relatively easy, and a simple guitar is not expensive.

Keyboard instruments, such as the piano and the electronic organ, are also very popular. They can be studied with the help of either a teacher or one of the many simplified courses available. Although the piano is not portable, it is not uncommon to find one in places where friends gather. To provide accompaniment for friends singing as a group is but one of the pleasures even a relatively new student of the instrument can enjoy. There are also electronic organs with built-in devices that provide rhythms and special musical effects. Then there is the accordion, which has buttons for the left hand to produce bass chords. Simple tunes can usually be played on these instruments after only a few lessons.

However, there is a wide variety of musical instruments beyond the few familiar ones. Generally, they are divided into four categories: woodwinds, brass, percussion, and strings. Best known in the woodwinds are: flute, piccolo, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, and saxophone. In the brass section are: trumpet, French horn, trombone, and tuba. Percussions include: drums, cymbals, xylophone, tambourine, and timpani. And, finally, the strings contain: harp, mandolin, guitar, and the violin family—violin, viola, cello, and double bass.

Many people are deeply moved by the beautiful music produced by the strings, particularly the violin. But remember, to learn the violin, or any instrument of that string family, you must have a good, natural musical ear because they have no frets or keys as does a guitar or a piano. Playing the notes correctly depends on placing the fingers at precise positions on the strings, and you must rely on your ear to confirm accuracy and purity of sound.

Brass and woodwind instruments require strong, healthy lungs to supply a steady flow of air, or wind. Tones on all brass instruments are produced by the player’s lips vibrating on the mouthpiece. To play the woodwinds, you must learn to manipulate a set of keys while maintaining a steady flow of air through the instrument.

Most people think of cymbals, snare drums, kettledrums, bass drums, and so on simply as instruments to provide the rhythmic background or to keep time. But there is more to it. Besides a keen sense of rhythm, there is much a player has to learn about technique to handle the variety of instruments well, and a skillful, sensitive drummer is a boon to any orchestra.

How High to Aim?

So are you thinking of taking up some musical instrument? Remember, do not aim too high or spend too many hours trying to attain near perfection. You could easily become unbalanced in your use of valuable time.

Yes, you can learn to play—maybe not like a virtuoso or even quite ‘like that’ but well enough to bring a lot of pleasure to yourself and to those who listen to your music.

[Blurb on page 21]

‘If people continue to use their talents, they will keep growing intellectually regardless of age’

“Why Can’t I Finish What I Start?”

Young People Ask . . .

“Why Can’t I Finish What I Start?”

“If the task is dull and boring, I just lose my patience.”

“Distractions. That’s my problem. Television, friends.”

“Sometimes I’m just overwhelmed with too many things to do!”

“I always seem to leave things for the last minute. Then, it is too late.”

“I do finish what I start. But it never seems to be good enough for my parents!”

THESE teenagers explain a problem common during youth: not finishing what they start. Not that all youths are lazy or have a bad attitude toward responsibilities. Indeed, when one group of young people were asked: “Which chores do you think teenagers should do around the house?” the majority listed such chores as keeping their rooms neat, making their beds, and taking out the trash.

Good intentions notwithstanding, important tasks are often left unfinished, resulting in frequent complaints from parents, teachers, and others. So ask yourself: ‘What prevents me from finishing what I start?’ A good look at the causes will enable you to correct the problem.

A Good Look at the Causes

The book I Hate School—How to Hang In and When to Drop Out gives us a good idea of what distracts many youths from finishing their school homework. “When we sit down to write, we often find that we keep getting up to get something to eat or to sharpen pencils. Then we have to make a phone call or maybe watch a TV show we’ve been waiting for. Pretty soon it’s time to feed the cat and we haven’t gotten anything done.”

Researchers Claudine G. Wirths and Mary Bowman-Kruhm stated that “long hours of watching TV make it almost impossible for some people to actively read and study afterwards. There is a kind of hypnosis in TV that leaves you groggy and sleepy. You know yourself you sometimes end up being plugged into the screen for a couple of hours when you only meant to watch one show.” Wirths and Bowman-Kruhm also found that some students adopt poor study habits during their early school years, though for a while they are still able to get good grades. However, “when they get to junior high and high school, they don’t really know how to make themselves sit down, get to work, and learn hard or boring stuff.”

