January 22

Page Two

PEOPLE ARE BECOMING ever more aware of the polluting of the earth. Scientists warn of the consequences. Acid rain killing forests and fish, spray cans punching holes in the ozone layer, toxic chemicals poisoning the soil, garbage dumping and oil spills damaging the oceans, fossil fuels turning earth into a greenhouse​—the many books on the subject have failed to document all the damage done. What most people are not aware of is the initial cause of the pollution​—the breakdown of morals. It has happened before. “The land suffers for the sins of its people. The earth languishes, the crops wither, the skies refuse their rain. The land is defiled by crime; the people have twisted the laws of God and broken his everlasting commands.”​—Isaiah 24:4, 5, The Living Bible.

Who Will Inherit the Earth?

JESUS answered this question in his Sermon on the Mount: ‘The meek will inherit the earth.’ Centuries earlier the psalmist David had said: ‘The meek will possess the earth.’ Of Jehovah God himself it is said: “The earth he has given to the sons of men.”​—Matthew 5:5; Psalm 37:11; 115:16.

When Jehovah created man, He put him in charge of the earth. He commissioned him “to cultivate it and to take care of it.” (Genesis 2:15) Instead, man pollutes it and destroys it. Revelation 11:18 foretold that he would and that only God could stop it. It is God who will “bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” Man is deaf when earth’s beauty cries out in protest, but he hears acutely when money whispers.​—1 Timothy 6:10.

But money also is an ultimate victim. An editorial in U.S.News & World Report asks a pertinent question:

“Who are the realists now? For years, citizens concerned about what we are doing to our planet have been derided as idealists, scaremongers and meddlesome do-gooders. It has now suddenly become clear that the ‘impractical’ worriers have been right all along on acid rain, on the erosion of the earth’s ozone shield and on global climate change from our pollution of the atmosphere by carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect.

“In all three cases, we and our children will pay dearly for the wishful thinking of the supposedly practical men. Their ‘realism’ thwarted pollution controls that would have cost millions at the time, but now confront us with costs of untold billions for irreversible consequences that might yet produce global catastrophe.”

The ones who could have done something about it dragged their feet and packed their purses as people sickened and died. And they are still doing so. Six thousand years of human history has proved the Bible true, when it says: “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”​—Jeremiah 10:23.

God gives man the guide he needs: “Your word is a lamp to my foot, and a light to my roadway.” (Psalm 119:105) It leads to happiness: “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.”​—Isaiah 48:17, 18.

But the majority of mankind does not have the meekness to accept divine guidance and thereby reap its benefits. It must assert its independence, must insist on taking the roadway to ruin. Only the meek find “the road leading off into life.”​—Matthew 7:13, 14.

Men today have become misfits. First they pollute themselves morally, then they pollute the earth literally. It is this moral pollution that renders them unfit in God’s eyes to inherit the earth. The following article gives two examples of how the immorality of people so polluted the land that they were cast out of it. Both cases reach back into ancient history.

Why Jehovah Evicted Both Canaanites and Israelites

ONE man said, “I love to criticize others​—it makes me feel so good.” With such an attitude, how superior must those feel who love to criticize Jehovah God! Higher critics frequently label Jehovah a bloodthirsty tribal god of the Jews. One clergyman denounced him as a dirty bully. To justify such name-calling, presumptuous critics cite Jehovah’s ousting of the Canaanites from their land in order to give it to the Jews.

Such a charge reflects gross ignorance. Moses, as Jehovah’s spokesman, made God’s reason clear to the Jews: “It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to take possession of their land; in fact, it is for the wickedness of these nations that Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you.”​—Deuteronomy 9:5.

It was the wickedness of the Canaanites that got them ousted. After identifying Baal as their principal god and Ashtoreth, his wife, as their principal goddess, Halley’s Bible Handbook, revised edition, says: “Temples of Baal and Ashtoreth were usually together. Priestesses were temple prostitutes. Sodomites were male temple prostitutes. The worship of Baal, Ashtoreth, and other Canaanite gods consisted of the most extravagant orgies; their temples were centers of vice.”​—Page 166.

In the debris of one of these “high places” of Canaanite times, archaeologists “found great numbers of jars containing the remains of children who had been sacrificed to Baal. The whole area proved to be a cemetery for new-born babes.” Also found were “enormous quantities of images and plaques of Ashtoreth with rudely exaggerated sex organs, designed to foster sensual feelings. So, Canaanites worshiped, by immoral indulgence, as a religious rite, in the presence of their gods; and then, by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods.”​—Pages 166, 167.

Halley’s then asks: “Do we wonder any longer why God commanded Israel to exterminate the Canaanites? Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than He did.”​—Page 167.

The Emphasized Bible, a translation by J. B. Rotherham, says on page 259: “Who shall say that the Most High has not the right to extinguish such polluters of the earth and contaminators of mankind as these?”

Jehovah told Israel why the Canaanites were being thrown out: “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, because by all these things the nations whom I am sending out from before you have made themselves unclean. Consequently the land is unclean, and I shall bring punishment for its error upon it, and the land will vomit its inhabitants out.” He then gave blunt warning to Israel: “And you people must keep all my statutes and all my judicial decisions and do them, that the land to which I am bringing you to dwell in it may not vomit you out.”​—Leviticus 18:24-26; 20:22.

The message is clear. The Canaanites were removed because they polluted the land by their gross immorality​—their adultery, their homosexuality, and their shedding of the blood of babies. If Israel copies this Canaanite religion of Baal worship, it will also be cast out.

And Israel did copy it. In strata laid down during Israel’s occupation of the land, archaeologists dug in the ruins of a temple of Ashtoreth, and “just a few steps from this temple was a cemetery, where many jars were found, containing remains of infants who had been sacrificed in this temple. . . . Prophets of Baal and Ashtoreth were official murderers of little children.”​—Halley’s Bible Handbook, page 198.

Jehovah’s law given through Moses explicitly forbade such sexual perversions. Leviticus 20:13 stated: “And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail.”

The Mosaic Law also said, at Deuteronomy 23:17, 18: “None of the daughters of Israel may become a temple prostitute, neither may anyone of the sons of Israel become a temple prostitute. You must not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog [New World Translation Reference Bible, footnote: “Likely a pederast; one who practices anal intercourse, especially with a boy.”] into the house of Jehovah your God for any vow, because they are something detestable to Jehovah your God, even both of them.”

Jehovah sent the prophets to warn Israel: “And Jehovah sent to you all his servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, but you did not listen.” (Jeremiah 25:4) Instead, Israel “kept building for themselves high places and sacred pillars and sacred poles upon every high hill and under every luxuriant tree. And even the male temple prostitute [New World Translation Reference Bible, footnote, “effeminate men”] proved to be in the land. They acted according to all the detestable things of the nations whom Jehovah had driven out from before the sons of Israel.”​—1 Kings 14:23, 24.

The prophet Isaiah warned them: “On a high and lofty mountain you have set up your bed; and thither have you climbed to offer sacrifice. Behind the door and the side posts you have set up your phallic symbol [sex-organ image]; and apart from me have you stripped and gone up, you have distended your parts; you have bargained for those whose embraces you love; and with them have you multiplied your harlotries, while gazing on the phallus [male organ].”​—Isaiah 57:7, 8, An American Translation.

Women made images of sex organs and had relations with them, as we read: “Didst make thee images of the male, and didst act unchastely with them.” (Ezekiel 16:17, Rotherham) Or as An American Translation says: “With which you played the harlot.”

The Israelites mixed true and false worship. At Mount Sinai they worshiped the golden calf and committed sexual immorality and at the same time held what was called “a festival to Jehovah.” (Exodus 32:5, 6) Centuries later, they were still mixing the false with the true. The prophet Elijah denounced them for it, saying: “‘How long will you be limping upon two different opinions? If Jehovah is the true God, go following him; but if Baal is, go following him.’ And the people did not say a word in answer to him.” (1 Kings 18:21) After Manasseh reformed, he removed the foreign gods and offered communion and thanksgiving sacrifices to Jehovah. However, as 2 Chronicles 33:17 says, “the people were still sacrificing upon the high places; only it was to Jehovah their God.”

For centuries Israel contaminated Jehovah’s true worship with Baalism, violating the principle the apostle Paul later put in question form: “What agreement does God’s temple have with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:16) So it was that in 740 B.C.E. the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel was carried away captive by the Assyrians, and in 607 B.C.E. the two-tribe kingdom of Judah was taken captive by the Babylonians. Both nations had polluted the land as the Canaanites had done, and both nations were vomited out of the land as the Canaanites had been.

