JEHOVAH'S servants Champions of civil liberty.

 Jehovah’s Witnesses were unlikely champions of religious freedom.

BY SARAH BARRINGER GORDON

One 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

Massimo Introvigne

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

Eritrea frames mischief by law.

 Persecution of Eritrean Jehovah’s Witnesses condemned by human rights experts

RNS

Kathryn Post

November 7, 2024

(RNS) — Thirty years after Eritrea revoked the citizenship of Jehovah’s Witnesses, international human rights experts are condemning the nation’s persecution of the religious group and advocating for the release of wrongfully detained prisoners.

“As of the latest information available, 64 Jehovah’s Witness worshippers remain in detention for exercising their faith,” Mohamed Babiker, a United Nations expert on Eritrea’s observance of human rights, reported to the body’s committee on social, humanitarian and cultural issues on Oct. 30. “Just last month, 25 Jehovah’s Witnesses, including two children, were arrested. While the two minors were later released, the 23 adults were reportedly transported to Mai Serwa prison.” 

The September raid, the first major action against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea since 2014, broke up a worship service at the home of Letebrhan Tesfay, 85, one of the first Eritreans to become a Jehovah’s Witness, according to Jarrod Lopes, a U.S. spokesperson for the group.

Tesfay, who was among those arrested, “outlasted the oppression under Emperor Haile Selassie and is poised to do the same again,” Lopes said in an email. “Witnesses currently facing ruthless persecution for their faith share the same determination, hope, and inner peace as the Witnesses who proved faithful before them.”

Those imprisoned in the raid have not been formally charged, tried or sentenced, a Jehovah’s Witnesses report alleged. In a 2023 report, the U.S. State Department said Eritrean prisoners commonly face “harsh” and “life threatening” prison conditions. n light of the arrests, human rights experts have chosen to speak up as the anniversary of the denial of citizenship approached. On Oct. 25, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom shared statements from two of its commissioners on X.

“We are concerned for Jehovah’s Witnesses in #Eritrea, particularly those who are imprisoned, many of whom have been held unjustly for decades under horrific conditions,” said a statement attributed to Commissioner Vicky Hartzler. “@StateDept should continue to work for their release, freedom, and citizenship.”Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose beliefs don’t allow them to participate in the military, refused to be recruits in the Eritrean War of Independence between the Ethiopian government and separatists from 1961 to 1991. While Jehovah’s Witnesses characterized their lack of participation as political neutrality, not opposition to Eritrean independence, the Eritrean government responded by stripping Jehovah’s Witnesses of their citizenship. Since then, 270 Jehovah’s Witnesses have been imprisoned in Eritrea, according to the faith group.Many Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea are effectively barred from holding government jobs, receiving government benefits and accessing bank accounts. The lack of official documents also prevents many Jehovah’s Witnesses from owning property, finding employment or leaving the country. Worship must also be conducted in secret.

They aren’t the only faith group facing opposition in Eritrea. In addition to the more than 60 Jehovah’s Witnesses being held, hundreds of other Christians are being arbitrarily imprisoned, according to Babiker.

“I urge the Eritrean government to take bold and comprehensive action to address the human rights situation in the country,” said Babiker at the U.N. committee meeting. “Meaningful and genuine reforms can only set Eritrea on a path toward a society where human rights are upheld and fulfilled.”

On powering China inc.'s EV juggernaut

 

The world's biggest battery maker goes all in on salt?

 

The korean war : a brief history

 

On false prophets and false accusers.

         Suppose I had access to everything you had done or said since you were a little child, stored on a computer. It would be a simple matter for me to pick out a hundred or two hundred of the worst things you’d said and done over the course of your life, to write them up in a list with dates, times and places and then to proclaim, in the same way as a correspondent did in one of his emails to me: “The question is not what you have got wrong, but whether you got anything right.” On the other hand, by a similar process of selecting the 100-200 kindest, most generous, loving things you’d done, I could equally make you look like a saint. Both pictures would be true in a sense, but neither would be the whole truth. Why is this important?

