Red Religion and the Lawless Man

by GinnyTosken 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • GinnyTosken
    GinnyTosken

    I’ve been sorting through my old JW books and found one published in 1951, What Has Religion Done for Mankind?. Skimming through it, a few sections caught my eye.

    The Society’s comments about the dangers of the totalitarian “red religion” of communism are hilarious, since they easily apply to the Society itself. Substitute Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, and Franz for Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, and Brooklyn for Moscow, and voila!

    To give you a little background, in 1951 McCarthyism was hot, J.D. Salinger had just published The Catcher in the Rye, The African Queen and A Streetcar Named Desire were new movies, and "Kisses Sweeter Than Wine" was a popular song.

    From the chapter, “Red Religion and the Lawless Man”:

    One totalitarian system fears another such. One modern development that has thoroughly frightened the totalitarian religious system of the pope, yes, and all Christendom too, has been the rise of totalitarian political power in Eastern Europe. . . .

    Because they deny his existence, the Reds may deny they worship the Devil. But they have set up a state religion by requiring the people to give their unquestioning obedience to the political state as their highest counselor, guide, provider and protector. In this they attribute to the state what really belongs to the living and true God, Jehovah. For him they have substituted a man-made visible organization. . . . As its Holy Scriptures Communism has the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, who are spoken of as inspired writers. “Inspired” by whom?

    Carrying our comparison farther, we note that Communism has its missionaries . . . It has its priesthood or hierarchy, that Politburo with all its lesser orders of functionaries for the guidance of the people in Communist orthodoxy and with power to demand and hear confessions and to issue excommunications, to forbid heretical literature and to censor and expurgate books, magazines, movies, stage plays, poetic and musical compositions. It has its shrines and pilgrimages. Moscow parallels the Mohammedan Mecca.
    [bolding mine]
    pp. 317-318

    I was also rather shocked to discover that the Society evidently still believed in 1951 that African-Americans were a race cursed by God:

    The infant Krishna, or black god, is represented in India at the breast of the goddess Devaki and is shown with woolly hair and marked Negro features. How well this matches Nimrod who was the son of Cush, whose name means “black”!
    p. 194

    In a chapter called, “Compromise with Demonism a Snare,” the Society explains that when you know you have the truth, killing those who don’t believe as you do is not genocide or intolerance:

    [Previous paragraph quotes Deuteronomy 7:1-5, about how the Israelites shall utterly destroy the Canaanites.]

    But was this not the rankest kind of religious intolerance as well as genocide? Is this not the kind of intolerance that is practiced in lands today under totalitarian and dictatorial rule? Not at all! This was the divine command and it was in favor of keeping the pure religion alive in the land God gave. The pure and the false could not exist side by side without hurt to his people and danger to their opportunity for eternal life in the new world. They had agreed to worship only Jehovah as God, and he was giving them the Promised Land to possess. Hence he had the sovereign right to determine what should be done to demon religion in the land. . . .

    Hence the extermination of the demon worshipers in the Promised Land was no case of religious intolerance. It was not an authorizing of them to go outside the God-given land and invade the outside worldly nations and destroy their idols and wipe out their false religion and all those who practiced it. Neither is this any Scriptural basis for the Roman Catholic religion to torture and kill so-called “heretics” in lands where it dominates and to forbid other religious sects to carry on there. In doing so Catholics are not copying the Israelites example. History shows that in the lands they have invaded they have not obeyed God’s commands to the Israelites to smash the idolatrous images there and to destroy the demon worshipers.
    [bolding mine]
    pp. 155-157

    I was aghast that they fault the Catholics for not being harsh enough!

    Ginny

  • wasasister
    wasasister

    Wow, Ginny! I wonder how many JW's baptized in the past 30 years even know of this book's existence? I wish I still had my mother's copy. Some of the older books are rife with racism. Even though other publications and entertainment (ever watch cartoons from that period?) reflected the same attitudes, that's no excuse for God's chosen channel. Shouldn't they have known better than Satan's corrupt world?