What about the nations today? Are their churches contaminated with immorality? Are they polluting the land? Will they also be vomited out of the land?

[Blurb on page 6]

“Prophets of Baal and Ashtoreth were official murderers of little children”

[Picture on page 5]

Jar burial of infant remains

[Credit Line]

Lawrence E. Stager/​Oriental Institute, University of Chicago

Christendom Walks in the Way of Canaan

THE Canaanites had a religion that involved fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and child murder. Because of it, the earth vomited them out. The Israelites copied that religion and merged its obscenities with Jehovah’s worship, and the land vomited them out. Today, there are people and religions that claim to be Christian yet copy those ancient sexual immoralities. Fornication and adultery have become commonplace. Homosexuality and the snuffing out of life in the womb are running rampant. Unwanted, babies in Canaan were sacrificed by the hundreds; today, they are trashed by the millions​—55 million a year.​—Compare Exodus 21:22, 23.

Not to be labeled old-fashioned or prudish, many churches in Christendom have rushed to mount the “anything goes” bandwagon. Some even provide for “safe” sexual sinning, such as the Unitarian Universalist minister who stopped his sermon to pass out condoms to his congregation.

A columnist, himself an Episcopalian, said: “The Episcopal Church of the ’80s is a theological taxidermy shop. It can be depended on to stuff and mount in the window whatever societal trend seems most up-to-the-minute. Some years it’s politics. This year it’s sex.” He refers to a new sex-education curriculum that shows that “Christians are behind the times in refusing to condone gay sex . . . and unwedded bliss.” An Episcopalian bishop in New York believes that “responsible homosexual relationships will one day be accepted as God’s will.”

Roy Howard Beck, affiliated with the religious weekly the United Methodist Reporter, wrote in his book On Thin Ice: “Caught in the act [immoralities] were TV evangelists, tall-steeple mainline preachers, bishops, well-known charismatic leaders, highly-visible lay leaders, revered small church pastors, priests, Pentecostals, liberals, conservatives​—you name it. What a commentary on the church’s role in uplifting society!”​—Page 214.

The Church of England

The Church of England’s parliament, the General Synod, met in November 1987 to consider a motion that called on it to reaffirm that “fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts are sinful.” The general secretary of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement declared: “If this motion were accepted it would wreck the Church, and the Archbishop of Canterbury knows it. As a general figure, we believe between 30 and 40 per cent of Church of England clergymen are gay.”

Reporter Philippa Kennedy, writing in England’s Daily Express, October 29, 1987, said: “Margaret Thatcher’s attack on Church leaders for failing to give the nation adequate moral guidance will add spice to what promises to be one of the great clerical punch-ups of the decade. For it is not only the Prime Minister who believes that Bishops in general and the Archbishop of Canterbury in particular, are a bunch of wishy-washy wafflers.”

On November 11, 1987, the motion was debated, was found to be a pill too big to swallow, and was scuttled by a feeble amendment that passed overwhelmingly. So it was not “one of the great clerical punch-ups of the decade.” It fizzled out. The bishops shadowboxed, ducked, weaved, feinted, and backpedaled.

The General Synod’s decision: The ideal is sexual intercourse in a permanent married relationship; fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal; homosexual genital acts fall short of this ideal; and all Christians are to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, including sexual morality. Homosexual acts were rated less serious than fornication and adultery​—the latter are sins against the ideal, whereas homosexuality merely falls short of the ideal. No removal of fornicators. No dismissal of adulterers. Gay priests and vicars whitewashed.

The synod’s trumpet had given an indistinct call, and the original motion submitted by parish priest Tony Higton was left in shambles. (1 Corinthians 14:8) Yet, strangely, he voted for the emasculated version and was “very, very pleased” with the outcome. A difficult reaction to fathom in view of his previous expressions. “If the Church doesn’t put its house in order,” he threatened, “then God will judge it.”

During the synod, Higton had presented a sensational dossier of evidence against the homosexual clergy. One was convicted of child molesting but was merely moved to another parish. Another priest, convicted of gross indecency in a public toilet, was appointed to another diocese, where he was convicted of a similar offense​—still not defrocked. Homosexual Anglican priests in London, Higton reported, ran a church bookstall for “selling literature alleged to encourage homosexual promiscuity, the use of male prostitutes, and a variety of homosexual acts.” One book in the stall allegedly showed “a five-year-old girl in bed with her father and his male lover.”

Since Higton’s evidence was ignored, how could he be “very, very pleased”? No doubt because Anglican clerics are gentle souls easily pleased. As one news report said: “Admittedly, none of this scandal has been met with thunder, rather with the gentle drizzling rain in which Anglicans specialise.”

Understandably, the homosexual clergy were pleased. “The Synod had clearly given the gay and lesbian community a place in the life of the Church,” they said. After all, Archbishop of Canterbury Runcie had “argued that the church should not condemn disciplined and responsible homosexuals,” and had said: “I want to insist that to be homosexual by nature is to be a full human being.”

“Homosexual by nature,” the Archbishop of Canterbury said. Helpless homosexuals sentenced to be such by genetics? Some so argue, saying that the homosexual condition “is a basic psychological trait which predates any moral choice.” They dismissed the apostle Paul, who under inspiration condemned homosexuality, as “a bit of a prude,” according to The Times of London.

Sir Immanuel Jakobovits, a chief rabbi, questioned that “such a natural disposition to homosexuality” had been proved and said: “To argue from natural predispositions is a slippery slope which would lead to the collapse of the entire moral order . . . We cannot accept in any society that a natural predilection can in itself be sufficient to exonerate from guilt. We must be masters of nature, and not its victims.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury whittled away at Jesus’ words until they were reshaped to make room for homosexuals in Christ’s church, saying: “In this earthly tabernacle of Christ’s church there are many mansions, and they are all made of glass.” (Compare John 14:2.) So he was saying, ‘Don’t throw stones at anyone else, not even at homosexuals, for there is also a mansion for them in the church of Christ.’

The Bishop of Chester, Michael Baughen, argued that “the Greek of the New Testament justified the restatement of Anglican doctrine to express ‘love, sadness, sensitivity and understanding’ towards homosexuals,” that homosexuality was rebuked in Scripture only as “a wandering away from the path.” What the Scriptures really say is that homosexuals, if they don’t change, will not inherit the Kingdom and “are deserving of death.”​—Romans 1:27, 32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

To quote The Times again, the synod proved “the well-worn accusation that the Church of England believes nothing and permits everything” and established “its wishy-washy trendiness​—swallowing, as if it were the Gospel, each new liberal fashion.” Under the headline “Church Fudge,” the Liverpool Daily Post said: “Church of England leaders seem increasingly unable to declare in ringing terms just what they consider right and wrong.” As The Economist wryly observed: “The Church of England is against homosexual practices, but not very much.”

Under the headline “Fury at Synod Ruling on Gays,” the Daily Post quoted a number of Tory MPs. One MP called the Synod’s decision “shameful and lily-livered.” Another: “I am afraid that homosexuality has now obtained a firm foothold in the clergy of the Church of England and in the Church of England itself.” A third: “This vote​—I would prefer to call it a disgraceful fudge—​actually puts children at risk. Many homosexuals who are unable to find partners turn to young children and this is where youngsters who attend church are so vulnerable. . . . In stark language, the Church has failed to purge itself of an evil rampant within its own ranks.”

The Roman Catholic Church

The Catholic Church is blunt in its disapproval of homosexuality, branding it a gross sin. But in practice the church conducts a cover-up for guilty priests and even makes it possible for them to continue their sexual perversions. Certainly, Pope John Paul II had warm words for homosexuals when he declared: “They are in the heart of the church.”

An independent Catholic newspaper, the National Catholic Reporter, of February 27, 1987, said that homosexual clergy estimated that 50 percent of the U.S. Catholic priesthood is homosexual. This figure is contested. One psychologist, basing his statement on 1,500 interviews, says that 20 percent of the 57,000 U.S. Catholic priests are homosexual, whereas more recent reports make “other therapists think the true figure today may be closer to 40 percent.”