The WatchtowerIn the last 125 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have published literally millions of words in publications such as The Watchtower. This includes powerful arguments against atheism and the theory of evolution, eloquent defences of the Bible as the inspired word of God, articles upholding the Bible’s stance on moral issues such as abortion, fornication, adultery and homosexual lifestyles. Watchtower publications have long exhorted their readers to display Christian qualities and imitate Jesus. They have shown how applying the Bible’s counsel can benefit family life. Through The Watchtower, millions of people have been comforted by the Bible’s message of hope.

You might expect that evangelical Christian organizations would happily applaud most of the above. After all, evangelical Christians believe in God and reject evolution, consider the Bible to be God’s inspired word, oppose sexual sins and abortion. They, too, speak of the need to imitate Jesus and display Christlike qualities. You would expect, then, that evangelical Christian groups could find a lot of positive things to say about The Watchtower. You’d think they’d congratulate Jehovah’s Witnesses for energetically spreading the above-mentioned views throughout the world and in literally hundreds of languages. But you would be wildly wrong.

An analysis of quotations from The Watchtower and other Jehovah’s Witness publications made by evangelical Christian writers - particularly on the Internet, but also in print - reveals that, far from commending Witness literature for all the positive material they publish, these writers consistently attack Jehovah’s Witnesses and actively seek anything that could possibly be used to discredit them - including many things published more than 100 years ago!

You could compare their attitude with that of a man who visits one of the world’s most beautiful cities - say Vienna. Instead of touring the most attractive parts of the city, though, this man visits the Municipal Garbage Dump and photographs the rubbish there. Then he goes to the industrial area and photographs the factories. Everywhere he goes he looks for the ugliest, most sordid parts of the city. Making copious use of close-ups to highlight the least attractive parts and using the most unflattering camera angles, he ensures his pictures give the worst possible impression. Then, on his return home, he shows the photographs to his friends, to convince them that Vienna is the most awful city in the world.

In resorting to similar tactics, critics of Witness publications immediately reveal their bias. The Watchtower Society is their ideological opponent, to be defeated at all costs. They comb through old Watchtowers, going back as far as 130 years. They take whatever suits their purpose and ignore the rest. They rip quotes out of their context, attempting to make it look as though they say much more than they actually meant. Why do they do it? They do it because it is their job to do it! In short, they are far from being an objective source of information.

Frankly, few Jehovah's Witnesses are likely to be taken in by such chicanery. It is easy to detect an agenda behind this type of mudslinging. Just about anyone who wanted to believe it has already done so. And as for the rest of us, what hasn't killed us has made us stronger.

But we should not reject a person’s criticism simply because we feel it is wrongly motivated. Prejudiced and hate-filled people can sometimes be at least partially right. As Christians, we should be discerning, remembering the admonition of the proverb, “anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word.” (Proverbs 14:15) With that in mind, let us examine the assertions commonly made in anti-Witness literature concerning the Witnesses’ alleged “false prophecies”.

Taken Out of Context

We have not the gift of prophecy 

Zion's Watch Tower, July 1883.

The standard technique of critics appears to be to present a list of alleged “false prophecies”, the longer the better. There are dozens of such lists on the Internet. These take the form of quotations from The Watchtower and other Witness publications.

Whereas the majority of the quotes themselves are accurate, the context in which they were presented - both the immediate context of the printed page and the historical context - is omitted. Selective quotations ensure that anything that gives the impression of certainty is usually included, whereas any cautionary statements are omitted.We are not for a moment denying that the publications - in particular the earlier ones - have at times published information that was speculative in nature and turned out to be mistaken. But the fact is that, for each of the dates commonly touted by critics as ‘false prophecies’ (1874, 1914, 1925, 1975), Watch Tower publications had published cautionary statements to the effect that it was by no means certain what would happen. Consider, for example, the following statements, which emphasise that the basis for the conclusions was Bible study not some message from God:[1]

With regard to 1874: It should be noted that ‘The Watchtower’ was not published until 1879 and Russell himself did not become aware of the 1874 date until 1876! So it was hardly a matter of a failed prediction. 

