BILLY GRAHAM "SAVES” BRITAIN

F motion and person. ^.Uty override doctrinal rrnrh

______XX_______ ■ x-^-.xtbxx^iWA-xrrj^.___,--, ..__........

Ransoming the Human Race

Hcnv to cod your fedinpr. cd ymb

The Costly Prison Failure

Millions spent, .crime increases

Plants Produce Evidence Against Evolution

SEPTEMBER 8, 1955 semimonthly

THE MISSION OF THIS JOURNAL

N<w» sources that arc able to keep you awake to the vital tatoaa of our timw must ba unfettered by censorship and selflsh interacts. “Awake!" has no fetters. It recognizes facts, facet facts, is free to publish facts. It 1« not bound by political ambitions or obligations; it is unhampered by advertisers whose toes must not be trodden pn; It is Unprejudiced by traditional creeds. This journal keeps itself free that it may speak freely to you. But it does not abuse its freedom* It maintains integrity to truth*

«Awake I” uses th* regular news channels, but is not dependent on them. Its own correspondents are on all continents, in scores of nations. Fromj the four corners of the earth their uncensored, on- the* scenes reports come to you through these columns. This journal’s viewpoint is not narrow, but is International It is read in many nations, in many languages, by persons of ail ages* Through its pages many fields of knowledge pass in review—government, commerce, religion, history, geography, science, social conditions, natural wonders—why, its coverage Is as broad as the earth and as high os the heavens.

“Awake I” pledges itself to righteous principles, to exposing hidden foes and subtle dangers, to championing freedom for all, to comforting mourners and strengthening those disheartened by the failures of a delinquent world, reflecting sure hope for the establishment of a righteous New World,

Get acquainted with “Awake!** Keep awake by reading “Awoke!’*

FmausHio S**(^GSr£fLr Sr WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, INC.

117 Ahtams Street                                   Brooklyn 1, N. Y., U. B. A*

N. EL Knob*, FreHdcnt                          GwtT Biutib, ^eeretors

CONTENTS

Religion on the Wide Scr^n

Ransoming the Human Race

The Bible and the Family Circle

“Back to the Bible”—Says Billy Graham 8 Billy Graham “Saves” Britain

The Costly Prison Failure

Why the Joy over Jewels and Gems? 17 Lesson in Making Friends

An Experiment in Colonization.

Plants produce Evidence

Against Evolution

The New Microscope and the Study ot Cancer

“Your Word Is Truth”

In and Qut of Hell

Jehovah’s Witnesses Preach in All the Earth—Cuba Do You Know?

Watching the World

RELIGION ON THE WIDE SCREEN

HAVE you noticed the increased trend toward religious moving pictures? Cecil B. DeMille, the director of the most famed of these pageants, thinks the trend is a symptom that '"the world is beginning to realize how deep the trouble is that it is in, and that there is only one way out— the law laid down by Moses and its inter-

other great religious leaders.” But even if the world does realize its need for guidance, are Hollywood’s sex-filled “Bible” movies pointing the way?

The Bible has proved to be one of Hollywood’s most valuable sources for story ideas, though one would hardly recognize the Bible’s accounts after Hollywood finishes with them! That the Bible’s ideas are different from the prevailing modern ones does not even suggest itself to viewers of these films. There is little of the Bible’s doctrinal arguments, practically nothing that strengthens faith, no integrity to Biblical accounts, but merely supercolossal, eye-impressing extravaganza and occasional modern-day petty moralizing. As one article in protest said: “They make mention of Galilee and of the Jordan, but the message comes straight from southern California.”

Let us take specific examples: Regarding damson and ’DeSW’’ a critic intelligently wrote: “There are more chariots, more peacock plumes, more animals, more spear carriers and more sex than ever before.” “Salome” was even worse. She, you will remember, danced for John the Baptist's head. But Hollywood’s script-writers think the Bible has it all wrong. According to them she did the dance to try to save John the Baptist, instead of the other way

“The Silver Chalice” took even greater liberties. Though it was put in a Bible setting and given Bible characters, it was as farfetched from the principles and practices of first-century Christians as could be imagined. According to it, Luke and Joseph of Arimathea, two devout early Christians, bowed in reverent worship to the cup from which*Jesus drank—an act that would have been totally repugnant to first-century Christians^ wbn.

would bend the knee only to God himself! —Exodus 20:4, 5; Acts 10:25, 26; 17:29.

Current and disgusting is “The Prodigal,” In Jesus* parable the prodigal son wasted his property in riotous living. Then when his wealth was gone he hired out to a citizen and was sent to the fields to feed swine. He realized his foolishness, returned repentantly to his father’s house and there was received with open arms. This account illustrates the principle that squandering our time with the old world brings no permanent happiness, and that if we have done so we should return to the house of our loving heavenly Father where true riches are received But you would never know it from this picture that New York Times critic Bosley Crowther called a “romantic, pompous, ostentatious and often vulgar and ridiculous charade?’ The story, however, makes a double-barreled approach at the ticket window: (1) it draws a huge audience to see a “Bible” picture, and (2) throws in lots of sex to make this assure thing as far as the profits are concerned.

But we have not yet seen all! These “Bible” pictures, like westerns and musicals, are standard Hollywood fare. The gold mine is too rich; the people’s Biblical knowledge is too low. Such superspectacles are guaranteed a soaring ride into the upper income brackets, because the people actually do not know enough about the Bible to reject these flamboyant extravaganzas. Some of the blame certainly must rest on the kind of religion that provides an^Faudience for such films.

How would it be possible for Hollywood to present religion intelligently and believably and to depict earnest conversion, when it must stay clear of doctrine? As one critic said about “Salome”: “Mr. Granger had converted her, in one of the easiest and vaguest conversions on record, to The Law or Humanity or something, and she was going straight.” As Time magazine said about “End of the Affair”: This story about God “verges ... on unintentional contempt.” Further: “The film attempts to drag the Deity through the theater like a dancing bear.” True, Hollywood cannot offend various denominations, but if it has no firm conviction on truth or doctrine, no sure understanding of why the Creator is to be served, or who or what he is, how can it portray a live, vivid, moving, sincere and well-founded zeal for true worship? It cannot. And that is why it must resort to spectacle, wide-screen, modern-day petty moralizing and a general and anemic popularization of Bible themes.

Thus, the black-and-white film “Martin Luther” proved to be a far greater and more stirring motion picture than the usual spectacular Hollywood religious productions. Its color and stature and grandeur were in its arguments, its portrayal of a vivid search for truth. It involved conviction, faith and doctrine. It was a film of ideas. Unlike the so-called ‘Bible pictures,’ it said something, and because it said something it also entertained. The reason the others do not measure up is because they do not say anything, they only entertain. And in their attempt to entertain they often present true worship on a repulsively false level.

If Hollywood does not want a Bible story, it certainly is under no obligation to use one. But when it tampers with or perverts the Biblical accounts, then the complaints are justified. What is wrong with perverting these accounts? What is wrong is that moving pictures have a mighty power of persuasion. People remember what they see, and these things are impressed in their minds the way they saw them. And how can a right example be taken from a parable that has been perverted from its original meaning? What ■ understanding will the people- get when Christian ministers cite these Biblical examples to illustrate a point?

But, then, as one movie man thoughtfully explained: “We are not theologians/' There is little reason to think that any Bible reader will ever disagree with him on that point. Thus, the way to learn of ‘the law laid down by Moses and its interpretation by Jesus Christ’ is through a diligent study of God’s Word, not from Hollywood’s ticket-office theologians!

Ho** can we get the benefit of God's provision?

AMONG the most harmful of human emotions is the sense of guilt. However, the Bible shows us God’s own way of ridding man of his sense of guilt, and that is by means of the ransom; and by it not only ridding man of his sense of guilt but also giving man everlasting life, his sense of guilt and his dying condition having the same source, namely, original sin. Yes, by means of a ransom God will bring about a sinless new world, a world without death ■and all that goes with it.

Prominent clergymen have made such statements as: “Strictly speaking, the death of Christ was not necessary for human salvation.” Those who take such a position overlook God’s justice. God has a perfect sense of righteousness and justice and he could not command the respect of his moral creatures unless all his actions squared with perfect justice. At no time could he deviate from justice for the sake of convenience simply because he is accountable to no one but himself,

Jehovah God as man’s Benefactor and Supreme Sovereign was not only perfectly within his rights but also very wise and loving when he made his gifts to man dependent upon obedience. What he required of man was seemingly a trifle, but it was sufficient to demonstrate whether man loved his Benefactor or not and whether he appreciated what he had received or not But Adam and Eve did not love their Benefactor nor did they appreciate what he had given them, for they willfully disobeyed. God had no alternative but to sentence them to death.

While God had said that in the day that man ate of the forbidden fruit he would die, man did not die within a literal day, but rather within one of God’s symbolical days oi a thousand years, Adam living 930 years. During that time Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, none of whom had the right to life, because, as we read: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” “I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”—Romans 5:12, New World Trans.; Psalm 51:5, Am. Stan. Ver.

While Adam and Eve had shown themselves unworthy of God’s undeserved kindness, God knew that such would not be true of all their offspring, for which reason he allowed them to continue to live and to bring forth offspring. The Bible record shows that from the time of Abel onward God has had men on earth who proved faithful to him in spite of all that Satan was able to bring against them in the way of temptation and persecution.

How could God reward these for their course of integrity keeping? Only by re-

SEPTEMBER 8, 1955

moving the condemnation they were under due to Adam’s sin. And how could he do this? Not by circumventing his righteous judgment but by arranging for another to pay voluntarily the debt mankind owed due to Adam's transgression. As the apostle Paul expresses it: 'Tor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus. God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was . . . that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous the man that has faith in Jesus.*¹—Romans 3:23-26, New World Trans.