Just over a year ago, newspapers across the country were flooded with reports of sexual assaults on children by Catholic priests. The following report from the San Jose, California, Mercury News, December 30, 1987, is typical:

“At a time of heightened national awareness of the problems of child abuse, the Catholic Church in the United States continues to ignore and cover up cases of priests who sexually molest children, according to court records, internal church documents, civil authorities and the victims themselves.

“Church officials insist that a notorious 1985 Louisiana case in which a priest molested at least 35 boys has taught them to deal firmly with the problem. But a three-month Mercury News investigation reveals that in more than 25 dioceses across the country, church officials have failed to notify authorities, transferred molesting priests to other parishes, ignored parental complaints and disregarded the potential damage to child victims. . . . Millions of dollars in damages already have been paid to victims and their families, and one 1986 church report estimated that the church’s liability could reach $1 billion over the next decade.”

The “notorious 1985 Louisiana case” mentioned in the Mercury News report concerned a priest named Gilbert Gauthe. There has been a “payment of $12 million to his victims.” The homosexual activities of Gauthe were known for many years, but ‘the diocese handled the problem by transferring him from parish to parish at least three times.’ In one instance “parents testified that Gauthe sodomized their 7-year-old son on his first day as an altar boy and for a year afterward, until the priest was transferred.”

The “damage to child victims” was also mentioned in that report. Sometimes the damage is final. One 12-year-old boy took his life, leaving a note saying that “it wasn’t worth living” after having been “made a virtual sex slave of a Franciscan brother.” Another, molested by a priest, hanged himself after telling his brother, “Contact Father S.— and tell him I forgive him.”

Most sexual assault cases involve boys, but many girls are also victimized. As reported by the Cleveland Plain Dealer of December 19, 1987, a 16-year-old girl and her parents filed a civil suit in 1986 against seven priests for sexual molestation. She had become pregnant, and the priests urged her to get an abortion. When she refused, they arranged to send her to the Philippines to cover up her pregnancy. The church is against homosexuality and abortion but apparently not when it involves their own priests.

The newspaper reports go on and on listing many specific cases of Catholic youths sodomized by Catholic priests, of millions of dollars being paid out to settle lawsuits, of many settlements made out of court, and of insurance companies that “will no longer cover diocesan personnel against molestation charges.”

Thomas Fox, editor of the National Catholic Reporter, says: “There has been a national cover-up of the problem for years by the bishops.” Eugene Kennedy, a former priest and now psychology professor at Loyola University, says: “What you see in the courts is just the tip of the iceberg.” Thomas Doyle, Dominican priest and canon lawyer, declares: “The sexual molesting of little boys by priests is the single most serious problem we’ve had to face in centuries.”

What Does the Bible Say?

It says: “God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them.”​—Romans 1:26, 27, 32.

It also says: “What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10) 1Co 6 Verse 11 adds: “Yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean.” Sinners who became Christians cleaned up or were cast out: “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) It is not that fleshly sins will never occur in Christian congregations but that when they do occur, those guilty will either repent or be removed.

But this spiritual cleansing work​—the removal of fornicators and adulterers and homosexuals—​most of the religions of Christendom will not do. Israel claimed to serve Jehovah as they practiced ancient sex worship. (2 Chronicles 33:17) Christendom’s congregations say ‘Lord, Lord,’ even as sexual immorality flourishes in their midst. “Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known,” Jehovah asks, “and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, ‘We are safe’​—safe to do all these detestable things?”​—Jeremiah 7:4, 8-10, New International Version.

Jehovah is not to be mocked; all will reap what they sow. (Galatians 6:7) Jehovah’s words given through Jeremiah are as appropriate today as they were when spoken to Israel by the prophet: “Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush.”​—Jeremiah 6:15, NIV.

Jehovah is not partial. He is no respecter of persons. As it was with Canaan, as it was with Israel, so it will be with Christendom.​—Acts 10:34; compare Revelation 21:8.

[Blurb on page 7]

Episcopalians: “Christians are behind the times in refusing to condone gay sex”

[Blurb on page 8]

“We believe between 30 and 40 per cent of Church of England clergymen are gay”

[Blurb on page 9]

Cover-up for “priests who sexually molest children”

[Blurb on page 10]

“The church’s liability could reach $1 billion over the next decade”

[Blurb on page 10]

Another youth, molested by a priest, hanged himself

[Blurb on page 11]

Made pregnant by priest, urged to get abortion

[Blurb on page 11]

“They have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush”

Earth​—An Everlasting Inheritance for the Meek

“THE heavens are my throne,” says Jehovah, “and the earth is my footstool.” Concerning his footstool, Jehovah promises: “The place of my feet will I make glorious.” (Isaiah 66:1; 60:13, Rotherham) This he will do for the meek who are to inherit it. Under their appreciative care, the earth will become a place of paradisaic beauty and a glory to Jehovah its Creator.

But some will argue: ‘It’s the meek that inherit the earth? Meek people are weak people! How can they be strong enough to exercise dominion over the earth?’ The word “meek” in the Scriptures refers to those who are gentle, kind, mild-tempered but with strength of steel. It was a word used of a wild beast that was tamed but still powerful.

Vine’s dictionary of Greek words defines meek: “It is an inwrought grace of the soul; and the exercises of it are first and chiefly towards God. It is that temper of spirit in which we accept His dealings with us as good, and therefore without disputing or resisting.” The meek do not add to, subtract from, water down, or twist God’s Word​—as some do today to accommodate their immoralities.​—Deuteronomy 4:2; 2 Peter 3:16; Revelation 22:18, 19.

“Moses was by far the meekest of all the men who were upon the surface of the ground.” (Numbers 12:3) But was he weak? He appeared before mighty Pharaoh of Egypt and demanded that he let the enslaved Hebrews go. Pharaoh was adamant, his answer no! But Moses, unintimidated, kept returning, announcing the plagues to come upon the Egyptians. (Exodus, chapters 7–11) Meek, yes; but weak? Hardly!

Christ Jesus was meek, but he stood up to the religious bigots of his day, even knowing that they would torture and kill him. “Here we are,” Jesus said to his disciples, “advancing up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and will deliver him to men of the nations, and they will make fun of him and will spit upon him and scourge him and kill him.” (Mark 10:33, 34) All of this they did to him, but he never wavered in his integrity to God. Meek, yes; but weak? Hardly!

So it is to the Scripturally meek that Jehovah God will give the earth. And contrary to the theorizings of scientists and the teachings of false religion, the earth will remain “to time indefinite, or forever.” (Psalm 104:5) Jehovah “did not create it simply for nothing.” He “formed it even to be inhabited.” (Isaiah 45:18) And how sublime life will then be! God “will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”​—Revelation 21:4.

Gone then all the polluters that made the earth sick! Then, “the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.” (Proverbs 2:21, 22; Psalm 37:11) You too may enjoy everlasting life in that Paradise earth if you are strong enough to qualify as one of those who are Scripturally meek.

Young People Ask . . .

How Can I Use My Money Wisely?

“YOUNG people in this country today are being raised to spend.” So concluded pollster Lester Rand after doing a study of teenage spending in the United States. According to Rand, U.S. youths spent to the tune of $39.1 billion in just one year! And where is the money going?

U.S. researchers Norman and Harris report: “Some form of entertainment, particularly music, is high on almost every list. . . . Teenagers who drive spend the largest percentage of their money on gasoline, repairs, and general maintenance. A great many others spend their cash on a variety of junk foods, with pizza, soft drinks, and hamburgers heading the list. Girls seem to spend more on clothing than boys do; and of course, teenage girls are invaluable to the cosmetics industry.”

Granted, car expenses, food, entertainment​—these can be perfectly legitimate expenses. But is all teenage spending done wisely?a And could it be that a working youth’s financial obligations go beyond buying things for himself?

How to Spend Prudently

Let’s consider shopping, for example. Most young people enjoy it, especially if they have money in their pockets to spend. But is it really the best policy to buy everything that you want and see?

In a survey of 600 people taken in England, it was observed that 62 percent of those questioned between the ages of 15 and 19 were at least occasional impulsive shoppers. (Adolescence, Fall 1982) A smart buyer, though, thinks ahead as to what he or she needs. Why not, then, make a list of what to buy before you go shopping and limit your purchases to that list? In their book Options, authors Shaw and Berry further recommend: “When you go shopping, bring just enough money to buy what you really need, or what you’d planned to buy before you left for the store.”

The journal Adolescence also observed that while older consumers are concerned with quality and practicality when purchasing clothing, youths are more concerned with fashion. Is that true of you? If so, make some changes in your shopping habits. Before spending your hard-earned money, think about how long a garment will last you. Will it be a few years? Or will it go out of style in a few months?