With regard to 1914: : "We are not prqophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them" (emphasis added).[2]

With regard to 1925: "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year."[3]

With regard to 1975: ‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975.[4]

Charles Taze RussellIt’s obvious, therefore, that the situation was by no means as clear-cut as Watchtower opposers would have us believe. By omitting these more cautionary statements, many of which are in the same articles as the quotations they like to print, enemies of Jehovah’s Witnesses give a misleading picture of events and endeavour to make a suggested interpretation look like a prophecy.

No Claim of Inspiration

Not to be overlooked is the larger context of the role of the Watch Tower publications. Whereas Watchtower writers undoubtedly pray for God’s blessing on their work and sincerely believe that God answers these prayers, they make no pretensions of being inspired, infallible or perfect. Consider the following extracts from Watch Tower publications, which prove that this is the case. (This is just a small selection of examples. Many more could be cited, but care has been taken to include at least one example for every decade since The Watchtower began to be published.)

1870s: We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,—in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth.... It is our duty to "prove all things."—by the unerring Word,—"and hold fast to that which is good."

1880s: “We have not the gift of prophecy.”[5]

We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology.Zion's Watch Tower, 1908

1890s: Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build.[6]1900s: It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events—giving also the reasons for our expectations.[7]

Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in "The Watch Tower" publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgments of others?[8]

1910s: However, we should not denounce those who in a proper spirit express their dissent in respect to the date mentioned [1914] and what may there be expected . . . We must admit that there are possibilities of our having made a mistake in respect to the chronology, even though we do not see where any mistake has been made in calculating the seven times of the Gentiles as expiring about October 1, 1914.[9]

1920s: Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.[10]

1930s: We are not a prophet; we merely believe that we have come to the place where the Gentile times have ended[11]

1940s: This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so.... But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the apostle Paul showed it would. . . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ.[12]

1950s: The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances,nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.[13]

1960s: The book [Life Everlasting in Freedom of Sons of God] merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it[14]

Our chronology, however, ... is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible)[15]

Don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975

F. W. Franz, quoted in The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 231.

1970s: In this regard, however, it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God’s Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other writings since. Things published were not perfect in the days of Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F. Rutherford, the succeeding president. The increasing light on God’s Word as well as the facts of history have repeatedly required that adjustments of one kind or another be made down to the very present time.[16]

1980s: It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times.[17]

1990s: Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration. But they do have the inspired Holy Scriptures, which contain revelations of God’s thinking and will. As an organization and individually, they must accept the Bible as divine truth, study it carefully, and let it work in them.[18]

2000s: Although the slave class is defined as “faithful and discreet,” Jesus did not say that it would be infallible. This group of faithful anointed brothers still consists of imperfect Christians. Even with the best of intentions, they can be mistaken, as such men sometimes were in the first century.[19]

It’s therefore quite clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses make no claim to divine inspiration for their publications. Thus, the critics' assertion that “the Watch Tower claims to be an inspired prophet” is manifestly false. 

Did Haydon Covington concede that the Watch Tower is a False Prophet?

Did Haydon Covington concede in the Walsh trial that the Watch Tower Society has promulgated false prophecy, as is stated by critics? Even if he had done so, what would that have proved? If Covington had said that the thought the Society was a false prophet, then he would have been mistaken, that is all. However, a look at the court record (even as it is quoted on anti-Witness web pages) shows that Covington did nothing of the sort. 

Critics' allegations that 'The Watchtower claims to be an inspired prophet' are manifestly false

The court records show that Covington said: “I do not think we have promulgated false prophecy ... there have been statements that were erroneous, that is the way I put it, and mistaken.” When asked hypothetically if it would have been a false prophecy if the Society had authoritatively promulgated 1874 as the date for the return of Christ’s coming, Covington himself pointed out that this was only an assumption, and is then is recorded as having said the words “I agree that”. This is an incomplete sentence in English. Now it could very well be that he was interrupted and was not intending to agree that a false prophecy had been made. If we take the court to read “I agree to that”, he was simply agreeing hypothetically that the Society would have been guilty of false prophecy under a certain set of circumstances, namely if it had promulgated as authoritative that Christ returned in 1874. Now the records show that Covington had not studied the Society’s literature relating to 1874, saying “you are speaking of a matter that I know nothing of.” So, Covington’s comments, viewed in their proper context do not prove the point Witness critics are trying to make. Covington certainly did not mean that the Society was responsible for a false prophecy, as he had just a few moments earlier stated the very opposite. And as we have seen, the Society did not ‘authoritatively promulgate’ 1874 as the date, it merely presented it to its readers to decide for themselves.