The Ransom Foreshadowed

That God would make such a provision he intimated in the garden of Eden when he foretold that the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent; also when he promised that all the families of the earth would bless themselves in the seed of Abraham. He also foreshadowed it by accepting Abel’s sacrifice which involved the shedding of blood and by rejecting that of Cain which did not. He also prophetically foretold it by commanding Abraham to offer up his son Isaac, and in the many sacrifices he required the Israelites to make under the law covenant because of their sins.—Genesis 3:15; 4:3-5; 22:17, 18; Leviticus 16.

All such pointed to just one thing, that it took the shedding of blood to remove guilt from man. “Yes, nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.” However, these could not actually take away sin because “it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.” What was needed was a corresponding ransom, a perfect human life for a perfect human life, even as the law of Moses stated: “Soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot?¹—Hebrews 9:22; 10:4; Exodus 21:23, 24, New World Trans.

Not only was it impossible for the sacrifice of lower animals to take sin away, but no imperfect man could give his life a ransom for himself or another, since he did not have the right to life: “Truly no man can ransom himself, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of his life is costly, and can never suffice, that he should continue to live on for ever, and never see the Pit. But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol?’—Psalm 49:7-9, 15, Rev. Stan. Ver.

Christ Jesus the Ransomer

Then how could God provide a ransom when all mankind were unable to provide for their own soul? By having his Son, his first-born, the beginning of his creation, come to earth as a man. How could this be accomplished? By transferring his life from spirit to human existence, causing him to be born as the babe Jesus, with a human mother but having God as his Father. That Jesus had a prehuman existence the Scriptures clearly show, for time and again Jesus himself referred to his prehuman existence. And in coming to earth he was not merely an incarnation, a spirit creature clothed with flesh, but he “became flesh,” he “was produced out of a woman.” Had he not actually been a flesh-and-blood human his expressions of weariness and suffering would have been feigned. Besides, then he could not have been a corresponding ransom, for he would have been “far superior to Adam in the garden of Eden. —John 1:14; Galatians 4:4, New World Trans.; John 6:41; 17:5.

Modernist clergymen may* deny the teaching of the ransom even as they do the Bible’s account of creation, but in doing so they may not claim to be Christians without stamping themselves as hypocrites, since Christ Jesus both accepted the Bible's account of creation and claimed to be the Ransomer: “The Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.” And in regard to his blood he said that it "is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.”—Matthew 20:28; 26:28, New World Trans.

Nothing could be plainer than the following scriptural testimony on the subject of the value of Christ’s death, modernist clergymen to the contrary notwithstanding: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.” "And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s.” "It was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, as a ransom that you were released . , . But it was with precious blood, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, even Christ’s.”—1 Timothy 2:5, 6; 1 John 2:2; 1 Peter 1:18,19, New World Trans,

By laying down His perfect human life voluntarily, Jesus had something of merit, the right to human life by which he could purchase life and freedom for the human race. That the merit of his sacrifice might be presented to divine justice and that he might be able to apply it on behalf of mankind it was necessary for Jesus to be raised from the dead, and hence we read that Jesus "was delivered up for the sake of our trespasses and was raised up for the sake of declaring us righteous”; and that "If Christ has not been raised up, your faith is useless, you are yet in your sins.” —Romans 4:25; 1 Corinthians 15:17, New World Trans.

Benefiting from the Ransom

To benefit now from Christs sacrifice one must exercise faith in Jehovah God and in Christ as his Savior and Redeemer; he must ’repent and turn around in order to get his sins blotted out.’ He must then dedicate himself to the doing of God’s will and to following in Jesus’ footsteps and ’seek Jehovah, meekness and righteousness,’ that he may be hidden in the day of God’s anger when Christ Jesus and his armies will destroy this wicked old system of things, including all God’s enemies visible and invisible, to make the earth a suitable place for him to administer the benefits of his ransom sacrifice.—Acts 3:19; Zephaniah 2:1-3; Hebrews 11:6; Revelation 16:14, 16.

Thus by means of the ransom Jehovah’s original purpose for the earth and man will be realized, namely, to have it populated with a righteous race and made a paradise and man exercising dominion over the lower animals.

The Bible and the family Circle

C J. Edgar Hoover, director of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, recently said: “Today, more than ever before, we need to bring young people closer to the Bible and the eternal lessons it teaches. The picture of the family circle—the father, mother and children, sitting together reading the Bible—is a scene of inspiring beauty. There the Word of God is at work—molding character, lighting the path of good, inspiring deeds of service. . . . The revival of a firm belief in the magnificence of the Supreme Creator is a vital need. The Bible must be brought back Into the family circle/*

AT THE end of April Billy Graham, who had held the headlines for six weeks through his outstanding evangelist work in Scotland, concluded his All-Scotland Crusade. Thousands heard him every night at the Kelvin Hall, while others were tied in by direct wire at local gatherings, Glasgow’s welcome, said Graham, was “beyond anything I’ve encountered,” He also spoke in London, and his “Hour of Decision”

broadcast is heard each week by a large radio audience in America.

Graham is often quoted by the press as declaring his work to be the work of God, saying that it is the holy spirit that directs it all. Of course, if this is true, then we should find all his activities to agree with the Bible, which Jesus pointed to as God’s Word of truth, and we should find his activities to follow the pattern set by Jesus himself. (John 17:17) What do the facts

Now, is it possible for all the divided religious organizations of a country to be behind a movement and still have God with it? As to true faith, 1 Corinthians 1:10 (New World Trans.) says: “There should not be divisions among you, but... be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.” Thus Billy Graham’s view that membership in just any church organization is satisfactory does not harmonize with the Bible, Rather, the members of

the early church were firmly united un-

First, in an article written by Billy Graham himself for the Asheville (North Carolina) Citizen-Times^ in regard to the All-Scotland Crusade, he said: “Officially all of the hundreds of churches in the national church are behind the meetings; but that is not all. There are seven other denominations, all members of the ‘Tell Scotland Movement,’ who are also in the sponsoring body. This gave us virtually for the first time in our experience a 100 per cent backing from all the Protestant churches of a country.” Apparently that is something he desires, because he says, as quoted in Illustrated magazine, March 26: “We will not accept any invitations from iso-der one governing body of mature Christians, confessing to “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” When various factions in the congregation at Corinth started following human leaders, the apostle Paul queried: “Does the Christ exist divided?” True followers of Christ cannot lie united in pure worship while distributed among a yari-ety of organizations holding widely differing beliefs.—Ephesians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 1:13, New World Trans.

Second, since a true Christian must follow in the footsteps of Jesus'Christ, we ask: Did Jesus look for church backing in the community, preaching only where the religious leaders would invite him? And did he refuse to preach in smaller, isolated places? No, but the bold and cutting statements by Jesus that are recorded in Matthew 23 were delivered right in Jerusalem where the religious leaders did not want him. And further^ he did not refuse to preach in the villages, but set the example for Christians today when he “went journeying from city to city and from village to vihage, preaching and declaring the good news of the kingdom of God?' (Luke 8:1, New World Trans.) Even his much-repeated Sermon on the Mount was given, not in a city, but out on the mountainside.

But Billy Graham has shown more apparent interest in being well-received and having the necessary backing than in carefully following this example set by our Lord. He has looked to the world, required responsible religious leaders to invite him to their city, and he expects financial support from local businessmen. Does the Bible contain precedent for that procedure? On the contrary, James 4:4 says that such “friendship with the world is enmity with God. Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.”—New World Trans.

Graham himself, as is well known, is a Baptist minister, and no doubt firmly believes the teachings of the Baptist faith; otherwise he would not teach it. But if he believes the Baptist religion to be right worship, then why does he urge his listeners to go to the church of their choice? The Proverbs pointedly warn: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” If Graham knows the right way, then it would be a display of love for God and love for his fellow man fearlessly to tell others what that right way is.—Proverbs 14:12.

WhUe Graham speaks freely of Christ, and with apparent sincerity urges his hearers to accept Him into their hearts, that alone does not prove what he teaches to be the right religion, as the above facts show. Rather, it is his doctrines, the things that he says, that determine whether what he teaches is right. Jesus himself said: “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Master, Master/ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many win say to me in that day: ’Master, Master, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you at all. G^t away from me, you workers of lawlessness.”—Matthew 7:21-23, New World Trans.

It is a very important thing to turn the people back to the Bible. But rather than really turning them back to the Bible by preaching hacdrhitttng Bible truths that lay a sure foundation for lasting faith and service, Graham characteristically preached the popular but scriptur-ally discredited beliefs of Christendom, such as: “The Bible teaches us that we have a soul, an eternal soul, that lasts forever.” But according to Genesis 2:7 man does not have a soul; he is a soul, haying been made a soul. At Psalm 146:4 the death of a man is described as follows: “His breath goeth forth, he retumeth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” If the soul dies, and the Bible at Ezekiel 18:4 says it does, then it cannot be eternal o*r immortal. Eternal life or immortality is a gift from God to the faithful, and it is not inherent in human souls. So Billy Graham's teachings on the soul—a foundation of his plea to his audience—is contrary to the very Bible that he pounds so much on the platform.—Romans 2:7; 6:23.

That being the case, what is the result of his meetings and of the “decisions for

Christ” made by thousands in attendance! the following article that reports on his To answer that question we refer you to All-Scotland Crusade.

(f\lTHAT do you VV think of Billy Graham?” This was the, question on top of the ask parade in Britain this spring. Billy

Graham had come “to call indifferent people back to the church until our churches are filled again with people singing and praising God—until our knees have callouses on them with so much praying.” As may be expected, some were in ecstasies of approval and praise of Graham, his methods and results, while others went to the opposite extreme in cynical skepticism and derision.

Graham, described by the Christian Herald as the world’s foremost living evangelist, had been called in by Scotland’s clergy to give a lift to the flagging and apathetic Tell Scotland Movement, in which the Church of Scotland, the Baptist, Congregational, Methodist, Episcopal, Free, United Free and Original Secession churches and the Christian Brethren had joined hands. On his arrival in Glasgow on March 19, the evangelist described his forthcoming meetings as “church-integrated and sponsored by the churches in the hope of getting as many people back to church as possible.”

