JW.org does partial U-turn over Awake! magazine Rama Singh misquote

by Watchtower-Free 30 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • steve2

    It is a coup for accurate reporting that the organization has completely removed the (mis)quote from electronic versions.

    Legally, Dr Singh would be hard pressed to successfully pursue the matter further because law does not cover the need to compel an adherent party to also apologize publically for its misuse, particularly since the core request to remove the quote was actioned upon instruction. You could perhaps make a legal case for a public apology if this were not the first time an author's words were misused. Otherwise, honey, there ain't no use pushing this barrow up the hill.

    Moreover, it would be unusual for a man of Dr Singh's stature to be swept along by attempts to beef up the legal case by mixing perfectly understandable outrage at the organization's pedo-cover-up with this very specific instance of scholastic dishonesty.

  • Pete Zahut
    Pete Zahut
    According to popular opinion here, there have been many specific instances of past scholastic dishonesty on the part of the Watchtower. If that is the case and if Mr. Singh was serious when he made reference to this misquote as a "deliberate attempt to damage his reputation", a lawsuit might be in order. If nothing else, it would be another recent public expose' of a not-so-perfect Watchtower.
  • stuckinarut2

    If I can find Dr Singh's letter to the org, (not from an "apostate" site) I am going to use this to help open my wife's eyes some more.....

    Then I will show her the changed article!

    Does anyone have a copy of his whole letter, or a link to it as found in a reputable source journal or newspaper?

  • Watchtower-Free

    Editor of Awake (Magazine)
    Jehovah’s Witnesses

    Dear Editor,

    I am writing to protest your Awake Magazine article, “The origin of life – five questions worth asking”, dated January, 2015″, in which you have misquoted me by taking half a sentence out of context from my article on evolution. Contrary to what you imply, I do not support a creationist view, nor do I suggest that even a minority of scientists support such a view. Anyone who reads my article can see that I fully support the theory of evolution (Singh 2011).

    In my article, I follow the paragraph from which you have misquoted me with material showing why the facts of evolution are hard to comprehend for many people. My article is meant for people who want to understand evolution but who do not have the expertise to do so, not for creationists like you who oppose evolution on religious grounds.

    Your misquotation amounts to intellectual dishonesty and reflects on your character and dignity as editor as well as a man of God. I can understand that you do not accept evolution as an explanation for the biodiversity on this planet, but I cannot understand why you would knowingly misuse a scientist’s work to make him appear supporting the creationist point of view.

    I have received inquiries from many evolutionists, atheists and former members of your organization (ex-JW) who brought the above misquotation to my attention. I agree with them that your misquotation of my work is deliberate and meant to convince your followers in the truth of creationism by perpetuating false support from scientists.

    So I am asking you first to remove the misquotation from your article immediately and second print an unconditional apology for what I consider is a deliberate damaging action on your part to my reputation.

    The goal of religion is to seek truth, to remove ignorance and fear, not to perpetuate myths and lies. As a man of religion you may have the need for God and as a man of science I may not. But we both should be on the same side when it comes to the pursuit of truth. Believers need truth as much as non-believers do.

    If I may suggest, as an organization you should stop wasting your time in perpetuating lies against evolution. Religion and science need each other. As Einstein remarked, religion is lame without science, and science is blind without religion. Religion and science are both driven by reason but they operate in different domains. Religion seeks absolute truth, science proceeds through incremental steps. Religion is the reason to keep science marching.

    The Catholic Church and its leaders, including Pope Pius XII, Pope John Paul II, and most recently Pope Francis, have albeit slowly but progressively accepted evolution and do not see conflict between religion and science. God is not a magician, as Pope Francis said, and it’s insulting to human intelligence to put everything at God’s door. Jehovah’s Witnesses should feel liberated in supporting evolution as it would free you from proselytizing false doctrine and allow you to dig deeper into the meaning and the mystery of life.

    Accepting evolution does not bar you from believing in God and vice versa. This is exactly what many Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains do. All these religions came from the same trunk and yet Buddhism and Jainism were atheistic in their origins. Hindus’ theory of reincarnation making God progressively appear in the different eons in the form of fish, turtle, boar, lion, a small man, a full man, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, and the future Kalki, represent an evolutionary ladder in higher organisms. According to Hindu texts, there are 8.4 million life forms (yoni/species) and the life (jiv) in all of them comes from the same source, implying a common origin. The literal theory of rebirth meaning life going through all 8.4 million life forms is obviously an evolutionary progression up the ladder if life. Hindus have no problem with believing in evolution and God at the same time.