Be concerned, too, about quality. An inexpensive item of poor quality may cost you more in the long run because of repairs or replacement. So shop around. If it’s clothing, examine the fiber content. How often will the garment need cleaning? Can it be washed? These are factors that should be taken into consideration before making a purchase.

A youth named Lyshondra has learned a valuable shopping skill from her parents. Says she: “I usually shop with my mother, and she has taught me to look for sales so that I can stretch my money.” Another tactic is to delay buying until the end of a season when bargains abound. Phyllis, a young woman who is already an experienced bargain hunter, adds: “I can’t remember buying anything at the regular price. I look for bargains, and I like thrift shops. People think that my clothes are new!”

Helping With Household Expenses

Do you have an after-school or part-time job? If so, are you spending all your money on yourself, reasoning that it is your parents’ job to provide for you? Really, though, when was the last time your parents spent money only on themselves? Are not most of their resources shared with the family? Would it not be reasonable, then, for you to lend a hand with household expenses?

“I do,” answered young Stephanie when asked that question. She and three other family members are Jehovah’s Witnesses and serve as full-time evangelizers. “It’s necessary,” says Stephanie, “and it also serves as training, for there is no place where a person can live without helping with the expenses.” Adds a youth named Albert: “It’s only part of my responsibility. If I was not living at home, I would have to do it anyway. So I feel I should give freely.”

True, your parents may not expect anything from you. But a youth named Tommy made a good point when he said: “I feel it’s only fair. They brought me into the world and have taken care of me up to this point, so I should do something to pay them back.”

The Blessings of Generosity

“A generous man grows fat and prosperous, and he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed.” So says the Bible at Proverbs 11:25. (The New English Bible) When you get paid, it may be tempting to think of all the things you can buy for yourself. Jesus, however, reminds us: “There is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving.”​—Acts 20:35.

Granted, there is a need for balance in this regard. Generosity does not mean spending oneself into poverty. “I spend a lot of money on presents and my cash just flies out of the door,” lamented one youth. “That’s where I think eighty-five percent of my money goes.” Never forget, though, that God takes note of well-motivated acts of kindness. Indeed, says Proverbs 19:17: “He that is showing favor to the lowly one is lending to Jehovah, and his treatment He will repay to him.”

Proverbs 3:9, 10 points out another area in which you can show generosity: “Honor Jehovah with your valuable things and with the firstfruits of all your produce. Then your stores of supply will be filled with plenty; and with new wine your own press vats will overflow.” In Bible times, worshipers of Jehovah in Israel were obliged to contribute voluntarily the firstfruits of their farming labors. This served to maintain the Levitical priests who served at the temple in Jerusalem. Though Jehovah’s Witnesses today do not worship at a material temple, they realize that it likewise requires funds to maintain their places of worship (called Kingdom Halls). Says an 18-year-old named Albert: “I made it a goal to contribute something each time I go to the hall.”

The Snare of Envy

Admittedly, not all youths have the financial resources to shop and spend as outlined here. And when you don’t have what others seem to have, it is easy to feel envious. Young Darnell, for example, admits: “I do have the tendency to look at what other people have, and I say: ‘Wow! That’s nice.’” But rather than dwell on the matter, he tries to counteract those feelings.

No, simply wanting nice things is no sin. But do you allow yourself to become unhappy when you cannot afford something that you want? Do you even develop some ill will toward those who happen to have more than you do? If so, remember the counsel Jesus Christ gave at Luke 12:15: “Guard against every sort of covetousness, because even when a person has an abundance his life does not result from the things he possesses.”

Really, there will always be those who have more than you do. And trying to keep up with the Joneses leads only to heartache and many pains. The apostle Paul reminds us: “For we have brought nothing into the world, and neither can we carry anything out. So, having sustenance and covering, we shall be content with these things.”​—1 Timothy 6:7, 8.

Money can be a useful servant if it is viewed properly. Learn to save. Learn to spend it shrewdly, carefully. Money definitely contributes to life and can make it more comfortable. But as a youth named Matthew puts it: “Money has its place, but it is not everything. It’s not the main thing. We do need money to live, but it should never be put ahead of our family or Jehovah.”

[Footnotes]

[Blurb on page 13]

U.S. youths spent to the tune of $39.1 billion in just one year!

[Picture on page 15]

If you have a job, do you voluntarily share household expenses?

Bats​—Misunderstood, Marvelous, Valuable, Endangered

‘BATS! I hate them! They’re vermin infested, can’t see and get tangled up in your hair, spread rabies, suck your blood. Ugh! They make my skin crawl!’ Are those also your sentiments?

Actually, bats are much maligned little creatures. They are victims of bad press. They groom themselves fastidiously. Most have good eyesight; none are blind. They have no desire to get in your hair. They rarely have rabies, and when they do, they are not inclined to bite you​—unlike rabid dogs. “More people die annually from bee stings or pet dog attacks,” one researcher says. And only three of the nearly one thousand different species of bats drink blood.

Merlin D. Tuttle, founder of Bat Conservation International of Austin, Texas, is recognized worldwide as an authority on bats.a He informs us: “They make up almost a quarter of all mammal species and come in an amazing diversity, ranging from the world’s smallest mammal​—the Bumblebee Bat of Thailand, which weighs a third less than a penny—​to giant flying foxes in Java with up to six-foot [1.8 m] wingspans. . . . Some 70 percent of bats eat insects. Many feed on fruit or nectar, and a few are carnivores.” He finds them likable, gentle, intelligent, trainable, badly misunderstood, and absolutely

Marvelous!

Scientific American magazine agrees: “In these days of technological triumphs it is well to remind ourselves from time to time that living mechanisms are often incomparably more efficient than their artificial imitations. There is no better illustration of this rule than the sonar system of bats. Ounce for ounce and watt for watt, it is billions of times more efficient and more sensitive than the radars and sonars contrived by man.”​—July 1958, page 40.

Since the bat’s sonar is far more sophisticated than man’s, many prefer “echolocation” as a more accurate word to describe it. As the insect-hunting bat cruises, it emits pulses of sound, each pulse being about 10 to 15 thousandths of a second long. When the sound strikes an insect and the returning echo is received, the bat closes in on its meal. It shortens the length of the pulses to less than a thousandth of a second and increases their emission rate to 200 sound pulses a second, thereby continuously updating the picture it receives as it approaches its prey. In a room strung with fine wires, bats specialized for echolocation miss them all​—they can dodge wires 0.04 inch [1 mm] in diameter!

The bat’s echolocation system is further refined by the changing pitch of each pulse, from about 50,000 to 25,000 cycles per second. As the pitch changes, the wavelength rises, starting at about a quarter inch [6 mm] and reaching a half inch [12 mm]. This helps the bat locate targets of varying size, since this wavelength variation covers the size range of most insects on which it feeds. The bat can also tell from the echo whether the object is an edible insect or not. If it’s a hard pebble, the bat will swerve at the last instant.

Most amazing is the bat’s ability to recognize and pick up its own echoes in spite of the noise pollution from thousands of other bats. Millions of bats roosting in caves are flying about saturating the air with cries and echoes, yet each bat distinguishes the echoes from its own cries and thereby avoids colliding with other bats. Complicating the problem and magnifying the marvels of bat echolocation, it must be realized “that the echoes are very much fainter than the sounds they emit​—in fact, fainter by a factor of 2,000. And they must pick out these echoes in a field which is as loud as their emitted sounds. . . . Yet the bat is distinguishing and using these signals, some 2,000 times fainter than the background noise!” Such a sophisticated sonar system is beyond our comprehension.

Long-eared bats, we are told, “can hear their echoes perfectly well if they whisper.” Some species have hearing so sensitive that they can hear a beetle walking on the sand from ten feet [3 m] away. They do not, however, hear their own cries when echolocating. “Each time one is uttered an ear muscle contracts automatically, thus momentarily shutting off the sound itself so that only the echo can be heard. It is possible that each animal has its own individual sound pattern and is guided by its own echoes.”

Bat mothers are commendable. Usually having only one pup a year, some carry it with them when they fly out to feed. Others leave it in a nursery in a cave, packed in a mass, 5,000 [4,000] to a square yard [meter]. When the mother returns, she calls to her baby and baby calls back, and in the pandemonium of millions of squealing babies and calling mothers, she finds her pup and lets it nurse. Some females are very altruistic. Returning from feeding, she will share her meal by regurgitation with other females who were unable to find food.