Of course, Witnesses do believe that God is using them - and their publications - to accomplish his work. But that is not the same as believing that God personally directs the writing of Watchtower Publications in the way that he inspired the Bible. The above quotations - and many others - show that at no time in the history of the organization has it claimed to be God’s prophet, inspired or infallible.[20]

It is evident here that critics are setting up a straw man argument. In other words, they are imputing to Watch Tower a position that it does not claim for itself and then refuting that position, instead of the Society’s actual position. This is really nothing but a dishonest debating trick.

Thus, the Watch Tower quotations, taken in context and stripped of all hyperbole and rhetoric, establish basically one thing only: that Watch Tower publications have on a number of occasions presented interpretations of Bible prophecies which later turned out to be incorrect. It is not possible to argue on the basis of the Watchtower literature that (1) the Society claims that its literature is inspired of God or infallible, (2) that it claimed to speak in the name of God as a prophet.

Admittedly, it would certainly have been better for all concerned had the publications refrained from publishing such speculative interpretations, which doubtless led to disappointment for many. ‘The Watchtower’, far from covering over these facts, has admitted openly that this is the case, as is seen from the following extract from The Watchtower.

In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.[21]

Thus the Watch Tower Society has recognised that it was a mistake to speculate. But was it the only ever religious organization to make such a mistake?

Double Standards and Bigotry

If Jehovah’s Witnesses have had mistaken expectations about the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, they are far from alone. Many other students of the Bible - including some highly respected Catholic and Protestant writers - have made similar mistakes to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whole books have been written on the subject of predictions that failed to come true, but let’s look at just three examples from the world of Protestantism: Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham.

Protestant leader Martin Luther, believed that the end would come in his day. He believed theMartin Luther Turkish war would be "the final wrath of God, in which the world will come to an end and Christ will come to destroy Gog and Magog and set free His own"?[22] and that "Christ has given a sign by which one can know when the Judgment Day is near. When the Turk will have an end, we can certainly predict that the Judgment must be at the door"[23]

John WesleyMethodist founder John Wesley wrote: "1836 The end of the non-chronos, and of the many kings; the fulfilling of the word, and of the mystery of God; the repentance of the survivors in the great city; the end of the 'little time,' and of the three times and a half; the destruction of the east; the imprisonment of Satan."[24]

In 1950, Billy Graham, the well-known US evangelist, told a rally in LosBilly GrahamAngeles: “I sincerely believe that the Lord draweth nigh. We may have another year, maybe two years, to work for Jesus Christ, and, Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe it is all going to be over ... two years and it’s all going to be over.”[25]

If it had been Jehovah’s Witnesses who had said the things that Luther, Wesley and Graham proclaimed, these proclamations would have been added to the list of quotations supposedly proving McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185.that the Witnesses are false prophets. Unsurprisingly, however, the sources that attack the Witnesses for false prophecy do not generally take the same position when it comes to Protestant figures who have made very similar errors.

This should give all of us food for thought. If a newspaper editor were to publish in his paper all the crimes committed by members of just one ethnic group or race, dwelling on them in great detail, even repeatedly bringing up very old offences, but at the same time, ignoring all the crimes committed by members of another group (perhaps his own), then thinking people who looked at the facts would conclude that he was nothing but a bigot. What are we to think, then, when certain ones opposed to Jehovah’s Witnesses constantly harp on what they incorrectly and maliciously term “false prophecies” of the organization, reproducing ad nauseam the same quotations from Watch Tower literature, the majority of which were published almost 100 years ago, while remaining deadly silent about all similar errors by those who share their theological convictions? Is the word ‘bigoted’ any less appropriate? At any rate, their agenda is obvious and respect for the truth is not high on their list of priorities.

Were Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham false prophets?