  • safe4kids
    safe4kids

    Hey Ginny,

    Thanks for the lesson from the past...the racism thing really, really got me! "God's free people" my ass! And I never even heard of that book...doesn't it just blow your mind that so many "loyal" witnesses are never told the interesting stuff???

    Am I the only one whose eyes glaze over when reading stuff from the society??? I try to read the serious posts, I really do!! But first comes the blurring....then the mental lassitude I was always warned against....I read the same paragraphs several times without a clue what they mean....HEY! It reminds me of when I was at the meetings!!!

    Dana (of the lets-talk-about-sex-and-food class!!)

    "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
    Somebody else

  • Lindy
    Lindy

    Dear wasasister,
    The problem is, the whole world was into racism at that time. So the WTBTS wasn't different than anyone else at that time. Not that that is okay but they didn't concern themselves with it until the "world" did. Then they sorta tried to correct it as far as it goes. Enough to make themselves look as good as anyone else does. The pictures in the magazines and the few brothers in positions from other races besides white, just like the surrounding peoples. It isn't their main concern, magazine pushing and entrapping you in the Organization is the main focus.
    Numbers are dwindling and they can even get around that by saying that that is a sign things are coming to a close on the "system of things". They have an answer for everything.
    So their answer to the old literature or any older thinking on things, is always the fact that "the light is getting brighter as the new day dawns." They just don't consider that Jehovah just didn't give the light in the first place. And the candles that the GB used to read by were the same ones that the people of the world read by too and now we have the new search lights in the world and the GB are still reading by candle light. Just "wait on Jehovah and He will take care of everything." "Don't run ahead of Jehovah, ya know."

    Lindy

  • expatbrit
    expatbrit

    Ginny:

    Thanks for resurrecting those WT skeletons for our reading edification!

    My favourite sentence was:

    This was the divine command and it was in favor of keeping the pure religion alive in the land God gave.

    Like every genocidal religious maniac hasn't said that throughout history!

    Expatbrit

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    Great post, Ginny. Love those quotes. Funny, no genocidal maniac ever thinks they are in the wrong. They always have their special reasons for why it's OK, even if all the other genocidal maniacs are wrong. Small comfort to the endless stream of genocide victims lined up through history...

    This was my favorite sentence:

    "Hence the extermination of the demon worshipers in the Promised Land was no case of religious intolerance."

    How 1984ish can you get? Black = white, and this extermination was not religious intolerance. Hmmm...let's see. Why did the Israelites kill those people? It was because they had different religious beliefs and customs. Would the Israelites tolerate such people in their midst? No, they would not.

    Therefore, they showed "intolerance" toward people with different "religious" beliefs. But absolutely not was it a case of "religious intolerance." No sir, this was just "extermination."

    Um, isn't one of the ways mind control is operated is by denying reality to your listener? 'No, this is not religious intolerance because..'

    I mean, what would have been so bad about saying, 'Yes, this was religious intolerance, but it was a righteous religious intolerance from God'? But no, they had to whitewash so thoroughly that they ultimately out-and-out lied. It wasn't religous intolerance, this intolerance for false religion. Nothing to see here, just keep moving...

  • GinnyTosken
    GinnyTosken

    I must say, I never paid much attention to charges of racism against the Society simply because I never saw such attitudes among my own congregation while growing up. In fact, I prided myself that lack of prejudice was one of the few good things I carried away from my JW experience.

    After finding this quote, I did a search on the net for "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "racism." I found a very good article on Randy Watters' site called "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blacks and Discrimination" by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. at: http://www.freeminds.org/african/discrimination.htm

    I found this paragraph particularly interesting:

    The subject of race is not a topic the Watchtower has spent an enormous amount of time discussing. Nonetheless, a large number of official statements in their publications clearly reflect their racist attitudes. For example, an October 15, 1919, Golden Age article about prohibition (p. 44) stated, "from a criminal viewpoint the desirability of sobering the southern negro speaks volumes for national prohibition." Another article refers to Orientals as "coolies" who were "cutthroats and murderers" (Golden Age, March 10, 1926, p. 374). Many articles, though, are much more direct. One states that the British Empire nations are all ruled by Whites, whom the Watchtower describes as having "superior mental, moral, or physical force" and that this superiority is disappearing because the "powers of the colored races are expanding" (May 5, 1926:483). A Golden Age article vehemently condemned a book sympathetic to blacks, Uncle Tom's Cabin, which it called "the work of Satan" and they even once stated that the Spaniards were a "backward" race (Bolling, 1927:141). The racism is also obvious in statements such as "careful observations in a London school showed that children enjoyed the heartiest laughs, not from slapstick comedies, but from [such activities as] ... watching a negro miner enjoying a square meal" (Golden Age, 1928:684).

    I was also surprised to learn that "formal segregation of blacks was once rigidly enforced in their organization, both during the rule of their first president, C.T. Russell (1852-1916) and their second, Joseph F. Rutherford (1869-1942) and even until the late 1950's." It was even thought for awhile that in the New Order, dark-skinned people would be changed into whites. Arrrgghhh.

    Ginny

  • XJWBill
    XJWBill

    The quotation from Jerry Bergman is misleading, as it assumes that racial and social attitudes reflected in the quotations from Russell's and Rutherford's writings continued without change into the postwar period. Just not true. I believe a search of WT and Awake articles written after the war in the Knorr-Franz era would show a number of articles expressing the opposite opinion. We must give the devil his due.

    Coming into the org. in 1970 while in high school, I also found the JW take on racial equality appealing, though I can report that congregations and circuit assemblies in Pensacola, Florida, were not integrated until the fall of 1972. Up until that point, the reasoning had been that, yes, we are all equal in Jehovah's eyes, but newcomers, black or white, would be "stumbled" if they came to the KH and found a mixed congregation. Which would have been true for some newcomers--social integration had not yet become completely acceptable in the surrounding worldly society.

    Before anyone makes a sneering comment at Southern attitudes of the time, let me remind you all that it's very easy, looking back, to take a superior attitude--but not so easy at the time, when you are immersed in things the way they are, to see what is right and just--as we all know from having been "zealous for Jehovah" once upon a time . . . . remember how we all looked down our self-righteous noses at "Christians" and "apostates"?

    However, as far as I ever knew, once the Circuit Servant gave the OK, the integration of the "friends" took place rapidly and without any problems, then or later--except perhaps for a few whispered grumbles from a few rather elderly folks, who soon got used to the new arrangement.

    Bill

    "If we all loved one another as much as we say we love God, I reckon there wouldn't be as much meanness in the world as there is."--from the movie Resurrection (1979)

  • XJWBill
    XJWBill
    Am I the only one whose eyes glaze over when reading stuff from the society??? I try to read the serious posts, I really do!! But first comes the blurring....then the mental lassitude I was always warned against....I read the same paragraphs several times without a clue what they mean....HEY! It reminds me of when I was at the meetings!!!

    Dana (of the lets-talk-about-sex-and-food class!!)

    Hey, Dana, funny you should mention that--same thing happens to me reading quotes from the society!!

    Guess we've just gone "spiritually blind" at last, huh?!

    Or did we already get filled to the eyeballs with spiritual b.s. and our eyes just can't take in any more of it??!

    Bill

  • GinnyTosken
    GinnyTosken

    Bill,

    I grew up with the orange Paradise book, published in 1958. I vividly recall several pictures showing people of many races, including one depicting an Afro-American couple outside the Kingdom Hall.

    As I said, I saw no evidence of prejudice at my Kingdom Hall. Thus my surprise when I found the quotation from What Has Religion Done for Mankind?, published a scant seven years earlier, in 1951. At the very least, this is a vestige of racial attitudes from the Russell/Rutherford days. I found it surprising because I thought the Society was always enlightened about racial equality; I had no idea the Society ever expressed racist views.

    I'm still reeling from Russell's idea that dark-skinned people would turn white. From Russell's standpoint, Michael Jackson would be a sign that kingdom rule is at hand.

    Ginny

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit