DOUKHOBORS AND THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
From the beginning, the Doukhobors viewed the oath of allegiance as an obligation for battle and killing fellow men, who also had the spirit of God within.
Priests blessed cannon and troops before battle,
whereas Jesus had commanded: 'Thou shalt not kill'.
Something was wrong with the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings, which led to the rejection of the Church.
Something was wrong with the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings, which led to the rejection of the Church.
Exhortations against the oath appear frequently in the Book of Life:
PSALM 374.
A Christian's Defence
I am not going to give you my oath, nor am I going to serve you.
Why not?
Because I am a Christian. I do not wish to kill my brethren nor force them to commit violence.
Why not?
Because, according to the words of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, I consider all the people living on earth as children of one Father, and therefore, my brothers.
Our Lord and God Jesus Christ forbids to take an oath .
Read in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter twenty-three.
PSALM 376.
There are young men of twenty one who are required to draw lots.
We declare here in your presence that we are not going to take an oath, nor are we going to serve in the army.
Why not?
Because we are Christians.
We have the knowledge of the truth.
Our King is our Lord Jesus Christ whom we are obliged to serve.
We are not permitted to act against His law.
We cannot slay and coerce our brothers whom we consider as such according to the Lord's word.
For all the people living on earth are children of one Father, and therefore are brothers.
That is why we will not do this .
Glory be to our God.
Faced with further exile to Transcaucasia, the Doukhobors nevertheless rejected the oath in 1839 in the Milky Waters of Tavrida. In 1894, Peter V. Verigin, and others, rejected the oath again to Czar Nicholas II and climaxed this rejection by burning their weapons in 1895.
After murderous reprisals, refuge was sought in Canada with the aid of Lev Tolstoy and other influential sympathizers.
Success came quickly in Canada for the thrifty, industrious toilers. By 1904 they had 'improved' over 250,000 acres under the provisions of the Hamlet Act which allowed for communal settlement and working of their reserves communally rather than individual settlement under the Homestead Act.
Two other conditions were 'control of 'internal affairs' and conscientious objector status.
The Doukhobors were added to the Conscientious Objector Act on December 6, 1898.
The following letter from the immigration commissioner emphasizes the exemption:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
CANADA
Ref. 65101 Imm:
Ottawa, 30th November, 1898.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY
THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL IN COUNCIL:-2
The undersigned has the honour to report that arrangements have been completed with Mr. Aylmer Maude, of London -England, the representative of the sect of Russians known as Doukhobors who now inhabit the slopes of the Caucasus in Russia, for the immediate immigration to Canada of several thousands of these people. From a despatch, dated 27 May, 1898, addressed to the Foreign Office by Her Majesty's Consul at Batoum, it would appear that since their settlement in the region of the Caucasus, the Doukhobors have by their good behaviour, diligence, sobriety und hard working qualities, brought nothing but prosperity to the barren localities in which they were originally settled, but as from religious doctrines they are averse to bearing arms, a rite which the Russian Government bas refused to countenance, they have been permitted by tie latter to depart from Russia. Under the circumstances, and considering that the Doukhobors would appear to be a most desirable class of settlers to locate upon the vacant Dominion Lands in Manitoba und the North West Territories, the undersigned is of opinion that it is expedient to give them the fullest assurances of absolute immunity from military service in the event of their settling in this Country.
Sub-section3 of Section 21 of the Militia Act, Chapter 41 of the Revised Statutes of Canada contains the following provision:-
"Every person bearing a certificate from the Society of Quakers, "Mennonites or Tunkers, and every inhabitant of Canada of any "religious denomination; otherwise subject to military duty, who, from "the doctrines of his religion, “is averse to bearing arms and refuses "personal military service, shall be exempt from such service when "balloted in time of peace or war, upon such conditions and under "such regulations as the governor in Council, from time to time prescribes.
The undersigned begs to recommend that under the power vested in your Excellency in Council by the above provision, the Doukhobors, settling permanently in Canada be exempted, unconditionally, from service in the Militia, upon the production in each case of a certificate of membership from the proper authorities of their community.
Respectfully submitted
Minister of the Interior.
The Office of Immigration Commissioner
Winnipeg
I, John Obed Smith, of the City of Winnipeg, in Province of Manitoba in Dominion of Canada, Immigration Commissioner and Public Notary for Province of Manitoba, testify as follows:
That under the agreement of Ukase, decision is passed by special counsel in Dominion of Canada, commended by Honourable Minister of the Interior and approved by His Excellency, Governor-General of Canada the Sixth day of December A.D. 1898, according to stipulation Statute 3, Section 21, Act of Militia, as stated in 41st section Revised Statute of Canada.
The Doukhobors will settle in Canada for a long period of time, and they, under religious teachings have turned aside from carrying arms are, Excluded unconditionally from military service and discharged from warfare by acknowledgement of testimony that they are members of Society of Doukhobors.
Given under my signature and seal in the City of Winnipeg as previously said, on this Twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and One. Sgd: J. Obed Smith
Immigration Commissioner
and Notary Public
Just as matters settled into progress and prosperity, particularly with the organizational ability of newly arrived Peter V. Verigin in 1902, the peaceful horizon was shattered by the duplicitous machinations of Frank Oliver and the Reverend John MacDougall. They were embarking on a mischievous course to end communal farming and reverted to enforcing the Homestead Act of 1872: [Excerpts:]
33. Any person who is the head of a family, or has attained the age of twenty-one years, shall be entitled to be entered for one quarter section or a less quantity of unappropriated Dominion lands for the purpose of securing a homestead right in respect thereof. (Form A.)
. . .
8. Upon making this affidavit, and filing it with the Land Agent,and on payment to him of an office fee of ten dollars for which he shall receive a receipt from the Agent, he shall be permitted to enter the land specified in the application.
. . .
11. At the expiration of three years the settler . . . upon proof, to the satisfaction of the Land Agent that . . . he has resided upon or cultivated the land for the three years next after filing of the affidavit for entry, the settler or such claimant shall be entitled to a patent for the land provided such claimant is a subject of His Majesty by birth or naturalization.
