July 8

Page Two

THE use of animals in medical research raises ethical and moral issues that stir the emotions of people in different ways. Scientists allege that much progress in medicine would have been impossible without the use of animals. One stated: “If we were not able to do research on animals, then we’d be dead in the water.”

ANIMAL activists lament the abuse of animal rights and the suffering and indignities inflicted on the millions of animals used in experimentation. They allege that there are now suitable alternatives to animals, such as computer models and tissue cultures, that scientists should use.

THERE are arguments for and against by both sides. We examine the issues in our opening series, considering first the scientific viewpoint on animal research.

[Picture Credit Line on page 5]

Cover photo: Courtesy of The Pedigree Mutt Pet Shop

Animal Research​—Blessing or Curse?

IF YOU are among the many millions of persons who first breathed the breath of life toward the beginning of this century, you may well know that your longevity has far exceeded the expectations of your parents and the doctor or midwife who delivered you. If you were born in the United States, Canada, or Europe, your life expectancy in the year 1900 was about 47 years. In other countries life potential was even less. Today, in many countries life expectancy is over 70 years.

Whatever your age, you are living in a paradoxical time. Your grandparents or great-grandparents witnessed the uncontrollable effects of the numerous maladies that decimated their generation. Smallpox, for example, took the lives of countless thousands yearly and scarred millions of others for life. Influenzas took their toll​—one epidemic alone spelled death for 20 million people in one year (1918-19). Following World War I, epidemic typhus killed three million people in Russia. Typhus epidemics occurred in many other countries during World War II. It is estimated that 25 of every 100 people infected during typhus epidemics died.

The dreadful disease infantile paralysis, known later as poliomyelitis, reduced the world population by some 30,000 persons yearly and crippled thousands of others, especially children. There were those of tender years who did not survive their first bout with typhoid fever or diphtheria, scarlet fever or measles, whooping cough or pneumonia. The list seems endless. Of every 100,000 babies born in 1915, approximately 10,000 died before their first birthday. Brain tumors were inoperable. The ability to open clogged arteries was unknown. Doctors were powerless to save heart attack victims, and cancer spelled certain death.

In spite of the death-dealing plagues that have ravaged the world since the turn of the century and before, the life expectancy of man today has increased by about 25 years. Thus, in many parts of the world, a child born today has a life expectancy of about 70 years.

The Price Paid to Save Life

Fortunately, most young people living today have escaped many of the deadly diseases that were responsible for the early demise of many of their ancestors. But they may not take pleasure in the knowledge that many of man’s furry friends​—dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, and others—​were sacrificed in the cause of medical science ‘so that people today might live longer and healthier lives,’ as the scientists tend to express it.

Virtually all the diseases that have been eliminated or brought under control in this century​—polio, diphtheria, mumps, measles, rubella, smallpox, and others—​have been conquered through animal research. Anesthetics and analgesics, intravenous feeding and medications, radiation therapy and chemotherapy for cancer, all were tested and proved effective first on animals. And these are but a few.

“There is virtually no major treatment or surgical procedure in modern medicine that could have been developed without animal research,” said a noted neurologist, Dr. Robert J. White. “Work with dogs and other animals led to the discovery of insulin and the control of diabetes, to open-heart surgery, the cardiac pacemaker and the whole area of organ transplantation. Polio . . . has been almost totally eradicated in the United States by preventive vaccines perfected on monkeys. By working with animals, researchers have raised the cure rate for children afflicted with acute lymphocytic leukemia from four percent in 1965 to 70 percent today,” the same doctor said.

The role of animal research is confirmed by former laboratory assistant Harold Pierson, who worked under Dr. F. C. Robbins at Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. He told Awake! that their program to discover an oral vaccine for polio involved using monkey kidneys. The tissue from one kidney could be used for thousands of tests. He explained: “The monkeys were kept in humane conditions and were always under anesthetic when they were operated on. Certainly there was no deliberate cruelty. However, by reason of their operations, they were involuntary victims of scientific cruelty.”

Heart Surgery and Alzheimer’s Disease

As a direct result of animal research, new surgical skills have been developed to open arteries blocked by cholesterol deposits, thus preventing many heart attacks​—the leading cause of death in the Western world. By experimenting first on animals, doctors learn how to remove successfully massive tumors from the human brain and reattach severed limbs​—arms, legs, hands, and fingers. Dr. Michael DeBakey, who performed the first successful coronary artery bypass, said: “In my own field of clinical investigation, virtually every pioneering development in cardiovascular surgery was based on animal experimentation.”

About Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Zaven Khachaturian of the U.S. National Institute of Aging said: “Eight years ago, we were at ground zero. There has been incredible progress in Alzheimer’s research because of our investment in basic research concerning brain functioning going back to the 1930s.” The bulk of the work involved animals, and the doctor noted that they hold the key to continued progress.

AIDS and Parkinson’s Disease

The most crucial search now, and one causing scientists and immunologists to work overtime, is for a vaccine to combat the dreadful disease AIDS, which some experts estimate will kill by 1991 about 200,000 people in the United States alone. In 1985 scientists at the New England Regional Primate Center succeeded in isolating the STLV-3 virus (SAIDS, simian form of AIDS) in macaque monkeys and in introducing it in others. Said Dr. Norman Letvin, immunologist at the New England Regional Primate Center: “Now that the virus has been isolated, we have an animal model in which to develop vaccines for monkeys and for humans. It is possible to learn a great deal more from a very small number of animals in a controlled study than you would from observing hundreds of human AIDS patients.”

Doctors at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center of Atlanta’s Emory University were the first to demonstrate, through their studies with rhesus monkeys, the feasibility of implanting dopamine-producing tissue into the brain as a treatment for Parkinson’s disease. Since 1985 neurosurgeons have been performing the surgery on humans at Emory University Hospital. Doctors feel that this may lead to a breakthrough in finding a cure for the disease.

Man has turned to the animals in his quest for answers to perplexing questions about how to improve and sustain, even temporarily, his own imperfect life. However, the use of animals in medical research raises significant moral and ethical issues that are not easy to resolve.

[Box on page 5]

Animal Research​—An Ancient Practice

THE widespread use of animals by doctors and scientists to understand the physiology of humans is not unique to this 20th century. Animals have been used in medical research for at least 2,000 years. In the third century B.C.E., in Alexandria, Egypt, records indicate that the philosopher and scientist Erasistratus used animals to study body functions and found them applicable to humans. In the fourth century, the noted Greek scientist Aristotle gathered through his study of animals valuable information regarding the structure and functioning of the human body. Five centuries later the Greek physician Galen used apes and pigs to prove his theory that veins carry blood rather than air.

Animal Research​—Violent Reactions

IF THE precise number of four-legged creatures used in laboratory experiments and as models for medical research could be tabulated, the yearly sum total worldwide would be staggering. It is estimated that at least 17 million animals​—dogs, cats, primates, guinea pigs, and rabbits—​are used each year in the United States alone. Rats and mice account for 85 percent of this number. Since there are no accurate records of where these animals are used or how many, these numbers are considered by some experts to be poor estimates at best. Some sources place the total for the United States closer to a hundred million. Do you find these figures shocking?

Although the sacrifice of these furry creatures has not been without purpose, do you recoil at the mere thought of it? Do you consider this slaughter immoral? Millions of people abhor the use of animals in research. Some argue that the abuse of animals is speciesism. A speciesist is one who is “biased toward the interests of his own species and against the interests of another species.” (Point/​Counterpoint Responses to Typical pro-Vivisection Arguments) According to animal liberationists, speciesists “believe that the end justifies the means, and that evil must be done [to animals] to achieve good [for humans].”

