yours sceptically The debate continues . . . on neoconservatism, belief and cartoons

Send your letters by email to letters@newhumanist.org.uk, by fax to 0207 079 3588, or by post to New Humanist, 1 Gower St, London WC1E 6HD

Material for the September/October 2007 edition should arrive at the editorial office by August 8

We reserve the right to edit

Rational democrat

It was most timely of you to draw attention in your editorial (“He did God”, May/ June 2007) to the insidious role of religion in the government of this country – and the part played in this recidivist tendency by Tony Blair. The government of the people by the people is the only fair way for the regulation of our nation. The vast majority of the citizens of this country are rationalist. A rational approach to politics is therefore a prerequisite for good government. Richard Eastburn-Hewitt, Kingston-uponThames

Go neocons!

Shadia Drury (“Gurus of Endless War”, May/June 2007) repeats the canard that neoconservatism is a product of “children of Jewish immigrant families’”– devotees of Trotsky. It is true that a few neocons such as Irving Kristol and Sidney Hook had once been Marxists. But most had not, and indeed were products of the US Democrat or Republican Parties. Many took their inspiration less from Marx than from Franklin D Roosevelt, Truman and Reagan. There appears to be an implicit antiSemitism in the writings of many of those who assume that neocons with obviously Jewish names must be acting in concert. Nonsense. The reality is that many exliberals are attracted to neoconservatism because they believe that intervention against totalitarian regimes is justified, and that if the UN fails to prevent monstrous crimes against a country’s population then the USA has the moral right to do so. Neoconservatism was conceived as a reassertion of the values that underpin our liberal democratic ideals in the face of a fundamentalist onslaught. For those of us who believe that we cannot ignore the threat nor tolerate the existence of genocidal regimes, neoconversatism articulates an appropriate response. Harry Davies, Chorleywood, Herts.

8 new humanist July Agust 2007

✱ Embracing evil

Nick Cohen’s piece (“In Denial”, May/June 2007) is as disturbing as it is relevant. The extreme left and right are different sides of the same political pathology and have much in common. The Livingstone/al-Qaradarwi photograph recalled those sordid images of Croatian Catholic priests congratulating SS officers in World War II. Like Cohen I was steadily conditioned for decades, especially by the BBC, to think “Left good, Right bad”. Now that there are no genuinely socialist or communist states in existence I suggest we look to individual politicians’ attitudes and support them, and hold them to account, on key issues, regardless of the moribund Left/Right dichotomy. If we are concerned about education, women’s rights and raising the aspirations of the poorer classes then David Willetts, David Davis, Trevor Phillips and Frank Field have most of the sound ideas between them. Meanwhile Ken Livingstone, literally, embraces evil.

Martin Bright, Bracknell

Neocons and Islam

Shadia Drury’s “Gurus of Endless War” (May/June 2007) was an interesting discussion of neoconservatism. But while I’m not equipped to know whether she or her critics are right about how to read the ideas of Leo Strauss, I was certainly disappointed by her suggestion that neoconservatives see the Islamic world as a menace. As she says, one prominent neoconservative, Samuel Huntington, has

‘‘Neoconversatism is an appropriate response to fundamentalist onslaught’’ Harry Davies

made that argument. But another leading neoconservative, Joshua Muravchik, can be found arguing that “there are surely many devout Muslims who are democrats, and there are even some democrats who call themselves Islamists”, while George W. Bush used a 2004 speech to Air Force Academy graduates to describe Islam as “humane” and deny that there was any clash of civilizations. Neoconservatism remains a highly contentious force, and Islamophobia is an outrage, but to give the impression neoconservatives are waging a war against Islam as such will not help us understand its role in the world. Martin Durham, Wolverhampton All believe

I am very close to the views expressed by Laurie Taylor (“Blind Faith”, May/June 2007). I also learnt the Credo in my childhood, but with no great conviction. At the same time I was fascinated by science as a reliable way to ultimate truth. As I developed my studies in evolution, astronomy and cosmology, my belief (yes, “belief”) that science was the safest path to truth strengthened. At the same time, my doubts about organised religion were growing. I realised that the gospels of the New Testament were a biased selection and that there had been active suppression of such gospels as those of Thomas, Philip and Mary Magdalene. This does not necessarily mean that believers in a supernatural being are wrong. There are the Mystics, of all ages and faiths, who claim to experience direct contact with the mind of God. And there are modern scientist-philosophers who go further. For example, some claim that the physical universe is an illusion and that ultimate reality is, and always has been, mental – in essence a cosmic mind. Any conflict between believers and unbelievers is an illusion. We are all, in some sense, believers. I am back to Laurie Taylor’s final paragraph. A P Moore, Exeter

GETTY

Beyond belief

Laurie Taylor misses the point about belief (“Blind Faith”, May/June 2007). Rationalists do not have beliefs as such. Even though I may say in casual conversation that I believe that the world is round, what I am really saying is that, based on the available

evidence, it is much more probable that the earth is an oblate spheroid than a flat circular object. I am not professing any sort of belief, merely giving my opinion based on rational consideration of the evidence. It matters not whether religious people believe in God or that God exists. What matters is that what religious people are saying is that regardless of any evidence, pro or contrary, in their opinion there is a God. There is no possible argument that can be constructed that can sway such an opinion. We really should accept that religious people are like that, but still maintain eternal vigilance to prevent them imposing their views upon us. T K Greenwood, Brampton

Well said

Thank you for your article “Change Change Change” (May/June 2007). I have taken HRT for many years and have always kept up-to-date with views and research. This enables me to make up my own mind about what is best for me. There are many decisions in life that are individual. You have to weigh up the effect on yourself and those around you. If you’re living a happy, fulfilled life and still managing to contribute something you’re certainly not letting other women down. Well said, Jenni Murray. Pam Buxton, Swaffham

George Bush hears himself deny there is a clash of civilisations

‘‘Rationalists do not have beliefs as such. We have opinions based on evidence’’ TK Greenwood

Privileged reader

As a lifetime member of the Rationalist Association I always read your publication from cover to cover. Every time I am delighted by the outspokenness of your writers, who are not afraid to shun the “political correctness” we are being subjected to daily by our media. What a relief! Otto H Nowotny, Basle, Switzerland

Humourless humanist

The New Humanist aims to be, and largely is, a rational and responsible magazine. Why therefore do you allow the covers to be so consistently crude and aggressive? The May/June edition was particularly notable for the unfunny caricature of Rowan Williams. Jake Bromberg made a strong rational case for the exclusion of the bishops from a future House of Lords (“Holy Relics”, May/June 2007), a case which was certainly not strengthened by the caricatures. Is there any hope that you will soon see fit to return the covers to rationality? Peter Faulkner, Exeter

Reinforced bigotry

The cartoon depicting the “Islamic Transvestite Convention’” on page 3 of the May/June issue is Islamophobic and unworthy of your journal. This kind of stereotyping of a religious and ethnic minority reinforces inaccurate perceptions of the Muslim community and is simply not funny. It is the kind of “joke” I would expect to see in a BNP publication, perhaps alongside a cartoon that depicts Muslim men as bearded terrorists, and Jews as hook-nosed money lenders? I thought that New Humanist stood for a more rational way of perceiving the world around us. But stereotypes rarely help understanding, and if we are to move to a more rational future then we need to do this through clarity and a degree of toleration, not through reinforcing bigotry. Mark Erickson, Brighton

July August 2007 new humanist 9