At the opening meeting in the Kelvin Hall, Glasgow, a crowd of 18,000 packed the main auditorium and the circus arena where television screens had been installed. As the campaign got under way relay meetings in churches and halls through- ■

The pattern of the meetings never varied. The aim was to persuade response to the nightly call to the listeners to “make decisions for Christ.” Graham explained his technique to a gathering of Glasgow ministers when he told them to be sure, first, that they had a gospel to preach, and then “preach it to a decision, driving to a verdict like a salesman who wants to get a signature on the dotted line.”

This high-pressure salesman technique had all the appearance of success. Over 52,000 people signed on the dotted line. Night after night they came forward to be greeted by counselors who were briefed to receive them and make arrangements for follow-up work. Even Graham's most fervent supporters expressed astonishment at the numbers of converts, and the curious continued to flock to the meetings to see “if there was something in it after all.” What was there ir. it? What made the converts sign on the dotted line? What brought them to the point of decision? Was it personal magnetism? Emotion? Or was it the spirit of God? Graham answered: “I want to ten you without hesitation that the secret is God. There is no other answer. It is certainly not the preaching.”

Critics, however, found other answers,

tlsm and mass emotion. Paradoxically, in the spirit-of-God versus Graham’s-person-ality argument, the critics* views were supported by the opinion of some of Graham’s admirers. For example: a report of a talk to Edinburgh University students in The Scotsman claims "they fell, as all audiences have fallen, under the spell of the man’s personal magnetism and passionate sincerity.” A staff correspondent attending a rally of 30,000 at Tynecastle Football Park, Edinburgh, wrote: "One would not have thought it possible for a man today to exercise such a personal hold upon so great a multitude of people, with a message, which, in its essentials, differed not a whit from countless sermons preached in churches every week." His description of Graham’s final appeal at this rally was also enlightening: "A member of the team played the piano softly, while Dr. Graham gently but very persuasively and confidently urged the people to step forward."

Graham claimed: "It took more than a mere man to persuade 36,000 people to answer the gospel appeal. The spirit of God is working." On the other hand, Willis Haymaker, one of Graham’s team, was reported in the Glasgow Herald of March 30, 1955, as saying: "The highest percentage of response to Mr. Graham’s invitation to make decisions had been coming from the overflow audience in the circus arena, where the closed circuit television operates with eight screens. The reason why so many decisions were made from this part was because the audience seated there saw no one but Mr, Graham on the screen. There was no one else to distract them.”

Clinching the fact that personal appeal is largely responsible for Graham’s success is the lack of response to a substitute preacher. In an assessment of the crusade a church correspondent of the Glasgow Herald commented: "It is impossible to dissociate the man from the work, and on the one occasion on which he was unable to attend a meeting there was manifest disappointment at his absence even though his place was taken by a capable and acceptable deputy." The Scotsman reported that the number making decisions on that one occasion was "the lowest figure of the campaign so far." Does this mean that Graham must be present before the spirit of God flows fully, or would it not be more reasonable to conclude that the lack of response on this occasion was due to the absence of his magnetic personality?

Who Responded?

Who are the people who are swayed by Graham? Are they swelling the depleted ranks of church members? Scarcely, for generally they are already church members or at least close associates! Dr. Brian Wellbeck, himself a minister of religion, in an analysis in Reynolds News, March 22, boldly set out his views: "I do not regard these campaigns as genuine evangelism at all. Those who are converted are men and women who already have some dose contact with the church.” Percy Howard in the Sunday Express revealed: "Of two million who packed his 1954 crusade only 36,000 [less than two per cent] came forward, And most of these were practising Christians already, According to one survey 24,000 were regular churchgoers even before Graham arrived " The Scotsman of April 25 reported Graham as saying that he got very few, comparatively speaking, who had been totally outside the Christian sphere of influence.

In a pungent article in the Sunday Ex* press, Percy Howard noted that "In one field Dr. Graham has undoubtedly made some lasting converts. They are the bishops of the Church of England. When he landed with his team last year church spokesmen were W>1, aloof, even hostile, . . . But Graham soon displayed one outstanding quality which appealed to them. He was a success.” The Scottish clergy were not impervious to the taste of this heady wine. They too wanted to sip its sun-basked sweetness. Other people had criticisms. They criticized the showmanship, emotionalism, mock^humility and demand for intellectual suicide. But these criticisms troubled the clergy not at all. Their only objection was that Graham is a fundamentalist, a hell-fire believer, whereas they have graduated to the modernist school with its evolution and denial of the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. However, they did not allow these differences to force them off the band wagon, but eagerly used Grdham’s services to revive their gasping congregations.

Reason or Emotion?

Intelligent observers of the campaign noted a lack of reason in Graham’s preaching. In a trenchant feature in the Daily Record^ Cliff Hanley wrote: "The Graham approach to truth is such a taradiddle of bad logic and weak analogy that it puzzles me how any educated and intelligent people can suffer it.” For example, Graham told his audiences that while he could see that the grass is green, he did not know why it was. Yet it was green nevertheless, and he accepted that fact. Likewise he did not understand the doctrine of the atonement, but since it was taught in the Bible, then he accepted it Apart from the feebleness of the analogy, just imagine the “world’s greatest living evangelist” unable to understand and explain this fundamental Bible truth upon whichsthe salvation of mankind rests!

Graham believes in perpetuating this old world, and he tries hard to reform it. But of what value will his campaign be if the churches really are filled again with people? Increased membership will not bring unity, for the churches are divided on teaching and organizational structure, which will remain the same no matter how great the membership. But will the churches be filled again? Hardly, for they emptied because their spiritual cupboard is bare, like Old Mother Hubbard’s. And Billy Graham, in his role as a merchant of spiritual baby food, has brought nothing substantial to replace it. Returning to their churches, Scotland’s churchgoing public will feel the pangs of spiritual hunger gnawing at their vitals. Lack of good food, the meat of God’s Word, will mean their decease spiritually.

Just what is the “decision for Christ” that Graham preaches "like a salesman who wants to get a signature on the dotted line”? What he terms a “decision for Christ” is apparently an expression made by anyone who is seeking salvation or who renews his faith in formal worship as practiced in one of the churches of Christendom. But a decision to follow faithfully in the footsteps of Christ involves much more. For one to make a decision to follow Christ he must believe the truths of God’s Word, dedicate himself to God, symbolize such dedication by water immersion as Jesus did, and then follow Jesus* example by Acting as the right kind of minister.—Psalm 40:8; Matthew 3:13-17; Hebrews 11:6; 1 Peter 2:21.

Right worship is the worship God approves, That worship is not found by emotionalism. It is not a religion that the world will approve and support. Rather, it is the altogether different worship that is set out in God’s own Word, the Bible. Really getting back to the Bible and digging into that book to see what it does say will enable you to see the difference between the logical, rational basis for pure worship that invites: "Come now, and let us reason together,” and the shallow emotionalism that many people try to substitute for it, —Isaiah 1:18.

PRISONS are not schools for the upbuilding of morals. Nor are they institutions fo£ the reformation and the prevention of future criminal conduct, as generally believed. They are first, last and all the time prisons—places of confinement —in essence still the same medieval institutions of ages ago. True, the span of time has eliminated many abuses and has greatly modernized the “industry,” hut the mental and emotional torment is present as always.

Tn olden times prisX officials did not concern themselves with the mental and emotional conflict of prisoners. They were measuring out vindictive retribution. The applied philosophy, “let the punishment fit the crime,” appeared ah effective yardstick. Prisoners were bound in chains as well as confined in close quarters. Prisons were often dark, dingy dungeons, deserted wells or pits. In ancient Egypt and among the Philistines the prison was an established institution. The treatment meted, out was harsh. Often prisoners were blinded and compelled to do hard labor like beasts of burden. Samson of Bible fame was accorded this treatment. The ancient Babylonians, Greeks and Romans reduced prisoners to slaves—animals, with little or no hope of relief.—Genesis 40:3; Judges 16:21, 25. existence had no prisons, no prisoners. Law violators were committed into custody of responsible citizens until trial. Judgment was shrift, just and impartial. Some were awarded probation, as Shimei, but were executed if they violated their trust. None, however, were confined to imprisonment. The law of Jehovah God did not provide for prisons. The nearest it came to commanding confinement was the protective arrangement of cities of refuge, and that was pictorial. (Numbers 35:10-29) Yet crime and criminals were so effectively treated that they never presented a serious threat to the nation of Israel. No mention of prison is made in Israel till the time of the kings. During the reign of unfaithful King Ahab, there was a prison in Samaria. Later there is notice of the detention of prisoners at Jerusalem in the court of the guard, and in the dry cistern that was in the court. Private houses were also used as places of confinement. But no public prisons were known in all Judea prior to captivity.—1 Kings 2:8, 36-46; 22:27; Ezra 7:26; Jer. 32:2; 37:15; 38:6.

Today despite the multiple penal and correctional institutions, increased police force and crime prevention agencies; despite modern inventions, brilliantly lighted streets, electric alarms and a thousand and one appliances for the protection of property; despite the use of radio, radar, television, telephone and the automobile, which bring the scene of the crime within a few seconds of the law, crime keeps going up, up, up. It has increased to such alarming proportions that today, according to J, Edgar Hoover, head of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), it is a twenty-billion-dollar (320,000,000,000) annual business.’ And it Is becoming more difficult by the day to get these billions ot dollars down into proper perspective. The Nations Business^ for December, 1954, makes this startling revelation: “Crime coats United States $1,000,000,000 less than the United States government, excluding our defense budget. On a simpler level, crime costs each American family $495. Much of this in loot, much in high insurance, much is for protection.”