    Furthermore, not believing in religion and God does not mean that one has no interest in the origin and evolution of the universe and in the bigger questions of life. Atheists do not believe in organized religions or faiths, but atheists are as much interested in the bigger questions life and death as you are. Atheists too can be loving and kind. Let me give you an example:

    “When Gandhi was developing his non-violent struggle movement for the freedom of India, he was also mounting a campaign against the social ills of the Indian society such as untouchability, child marriage, marriage dowry, women’s disempowerment, religious disharmony, etc. A social activist, by the nickname Gora, a Brahman from the State of Andhra, was doing similar social work with like-minded activists in his home area. The interesting thing is that while they were both doing social activists, Gandhi was a man of faith, a living faith, Mr. Gora was an Atheist. Gora loved Gandhi’s philosophy and wanted to meet with him. It took a while but finally he got his chance and Gandhi invited Gora and his group to his Ashram and gave them duties. Gandhi was interested in knowing how can a man as Gora show so much love and affection and do to so much good social work and still be an Atheist. Over the weeks the group was there Gandhi would take them, one at a time, to walk and ask them about their work and life. Finally one day Gandhi sat down and asked Gora why he was an Atheist. Gora broke into a long monologue summarizing the damage done to the country by the long held social and cultural practices of the religious organizations. Gandhi listened to all Gora had to say and then asked him: How can you do all this good work and still be an Atheist to which Gora replied: “Father, I am an Atheist, I am not godless (Singh 2009).” Religion cannot survive without reason, but blind faith can. A literal belief in the sacred texts is bound to put religion against reason. What are contained in the sacred books may be words of God, but these words were heard and put together by mere humans who are prone to err. It’s contrary to common sense to assume that what’s put in the sacred books by our great ancestors and religious leaders must necessarily be truth and nothing but truth. We must inquire and as St. Augustine said, reason must prevail over religion.

    The sacred books guide us to seeking truth. Blind (unquestioning) faith in God can be a source of personal strength to some but it can never be a substitute for dialogues, discussions and engagements among fellow beings.

    The world has changed and so should religion. A religion that does not change and adapt with time is doomed to become irrelevant. Rescuing religion from irrelevance is the dominant problem of today. Your organization has a large following and you can use them constructively to bring science and religion together. The great enterprise of science and religion is too important and too interdependent to be driven by a religious manual. Your love of God need not blind your reason.

    In closing, I say to you what I say to my students: To understand other subjects you need to study them; to understand evolution you need to study and meditate on it.

    Rama Singh
    Department of Biology
    McMaster University
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada


    Singh, R.S. (2009). Atheists too can be loving and kind. Hamilton
    Spectator, July 23, 2013.

    Singh, R.S. (2011). Darwin’s legacy: why biology is not physics, or why
    evolution has not become a common sense? Genome 54: 1-6.

    Rama S Singh <singh@mcmaster.ca>

  • Muddy Waters
    Muddy Waters

    Awesome, thank you, WT-Free!

    The GB are such cowards, yet so arrogant in never apologizing. Buncha weasly-wording fakers full of double talk and cover ups. Their lies pile higher and higher and sooner or later their tower will tumble, because according to their own claim, a house cannot stand divided.

  • steve2

    Dr Singh is absolutely entitled to have the misquote removed.

    But, honestly, me think he doth protest too much in his letter. Talk about over the top approaching a diatribe.

    Surely he does not really expect the organization's writers to capitulate and start writing "pro" evolution material! For sure, they have taken his words completely out of context and need to be held to account for that by removing his words altogether.

    As for the man still having the option of pursuing them for damaging his reputation - for God's sake:

    Is his reputation so pencil-thin that one misquote portraying him as supportive of creationism damages him? It is a reality that authorities are requently misquoted in publications, including non-religious media, and those authorities have means of redressing the misquotes including the removal and/or correction (in electronic media) and/or "Clarification" sections of print media.

  • stuckinarut2

    I don't think it was over the top Steve2.

    What if EVERYTHING you stood for and believed in was misrepresented?

    What if you were a well known, influencial, respected person within a community and had complete untruths said about you?

    Plus, this is a very clever way of him turning this negative publicity into a positive form of publicity toward his life's work.....

  • _Morpheus
    I dont know the man and of course cannot speak for him but maybe his reply wasnt so much for the gb as it was for everyone who reached to out him about the misquote. Of course the org dosent care a wit what he said, they misquoted him to begin with... But i enjoyed reading his reply, no matter who he though would read it. It especially brought a smile to face when he related the anecdote re Gora and the "athiest not godless" quip.
  • Pete Zahut
    Pete Zahut
    I wonder what the Watchtower Legal Dept. would do if Dr.Singh wrote an article for a widely distributed science journal and used one of their quotes out of context to make it look like they were now supporting evolution?
  • cognisonance
    Here is a signed copy of the letter:

Share this