Tuesday, 15 April 2025
File under "well said" CXVI
"It does not matter how far ahead you can see if you don't understand what you are looking at"
Gary kasparov
Independently recurring design logic vs. Darwin.
Sporulation: Another Example of a Transcriptional Hierarchy
Previously, I introduced the subject of transcriptional hierarchies in bacteria, which exhibit current design logic across various different systems. We reviewed the control of flagellar assembly in Salmonella and saw that the organization of flagellar genes along the chromosome, and their organization into different operons (collections of genes under control of a common promoter), is crucial to the assembly process. Here, I will discuss another example of a transcriptional hierarchy — the control of sporulation
What Is Sporulation?
Sporulation is a highly regulated process whereby a vegetative cell differentiates into an endospore, a highly resistant, dormant structure that can withstand extreme stress (such as heat, desiccation, and UV radiation). The process is triggered by nutrient starvation. Once sporulation has been initiated, the chromosomes align along the longitudinal axis of the cell — this is known as the axial filament.1 The cell then divides asymmetrically near one of the poles, forming the smaller forespore and the larger mother cell.2,3 The membrane of the mother cell subsequently engulfs the forespore such that it completely envelops it.4 A thick layer of peptidoglycan (known as the cortex) is then deposited between the forespore membranes (this Is crucial for dehydration and dormancy).5 Physical and chemical resistance is conferred by proteinaceous layers known as spore coats, which assemble around the cortex.6 Eventually the mother cell undergoes apoptosis, which releases the mature spore.7
The model system for studying sporulation is Bacillus subtilis (pictured at the top), which I will be focusing on here.
Regulation of Endospore Formation
Similar to flagellar assembly, which we considered previously, sporulation is under the control of a transcriptional hierarchy, whereby sigma factors promote the expression of specific sets of genes.8
The master regulator of sporulation is Spo0A, which is activated by phosphorylation in response to stress, via a phosphorelay system.9,10 Environmental stress signals are detected by sensor histidine kinases (KinA, KinB, and KinC), which in response undergo autophosphorylation.11 The response regulator for this system is Spo0F, which receives the phosphate group from the histidine kinases. This phosphate group, in turn, is transferred to Spo0A by the phosphotransferase Spo0B. This represents a further example of the recurring design logic exhibited by two-component regulatory systems, which I discussed in a previous article.
Phosphorylated Spo0A deactivates abrB, a repressor of early sporulation genes.12 This facilitates expression of spoIIE, which encodes a phosphatase that dephosphorylates SpoIIAA, which otherwise binds and inhibits SpoIIAB (a protein which inactivates σF).13 σF is thereby released and promotes the transcription of a regulon (i.e., a collection of multiple operons that are transcribed in response to the same regulatory protein).14 These genes are primarily involved in the early stages of endospore formulation — in particular, in the forespore compartment.
Among the genes that are under the regulation of σF is a gene coding for a signaling protein called SpoIIR, which activates SpoIIGA, a protease that cleaves pro-σE into its active form, σE.15 σE, in turn, drives the expression of the genes needed for modification of the mother cell membrane to envelop the forespore.16 σE also drives expression of SpoIVB, which cleaves SpoIVFA, a protein which, along with another molecule called BofA, inhibits a membrane-associated protease called SpoIVFB.17,18 This cleavage releases the inhibitory complex, thereby rendering SpoIVB active. This protease, along with another protein called CtpB, cleaves pro-σK, converting it to active σK.19,20 This, in turn, directs the transcription of the genes that code for coat proteins and lytic enzymes that bring about the death of the mother cell.21
Recurring Design Logic
In my previous article, I surveyed the transcriptional hierarchy responsible for the assembly of bacterial flagella. We saw that the organization of genes into operons relates to the timing of their expression — in particular, whether they are expressed early, midway, or late in flagellar assembly. In the foregoing, we have seen a very similar design logic exhibited by the transcriptional hierarchy that is sporulation. And yet, nobody would argue that these systems are evolutionarily related to one another. Recurring design logic across multiple unrelated systems is surprising in an evolutionary perspective, whereas on the hypothesis of design it is what might be reasonably predicted. Examples like this, therefore, suggest the existence of a master-architect behind biological systems — particularly when we find many different examples of design logic that are found recurrently throughout life.
Notes
Bylund JE, Haines MA, Piggot PJ, Higgins ML. Axial filament formation in Bacillus subtilis: induction of nucleoids of increasing length after addition of chloramphenicol to exponential-phase cultures approaching stationary phase. J Bacteriol. 1993 Apr;175(7):1886-90. doi: 10.1128/jb.175.7.1886-1890.1993. PMID: 7681431; PMCID: PMC204252.
Barák I, Muchová K, Labajová N. Asymmetric cell division during Bacillus subtilis sporulation. Future Microbiol. 2019 Mar;14:353-363. doi: 10.2217/fmb-2018-0338. Epub 2019 Mar 11. PMID: 30855188.
Khanna K, Lopez-Garrido J, Sugie J, Pogliano K, Villa E. Asymmetric localization of the cell division machinery during Bacillus subtilis sporulation. Elife. 2021 May 21;10:e62204. doi: 10.7554/eLife.62204. PMID: 34018921; PMCID: PMC8192124.
Ojkic N, López-Garrido J, Pogliano K, Endres RG. Cell-wall remodeling drives engulfment during Bacillus subtilis sporulation. Elife. 2016 Nov 17;5:e18657. doi: 10.7554/eLife.18657. PMID: 27852437; PMCID: PMC5158138.
Popham DL, Bernhards CB. Spore Peptidoglycan. Microbiol Spectr. 2015 Dec;3(6). doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.TBS-0005-2012. PMID: 27337277.
McKenney PT, Driks A, Eichenberger P. The Bacillus subtilis endospore: assembly and functions of the multilayered coat. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2013 Jan;11(1):33-44. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2921. Epub 2012 Dec 3. PMID: 23202530; PMCID: PMC9910062.
Hosoya S, Lu Z, Ozaki Y, Takeuchi M, Sato T. Cytological analysis of the mother cell death process during sporulation in Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol. 2007 Mar;189(6):2561-5. doi: 10.1128/JB.01738-06. Epub 2007 Jan 5. PMID: 17209033; PMCID: PMC1899390.
Eichenberger P, Fujita M, Jensen ST, Conlon EM, Rudner DZ, Wang ST, Ferguson C, Haga K, Sato T, Liu JS, Losick R. The program of gene transcription for a single differentiating cell type during sporulation in Bacillus subtilis. PLoS Biol. 2004 Oct;2(10):e328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020328. Epub 2004 Sep 21. PMID: 15383836; PMCID: PMC517825.
Chastanet A, Losick R. Just-in-time control of Spo0A synthesis in Bacillus subtilis by multiple regulatory mechanisms. J Bacteriol. 2011 Nov;193(22):6366-74. doi: 10.1128/JB.06057-11. Epub 2011 Sep 23. PMID: 21949067; PMCID: PMC3209201.
Hoch JA. Regulation of the phosphorelay and the initiation of sporulation in Bacillus subtilis. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1993;47:441-65. doi: 10.1146/annurev.mi.47.100193.002301. PMID: 8257105.
LeDeaux JR, Yu N, Grossman AD. Different roles for KinA, KinB, and KinC in the initiation of sporulation in Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol. 1995 Feb;177(3):861-3. doi: 10.1128/jb.177.3.861-863.1995. PMID: 7836330; PMCID: PMC176674.