So, contrary to modem slogans that say “crime does not pay.” the inhabitants of the underworld are proving daily that “crime pays and pays beautifully,” says Bill Slocum. He states that this was made clear when the FBI “ran a box score on the 1953 contest between the underworld and the forces of law and order. In that year, 2,159,080 major crimes were committed. These resulted in only 73,299 jail sentences. About the same number were put on probation. Judging by present trends, 1954,” he said, “will see even larger figures but the same relationship. Therefore, 14 out of 15 major crime forays paid off. It is to be hoped," he told businessmen, “that your salesmen are doing as well in their work.¹’

Crime Prevention—a Monstrous Business

Prisons are upheld os the major deterrent to crime. But crime marches on! Jails and correctional institutions are filled to overflowing. To keep pace with the rising crime, the penal system in America has grown into a ghastly costly business. Almost fifty years ago, William Howard Taft, when president of the United States, called this ration's administration of the Criminal Law and the prosecution of crime “a disgrace to our civilization.” Not much has been done to improve it since.

A one-time governor of Illinois, J. P. Altgeld, set out to describe briefly the magnitude of the penal system. “There are in the United States,” he said, “upward of 2200 county jails, several hundred lockups or police stations; between fifty and sixty penitentiaries, with workshops, machinery, etc. The first cost of the erection of all these buildings and shops has been estimated at upwahi of £500,000,900, which is dead capital, the interest upon which sum alone annually win amount to $25,000,000. To this must be added the sums annually appropriated out of the treasury to feed the prisoners, pay the officers, judicial and executive, and keep up and maintain all these institutions, which sums have been estimated at upward of $50,000,000, to say nothing of the cost paid by the accused. There are upward of 2200 sheriffs, and in the neighborhood of 12,00<tdepuiy sheriffs. Then come the grand juries, petit juries, judges and lawyers; next the keepers and their numerous assistants for all these prisons, making about a million of men, partly cr wholly supporting their families from this source.'’

However, the above figures were given some sixty years ago. Since that time the population of the United States has increased considerably, and crime has grown even faster than the population, so that the estimate of a million men, dependent for their live/ihood on the apprehension, conviction and detention of criminals, would be today far below the mark. There are over a thousand more county jails and at least 150 more federal and state peni-tentlaries today than there were in Alt* gelds time. And there are upward of 100,000 city Jails, lockups and police stations, for which the taxpayers contribute an estimated several billion dollars annually for their support.

Further, material for the construction of receiving buildings, hospitals, administration buildings, etc-, have gone up in cost. The price range is somewhere around 515,000 a man, exclusive of the cost of the site. Prison personnel's income has gone up to about $4,000 a year as an average. Add to this the cost of daily upkeep per inmate, which is about $3.55, according to federal prison estimates, a^id the total cost figure is staggering—no less than $255,000,000! Taxpayers are paying all these millions for what? Ralph S. Banay, prison expert and editor of the Journal of Social Therapy, stated rather bluntly that these millions 'not only do not cure the crime problem; rather they perpetuate and multiply it’ He declared: "We profess to rely upon the prison for our safety; yet it is directly responsible for much of the damage that society suffers at the hands of offenders.” So, for the 255 million dollars that Americans shell out annually for the prevention of crime and the reformation of criminals, they get in return an ever-increasing army that goes in and out of jail and turns on society to destroy $20,000,000,000 worth of their property annually.

“InduztrW of Crime

There are even more compelling reasons why taxpayers who pay these millions and billions should take note. Cell prisons, as you can see, are expensive propositions. And they are admittedly HI adapted to the intelligent handling of criminals. The open riots of the past few years in a dozen or more prisons are symptoms of the failure of the penal system. The very conditions within many prisons, such as the maddening monotony and regimentation, the badly organized and inefficient labor system, the educational mockery, the brutality, the frustration of normal sex activity and the rise of homosexuality, the fiat prison diet, the inadequate heating and lighting plants and, above all, the morbidly depressing cells, the ugly architecture wherever one turns—breed rebellion and hate and not the intended social-mindedness and social responsibility. Said an authority: "One can hardly imagine a worse preparation for life in the world at large than the routine and rigid regulations to be found in the average cell prison of the present day. Socialization of the inmates of a prison community is most important, but it Is almost impossible under existing conditions In our penal institutions.”

Dr. J, P. Shalloo, an expert on penology, and a member of the Philadelphia Crime Commission, called the present penal setup “preposterous,” in which the offender and the community “both lose.” He stated that “until there is some clear-cut definition of what we are seeking in the process of criminal justice, we shall get only more crime." And so it has been. Prisons as they stand today are simply scnooJs of crime. This point was made clear by Commissioner of Correction Anna M. Kross, who said: “We are encouraging in our jails every type of vice, degeneracy and the use of narcotics. We’re making more and better criminals. What thpy didn’t know before they come in our jails, they learn in them, If a prisoner didn’t shoot you before, he’s ready to shoot you when he gets out and is broken down." To send a man or woman with abnormal tendencies to prison today, said a penal expert, is like locking a moth in a woolen mill.

Banay compared the prison system to a huge industry that makes and installs time bombs in the personalities of the men and women confined in them. “That these bombs will explode in time,” he says, “is almost certain. Sometimes prisoners ‘explode' inside the prisons in incredibly savage riots which destroy millions of dollars worth of property and take many lives. More harmful, nearly every prisoner, after release, will ‘explode' individually against the society tha{ has imprisoned him.” To emphasize this possibility, a female occupant of one of the nation’s prisons “exploded” with shouts at a reporter who questioned her: “I shall be a thousand times worse a girl when 1 leave this living hell than I ever dreamed I could be.”

That prisons are breeding places of crime and criminals was made plain by Sheriff E. W. Biscailuz of Los Angeles county, California. He asserted that some Jails in the United States are so filled with corruption that even if a person were not a criminal when he was put in, the chances are he would be one when he came out

Proof of Failure

That prisons are a deterrent to crime no longer holds true. It is an established fact today that the fear of going to prison is a negligible factor in the psychology of the deliberate or habitual criminal. This is proved by the addiction of repeaters to further and more sericffis crimes. For every hundred men who have served prison sentences, more than sixty of them will be back after winning their freedom. And says an expert penologist, there is nothing to show that the remaining number Eave abandoned crime altogether. Nearly two thirds of the 110,057 inmates received in New York city's municipal institution during 1954 were repeaters. Of the 172,729 persons in state and federal prisons in the United States at the end of 1953, more than 60 per cent of them were in prison before. Less than “five per cent” of the present prison intake is for first offenses, declared

James V. Bennett, head of the United States Bureau of Prisons. “Most of the men who enter prisons for the first time,” he said, are already “veteran criminals. They are probation veterans who have been given two or three chances to straighten out.”

An advisory committee of experts reported to the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement that the most striking thing in the whole situation is the depressing fact that the majority of the inmates, old and young; in the nation's penal and correctional institutions “are repeated offenders, persons who have been prisoners over and over again, in whom we failed to accomplish that which we set out to accomplish—their reformation and the prevention of future criminal conduct.”

If the present aim of the penal system is to prevent crime and remold criminals, then it is plain that it is having just the opposite effect. Prison environment makes them many times more antisocial and distorted than they were before. They are “self-defeating.” If the nations really want to rehabilitate their prisoners, specialists in crime and delinquency prevention recommend that the nations put an end to the ancient “let the punishment fit the crime” philosophy. A complete revision and reconstruction of the penal system is ordered. Perhaps, while the nations are at it, they might consult God’s Word, the Bible, and learn how Israel was once able to keep crime and criminals to a minimum and maintain order without a prison system.

As prisons now stand they remain a “disgrace to civilization.” Not only a disgrace to civilization, but an unbelievably heavy burden whether one cares to look upon it in the terms of dollars and cents or in the area of human decency. It is an outrageous price to pay for what the head of U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Bennett, calls “a ghastly failure.”

self with nature’s colorful jewels and gems.

Man’s ability to recognize beauty and its fitness for personal adornment places him in a class by himself and proves beyond all doubt that he is human. No lather animal can make that statement!

Centuries before God made the first man, precious stones were already ages old. The very diamond on your finger, no doubt, was already made. An early Persian legend states that God, when creating the world, “made no ‘useless’ things such as precious stones. But Satan, ever eager to cause trouble and noting that Eve loved the gay flowers in the Garden of Eden, undertook to imitate their brightness and color out of earth.” In this way, says the legend, were produced precious stones to excite man’s avarice. However, the Genesis account shows that this legend is false and that there were gold and precious stones in Eden,—Genesis 2:12.

From earliest times men have had a remarkable love for ornaments in jewelry

and gold. Men preferred to wear simply a seal ring, but the women, especially young damsels and brides, wore many and very valuable ornaments, generally in the form of rings, chains and bracelets. Sometimes the young women purposely made themselves publicly conspicuous by their adornments. Isaiah and Jeremiah and other prophets supply us with detailed description of the articles with which the luxurious women of their day were, decorated. The apostles of Jesus Christ lead us to believe that ladies of their time had the same habit of decorating themselves with finery when they recommended “the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, but in the way which befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works”; even with “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 Timothy 2:9, 10; 1 Peter 3:4, New World Trans,; Isaiah 3:18; 61:10; Jeremiah 2:32; Hosea 2:13.

