Censorship and the World Yesterday

Does anyone else remember Garner Ted Armstrong, Herbert W. Armstrong, Plain Truth Magazine, and the Worldwide Church of God? At one time, they dominated evangelical radio, with an audience far larger than pikers like Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, or Pat Robertson. But, as seems to be the fate of such preachers, once they faded, they faded pretty completely. The spirit moves on.

I used to listen to Garner Ted regularly. I did not have much choice. I was working as a night watchman in a small town, and at a certain time every night, he was the only thing on. His main theme was reading the end times into current events—hence the title of his broadcast, “The World Tomorrow.” The idea was that he was prophesying tomorrow's news, instead of reporting today's.

I did not agree with his views. I was Catholic, and he considered the Catholic Church to be the Antichrist. Nevertheless, I found him entertaining. Partly, he was a brilliant rhetorician. Partly, it was fun to toy with ideas one did not hear elsewhere, things that you had never thought about before.

He had many ideas that were unorthodox to me. He believed that Saturday was the proper Sabbath, that there was no Trinity, that the European Common Market was the reincarnation of the Roman Empire. He opposed the celebration of Easter or Christmas and advocated a kosher diet. He thought women should not wear makeup.

Among these other ideas, he believed that England and the US were remnants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. This idea was once common among Protestants, and is apparently called “British Israelism.”

I'm not sure I even noticed this bit at the time, but it certainly did not trouble me, or stand out among all his other strange ideas.

A liberal friend of mine recently wrote that he once worked at a radio station that ran The World Tomorrow regularly, and that it struck him as immoral to do so—even though the Worldwide Church of God was paying for the time. Why? Because “British Israelism” is "racist, fascist, and virulently anti-Semitic." Such views ought not to be aired publicly.

I see several problems with this view. First, I can't see where Garner Ted or Herbert W. were indeed anti-Semitic. Of course they thought there were errors in Judaism. This goes without saying; otherwise they would have been Jews. But anti_Semitic? How is saying you are Semitic become anti-Semitic? Here is Herbert W.'s talk on Judaism:

http://www.myoldradio.com/old-radio-episodes/h-w-armstrong-sermons-the-religion-of-judaism

Is it racist that they believed that Americans and Brits were the chosen people? If so, Judaism, too, is racist. And, of course, anyone who bases their religion on the Bible must accept the concept. Bunch of racists all, I suppose.

But let's get down to the deeper question. As my friend posed it, suppose you are an editor, and you are given a new translation of the manuscript for Mein Kampf to edit. You have three choices:

1. Refuse the work 
2. Do it, but deliberately sabotage the product 
3. Do it, and do the best job you can, thereby lending credence to the ideas expressed. 

What would be the moral choice?

Option 2 is, any way you slice it, immoral. It involves deception.

Option 1 may seem like the most moral course, but I don't think it really is. There are two possibilities if you do this. Either someone else will edit the work, or no one else will.

If someone else edits the work, you have achieved nothing by refusing to edit it. So why not edit it?

But if nobody else edits it, you are responsible for having suppressed it. Nobody will get to read it.

And this is a bigger problem. As John Stuart Mill points out, the only way to ensure that we have the truth is to ensure that all views are heard. As someone said, “truth need fear nothing but concealment.”