Hahn J, Roggiani M, Dubnau D. The major role of Spo0A in genetic competence is to downregulate abrB, an essential competence gene. J Bacteriol. 1995 Jun;177(12):3601-5. doi: 10.1128/jb.177.12.3601-3605.1995. PMID: 7768874; PMCID: PMC177070Arigoni F, Duncan L, Alper S, Losick R, Stragier P. SpoIIE governs the phosphorylation state of a protein regulating transcription factor sigma F during sporulation in Bacillus subtilis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Apr 16;93(8):3238-42. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.8.3238. PMID: 8622920; PMCID: PMC39589.
Yeak KYC, Boekhorst J, Wels M, Abee T, Wells-Bennik MHJ. Prediction and validation of novel SigB regulon members in Bacillus subtilis and regulon structure comparison to Bacillales members. BMC Microbiol. 2023 Jan 18;23(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s12866-022-02700-0. PMID: 36653740; PMCID: PMC9847131.
Imamura D, Zhou R, Feig M, Kroos L. Evidence that the Bacillus subtilis SpoIIGA protein is a novel type of signal-transducing aspartic protease. J Biol Chem. 2008 May 30;283(22):15287-99. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M708962200. Epub 2008 Mar 31. PMID: 18378688; PMCID: PMC2397457.
Illing N, Errington J. Genetic regulation of morphogenesis in Bacillus subtilis: roles of sigma E and sigma F in prespore engulfment. J Bacteriol. 1991 May;173(10):3159-69. doi: 10.1128/jb.173.10.3159-3169.1991. PMID: 1902463; PMCID: PMC207910.
Dong TC, Cutting SM. SpoIVB-mediated cleavage of SpoIVFA could provide the intercellular signal to activate processing of Pro-sigmaK in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol. 2003 Sep;49(5):1425-34. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03651.x. PMID: 12940997.
Yu YT, Kroos L. Evidence that SpoIVFB is a novel type of membrane metalloprotease governing intercompartmental communication during Bacillus subtilis sporulation. J Bacteriol. 2000 Jun;182(11):3305-9. doi: 10.1128/JB.182.11.3305-3309.2000. PMID: 10809718; PMCID: PMC94525.
Campo N, Rudner DZ. SpoIVB and CtpB are both forespore signals in the activation of the sporulation transcription factor sigmaK in Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol. 2007 Aug;189(16):6021-7. doi: 10.1128/JB.00399-07. Epub 2007 Jun 8. PMID: 17557826; PMCID: PMC1952037.
Resnekov O, Losick R. Negative regulation of the proteolytic activation of a developmental transcription factor in Bacillus subtilis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Mar 17;95(6):3162-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.6.3162. PMID: 9501233; PMCID: PMC19712.
Nugroho FA, Yamamoto H, Kobayashi Y, Sekiguchi J. Characterization of a new sigma-K-dependent peptidoglycan hydrolase gene that plays a role in Bacillus subtilis mother cell lysis. J Bacteriol. 1999 Oct;181(20):6230-7. doi: 10.1128/JB.181.20.6230-6237.1999. PMID: 10515909; PMCID: PMC103754.
Monday, 14 April 2025
Saturday, 12 April 2025
Health risk that corelate with regular gay sex according to GROK
Anal sex:
Tissue Damage and Injury: The anal tissue is delicate and lacks the natural lubrication of the vagina, making it prone to tearing or abrasions. Repeated trauma can lead to fissures, hemorrhoids, or chronic pain. Over time, this may weaken the anal sphincter, potentially causing incontinence, though evidence on significant sphincter damage from consensual anal sex is mixed and not conclusive for most people.
Increased STI Risk: Anal sex has a higher risk of transmitting sexually transmitted infections (STIs) like HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and HPV due to the thin rectal lining, which is more susceptible to microtears that allow pathogens to enter the bloodstream. Consistent condom use significantly reduces this risk, but it’s not foolproof. HPV, linked to anal cancer, is a particular concern, especially without vaccination.
Infections: Bacterial infections, such as those from E. coli or other fecal bacteria, can occur if hygiene isn’t prioritized. This includes urinary tract infections or, in rare cases, abscesses. Enemas or improper cleaning methods can also disrupt the rectal environment, increasing infection risk.
Anal Cancer: Long-term anal sex, particularly with HPV exposure, correlates with a higher risk of anal cancer, though this is rare. The risk is higher in populations like MSM (men who have sex with men) due to higher HPV prevalence, but it’s not exclusive to them. Regular screening and HPV vaccination can mitigate this.
Discomfort and Pain: Without proper lubrication or relaxation, regular anal sex can cause chronic discomfort or pain, sometimes leading to psychological aversion or sexual dysfunction. Using adequate water-based or silicone-based lubricants and pacing activities reduces this risk.
STIs: Oral sex can transmit infections such as herpes (HSV), gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and human papillomavirus (HPV). HIV transmission is less common but possible, especially if there are cuts, sores, or bleeding gums. HPV is notable for its link to throat and mouth cancers, particularly from high-risk strains.
And oral sex:
Bacterial Infections: Less commonly, bacteria like Treponema pallidum (syphilis) or Neisseria gonorrhoeae (gonorrhea) can infect the throat, sometimes without obvious symptoms.
Oral Health Factors: Pre-existing oral wounds, gum disease, or poor hygiene can increase susceptibility to infections during oral sex.
Other Risks: Rare cases of gastrointestinal infections (e.g., from fecal-oral contact in specific practices) or allergic reactions (e.g., to semen or lubricants) have been noted.
Romans ch.1:27NKJV"Likewise also the [j]men, leaving the natural use of the [k]woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
Examining Darwinian hagiography
Darwin’s Sacred Fiction
On a classic episode of ID the Future, historian of science Michael Keas concludes a two-part conversation with science-and-religion scholar Robert Shedinger about his research into the writing and work of Charles Darwin.
In this segment, Professor Shedinger makes the case that a well-known biography of Charles Darwin, Darwin’s Sacred Cause, is deeply misleading. Specifically, the book by Adrian Desmond and James Moore holds that Darwin was significantly motivated in his scientific work by abolitionist sentiments. Shedinger says not so fast. He saw no evidence of this thesis in Darwin’s correspondence. Shedinger reports on the pattern that emerged when he tracked down the key citations and re-read the book. The sources the authors cite didn’t actually support their thesis. Some were totally irrelevant. Some were cited completely out of context. In other cases, the authors stitched together multiple correspondences to give the illusion Darwin was saying something he wasn’t. This popular biography of Darwin was trying to make Darwin seem like a saintly abolitionist. Instead, argues Shedinger, it’s closer to historical fiction than the truth.
While Darwin did have anti-slavery sentiments, it didn’t drive his science and he himself was anything but free from racism. In fact, his case for human evolution partly rested on deeply demeaning racist attitudes toward indigenous peoples. For more on this, see historian Richard Weikart’s book Darwinian Racism.
Also in this episode, Shedinger tells host Michael Keas about how he went from a scholar fully persuaded of Darwinian theory to a skeptic of modern evolutionary theory and attracted to the theory of intelligent design. Shedinger lays out his case against Darwinism in his book The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms.
Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Friday, 11 April 2025
Theistic Darwinism: attempting to keep feet on the ground while having ones head in the clouds?
On the 70th Anniversary of His Death, Anything to Salute in the Thought of Teilhard de Chardin?
Why should advocates of intelligent design care about a French Jesuit priest who died 70 years ago today, on April 10, 1955? Born in 1881, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin along with being a Jesuit priest was also a geologist and paleontologist who made several trips to China to participate in geological and paleontological work (he was part of the team that discovered Piltdown Man, later revealed to be a hoax). But Teilhard is best known for his book The Phenomenon of Man, published in French in the 1930s and in English in 1955. In this book Teilhard lays out a vision for the evolutionary process that is at odds with the established scientific view but is consistent with his own religious convictions.