I do not think that the comments of Luther, Wesley or Graham make them false prophets, for the same reason that I don’t accept that the Watch Tower is a false prophet, namely, that interpreting Bible prophecy is not the same as prophesying.

Prophecy and Interpretation

It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are being guided by God. But, ‘guidance’ is a much broader concept than ‘inspiration’. True, inspiration is a form of guidance, but it is only one form. In this regard, Stafford makes a very telling point:

It cannot truthfully be said that to be inspired by God to produce flawless information is the same as being guided or lead by a flawless source, whether that source be the Scriptures or an angel sent by God. Why? Because in the former case the person is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance. The person then receives God's thoughts and will which are then channelled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known. However, in the latter case one could simply misunderstand or ignore the directions given, which would make the accuracy of what they do or say dependent upon whether or not they correctly understood the inspired source.[26]

“Prophecy” involves much more than simply predicting the future. It involves claiming to have a message directly from God. It is not the same as interpreting events or even interpreting the prophetic parts of the Bible. Russell understood this and that is why he said: “The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth”, adding “we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration”[27]

The Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet. 

Similarly, when Wesley drew the conclusion that the end would come in 1836, he did so on the basis of his understanding of the Bible. Of course, this understanding turned out to be completely and utterly wrong, but that does not make him a false prophet. When Billy Graham stated in 1950 that the end would come within two years, he was not claiming that God had personally spoken to him through a dream or a vision. He was just stating what he believed after comparing world events with what he knew from the Bible. No charitable person would accuse Graham of being a false prophet because of that (although it is obvious that he did make an error of judgment). Likewise, when Luther stated that the Turkish war would lead to the end of the world, he was woefully mistaken, but that certainly does not make him a false prophet. Incidentally, Luther, on the basis of his understanding of the Bible, also contradicted Copernicus and insisted that the earth was the centre of the universe! [28]

Thus, the Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet. It makes no claim that any of its members have heard voices from God, seen visions or in any other way been directly influenced to make a certain proclamation beyond what is in the Bible. It has made mistakes in explaining or interpreting parts of the Bible, but as we have seen, so have other religious organizations.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above, critics of Jehovah's Witnesses have some questions to answer:

(1) Do they think it is truthful and fair to focus on a minute selection of the Watch Tower’s published material - the most negative part - and ignore everything else?

(2) Can they cite the Watch Tower publication where the Society claims to be an “inspired prophet” (their expression, not ours). On what do they base that conclusion, and how do they explain the dozens of quotations I have presented from the Society’s literature - from all periods of its history - where the Society denies that?[29]

(3) Why do they present the Watchtower’s statements about future events as prophetic statements, rather than what they really were - interpretations?

(4) Do they believe that others who have had mistaken expectations, including Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham, are false prophets, and if not, why not?

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that they should be above honest criticism and have not hidden the fact that they have made errors in their interpretations. But honest criticism implies respect for truth - the whole truth, not just extracts taken out of context and twisted to give an impression that they were never intended to give.

Beware of half truths. You might end up believing the wrong half!

Footnotes and References

[1] I am grateful to other Witness writers for bringing many of these citations to my attention. Additionally, the book Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Second Edition [JWD2] by Greg Stafford contains extensive research on this matter. Quotations from publications after 1950 are generally taken from the Watchtower Library 2003 CD-ROM. Almost all Russell’s writings are freely available on the Internet.

[2] Zion's Watch Tower, January 1, 1908 (reprint) page 4110

[3] The Watch Tower, January 1, 1925, page 3.

[4] The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 631.

[5] Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1883, page 425.

[6] Zion 's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 December 1896, reprint, 2080 (emphasis added).

[7] "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 1 March 1904, reprint, 3327 (emphasis added).

[8] Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 September 1909, reprint, 4473.

[9] The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 November 1913, repr. 5348 (emphasis added).

[10] Prophecy (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1929), 61-62 (emphasis added).

[11] Light, vol. 1 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1930), 194 (emphasis added).

[12] The Watchtower, 15 May 1947, pp. 157-8.

[13] "Name and Purpose of the Watchtower," The Watchtower, 15 August 1950, 262-263 (emphasis added)

[14] The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 631.