The Doukhobors soon learn that they can become 'naturalized' and become British subjects to be eligible for the land under the new conditions if they swear an oath of allegiance to King Edward. But, would the oath negate their conscientious objector status? The oath:
Oath of Allegiance.
I, A. B., formerly of (former place o f residence to be stated here), in (country of origin to be stated here), and known there by the name of (name and surname of alien in his country of origin. to be stated here), and now residing at (place of residence in Canada and occupation to be stated here), do sincerely promise and swear (or, being a person allowed by law to affirm in judicial cases, do affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Edward VII (or reigning sovereign for the time being) as lawful Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Dominion of Canada, dependent on and belonging to said Kingdom, and that I will defend Him to the utmost of my power against all traitorous conspiracies or attempts whatsoever which shall be made against His Person, Crown and Dignity; and that I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to His Majesty, His heirs or successors, all treasons or traitorous conspiracies and attempts which I shall know to be against Him or any of them; and all this I do swear (or affirm) without any equivocation, mental evasion or secret reservation. So help me God.
Sworn before me at }
this } A.B.
day of }
4-5 E. VII., c. 25, s. 2.
After undergoing the oath, a certificate of naturalization could be obtained. The oath was quite unequivocal and certainly was a call to arms, no less than the oath of allegiance to Czar Nicholas II. As a personal statement, it certainly over rode the C. O. act.
But what about affirming?
Some thought that it relieved one of the oath obligation, but all it did was affirm the same intent without the Bible and reference to God:
I AFFIRM . . .
After the draconian Frank Oliver edict requiring Doukhobors to take the oath of allegiance to take individual possession of their hard won properties, the majority of the Doukhobors elected to move rather than be subjected to military service and lose their communal lifestyle. Others however, later known as the Independents, chose to retain ownership of these mutually cultivated lands and desired to become individual owners in lieu of communal status.
However, they were uneasy about swearing the oath of allegiance and its implications. Some of them were aware of affirming instead of swearing, and instead of swearing the oath, said they affirmed. Presumably, they felt that this would somehow remove the obligations of military service or other requirements of promises made.
But what exactly did that 'I so affirm' mean?
In a British act of 1838, the right to affirm was established. This was a formality enacted to enable atheists to affirm that they would tell the truth in court without reference to a deity. In the final version of the act in 1888 it was seen as an end to discrimination against atheists.
This affirmation that the Independent Doukhobors went through thus effected an irony, since most of them professed to be Christians. The only reservation of the oath referred to God, and did not have anything to do with serving the monarchy in arms, the prime abhorrence and torment of all Doukhobors.
Failure to fulfill the affirmation is regarded as perjury and thus liable for a prison sentence. At the outbreak of war, they strove to retain the C. O. status on religious grounds. Some even moved to BC and rejoined their brethren to increase their chances to avoid conscription.
Peter Verigin had a private meeting with Frank Oliver in 1906 and tried to persuade him to honour the previously agreed upon conditions, but Oliver was not flexible. These were the new realities. Oliver wanted land available for 'more desirable' settlers. The Doukhobors could live in villages if they wanted, but they could not gain ownership to a quarter section unless they lived on it. To obtain it required swearing the Oath of Allegiance.
Peter Verigin embarked upon a journey to Russia, ostensibly to thank Lev Tolstoy and others for the migration assistance, but also to investigate the possibility of returning to Russia. He also investigated land options in California, Oregon and Colorado. In Russia, he spoke with Peter Stolypin who was in charge of Agrarian Reform in Russia.
Peter Verigin embarked upon a journey to Russia, ostensibly to thank Lev Tolstoy and others for the migration assistance, but also to investigate the possibility of returning to Russia. He also investigated land options in California, Oregon and Colorado. In Russia, he spoke with Peter Stolypin who was in charge of Agrarian Reform in Russia.
By the time Peter V. Verigin returned he realized that the communal Doukhobors no longer had a future in Saskatchewan. Except for some land that the community had wisely purchased, most of their farming operations were on land where they would soon be dispossessed.
The Doukhobor pioneers had fulfilled their side of the bargain, but now that the land was tilled, their efforts no longer resonated with the politicians or the public.
Despite protests in their favour, the government was adamant. Take the oath of allegiance or lose the land they had pioneered.
Meetings are held in all sixty-one villages. If they want to preserve their communal system, they will have to move. Peter Verigin reports a successful land negotiation in far away British Columbia. Who will join him in a new trek?
Following is an excerpt from a published report in the Winnipeg Free Press, March 1910, about a Doukhobor assembly of all villages:
(13) The question was raised before the meeting regard to the immigration to British Columbia. It was definitely shown that in Saskatchewan where the Doukhobors live at present, in consequences of wide prairies lying a considerable distance from the sea, the climate in winter is very dry and cold, the temperature is often over 30 degrees Reaumur, and therefore some sickness prevails, such as bad coughs and rheumatism. Immigration to British Columbia was decided as most necessary.
A particular report of the British Columbia climate was submitted by Peter V. Verigin and by Nicholas Ziberoff, delegates from British Columbia. The first party of community Doukhobors immigrated to British Columbia for the purpose of starting works, and has been living there for two years. They have found the climate exceedingly mild in winter: temperatures not being over 15 degrees Reaumur. This occurs about ten times during all the winter, but generally, the temperature is 3, 5 and 7 degrees below zero Reaumur, and sometimes 2, 3 and 7 degrees above zero Reaumur.
In consequence of the mountains, the water for drinking is very pure, and the air also very clear and healthy. The reporter, Peter Verigin, is under the impression that the air and waters are similar to those in Switzerland in nature, and even much more healthy. Therefore, with the view to become healthier, immigration to British Columbia has been decided on possibly sooner than intended.
In British Columbia it is possible to grow fruits of nearly all kinds: apples, pears, plums, cherries, etc. Small fruits and vegetables are grown wonderfully good. The community has already bought about ten thousand acres of fruit lands. There is splendid timber on it for building purposes.