Valuable

One insect-eating bat, Tuttle says, ‘can capture up to 600 mosquitoes in an hour, eat 3,000 insects in a night.’ One colony of bats in Arizona was found “to devour about 350,000 pounds [160,000 kg] of insects, or about the equivalent weight of 34 elephants, every night!”

Some bats are nectar feeders, rendering valuable service as pollinators. Hovering over blossoms like hummingbirds, their long tongues, tipped with brushlike bristles, mop up nectar and pollen. They are tropical animals and migrate between Mexico and the southwestern United States. Those that eat fruit spread the seeds over wide areas. Tuttle says: “Fruit and nectar-eating bats that disperse seeds and pollinate flowers are vital to the survival of rain forests and to the production of associated crops worth millions of dollars annually.”

New Scientist magazine, September 1988, said: “Farmers who slaughter fruit bats because they consider them to be pests may suffer still greater losses in production because the bats cross-pollinate their fruit trees.” Fruit for shipment is harvested five to seven days before ripening, for local use two to four days early, but bats eat only the unharvested ripe fruit​—worthless to farmers. Bat pollination and dispersal of seeds is crucial for more than 500 species of plants and trees. Incidentally, fruit bats do not fly by sonar​—they have good eyesight. Often it’s the farmers, not the bats, who are blind.

Endangered

Nevertheless, the invaluable bats have fallen on hard times. Loss of habitat, pesticides, and indiscriminate slaughtering of large numbers are cutting their numbers from millions to thousands and sending some into extinction. Prejudice, misunderstanding, and just plain ignorance are usually responsible. In Latin America the common vampire bat does require control to safeguard modern man’s livestock, but “poorly trained vampire control agents often indiscriminately kill all bats, unaware that the vast majority of the area’s 250 other bat species are highly beneficial.”

In Australia, thousands of flying foxes, fruit bats, have been wiped out, “despite the fact that some of the area’s most ecologically and economically important trees rely on them” and that “the government’s own investigative findings that crop damage by the bats does not warrant control.” In Israel, “caves suspected of sheltering fruit bats were poisoned​—even in nature preserves—​inadvertently destroying some 90 percent of the country’s insectivorous bats.”

Old fears concerning bats as carriers of rabies and other diseases are greatly exaggerated: “The odds that a person will die of a bat-borne disease are extremely remote, far less than those of being killed by a dog, a bee sting, or food poisoning at a church picnic.”

Science Year for 1985 sums up its article on bats as follows: “Unfortunately, as the list of the helpful contributions of bats continues to grow, so do the threats to the existence of these creatures. Worldwide, bat populations are declining rapidly. Each year, large bat colonies die out because their habitats are disturbed or destroyed. In Africa and Asia, bats are being hunted in ever-increasing numbers for human food and for use in folk medicines and potions. Fruit-eating bats, which feed chiefly on the fruits of native forests, are often killed by farmers who mistakenly believe that the bats seriously damage their crops. And the myths about bats persist so strongly that millions of the animals are exterminated each year simply because people are afraid of them. Some species of bats are already extinct, and many more are endangered. Until more people come to recognize the value of bats and the need to protect them, the future of these important animals remains uncertain.”

After listing some of the gains made by Bat Conservation International, Merlin Tuttle concludes: “We have only scratched the surface of what must be done if healthy bat populations are to survive. For some, it is already too late and for others, time is running out. The loss of bat populations poses serious, potentially irreversible, consequences for the environment that we all must share.”

Here again, the message is clear: Both ancient and modern history show that man cannot direct his own steps. (Jeremiah 10:23) His love of money, his short-sightedness, and his self-centeredness result in the destruction of the environment​—air, water, soil, and plant and animal life—​and of people too. Only Jehovah God will stop it. Only he will “bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”​—Revelation 11:18.

[Footnotes]

[Picture on page 16]

Gambian fruit bats, mother and young

[Picture on page 17]

Nectar-feeding bat

[Picture on page 17]

Lyle’s flying fox

[Pictures on page 18]

From top down: Common long-eared bat

Flying fox

Heart-nosed bat catching beetle

Mealtime excitement!

Religion’s Future in View of Its Past

Part 2​—2369-1943 B.C.E.​—A Hunter, a Tower, and You!

“There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it.”​—George Bernard Shaw, Irish playwright (1856-1950)

AT MAN’S creation, as well as after the Flood of Noah’s day, it was true that there was only one religion. ‘Then why,’ you may wonder, ‘are there a hundred​—and even more—​versions of it today?’

To find out, we turn our attention to Nimrod, one of Noah’s great-grandsons. Of him the Bible says: “He made the start in becoming a mighty one in the earth. He displayed himself a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah. . . . The beginning of his kingdom came to be Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went forth into Assyria and set himself to building Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah.”​—Genesis 10:8-11.

Since Nimrod “made the start in becoming a mighty one in the earth,” he obviously started something new. But what? The words “the beginning of his kingdom” give us a clue. If Nimrod had a kingdom, then he must have been a king, a ruler. So the German Bible commentary by Dr. August Knobel correctly calls him “the first post-Flood ruler,” explaining that no one like him had existed before. Accordingly, The Bible in Living English renders Genesis 10:8: “He was the first to become a potentate on earth.”

Nimrod set himself up in opposition to the Creator, who had never intended that humans rule themselves. And when “he went forth into Assyria,” Nimrod proceeded to expand his political realm, possibly by force of arms. If so, this made him “a mighty hunter” not only of animals but of humans as well.

Was There Really a Nimrod, Really a Tower?

“Scholars have attempted, without real success,” says Collier’s Encyclopedia, “to identify Nimrod with a number of ancient kings, heroes, or deities, among them Merodach (Marduk), an Assyrian-Babylonian god; Gilgamesh, a Babylonian hero noted as a hunter; and Orion, a hunter in Classical mythology.” So a German reference work admits that in reality “we know nothing more about him than what is offered by the Bible account.”

Nevertheless, Nimrod did exist. Arabic tradition mentions him. His name, as Nimrud or Nimroud, occurs in the names of places in the Near East. Sumerian-Akkadian didactic poems report his heroic deeds. And Jewish historian Josephus refers to him by name.

Nimrod’s political system, designed as it was to supplant God’s rightful rulership over mankind, thereby took on religious overtones. People began building “a tower with its top in the heavens” to “make a celebrated name for [themselves],” not for God.​—Genesis 11:4.

Although archaeologists have been unable to identify ancient ruins as definitely being Nimrod’s Tower of Babel, they have found over two dozen apparently similar structures in Mesopotamia. In fact, this type of tower was characteristic of temple architecture there. The book Paths of Faith says that Babylonian temples “centered in a ziggurat, which was a pyramid-shaped structure with a shrine at the top.” It adds: “Similar to religious edifices from the pyramids of Egypt to the stupas of India or pagodas of the Buddhist world, the ziggurat . . . was probably a remote ancestor of the steepled church.”

German archaeologist Walter Andrae did extensive digging in this area at the beginning of the 20th century. The shrine at the top of the ziggurat, he wrote, was thought to be “the gate . . . through which the God of heaven descends the ziggurat staircase to reach his earthly dwelling place.” No wonder inhabitants of Babel claimed that the name of their city meant “Gate of God,” derived from Bab (gate) and ilu (God).

But there are additional reasons for not doubting the Bible’s account about Nimrod and his tower, as we shall see.

Consequences Reaching Out to Touch You

Nimrod, the first to merge religion with politics, set the pattern for all like subsequent alliances. Would it have divine approval? The principle later set out in the Bible that “a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit” was about to be applied.​—Matthew 7:18.

Originally, all earth’s inhabitants spoke the same language.a But when Nimrod and his supporters undertook to build this tower in Babel, God manifested His displeasure. We read: “Accordingly Jehovah scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. That is why its name was called Babel [from ba-lalʹ, meaning “to confuse”], because there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth.” (Genesis 11:1, 5, 7-9) How frustrated the builders must have been when suddenly they were unable to discuss what had happened, much less reach a consensus as to why it happened! No doubt many theories were advanced, their diversity augmented by the inability of the language groups to communicate.

When these groups scattered into different parts of the earth, they naturally took along their religious theories. As time passed, these ideas, although basically the same, became colored by local tradition and events. From “only one religion” there soon arose “a hundred versions of it.” Clearly, this first experiment in religious-political activity had turned out badly.