[15] The Watchtower, 15 August 1968, page 499.

[16] The Watchtower, 1 March 1979, page 23-24.

[17] Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand, page 9. (Published 1988)

[18] Jehovah’s Witnesses - Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, page 708 (Published 1993)

[19] The Watchtower, 1 December 2002, page 17.

[20] Occasionally, The Watchtower (for example 1 April 1972) has referred to true Christians (not specifically to the writers of Watch Tower publications) as “prophets”. However, the word is placed in inverted commas, which shows that it is not meant literally. The 1972 article is simply drawing parallels between experiences in the life of the prophet Ezekiel and those of Christians today as they fulfil Christ’s commission to preach to all the nations. This sense of the word ‘prophecy’ is recognised by many ‘mainstream’ Christians., Billy Graham’s biography is called “A prophet with Honor” . Pope John Paul II spoke of ‘the ‘prophetic office’ of the People of God - meaning their responsibility to give a Christian witness. (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264of.htm) In view of other comments (cited in the main article) in which the Society specifically repudiates prophet status, both before and after this article was published, attempts to use this article to demonstrate that the Watch Tower Society claims to be an inspired prophet are obviously misrepresenting the sense of the article.

[21] The Watchtower, 15 March 1980, page 17-18.

[22] John T. Baldwin, "Luther's Eschatological Appraisal of the Turkish Threat in Eine Heerpredigt -wider den Tuerken [Army Sermon Against the Turks],"Andrews University Seminary Studies 33.2 (Autumn 1995), 196.

[23] Ibid, p. 201.

[24]http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.i.xxviii.xxiii.html

[25] McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185. See also “US News and World Report” (December 19, 1994)

[26] Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Second Edition, pp. 462-3.

[27] Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506

[28] Luther is also quoted on certain websites as having said that Jesus would return 300 years from his time. (The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther, trans. by Henry Bell and revised by Joseph Kerby [London: Baldwin, Craddock and Joy, 1818], pp. 7,8.) I have not been able to verify this source, although I have no reason to doubt it.

[29] A computer search for the expression “inspired prophet” on the Watchtower 2003 CD-ROM (containing The Watchtower) since 1950 plus most other publications, revealed that the expression came up 44 times. Every single occurrence was referring to a Bible writer.

Man's inhumanity to man is a universal indictment II

 

File under "well said" CXV

"Art is not the mother of beauty it is the child of beauty. "

G.K Chesterton

The rise of the machines is definitely a thing?

 

Public Darwin vs. his evil doppelganger?

Rescuing Evolution from Darwinian Myth

Andrew McDiarmid 

Does the public promotion of Darwin’s theory of natural selection match Darwin’s own private view of his theory? On a classic episode of ID the Future, historian of science Michael Keas begins a two-part conversation with Robert Shedinger, the Wilford A. Johnson Chair of Biblical Studies and Professor of Religion at Luther College. Shedinger, author of Darwin’s Bluff, reports on the contrast between Darwin’s private view of his theory of natural selection and the public view as detailed in his published work. Shedinger also notes the deficiency in evidence for Darwin’s proposal, despite claims to the contrary from his followers and evangelizers today. 

Download the podcast or listen to it here. This is Part 1 of a two-part interview.

On musing on JEHOVAH’S inventions rather than man's

 Why John Muir Chose Nature Over Machines

Andrew McDiarmid

John Muir (1838 – 1914) is typically remembered as one of America’s foremost naturalists, father of the country’s national parks, and tireless defender of the wilderness. But he might very well have been none of those things. As a young man, Muir was gifted at building machines, and he was set to pursue a career in technology until everything went dark. Literally. Revisiting this little-known chapter of Muir’s life can inspire us to better navigate our own relationship to technology and give us a fresh reason to celebrate his work.

In 1849, Muir left his homeland of Scotland and moved with his family to the backwoods of Wisconsin. Farm work, chores, and family Bible studies kept him busy most waking hours, and he often sacrificed sleep to read and build. The family cellar became his workshop, where he fashioned a host of time-saving inventions, including clocks, barometers, sawmills, and lamplighters. He even conjured up an “early-rising machine,” a bed connected to a clock that tilted the sleeper out of bed and into a pail of cold water at the desired hour each day. 