Whatever your reason for not finishing what you start, the problem will not go away by itself. If you really want to finish what you start, then take charge of your life in a responsible way and make the necessary adjustments.

Plan Ahead!

If you are a Christian youth, no doubt you are busy. (1 Corinthians 15:58) Sometimes you may feel overwhelmed with Christian responsibilities, homework, household chores, and personal projects. Of course, no one has more to do than our Creator. Yet, he always brings projects to completion. This is not simply because he is far superior to us in power and wisdom but also because he is “a God, not of disorder, but of peace.” You too can bring your projects to completion by letting “all things take place decently and by arrangement.”—1 Corinthians 14:33, 40.

Jesus once said: “Who of you that wants to build a tower does not first sit down and calculate the expense, to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, he might lay its foundation but not be able to finish it, and all the onlookers might start to ridicule him, saying, ‘This man started to build but was not able to finish.’”—Luke 14:28-30.

The lesson here is to plan ahead. Dr. Janet G. Woititz wrote: “People who carry projects through to completion don’t do it casually. They have what we call a ‘game plan.’” So try taking a realistic look at your tasks to understand exactly what it will take to complete them. Do you need to lay out a step-by-step plan? Would it be helpful to break up the project into smaller parts? How long will it take to complete it?

Some people like keeping a “things to do” list, with tasks written down in order of importance. Then the projects are crossed off as they are finished. To fight a tendency to procrastinate, learn to manage your time. If you are working with deadlines, be sure to place those projects at the top of your list in deadline order.

Sensible time-management is crucial. On the one hand, you want to set time limits for less important activities, such as TV watching. On the other hand, you must be careful not to curtail the essentials, such as getting proper sleep. The book I Hate School notes that people “vary in the amount of sleep they need, but most people can’t get by on four or five hours a night. . . . It is very hard to concentrate on difficult ideas if you are sleepy and tired.” Learning to use your time wisely will prove beneficial for years to come.

Keep Seeking the Advantage of Others

Some youths will claim, however, that good time-management and personal organization seem of little value when the tasks at hand are dull and boring. Applying the Bible counsel of 1 Corinthians 10:24 will help you develop the needed motivation. It says: “Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.” Perhaps very few household chores are in themselves challenging or satisfying. But when you do them to help or please a loved one, then there is accomplishment and a desire to do them well. So next time you find yourself ready to drop a project, think of those who are benefiting from what you do, and take pride in performing quality work.

Often you also benefit from seemingly unpleasant tasks. For example, think of a task you often leave unfinished. Is it doing the dishes? Or cleaning your room? Now ask yourself, ‘Whose dishes are they anyway?’ Aren’t they your dishes also? Isn’t it your room and your home? Your willingness to accept these responsibilities and to discharge them fully will also benefit you in the future. Addressing parents, the book Simply Organized! says: “If we do not teach our children to be home managers, they will operate with a tremendous handicap when they leave home.”

Communicate!

What, though, if you work very hard to finish a task, but your parents still complain that you really haven’t completed it? Often the problem is one of communication. For example, let’s say you are assigned to take out the trash. That sounds simple enough. Still, it is wise to get specific instructions. Make sure you know how, when, and where. Does the job include separating the trash? Does it include rinsing the garbage containers?

Good communication will also help your parents understand how you feel. Do you think that the distribution of chores is unfair? Do you find yourself overwhelmed by your parents’ expectations? Then find a good time, and tell your parents how you feel.

Some parents invite their children to share in the decision-making process when household work assignments are distributed. Dr. Jeffrey Rubin and Dr. Carol Rubin, authors of the book When Families Fight, advise parents to have ongoing discussions about family chores, to divide up the responsibilities, and to let children choose their own chores. If you like this approach, why not suggest it to your parents?

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, September 8, 1991