Its consequences have spanned the centuries to touch you, a fact you can appreciate if you have ever tried to discuss religion with someone of another faith. Even common religious words like “God,” “sin,” “soul,” and “death” mean different things to different people. Apt are the words of English scholar John Selden, who 300 years ago said: “If the matter were well examined, you would scarce find three [persons] anywhere of the same religion in all points.” This is mankind’s heritage, all because of that mighty hunter of long ago who, being without the blessing of the Creator, was unable to complete his tower.

Modern Holdovers From Babel

“None of the religions we know can come up with so many gods as the Sumerian-Assyrian-Babylonian,” claims authoress Petra Eisele. She speaks of 500 gods, saying that some of the more extensive lists contain up to 2,500 names. Finally, in course of time, “the official theologians of Babylon fixed the hierarchy of the gods more or less definitely, dividing them into triads,” says the New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. One prominent triad of gods was composed of Anu, Enlil, and Ea. Another was made up of the astral gods Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar, also known as Astarte, the mother-goddess, consort of Tammuz.

Marduk, Babylon’s most prominent god, later called Enlil or Bel, was a war god. Paths of Faith says that this “constituted a religious recognition of the historic fact that war was becoming an increasing preoccupation of the Babylonian servants of the gods.” A mighty hunter like Nimrod, who preyed upon man and beast, would logically worship a god of war, not “the God of love and of peace” of whom the Bible speaks.​—2 Corinthians 13:11.

Babylonian and Assyrian gods were amazingly “human,” having the same needs and passions as mortals. This led to the development of religious rituals and practices, such as temple prostitution, that could hardly be considered of divine origin.

Witchcraft, exorcism, and astrology were also components of Babylon’s religion. Petra Eisele claims that “it is quite possible that Western obsession with witches . . . is of Chaldean origin.” And the Babylonians made amazing progress in the study of astronomy while trying to read the future in the stars.

The Mesopotamians also believed in the immortality of the human soul. This they indicated by burying objects with the dead for their use in the afterlife.

Now, consider for a moment some of the major religions of today. Do you know of any that teach that the human soul is immortal, that teach that God is a trinity of three gods in one, that allow immorality among its members to go unchallenged, that meddle in politics, or that have members who are more willing to sacrifice their lives to a god of war than to the God of peace? If so, then you have recognized modern daughterlike organizations of Babel, still propagating religious holdovers from the days of Nimrod’s tower. Appropriately, the name “Babylon” is used in the Bible to designate the entire world empire of false religion.​—See Revelation, chapters 17 and 18.

Of course, not all post-Flood peoples fell into Babylonish religious confusion. For example, Abraham, born ten generations removed from Noah, maintained true worship. God made a covenant with this descendant of Shem, promising him at Genesis 22:15-18 that in association with the one true religion, all families of the earth would be blessed. This covenant evidently went into effect in 1943 B.C.E., which meant that the lines of conflict between the “only one [true] religion” and the “hundred versions” of false religion were now due to become more sharply drawn. A momentous confrontation between the two would soon take place. Read about it in part three in the next issue of Awake!: “Egypt​—Battlefield of the Gods.”

[Footnotes]

[Box on page 21]

Legends That Reflect the Bible Account

People in northern Burma believe that everyone originally “lived in one large village and spoke one tongue.” Then they set out to build a tower to the moon, which required that they work on separate levels of the tower, thus losing touch with one another. They “gradually acquired different manners, customs, and ways of speech.” The Yenisei-Ostyaks of northern Siberia say that people saved themselves during a flood by floating on logs and rafters. But a strong north wind scattered them so that “they began, after the flood, to speak different languages and to form different peoples.”​—“The Mythology of All Races.”

The early Aztecs taught that “after the Flood a giant built an artificial hill reaching into the clouds, thereby angering the gods, who cast fire or a stone down from heaven.” According to the Maya, Votan, the first human, helped build a huge house reaching into the heavens, which turned out to be “the place where God gave every tribe its particular language.” And the Maidu Indians of California claimed that “during a funeral ceremony, [all the people] suddenly began speaking in different languages.”​—“Der Turmbau von Babel” (The Building of the Tower of Babel).

Legends like these give credence to author Dr. Ernst Böklen’s contention that “the greatest likelihood exists that Genesis 11 and related tales stemming from other peoples are based on actual historical recollections.”

[Box on page 22]

Did the Cross Come From Babylon?

“Babylonia,” “Chaldea,” and “Mesopotamia” all refer to the same general area of what today is Iraq. Julien Ries of the Université Catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve in Belgium writes: ‘The cross is present in the ancient cultures of Asia, Europe, North Africa, and America [including] in Mesopotamia [where] the cross with four equal arms is the sign for heaven and the god Anu.’ The “Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words” is more specific, saying that the cross “had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name).” So the cross is clearly of pre-Christian origin. Some have suggested that Tammuz, also called Dumuzi, was originally a king and was deified after his death. For example, O. R. Gurney writes in the “Journal of Semitic Studies”: “Dumuzi was originally a man, a king of Erech.” Could this be a possible reference to Nimrod, of whom the Bible says, “The beginning of his kingdom came to be Babel and Erech”? (Genesis 10:10) At present, there is no way of knowing for sure.

[Picture on page 23]

Remains of Mesopotamian ziggurats support the Bible account about the Tower of Babel

Vanishing Ozone​—Are We Destroying Our Own Shield?

Imagine that you have to walk through a deadly, burning rain every day. Your only protection is an umbrella, one perfectly designed to repel the lethal raindrops. Can you just picture how precious that umbrella would be to you? Can you imagine the sheer folly of damaging the umbrella, perhaps even cutting holes in it? Yet, mankind is in a similar situation on a global scale.

OUR planet is bathed in a steady rain of the sun’s rays. While most of these rays are beneficial, bringing heat and light to our world, a small percentage are quite deadly. They are called ultraviolet-B, or UV-B, rays, and if all were to reach earth’s surface, they would kill everything living there. Happily, our planet was designed with an “umbrella” shielding us from these rays, an umbrella called the ozone layer. Unhappily, mankind is destroying that umbrella!

What is the ozone layer? How does it work, and how are we destroying it? Well, ozone is an unstable form of oxygen. It has three atoms of oxygen (O₃) instead of the usual two (O₂). Ozone occurs naturally in the stratosphere, absorbing the dangerous UV-B rays while allowing the needed and safe light to pass through. Furthermore, while ozone is easily broken down by other gases, in the stratosphere it is constantly being created by the sun’s rays. So it is a self-repairing shield. Quite a design!

The problems arise when man starts to inject his own industrial gases into this delicate system. Then ozone is destroyed faster than the sun’s rays can produce it. In 1974 scientists began to suspect that CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons, are ozone-destroying gases. Yet, these CFCs are everywhere. They are used to make all kinds of foamed plastic products, from insulation to cups and fast-food containers. They are used as propellants in spray cans, as coolants in air conditioners and refrigerators, and as solvents to clean electronic equipment.

Recalled one scientist who reported the danger: “There was no moment when I yelled ‘Eureka!’ I just came home one night and told my wife, ‘The work is going very well, but it looks like the end of the world.’” But since the invention of CFCs in 1930, many have hailed them for being nontoxic and remarkably stable. Were they wrong?

The Predicted Threat

No. Apparently they were all too right. Precisely because they are so stable, CFCs persist in their destructiveness. After CFCs leak from their discarded air conditioners and crumpled plastic foam cups, they slowly drift up to the stratosphere. There, bombarded by ultraviolet rays, they break up at last, releasing a real ozone killer: chlorine. Its molecules dance a deadly minuet with the fragile ozone molecules, destroying them and spinning off intact to find another unfortunate partner. One chlorine molecule may dance on in this way for over a century, obliterating a hundred thousand ozone molecules.

Alarmed scientists raised a hue and cry over the chief use of CFCs​—propellants for aerosol sprays. By 1978 Canada, Sweden, and the United States had banned the use of CFCs in aerosols, but few other countries followed suit. What was worse, more uses were found for the hardy chemicals, so their production continued to soar. The United States still consumes one fourth of the world’s annual supply.

Armed with computer models of the earth’s atmosphere, scientists kept on warning that chemical contamination would gradually deplete the ozone layer, slowly letting more UV-B rays through. Industry and government pooh-poohed the scientists’ claims, calling their evidence flimsy and their conclusions unproved.