Though his mother hoped he would become a minister, his sisters and friends saw in Muir the makings of a great inventor. Hoping his inventions might lead to a career as a physician, Muir left home in his early 20s to continue his education and “live a while among machines.” At the Wisconsin State Fair in Madison, his novel contraptions drew praise from spectators and journalists alike, opening doors to employment and further instruction. In college, he continued to indulge his love of creating mechanical devices, including a fire-starting machine and a student desk that automatically dispensed and opened textbooks at desired intervals. At the same time, lessons in botany stoked in Muir a growing passion for nature. 

Two Great Loves

In 1866, Muir took a job at a carriage manufactory in Indianapolis. His work as a machinist prompted his boss to offer him higher wages and the position of foreman. Muir later recalled in his autobiography the difficulty of choosing between two great loves: “I liked the work of inventing and enjoyed the rush and roar and whirl of so many machines — it was a place, that factory, according to my own heart — but the attractions of nature were stronger, and I must sometime get away.”

The following year, while repairing a machine belt at work, the sharp end of a file pierced Muir’s right eye, temporarily blinding him in both eyes. He was confined to bed and a dark room for several weeks. Fearful he might never regain his sight, Muir was comforted during his recovery by visitors reading to him and by correspondence from loved ones. One such letter from his lifelong friend and mentor Jeanne Carr encouraged Muir to be patient and hopeful: “I have often in my heart wondered what God was training you for. He gave you the eye within the eye, to see in all natural objects the realized ideas of His mind…He will surely place you where your work is.”

A Mind for Nature

The Muir who emerged from the dark room was more anxious to travel than ever, determined to fill his mind with as much natural beauty as he could before another accident could stop him. As he put it years later in The Story of My Boyhood and Youth: “I made haste with all my heart, bade adieu to all thoughts of inventing machinery and determined to devote the rest of my life to studying the inventions of God.” 

With thoughts of California’s Yosemite Valley already swirling in his mind from brochures he had read, Muir decided to first satisfy a long-held desire to traverse the wilds of the American South. In the fall of 1867, he embarked on a thousand-mile walk to the Gulf. Facing unfamiliar territory with a renewed sense of purpose and urgency, Muir wrote in a letter a few days before his journey that he would be “carried of the Spirit into the wilderness.” With this excursion, the Muir many of us recognize today begins to take shape.

Though Muir committed himself to spending the rest of his life studying nature, he did not discard his mechanical inclinations overnight. In the winter of 1869, he built a sawmill for James Hutchings, the Yosemite Valley’s first permanent resident. A few years later, he asked one of his brothers to send a trunk full of his tools and models to him. While he lived in the Sierra Nevada mountains, he continued to use his own clocks to keep time and his singular alarm clock bed to get him up each morning. Even in the wilderness, Muir did not abandon human invention. He continued to use it as a tool. 

Exhilarating and Bewildering

Today, we live in a technological age that is by turns exhilarating and bewildering. As we navigate the challenges of AI, social media, and smartphone use, we need the benefits nature can give us now more than ever. Muir was passionate about machines, but he was willing to put them aside for the healing, perspective, and inspiration he found in the wilderness. Can we look up from our screens long enough to do the same? Here are two ways we can follow Muir’s lead.

First, get a bigger dose of wild. Muir could hardly contain himself in his praise of nature’s bounty: “Every landscape…and every one of its living creatures…and every crystal of its rocks…is throbbing and pulsing with the heartbeats of God.” All right for him, you might think, but what about us? According to a recent survey, most of us spend free time in nature at least once a month. But that may not be enough. A 2019 study reported that at least two hours a week in natural environments was associated with better health and wellbeing. That means a whole host of advantages, from reducing inflammation and mental distress to boosting cognitive function, improving sleep, and even protecting our vision. 

