An analysis of the Jehovah's witness's religion

When the name of Jehovah's witness arises, most of the public of differing religions, a picture of an overly nice person or group of people all dressed in suits and nice clothes, arrive at  your door and offer a sampling of pamphlets, (large or small).  To most of the general public, the religion is a far cry from Christianity, but this is untrue, as a visit to one of  the services that the congregation provides.

      Upon arriving at the building  Kingdom  hall of  Jehova's Witnesses, there was  nothing especially different about it except there was no cross on the outside nor a steeple.  Arriving about a half an hour early we were greeted with a handshake and a almost too friendly smile from a member of the congregation.  As we waited for the service to begin, more and more people started to pile into the building.  Slowly conversations between members and nonmembers, including myself.  After about twenty minutes, the talking reseeded and people started to seat themselves.  The inside of the room was well lit up with no pews, but there were many chairs connected by metal bolts on the bottom of each chair.  Amazingly  though there was no cross and no altar.  First the service started with singing, as any ordinary church would.  We sung out of a book of songs that they provided for us.  

      After the singing there was a guest speaker from Bagley, Minnesota.   The speaker spoke to the congregation about topics in the bible, his speech lasted about three fourths of an hour.   Afterwards the priest came to the podium and thanked the guest  for coming.  Then the priest leaded another song, sung from the song book.   Next the congregation headed a bible discussion from an article from a Jehovah's Witness weekly magazine The Watch Tower.  

      The article had to deal with what is paramount in our lives.  The discussion lasted for another hour and a fifteen minutes, with questions at the end of each paragraph.  The different thing about the questions was that people in the congregation actually answered some of the questions with the help of two men that stood in the back and held microphones on sticks so that they could be heard.  After the bible discussion was over with, the service was ended in another song from the song book. 

      The priest supplied me with the Watch Tower magazine that was discussed over during the service, and some further information on the church itself.  Some of the beliefs of the church are most like that of most Christian religions with the exceptions that they do not regard the cross as highly as most Christians do.  The Jehovah's Witness religion believes more in the guidelines of the Bible. 

      One of the elder members of the Church was happy to answer some questions that I had.  He was an elderly man with a full head of white hair, and a wide unreal smile. The members of the church were extremely friendly.  However, as I talked with him, I realized that they were not  entirely tolerant to the beliefs of others.

      On the standards of beliefs on the controversial subjects today such as abortion, same sex marriages, doctor assisted suicides,  and Gay rights, they stand on similar ground along with other Christian religions.  They do not believe in marriages of the same sex, not in abortions, nor doctor assisted suicides, and the concept of being gay is considered blasphemous in many parts of the bible as in Corinthians 1:8 and 1:9 so gay rights seems a mockery to the church.  

      Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christ/Jesus was the first divine creation of Jehovah/God and that he died on a torcher stake as ransom for the human race.  Similar to the Christian faith, except that the emphasis on torcher stake was unnerving.

      The church views on other religions outside itself are as the an elder member said are like misguided sheep.  I was slightly disturbed by this slightly rude and intolerant statement, but i had to respect their beliefs, so I said nothing.

      Kingdom Hall's members are concerned about the youth of today.  The youth of today as they see it are relentlessly tempted on a regular basis by society and the press and fellow teens.  Now more than ever, teens have more pressure on their beliefs than adults.

      Jehovah's Witnesses believe in most all of the bibles of today, but stick to the traditional versions such as the King James or the King George versions.  But as for  the newer bibles such as the new testament, or the man's Bible, or the woman's bible,  they consider these versions a misguided representation of the bible.

      As I see the Jehovah's witnesses religion, as friendly as they were, was as closed minded as most other Christian religions.  It had the same feel and atmosphere of A Christian religion, but it did not have the same beauty of a church, more like a seminar.  As I went through the service, I learned that a Jehovah's Witness is not that different in their lives or in their beliefs.  I find it hard to see why other faiths see the religion as straying from the Christian faith, when they follow the guidelines of the Bible itself.  The reason for misunderstanding is ignorance and with knowledge that gape can be bridged, but even with knowledge gained, sometimes acceptance of that knowledge does not, as is all to true in religious society.  Sadly there are to few religions that accept other faiths, religions that teach tolerance, maybe the religion is not at fault, maybe it is the people's basic stubbornness.  From what I have seen religion today is like a cola you drink, a type of pizza you eat, a certain style of clothes you wear, rather than a way of life.  From what I have seen, a small percentage of a religions people do not follow it's way outside of their place of worship, and outside of their homes.