Discover magazine called this controversy the “Ozone War” and noted that researchers had “for years taken to viewing the issue as a gigantic global experiment: each year mankind pumps another million tons of CFCs into the atmosphere and waits to see what happens.” What did happen surprised everyone.

Instead of thinning smoothly by fractional percentages globally as all the computer models had predicted, the ozone level sharply decreased over the South Pole! In October 1984 a British team of scientists in Antarctica found that the ozone above them had dropped some 40 percent, forming the now famous “ozone hole.” At first, other scientists were incredulous. The British team was not well known. Besides, other atmospheric instruments had not registered any dramatic drops in the Antarctic ozone.

As it turned out, though, computers receiving data from satellites had been programmed to reject as erroneous any drop in ozone of more than 30 percent. The machines had been measuring the ozone hole for years but throwing away the data!

Scientists skirmished for a while over the cause of the hole. But instrument-laden planes flying through the ozone hole itself found the real culprit​—chlorine from man-made chemicals! High above the South Pole is a huge vortex with clouds composed of tiny ice particles, giving the chlorine millions of tiny surfaces upon which it can do its deadly dance with ozone even faster.

Since then, scientists have apparently found a similar hole over the North Pole. Both holes are seasonal, opening and closing each year. The one over the South Pole is about as large as the United States; the one over the North Pole is about the size of Greenland.

How do these ozone holes affect you? They have passed over parts of northern Europe and have threatened southernmost South America, but you don’t have to stand under an ozone hole to be affected by it. Some scientists fear that the holes are producing ozone-poor air that spreads through both hemispheres. In fact, over the most populous parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the ozone layer has already been depleted by some 3 to 7 percent in the last 17 years. Previously, scientists had thought it would take a century for the ozone to drop by 3 percent!

The effects of the resulting increase in UV-B rays reaching earth’s surface will be far reaching. These rays cause skin cancer in humans. They also damage the human immune system and cause cataracts. Science News figures that increased UV-B radiation will “kill 3 million people either alive today or born before 2075.”

As atmospheric scientist Dr. Michael Oppenheimer puts it: “These changes are going to affect every human being and every ecosystem on the face of the earth, and we only have a glimmer of what these changes will be.” Increased UV-B radiation will destroy the tiny krill and other plankton that live near the ocean’s surface, disrupting the ocean’s food chain. Wholesale destruction of plant life, crop losses, even changes in global wind and weather patterns, could result from a weakened ozone layer. If any of these threats materialize in the coming decades, it will certainly spell trouble for man and his world.

What Hope Is There?

In September 1987 some 24 nations signed an agreement called the Montreal Protocol. It calls for the more developed nations to freeze CFC use and production at 1986 levels, while cutting back 50 percent by the year 1999. Developing nations have more leeway since CFCs are seen as crucial to modernization.

The treaty, which will take effect in 1989 if at least 11 nations ratify it, has been praised as a “landmark.” One U.S. politician exulted: “For the first time, the nations of the world agreed to cooperate on an environmental problem before there were widespread harmful effects.”

However, not everyone was so ecstatic. Some scientists were troubled that just two weeks after the Montreal accord was signed, the most conclusive proof that CFCs caused the ozone hole was released. Those who signed the treaty were even told not to consider the ozone holes in their deliberations. Said one expert: “If the Montreal negotiators had had these findings in front of them they would have agreed to a total phaseout of CFC’s.”

But worse still, the CFCs that are currently rising through the troposphere will take from seven to ten years to drift up to the stratosphere. This means that the levels of CFCs in the stratosphere will double their present levels, regardless of treaties. As reported in The German Tribune: “Even if an immediate ban were imposed the atmosphere would take 80 years to revert to the state it was in in the 1920s.”

Meanwhile, big chemical companies are working hard to find substitutes for CFCs. Some of these have already shown some promise. But testing them and figuring out how to produce them takes time. “We need them now, not tomorrow,” urges Joe Farman, the scientist who first discovered the Antarctic ozone hole. “We are putting CFCs into the atmosphere five times faster than natural processes can dispose of them.” There are good reasons not to hurry the launching of substitutes though. “Nobody wants to go with a product that will be in everyone’s kitchen and then find it is toxic,” warns a chemical company’s environmental manager.

So while hopes for a solution do exist, scientists are shaken. They have learned that the earth’s atmosphere is an enormously complex and delicate mechanism; it responds to human pollution suddenly and unpredictably.

Dr. Oppenheimer summarizes: “We’re flying blind into a highly uncertain future.” Superficial solutions to so profound a crisis draw only laughter. When a U.S. official urged a “personal protection” campaign of wearing hats and sunglasses, critics asked how to put sombreros on soybeans or sunglasses on wild animals.

It seems all too clear that only a thoroughgoing solution will gain respect or be adequate to solve the problem. Is man equal to the task of undoing his own myriad wrongs against this planet? It hardly seems so. Man is rarely willing to spend money on cleaning up his own filth until he is practically choking in it. Is it not wiser to look to the Designer of our complex environment for an answer? Clearly, he foresaw our troubled age when he promised to “bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”​—Revelation 11:18.

[Box on page 25]

THE OZONE PARADOX

Ozone the lifesaving shield. Ozone the noxious pollutant. You may have heard it described both ways. Which is it? Both! In the stratosphere where it belongs, ozone is indeed a lifesaver. But down here in the troposphere, ozone is produced as a by-product of human pollution. Humans release huge amounts of hydrocarbons into the air, mostly by burning gasoline in automobiles. Sunlight acts on these hydrocarbons to produce ozone.

Humans are not meant to breathe ozone. It causes lung damage. In fact, scientists have recently realized that it is even more dangerous to human health than previously thought. Some have called out urgently for tighter restrictions on ozone pollution​—to little avail.

Do you see how ironic the ozone crisis has become? Up high where ozone is needed, we destroy it. Down here where ozone is poisonous, we manufacture it!

But you may wonder: ‘Why can’t we just send the low ozone up to the stratosphere where it’s needed?’ For one thing, ozone is too unstable to make the trip; it would break down long before it reached that high. Some scientists have dreamed up fantastic schemes to transport ozone up there by blimps, jets, or missiles. They readily admit, though, that the cost would be enormous. Apparently, the only real solution is not to destroy it up above or manufacture it down below.

[Diagram on page 26]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Stratosphere

Ultraviolet Rays

Ozone Layer in Stratosphere

Troposphere

Earth

Spray Can

△ CFCs

→ Chlorine

● Ozone

From Our Readers

Help for Handicapped

I really appreciated the most encouraging article (October 22, 1988). For a handicapped person to be happy, he does not always have to be helped. I had my right arm amputated. My every movement was watched so as to help me at the dinner table. I was served, had my bread cut and my fruit peeled, and even my cheese was prepared for me. Of course, this was out of kindness, but deep down inside, I ended up having bad feelings toward those having my interests at heart. And in the end, I didn’t even say thank you. When I am alone, surprisingly enough I am quite happy doing everything on my own. Thank you for the gadgets shown; I never imagined such things existed. They are simple, but they really help.

C. C., France

I want to thank you for the Awake! article “Understanding the Stutterer’s Challenge” (November 8, 1986). I read and reread it, being deeply moved, since I suffer discrimination by persons who tease and ridicule those who stutter. At last I have a magazine that takes the problem seriously and prepares fine material about this complex and seldom-mentioned subject. From reading the material, I learned of the doctor who specializes in speech problems, and now I am being treated by one. I think your editorial staff deserves a prize in literature.

J. M. S., Brazil

Children Dying

I appreciated how the article “Millions of Children Are Dying” (September 22, 1988) pointed out measures parents can take to help their children remain healthy in spite of unfavorable conditions. It is true that breast-feeding has a contraceptive effect. I am concerned, though, that some readers may conclude that breast-feeding is a reliable contraceptive. In my experience as a maternity nurse, I have found that mothers who rely on breast-feeding as a contraceptive often get pregnant.

A. S., United States

A. S. is correct. Our article was generally directed to areas of the world where contraceptives often are unavailable. It merely stated that breast-feeding “tends to delay the onset of menstruation.” It is far from foolproof.​—ED.