On the other hand, the scientific point of view is summed up in the following questions: Do you resent a system that advocates the killing of animals so that doctors may learn new techniques in performing operations on humans or preventing the spread of deadly diseases? Are you prepared to forgo new lifesaving drugs and medicine because you know that they were first tested on animals? Would you be willing, yes prefer, to have your live but brain-dead child or parent used in surgical experimentation rather than an animal? And finally, there is this: If research on an animal could save you or a loved one from an excruciating disease or death, would you refuse it with the view that to sacrifice an animal to save a human is immoral? Some would say that the dilemma is not so easy to resolve.

Animal Liberation Movement

Nevertheless, during the decade of the 1980’s, there was a growing sentiment against the use of animals in research. Today that sentiment has been translated into a worldwide network of active organizations that continue to grow in strength and numbers. They are very vocal in demanding total abolition of the use of all animals for medical or laboratory experimentation.

Animal-rights activists are making their voices heard through street-corner demonstrations, political lobbying, magazines and newspapers, radio and television, and, most notably, militant and violent tactics. Said one prominent Canadian activist regarding the liberation movement: “It’s spreading rapidly through Europe, Australia and New Zealand. The States are becoming stronger. There’s phenomenal growth in Canada. There’s a group of networks spread world-wide and the trend globally is for support of the more aggressive animal rights movements.”

Some of these ‘aggressive networks’ are willing to use violence in support of their cause. During the last few years, at least 25 research laboratories in the United States have been vandalized by animal-rights groups. University laboratories have been bombed. These raids have caused millions of dollars’ worth of damage. Important records and valuable data have been destroyed. Research animals have been stolen and released. In one such act, valuable research on infant blindness was destroyed. Expensive equipment valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars has been smashed.

In an open letter to university officials and the news media, one militant group boasted that destroying a $10,000 microscope in about 12 seconds with a $5 steel bar was “a pretty good return on our investment.” In other places of research, doctors and scientists found blood poured on files and research materials and liberationist slogans spray-painted on walls. One report speaks of “harassment, including death threats, of scientists and their families.” In the United States, animal liberationists have issued more than a dozen threats of death or violence to individual scientists. In a 1986 London BBC broadcast, one commentator said: “What unites the activists is the conviction that direct action​—the destruction of property, and even life—​is morally justified in a war to free the animals.”

Said one animal-liberation leader: “There hasn’t been anybody hurt but that’s a dangerous threat . . . Sooner or later someone will strike back and there might be injuries to humans.” In 1986, in the same interview, the liberation leader predicted violence in Britain and West Germany. Events in the form of firebombings and violence have confirmed her prediction. In the United States, attempts have already been made on the life of one man whose company experiments with animals. Quick action on the part of the police saved him from being bombed. However, not all animal liberationists agree with these violent, illegal tactics.

Why Their Opposition?

According to The Journal of the American Medical Association, “most individuals concerned with the use of animals in biomedical research can be divided into two general categories: (1) those concerned with animal welfare who are not opposed to biomedical research but want assurance that animals are treated as humanely as possible, that the number of animals used are the absolute minimum required, and that animals are used only when necessary.” This group, according to recent surveys, makes up the less vocal majority.

The second group, according to the same source, are “those concerned with animal rights who take a more radical position and totally oppose the use of animals in biomedical research.” “Animals have fundamental inalienable rights,” said the codirector of one such group. “If an animal is capable of perceiving pain or feeling fear, then it has a right not to have those things inflicted upon it.” “There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights,” said another spokesperson. “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all mammals.”

Many deeply convinced animal liberationists are opposed to the use of animals for food, clothing, sports, and even pets. Fishermen have been pushed into the water by those opposed to catching and eating fish. People wearing fur coats and animal-skin apparel have been verbally abused on the streets. Stores have been broken into and expensive fur coats destroyed by those with a more radical view of animal use and abuse. “I will not eat eggs for breakfast or wear leather goods,” voiced one. “Behind virtually every slice of bacon and every innocuous looking egg,” warned a newsletter of the Humane Society of the United States, “lurks a long, hidden history of unbearable suffering.” Complete with photos of sows and chickens confined in small pens and cages, the newsletter charged that these conditions, widespread in the pork and poultry industry, make a “plate of bacon and eggs nothing less than ‘the breakfast of cruelty.’” Obviously, there are strong and sincere feelings involved in the defense of animal rights.

Horror Stories

Many people believe that opposition to animal research is fully justified. One of the more infamous cases involved the Head Injury Laboratory of a prestigious American university. Stolen videotapes taken during an animal-liberation raid revealed “monkeys getting their heads slammed in a smacking machine, with researchers laughing at the spasmodic behavior of the brain-damaged creatures,” reported the Kiwanis magazine of September 1988. This led to the withdrawal of government funding for the laboratory.

There is also the infamous Draize test, all too familiar to the cosmetic, shampoo, detergent, and lye industries. This test is used to measure the irritancy of products that might get into a person’s eyes. Typically, from six to nine albino rabbits are placed in stocks that allow only their heads and necks to protrude. This prevents them from clawing at their eyes after the chemical substance has been poured into them. It is reported that the rabbits scream in pain. Even many researchers bitterly oppose this form of testing and are trying to stop its use. Animal-rights movements have documented many horror stories born in animal research laboratories.

Animal liberationists do not have a high opinion of the previously quoted Dr. Robert White. The American Anti-Vivisection Society wrote that he “is the infamous vivisector from Cleveland who has transplanted the heads of monkeys and has kept monkey brains alive in fluid, outside the body.”

As in many controversies, there are two extremes, and then there is a middle way that tries to take the best and eliminate the worst of the effects. For example, are there any practical alternatives to experimentation with animals? Is total rejection of animal research the only viable, balanced answer? Our next article will consider these questions.

[Box on page 9]

Differing Viewpoints

“I BELIEVE that animals have rights which, although different from our own, are just as inalienable. I believe animals have the right not to have pain, fear or physical deprivation inflicted upon them by us. . . . They have the right not to be brutalized in any way as food resources, for entertainment or any other purpose.”​—Naturalist Roger Caras, ABC-TV News, U.S.A. (Newsweek, December 26, 1988).

“Looking at the broad picture, I cannot ignore the vast amount of good that has resulted from research. Vaccines, treatments, surgical techniques, and procedures developed in laboratories have increased life expectancies dramatically in the past century . . . In this light, not using animals for research could be seen as the inhumane choice: We had the way to learn how to alleviate disease but didn’t use it.”​—Marcia Kelly, Health Sciences, Fall 1989, University of Minnesota.

“I say ‘No’ to animal experimentation. Not only for ethical, but mainly for scientific reasons. It has been demonstrated that results from animal experiments are in no way applicable to human beings. There is a natural law connected with metabolism . . . according to which a biochemical reaction, that has been established for one species, is valid only for that particular species and for no other. . . . Animal experimentation is fallacious, useless, expensive and furthermore cruel.”​—Gianni Tamino, researcher at the University of Padua, Italy’s principal medical school.

[Picture on page 7]

Rabbits in stocks used for Draize tests on the eyes

[Credit Line]

PETA

[Picture Credit Line on page 8]

UPI/​Bettmann Newsphotos

Animal Research​—A Balanced View

THOUGH the price paid may be controversial, most people believe that animal research has resulted in tremendous good for humankind. Even those who advocate violence against the use of animal testing have been the beneficiaries of new medical knowledge and operational procedures as well as disease-fighting drugs.

Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States said: “We have to be honest and recognize that there have been some benefits from animal research. But our ultimate goal is the complete replacement of animals.” (Parade Magazine, October 9, 1988) “I do admit,” said Vicki Miller, president of the Toronto Humane Society, “that some good use was made of animals around the turn of the century. The control of diabetes legitimately derived from animal research. But there is no necessity for it now that we have all sorts of alternative technologies.”​—The Sunday Star, Toronto, Canada.

This same critic was asked how she would answer those who put forth the argument: If a rat has to die to save a baby’s life, it’s worth it. If animals are kept out of research, babies die to save rats. Her reply to the Toronto Globe and Mail was: “It’s such an emotional issue, and from that point of view it’s been nearly impossible to overcome . . . There’s the rat-or-the-baby thing and you lose every time.”

The question was asked in the preceding article: “If research on an animal could save you or a loved one from an excruciating disease or death, would you refuse it?” John Kaplan, law professor at Stanford University, California, wrote an answer in the November 1988 issue of Science magazine: “Those opposed to research with animals have seldom stood on principle and instructed their physicians not to use the results of biomedical research on animals when it would benefit their loved ones or themselves. Nor have they been willing to forswear for themselves the advantages of any future advances from animal research. We can admire the principles that impel Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions . . . and those who object to the hunting of fur-bearing animals not to wear furs. But we must vigorously combat the ideology that leads those who oppose animal research to pursue their cause not by example but rather by fighting through dishonest arguments to deprive everyone of the benefits.”

“The public should be informed,” wrote the editor of Science magazine of March 10, 1989, “that research on animals also benefits other animals. In fact, a vaccine for rinderpest, a virus that kills millions of cattle slowly and painfully, was developed by animal experiments; the vaccine is now applied by the World Health Organization to millions of cattle in Africa.”

Biblical Viewpoint

Following the global Flood in Noah’s day, Jehovah God issued this edict to Noah and to his offspring, which includes our generation: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul​—its blood—​you must not eat.” (Genesis 9:1, 3, 4) Animal skins could also be used for clothing. This would not violate man’s God-given dominion over the animal kingdom.​—Genesis 3:21.

“If animals may be used as food to sustain people’s lives,” wrote the Awake! magazine of June 22, 1980, “it seems reasonable to use them in medical experiments to save lives. However, this is no license for unrestricted and often valueless, repetitious experiments involving intense suffering.” Certainly, from the Biblical viewpoint, heartless cruelty to animals cannot be justified.​—Exodus 23:4, 5, 12; Deuteronomy 25:4; Proverbs 12:10.

Many doctors and scientists admit that some good has come from the radical movement of those opposed to animal research. “An awful lot of the points made by the animal welfare movement are extreme but right,” admitted one scientist. “The lives and suffering of animals must surely count for something,” declared American scientist Jeremy J. Stone. “Some knowledge can be obtained at too high a price,” agreed British physiologist Dr. D. H. Smith. “We agree with the desire to make research less painful, to take good care of and to reduce the number of animals in experiments,” said Dr. J. B. Wyngaarden of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. And one animal activist admitted: “It used to be almost macho to use animals and not think anything about it. Today, thinking about alternatives is considered the thing to do.”

“Alternatives” is the key word. Scientists admit that they may never get to the point of total elimination of animals in research, but where possible they are constantly looking for alternatives. For example, rabbits are no longer used to confirm human pregnancy, since a chemical procedure is now available. Guinea pigs are no longer used to isolate the tubercle bacillus. Culture methods are now saving the lives of these animals who would otherwise die. Other tissue-culture procedures have replaced the testing on some mice. And many rabbits slated for the painful Draize test may be spared because of the alternative use of hen-egg membrane as a testing surface. Certainly, people sensitive to animal suffering hope that there will be many more alternatives found, and soon.

The greatest alternative to animal testing, however, will be that long-awaited earthly Paradise for which true Christians have prayed. Jehovah God, the loving Creator, has promised that all diseases and death itself will be abolished forever. In God’s promised new world, man and animals will be forever at peace with one another, and nothing will make them afraid. And there will be no more diseases and thus no more need for animal experimentation. Cruelty will be a thing of the past.​—Isaiah 25:8; 33:24; 65:25; Matthew 6:9, 10.

The Bible’s Viewpoint

Are the Jews God’s Chosen People?

THE establishment of a Jewish homeland in 1948 was a traumatic event for Christendom’s theologians. For centuries many had taught that Jews were doomed to wander the earth because of their sin against Christ, and now the “wandering Jew” would wander no more.

As current events in the Middle East continue to focus attention on the Jewish people, questions on issues long thought settled are now being raised. Are the Jews still God’s chosen people? Is God now showing special favor to the Jews?

Centuries ago, God told the Israelites: “If you will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then you will certainly become my special property out of all other peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. And you yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5, 6) All nations belonged to God, but the Israelites could become his special property, eventually serving as priests in behalf of all mankind.

But was this special relationship with God unconditional? No! God had said: “If you will strictly obey my voice . . . then you will certainly become my special property.” So their continuing in a chosen relationship with God was conditional, dependent upon their continued faithfulness to him.

A Forceful Illustration

This was underscored by events of the eighth century B.C.E., during the days of the prophet Hosea. Despite having received special favor as God’s chosen people, the majority of the Israelites abandoned the true worship of Jehovah. What was Jehovah’s reaction? “I shall no more show mercy again to the house of Israel, because I shall positively take them away. . . . You men are not my people and I myself shall prove to be not yours.” (Hosea 1:6, 9) Thus, those apostate Israelites would not remain in God’s favor. Only a faithful remnant would one day be privileged to be restored and again experience divine blessings.​—Hosea 1:10.

True to this prophecy, God allowed the Israelites to be taken captive by their enemies and their temple to be destroyed, forcefully demonstrating the loss of their approved relationship with him. Only a faithful remnant of Israelites (by then known as Jews) returned from captivity in 537 B.C.E. and rebuilt Jehovah’s temple, once again enjoying Jehovah’s favor as his chosen people.

Only “a Remnant” Remains Faithful

Nevertheless, in the centuries that followed, Jews were besieged by the influence of Greek philosophy​—such as the Platonic doctrine of the immortal soul—​with catastrophic effects on their worship. That worship would never again be based simply on the teachings of Moses and the Hebrew prophets.

Would Jehovah continue to view the Jews as his chosen people? Recognizing that many had once again apostatized from the unadulterated worship of Jehovah, Jesus said: “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits.” (Matthew 21:43) Failing to heed that warning, the majority continued in their apostate course and rejected Jesus as Jehovah’s anointed one. Hence, it was not long afterward that God allowed the rebuilt temple to be destroyed, in 70 C.E. (Matthew 23:37, 38) Did this mean that God was now rejecting all Jews?

As Paul, a Jewish apostle of Christ, explained: “God did not reject his people, whom he first recognized. . . . At the present season also a remnant has turned up according to a choosing due to undeserved kindness.” (Romans 11:2, 5) Just as many might be invited to a wedding ceremony but only a few might attend, God had invited the entire Jewish nation into a special relationship with him, but only a remnant of these maintained that special closeness by their faithfulness. God’s forbearance was indeed a display of undeserved kindness!

“Those Not My People” Become “My People”

This faithful Jewish remnant was soon joined by non-Jews who also desired to serve God. Even though their ancestors had not been in a special relationship with him, Jehovah was now willing to accept these faithful non-Jews as his people. Noting this, Paul wrote: “If, now, God . . . called [us] not only from among Jews but also from among [non-Jewish] nations, what of it? It is as he says also in Hosea: ‘Those not my people I will call “my people.”’”​—Romans 9:22-25.

Thus, both Jews and non-Jews could be God’s chosen people, with the prospect of serving as priests in behalf of the rest of mankind. Speaking to faithful worshipers of various national backgrounds, the Christian apostle Peter, a Jew from birth, wrote: “You are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession’ . . . For you were once not a people, but are now God’s people.” (1 Peter 2:9, 10) This was the “nation,” people with godly qualities, that Jesus said would produce the ‘fruits of God’s kingdom’ and that would therefore enjoy a special relationship with Jehovah.​—Matthew 21:43.