A Non Religious Contract in America

The religious standards of Americans today have plummeted to a new low.

Fewer people are going to church than earlier in the century.  Many people are

marrying without even going to a priest by getting a judge to marry them.

Divorce is steadily on the rise.  Today's society accepts homosexuals!  Now the

issue arises over whether we should allow homosexuals to marry.  And you know

what?  It is really none of the government's business.

        America can no longer deny its homosexual citizens the right to have a

legal marriage.  Looking at today's society, we can see that there is no good

reason to deny gay couples the rights that straight couples have in getting

married.  The United States has always had the idea of separation of church and

state, and marriage is one issue that must maintain that idealogy in the eyes of

the government.  The key to separating church and state in the debate over

marriage is taking the definition of marriage that best applies to society today.

To do that we must look at marriage's state in the 1990's.

        Religion is losing its dominance in the issue of marriage.  We cannot

argue the fact that there are more divorces in the country today that there were

20 years ago.  This points to America's increasing acceptance of divorce.

Therefore, we can conclude that religion has become less of an issue for many

Americans when marrying because most religions strongly discourage divorce, some

to the point of not allowing it at all.  This leads to the question, "What is

today's basis for marriage?"

        Some propose that the sole purpose of marriage be to bring life into the

world.  If this were true, then it would be unacceptable for many in this

country to ever be married.  There are many women and men who simply do not want

to have children.  Should we condemn them and not allow them to marry just

because of this view?  Should we not allow those who are physically unable to

have children to experience the joy and happiness that marriage brings?  Those

who cannot bear children of their own can adopt children; would we rather they

raised that child without one or the other parental figure?  Obviously society

does not operate with this as the basis for marriage.  So the argument that

homosexuals should not marry because they cannot have children is entirely

ridiculous.

        Adoption is considered a noble act, and it brings joy into the lives of

many heterosexual parents and their adopted children.  There is no reason why

the same cannot happen for homosexual couples.  I am sure that many homosexual

couples in the U.S. are better parents than some heterosexual couples.  The fact

that there are people that cannot physically have children together does not

mean that they have no parental instincts or would be incapable as parents.

Thus, this argument against homosexual marriages cannot hold in America.

        The government of America recognizes marriage as a secular entity, and

with homosexual unions we must make sure that we look at marriage in this way.

Marriage in the eyes of the government consists of a legal license that states

that it can look at two people as one unit.  A court of law can perform a

marriage, thereby eliminating all religious aspects of it.  So, the government

looks at a marriage simply as something that is put in the records.

        This decade is the time of the paper marriage.  More people sign pre-

nuptial agreements, make sure their spouse has a space on their insurance

policies, and have their own line on tax forms.  While this seems impersonal

(can you imagine someone proposing with "Will you be the answer to line #3a on

my 1040 and W-2?"), the government must look at the entity marriage this way.

Numbers and legal agreements are gender neutral, so government checks to make

sure that all is well in those areas are feasible.  But the spiritual part of

marriage is for the couple involved, not the rest of society.

        What I've said until now makes it seem that marriage as a whole has lost

all meaning to the country.  This is not what I believe.  Taking the religious

implications of marriage away allows us to show how much the government should

or should not be involved in marriage.  However, two people get married because

they love each other very much.  They have decided that they want to spend the

rest of their lives together. These reasons have nothing to do with religion;

however, the Judeo-Christian religions use these two ideals in their services as

the cornerstones of marriage.  "To have and to hold, in sickness and in health,

till death do you part."  This statement is not religious, and most couples who

marry think of this as the "contract" that they are agreeing to.  I use contract

in quotation marks because the contract I am referring to above relates to the

religious ceremonies that take place in many marriages.  There are no reasons

for the government to be involved in making the decision of whether two people

will be uphold that "contract."

        The marriage of two heterosexual people, no matter how public they may

be,  has no impact on the lives of everyday citizens.  This will be true for

homosexual couples as well.  The government only needs to be involved in what

affects the rest of the public.  Thus, the only thing that it is acceptable for

the government to regulate is how one's marriage should relate to the objective

parts of society (such as taxes).

        The government does not have the right to decide who should and should

not be allowed to get married.  The United States prides itself on separating

issues of the church from state related issues, and it must do the same with

this one.  Though some religious groups may have problems with allowing

homosexuals to marry, America as a whole must not be so restrictive.  The

American government must look at marriage as strictly a financial issue, because

the only parts of marriage that the government actually gets involved in are the

financial issues.  Let line #3a be filled by anyone, gay or straight.

A Martyr's Victory in a Spiritual Sense

Bishop Francis X. Ford was a well educated, enormously gentle man, that

was kicked, beaten, insulted, and surrounded by hatred.  All this because of one

mans beliefs.  He was born in Brooklyn in 1892.  He was the founder of the

Maryknoll Missionaries and was the first bishop of Kwantung, China.  He was

killed in the late 1950's in China, he was charged with anti-Communist,

counterrevolutionary, and espionage activities, his real "crime" was for being a

Christian and a foreigner.

        During his life Bishop Ford illustrated the cardinal virtue of fortitude,

which is the ability to overcome fear in order to pursue good; "it is an active

sake to overcome evil for the sake of gods kingdom" said Huggard.  When he took

office in China, the country was already feeling the effects of the massive

Japanese advance across Asia.  In a short time millions lost there lives and

were driven from there homes.  Bishop ford refused to leave the war-torn country,

even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States into

the war. During this time he distinguished himself by the way he cared for war

refugees. Chinese paid a terrible price during this war with Japan, but even

more costly was a civil war that followed.  Bishop Ford exemplified the virtue

of fortitude, by not leaving the war-torn country and staying to try to pursue

good.

        During this time of war, many would wonder what was the reason for him

to stay in China, and what was his why to live?  In the Novel A Mans Search For

Meaning, Nietzsche   says "he who has a why to live can bear with almost any

how".  If Ford had left the country during the time of war, there would have

probably been no hope for the war refugees that didn't have the option to stay

or go.  His why to live was not to save himself, but to save others.  In the

Novel Frankl describes the human person as a meaning maker, who has the last

human freedom namely to choose one attitude in a given set of circumstances.  In

1950, he moved from his Diocese in Kaying China, to a political prison in Canton

200, miles away.  At every stop along the way he was put on public display and

humiliated.  His attitude during these stops was not to give and let the

humiliation make get to him, but to use it as a stepping stone to fight harder,

he did the inevitable he used the humiliation to make him better.

        In his life he examplified many of the things Frankl wrote about, but he

also depicted many of the quotes in the hallway of Kellenberg Memorial High

School.  There is one quote that stood out to me more than any of the quotes on

the wall it is……….

COURAGE

        Don't follow where the path may lead ……go instead where there is no path

and leave a trail". When Bishop was young he developed his own idealism.  While

a student in Cathedral college in New York he took an interest in the Christian

Foreign Mission Society, this society was new and had few members.  At the age

of 20, he became the first seminarian of the Maryknoll Missionaries to go abroad.

In time, many followed and the missionaries began a movement to Christianize

foreign lands.  Bishop Ford is consider the pioneer of this movement. Just like

the quote said, he led the path…..and many followed. Bishop Ford died at the

mercy of those who despised him, with-out any comfort or support.  His death was

martyrdom it's truest sense, despite the isolation and horror he held to his

beliefs.

Works Cited

Funk & Wagnalls.  Microsoft Encarta: Bishop Ford.  New York: Houghton Mifflin

Comp, 1994.

Welk, Donald.  Asian Missionaries.  Minnesota:  Patch Publishing,

1981.

A Comparitive Study Of The Work Of The Devil

It is true that the study of the devil or evil in general as a part of the world has intrigued man for centuries. This is mostly because it is something people don't have concrete proof of and is also considered taboo in our society. Yet, studies and/or story telling on the devil and his evil forces seems to have been apart of all societies since the begining of time. Such as, Christpher Marlowe's play, The Tragical History of Dr. Faustas, written in the 16th century and the modern day film, The Devil's Advocate, starring Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves.