A Truncated View
Teilhard argued that the science of his time had a truncated view of evolution. Scientists studied the evolutionary process as if it were a movie playing on a screen in front of them with the scientists themselves as mere passive observers. Teilhard thought that evolution needed to be seen from the inside, viewing humans not only as observers of evolution but also as its products. As such, Teilhard conceived evolution as occurring on four levels, only two of which were acknowledged by establishment scientists.
The first of these levels he called cosmogenesis, the evolution of the physical universe. The second level he labeled biogenesis, the evolution of life in the physical universe. According to Teilhard, this is where evolutionary biologists had traditionally stopped. But a full accounting of the evolutionary process, he believed, required two additional levels: psychogenesis, the evolution of consciousness in biological organisms, and noogenesis, the evolution of reflective thought, a characteristic unique to humans. With the evolution of humans, Teilhard believed evolution had crossed what he called a “threshold of reflection” that would fundamentally alter the very course of evolution. Rather than a billion-fold trial and error, evolution would now proceed more intentionally through the exercise of the human mind. We should remember that Teilhard formulated these ideas in the 1930s, long before anyone had conceived of the possibility of genetic engineering. Teilhard was prescient
His Most Controversial Idea
Having fully accounted for the evolutionary process, Teilhard went on to articulate his most controversial idea. He argued that over time, human minds would eventually form a web of reflective consciousness enveloping the Earth (what would he think of the Internet?!). He called this the noosphere. In time, the noosphere would reach an omega point where consciousness would completely fuse with the God who created it. Teilhard’s view of evolution was thus highly teleological. The evolutionary process existed for the purpose of creating beings with the ability of reflective thought so that they could commune with their Creator. No Darwinian contingency here!
Not surprisingly, most Darwinians howled with derision at Teilhard. In response to The Phenomenon of Man, Nobel Laureate Peter Medawar published one of the most devastating book reviews ever written. Medawar called Teilhard’s book “nonsense, tricked out with a variety of metaphysical conceits, and its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.” For Medawar, reading Phenomenon brought on feelings of “real distress, even despair.” Despite this, many philosophers and theologians found Teilhard’s book of great interest. But according to arch-Darwinian Daniel Dennett, the esteem in which non-scientists held the book is nothing more than a testimony to their “depth of loathing of Darwin’s dangerous idea, a loathing so great that it will excuse any illogicality and tolerate any opacity in what purports to be an argument.” The Darwinian reaction to Teilhard’s explicit evolutionary theology is of course to be expected. What we don’t expect is to find that this disdain was not shared universally within the Darwinian establishment.
"Nothing in Biology"
Enter Theodosius Dobzhansky, perhaps the most important figure in the history of evolutionary theory after Darwin. In his often-cited essay “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” Dobzhansky unexpectedly calls Teilhard “one of the great thinkers of our age.” As a man of deep Christian faith himself, Dobzhansky clearly resonated with Teilhard’s attempt to create a synthesis between evolution and religious thought. In fact, Dobzhansky appears to have been so taken with Teilhard’s work that he served for a year as president of the North American Teilhard Society (1969). Of course, we will never learn from the textbooks that a figure as central to the modern evolutionary synthesis as Dobzhansky seemed to embrace an explicitly teleological and even theological understanding of evolution. I suppose Dobzhansky was deceived (according to Medawar) or prone to illogicality (according to Dennett)!
A Logical Dead End
Ofcourse, neither Teilhard nor Dobzhansky appears to have made an explicit design argument. They would be better categorized as theistic evolutionists. For Dobzhansky this is confirmed when in his previously cited essay he states, “There is, of course, nothing conscious or intentional in the action of natural selection.” Here Dobzhansky adheres to the standard Darwinian story. Yet just a few lines later he notes humans’ ability to make conscious, intentional decisions, and concludes, “This is why the species Homo sapiens is the apex of evolution.” The incompatibility between these two statements seems not to have occurred to Dobzhansky. Clearly, a process with no direction or larger purpose by definition has no apex. His attempt to hold to both an orthodox Darwinian viewpoint and an orthodox Christian viewpoint simultaneously dissolves into incoherence. Theistic evolutionary schemes seem to be a logical dead end.
While Pierre Teilhard de Chardin may not have been a forerunner of intelligent design thinking per se, the significance of his pointing out the incomplete nature of the evolutionary theory of his day should not be underestimated. As Thomas Nagel would argue today, any theory of evolution that excludes the origin of mind and consciousness from consideration is at best half a theory. Teilhard noticed this weakness of Darwinian evolutionary theory nearly a century ago, and at least one very prominent Darwinian may well have agreed, even if he never admitted it in public.
A real life Jurassic park is just as far away as it was yesterday?
Dire Wolves Are Still Extinct
The media are such suckers for hyperbolic biotech stories. Colossal Laboratories & Biosciences made headlines for supposedly having genetically engineered a return of dire wolves that disappeared about 12,500 or so years ago, which many stories claimed to now be “de-extinct” after three gene-edited pups were born
Still a Gray Wolf
Uh, no. The company actually engineered gray wolves to have white fur and (if it works) a larger stature. But despite a similar appearance, gray wolves are not actually close relatives of the extinct species. From the New Scientist story:
Grey wolves and dire wolves were thought to be very closely related based on their physical similarities but a 2021 study of ancient DNA revealed that they last shared a common ancestor around 6 million years ago. Jackals, African wild dogs and dholes are all more closely related to grey wolves (Canis lupus) than dire wolves are, despite their similar appearances.
Beth Shapiro of Colossal says her team has sequenced the complete genome of the dire wolf and will soon release it to the public. Shapiro could not tell New Scientist how many differences there are but said the two species share 99.5 per cent of their DNA. Since the grey wolf genome is around 2.4 billion base pairs long, that still leaves room for millions of base-pairs of difference
The company made just 20 gene edits, with five of those having to do with fur color. That’s still a gray wolf any way you look at it.
So, is this a deception? Let’s call it puffery. The company was careful to acknowledge that the dire wolf is not actually back but that the pups are “functional equivalents.” From the Rolling Stone story:
Shapiro says, people should understand an important detail of the project: It is impossible for the DNA of these new cells to be 100 percent identical to their prehistoric ancestors. “There’s probably millions of differences between gray wolves and dire wolves, and the DNA editing technology is not sufficiently robust that we can make all of those changes simultaneously without causing the cell to melt down,” she says. “Until we can synthesize a whole genome from scratch, we can’t make something that’s 100 percent genetically identical, but it’s also not necessary, because what we’re trying to do is create a functional equivalent of that species that used to be there.”
But “functional equivalent” is not a headline grabber, so much of the media went with the exaggerated version that would get bounteous clicks.
Colossal plans to re-create a woolly mammoth. I suspect that if that happens, it will really be an elephant with good hair.
Thursday, 10 April 2025
Intelligent Design 101
Intelligent Design: A Beginner’s Guide with Casey Luskin
How would you explain intelligent design to someone who has just recently begun looking into it? Perhaps you are new to it yourself, or you have a friend or family member who is curious. On a new episode of ID the Future, Dr. Casey Luskin begins a two-part discussion of the basics of intelligent design with Sam Kleckley, host of the Live Life in Motion podcast. Part 1 presents a nice overview of where and when intelligent design began, how it developed, and why it is such a compelling idea for so many.
After reviewing the history of the idea, Dr. Luskin jumps into some of the key evidence for intelligent design. He first discusses the complexity of living things by highlighting the concept of irreducible complexity, the idea that many biological features require a core number of parts to function, and if their complexity is reduced at all, they stop working. Luskin explains that such systems could not have arisen through the gradual, step-by-step mechanism of natural selection and random mutation required by modern evolutionary theory.