Parent Homework

To me, as a mother and schoolteacher, Awake! of September 8, 1988, was a great help. I was able to arouse the interest of the principal of the school in the subject “Parents​—You Have Homework Too!” At a parents’ meeting, she praised the material highly and distributed among the parents sheets on which she had copied a number of suggestions made in the magazine. Then she showed them the magazine, telling them where she had got the material.

M. G. S., Brazil

Glaucoma

The article (May 8, 1988) was well-written and well-researched. I will present it at our weekly staff meeting, and alert our 31 employees so they can inform our patients of this excellent feature article.

D. D. S., MD, FACS, Director, Eye Center, Professor of Ophthalmology, United States

Watching the World

“Nation of the Dead”

In an article in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), those suffering “man-made death” from war, political violence, and related privations are likened to “the nation of the dead.” This so-called nation’s population now stands “around one hundred million,” but “real growth began in 1914.” If “war” is an armed conflict including one or more governments and causing a thousand or more deaths annually, then, the article notes, “there have been 471 wars since about 1700, resulting in at least 101.6 million deaths. More than 90% of those deaths have occurred in the 20th century.”

Historically, civilians have accounted for about 50 percent of war-related deaths. But by the 1970’s, that grew to 73 percent, and in the 1980’s, it stands at 85 percent. Man-made death results from nationalism, which produces “international and civil anarchy” under “the modern system of nation-states,” observed the article. Nationalism also causes nations to “rationalize killing their own citizens,” claiming that they threaten the “sovereignty of the nation.” The JAMA article compared the scale of man-made death with “the scale of death in former times from epidemic disease” and called it “the most terrible scourge of the 20th century.”

Musical Aggression

A car driver can become aggressive if he is listening to music that has recognizable lyrics, claims a music researcher in West Berlin. “The reason is that both parts of the brain (the left side records speech, the right side music) are being taxed simultaneously,” explains the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. Since instrumental music has no lyrics, and songs in a foreign language are not understood by most drivers, such music would be preferable. The study reveals, however, that the volume of the music also influences driving habits: The louder it is, the greater the strain on the driver.

‘Beating Swords Into Swords’

“The INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces),” signed by the United States and the Soviet Union last year, “does not reduce the number of nuclear bombs each nation has in its arsenal by even one” says Parade Magazine. Although the treaty calls for destruction of 2,612 missiles, each side “is allowed first to remove the nuclear warheads from those missiles and transfer them to new weapons systems . . . or to adapt and rework them into artillery projectiles or bombs of varied types.” Doing so is comparable to “beating swords back into swords” and means that “no long-term progress will have been made in reversing the arms race,” comments Britain’s Manchester Guardian Weekly. And leaving fissionable material available for a possible “new generation of weapons” is “precisely the opposite of what we hope to achieve through an arms-reduction treaty.”

Church Laws Changed

“The Church of God, America’s oldest Pentecostal denomination, has decided that wearing jewelry, using cosmetics and even going to movies can be compatible with personal holiness,” says The Christian Century. This is a major change in the church’s moral code, formulated in 1911, which also banned short hair on women and swimming with persons of the opposite sex who were not family members. Why the change? Because as the church expanded abroad, says the report, the “restrictions on appearance and behavior have not been understood in urban environments and foreign cultures.” And in their 9,200-member church in Atlanta, “on Friday nights the church invites born-again teen-agers to listen to Christian rock bands in its auditoriums.”

Metal Mania

With the price of aluminum having more than tripled since 1986, robbers are literally “dismantling America’s highways,” reports The Wall Street Journal. Anxious to cash in on the inflated prices, last year thieves stole about $200,000 worth of material from California’s highways. Highway signs and guardrails made of aluminum are among the items taken to be sold as scrap at 55 cents a pound. Air Force bomber parts, farming irrigation pipes, and aluminum siding taken from vacant homes, as well as scaffolding from construction sites, have also been reported stolen. The Journal reports that a spokesman for an Illinois transportation department said: “If crews don’t get to an accident scene fast after somebody’s knocked down a light pole, [the light poles] disappear, too.”

Bugged Bees

How do you track a swarm of African “killer” bees? You bug them. That is what entomologists are planning to do with the aggressive bees migrating northward from Mexico toward the United States. Designed by American engineers, a microprocessor device small enough to be attached to the back of a bee will enable scientists to “monitor a bee’s movements from a distance of one to two kilometres,” reports New Scientist. A scanning receiver monitored by a team of scientists will pick up the infrared signals sent by the tiny chip. This will alert them to the bees’ progress and enable them to warn populations directly in the bees’ path. The final version of the chip is expected to weigh about 0.0012 ounce [35 mg]​—about half of what a typical worker honeybee is able to carry.

Sheep-Shearing Robots

Following 11 years of research at a cost of $4 million, scientists at the University of Western Australia have developed a fully automated method of shearing sheep, reports The Sydney Morning Herald. The experimental robot is capable of shearing a sheep in the same time as it takes a fully trained shearer​—about four minutes. “It is made up of a single shearing arm, equipped with sensors to read the contours of each sheep,” notes the Herald. The animal “is held firmly by a cradle, which moves it into position during shearing.” Sheepshearing is said to be such rigorous work that it requires a steadily working shearer to be “as fit as an Olympic athlete.” With the model for commercial use already in development, the robots could be on the market by 1992 at a cost of A$500,000 ($400,000, U.S.) per unit. A spokesman for the Australian Worker’s Union said that human shearers remain “very skeptical” that the robots will replace them.

Gallstone Treatment

After ten years of successful tests, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a pill that can dissolve most gallstones, reports the New York Post. In tests the drug, generically named ursodiol, was claimed to be successful in treating “60 to 70 percent of patients with cholesterol gallstones,” with no side effects. Treatment may require the use of the drug up to 12 months at a cost of $1,400. By comparison, the Post notes that “a gallstone operation can cost $10,000.”

Special Blessings

The Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City has become the center of an annual spectacle​—the blessing of animals. Among the animals blessed by Episcopal bishop Paul Moore were a turkey, an eagle, a python, a fish, a llama, a raccoon, a tortoise, an 8,000-pound [3,600 kg] elephant. He even blessed ten billion algae in a flask! The custom is founded on the story of “saint” Francis, who, legend says, preached to birds. Each year hundreds of pet owners throughout the city bring their animals to the cathedral for a special blessing.

Number Eight in Space

Israel’s successful launch of its first space satellite has made it the eighth country with such capability (the others are the United States, the Soviet Union, France, China, Japan, India, and Britain). This Israeli satellite, called Ofek-1, is said to be designed for collecting scientific data on the earth’s magnetic field and space conditions.

Inner Beauty

GEODE. A strange word. It comes from the Greek ge·oʹdes, meaning “earthlike.” It is a stone that is roughly spherical, hollow, and varying from an inch [3 cm] to more than a foot [0.3 m] in diameter. The one shown here is more elongated than spherical and comes from Brazil. Its outward appearance is only so-so, as stones go.

But break it open! Look inside! Feast your eyes on those jammed-up piles of sparkling purple crystals! The geode formed around a cavity in sedimentary rock. As it grew, cracks developed in its surface, allowing mineral-bearing water to filter in, and as the minerals precipitated, crystals grew inward from the cavity wall. In time we have a crystal-lined geode. The one shown here produced a purple variety of crystallized quartz called amethyst. Its outward appearance may not be much, but its inner beauty is dazzling!

Have you not known people who are like geodes? Quiet, maybe shy, perhaps rather plain-looking on the outside? But you take the time to get acquainted, and they open up and show you an inner beauty that glows. A warm, kind spirit emerges, a delightful personality unfolds. You discover depths you never suspected.

You begin to appreciate what the apostle Peter said: “Do not let your adornment be that of the external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments or the wearing of outer garments, but let it be the secret person of the heart in the incorruptible apparel of the quiet and mild spirit, which is of great value in the eyes of God.”​—1 Peter 3:3, 4.

And you try to practice seeing the way God sees: “Mere man sees what appears to the eyes; but as for Jehovah, he sees what the heart is.”​—1 Samuel 16:7.

Hitler Could Not Stop Them!

When Hitler ordered the stamping out of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a great persecution erupted in Austria. Many were imprisoned, others were hounded by the Gestapo, some were killed. Read the thrilling accounts about the integrity keeping of Christians during this momentous period of history. Send for your copy of the 1989 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Included also in the Yearbook are historic accounts of the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Barbados and Ecuador, as well as an up-to-date report of their work worldwide.

Please send, postpaid, the 1989 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I enclose $1 (U.S.).