The devil in Marlowe's play doesnt come to Dr. Faustas as himself , instead he sends one of his disciples named Mephistophilis. When Mephistophilis first comes to Dr. Faustas he comes as himself, a demon like creature that is not quite appealing to the eye and seems to frighten or sicken Dr.Faustas. Dr. Faustas immediatley asks Mephistophilis to come back as something more pleasant, such as a fransiscan friar. The devil immediatly does so. I assume he does this to please Dr. Faustas and to show him that with the type of power he possesses he can appear to be or even change into whom ever he wants. This being something that the doctor can also achieve by giving up his soul. He also offers Dr. Faustas many things such as, knowledge (something the Doctor can't get enough of) and tells the Doctor that he can basically have everything he desires in exchange for his soul. Something very similar to this instance also occurs in The Devils Advocate. In the beginning of the film Keanu Reeves is approached by a man( also a messenger of the devil's) in a bar offering him a job opportunity in Manhattan and to persuade him to come he offers him a very large sum of money. When Keanu arrives he is surrounded by all the materialistic things he could desire in addition to the power and acknowledgment he so strongly desires. This is all once again there to tempt him towards evil and persuade him to sell his soul. Another pertinant similarity between the 16th century play and the modern day film is the chance that both characters were given to give it all up, leave the devil and regain their souls, yet the outcome is far different.



In Marlowe's play, Dr. Faustas is approached by an old man who tries to convince Faustas to leave the devil and regain his soul. Faustas declines this plea and continues on the path he already was on, despite the fact that he was beginning to doubt the actual rewards of his endeavor. In opposition to the play's character, during the film when Keanu Reeves is offered even more rewards to procreate with his sister and birth an anti-christ ,thus ending his life as he knows it and completely giving his soul to evil, he declines in the only way he thinks possible, commiting suicide. The major difference in the play and the film is the way the devil presents himself. In the play, Dr. Faustas calls the devil and is looking for another source of knowledge and power. The devil comes to him not trying to hide his persona or his pursuit of evil, but rather promoting the cause from the beginning. Knowing the outcome of his acceptance of the devil, Dr. Faustus knowingly accepted the devil and all of his gifts.

On the other hand, in the film, Al Pacino (the devil) presents himself as a friendly successful lawyer who can offer Keanu Reeves everything he ever wanted such as, money, power, and most importantly a successful carrer. Yet in an honest fashion and without knowingly giving up his soul.On these terms Keanu Reeves accepts. That is where I feel the major differnce in the portrayal of the devil between the play and the film exists.The fact that Dr. Faustas willingly accepts all gifts and willingly gives up his soul, while Keanu Reeves only accepts all this on the merit that Al Pacino is a legitimate laywer. Yet, overall the modern day outlook on the devil isn't much different than the outlook of many years ago. In both portrayls the devil had to physically show himself in a disguise, he had to lie in one way or another to gain the soul of his concubines, and in both the film and the play the devil is there only to promote evil and only offers things to people that wil eventually benefit himself.

A Comparative Essay on Never Cry Wolf

For my book report, I have chosen the novel Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat.  In this report I will give a brief summary of the novel as well as why I have chosen it for my report. Finally, I will give my reactions to the novel with regards to its analysis of the place of human beings in nature, whether the destiny of humans and nature is intertwined, and how nature is regarded by the different religious and political philosophies demonstrated in the novel.

      Never Cry Wolf is based upon the true story of the author's experiences during two years spent as a biologist studying a family of wolves in northern Canada during the mid nineteen fifties.  When Mowat is sent on his expedition his goal is to bring back proof of the wolves decimating effect on the northern herds of Caribou.  After arriving at the remote location, he finds a group of wolves and begins his research.  He then discovers the differing peculiarities of the wolves and finds that they are more than the savage and merciless hunters that he had previously believed them to be.  He discovers that they are in fact a very efficient and resourceful and have their own distinctive culture.  For example he discovers that they in fact have a symbiotic relationship with the caribou in that they keep the caribou population strong by hunting down only the sick and weaker members of the herd. This leads to a situation where the strongest caribou survive and thus the herd is made stronger.   As well they have their own social orders that ensure peaceful co-existence with one another instead of being reduced to fighting amongst themselves.  Before Mowat's excursion conventional wisdom thought  that that was the only interraction that the wolves were capable of.  In his group he finds a monogamous pair who are raising their litter with assistance from another male wolf who Mowat terms to be an "uncle".  His previous assumptions which portrayed the wolves as cold heated killers who lived only for the hunt, is challenged as he observes these animals play and interact within their environment   his previous assumptions about the role that these animals play in nature.  His attitude metamorphosis' from one of disdain and contempt to one of genuine respect and admiration.