Luskin then talks about the fine-tuning of the universe. He points to the Big Bang theory as evidence for an abrupt origin of the universe, which aligns with the idea of a creation event. Modern cosmology, according to Luskin, supports the notion that the universe is finite in age and size, originating from an infinitely dense and small point. Luskin explains the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics necessary for a universe where life can exist. He also provides examples of the extreme precision required for some of the finely tuned parameters that govern the universe, including the cosmological constant, the gravitational constant, and the initial entropy of the early universe. The conversation sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the evidence supporting ID in a separate episode.
We are grateful to host Sam Kleckley and the Live Life in Motion podcast for permission to share this interview at ID the Future.
We are also grateful for Tom Gilson, author, editor, and longtime sound engineer for the ID the Future podcast, who passed away in November 2024. Tom edited this particular podcast episode before he got sick and we now have the opportunity to share it. We are thankful for his hard work and dedication to ID the Future over the years.
Download the podcast or listen to it here. This is Part 1 of a two-part conversation. Look for Part 2 next!
Wednesday, 9 April 2025
The trinity doctrine is its own worst enemy?
Most American Christians don't believe in the Trinity: Survey
An overwhelming majority of Christians reject the basic Christian teaching of the Trinity, prompting new concerns that Americans are living without the influence of “the truths and life principles of God.” The Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University released the latest installment of its American Worldview Inventory series which documents Americans’ views on the Trinity. The research is based on responses collected from 2,100 adults in January.
Overall, just 40% of respondents believe that God exists and affects people’s lives. That figure rises to 53% among self-identified Christians, 60% among theologically-identified born-again Christians, and 100% among Integrated Disciples. The latter term refers to those who have a biblical worldview. While a majority of those surveyed (59%) believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, a significantly smaller share of adults (29%) believe in the Holy Spirit. Slightly more than 1 in 10 respondents (11%) believe in the Trinity, that the God of the Bible is “three distinct but inseparable and equal persons in one infinite Being.” The persons in the Trinity are God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Belief in the Trinity, characterized by the Cultural Research Center as a “fundamental tenet of Christianity,” increases to 16% among self-identified Christians, 24% among theologically-identified born-again Christians and 62% among Integrated Disciples. “These results are further evidence of the limited or lack of trust Americans have in the Bible, the limitations we place on the authority and influence of God, and our refusal to cooperate with God by living in harmony with His ways and purposes,” said CRC Director of Research George Barna in response to the survey results. “Even the statistics for the groups that are most in-tune with biblical teachings, such as belief in the nature and impact of the Trinity, are shockingly low for a nation in which most people claim to be Christian.”Barna identified “these findings about America’s ignorance or rejection of the Trinity” as “simply another in a long list of examples of people living without the truths and life principles of God shaping their life.”
He lamented, “We know from our national worldview tracking studies that most Americans are uninformed about the many essential biblical teachings, ranging from the Ten Commandments and the Trinity, to matters related to repentance, salvation, the chief purpose of life, and divine measures of success.”
“It could be argued that the primary theologians influencing the spiritual views of America these days are figures such as Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson, Megyn Kelly, and Bill Maher” — all influential podcasters and not religious figures.Brand and Peterson have expressed interest in Christianity, with Brand recently getting baptized, while Carlson and Kelly are established Christians and Maher is an outspoken atheist.
“They mix practical and sometimes unbiblical theology and philosophical points of view into their commentary on life and world events,” Barna said of the podcasters. “Meanwhile, many Christian churches are focused on delivering multi-part series that are not effectively developing or bolstering an integrated, biblical worldview that congregants can rely upon to counteract popular, secular takes on reality.”Barna suggested that no influential cultural figure or church is “devoted to obsessively building a solid theological foundation for the masses,” asking a series of rhetorical questions designed to make the point that American culture is missing the elements needed to ensure a biblically literate population: “Who is committed to ensuring that people grasp the basic theological building blocks of a biblical worldview? Where is the concern or anguish over the near universal rejection of numerous central biblical teachings?”
“Is the Church of God devoted to know Him and making Him know, or has it been seduced by the distractions and distortions of our culture?” he inquired
Artificial intelligence will remain forever artificial? II
A Needed Protest Against “AI Slop” and AI “Word Vomit”
God bless our Center for Science and Culture colleague Peter Biles for a harsh yet at the same time soulful takedown of “AI slop” and artificial intelligence-generated “word vomit.” At Mind Matters News, Peter notes:
“The phrase ‘AI slop’ is circling the headlines daily at this point and is becoming almost a cliché given how much it’s used. But it’s a good way to encapsulate the reality.”
“For some odd but perseverant reason, so many leaders feel it necessary to incorporate AI into their businesses, apparently because it is so ‘innovative,’ and anything innovative and new needs to be embraced. This is a prevailing philosophy among the techno-optimistic. Never mind AI makes mistake, doesn’t understand its own word vomit, and threatens the hard-earned livelihood of real writers everywhere.”
“The easy ability to generate nonsense on command means foregoing the possibility of any meaningful artistic or cultural renaissance.”
“[Ted] Gioia…mentions how real photographs are starting to resemble AI slop. These soulless data-churning machines are spitting out nonsense so pervasively that they’re beginning to shape the way we actually see the world.”
“I recently attended a creative writing festival hosted by the local university where some seventy poets and fiction writers read their work aloud to live audiences. It was a rich time of literature and newfound friendships. And best of all, the work we heard from was written by and for other people.”
East of Java
Sometimes AI errors are amusing. One of my kids in high school tried using ChatGPT to put together a résumé for a summer position and it decided unaccountably to credit him with being “proficient in Javanese,” as in the language of the Indonesian island of Java. (I believe Krakatoa is east of there.) That will be a family in-joke for years to come.
Peter is right that the aesthetics of AI will never match that of humans, nor will the experience of interacting with AI ever do so. There’s a recognizable feel to AI “writing” and a look to AI “art.” They will not age well. There’s no soul in it and there never could be, no matter how sophisticated the algorithm.
Microsoft’s “Copilot”
The other day, I was horrified to listen to a long and very dumb and credulous interview on NPR with the guy behind Microsoft’s “Copilot,” which is supposed to be your AI best friend, life coach, and personal assistant all in one. I would pay not to get anywhere near such a thing.
Two email correspondents recently suggested to me using AI here at the Center for Science and Culture. One thought it could generate podcasts, replacing human podcasters, and he did not see that at all as a nightmare scenario. The other thought it could generate articles and books. I have seen the results of that, and word vomit is exactly the right phrase for it. My inner response was God forbid, and over my dead body.
It’s all another lesson in human exceptionalism, as I trust most of us will come to realize before long about our mindless machines. I believe we will wake up from the AI delusion someday.
I take the opportunity here, by the way, to note that the idea that life, with its biological information, is not a machine is the theme of my upcoming book about the thought of evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, Plato’s Revenge: The New Science of the Immaterial Genome. It will be out on April 28 and can be pre-ordered now.
Let God be found true.
When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One
Why It Matters; What the Evidence Shows
This is the first of two articles in consecutive issues of The Watchtower that discuss scholarly questions surrounding the date of the destruction of ancient Jerusalem. This two-part series presents thoroughly researched and Bible-based answers to questions that have puzzled some readers.
“According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction.*Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.? What is your basis for this date?”
SO WROTE one of our readers. But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. One historian said that it led to “a catastrophe, indeed the ultimate catastrophe.” The date marked the end of a temple that had been at the heart of the worship of Almighty God for more than 400 years. “O God,” lamented a Bible psalmist, “they have dishonored your holy temple. They have left Jerusalem in ruins.”—Psalm 79:1, God’s Word Bible.*
Second, because knowing the actual year when this “ultimate catastrophe” began and understanding how the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem fulfilled a precise Bible prophecy will build your confidence in the reliability of God’s Word. So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.
“Seventy Years” for Whom?
Years before the destruction, the Jewish prophet Jeremiah provided an essential clue to the time frame given in the Bible. He warned “all those living in Jerusalem,” saying: “This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:1, 2, 11, New International Version) The prophet later added: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.’” (Jeremiah 29:10) What is the significance of the “seventy years”? And how does this time period help us to determine the date of Jerusalem’s destruction?
Instead of saying 70 years “at Babylon,” many translations read “for Babylon.” (NIV) Some historians therefore claim that this 70-year period applies to the Babylonian Empire. According to secular chronology, the Babylonians dominated the land of ancient Judah and Jerusalem for some 70 years, from about 609 B.C.E. until 539 B.C.E. when the capital city of Babylon was captured.
The Bible, however, shows that the 70 years were to be a period of severe punishment from God—aimed specifically at the people of Judah and Jerusalem, who were in a covenant to obey him. (Exodus 19:3-6) When they refused to turn from their bad ways, God said: “I will summon . . . Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon . . . against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations.” (Jeremiah 25:4, 5, 8, 9, NIV) While nearby nations would also suffer Babylon’s wrath, the destruction of Jerusalem and the 70-year exile to follow were called by Jeremiah “the punishment of my people,” for Jerusalem had “sinned greatly.”—Lamentations 1:8; 3:42; 4:6, NIV.
So according to the Bible, the 70 years was a period of bitter punishment for Judah, and God used the Babylonians as the instrument for inflicting this severe chastisement. Yet, God told the Jews: “When seventy years are completed, . . . I will . . . bring you back to this place”—the land of Judah and Jerusalem.—Jeremiah 29:10, NIV.
When Did “the Seventy Years” Start?
The inspired historian Ezra, who lived after the 70 years of Jeremiah’s prophecy were fulfilled, wrote of King Nebuchadnezzar: “He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power. The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.”—2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, NIV.
Thus, the 70 years were to be a period when the land of Judah and Jerusalem would enjoy “sabbath rests.” This meant that the land would not be cultivated—there would be no sowing of seed or pruning of vineyards. (Leviticus 25:1-5, NIV) Because of the disobedience of God’s people, whose sins may have included a failure to observe all the Sabbath years, the punishment was that their land would remain unworked and deserted for 70 years.—Leviticus 26:27, 32-35, 42, 43.
When did the land of Judah become desolated and unworked? Actually, the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem twice, years apart. When did the 70 years commence? Certainly not following the first time that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. Why not? Although at that time Nebuchadnezzar took many captives from Jerusalem to Babylon, he left others behind in the land. He also left the city itself standing. For years after this initial deportation, those left remaining in Judah, “the lowly class of the people,” lived off their land. (2 Kings 24:8-17) But then things drastically changed.
A Jewish revolt brought the Babylonians back to Jerusalem. (2 Kings 24:20; 25:8-10) They razed the city, including its sacred temple, and they took many of its inhabitants captive to Babylon. Within two months, “all the people [who had been left behind in the land] from the least to the greatest, together with the army officers, fled to Egypt for fear of the Babylonians.” (2 Kings 25:25, 26, NIV) Only then, in the seventh Jewish month, Tishri (September/October), of that year could it be said that the land, now desolate and unworked, began to enjoy its Sabbath rest. To the Jewish refugees in Egypt, God said through Jeremiah: “You have seen all the disaster that I brought upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah. Behold, this day they are a desolation, and no one dwells in them.” (Jeremiah 44:1, 2, English Standard Version) So this event evidently marked the starting point of the 70 years. And what year was that? To answer, we need to see when that period ended.
When Did “the Seventy Years” End?
The prophet Daniel, who lived until “the kingdom of Persia came to power,” was on the scene in Babylon, and he calculated when the 70 years were due to end. He wrote: “I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.”—Daniel 9:1, 2, ESV.
Ezra reflected on the prophecies of Jeremiah and linked the end of “the seventy years” to the time when “the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation.” (2 Chronicles 36:21, 22, NIV) When were the Jews released? The decree ending their exile was issued in “the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia.” (See the box “A Pivotal Date in History.”) Thus, by the fall of 537 B.C.E., the Jews had returned to Jerusalem to restore true worship.—Ezra 1:1-5; 2:1; 3:1-5.
According to Bible chronology, then, the 70 years was a literal period of time that ended in 537 B.C.E. Counting back 70 years, the start date of the period would be 607 B.C.E.
But if the evidence from the inspired Scriptures clearly points to 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction, why do many authorities hold to the date 587 B.C.E.? They lean on two sources of information—the writings of classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy. Are these sources more reliable than the Scriptures? Let us see.
Classical Historians—How Accurate?
Historians who lived close to the time when Jerusalem was destroyed give mixed information about the Neo-Babylonian kings.* (See the box “Neo-Babylonian Kings.”) The time line based on their chronological information disagrees with that of the Bible. But just how reliable are their writings?
One of the historians who lived closest to the Neo-Babylonian period was Berossus, a Babylonian “priest of Bel.” His original work, the Babyloniaca,written about 281 B.C.E., has been lost, and only fragments are preserved in the works of other historians. Berossus claimed that he used “books which had been preserved with great care at Babylon.”1 Was Berossus really an accurate historian? Consider one example.
Berossus wrote that Assyrian King Sennacherib followed “the reign of [his] brother”; and “after him his son [Esarhaddon ruled for] 8 years; and thereafter Sammuges [Shamash-shuma-ukin] 21 years.” (III, 2.1, 4) However, Babylonian historical documents written long before Berossus’ time say that Sennacherib followed his father, Sargon II, not his brother, to the throne; Esarhaddon ruled for 12 years, not 8; and Shamash-shuma-ukin ruled for 20 years, not 21. Scholar R. J. van der Spek, while acknowledging that Berossus consulted the Babylonian chronicles, wrote: “This did not prevent him from making his own additions and interpretations.”2
How do other scholars view Berossus? “In the past Berossus has usually been viewed as a historian,” states S. M. Burstein, who made a thorough study of Berossus’ works. Yet, he concluded: “Considered as such his performance must be pronounced inadequate. Even in its present fragmentary state the Babyloniaca contains a number of surprising errors of simple fact . . . In a historian such flaws would be damning, but then Berossus’ purpose was not historical.”3
In view of the foregoing, what do you think? Should Berossus’ calculations really be viewed as consistently accurate? And what about the other classical historians who, for the most part, based their chronology on the writings of Berossus? Can their historical conclusions really be called reliable?
The Canon of Ptolemy
The Royal Canon of Claudius Ptolemy, a second-century C.E. astronomer, is also used to support the traditional date 587 B.C.E. Ptolemy’s list of kings is considered the backbone of the chronology of ancient history, including the Neo-Babylonian period.
Ptolemy compiled his list some 600 years after the Neo-Babylonian period ended. So how did he determine the date when the first king on his list began to reign? Ptolemy explained that by using astronomical calculations based in part on eclipses, “we have derived to compute back to the beginning of the reign of Nabonassar,” the first king on his list.4 Thus, Christopher Walker of the British Museum says that Ptolemy’s canon was “an artificial scheme designed to provide astronomers with a consistent chronology” and was “not to provide historians with a precise record of the accession and death of kings.”5
“It has long been known that the Canon is astronomically reliable,” writes Leo Depuydt, one of Ptolemy’s most enthusiastic defenders, “but this does not automatically mean that it is historically dependable.” Regarding this list of kings, Professor Depuydt adds: “As regards the earlier rulers [who included the Neo-Babylonian kings], the Canon would need to be compared with the cuneiform record on a reign by reign basis.”6
What is this “cuneiform record” that enables us to measure the historical accuracy of Ptolemy’s canon? It includes the Babylonian chronicles, lists of kings, and economic tablets—cuneiform documents written by scribes who lived during, or near, Neo-Babylonian times.7
How does Ptolemy’s list compare with that cuneiform record? The box“How Does Ptolemy’s Canon Compare With Ancient Tablets?” (see below) shows a portion of the canon and compares this with an ancient cuneiform document. Notice that Ptolemy lists only four kings between the Babylonian rulers Kandalanu and Nabonidus. However, the Uruk King List—a part of the cuneiform record—reveals that seven kings ruled in between. Were their reigns brief and negligible? One of them, according to cuneiform economic tablets, ruled for seven years.8
There is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of Nabopolassar (the first king of the Neo-Babylonian period), another king (Ashur-etel-ilani) ruled for four years in Babylonia. Also, for more than a year, there was no king in the land.9 Yet, all of this is left out of Ptolemy’s canon.
Why did Ptolemy omit some rulers? Evidently, he did not consider them to be legitimate rulers of Babylon.10 For example, he excluded Labashi-Marduk, a Neo-Babylonian king. But according to cuneiform documents, the kings whom Ptolemy omitted actually ruled over Babylonia.
In general, Ptolemy’s canon is regarded as accurate. But in view of its omissions, should it really be used to provide a definite historical chronology?
The Conclusion Based on This Evidence
To sum up: The Bible clearly states that there was an exile of 70 years. There is strong evidence—and most scholars agree—that the Jewish exiles were back in their homeland by 537 B.C.E. Counting back from that year would place Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E. Though the classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy disagree with this date, valid questions can be raised about the accuracy of their writings. Really, those two lines of evidence hardly provide enough proof to overturn the Bible’s chronology.
However, further questions remain. Is there really no historical evidence to support the Bible-based date of 607 B.C.E.? What evidence is revealed by datable cuneiform documents, many of which were written by ancient eyewitnesses? We will consider these questions in our next issue.
Footnote
A PIVOTAL DATE IN HISTORY
The date 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus II conquered Babylon is calculated using the testimony of:
▪ Ancient historical sources and cuneiform tablets: Diodorus of Sicily (c. 80-20 B.C.E.) wrote that Cyrus became king of Persia in “the opening year of the Fifty-fifth Olympiad.” (Historical Library, Book IX, 21) That year was 560 B.C.E. The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 485-425 B.C.E.) stated that Cyrus was killed “after he had reigned twenty-nine years,” which would put his death during his 30th year, in 530 B.C.E. (Histories, Book I, Clio, 214) Cuneiform tablets show that Cyrus ruled Babylon for nine years before his death. Thus, nine years prior to his death in 530 B.C.E. takes us back to 539 B.C.E. as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon.
Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C.E. Though this tablet contains some errors regarding the astronomical positions, it contains the descriptions of two lunar eclipses that the tablet says occurred in the seventh year of Cambyses II, the son and successor of Cyrus. These are identified with lunar eclipses visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E., thus pointing to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of Cambyses’ seventh year. That would make his first regnal year 529 B.C.E. So Cyrus’ last year would have been 530 B.C.E., making 539 B.C.E. his first year of ruling Babylon.
Future tony stark?
Ecclesiastes ch.9:16NIV"So I said, “Wisdom is better than strength.” But the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are no longer heeded."
Tuesday, 8 April 2025
JEHOVAH'S servants Champions of civil liberty.
Jehovah’s Witnesses were unlikely champions of religious freedom.
BY SARAH BARRINGER GORDONOne of the most momentous cases on the Supreme Court docket as war raged globally in 1943 was about a single sentence said aloud by schoolchildren every day. They stood, held their right hands over their hearts or in a raised-arm salute and began, “I pledge allegiance to the flag…” To most Americans the pledge was a solemn affirmation of national unity, especially at a time when millions of U.S. troops were fighting overseas. But the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a religious sect renowned for descending en masse on small towns or city neighborhoods and calling on members of other faiths to “awake” and escape the snare of the devil and his minions, felt otherwise. They insisted that pledging allegiance to the flag was a form of idolatry akin to the worship of graven images prohibited by the Bible. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, Walter Barnett (whose surname was misspelled by a court clerk) argued that the constitutional rights of his daughters Marie, 8, and Gathie, 9, were violated when they were expelled from Slip Hill Grade School near Charleston, W.Va., for refusing to recite the pledge.
In a landmark decision written by Justice Robert Jackson and announced on Flag Day, June 14, the Supreme Court sided with the Witnesses. “To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds,” Jackson said. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses were unlikely champions of religious freedom. The sect’s leaders denounced all other religions and all secular governments as tools of the devil, and preached the imminence of the Apocalypse, during which no one except Jehovah’s Witnesses would be spared. But their persistence in fighting in the courts for their beliefs had a dramatic impact on constitutional law. Barnette is just one of several major Supreme Court decisions involving freedom of religion, speech, assembly and conscience that arose from clashes between Jehovah’s Witnesses and government authorities. The Witnesses insisted that God’s law demanded they refrain from all pledges of allegiance to earthly governments. They tested the nation’s tolerance of controversial beliefs and led to an increasing recognition that a willingness to embrace religious diversity is what distinguishes America from tyrannical regimes.
The Witness sect was founded in the 1870s, and caused a stir when the founder, Charles Taze Russell, a haberdasher in Pittsburgh, predicted the world would come to an end in 1914. Russell died in 1916; he was succeeded by his lawyer Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who shrewdly emphasized that the Apocalypse was near, but not so near that Witnesses didn’t have time to convert new followers, which they were required to do lest they miss out on salvation. This “blood guilt” propelled in-your-face proselytizing by Witnesses in various communities on street corners and in door-to-door visits. Soon the sect developed a reputation for exhibiting “astonishing powers of annoyance,” as one legal commentator put it.
Rutherford ruled the Witnesses with an iron fist. He routinely encouraged public displays of contempt for “Satan’s world,” which included all other religions and all secular governments. At the time, the number of Witnesses in the U.S.—roughly 40,000—was so small that many Americans could ignore them. But in Nazi Germany, no group was too small to escape the eye of new chancellor Adolf Hitler, who banned the Witnesses after they refused to show their fealty to him with the mandatory “Heil Hitler” raised-arm salute. (Many Witnesses would later perish in his death camps.) In response, Rutherford praised the German Witnesses and advised all of his followers to refuse to participate in any oaths of allegiance that violated (in his view) the Second Commandment: “Thou shall have no Gods before me.”
With conflict looming around the world in the 1930s, many states enacted flag salute requirements, especially in schools. The steadfast refusal of Witnesses to pledge, combined with their refusal to serve in the military or to support America’s war effort in any way, triggered public anger. Witnesses soon became a ubiquitous presence in courtrooms across the country.
The relationship between Witnesses and the courts was complicated, in part because of the open disdain Rutherford and his followers displayed toward all forms of government and organized religion. Rutherford instructed Witnesses not to vote, serve on juries or participate in other civic duties. He even claimed Social Security numbers were the “mark of the beast” foretold in Revelations. The Catholic Church, said Rutherford, was a “racket,” and Protestants and Jews were “great simpletons,” taken in by the Catholic hierarchy to “carry on her commercial, religious traffic and increase her revenues.” Complaints about unwelcome public proselytizing by Witnesses led to frequent run-ins with state and local authorities and hundreds of appearances in lower courts. Every day in court for Rutherford and the Witnesses’ chief attorney, Hayden Covington, was an opportunity to preach the true meaning of law to the judges and to confront the satanic government.