A walk in the woods might provide an optimal dose of nature, but any natural setting that includes greenery, fresh air, and sunlight will serve. Build into your weekly calendar a few forays into natural spaces. And every now and then, take your shoes and socks off and walk barefoot in the grass. This conductive contact between our body and the surface of the earth is known as grounding or earthing. It has a positive effect on our physiology and health, reducing inflammation and helping with pain relief and wound healing. You don’t have to sell all your stuff and go live off-grid to tap into the benefits of nature, but you will have to be purposeful. The good news is that you’ll start to feel results as soon as you make the effort. 

A second way to follow Muir’s example is by nurturing your inner life. We are endowed with the formidable power of our intellect, but these days, we’re living more reflexively than reflectively. We’re avoiding the activity of just thinking because we consider it a waste of time. A recent study in the Journal of Experimental Psychology compared expectations of thinking with the actual experience of doing it. Across the board, participants reported greater interest and engagement than they had anticipated beforehand. 

A Reservoir of Meaning

Each type of thinking we do provides its own mental benefits. For example, daydreaming is our uniquely human ability to alternate between fantasy and reality. It’s a force that can inspire change and make life more bearable at any age. Mind wandering, or “stream of consciousness thought,” allows us to generate novel, creative thoughts and gives us a space to consider obstacles to our goals. Even nostalgic thinking, often considered detrimental, can provide us with a reservoir of meaning and give us a sense of continuity between our present and our past. Boost your clarity and motivation by working up to at least twenty minutes a day of thinking without distraction.   

If Muir were still with us, he’d no doubt be intensely intrigued by our modern technological society. We’ve come a long way. And yet, for all our advancement, we still need what was here all along. And we need people like John Muir to remind us.

Braver and newer than ever

 

Neanderthals just keep getting more "Sapien"

 Neanderthals Keep Getting Smarter

Denyse O Leary

Contemplate this headline: “Archaeologists Find Neanderthal Stone Tool Technology in China.”

At one time, Neanderthals were considered stupid. So the implication would be that those tools didn’t work very well.

Things have changed. Neanderthal art, glue, ornaments, etc., have forced a rethink. Those who are looking for the subhuman are still looking…

Those Mysterious Neanderthals

Meanwhile, Neanderthals are presenting some mysteries, including this one:

At ZME Science, Alexandra Gerea reports that stone tools found in Yunnan province in China, dating from 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, “look exactly like those made by Neanderthals in Ice Age Europe” using a technique now called Quina:

For a long time, archaeologists thought people in East Asia completely skipped the Middle Paleolithic. But this discovery says otherwise.

Quina is not just a vague style. It’s a craftsmanship signature. These tools — thick, sharp-edged scrapers with repeated retouch marks — were long considered an unmistakable calling card of Neanderthals in Europe.

Their presence in East Asia is perplexing. They’re around 7 to 8 thousand kilometers east of the region traditionally associated with this technology. 

“Neanderthal Stone Tool Technology,” April 4, 2025

From the paper’s Abstract

The finding of a Quina lithic assemblage in China not only demonstrates the existence of a Middle Paleolithic technology in the region but also shows large-scale analogies with Neanderthal behaviors in western Europe. Longtan substantially extends the geographic distribution of this technical behavior in East Asia. Although its origin remains unclear, implications for Pleistocene hominin dispersal and adaptation to diverse ecological settings are considered. 

Q. Ruan et al., Quina lithic technology indicates diverse Late Pleistocene human dynamics in East Asia, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 122 (14) e2418029122, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2418029122 (2025)

Could these far-separated populations have met up?

Fifty Years of Progress

Study author Ben Marwick doesn’t speculate on that at The Conversation, but he does say,

During the Middle Paleolithic, there were multiple human species that could make tools like this. It could have been modern humans like us. But it could also have been Neanderthals. Considering that the Quina technology in Europe is directly associated with Neanderthals, this seems likely. But it could also have been Denisovans, an extinct species similar to modern humans found during this time in Siberia, the Tibetan Plateau and Laos, or even a new human species that hasn’t been seen before.

Whoever was making and using these Quina scrapers, they were able to be inventive and flexible with their technology, adapting to their changing environment.

“Stone tool discovery in China shows people in East Asia were innovating during the Middle Paleolithic, like in Europe and Middle East,” March 31, 2025

Neanderthal man has sure smartened up in the last fifty years.

The rise and fall of the mongol horde.