Following is an excerpt from a published report in the Winnipeg Free Press, March 1910, about a Doukhobor assembly of all villages:
(13) The question was raised before the meeting regard to the immigration to British Columbia. It was definitely shown that in Saskatchewan where the Doukhobors live at present, in consequences of wide prairies lying a considerable distance from the sea, the climate in winter is very dry and cold, the temperature is often over 30 degrees Reaumur, and therefore some sickness prevails, such as bad coughs and rheumatism. Immigration to British Columbia was decided as most necessary.
A particular report of the British Columbia climate was submitted by Peter V. Verigin and by Nicholas Ziberoff, delegates from British Columbia. The first party of community Doukhobors immigrated to British Columbia for the purpose of starting works, and has been living there for two years. They have found the climate exceedingly mild in winter: temperatures not being over 15 degrees Reaumur. This occurs about ten times during all the winter, but generally, the temperature is 3, 5 and 7 degrees below zero Reaumur, and sometimes 2, 3 and 7 degrees above zero Reaumur.
In consequence of the mountains, the water for drinking is very pure, and the air also very clear and healthy. The reporter, Peter Verigin, is under the impression that the air and waters are similar to those in Switzerland in nature, and even much more healthy. Therefore, with the view to become healthier, immigration to British Columbia has been decided on possibly sooner than intended.
In British Columbia it is possible to grow fruits of nearly all kinds: apples, pears, plums, cherries, etc. Small fruits and vegetables are grown wonderfully good. The community has already bought about ten thousand acres of fruit lands. There is splendid timber on it for building purposes.
About 5,000 Doukhobors moved to British Columbia between 1908 and 1913, pursuing their communal experiment, this time on purchased property which did not require an oath. This ownership, they hoped, would insure non-interference from authorities and provide stability to their life style.
It did, for several years . . .
It did, for several years . . .
By the time of Peter V. Verigin's tragic, untimely, and still unsolved death in 1924, the Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood became the largest communal enterprise in North America, comprised of 71,600 acres in BC, SK, and AB, and countless industries.
After his death, decline came rapidly due to falling membership, bad management, arson, and the depression.
Facing foreclosure, the community appealed to the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada for assistance. This entity was created to assist farmers to stay on the land in the depression hard times so they would have a place to live and be able to feed themselves. However, in the case of the soon to be dispossessed 'toil and peaceful life' workers, the wand of compassion was not extended by the grim, heartless, bureaucrats. The government of Canada had the last cynical victory by refusing any assistance and allowing the foreclosure to proceed, dispossessing the roughly 10,000 tireless toilers of all ownership in 1938.
The government of BC then negotiated with the credit assurance companies, paid off the interest on the outstanding loan, and took over total ownership.
They then allowed some of the Doukhobors to remain as tenants on their former properties if they were able to pay rent, and took over all useful holdings such as roads, bridges and schools. Other viable operations such as lumber mills were liquidated, making it impossible for the Doukhobors to recoup. This liquidation was on the grounds that the government had to recoup the $350,000 they had paid to the creditors, not withstanding the millions worth they had taken over. Such was reality politics for the disenfranchised.
In 1961, the Utopian experiment came to a conclusion when all properties went to private sale with all proceeds being absorbed by the government coffers.
Facing foreclosure, the community appealed to the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada for assistance. This entity was created to assist farmers to stay on the land in the depression hard times so they would have a place to live and be able to feed themselves. However, in the case of the soon to be dispossessed 'toil and peaceful life' workers, the wand of compassion was not extended by the grim, heartless, bureaucrats. The government of Canada had the last cynical victory by refusing any assistance and allowing the foreclosure to proceed, dispossessing the roughly 10,000 tireless toilers of all ownership in 1938.
The government of BC then negotiated with the credit assurance companies, paid off the interest on the outstanding loan, and took over total ownership.
They then allowed some of the Doukhobors to remain as tenants on their former properties if they were able to pay rent, and took over all useful holdings such as roads, bridges and schools. Other viable operations such as lumber mills were liquidated, making it impossible for the Doukhobors to recoup. This liquidation was on the grounds that the government had to recoup the $350,000 they had paid to the creditors, not withstanding the millions worth they had taken over. Such was reality politics for the disenfranchised.
In 1961, the Utopian experiment came to a conclusion when all properties went to private sale with all proceeds being absorbed by the government coffers.
A sad conclusion to a noble experiment.
THE STORY OF PETER VERIGIN'S WATCH
An early image from my childhood, on the rare occasions when we visited our grandfather, Peter P. Verigin, was him displaying a seemingly gold watch. Aloud, he wondered who the fortunate person would be who inherited it. He held it with some veneration, as it had belonged to Peter the Lordly.
He mused that it would most likely go to someone who did not drink, smoke, or eat meat.
Peter P. Verigin was the head bee keeper in Brilliant.
He was also the care taker of Peter Lordly's cottage in Brilliant, shown here in the background.
Peter's father was our great grandfather, Vasily Verigin, Peter V. Verigin's older brother, and liaison courier to Peter while he was exiled in Siberia. In 1895, he and Vasili Vereschagin delivered the all important plans for the Arms Burning from Peter to the Doukhobor organizers in each of the villages.
The idyllic life of the Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood was shattered on October 29, 1924, when the coach that Peter Verigin was riding in between Castlegar and Grand Forks, was mysteriously blown up.
After Peter was laid to rest, the Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood needed a new leader. Anastasia Lords announced that Peter V. Verigin had told her that in the event of his death, she was to continue as leader.
She had been Peter's soul mate since his arrival in Canada in 1902.
However, at the leadership assembly, she was rejected in favour of Peter P. Verigin, Peter's son who was in Russia.
She then gathered her loyal followers and formed the Lordly Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood. Followers and relatives of Peter Lordly moved with her to Arrowwood, Alberta. Twenty six families paid one hundred dollars each to help purchase the property for the new commune, 1,260 acres. Twenty-six homes were built, as well as a large community meeting place.
At its largest, there were 165 members, by 1945 she was the sole member on the property, along with Fedosa Verigin, relative and help mate. She died in 1965, and Fedosa died in 1980.
Her modest commune had weathered the depression and outlasted the larger CCUB, but the individual families eventually moved to pursue an independent life style, mostly back to British Columbia.
[See more:
www.larrysdesk.com/alberta-ccubshouldice-archive.html]
When Grandfather Verigin moved to Mission, B. C. with his family in 1940, he had Peter Lordly's watch with him. Anastasia had given it to him as a memento.
When Grandfather Verigin died, the watch was still not awarded to a deserving person and was entrusted to the care of our Aunt Polly.
On a visit to BC in the 80s from my work in Toronto, we had a big family dinner, and at the end, brother Alex made the following presentation:
"It has been quite a few years since we have all been together like this, the most beautiful thing about it is that after all these years we can get together and sing in the old traditional way, in our mother language. This is our heritage, to me it is very important that we do not lose it, and that somehow we should keep it alive, and pass it on to our children and they to theirs.
Larry has done a great contribution to his people, his heritage and his country by making his film on the History of the Doukhobors. This document is in the Canadian Archives, and will be there for as long as there is a Canada.
I have been given the great honour to present to him, the greatest honour, a certain member of his family could bestow on him. This certain member is his aunt Polly, and the presentation is Petyushka's watch.
This watch has been in Grandfather Verigin's possession for many years, and it was his wish that upon his death, it should be given to a grandson or granddaughter who up held the principles of Doukhoborism, in his eye the most important principles were, not to eat meat, drink or smoke, of course non of us qualified. Larry however, by creating this film has done more for the preservation of Doukhoborism than anyone else, possibly since Petyushka's death.
I suggested this to Polly a couple of times in the last few years, and when I last visited in Mission, Polly gave me the watch saying, "I leave it in your hands, do what you think is right with it." Needless to say I was deeply honoured by being given this responsibility. She had one request, and that was that it should be looked after well, and should be passed on to some nephew, or niece, or other member of our family, this of course includes Polly's family too, who through his lifestyle and conscientiousness would be a worthy recipient.
The watch is yours Larry, to keep and to bequest."
"It has been quite a few years since we have all been together like this, the most beautiful thing about it is that after all these years we can get together and sing in the old traditional way, in our mother language. This is our heritage, to me it is very important that we do not lose it, and that somehow we should keep it alive, and pass it on to our children and they to theirs.
Larry has done a great contribution to his people, his heritage and his country by making his film on the History of the Doukhobors. This document is in the Canadian Archives, and will be there for as long as there is a Canada.
I have been given the great honour to present to him, the greatest honour, a certain member of his family could bestow on him. This certain member is his aunt Polly, and the presentation is Petyushka's watch.
This watch has been in Grandfather Verigin's possession for many years, and it was his wish that upon his death, it should be given to a grandson or granddaughter who up held the principles of Doukhoborism, in his eye the most important principles were, not to eat meat, drink or smoke, of course non of us qualified. Larry however, by creating this film has done more for the preservation of Doukhoborism than anyone else, possibly since Petyushka's death.
I suggested this to Polly a couple of times in the last few years, and when I last visited in Mission, Polly gave me the watch saying, "I leave it in your hands, do what you think is right with it." Needless to say I was deeply honoured by being given this responsibility. She had one request, and that was that it should be looked after well, and should be passed on to some nephew, or niece, or other member of our family, this of course includes Polly's family too, who through his lifestyle and conscientiousness would be a worthy recipient.
The watch is yours Larry, to keep and to bequest."
In Search of Utopia:
The Doukhobors This film has drawn on the original material - the Doukhobors themselves, and explores the history of the Doukhobors through their own words, their experiences, their photographs and settlements. It is valuable not only as a documentation of a struggling people whose history parallels the settling of Canada's west but also as a narrative of a social movement and its struggle to maintain integrity against the forces of assimilation. |
I bought a glass case stand for the watch and it travelled with me for many years. It was proudly displayed in a prominent place throughout a series of my apartments as I worked and moved across Canada.
In the 90s, continuing my interest in our heritage, I began work at the Doukhobor Discovery Centre, where I was to spend the rest of my working career. On the Petrov Dien occasions I wore the watch with its golden chain and showed it to various interested participants. The engraved initials on the case, PVV, left no doubt about who the original owner was, though some wondered how I came into possession of this heritage artifact.
Among many demanding duties at the Doukhobor Discovery Centre, over several years I pursued two objectives: the recognition of Peter Verigin as a Person of National Historic Significance, and the migration of the Doukhobors to BC from Saskatchewan as an event of National Historic Significance.
By 2008, the 100th anniversary of the migration, I was successful on both counts. We prepared two massive special exhibits for our 2008 April opening and on Peter's Day in June, had a special program on Peter Verigin.
Our guest opening speaker was Lieutenant Governor Iona Campagnola, who also presented me with an achievement award.
Two years later was to be my last opening at the centre. I had decided to retire in 2010 and I had decisions to make.
With family agreement we presented this painting to the museum on Peter's Day, we had previously given it to our father. It was a fitting presentation since Peter Verigin was the architect of the Arms Burning of 1895.
Another donation was in order: Peter V. Verigin's watch. But first, I had to do an official evaluation:
With that, the journey of the watch was over, and now it has a permanent final home, at the Doukhobor Discovery Centre, a key item in the Peter V. Verigin exhibit.
Guest speaker at the CDS Day of Love on February 17th was Alex Ewashen. The subject was Genetically Modified organisms. His text follows:
DAY OF LOVE SPEECH REGARDING GMO FOODS
It is a pleasure for me today to talk about GMO foods as it is a subject close to my heart, as it is yours, or should be yours too, considering our long tradition, of growing our own pure foods for generations.
Now, what is, or are GMO foods?
GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organisms. This science was started in 1994, it is a process in which foreign genes, from another species, are inserted into a seed, altering the genetic makeup of the seed, creating a completely foreign species, contrary to all laws of nature, contrary to God’s laws, if you will, altering normal, God given, organ function in your body.
An example of this are Flavr Savr tomatoes, which are very popular on the market. Fish genes are inserted into the make up of the plant, this is so because the tomatoes are picked so green it is for the producer’s benefit to extend the ripening time of the tomato. Julie is allergic to fish, and at one point she got sick after eating tomatoes, and didn't know why, the fish genes could very well be why.