In late 1935, Witness Walter Gobitas’ two children—Lillian, 12, and Billy, 10—were expelled from school in Minersville, Pa., because they balked at the mandatory recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, and a long court battle ensued. When Gobitis v. Minersville School District (as with Barnette, a court clerk misspelled the family surname) made its way to the Supreme Court in the spring of 1940, Rutherford and Covington framed their argument in religious terms, claiming that any statute contrary to God’s law as given to Moses must be void. The Court rejected the Witnesses’ claim, holding that the secular interests of the school district in fostering patriotism were paramount. In the majority opinion, written during the same month that France fell to the Nazis, Felix Frankfurter wrote: “National unity is the basis of national security.” The plaintiffs, said Frankfurter, were free to “fight out the wise use of legislative authority in the forum of public opinion and before legislative assemblies.”
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Harlan Stone argued that “constitutional guarantees or personal liberty are not always absolutes…but it is a long step, and one which I am unwilling to take, that government may, as a supposed educational measure…compel public affirmations which violate their public conscience.” Further, said Stone, the prospect of help for this “small and helpless minority” by the political process was so remote that Frankfurter had effectively “surrendered…the liberty of small minorities to the popular will.”
Public reaction to Gobitis bordered on hysteria, colored by the hotly debated prospect of American participation in the war in Europe. Some vigilantes interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision as a signal that Jehovah’s Witnesses were traitors who might be linked to a network of Nazi spies and saboteurs. In Imperial, a town outside Pittsburgh, a mob descended on a small group of Witnesses and pummeled them mercilessly. One Witness was beaten unconscious, and those who fled were cornered by ax- and knife-wielding men riding the town’s fire truck as someone yelled, “Get the ropes! Bring the flag!” In Kennebunk, Maine, the Witnesses’ gathering place, Kingdom Hall, was ransacked and torched, and days of rioting ensued. In Litchfield, Ill., an angry crowd spread an American flag on the hood of a car and watched while a man repeatedly smashed the head of a Witness upon it. In Rockville, Md., Witnesses were assaulted across the street from the police station, while officers stood and watched. By the end of the year, the American Civil Liberties Union estimated that 1,500 Witnesses had been assaulted in 335 separate attacks.
The reversal of Gobitis in Barnette just three years later was remarkably swift considering the typical pace of deliberations in the Supreme Court. In the wake of all the violence against Witnesses, three Supreme Court justices—William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy and Hugo Black—publicly signaled in a separate case that they thought Gobitis had been “wrongly decided.” When Barnette reached the Supreme Court in 1943, Harlan Stone, the lone dissenter in Gobitis, had risen to chief justice. The facts of the two cases mirrored each other, but the outcome differed dramatically. Most important, in ruling that Witness children could not be forced to recite the pledge, the new majority rejected the notion that legislatures, rather than the courts, were the proper place to address questions involving religious liberty. The “very purpose” of the Bill of Rights, wrote Justice Robert Jackson, was to protect some issues from the majority rule of politics. “One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, may not be submitted to vote….Fundamental rights depend on the outcome of no elections.” Jackson’s opinion was laced with condemnation of enforced patriotism and oblique hints at the slaughter taking place in Hitler’s Europe. “Those who begin in coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters,” Jackson wrote. “Compulsory unification of opinions achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.” Religious dissenters, when seen from this perspective, are like the canary in the coal mine: When they begin to suffer and die, everyone should be worried that the atmosphere has been polluted by tyranny.
Today, the Witnesses still proselytize, but their right to do so is well established thanks to their long legal campaign. Over time they became less confrontational and blended into the fabric of American life.
In the wake of the Barnette decision, the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance continued to occupy a key (yet ambiguous) place in American politics and law. The original pledge was a secular oath, with no reference to any power greater than the United States of America. The phrase “under God” was added by an act of Congress and signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. Eisenhower, who had grown up in a Jehovah’s Witness household but later became a Presbyterian, alluded to the growing threat posed by Communists in the Soviet Union and China when he signed the bill: “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resources in peace and war.”
Eisenhower’s political instincts for the ways that religion functioned in American life were finely honed: Support for the amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance was strong, including an overwhelming majority of Catholics and Protestants as well as a majority of Jews. According to a Gallup survey, the only group that truly opposed the change was the smattering of atheists. In a country locked in battle with godless communism, a spiritual weapon such as an amended pledge that was not denominationally specific made sense. Only after the intervening half-century and more does the “Judeo-Christian” God invoked in the pledge seem less than broadly inclusive.
Sarah Barringer Gordon is the author of The Spirit of the Law: Religious Voices and the Constitution in Modern America.
On the triumph for religious liberty in Norway
Norway, Jehovah’s Witnesses “Fully Vindicated” By Appeal Court
A wrong decision denying state subsidies and registration to the organization because of its policy towards excluded ex-members has been overturned in appeal.
Norway, Jehovah’s Witnesses “Fully Vindicated” By Appeal CourtA wrong decision denying state subsidies and registration to the organization because of its policy towards excluded ex-members has been overturned in appeal.“Jehovah’s Witnesses have been fully vindicated in that the decisions to refuse grants and registration are invalid.” This is the conclusion (p. 34) of the Court of Appeal of Borgarting, which on March 14, 2025 reversed the decision of the Oslo District Court of March 24, 2024. We explained in “Bitter Winter” why the latter decision was wrong, dangerous for religious liberty, and inconsistent with the international obligations of Norway under UN and European conventions. The Court of Appeal came to the same conclusions.The case started, the Court of Appeal notes, in 2021 when “the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs received a letter from Rolf Johan Furuli, a former member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses” (p. 3). The complaint was about the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of counseling members not to associate with ex-members (except cohabiting relatives) who had been expelled as guilty and unrepentant of serious sins or had publicly disassociated themselves from the organization. It was alleged that the Jehovah’s Witnesses thus violate the right of their members to change their religious beliefs, since the fear compels members who would like to leave to remain in the organization. Furuli also stated that the same practice applies to “children” (meaning minors) who are allegedly baptized before “they are mentally mature enough to fully understand what they are doing” (p. 3).Eventually, this led to decisions of the government and the State Administrator of Oslo and Viken to deny the Jehovah’s Witnesses the state subsidies they had peacefully received for thirty years based on Section 16 of the Norwegian Constitution (“All religious and philosophical communities must be supported on an equal footing”). Registration as a religious organization of the Norwegian Jehovah’s Witnesses under Law No. 31 of April 24, 2020, was also deniedThese administrative decisions were confirmed by the Oslo District Court on March 24, 2024. The Jehovah’s Witnesses appealed. The Centre for Law and Religious Freedom at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, the Religious Freedom Clinic at Harvard Law School, and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee sent letters supporting the position of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which were accepted to “form part of the basis for the decision in the case” (p. 5)The Court of Appeal first examines the practice it prefers to call “social distancing” from ex-members who have been expelled or have publicly disassociated themselves from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It states that it will mostly rely on published literature of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that the testimonies it heard persuaded the court that what happens in practice “is essentially in line with what is described in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ written material.”There is no disagreement between the parties, the court notes, on the fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach “social distancing” on the basis of their interpretation of the Bible, particularly of 1 Corinthians 5:13 (“Expel the wicked person from among you”) and 5:11 (“Do not even eat with such people”). This “exclusion” does not apply to members who simply become inactive without publicly announcing that they have left the Jehovah’s Witnesses.Additionally, as the Court of Appeals summarizes from Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature, in fact “‘family ties’ are not broken by withdrawal or exclusion. This is reflected in two exceptions in particular to the general rule of avoiding contact. Firstly, baptized members will still be able to have normal day-to-day contact with withdrawn or excluded members who live in the same householdas the member, even though the spiritual fellowship will cease. Secondly, baptized members will be able to have contact with excluded or withdrawn family members with whom they do not live in connection with what is referred to… as ‘necessary family matters.’” For example, “If excluded parents become ill or are no longer able to care for themselves financially or physically, children who are Jehovah’s Witnesses will have the biblical and moral duty to help them. Likewise, if an excluded [non-cohabiting] child is not well physically or emotionally, parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses will care for him” (p. 17).Members who do not respect the exclusion policy might be subject to religious discipline, but “only if there is ‘persistent spiritual contact or persistent open criticism of the decision to exclude’” (p. 18).