      I chose this novel for study instead of Siddhartha because I felt that this novel speaks more directly to me.  I felt this way firstly, because of the location of the novel, northern Canada, in which I traveled for a summer, and secondly because I enjoy spending time in the outdoors.  This meant that I could more easily identify the setting and thus relate better to the author's feelings and perceptions.  Meanwhile, Siddhartha was set in India and in my mind was dated and unreal humankind (society) seems today to have more of a desire and a need to get back to nature and the simple life.  The spirit of peace that emanates from Mowat's book allows one to focus on what is possible when one has time to reflect   In this I mean that Never Cry Wolf seemed to hold a more meaningful message for modern times.  As well I found the style of writing in the Mowat novel to be clearer then in Siddhartha.  These were some of the factors that combined to produce a situation where Never Cry Wolf captured my attention more than Siddhartha.  It was for these reasons that I chose the novel by Farley Mowat.

      In my opinion, Never Cry Wolf placed humans in the role of intruders as far as nature is concerned.  Mowat cites several instances where humans violate nature and represent a threat to its sanctity.  Even though this threat is not reciprocated by nature, humans continue to infringe upon nature and then deny the consequences of their actions.  Two prevalent examples of this occur:  when Mowat accidentally wanders into the wolves den when the wolves' are there, and again when he discovers a herd of deer that have been slaughtered by hunters. Both examples show humans intruding upon nature and using it for their own purposes.

      In the first example Mowat decides to explore the wolves' den without realizing that they are still inside.  Once inside he discovers that they are still there and he fears that he is going to be killed by them.  Even though he is an intruder the wolves take no action against his presence and he manages to escape.  The most disturbing aspect of this event is afterwards when he describes the rage and fear that overcame him at the thought of having been at their mercy:

      "I sat down on a stone and shakily lit a cigarette, becoming aware as I did that I was no    longer frightened.  Instead an irrational rage possessed me.  If I had had my rifle I believe     that I might have reacted in brute fury and tried     to kill both wolves." (P. 175)

      In the second incident Mowat illustrates how humans brutally use nature for their own benefit and pleasure.  The situation occurs when a trapper comes to Mowat to show him "proof" of the savage and merciless ways of wolves.  Following the trapper they come to a spot where approximately 50 deer have been slaughtered.  However, he quickly finds out that the deaths were the result of human hunters.  Of the herd only two or three had been touched after the kill, their heads taken home as trophies.  Despite the evidence Mowat is unable to convince people of the true nature of the predators and in response to the incidence the bounty on wolves is raised by twenty dollars.

      Overall I would say that Mowat's book makes the point that the destiny of humans and animals are closely entwined.  Several times in the novel he illustrates how each affects the other.  As well he also demonstrates how humans can still learn from nature.  One example of this

occurs when Mowat's food supplies run low and he adapts the fishing tactics of the wolves in order to catch fish.

      The final aspect of Never Cry Wolf that I will examine is how nature is regarded by the various religious and political philosophies demonstrated in the novel.  The two different philosophies which are demonstrated are one which are diametrically opposed.  The first philosophy is that of mainstream western culture.  This philosophy views nature as something to be feared and ultimately conquered.    Throughout the book there are examples where people with this viewpoint attempt to dominate nature or at least attempt to impose human moral judgment upon it.  This is especially prevalent in people's attitudes towards wolves.        They see the wolves bloodthirsty, merciless killers who are pillaging the caribou herds for mere blood sport.  And yet those people fail to recognize that the true slaughterers are the human predators who blatantly overhunt the caribou herds.  For instance, Mowat finds that conservatively, trappers kill a combined 112 000 deer every year but still blame the wolf for the caribous'

decimation.

      The other philosophy demonstrated in Never Cry Wolf is that of the native Americans of northern Canada.  Their philosophy, as presented by Mowat is one which views humans as only being a fraction of the total importance of nature.  In their culture they are taught to have reverence for nature and

to be efficient in their use of natural resources.  This philosophy causes them to see wolves, not as bloodthirsty menaces, but as animals simply fulfilling their role in the natural chain.

      In conclusion I believe that Never Cry Wolf illustrates the various beliefs that different people have about nature and the environment.  Mowat also effectively demonstrates how these beliefs influence people's interaction with nature.  Finally, Mowat leaves no doubt that humans do have a large and sometimes traumatic impact upon nature.  However with his experience changing Mowat's own change of thinking, we see that it is possible for humans to correct the error of their humanistic thinking.  This can particularly be seen in Mowat's closing sentences...

      "I thought of Angeline and her pup cowering at the    bottom of the den where they had taken refuge from       the thundering    apparition of the aircraft, and I   was shamed."  (P.175)