Over 80% of the corn produced in the US, is GMO corn. Monsanto developed this seed to make it resistant to insect infestation, and the way this is accomplished is the seed is developed to produce it’s own neurological poison, so when the insects eat this kernel, they die. Mother Nature is no fool, so she tells the insects not to eat the corn, consequently, mission accomplished, the corn crop is immune to insects.
But here is were the big problem begins. It has been found that when we eat GMO corn, our organ cells acquire this capacity to produce this neurological poison, our bodies literally become a pesticide factory. In addition, if we eat meat, fed on corn, the cells in our organs again get a shot of this capacity to produce neurological toxins. This ability is in the DNA of the corn plant, so it cannot be "digested out". We all know the old adage, that, "We are what we eat", it is common sense that if we eat healthy food, we have a healthy body, so when we eat GMO, we are eating DNA which will program our organs, we are eating information, and we become less human.
Over 70% of all processed food today has either GMO corn or soy or both, just read the labels on any canned or bottled product, salad dressings, mayonnaise, soups, and even products like baking powder.
It has been found by eminent scientists and doctors, that GMO foods contribute to the proliferation of cancer, birth defects, diabetes, autism, infertility, allergies, obesity, dementia, Alzheimer disease, muscular dystrophy, irritable bowel syndrome, neurological problems and Parkinson’s. Just think how prevalent these diseases have become in the last decade or so. Before l994 there was something like 400 fertility clinics in the US, now there are over 4000. In the UK allergies jumped 50% after Round Up ready Soy was introduced.
Now, what foods should we try and avoid? The list is very disheartening. All corn products, soy products, 80% of soy is GMO, Sugar from sugar beets, most all sugar beets in the US is GMO, canola Big Time, cotton seed oil, papaya, is all GMO, rice, especially the Golden Rice, cauliflower, mustard, okra, watch out for those tomatoes. Now you are thinking, "What in the world can I eat then?" I’ll tell you later what to watch out for.
By now you are thinking, "How can all this happen, how can this be allowed to happen, to produce this terrible science?
Monsanto is an insidious, criminal organization. It is in all aspects an arm of the US government, and it is all powerful. Michael Taylor worked as an attorney for Monsanto, he then was installed as the Deputy Commissioner for the US Food and Drug Administration where he made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GMO foods and crops. The powers that be, now claim that there is no need to test GMO crops for possible health effects, consequently there have been absolutely no tests carried out to determine if GMO food is detrimental to our health. After this was all set up, he went back to Monsanto where he is now the company's Vice President for Public Policy.
What is the point of all this? When Monsanto engineers this seed they file a patent on it, and they charge a royalty on the growth of the crops from their seed. The farmer cannot save seed from his crop to grow another crop the following year. He has to buy seed every year and pay a royalty on his crop. Monsanto is even now working on a seed that will self destruct after the first season of growth. Once the farmer buys seed from Monsanto, he is contracted to buy seed only from Monsanto for the rest of his life. The sales pitch is that you get a higher yield, and your plant is resistant to Roundup so you can control the weed problem more effectually. But Mother Nature being what it is, this is turning out to be not the case. Weeds are getting resistant to Roundup, and crops are failing. In North Dakota sugar beet farmers are finding Canola plants in their crops. Canada Geese flying south load up on canola for the trip and drop their droppings on North Dakota, and "Bingo"! the sugar beets are contaminated by canola weed. The canola is Roundup Ready, and is impervious to Round Up spray, so the only way the farmer can get rid of the canola is by hand pulling the infestation, this is Monsanto’s advice to remedy the situation.
What is the Ultimate Goal in all this? To control the food supply of the world. US trade policy has devastated the Mexican farmer by flooding the country with cheap corn, the farmers tried to rally by buying this magic seed, Monsanto kept upping the price, ultimately bankrupting the farmer. In India there is a farmer committing suicide every 30 seconds, because he is so indebted. Before Monsanto forced him to buy their seed, his seed cost him 5 to 7 rupees per kg., now it costs 3600 rupees per kg.
There is world wide resistance to GMO foods, of course you will hear nothing about it in our media. African nations will not accept GMO foods as aid. Brazil has 5 million farmers suing Monsanto in a class action suit. The European Union is refusing to buy GMO soy and corn, so the US has filed a law suit with the World Trade Organization charging EU’s restriction is against international trade agreements. Around February 1st, Russia has banned the importation of American beef because of the use of growth hormones in the American beef industry. Here at home on January 19th on CBC there was a blurb that Okonagan farmers were protesting the growth of GMO crops because of cross pollination, their organic crops would be contaminated. The Royal Society of Canada report said it was, "Scientifically unjustifiable to presume that GMO foods are safe".
Mice, rats, pigs, cattle, elk, and squirrels will avoid eating a GMO product if given a choice.
What can we do to protect ourselves from this GMO scourge? If you are buying produce, look for the product number. If it is a 4 digit number it is conventional food. If it is a 5 digit number beginning with an 8 it is GMO. If it is a 5 digit number beginning with a 9 it is organic. Buy beef that is 100% grass fed, or is labelled as 100% Organic. All US beef is corn fed, I myself will not buy a beef dish in a US restaurant, Canadian beef on the other hand is generally not fed on corn so is a lot safer to eat. Ask questions, and be choosy. The best advice is to buy local, support your Farmer’s Market.
That said, since preparing this talk I have found out that Canada has been the first nation to give the OK for the proliferation of GMO alfalfa seed in Eastern Canada outside the US. Many farmers are protesting because their livelihood is exporting alfalfa seed to Europe, and Europe will not accept GMO seed. They are shouting, "No GM seed, in our feed". We have to be on guard to see that our farmers do not start to feed GM hay to their cattle.