God was looking for faith and righteous conduct in his selection of these prospective priests, not some special ancestry. As Peter had noted: “God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.”​—Acts 10:34, 35.

Thus, God no longer grants special favor to any person on the basis of birth. He affords people of all national backgrounds the opportunity to build a relationship with him. May we show that we are desirous of being God’s people by our faith and conduct.

We Were “Witches” Fighting Bulls

THE bulls were enormous. Each must have weighed half a ton. My two sisters and I usually fought against young bulls, but these were full-grown beasts, with fearsome horns. We could have refused to fight them, of course, but how would the crowd react to that? They had paid their entrance fee to see Las Meigas (The Witches) fight bulls, and we did not want to let them down. We marched hesitantly into the bullring.

You may be wondering what three sisters were doing fighting bulls. Well, it certainly wasn’t to show that women are just as good as men at this profession. It was sheer economic necessity that propelled us into this macho world.

As teenagers, we left our hometown in northwest Spain and headed for Madrid, where we hoped to find work. But when nothing turned up, we took the advice of a friend who had been a torero and decided to “try our luck with the bulls.” We called ourselves Las Meigas (The Witches) because that was a name that easily identified our place of origin in Spain and also because we hoped to bewitch the bulls. After just two years of tough apprenticeship, we became bullfighters in earnest.

Dangers and Death

We usually fought the younger two- or three-year-old bulls, which are not quite as fierce and powerful. But that does not mean that the danger is eliminated, for they tend to be quicker and more agile. We were fortunate, however, and apart from a broken ankle, some nasty scrapes, and a leg wound, we escaped serious injury. Even on the occasion when we faced those huge adult bulls, we left the ring unscathed.

During the bullfighting season, we would often fight four bulls in the morning and four more in the afternoon. Eventually, we could kill a bull almost as easily as we could make our bed. In fact, during a period of eight years, we fought and killed 1,500 bulls in bullrings throughout Spain, as well as in Portugal and France. Our goal was to get a contract for South America, where we could earn really big money, enough to buy a ranch and raise fighting bulls.

Although it was the need to make ends meet that got us started, before long the desire for adventure, fame, and fortune became the main motivation. Despite the danger, we enjoyed it! True, every now and then, we would hear news of the death of a bullfighter, and this affected us for a few days, grimly reminding us of the risks involved. But we soon got over this temporary anxiety. As we entered the bullring, instead of wishing one another good luck, we would say: “On with the battle!”

A Different Kind of Fight

Then, in 1984, something happened that made my sisters, Milagros and Elda, and me reassess our goals and, indeed, our livelihood. All three of us started to study the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses. We were thrilled with what we learned about God’s Kingdom and about the future Paradise that God has promised. But then came a difficult decision. Did our work harmonize with what we were learning?

Finally, two things convinced us that we could not continue our career as bullfighters. First of all, we observed the atmosphere at the bullring. The fanaticism of the crowd smacked of that at a Roman circus. Was it an appropriate environment for Christian women?

The second problem had to do with divine protection. Almost all bullfighters, being Catholics, seek protection from their favorite Madonna or “saint.” I have even seen some set up a portable shrine in their hotel room to pray, trusting that this will save them from injury in the bullring. However, we realized that we couldn’t ask Jehovah to protect us when we were deliberately being cruel to animals and putting our lives in danger in order to earn money and excite the crowd. We decided to quit bullfighting.

No sooner had we made this decision than the long-awaited South American contract materialized. A chance to earn a fortune was within our grasp. But we were adamant in our choice, and on October 3, 1985, we made our last appearance as “The Witches.” About a year later, we were baptized, and we now exert ourselves ‘fighting the fine fight of the faith.’​—1 Timothy 6:12.

We still work together but in a restaurant rather than a bullring. We are so happy to have found something better than fame and fortune​—a good relationship with the almighty God and a sure hope for the future. We look forward to the time when we will be able to caress wild bulls in God’s new world, where neither man nor animal will “do any harm or cause any ruin . . . because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea.” (Isaiah 11:9)​—As told by Pilar Vila Cao.

Bullfighting​—Art or Outrage?

By Awake! correspondent in Spain

LUCIO was just 19 when it happened. It was springtime in Seville, and the famous Maestranza bullring was full. But Lucio was a shade too close when the bull thundered by. A savage horn gouged out his right eye.

When he left the hospital, he practiced his cape work unrelentingly for three months. Despite the loss of an eye, he was unwilling to renounce his lifelong dream. At the end of the summer, he returned to fight in the bullring of Seville and was carried in triumph from the arena. “It was a gamble,” he admitted, “but that’s the way it is in bullfighting.”

The dramatic figure of the bullfighter has inspired composers, writers, and filmmakers. Perhaps because of this, millions of tourists feel that a visit to Spain or Mexico would be incomplete if it did not include attending a bullfight.

But the tourists are by no means the only ones who fill the bullrings. Famous matadors attract thousands of knowledgeable local fans to the monumental bullrings of Madrid, Seville, and Mexico City. To the aficionado a great matador is an artist, comparable to Goya or Picasso, an artist who scorns death in order to create beauty in motion.

But not all Spaniards have bullfighting in their blood. In a recent poll, 60 percent indicated that they have little or no interest in it. Several groups in Spain have begun to campaign against this “national fiesta,” claiming that “torture is neither art nor culture.”

Ancient Tradition

Fascinating to some, repulsive to others, the pitting of a man against a bull is an ancient tradition. Mediterranean peoples have long respected the indomitable spirit of the wild bull. Pharaohs of Egypt hunted them on foot, while princes and princesses of Crete defied a charging bull by somersaulting over its horns.

During the first millennium of our Common Era, Roman and Muslim domination left their mark on what was to become a traditional Spanish spectacle. Decaying Roman amphitheaters were converted into bullrings, which still bear some resemblance to the Roman circus. Bull-lancing from horseback was introduced by the Moors and is now incorporated in the ceremony.

But it wasn’t until the 18th century that the bullfight began to resemble the present-day spectacle. It was then that the actual bullfighting passed from the aristocracy to professional subordinates. Around this time Goya designed a distinctive professional uniform, known today as a traje de luces, “suit of lights,” because of its rich gold and silver embroidery. Attention was also focused on obtaining suitable bulls.

A Different Kind of Bull

The truly wild bull disappeared from its last stronghold in the woods of Central Europe in the 17th century. But for the last three hundred years, the Spanish wild bull has survived because of the selective breeding of fighting bulls. The main difference between a wild bull and a domesticated bull is the way it reacts when threatened. The savage Iberian bull will continually attack whatever or whoever moves in front of him.

The bullfight hinges on this characteristic, one that the Spanish stock raisers constantly try to improve. For four years the bulls are pampered until that fateful moment when they find themselves rudely propelled into the arena. Before entering the arena, the bull has never seen a matador or a cape​—if he had, he would remember the techniques and he would be too dangerous. But he instinctively charges that moving cloth, be it red or any other color (bulls are color-blind). In about 20 minutes, it is all over; a lifeless, thousand-pound [450 kg] carcass is dragged out of the ring.

The Stages of a Bullfight

In the colorful opening ceremony, all the participants, including the three matadors, their assistants, and the picadors, parade around the arena. Each matador has been assigned two bulls and fights them individually in the course of his two fights. Throughout the fights a band accompanies the action with stirring traditional music, while bugle calls announce the commencement of each of the three tercios, or acts, of the drama.

The first stage begins after the matador has made several preliminary passes with a large cape, provoking the bull. The picador enters the ring on horseback, carrying a steel-tipped lance. The bull is provoked into charging the horse, whose flanks are protected by padded armor. The picador fends off the attack with his lance, cutting into the bull’s neck and shoulder muscles. This weakens the neck muscles, forcing the bull to lower his head when charging, which is especially important for the final kill. (See picture above.) After two more attacks, the mounted picador leaves the ring, and the second tercio of the fight begins.

This stage involves the matador’s aides, the banderilleros, whose role is to thrust two or three pairs of banderillas, short shafts with steel barbs, into the bull’s shoulders. The banderillero captures the bull’s attention by shouts and gestures from a distance of some 20 or 30 yards [20-30 m]. As the bull charges, the banderillero runs toward it, swerving aside at the very last moment while planting two barbs in the bull’s shoulders.

In the final part of the fight, the matador faces the bull​—alone. This crucial point in the fight is called the moment of truth. Now the matador uses a muleta, a scarlet serge or flannel cloth, to deceive the animal. He keeps close to the bull, provoking the animal into desperate charges but controlling it with the muleta as the bull comes ever closer to his body. It has been said that this stage of the fight “is not really a struggle between a man and a bull but rather the struggle of a man with himself: how close will he dare to let the horns come, how far will he go to please the crowd?”

When the matador has demonstrated his mastery over the now frustrated bull, he prepares for the kill. This is the climactic moment of the fight. The matador makes sure that the bull is standing in the ideal position for the kill, with its front feet together. Then he moves toward the bull, reaches over the horns, and plunges his sword between the shoulders while trying to avoid any sudden thrust of the horns. Ideally, the sword severs the aorta and causes almost instant death. This seldom happens. Most bulls require several attempts.

Even in their dying moments, bulls can be lethal. Five years ago a popular 21-year-old matador known as Yiyo turned away after delivering the coup de grace. The bull rallied, however, and one of its horns punctured the heart of the hapless bullfighter.

Shaving and Dying

To many the bullfight is a colorful and exciting spectacle. But it has more than one ugly side to it. One enthusiast remarked that “in this miserable racket the only honorable figure is the bull, and him they mutilate by shaving down the tips of his horns so that he has difficulty in locating his target.”a

The management of bullfighting is notoriously corrupt, leading one matador to comment ironically that he didn’t fear the bulls “half as much as . . . [he did] the men who manage the bullrings.” Although top matadors can earn millions of dollars, the competition is fierce, and injury and death are constant dangers. Of the approximately 125 eminent matadors in the last 250 years, more than 40 have died in the arena. Most matadors are gored at least once, to a greater or lesser extent, during each bullfighting season.

The Christian Viewpoint

After considering the foregoing, how should a Christian view bullfighting? The apostle Paul explained that the fundamental principle of showing kindness to animals was still valid for Christians. He quoted the Mosaic Law, which specifically required the Israelite farmer to treat his bull with consideration. (1 Corinthians 9:9, 10) The bullfight can hardly be described as a humane way of treating the bull. True, bullfighting is considered by some to be an art, but does that justify the ritual killing of a noble animal?

Another principle that has to be considered is the sanctity of life. Should a Christian deliberately place his life in danger just to demonstrate his machismo or to excite the crowd? Jesus refused to put God to the test by unnecessarily endangering his life.​—Matthew 4:5-7.

Ernest Hemingway wrote in Death in the Afternoon: “I suppose, from a modern moral point of view, that is, a Christian point of view, the whole bullfight is indefensible; there is certainly much cruelty, there is always danger, either sought or unlooked for, and there is always death.”

Of the thousands who go to watch a bullfight, some are delighted, some are disappointed, and others are disgusted. Regardless of how it may be viewed by men, the Creator of the bull cannot look at this spectacle with pleasure. Although regarded by many as an art, it is really an outrage against divine principles.​—Deuteronomy 25:4; Proverbs 12:10.

[Footnotes]

[Pictures on page 18]

The picador on horseback cuts into the bull’s neck and shoulder muscles with a lance, weakening them

A matador about to thrust his sword into the bull

Young People Ask . . .

Will I Be Normal With Just One Parent?

BEFORE their 18th birthday, more than half of all the children in the United States will spend some of their years in a single-parent home. Presently, 12 million youths​—1 in 5 in the United States—​already do so. The one-parent family has thus been labeled “the fastest growing family style” in the United States. With the statistics of other nations lagging not far behind, this may even prove to be true globally.

The prevalence of one-parent families has done much to lessen the stigma they bore in former times. Still, as one youth puts it, many young people have to “beat down a lot of feelings” in order to cope with life in a one-parent home. Some even fear they will somehow be handicapped or abnormal because of having only one parent at home. Are such fears warranted?

Why One-Parent Households Exist

Few would deny that having a loving father and mother at home is the ideal situation. Our Creator purposed that it be this way. (Genesis 1:27, 28) Ephesians 6:1 further makes this plain in saying: “Children, be obedient to your parents in union with the Lord, for this is righteous: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’”

But for one reason or another, you may have been denied the ideal. Because of unforeseen occurrence, one of your parents may have died. (Ecclesiastes 9:11) Such tragedies happened even in Bible times, the term “fatherless boy” appearing 40 times in the Scriptures. (Compare Deuteronomy 24:19-21.) Or one of your parents may temporarily be absent due to overseas employment. On the other hand, other situations, such as unfaithfulness to marriage vows, may have caused your parents to separate or divorce. (Matthew 19:3-6, 9) It could be that your mother, before she became one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, got pregnant while unwed and chose to bring you up alone.

In any event, you have no control over your parent’s marital status, and there is no reason for you to bear a burden of guilt as if you were to blame; nor do you need to feel ashamed if you were conceived out of wedlock. If your mother is a dedicated servant of Jehovah God, her past errors have long been forgiven her. (Compare Ephesians 2:2, 4.) And even if she has not asked for God’s forgiveness, this does not prevent you from being clean in God’s sight.​—1 Corinthians 8:3.

Granted, growing up in a one-parent home, you may face unique problems and challenges. But as the book How to Live With a Single Parent observes: “Many of the difficulties [one-parent] kids have . . . may stem from the negative and self-destructive image they have of themselves.” Where does such negative thinking come from, and how can you eliminate it?

Broken Homes​—Broken Lives?

‘Products of a broken home,’ ‘divided family,’ ‘half a family,’ ‘torn-apart family’​—perhaps you have heard these negative labels applied to your family. And although blunted by frequent use, such comments can still cut you to the quick.

The way others treat you can also kindle negative feelings about your family. Some teachers, for example, have shown a glaring insensitivity toward one-parent students. Some have even been known to assume that such youths automatically have an abnormal family life and are quick to blame any behavior problem on their home environment. Being constantly made to feel that your family is abnormal can understandably fill you with anxieties regarding your own emotional well-being.

But are you automatically at risk of being mentally or emotionally inferior simply because you live in a single-parent home? Not at all! The Journal of Marriage and the Family acknowledged that the “loss of a parent may bring on a period of slowed development” at first. Nevertheless, this is often “followed by a time during which the child catches up with peers, or even overtakes them.” (Italics ours.) The article concluded: “A blanket assumption that the one-parent family has generally bad, longlasting effects on all children is not justified.” Another article in this same journal similarly reported that research “does not lend any support to the cliché that ‘broken homes yield broken young lives.’”

While such facts may be of some encouragement, negative feelings may still surface from time to time. How can you successfully fight them?

Overcoming Negative Feelings

An initial step would be to learn to accept your situation. True, sadness and a sense of loss are only natural if your parents have divorced or if a beloved parent has died. Thirteen-year-old Sarah, whose parents divorced when she was ten, recommends: “Do not brood over your situation, having the ‘what-if’ blues, or feel that the problems you have are because of your one-parent home, or even that kids in two-parent homes have a cushy life.”

For one thing, even the “ideal” family is hardly devoid of problems. And rather than seeing your family as abnormal, you can see it simply as a variation, as something not necessarily bad but just different. Equally important is not allowing comments​—or a lack of such—​by well-meaning people to arouse bad feelings. Some, for example, may hesitate to use such words as “father,” “marriage,” “divorce,” or perhaps “death” around you, fearing that these words will offend or embarrass you. Refuse to follow suit. Fourteen-year-old Tony, who never knew his real father, says: “When I am around others who seem to bite their tongues when it comes to certain words, I’ll go right ahead and use them.” He adds: “I want them to know I’m not ashamed of my situation.”

Seeing the Advantages

It is also important to avoid dwelling on what could have been or what used to be. (Ecclesiastes 7:10) Focus instead on the positive aspects of your life. For example, likely your mother has to go to work.a As a result, you have probably assumed a lot of responsibility around the home. “Taking on responsibilities in the home,” claims 17-year-old Melanie, “contributes to your maturing faster than kids your age in two-parent families, who may have less responsibility.” Experts agree. Harvard University sociologist Robert S. Weiss says that youths from one-parent homes “tend to be more mature, independent,” and “self-disciplined.” These are important qualities, and your family situation may help you gain them.

You may also enjoy having a greater voice in family decisions, as single parents often view their children as trusted confidants. At times, though, you may have to remind your parent that you are still young and that weightier matters would better be discussed with someone more experienced, such as a Christian elder. Still, there are many matters you can appropriately discuss together, including personal troubles you may face. Doing so helps you draw close to your parent and may dispel negative feelings. Melanie, mentioned earlier, says: “Since my parents’ divorce, my mother and I are really able to talk; we have become very close friends.”

This is not to say that you won’t face problems. But you can profit by facing adversity. The Bible says: “Good it is for an able-bodied man [or woman] that he [or she] should carry the yoke during his [or her] youth.” (Lamentations 3:27) Carrying your yoke, or burden of problems, may involve dealing with the adversities you face in a single-parent home. Remember, though, that you are not alone while bearing this yoke. Faithful King David said: “In case my own father and my own mother did leave me, even Jehovah himself would take me up.”​—Psalm 27:10.

Interestingly, though, such divine help may well be rendered through your remaining parent. By responding to such efforts, you can grow up normally and lead a rewarding Christian life. Wayne, who is now a Christian elder, recalls: “I was eight when my father died, and Mom had to go to work. Often she came home tired and worn out. But she always made sure we had regular family Bible studies and attended Christian meetings together. Looking back, I can only thank Jehovah for such a self-sacrificing mother.”b

[Footnotes]

[Picture on page 21]

A one-parent family need not be an unhappy one

Finding Peace in Time of War

By Awake! correspondent in Panama

PANAMA is quite a young country by world standards. Its history as a nation goes back only to the year 1903, when it separated from Colombia and became an independent republic.

From its beginning Panama has had close ties with the United States due to the construction and operation of the Panama Canal, which was built by U.S. engineers from 1904 to 1914. However, as the years went by, this peaceful relationship eventually deteriorated into distrust and hostility.

Finally, about one o’clock in the morning on December 20, 1989, hostility turned to war as U.S. troops invaded Panama. Let us briefly review some of the circumstances leading up to that invasion.

What Led Up to the Invasion

In 1968 Panama’s democratic government was overthrown by a revolution under the direction of a military officer, Omar Torrijos Herrera. The new military government emphasized national sovereignty, and a bone of contention was the Canal Zone, which was governed directly by the United States.

In 1977 the present Panama Canal Treaty was signed by General Torrijos and Jimmy Carter, president of the United States at the time. This treaty made provision for Panama to assume full responsibility for the administration, operation, and maintenance of the canal by the year 2000.

In 1981 Torrijos was killed in a helicopter crash and was later succeeded by General Manuel Antonio Noriega. In February 1988 Noriega was indicted in Florida on drug-trafficking charges, and from then on his relations with the United States deteriorated. The following year, elections were held in Panama, but the results were annulled by the Noriega government. The United States then stepped up its efforts to oust Noriega by means of diplomatic and economic sanctions. On December 15, 1989, Panama’s National Assembly declared that Panama was in a state of war with the United States. The next day a U.S. marine was shot and killed. Shortly after that President Bush gave the order to use military force.

Ostensibly, the invasion of Panama was to protect the lives of about 35,000 U.S. citizens in Panama, to maintain the security of the canal, to restore democracy, and to capture Noriega and bring him to trial on drug charges. The invasion was the largest U.S. military operation since the Vietnam War. It pitted some 26,000 troops against the estimated 12,000-man Panama Defense Force plus several thousand members of the so-called Dignity Battalions, civilian volunteers trained by the Noriega regime.

At about one o’clock on the morning of December 20, 1989, the populations of Panama City, Colón, and others living near military targets were awakened by the sounds of war: rifle and machine-gun fire, exploding mortar shells and rocket-propelled bombs. Some sophisticated weaponry was also employed by U.S. forces, including six $50 million F-117A Stealth fighters, infrared-guided missiles, Apache helicopters, tanks, and soldiers equipped with night-vision goggles. Within hours after the invasion, most organized resistance had been crushed, but sporadic shooting against the Dignity Battalions continued for days.

Christian Neutrality Amid Anarchy

Jehovah’s Witnesses are known worldwide for their neutral position in regard to political matters. How did they fare during this national disaster? There are some 6,000 Witnesses in the country, and as soon as communications were restored, a survey was made by them to determine their casualties. While several families lost their homes and possessions, happily no lives were lost, and nobody was seriously injured.

One Witness who lived near the Panamanian military headquarters in Chorrillo tells this story: “I was at home with my husband when suddenly a bomb exploded near the canal area. I said to him: ‘Let’s get out of here because this is a wooden house and it could catch fire easily.’ We ran away from the house and soon found ourselves in a very dangerous area where American and Panamanian soldiers were engaged in heavy fighting. We took refuge in a building, and the bombing continued.

“The next day we left the danger zone. We stopped a car and asked the driver to take us to the house of a friend of my husband. On entering the car, I realized that it was occupied by men of the Dignity Battalion, and all of them were armed. Soon the men said, ‘Get out.’ That worked to our benefit because if we had met up with American soldiers, they would likely have fired on the men of the Dignity Battalion, and we could have been killed.

“We went to the house of one of my husband’s friends. They are staunch Catholics, and their son is studying to be a priest. Nevertheless, they took part in the looting and ate stolen food. So I said to my husband: ‘This is not right for me because I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and my conscience doesn’t allow me to be here.’ So we went to stay with some Witnesses, who took good care of us.

“My husband was very sad because of losing our house and everything we had accumulated at great sacrifice. But we had our lives, which was the important thing. My husband’s attitude has changed, and now he doesn’t oppose my attending the meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses as he did before. He even accompanied me to a talk and was impressed with the order and peace that prevailed.”

Another Witness, who is almost 80 years old, lived in the war zone and related her experience: “At about one o’clock in the morning, my niece knocked on the door and said: ‘The war has started!’ When I opened the door, I noticed that everyone was rushing frantically downstairs. The streets were full of people running in all directions trying to escape from the bombs and the gunfire. But I just closed my door and went back to bed.

“The next day people were running through the streets again, but this time it was not to escape bullets but to loot the stores. They offered to sell me food very cheap, but I refused to buy it, knowing that it was stolen. Then they wanted to give it to me free, but I told them that I didn’t even want it as a gift. I asked them what kind of Christians they were to steal what didn’t belong to them. One of them answered: ‘My God allows me to do it.’ I said: ‘Maybe your God gives you permission but not the true God, Jehovah.’”

Looting Widespread

About 50 miles [80 km] from Panama City at the Atlantic end of the canal lies Colón, a city of more than a hundred thousand inhabitants. This too was the scene of warfare and much looting after strategic military targets came under attack. An overseer in one of the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses there tells his story: “Just before one o’clock on Wednesday morning, the city was awakened by the sound of bombs that fell on the naval headquarters of the Panama Defense Forces, just a few miles outside Colón. The warfare continued throughout the night, and at times the bombs fell quite close.

“By Friday the city was in total chaos and was controlled by outlaws armed with weapons. There was no police supervision or protection. Someone had opened a shipping container that was full of weapons, and anyone could obtain them, even those who had been released from prison. Guns were for sale and on public display in the market. Even minors could be seen carrying them.

“People were running amok, and some in vehicles were firing their weapons into the air. Those who ventured into the streets put their lives in danger. Nevertheless, I decided to go out to see how my fellow Witnesses were. That morning I contacted some of them, and we organized meetings for the afternoon. On returning home, I was just about to eat lunch when I heard the sound of helicopters. I went to the window, and at that moment an American helicopter hovered close by and fired three rockets into a 15-story building, the tallest in the city.

“I was horrified because this was a civilian target where more than a hundred families lived, including four families of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The rockets hit precisely the floors where they lived. Apparently some of the people who were not Witnesses and who were opposed to the invasion had fired on the helicopters from inside the building, and the Americans had retaliated. A dense cloud of black smoke ascended from the building. I telephoned one of the Witnesses who lived there, but nobody answered, so you can imagine how I felt. Later, I called another family, and they told me that all the Witnesses were safe, to my great relief.”

Commenting on the looting that took place, another Witness in the same city says: “For about a week and a half, there was no authority in the city, and the thugs took over and began systematically looting. Among those sharing in the looting were some churchgoing people and people with high-paying jobs, such as lawyers and doctors. They were carrying off stoves, refrigerators, sound equipment, computers, and other things. The office where I work had $22,000 worth of items stolen.

“Some people lost their lives in the looting itself. A group of looters were robbing a container in the area right across the street from the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Several were crushed to death when a container fell on top of them, but the others kept right on looting as if nothing had happened. They fought among themselves with knives and guns over the possession of the booty. This shows what can happen when there are no ‘superior authorities,’ that is, governmental authorities, to control things. At such times, when people do not have Jehovah’s law in their hearts, they just do what their baser instincts dictate.”​—Romans 13:1-4.

Organized Relief Work

As soon as the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses here in Panama learned the number of those who had lost their homes and needed material assistance, it was decided to organize relief for them. In Panama City, where almost half of the country’s population live, many of the stores had been ransacked. So the Branch Committee got in touch with Witnesses living in other places where food was still available. The Witnesses wanted to donate money and food, so they were asked to purchase quantities of flour, rice, beans, oil, and other durable foods.

A large truck was loaded with several tons of these items, and within just a few days after the invasion, they were made available and were given free to needy ones. Distribution centers were set up in many Kingdom Halls throughout the affected areas until everyone had been cared for. Some food was left over, which we made available to those who had lost their means of livelihood as a direct result of the war.

Quite a few of those who had lost their material possessions were reluctant to ask for help, which was in sharp contrast with the looters, who were motivated by greed. As is often true when disaster strikes, there are always those who take advantage of the situation for material gain.

Some Panamanians are optimistic about the future of Panama under a new governmental arrangement. Others still consider the war an act of imperialistic aggression. Meanwhile, Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to tell honesthearted people about God’s Kingdom, the only government that will solve the problems not only of Panama but of the whole world.​—Daniel 2:44; Matthew 6:9, 10.

[Pictures on page 24, 25]

The Chorrillo area was destroyed in the battle; shops were looted; military installations were devastated

[Pictures on page 26]

Supermarket and stores destroyed by looters

Watching the World

NEW BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

The entire Bible or parts thereof is now available to about 98 percent of the world’s population, having been translated partially or entirely into some 1,928 different languages. The French newspaper La Croix reports that 21 new translations of the Bible were published in 1989. Included among the new translations are such languages as Tok Pisin, a variety of Pidgin English spoken in parts of Papua New Guinea; Trukese, spoken on the island of Truk and other islands of the South Pacific; Lahu, a non-Chinese Sino-Tibetan language of Southeast Asia; and Bawm, spoken in Bangladesh. Work is now under way on translations into a Lappish language spoken in parts of the Soviet Union and Scandinavia, and into Romany, the language of the Gypsies.

BONE-DISEASE LINK FOUND

Osteoporosis, a sometimes crippling bone disease, affects one fourth of Caucasian women over the age of 60 in the United States. Dr. Jeanne Freeland-Graves of the University of Texas at Austin claims that there is a link between osteoporosis and the level of manganese in the blood. Her research indicates that elderly women with osteoporosis have lower blood levels of the mineral than healthy women of the same age and that the decreased levels may contribute to the disease. “Bones begin to deteriorate after the age of 35,” says Dr. Freeland-Graves. “But when women go through menopause, they lose the protective effect of estrogen and the rate of bone loss really accelerates.” She states that although calcium is important for bones, taking calcium supplements will not prevent the disease because “bone is made up of more than calcium, and manganese is one of the minerals that is stored in the bone.” Foods rich in manganese are pineapple, pecans, peanuts, beans, rice, spinach, sweet potatoes, oatmeal, and whole-wheat bread.

BREAST-FEEDING PROTECTS

Mothers who breast-feed their babies give them a significant advantage​—a decrease in the likelihood of infection—​concludes a group of doctors led by Professor Peter Howie of the Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland. A study of babies during their first year, published in the British Medical Journal, reported that babies who are breast-fed for the first 13 weeks of life suffer fewer than a third of the gastrointestinal illnesses that afflict those who are bottle-fed. Breast-feeding also produces a similar but smaller effect in reducing respiratory problems. The doctors conclude that for children to obtain these advantages, mothers “should maintain breast feeding for at least three months.”

CARNIVAL OF CRIME

A Brazilian newspaper, Folha de S.Paulo, recently published a list of serious crimes committed in São Paulo during the carnival prior to Lent. The list included 616 fights; a total of 432 thefts, burglaries, and muggings; 17 rapes; 3 kidnappings; and 39 murders​—all in just 18 hours. Additionally, during the same 18-hour period, there were 24 fires, 12 drownings, and 6 suicides; 17 minors were abandoned; and 23 dead bodies were found. Reports also indicate that a daily average of 260 automobiles were stolen during the five days of festivities.

DANGER ON THE STREETS

According to The New York Times, the city of New York is “the worst city in the nation for street robberies.” The report also noted that more killings were committed in New York City during 1989 than ever before, with a total of 1,905 homicides. During the first two months of 1990, killings were “up 20 percent from the same period last year,” not counting the 87 people who died in an arson fire at a Bronx social club in March. According to the Times, police authorities acknowledge that their 25,500-member police force is stretched thin and finds it difficult to maintain law and order on the streets. The total figures for 1989 crime in New York City include 542,932 crimes against property and 169,487 crimes against people.

THEY DREAD GOING HOME

What have years of long hours spent in the workplace achieved for a growing number of Japanese men? A feeling of alienation from their families and a loss of authority as husbands and fathers. A Fukoku Mutual Life Insurance Company survey revealed that 40 percent of male employees at Japan’s top corporations choose not to go home at least once a week. Two thirds of them drink the night away with friends, and one third drink alone. More drastically, others simply disappear. In fact, the National Police Agency told Awake! that family problems were the main reason for the seemingly voluntary disappearance of the 46,577 men they searched for in 1988.

“NO REASON TO CELEBRATE”

“Stanley Matthews, the most celebrated English soccer star, and the only one honored as Knight of the Kingdom, finds no reason to celebrate,” states the Brazilian newspaper O Estado de S.Paulo. “He finds the modern way of playing depressing because the pleasure of the sport is now gone.” Matthews, who quit his professional soccer career in 1965 at the age of 50, finds that modern players lack manners and moral qualities and are characterized by violence and disloyalty. “The modern players commit more fouls than in my time, and a large part of the entertainment and pleasure does not exist anymore,” says Matthews. “Everything has changed so much. Before World War II, if you played on the national team and were expelled, you would never be summoned again. You would be booed by your own fans.”

CAR HIJACKINGS

With so many automobiles being outfitted with antitheft systems, thieves are now taking another tack. “No longer able to simply smash a window before ‘hotwiring’ an unattended vehicle and driving off in it, many car thieves now prefer to hijack unsuspecting motorists while they are travelling or sitting in their vehicles,” reports Saturday Star of Johannesburg, South Africa. Thieves have posed as police officers in vehicles with flashing blue lights. After they get their victim to stop, they steal the car at gunpoint. Other cars have been stolen as drivers stopped for traffic lights or as they unlocked their cars. Police report that commercial vehicles have been hijacked for the purpose of stealing the goods inside as well as the vehicle itself. They have warned motorists to lock their doors, not wind windows down too far, and to be more alert when stopping at lights or at stop signs.

UNFAIR COMPETITION?

Since 1928, Calaveras County in California has held an annual frog-jumping contest. Most of the frogs entered are California bullfrogs, which rarely weigh more than a pound [0.5 kg]. But an importer of exotic animals has tried to enter his own frogs in the contest: goliath frogs from West Africa. They weigh as much as 15 pounds [7 kg] and extend to about 3 feet [1 m] in length. The current record for the contest is about 21.5 feet [6.5 m], taken in three hops; the importer of the goliaths says that his frogs can jump that far in a single bound. The organizers of the contest moved to block the goliaths from entering the contest, calling it unfair competition. They also object that the goliaths might eat the smaller frogs and that some might jump out of the 35-foot-deep [11 m] arena and strike an onlooker.

HIRED HELP FOR ABORTION FIGHT

Roman Catholic bishops in the United States have hired a top public-relations firm and a politically influential polling operation to conduct a nationwide campaign so that Catholics and non-Catholics may be persuaded to oppose abortions. Over the next three to five years, they expect to spend up to $5 million on the marketing plan. “Polls show that most women, and many Catholic women, support a woman’s right to limited access to abortion,” reports The New York Times.

A HOMOSEXUAL ALIBI

A young man facing charges of rape, indecent assault, simple assault, and unlawful restraint was acquitted by the courts after the testimony of an unexpected witness provided an alibi. The witness in question was a Catholic priest assigned to the diocese of the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. According to the newspaper National Catholic Reporter, the “priest testified that he and the accused had been lovers and were together when the alleged rape occurred.” As a result of this startling public admission of homosexuality, the homosexual priest was placed on an indefinite leave of absence.

From Our Readers

Lupus My first thought after reading the article “How I Live With Lupus” (May 8, 1990) was “Thank you, Jehovah!” I do not have lupus, but for two years I have struggled with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which has some similar symptoms. No doubt, this article answers the prayers of many, many people, not only with lupus but with other chronic illnesses.

After 20 years in full-time service, the last 4 traveling with my husband, a circuit overseer, it has been a big adjustment for me to gear down to a slower pace that I can function with. The account of Robin’s experience crystallized my own anxieties and frustrations, yet gave such practical advice for meeting these challenges. I just can’t thank you enough for printing this. I will keep a copy at my bedside to read over and over again.

T. E., United States

Fraud in Science I applaud your courageous stand against the religion of evolution. (January 22, 1990) I am very weary of the condescending attitudes of scientists who label people incompetent and ignorant if they do not accept the “faith.”

S. L., United States

Disasters I was really upset with the article on the hurricane and earthquake disasters. (February 22, 1990) You pointed to one incident of looting as an example of the difference between “the world” and Jehovah’s Witnesses. I feel it the height of bad taste to portray only Witnesses in a flattering light.

J. K., United States

The article served to demonstrate how Christians today show true love for one another during trialsome times, as they did in the first century. (2 Corinthians 8:1-4) Although some negative incidents were reported, the article also stated that “such callous acts were overshadowed by many acts of human kindness and compassion” performed by non-Witnesses.​—ED.

Puberty I was so overjoyed when I received the February 8, 1990, issue dealing with the changes experienced in puberty. I am a single parent, and for the last few months, I’ve been very troubled about how to explain these changes to my son. I was too embarrassed even to use certain words with him! So I just had to write and thank you for providing this information.

C. B., United States

Debt Just last night we sat down and made a plan for paying off our debts. We estimated it would take one year. Today, we found the February 8, 1990, issue in our mail, with the article on getting out of debt. This gave us much encouragement to stick to our plan. It also had good counsel regarding our future spending habits.

S. S. and K. S., United States

Dinosaurs My name is Ronald, and I am ten years old. I am very interested in dinosaurs and hoped for a report on them for a long time. At last there came an article on dinosaurs (February 8, 1990), and I want to say thank you very much.

R. M., Austria

I am a student at a local university. Two days before receiving this issue, I had considered writing you about the position the Witnesses take on the earth’s age. My questions have been answered, and I plan to share this wonderful information with my professor.

M. H., United States

A Shadow on the Moon

IT WAS mid-August in Brazil​—a mild winter evening with a full moon hanging in a cloudless sky. People were out on their balconies or gathered along the road, setting up cameras on tripods or focusing binoculars. The air hummed with conversations, all of which had the same hush of anticipation.

Why all the excitement? It was August 16, 1989. At 10:21 p.m. a complete lunar eclipse was to begin. Here, out in the country where the air is clean, the view promised to be spectacular. Right on schedule, the moon began to creep into the shadow that the earth casts into space. Just like the earth, the shadow is curved. Back in the fourth century B.C.E., that simple observation helped the Greek philosopher Aristotle to determine that the earth must be round.

As the moon entered deeper into the shade, the spectators began to “ooh” and “ah” appreciatively. The moon was turning orange. Just as it does in a beautiful sunset, the earth’s atmosphere was bending the sun’s rays, filtering out the blue rays of light and letting the red and orange ones through unhindered. After 97 minutes, the moon was completely ensconced in shadow. Later, it began to reemerge, slowly easing itself back into the sunlight.

Some of the moon watchers that night stayed up until 2:00 a.m. to see the whole show. They felt it was worth it. They had seen a remarkable display of the power and wisdom of the Creator of the universe. The Bible says that he made ‘the two great luminaries, the greater for dominating the day and the lesser for dominating the night,’ which were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.”​—Genesis 1:14, 16.

‘She Knows All the Bible Answers’

Some time ago a woman in New York State sent a former classmate, who was raising a family, a copy of My Book of Bible Stories. After a while the woman received a letter from her in which she wrote about her daughter Elizabeth:

“She just loves the book​—it’s the only one she wants me to read to her at night. She gets five stories (because she’s five) a night, and last week her Sunday-school teacher told me that she can always count on Elizabeth to know all the answers to Biblical questions. So it must have been written by someone who really understands what children like.”

The New York woman observes regarding her friend: “This was her honest reaction, as she is very forthright and would not praise the book if she did not like it.”

We feel that you too will treasure this beautifully illustrated, large-print publication. Its 116 Bible accounts give the reader an idea of what the Bible is all about. These stories appear in the order in which the events occurred in history. You will find this really helpful to learning when, in relation to other events, things happened in history. Receive this valuable 256-page book by filling in and mailing the coupon.

I would like to receive the hardbound book My Book of Bible Stories. (Outside the U.S.A., write to local Watch Tower branch for information. See page 4.)