As for minors, “most people who grow up in families where the parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses are baptized around the age of 15–18” (p. 14). Just one individual testified that she was baptized at age 11, but this was decades ago. There are also children of Jehovah’s Witnesses who freely decide not to join the organization. “Based on the evidence,” the Court of Appeal noted, “such a choice will not prevent normal contact with their family and other members of Jehovah’s Witnesses” (p. 14–5).The Court of Appeal also noted that before being baptized, minors can participate in the preaching work as “unbaptized preachers” if the elders decide they are mature enough. “It is not unusual to become an unbaptized preacher at the age of 11–15” (p. 14). Unbaptized preachers can also be excluded if they are unrepentant of serious sins. The consequences are less severe than in the case of baptized members. Excluded unbaptized preachers are prevented from preaching or speaking in congregational meetings. “Caution” is recommended in associating with them, but according to several witnesses (although others disagreed) in practice this suggestion “is of little consequence” (p. 19).
The Court of Appeal examined separately the two grounds the state mentioned for withdrawal of subsidies and denial of registration: first, that the consequences of exclusion violate the right to freely leave a religious organization; and second, that trying minors who have committed serious sins and subjecting them to social distancing violate children’s rights.The Court of Appeal states that Jehovah’s Witnesses do comply with Section 2 of the Norwegian Religious Communities Act, as leaving the organization can be done by sending a simple written request. It also notes that during the works of the Stålsett Committee that prepared the Act, it was explicitly “not recommended” to include “social ostracism” of ex-members among the criteria justifying the refusal of state subsidies (p. 21). But in the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses there is not even a “full social ostracism,” the appeal judges note. Cohabiting relatives are not subject to “social distancing,” and contacts for “necessary family matters” are preserved. In addition, “those who have withdrawn will also be able to have normal contact with family members who are not baptized Jehovah’s Witnesses (including siblings who have chosen not to be baptized), and other networks outside Jehovah’s Witnesses” (p. 23). The Court of Appeal concluded that “there is therefore no question of ‘full social ostracism and/or serious financial consequences’ in the event of withdrawal, which was the situation the Stålsett Committee considered regulating that could provide grounds for refusing subsidies. As mentioned, the Committee [in the end] concluded that it was not appropriate to regulate this by law” (p. 23).Obviously, leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses includes unpleasant consequences but this is true for many religious organizations and the “consequences do not entail sufficient undue pressure to violate the member’s right to free withdrawal under Article 9(1) of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] or other human rights obligations or the Norwegian Constitution” (p. 22). The Court of Appeal also “emphasizes, among other things, that the social consequences of opting out—which can undoubtedly be very difficult for many—are set out in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rules and are something that the members are familiar with, both those who opt out and the remaining members. It is thus not a new and unknown ‘sanction’ that is implemented” (p. 22).In case of minors who are either baptized or unbaptized preachers, the State argued that subjecting them to proceedings before a judicial committee and excluding them, with the consequences of “social distancing,” can constitute “psychological violence” and “negative social control” under Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Section 30 of the Norwegian Children Act, thus justifying the denial of subsidies and registration. The Court of Appeal cautions that its conclusions are “subject to doubt,” a point on which opponents of the Jehovah’s Witnesses have insisted. In reading the decision, it is however clear that “doubts” mostly derive from the fact that concepts such as “negative social control do not have a clearly defined content in Norwegian law” (p. 30).As for “psychological violence,” a recognition of both international and Norwegian case law shows that it should normally involve “a pattern of abusive acts or behavior that is repeated or persists over time” (p. 26). Meeting a committee of elders may be perceived as “unpleasant and humiliating” by minors (p. 26), although their parents will accompany them “which will usually make the conversation less stressful, at least to some extent,” and the rules of the Jehovah’s Witnesses require “that the conversation with the elders will be as gentle and less detailed as possible” (p. 27). Additionally, just as adults, minors become “familiar with… the consequences of violating the norms” before being baptized (p. 27). At any rate, the court concludes, the meeting with the elders “will normally take place over a relatively short period of time leading up to a possible exclusion. That meeting cannot therefore be said to constitute a ‘pattern of offensive acts or behavior that is repeated or persists over time’.. it does not have the character of psychological ‘abuse’” (p. 27).Nor is “social distancing” of minors a case of psychological violence either. “it follows from Jehovah’s Witness rules that family ties are not broken by exclusion. For children who live at home, as the vast majority of minors do, this means that the family’s everyday activities continue. The minor’s emotional and physical needs will therefore continue to be met by the parents, and the child will be able to socialize with the other family members in the household… If a minor child does not live at home, parents will have a duty to take care of an excluded child who is not well physically or emotionally… The fact that some parents may act more harshly towards a child who is excluded or withdrawn than the Jehovah’s Witness rules allow, for example by freezing the child out socially at home or requiring the child to move out, is not something that Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious community encourage; on the contrary” (p. 28).As for the elusive “negative social control,” the vagueness of the concept implies a high threshold for proving that it exists in a religious organization. In this case, any consideration of possible infringement of children’s rights should be “balanced against children’s and parent’s freedom of religion or belief” (p. 32). Sections 2 and 3 of the Norwegian Religious Communities Act regard minors who have reached the age of 15 as mature enough to join a religious community and acknowledge that there may be some under the age of 15 who are capable to “forming their own opinions” and have the right to participate in religious activities (p. 32). Accordingly, minors have the right to be baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses. They also have the right not to be baptized even if their parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses, and in fact “this is not entirely unusual” (p. 32) and does not lead to exclusion policies be applied against them.Obviously, “social control is present in all families and organizations, including religious communities” (p. 31). However, “there is no evidence that baptized minors who grow up in Jehovah’s Witnesses have greater psychological challenges than others in the population” (p. 32). Therefore, “the Court of Appeal has concluded that the practice of social distancing towards underage baptized members does not ‘violate children’s rights,’ as it has not been proven that this practice exposes children to psychological violence and/or negative social control aimed at children” (p. 34).As for minors who are unbaptized preachers, it would be enough to apply the same comments to them to exclude any violation of children’s rights. Nonetheless, the appeal judges note that “Although many underage unbaptized preachers, on the one hand, will often be younger than baptized minors, and thus often more vulnerable, on the other hand, an unbaptized preacher will not be excluded and thus not be avoided by other Jehovah’s Witnesses in the same way as underage baptized Jehovah’s Witnesses who are excluded” (p. 34).As Jehovah’s Witnesses were successful on all points in their appeal, they were awarded legal costs in the amount of NOK 8.5 million (US $796,000). As the leading Norwegian Christian newspaper “Dagen” commented on March 14, it was a “devastating judgement” in which the arguments used by the government against the Jehovah’s Witnesses were “dismantled.”
The ruling (which the State can appeal at the Supreme Court) is in line with decisions rendered in several democratic countries, as well as by the European Court of Human Rights, about the exclusion policy of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It may constitute an important precedent for other countries unwisely considering to act against the Jehovah’s Witnesses because of their exclusion policy, which is clearly protected by international
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)