To show you how strong the Monsanto lobby is, recently the state of California wanted to legislate that GMO foods had to be labelled. Monsanto, DuPont Pepsi, Bayer, Dow Chemical, Kraft Foods, Coca Cola, Kellogg, Campbell Soups, Heinz, Sara Lee, Snickers, and Welch raised $145 million to fight against this legislation, and they won. Again recently Fox TV cancelled a new series, a publisher cancelled a book contract, a scientific journal refused papers, and a printer shredded 14,000 magazines due to fear of law suits by Monsanto. I myself experienced this censorship. I had filed away 3 very good documentaries that I picked up on the internet, and when I wanted to review them in preparation for this talk, they were gone. In their place there was a notice saying "This video does not exist". We have been buying "No Name" creamed corn. On the label is a phone number that you can phone if you have any complaints or what ever. I phoned the number and asked if their product was GMO, I was left on hold a long time, finally a very nice lady can on and said that she could not tell me if the produce was GMO or not. I asked if she didn't know it was or if she couldn't tell me, she said "I can’t tell you".
I would like now to touch on the Bovine Growth Hormone subject. I know a lot of people go to the US to buy much cheaper dairy products, milk and cheese mainly. In the US dairy cows are injected with a growth hormone, weekly or bi weekly so they can produce much more milk than normal. This process is banned in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and BC, Alberta, and Ontario.
By Monsanto’s own data, there can be up to a 79% increase in mastitis, an udder infection, where there is pus in the milk, any one of you who are from a farm background will be familiar with this problem. To combat this, the dairyman has to give his cows massive doses of antibiotic, creating great residues of antibiotics in the milk. Only some antibiotics are tested for, so the dairyman uses antibiotics which are not tested for, to combat the problem. In addition, the use of this hormone can cause digestive disorders, bloat, diarrhea, and lesions in the cows, so you are getting milk from a very unhealthy cow. Many farmers lose a good portion of their herd from internal hemorrhaging in their cows. Another serious consequence is the presence of this hormone in the cow's blood which produces another hormone in adults that accelerates cancer growing cells associated with breast, prostate and colon cancers.
There are dairy products in the US which are labelled, "Bovine Hormone Free".
So, there you have it, you’re the Boss of what to eat. Remember, "You are what you eat".
THE TOLSTOY QUOTE
I have received a variety of reactions to the following quote which I used as a footer in my email last month. It read as follows:
If Christ lived today and published the Gospels, the ladies would have requested his autograph, and that would have been the end of the whole affair . . . They never would have made a religion of Christ but for the invention of the Resurrection - and Paul was the prime inventor.
Leo Tolstoy, January 13, 1889
In view of some of the energetic reactions to the quote, I feel it deserves some elaboration and some historical context might clarify some of the puzzlement over this statement.
Reading some of his philosophical tomes such as The Kingdom of God is Within You, What I Believe, and other writings of that period, it is clear that Tolstoy considered Christianity in a rational sense devoid of mystery and magical ritual which was proffered by the churchianity of the day.
The mythical perversion of the original beliefs presented by Christ by St. Paul, was a hearkening back to the dark days of mystery and superstition of the archaic pagan religions and had no place in the enlightened gospels as presented by Jesus. In Tolstoy's view, Paul [and Conqueror Emperor Constantine] were the culprits who distorted a sublime belief system.
The quote is also mentioned in the following exchange with Isabel Hapgood, his American translator, and is reported in this fashion:
In December 1888, when Hapgood and her mother were in Moscow, they visited with the Tolstoy family several times. After their first meeting on December 7, Tolstoy recorded his conversation with Hapgood: she pressed him to explain why he had ceased writing, and when he answered that it was pointless, she pressed further to find out why this was so. He responded: "There are too many books, and now, no matter what books one may write, the world will go on just the same way. If Christ were to come and publish the Gospel, the ladies would try to get his autographs and nothing more." [Diary November 25, 1889.]
It should be noted that at this time he was quite dejected and was feeling the futility of trying to spread the 'good news' through his writing.
[For a more details on Isabel Hapgood and Leo Tolstoy, go to:]
http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-21107756/tolstoy-s-american-translator-letters-to-isabel-hapgood
[I would like to thank Andrei Conovaloff for his input regarding the date of the quote.]
As another example of how good religious intentions can be thwarted by sometimes well meaning and other times self serving interpreters, I offer the following article by Simon Critchley which recently appeared in the New York Times:
The Freedom of Faith: A Christmas Sermon
By SIMON CRITCHLEY
[Address to The Stone: The Stone features the writing of contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless. The series moderator is Simon Critchley. He teaches philosophy at The New School for Social Research in New York.]
CHRISTIANITY, FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY, PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION
In an essay in The Times’ Sunday Book Review this week the writer Paul Elie asks the intriguing question: Has fiction lost its faith? As we are gathered here today, let us consider one of the most oddly faithful of all fiction writers, Fyodor Dostoevsky. More specifically, I’d like to focus pretty intensely on what some consider to be the key moment in his greatest novel — arguably one of the greatest of all time — “The Brothers Karamazov.” (Elie himself notes the 1880 masterpiece as an example of the truly faith-engaged fiction of yore.) I speak in particular of the “Grand Inquisitor” scene, a sort of fiction within a fiction that draws on something powerful from the New Testament — Jesus’s refusal of Satan’s three temptations — and in doing so digs at the meaning of faith, freedom, happiness and the diabolic satisfaction of our desires.
First a little biblical background.
Scene 1 – In which Christ is sorely tempted by Satan.
After fasting for 40 days and 40 nights in the desert, Jesus is understandably a little hungry. Satan appears and tempts him. The temptation takes the form of three questions. The first involves food. The Devil says, and I paraphrase, “If you are, as you say, the son of God, then turn these stones in the parched and barren wilderness into loaves of bread. Do this, not so much to feed yourself, starved as you are, but in order to feed those that might follow you, oh Son of God. Turn these stones into loaves and people will follow you like sheep ever after. Perform this miracle and people will happily become your slaves.”
Jesus replies, “Not on bread alone shall man live, but on every word proceeding through the mouth of God.” In other words: “Eat the bread of heaven.” Jesus refuses to perform the miracle that he could easily carry out — he is, after all, God — in the name of what? We will get to that.
Next Jesus is brought up to the roof of the temple in Jerusalem. Satan invites him to throw himself down. For if he is the Son of God, then the armies of angels at his command will save him from smashing his feet against the rocks below. Such a party trick, performed in the crowded hubbub of the holy city, would appear to all to be an awesome mystery that would incite the loyal to devotion. Mystery, by definition, cannot be understood. But Jesus flatly refuses the temptation, saying, “Thou shalt not overtempt the God of thee.”
The third temptation raises the stakes even higher. Satan takes Jesus to an exceedingly high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth. He says to him, “To thee I will give authority and the glory of them, for such is my power and in my power to give. But if you will worship me, then I will give all the power and the glory to you.” Jesus’s reply is just two words in New Testament Greek: “Go, Satan!”
With these words, the Devil evaporates like dew under a desert sun.
Scene 2 – In which Christ denies authority and affirms the freedom of faith.
In refusing these three temptations and refuting these three questions, Jesus is denying three potent forces: miracle, mystery and authority. Of course, the three forces are interlinked: the simplest way to get people to follow a leader is by the miraculous guarantee of bread, namely endless economic abundance and wealth. It is the mystery of authority that confirms our trust in it, the idea of an invisible hand or mysterious market forces all of which tend benevolently towards human well being.
What Satan promises Jesus in the last temptation is complete political authority, the dream of a universal state. Namely, that one no longer has to render to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Temporal and eternal power can be unified under one catholic theological and political authority with the avowed aim of assuring universal happiness, harmony and unity.
It sounds great, doesn't it? So, why does Jesus refuse Satan’s temptations? In John 8, when Jesus is trying to persuade the scribes and Pharisees of his divinity — which proves somewhat difficult — he says that if they have faith in him, then this will be faith in the truth and this truth shall make them free or, better translated, the truth will free (eleutherosei). The first thing that leaps out of this passage is the proximity of faith and truth. Namely, that truth does not consist of the empirical truths of natural science or the propositional truths of logic. It is truth as a kind of troth, a loyalty or fidelity to that which one is betrothed, as in the act of love. The second is the idea that truth, understood as the truth of faith, will free.
The question arises: what is meant by freedom here and is it in the name of such freedom that Jesus refuses Satan’s temptations? Such, of course is the supremely tempting argument of the Grand Inquisitor at the heart of “The Brothers Karamazov.” Truth to tell, it appears to be a rather strange argument, placed as it is in the mouth of the avowed sensualist for whom everything is permitted: Ivan Karamazov. As his younger brother, Alyosha (the purported hero of the book), points out, the argument is apparently in praise of Jesus and not in blame of him.
Scene 3 – Be happy! Why Jesus must burn.
Ivan has written a prose poem, set in the 16th century, in Seville, Spain, during the most terrible time of the Inquisition, when heretics were being burnt alive willy-nilly like firebugs. In the poem, after a particularly magnificent auto-da-fé — when almost a hundred heretics were burnt by the Grand Inquisitor, the eminent cardinal, in the presence of the king, the court and its charming ladies — Christ suddenly appears and is recognized at once. People weep for joy, children throw flowers at his feet and a large crowd gathers outside the cathedral. At that moment, the Grand Inquisitor passes by the cathedral and grasps what is happening. His face darkens. Such is his power and the fear he inspires that the crowd suddenly falls silent and parts for him. He orders Jesus arrested and thrown into prison.
Later, the Grand Inquisitor enters the cell and silently watches Jesus from the doorway for a long time. Face-to-face, they retain eye contact throughout. Neither of them flinches. Eventually, the cardinal says, “Tomorrow, I shall condemn thee at the stake as the worst of heretics. And the people who today kissed Thy feet tomorrow at the faintest sign from me will rush to heap up the embers of Thy fire. Knowest Thou that? Yes, maybe Thou knowest it.” He adds, “Why, then, art Thou come to hinder us?” Jesus says nothing.
The Grand Inquisitor’s final question appears paradoxical: how might the reappearance of Jesus interfere with the functioning of the most holy Catholic Church? Does the Church not bear Christ’s name? The answer is fascinating. For the Grand Inquisitor, what Jesus brought into the world was freedom, specifically the freedom of faith: the truth that will free. And this is where we perhaps begin to sympathize with the Grand Inquisitor. He says that for 1500 years, Christians have been wrestling with this freedom. The Grand Inquisitor too, when younger, also went into the desert, lived on roots and locusts, and tried to attain the perfect freedom espoused by Jesus. “But now it is ended and over for good”, he adds, “After fifteen centuries of struggle, the Church has at last vanquished freedom, and has done so to make men happy.”
Scene 4 – Obedience or happiness?
Leif Parsons
What is it that makes human beings happy? In a word, bread. And here we return to Jesus’ answers to Satan’s desert temptations. In refusing to transform miraculously the stones into loaves, Jesus rejected bread for the sake of freedom, for the bread of heaven. Jesus refuses miracle, mystery and authority in the name of a radical freedom of conscience. The problem is that this freedom places an excessive burden on human beings. It is too demanding; infinitely demanding, one might say. As Father Mapple, the preacher in the whaleboat pulpit early in Melville’s “Moby Dick” says, “God’s command is a hard command. In order to obey it, we must disobey ourselves.” If the truth shall set you free, then it is a difficult freedom.
The hardness of God’s command, its infinitely demanding character, is the reason why, for the Grand Inquisitor, “Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which the miserable creature is born.” Give people the miracle of bread, and they will worship you. Remove their freedom with submission to a mystery that passeth all understanding, and they will obey your authority. They will be happy. Lord knows, they may even believe themselves to be free in such happiness.
Freedom as expressed here is not the rigorous freedom of faith, but the multiplication of desires whose rapid satisfaction equals happiness. Freedom is debased and governed by a completely instrumental, means-end rationality. Yet, to what does it lead? In the rich, it leads to the isolation of hard hedonism and spiritual suicide. In the poor, it leads to a grotesque and murderous envy to be like the rich. And — as the hypocritical pièce de resistance — both rich and poor are in the grip of an ideology that claims that human beings are becoming more and more globalized and interconnected, and thereby united into a virtual world community that overcomes distance. But we are not.
Scene 5 – Oh Lord: The Church is in league with the Devil.