During the middle of the tury the fashion of wearing agant amount of jewelry had reached such proportions as even to draw the attention of one like Pliny, For instance, he writes that at a simple betrothal ceremony of a Roman girl: “She was covered from head to* foot with

pearig and emeralds.” Seneca, too, expressed himself on the extreme of fashion, declaring: ^uWe adorn our fingers with rings, and a jewel is displayed on every joint." The ladies of Greece wore crowns, diadems, earrings, bracelets, rings, pins for the hair, brooches and necklaces that were austere in taste. Their workmanship was so elaborate that it could scarcely be described as denoting a love of simplicity. No doubt, these extravagant fashions with emphasis on jewels and gems prompted Paul and Peter to offer their good advice to Christian woman,

Before a stone can qualify as a gem, it must have outstanding beauty, it must be hard enough to retain its beauty, and it must be rare. There are primarily four that meet these qualifications: the diamond, the ruby, the emerald and the sapphire. True gem stones today are so expensive that only the ultra-rich can afford to wear them. A gem stone is a fortune that can be very literally carried about on one’s finger. For example, there are rings with a single diamond (hat are valued at several hundred thousand dollars. There are strings of carefully matched beads of imperial jade that sell for that and more. The deep-blue Hope diamond and the larger Jonker diamond at one time had a $2,500,000 price tag on them!

Gems in Religion and Superstition

To moderns these precious jewels and gems are mainly beautiful ornaments, but to the primitive man they were much more. Colored and precious stones played an important part in his religion and superstition. Early man believed that precious stones exerted some particular influence over his daily life. Stones inscribed with a magic symbol were thought to be particularly valuable. Stones had a relation to their superstitions, as amulets find their place among many religions in Christendom, especially among the Roman Catholic sect. According to Life, May 9, 1955, the holiest object in Islam religion is "the Black Stone,” which “is set in the Kaaba in Mecca, where for more than 13 centuries it has been revered by pilgrims from around the world.”

In olden times all gem stones were believed to possess supernatural powers according to color, characteristics and such magic legends as were associated with them. The sapphire stone, for example, according to Jerome, “Mil procure the wearer the favor with princes and all others, pacify enemies, free him from enchantments, bonds and imprisonments and it looseth men out of prison and assuageth the wrath of God. It is said that it is of so contrary a nature to poisons that if it be put into a glass with a spider or laid upon the mouth of the glass where it is, the spider will quickly die. It is said to keep men pure and. therefore, is worn by holy men." Aristotle is said to have stated that the amethyst was good because it hindered the ascension of vapors; this the stone accomplished by drawing in the vapors to itself and then dispersing them.

The jasper stone was considered superior to all other precious stones in its healing power, Even progressive physicians believed in the healing power of gems. Claudius Galen, the Greek physician and medical writer, recommended jasper as a protection against evil and illness. Stones were ground to powder and ailing patients were made to drink of the magic potion. If the stones proved too hard to grind the doctor recommended that the patient wear the stone over the ailing part as an external application. The topaz was believed to free men from passion; the diamond would quiet the hate of enemies and drive away bad dreams. Stones with zodiacal symbols

engraved in them were considered particularly potent, because they invoked the influences of the stars.

Says W. F. Foshag, head curator of geology, United States National Museum: "An almost inexhaustible list of virtues was attributed to gems. Some were supposed to procure the favor of the great; others made their owner amiable, wise, strong, and brave. Some protected him from fire, lightning, and tempests*, others from danger and disease.”

Foshag further states: "Mystics saw meanings in gem colors as well as in gems themselves. White was the emblem of light, purity, faith, innocence, joy, and life. Worn by women, white was symbolic of chastity; by a ruler, of humility and integrity. Red signified pure love and wisdom; in another sense it stood for passion, love of evil, and hatred. Blue indicated truth, constancy, and fidelity; yellow could stand for either fidelity or inconstancy, to say nothing of jealousy and deceit. Gems were also supposed to indicate the wearer’s ■ state of health. If a stone turned dull, opaque, or colorless, watch out for danger or death! Dreaming of gems was a good omen. So was seeing or handling them on the eve of a journey or at certain phases of the moon.”

The ancient belief in the occult power of gems is still faithfully and fervently adhered to in many lands. The common practice of wearing birthstones is just one of many "hand-me-downs” of early superstitions. Angna Enters amusingly describes in her book First Person Plural the anachronism of automobiles to be found in Athens. After writing about the deplorable road conditions, Miss Enters states: it is "difficult for any motorist save Athenian taxi drivers, who need have no fears of accidents, so well are they guarded with amulets and blue beads which hang over windshields. There are even bracelets on steering wheels and radiator caps. The passenger’s compartment, of course, is guarded by his own amulets. Thus the taxi drivers only need turn on the motor, close their eyes, and their patron saint takes care of the rest.” Similarly, the ancient warrior carried his jewels with him into the thick of the battle, believing they would preserve him through the fray. Both apparently enjoy learning the folly of jewels and gems as a protective force the hard way.

No gem, not even the diamond, natural or artificial, emerges from the earth transparent and glittering like a drop of dew in the morning sun. Much to the contrary, the stone in fact is dull and cloudy, like a lump of frosted ice. It is only after it passes through the skilled hands of gem cutters and polishers that it reflects light with a dazzling blaze. "History’s largest diamond, the Cullinan, 3,106 carats before cutting, was so unimpressive in the rough that Edward VII remarked, as he held it up to the light, *1 should have kicked it aside as a lump of glass if I had seen it in the road.’ ”

There are no "bargains” in gem stones. Says the trade Journal, National Jeweler: "When a stranger offers you a $5.00 value for less than fifty cents—look out!” Look out is right, because today the chemists are satisfying the craving for gems by producing a flood of imitations or counterfeits. Only experts can tell them apart. You may get a $5.00 value for fifty cents that is worth a dime.

An item in the Sherman Oaks, California, Swn; "We don’t have to look any farther than our pet dog's nose lor a lesson in good manners. The reason he has so many friends is that his tail wags instead of his tongue.”

AN EXPERIMENT IN COLONIZATION

By wakal" cor respond® nt in An Bold

ORTUGAL transplanted to Africa! That is the object of a new experiment in colonization being carried out now in Angola, Portugal's overseas province in South-West Africa, Anyone who knows the north of Portugal with its moderate climate, plentiful rainfall, granite mountains and beautiful green landscape is struck^ with the similarity in many aspects of a large area now being opened up by the Angolan government. The present governor, Captain Silva Carvalho, a man of vision and drive, conceived the idea a few years ago of establishing agricultural communities with as nearly as possible the same customs and way of life as in the “mother" country; but with tremendous improvements in housing conditions and urbanization and with technical assistance In agriculture.

CAn ideal spot was chosen near the little town of Cela, 4,000 feet up on the great African plateau and some hundred miles inland. Granite heights separate wide fertile plains with extensive deposits of rich black son and transversed by rivers and streams, excellent for either pasturage or cultivation. Mention “Attica’* and most people have a hazy idea of dry bush, deserts, tropical forests and heat. But this area, is very different and the life of the new colonists is made easy by the cool climate. Portuguese peasants feel at home at once and those from northern Portugal appreciate the milder winters.

< But there is a fundamental difference abortt this enterprise that makes it outstanding, maybe unique. As a general rule, when the white man comes to Africa he depends largely on African labor to do the “donkey work" and the menial tasks. The white mam becomes the boss, the organizer, and his wife, with native servants, has a pretty easy time in comparison with her sisters back home. So it is a bold move by the Angolan government to establish the rigid rule that no Africans are to be employed by the colonists—European labor only! All work in the fields and in the homes is being done by the colonists and their families. CThe experiment, already with strong evidence of success, began in 1952 with the preparing of the terrain and the building of the ❖ first homes. An are st of roughly 650 square S miles has been taken over by the government J as a reserve. In the beautiful fertile valleys ■: little modern, model villages are appearing one 7... after the other. Seven are already built and $ inhabited by some 1,100 colonists. Three others <■ are under construction and others are on the $ drawing board. But possibilities for expansion t of the scheme are enormous. Each village has 4 some twenty-six homes, with a first-aid post X and a school with chapel (the blackboard X opens like a door and reveals an alcove with v altar—hey presto, a chapel!) Each bungalow 4 has kitchen, bathroom, dining room and three J bedrooms; at the back are outhouses for < cattle, storage, etc. There is an acre for gar-* den and about fifty acres for cultivation plus 5’ the communal use of a large pasture area. 4 €, Each family on arrival is given a $6,500 4 outlay for whic^h the colonists have to pay X a small deposit before leaving-Portugal (some * deposits are as low as $50) and the rest over $ a period of twenty-five years, when the prop-£ erty becomes their own.

X C But why the unusual and rigid rule about 4 no African labor? There are various reasons.

The popular idea is that the white man either X can not or should not do the hard toil in 4 Africa. This experiment is already showing "$■ the fallacy of that. In this way future develop-5* ment of Angola does not depend on African < labor, which is already hard to get in many X parts. Further, it is frequently the case that $ people come from Portugal to Africa with the fixed idea of amassing wealth as quickly % as possible in order to go back and enjoy it X in the “old country.*' This method of estab-* lishing families on their own lands binds ?. them more firmly to the new country, like transplanted saplings putting out roots. And 4* perhaps the most important reason is to stop X the flow of Portuguese emigrants to Brazil r and other American countries and divert them *■ to Portugal's overseas territories, which so ’$ badly need colonists to develop them.

y € Once the fact is established that Portuguese J nationals have a fine future in Angola with 4 their own lands, in pleasant healthy surround-ing, and with far better homes than so many

1 of them have in Europe, the prospects are * excellent and possibilities are almost un-limited.

The writer of thl* orutU » a ¹ graduate cf Manchester Uni* vanity In fihgland. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree with honors In botany.

EVERY effect has a cause. In turn many causes are themselves products of preceding causes. What is the cause of life? Humans, animalSr plants, even the mighty giant trees of millenniums past—all have had preceding "causes.” Ultimately all' good is due to the great First Cause of the universe, Almighty God, the One whose name signifies him to be "He who Causes to Be,” the Creator.—Exodus 3:14.

Some do not believe that this is so. There are others who do, yet disbelieve or do not understand the words written in Genesis chapter 1, verses 11 and 12 (New World Trans.): "And God went on to say: ‘Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth? And it came to be so. And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that it was good.”

This plain statement is one of the chief targets of anti-Bible critics, who claim that the theory of evolution, which teaches that living things do not yield offspring according to their "kinds,” or "families,” has made the statement inaccurate and old-

fashioned. Since those who scorn the Scriptures have placed doubts in the minds of sincere ones in quest of truth, and since it is of benefit to all parties, opposed or otherwise, to know the facts, we here present the evidence that shows there is actually no conflict between the Bible and true science.

Let us first examine the Bible text The three chief sections of the plant kingdom are denoted as “grass,” “vegetation bearing seed” and "fruit trees yielding fruit.” The other two are self-explanatory, but it is well to note that the word translated “grass” (Hebrew, de'she) also includes any low forms of plant life, such as mosses, also lichens, seaweeds and other algae. The last three named tome into the seedless group collectively called the Thal-lophytes, a group enclosing all algae, fungi and bacteria.

The word translated “kinds” or “kind” is translated from the Hebrew word min. The margin of the modem New World Translation on this word is revealing: “Or, ‘genus; species? The Greek 8eptuagint> gen'os; Vulgate, ge'nus. We use the term here in its older meaning or definition, and not as present-day evolutionists use it. We mean here a created kind of family kind.” The Authorised Version translates the Hebrew word mishspahhah' at Genesis 8:19 as “kinds” in a similar context, and as “family” elsewhere. The original use of the words “genus” and “species” was a much wider one than that of today, and so it is not necessary to assume that every species is a separate creation, but merely every family kind, or group of organisms more^r less interfertile among themselves, but not fertile with others outside their family.

Can Clarification Prove Evolution True?

An understanding of the division of plants into groups is the aim of the students of taxonomy or classification, in order to name plants correctly. The modern evolutionists, however, use classification to arrange as nearly as possible continuously graded series of plants to indicate evolutionary sequences. This is not difficult so long as they limit themselves to one family kind. But there are always gaps between families; however much they try, these remain jmbridged. Nevertheless, these lines of plants, arranged from simple to complex, are held to prove the theory of evolution. Herein lies a logical error, a fallacy.

In effect, evolutionists assume their theory to be true, then arrange the plants or other organisms into evolutionary sequences. Then they say: Evolutionary sequences prove evolution is true; these plants are in evolutionary sequences; therefore the theory of evolution is true.

But, to concoct evidence according to a theory, and then to say it proves the theory is true, is illogical. One could prove castles evolve from doghouses in the same way. These sequences at best could do no more than indicate the theory is orderly. However, the facts do not fit in with the theory and we shall now show how both premises, as well as the argument and conclusion, are ‘weighed in the balances and found wanting/

Suppose It is possible to arrange sequences showing evolutionary trends, as it has been claimed has been done for many or most groups of plants, Will these clearly show the way of evolution? Let us take a group of small plants, the Bryophyta, which includes the mosses, liverworts and the Anthoeerotae. These have been arranged in sequence with their “nearest neighbors”—above, the Pteridophyta or “fern plants" and, below, the algae—Ln— guess how many ways? No fewer than three main ways¹ and probably many more besides.

Celakovsky (1874), Bower (1908) and others held views that algae gave rise to liverworts and these to mosses, the Pteridophyta arising from these last. Bechsteln (1908) said the mosses gave rise to the liverworts. Goebel elaborated this latter theory and Church (1919) actually attacked the former theory and accused its propounded as being ignorant of the facts. Evans (1939) is another evolutionist favoring the latter theory. Haskett (J $49) has yet a third variation. He holds that the Bryophyta have devolved from the Pteri-‘ dophyta!

This is a more understandable point of view, perhaps, because the Pteridophyta are more elaborate and higher than the Bryophyta and It is much easier to suppose a loss of many features than an evolution of new ones. More understandable, that is, until one asks, “Whence came the Pteridophyta?” Because, while the gap from algae to the Bryophyta is large, and that to the Pteridophyta is huge, the gap between algae and the Pteridophyta is so colossal that ft may be compared with the difference between a jellyfish and a jaguar!

One wonders where the evolutionists' fanciful speculation on supposed similarities is going to end!

In just one order of the liverworts there is as much confusion and as many 'evolutionary sequences’ as in the Bryophyta as a whole. This order is called the Marehantia-les, after Marchantia, its best-known member. How many contradictory evolutionary sequences have been constructed here? Well, there is that of Burgeff (1943), who derives everything from Marchantia, which he places centrally. Frye and Clark (1937) have three evolutionary lines, one culminating in Marchantia. Kashyap (1914) has another system, Cabers (1910) yet another. The poor little liverwort hardly knows where it stands—now at the top of the tree, now at the foot, now in the main trunk, now a mere insignificant twig!

Can anyone now argue that evolutionary sequences prove evolution, when, from the same plants, the same facts and the same evolution theory, evolutionists derive such contradictory results?

Are these isolated instances? No! Take the fems, one of the, groups in the “fem plants,” the Pteridophyte. Bower (1935)² suggested two parallel evolutionary series characterized by their bearing groups of spore-bearing organs (sporangia), in one case on the leaf margin and in the other on the leaf face. He said that each series independently evolved so that parallel series of plants arose from the primitive state to the advanced state. Each series included subseries, one in which the sporangia developed simultaneously, one in which they developed in succession, and one in which they developed in irregular sequence. In each series the sporangia are supposed to have evolved from a type where they arise from several cells to a type where they arise from only one. G. M. Smith (1938) f takes this latter feature as a basis for his two major series, and believes the fems evolved along each series from a type with marginal sporangia to one with superficial ones!

This is similar to taking a box of blocks of assorted sizes and colors. They can either be arranged into colors and made to “evolve” upward in size; or they can be arranged according to size and made to “evolve” along the spectrum. How reliable is a system of evolution where opinion passes as fact and hypothesis as truth?

The hypotheses are equally confused and contradictory in other groups. In fact, hardly a group of plants exists without its having been squeezed into “evolutionary sequences” that, as research proceeds, prove to be no more than wild guesses. Yet all the authors of all the evolutionary theories, no matter how contradictory these may be, bow to the doctrine of evolution, and assert difficulties to be matters of trifling detail, and in no way denying the truth of that doctrine, even when all “evidence” in favor of their theory has been ‘weighed in the balances and found wanting.’

Belief in an idea based upon no evidence is commonly called “faith,” but “faith” without some assurance or basis is not faith but credulity.—Hebrews 11:1.

Evolutionists say they have proof of their statements among the fossils in the rocks. We shall agree with evolutionists that the rocks will show the history of plants through the ages, admittedly imperfectly, but nonetheless in these modern days, sufficiently accurately to indicate the actual bourse of events. We shall, therefore, get onto common ground with them by examining the plant fossils themselves in a future article.

So Much for the Eye

Fred Allen has been credited with this appraisal of television: ‘The next generation will have eyes as big as cantaloupes and brains the size of a split pea; so much for the eye, so little for the mind.”

THE NEW MICROSCOPE AND THE STUDY OF CANCER

It was through an electron microscope that the polio virus was first observed. Toward the latter part of 1954 a new type of electron microscope, twice as powerful as the ones previously used, went into service. The instrument, developed and built by Radio Corporation of America, was turned over to the world-renowned Karolinska Institute of Stockholm, Sweden. With the new microscope scientists will be able to study particles smaller than one ten-millionth of an inch in diameter. How does this amazing instrument work? As in the case of its less powerful predecessors, it operates on this principle; a concentrated beam of electrons, originating from an electron gun, is directed through the specimen to be observed. As the electrons pass through the specimen, they are affected in varying degrees according to the density and composition -of its various parts. When the beam emerges from the far side it bears the “image” of the specimen, which is then magnified by powerful magnetic lenses that act upon electron beams very much as glass lenses act upon light. The pattern finally is projected upon the viewing screen.

C <1 How many times can the pattern be magnified on the viewing screen? Up to 30,000 _c times! But the marvel is that the new micro-\ scope can take photographic enlargements up 5 to 200,000 or more times—a scale at which an : ordinary American ten-cent piece would meas

ure more than two miles across. This amazing f new microscope will be used to increase man’s / knowledge about the construction of normal - cells in order to shed light on the nature of T those that develop abnormally, as in cancer.

Said Dr. Fritiof S. Sjostrand, head of the ; Karolinska Institute: “This work is now on foot and our earlier conceptions of the ceil ' structure have already had to be greatly modified. . . , Only when sufficient observa-0 tions have been made regarding normal cells, J e.g., cells of the nervous system, of the sense - organs and the glands, can the study of patho-•' logically transformed cells, such as the cancer ; cells, be expected to produce reliable results. / There is hope that the analyses by electron microscopes will lead to discoveries which 7 may cast light over the character of the can- cercrus process and thereby provide a clue ’ to the understanding of the cancer disease.”

THE Catholic catechism teaches that those who are punished in hell die in mortal sin; “they are deprived of the vision of God and suffer dreadful torments, especially that of fire, for all eternity”; and that there is no redemption in hell. If this is true, then the Bible will uphold it; if the Bible does not, then it is because there is no truth in the teaching.

The story of Jonah alone is enough to disprove the erroneous religious contention that hell is a place of fire where souls are tormented after death* Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of the fish. The account reads: “Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish’s belly, and said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice?’ The record in the American Standard Version Bible reads: “Out of the belly of Sheol cried I, and thou heardest iny voice.” (Jonah 2:1, 2) In the translation by the Jewish authority, Leeser, the record reads: “Out of the depth of the grave have I cried, and thou hast heard my voice?’ The Catholic Douay Version Bible reads: “I cried out of the belly of hell: and thou hast heard my voice?’—Jonah 2:2, 3.

In the foregoing comparative readings of the text the word sheol (Am. Stan. Ver.) is the original Hebrew word; the words “hell” and “grave” are but the English translations of that one original Hebrew word. What, then, is hell according to the Holy Scriptures? If hell had been “eternal torment,” then according to religious teachings Jonah could not and would not have gotten out.

There is no place for the eternal torture of men or souls. God is not a fiend. God is love. What good could result from torturing one of Jehovah’s creatures for all eternity? Furthermore^ how could torment in any wise comply with the law that God expressed to Adam and that provided death as the penalty for sin? The doctrine of eternal torment is an invention of the Devil for the purpose of supporting his original lie; namely, that there is no death.—Genesis 3:4.

Our English Bible was translated from other languages. The English word “hell” is translated from the Hebrew word sheol in what is commonly called the “Old Testament?’ and is translated from the Greek words hades, gehenna and tartaro'o in the “New Testament.” In the Catholic Douay Version the English translators rendered sheol 63 times as “hell/’ and once as “pit,” and once as “death?’ In the American Standard Version Bible sheol is left untranslated in all 65 cases. For example, the Catholic Bible renders 1 Kings 2:6 (1 Samuel 2:6): “The Lord killeth and maketh alive: he bringeth down tp hell and bringeth back again”; as in the case of Jonah. Now, if sheol means torment in one place, it must mean this in all. A few scriptures on the point will illuminate the mind on this question.

Jacob was a man approved of God. In grief he said: “I will go down into the grave [afeeoZ; Catholic Bible, hell] unto my son mourning?’ Years later to his sons he said: “Then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave?* The New World Translation reads: “Then you would certainly bring down my gray hairs with grief to Sheol.” Here the word sheol is translated “grave.” The Catholic Douay

Version Bible renders it “hell": “I will go down to my son into hell/¹ And the priest’s comment in the footnote thereon says: “That is, into limbo, the place where the souls of the just were received before the death of cur Redeemer. . . . Protestants here translate it, ‘the grave/ being unwilling to admit a third place in the other world for the soul/’ (Haydock)—Genesis 37:35; 42:38,

Such comment is an attempt on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy to hide the plain Bible truth with a fictitious invention of their own. The Hebrew and Christian writers of the Holy Scriptures nowhere mention or name such a place as limbo. Limbo is an unchristian imagination, and hence is contrary to the scriptural teaching that the soul dies and at death ceases to exist. That Jacob, by using the word sheoZ, was referring to the grave, and not to a spiritual Jimbo, is proved by the fact that Jacob said his gray hairs would go down to sheol_f which must be the grave, for that is where Jacob’s gray hairs actually did go, many years later, when Joseph buried him, —Genesis 50:7-13; Ezekiel 18:4, 20.

Job, another good man approved of God, uttered this prayer: “O that thou would-est hide me in the grave [sfteoZ; Catholic Bible, hell], that thou wouldest keep me secret, unjil thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me’” Then Jeb adds: “If I wait, the grave IsAeoZ; Catholic Bible, hell] is mine house: I have made my bed in the darkness.” (Job 14:13; 17:13) Job’s words are here quoted to prove that the word aheol, translated “hell” in the Catholic Bible, means the common grave.

David was a prophetic pattern of Christ Jesus. In Psalm 16, verse 10 (15:10, Catholic Bible), David prophetically wrote: “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell” This is quoted by the apostle Peter at Acts 2:29-32 and is specifically applied to the

Lord Jesus, proving that Jesus went to the hell of the Bible, which means the tomb. Said Peter: “Brothers, it is allowable to speak with freeness of speech to you concerning the family head David, that he both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among us to this day. Therefore, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring upon his throne, be saw beforehand and spoke concerning the resurrection cf the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in Hades [Hebrew, sherri] nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses/*—New World Trans.

If hell were a place of eternal torment, Jesus would still be there, taking the sinner's place. But Jesus came out in three days, out of hell. He was resurrected from the dead. “Now Christ has been raised up from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death/' (1 Corinthians 15:20, New World Trans.) In an effort to answer the question: “What do we mean when we say in the Apostles’ Creed that Christ descended into hell ?” the Catholic catechism replies: “When we say that Christ descended into hell we mean that, after He died, the soul of Christ descended into a place or state of rest, called limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him/’ There is absolutely no reason or proof for such theorizing. AD scriptures join together to rule out any limbo theory as purely fictional, a doctrine of demons.

At Revelation 20:13 (New World Trans.) it is written: “And death and Hades gave up those dead in them.” Here Hades evidently means the common grave or tomb, which will give up the dead at the resurrection. It manifestly does not mean eternal torment; because if people are there eternally, they could not be brought out. This scripture, be it noted, does not say that hell gives up the living, but the dead.

Cuba

HERE Is a land that is luxuriant In tropical beauty, and its bright, warm days are air-conditioned by water-cooled breezes that blow off the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf Stream. Here is where the stately royal palms dot the fields, ornament parks and boulevards; where awe-inspiring flowers and plants decorate nature in bridal array. Cuba has much to offer. It seems to be especially blessed with good things, due to its rich soil and ideal location.

Cuba has another beauty, a living beauty, the heart of the nation, its people. It would be difficult to find a happier, a more enthusiastic people in all the earth. This is especially true regarding Cuban witnesses of Jehovah. They appear to be loaded with an extra dose of joie de vivre—joy of living, life. This is true whether you meet them in their large, spacious Kingdom Halls like the one they occupy in central Havana, or in a small, humble, grass-roofed house In the far reaches of the mountains. They all vibrate with enthusiasm. They have sincerity, kindness, conviction, love, and, above all, an earnest desire to falk about the supremacy of Jehovah God and his wonderful purpose to bless obedient mankind by means of his kingdom. Their words you will recognize as being words of the Holy Bible. This no doubt is one of the great contributing reasons for their rapid growth in Cuba.

In the year 1920 there were no witnesses of Jehovah in Cuba, Today there are some 10,000 ministers associated with the 255 congregations scattered throughout the island. When we remember that there are fewer than six million people on the island, that leaves the proportion of ministers to the number of people very high—one to every 540. And all of these are workers, too, spending some 1,117,000 preaching hours last year alone.

Marvelous results have been reported. In the far-off province of Oriente lives a young woman who observed that many of her friends knew little about God and his purposes and that these humble folk could not even read or write. So she conceived the idea of opening a school for the children, to teach them reading and writing and at the same time a little about the Bible, Soon she had forty pupils attending. The children told their parents about the things they had learned about God, and soon the parents wanted to learn what the children were learning. It was arranged for one of Jehovah’s witnesses from a nearby congregation to come and give Bible instruction to the parents. This proved to be such a success that today this group is an organized part of the main congregation with many persons in attendance regularly. But that is not all. The mayor of the town took interest in the young woman’s activity, bought her desks and gave her a regular salary.

^Talk about endless energy. There is a Cuban witness that lives twelve miles frqm the Kingdom Hall. Twice a week he walks this distance to conduct Bible meetings. Every eight to nine days he has to walk a similar distance in another direction to get his mail. He is a father of a family of six and is secularly employed too. It is not an easy life, but It is one that Jesus outlined. So he is content with doing good to others month after month. He humbly remembers that someone did the same so he could learn the truth of God’s Word.

The rural areas of Cuba are not thickly populated. In many areas the people live great distances apart. It is necessary to walk many miles to reach these people with the Kingdom message. On these days Jehovah's witnesses will rise early in the morning, drink a cup of black coffee and perhaps eat some bread or crackers and then set out for a distant territory. Some will be gone all day preaching and teaching until it is time to return to their home.

An outstanding point about Jehovah’s witnesses is their careful observance of the Bible outlook on marriage and divorce. In Cuba common-law marriage is considered all right by many of the people. In a number of cases men have several wives, and women drift from one husband to another, not being legally married at any time. To correct this old-world outlook Jehovah’s witnesses point out that such a course is unscriptural and that for an individual to- be pleasing and acceptable to Jehovah he must follow the principles contained in God's Word or else he cannot be one of Jehovah’s witnesses. Many have gone about digging up birth certificates, getting legal divorces from former partners and doing everything necessary to line themselves up with clean Christian principles. Grandfathers and grandmothers were married legally for the first time surrounded by their children and grandchildren. Some couples who have lived together for more than thirty years just recently legalized their marriage, because they desire to live clean Christian lives as Jehovah’s witnesses. Should an individual follow an immoral course, he is immediately dismissed from the congregation as unfit for Christian association.

This high standard has had a good effect on people who are not Jehovah’s witnesses. A secretary to the judge in Orozco, observing the cleanliness of the witnesses, inquired how he could associate with this religion. This he soon learned.

.   • What is so wrong with Hollywood’s “Bl-

/ ble” movies? P. 4,

/   • How one can be rid. of his sense of guilt?

R 5, Hi.

* • Why even clergymen who deny the ran-/ som cannot justly claim to be Christian? y P. 6, US.

/   • What critics have said the secret of Billy

( Graham's success is? P. 10, K6.

J                                                               ■

_t ■ • What major nation had no prison houses

/ at all? P. 13, D.

/   • What proves that fear of prison is not a

real deterrent to crime? P. 16, Ux

/

^j • What distinguishes between an ordinary

/ stone and a valuable gem? P. 18, Ui.

/ ... .......

/

• • What the modern descendants are of ancient superstitions about gems? P. 19, fl2.

• • What is illogical about the “plant se- / fluence" proof of evofwtjon? f< 22,

• • How thoroughly the authorities disagree on plant evolution? P. 22, 115.

• • How evolution's “proofs" are ‘weighed and found wanting'? P. 23, |f4,

• • How the marvelous electron microscope / works? P. 24, fi,

• • How the Bible account of Jonah completely disproves the .popular theory that hell is a ^f place of fire? P. 25, ff2.

• What is responsible for Jehovah’s witnesses’ amazing growth in Cuba? p. 27, fa.

The Geneva Conference

<$> On May 11, 1953, Sir Winston Churchill proposed a private, informal meeting of the four heads of government. In July the Big Four conference came to realization. But It was not what Churchill had hoped for. The conference was really a meeting of the big forty, since each side brought along a task force of experts. The sessions were more formal than a supreme court session. When the conference opened on Monday, July 1& foqty men sat down in the Palace of Nations in Geneva. Representing the four government heads were Premier Nikolai A. Bulganin of the Soviet Union, President Eisenhower of the U.S., Prime Minister Eden of Britain and Premier Edgar Faure of France.

What They Did at the Summit

& After six days of talk the Big Four pronounced the summit conference a success. They had dealt with four Issues: (1) German unification, (2) European security, (3) disarmament and (4) East-West relations. German unification was the key issue. On Tuesday the summit reached its first hard difference on Germany. To keep the summit atmosphere free from acrimony the thorny problem was relegated to the foreign ministers' level. There difficulties arose. On Wednesday real signs of trouble cropped up as they began working on an agenda. Thursday, the ministers asked for a day's delay. Friday, they worked almost to midnight, finally throwing up their hands and tossing the problem back to the heads of government. Premier Bulganin made It clear that Russia was not interested at present in German unification. Progress on the European security issue hit a roadblock, since the different plans for security are facets of the deadlock on Germany. On the matter of disarmament President Eisenhower created a sensation by proposing that the U.S. and Russia “give to each other a complete blueprint of our military establishments from .beginning to end” and also that the two countries keep check on each other's military potential by aerial reconnaissance. Premier Bulganin shied away from any direct comment on the Eisenhower proposal. Though there was some rejoicing that a little chill had been taken out of the cold war, the fact remained that Russia showed no sign of yielding on hard issues. The success of the conference was crystallized by agreement that the Big Four foreign ministers would meet in October in Geneva on all the major issues in dispute.

Commenting on what they diff at the summit, the New York Times (7/34) said: “Europe is satisfied with the conference. . . . It is thankful now. The Big Four disagreed so nicely.”

From Dictator to President

<$> To change from a dictator to a president is not an easy thing to do—especially In South America. Thus there was no little amazement in Argentina when Juan Perdu announced (7/15) that the revolution he had inspired and led was over. In a talk to Peronist members of Congress, Perdn said he was revoking the "state of siege” under which civil rights had been suspended and that now was the time for Argentina to see normality as it had never seen it before. "What does this mean for me?” asked Perdn. “I cease being chief of a revolution to become the President of all Argentines, friends and adversaries.” Argentines, astonished by the sudden change, could see two possible reasons for it. Per6n’s fight against the Catholic Church had backfired. The army, which had won the revolution of June 16, was out of - sympathy with some* of his policies. But whatever the cause Opposition politicians were>taking advantage of their new-found freedom, and Buenos Aires newspapers published announcements by them for the first time in years. Yet the Opposition leaders said they were waiting to see whether Perdn’s speech was “straight talk or doubly talk.”

Noted Scientists Urge War Ban <$> Several months ago, just before the death of noted physicist Albert Einstein, Britain’s philosopher Bertrand Russell was intrigued by an idea: Why should not the leading scientists of East and West join in a statement to warn the world of the disastrous consequences of nuclear warfare?

Lord Russell asked Einstein about the matter; Einstein agreed "with every word.” Russell then drafted a 1,500-word statement and sent it to scientists around the world. Nine of the world's eminent scientists, including Albert Einstein, signed the statement. It was a statement saturated with gloom: “It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radioactive particles into the upper air. ... No one Knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might quite possibly put an end to the human race. ... Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized, . . . We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy. Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadfid, and inescapable: shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"—New York Times, July 10, 1955.

Bloodshed in Morocco

+ Bastille Day—France’s national holiday—was no day for mirth and exultance in Casablanca, chief city of France’s rich North African protectorate, Morocco. In the Casablanca cate sector a bomb exploded, killing seven Europeans. Hours later Frenchmen surged through Arab quarters, shooting and burning. Angry mobs lynched four Arabs in retaliation for the terrorist bombing. Then Moroccan gangs struck back, and bloody riots erupted. At the height of the violence tanks of the mobile gendarmerie fired machine guns and 37-mm. cannon against Moroccan street fighters in the old medina (Moroccan quarter). Moroccans responded with hand grenades from terraces. Before the riots could be quelled and a semblance of peace restored, some sixty persons had been killed and more than 100 injured.

Wild Inflation in Chile

Ten years ago Chile’s peso was worth 4 U.S. cents; recently the peso was quoted in the free market at less than one twentieth of a U.S. cent. This spotlights the runaway inflation that has seized Chile. In Santiago, the country’s largest city, the cost of living has gone up about 70 per cent in the last year. In stores prices on many items run into four or five figures. A pair of shoes of medium quality: 5,000pesos. Eggs: 15 pesos each. Butter: nearly 300 pesos per pound— and the Chilean workers may be making as little as 200 pesos a day! The cause of this inflation is the government’s deficit. The government spends more than it takes in, financing the deficit by borrowing from the Central Bank and issuing paper money. As more money goes into circulation,, prices rise. Then wages rise. Then prices go up again. In spite of the fact that Chile’s cost of living has multiplied about 60 times since 1928, the government has done little or nothing to check inflation. Steps to bring about deflation have been viewed as unpopular. In July, because of serious labor troubles, Chile finally took drastic measures to control inflation. The measures include increases in taxes, general economies, curtailments in consumption and strict penalties applicable to profiteering or t<J excessive profits. Court Rules on Bus Segregation & Most of the Southern cities in the U.S. require colored persons to sit in the rear of transportation vehicles. South Carolina is one of the states having state statutes on that and other segregation practices. In July the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled against segregation on city buses in a decision on a Columbia, South Car-ollna, case. The court ruled that the principle applied by the U.S. Supreme Court decree outlawing public school segregation "should be applied in cases involving transportation.” In Washington, both Congress and the Interstate Commerce Commission were asked to end other transportation segregation practices.

Three Cante Back

After the Korean war 21 American soldiers, who had been taken prisoner by the Communists, decided not to accept repatriation but to live in Red China. In July three Came back to the U.S., disgusted with life under Communist rule. “Death is better than communism,” agreed the three former U.S. soldiers, interviewed by newsmen, the turncoats told of life in Red China. Many Chinese hated and feared the Red regime, they said. Asked about Chinese women, one of the “returncoats” said: “The majority of the women in China are so seared they’re Just like a bunch of machines.” Life for Chinese men was hardly better. Declared former U.S. soldier William A. Cowart: “I would sooner have Hitler come back than have Communism. Hitler only destroyed the body, but Communism destroys the mind. The society of China is built on fear—fear of each man for the other."—Time, July 18, 1955,

Oudinal’ft Life Sentence Cut

<$> In February, 1949, Hungary's Joseph Cardinal Minde-zenty was sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of treason, espionage and blackmarket dealings. The case stirred up world-wide agitation, and tremendous publicity was given the trial. In July Minds-zenty*s name again appeared in the news. A Budapest radio announcement said that the cardinal was being ’‘allowed to interrupt his term of imprisonment.’' The government announced that he would live in a "'church building selected by the Hungarian bishops?" Western diplomats were inclined to interpret the cardinal's release as a gesture timed for the Big Four conference.

Kremlin Doors Open to Public

During the rule of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin the

Kremlin was barred to all except the most privileged visitors. Stalin maintained both his office and residence in th* ancient fortress, but the new Soviet leaders have their res* idences elsewhere. In July the Soviet government opened the Kremlin's doors to unescorted Soviet and foreign visitors They will be permitted to In^{3 4} spect the storied palaces and museums where the treasures of eight centuries of Russian history are preserved,

Great Boon in Medicine

Just a hundred years ago Dr. Thomas Addison, an English physician, discovered the life-essential role played by the adrenals, two small bodies situated astride each kidney. Not until 1937 was the first active adrenal hormone produced synthetically. Since then, and even before, research workers have been worklng on th* big project: th* total synthesis of the principal life-essential hormone of the adrenal glands, In July at the fourteenth International Congress of Pur* and Applied Chemistry In Zurich, announcement was made of success: aldosterone, the principal life-maintaining adrenal hormone, has been produced synthetically. Aldosterone Is so effective that even minute quantities of it will maintain life In persons with diseases of adrenal glands, such as Addison's disease. Aldosterone Is 20 to 30 times as effective as the synthetic hormone produced in 1937 and 500 times as effective as cortisone. Leading chemists from many countries hailed aldosterone as one of the greatest modern chemical achievements, promising to provide mankind with a potent weapon against disease.

Kt fat    tfa SentftCwieA Say rffoat

“SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH”?

Are the dead alive and conscious? Are they able to communicate with ; the living? What are the powerful spirit forces that are dominating the lives of men? Are the nations of this world being guided by an unseen hand : to their destruction? Read the startling and revealing 96-page booklet J WAdt Pq the Scriptures Say About "Survival After Death"? This informa-    :

tion thrnled thousands at the “Triumphant Kingdom” Assemblies of Jeho- ; vah’s Witnesses. It will amaze you and point you to the way of safety and protection. Send 10c for a copy at once.

Enclosed flnd SCe. Please send me the 384-page book QuaB.iUd to Be MinuJeri.

Street arc Number Name ■**_rrlf                                            ihi**w*>4h h             or Route aid Box ......|_fl g-ri ■TFiitirn itif

City  ...................—............. Zone No. .. ..... State M*             ■ ■■ ■                +            ■ ■

32

AWAKjS.i

¹

See alio G. M. Smiih'i Orv^tosamic Botany, Vol. II. pnges 4. 5, ioctnctet

²

G. M. Smith's Cryptogamic Botany, Vol. 11, pafe 251.

t G. M. Smith's Cryytogwnic Botany, Vol. II, pages 352, 253.

³

WATCHTOWER          117 ADAMS ST.          BROOKLYN l_f N.Y.

Please rush me the booklet What Do the Scriptures Say About "iSurvitral After Death” r

⁴

am enclosing a 10c contribution.

Street and Number or Bouts and Box .....