LETTERS to the editor

Kudos for the great cover photo on the January/February 2001 issue! The cover stories on "Nurturing a Healthier Society" were excellent. As the nursing mother of baby number four, I can attest to the truth of the articles.

In the "Thistles and Roses" department: a rose to the Collins Public Library for recently adding the Humanist to its collection; a thistle to the Collins Public Library for keeping the January/February 2001 issue in the librarian's desk drawer because the cover photo was considered "inappropriate" and might offend patrons.

Carolyn Reinhold Collins, IA

Terrorism

Until the January/February 2001 Humanist ("The Ultimate Rogue Nation") I had always enjoyed John Swomley's contributions. He is correct about pro-Israel bias, which I believe is justified (as was U.S. bias for Britain and against Nazi Germany). But he is wrong about anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias, particularly those states that we arm, subsidize, or court for oil no matter how oppressive their governments. The most charitable word I have for some of Swomley's views is obtuse.

He takes the issues out of context. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is a battle of two "rights" in which both sides commit wrongs. (As in the United States, humanists must be few in Israel and fewer still among Israel's enemies.) However, the Palestinians are a part of a collective of over 100 million Arab-Muslims (an ultimate source of great strength) while Israelis number the United States among their few friends. The context? Israel can win 100 times but loses only once--followed by a bloodbath of a kind inflicted on their own populations by some of Israel's enemies.

While the United States delayed Desert Storm to avoid attacking during Ramadan, in 1973 Israel was attacked on its holiest day by cruel regimes using more tanks than the Nazis used against the U.S.S.R. on June 21, 1941. They were finally repelled at great cost by the Israelis who were about to run out of supplies when President Richard Nixon (no friend of Jews) approved resupply (only permitted via Spain). Israel carried the day, though we prevented it from destroying an encircled Egyptian army. Had Syria and Egypt won, you can imagine the result by recalling recent news photos: the blood on his hands flaunted by a murderer of Israelis seeking shelter in Ramallah.

Right or wrong, Israel is a few million people who literally cannot cling to life without U.S. diplomatic and military support. Withdraw that and they will be overrun by some of their neighbors, plus Iraq and Iran. Not very humanistic. Perhaps Swomley would approve a U.S. Navy evacuation of any remnants.

David H. Spodick Worcester, MA

I was appalled when reading about the incarceration of Nasser K. Ahmed here in the United States (Burton Levine, "Terrorism in the Land of the Free," January/February 2001)--because it was believed he was associated with a terrorist group. This is getting to be like the red scare during McCarthyism.

I am a mixture of Filipino, Chinese, Mexican, French, English, Irish, and Arabian and I travel throughout the world. I always get stopped at the gates because no one can figure out what nationality I am. Some people think I look Arabian, some people think I look Turkish. They don't have a clue and always check my bags for illegal firearms or explosives. I guess I look like a terrorist.

I'm not surprised that the Immigration and Naturalization Service targets certain individuals. The law always uses guilt by association, so pray that your neighbor who you are friends with isn't an IRA member. Instead of foreign terrorism, they should look heavily into domestic terrorism. While foreign terrorism seems to be subsiding, domestic terrorism--from the Aryan Brotherhood to various militias--seems to be growing. What the INS needs to realize is that domestic terrorism has a majority of caucasians. So instead of dark-skinned people being held at airport security gates, maybe it needs to start stopping the caucasian populace. Food for thought.

Paul Dale Roberts Elk Grove, CA

Charitable Choice

Lyse Hurd's article, "Families, Faith, and Mental Health" ("Creative Controversy," January/February 2001), poses a challenge to humanism and the American Humanist Association on two issues. First, nothing should be more anathema to the principles of humanism than to put ideas ahead of people. The separation of church and state is an important concept; however, it must take a back seat to caring for the well-being of fellow humans.

Second, the principles of humanism should be put into practice in tangible ways to help others. It isn't enough that humanists in all walks of life are engaged in helping others and advancing humanist principles. Humanist organizations need to do more than write, lecture, and lobby. They need to provide care and services to others under the humanist banner. Individuals in need shouldn't have to choose between faith-based organizations and government bureaucracies. They should be given the option of help from humanist organizations.