Back in the prison cell with the ever-silent Jesus, the Grand Inquisitor acknowledges that because of the excessive burden of freedom of conscience, “We have corrected Thy work and founded it on miracle, mystery and authority.” This is why the Grand Inquisitor says, “Why has Thou come to hinder us?”
Then comes the truly revelatory moment in the Grand Inquisitor’s monologue, which Jesus knows already (obviously, because he is God). Knowing that he knows, the cardinal says, “Perhaps it is Thy will to hear it from my lips. Listen, then. We are not working with Thee, but with him – that is our mystery.” The Church is in league with the Devil. It sits astride the Beast and raises aloft the cup marked “Mystery.” The Grand Inquisitor is diabolical. This explains why he is so fascinated with the temptations that Jesus faced in the desert. The Church has been seduced by those temptations in Jesus’ name.
The paradox is that the Church accepted those temptations in the hope of finding — as the Grand Inquisitor elegantly puts it — “Some means of uniting all in one unanimous and harmonious ant-heap.” The dream of a universal church, or a universal state, or the unity of all nations, or a cosmopolitan world order founded on perpetual peace, or whatever, is Satan’s most persuasive and dangerous temptation. The freedom proclaimed by Jesus is too demanding and makes people unhappy. We prefer a demonic happiness to an unendurable freedom. All that human beings want is to be saved from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present in making a free decision for themselves.
Scene 6 – The kiss and the curse.
And so, all will be happy, except those, like the Grand Inquisitor, who guard the mystery and know the secret. They will be unhappy. But it is a price worth paying. The true Christians, by contrast, see themselves as the elect, the 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes who will be the company of saints in the millennium that follows Christ’s second coming. This is why the Grand Inquisitor says, “I turned back and joined the ranks of those who have corrected Thy work. I left the proud and went back to the humble, for the happiness of the humble.” This is why Christ hinders the work of the Church and why he must burn like a heretic.
At this point, the Grand Inquisitor stops speaking. Silence descends. The prisoner Jesus continues to look gently into the old Cardinal’s face, who longs for him to say something, no matter how terrible. Jesus rises, approaches the old man and softly kisses his bloodless lips. The Grand Inquisitor shudders, but the kiss still glows in his heart. He stands and heads for the door, saying to Jesus, “Go, and come no more . . . come not at all . . . never, never!”
Scene 7 – Demonic happiness or unbearable freedom?
Back with the two brothers: Ivan immediately disavows the poem as senseless and naive But Alyosha upbraids Ivan, claiming he is an atheist and saying, “How will you live and how will you love with such a hell in your heart.” As Father Zossima — whose recollections and exhortations are intended as a refutation of Ivan in the following chapters of the book — says, “What is hell? I maintain that it is the incapacity to love.” The scene ends with Alyosha softly kissing Ivan on the lips, an act that the latter objects to as plagiarism.
Dostoevsky in no way wants to defend the position that Ivan Karamazov outlines in his poem. But Dostoevsky’s great virtue as a writer is to be so utterly convincing in outlining what he doesn't believe and so deeply unconvincing in defending what he wants to believe. As Blake said of “Paradise Lost,” Satan gets all the best lines. The story of the Grand Inquisitor places a stark choice in front of us: demonic happiness or unbearable freedom?
And this choice conceals another, deeper one: truth or falsehood? The truth that sets free is not, as we saw, the freedom of inclination and passing desire. It is the freedom of faith. It is the acceptance — submission, even — to a demand that both places a perhaps intolerable burden on the self, but which also energizes a movement of subjective conversion, to begin again. In disobeying ourselves and obeying this hard command, we may put on new selves. Faith hopes for grace.
Scene 8 – In which doubt and faith unite.
To be clear, such an experience of faith is not certainty, but is only gained by going into the proverbial desert and undergoing diabolical temptation and radical doubt. On this view, doubt is not the enemy of faith. On the contrary, it is certainty. If faith becomes certainty, then we have become seduced by the temptations of miracle, mystery and authority. We have become diabolical. There are no guarantees in faith. It is defined by an essential insecurity, tempered by doubt and defined by a radical experience of freedom.
This is a noble and, indeed, God-like position. It is also what Jesus demands of us elsewhere in his teaching, in the Sermon on the Mount, when he says, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you or persecute you.” If that wasn't tough enough, Jesus adds, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.” This is a sublime demand. It is a glorious demand. But it is, finally a ridiculous demand. Inhuman, even. It is the demand to become perfect, God-like. Easy for Jesus to say, as he was God. But somewhat more difficult for us.
Scene 9 – In which the Grand Inquisitor is, finally, defended.
So what about us human beings, feeble, imperfect, self-deceived — the weakest reeds in nature? Does not Jesus’ insistence on the rigor and purity of faith seem, if not like pride, then at least haughtiness? The Grand Inquisitor, and the institution of the Church that he represents, accepted Satan’s temptations not out of malice, but out of a genuine love for humanity. This was based on the recognition of our flawed imperfection and need to be happy, which we perhaps deserve.
If the cost of the pure rigor of true faith is the salvation of the happy few, then this condemns the rest of us, in our millions and billions, to a life that is a kind of mockery. The seemingly perverse outcome of Dostoevsky’s parable is that perhaps the Grand Inquisitor is morally justified in choosing a lie over the truth.
The Grand Inquisitor’s dilemma is, finally, tragic: he knows that the truth which sets us free is too demanding for us, and that the lie that grants happiness permits the greatest good of the greatest number. But he also knows that happiness is a deception that leads ineluctably to our damnation. Is the Grand Inquisitor’s lie not a noble one?
Scene 10 – In which the author expresses doubt.
To be perfectly (or imperfectly) honest, I don’t know the answer to this question. Which should we choose: diabolical happiness or unendurable freedom? Perhaps we should spend some days and nights fasting in the desert and see what we might do. Admittedly, this is quite a difficult thing to sustain during the holiday period.
Happy Holidays!
[Simon Critchley teaches philosophy at the New School for Social Research in New York. He is the author of, most recently, “The Faith of the Faithless,” and the forthcoming ”Stay, Illusion!” on Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” co-written with Jamieson Webster. He is the moderator of this series].