LETTRS to the editor.

Special Award

You cannot imagine how excited I was to receive your letter this past May telling me that I was one of your "educator prize" winners! For the last several years I have urged my students to participate in your Humanist Essay Contest so they could have a forum in which to express themselves beyond their own school. Their interest convinces me that there should always be opportunities available for bright, young writers to develop their ideas into logical and cogent arguments. Such venues, like your magazine, invite participation and inspire excellence among secondary students across the United States.

Thank you for the award and the check, which was used to purchase classroom materials. Your thought-provoking publication is an important influence on gifted young adults and those of us who work with them.

Linda A. Pavich
Troy, MI

Intelligent-Design Advocates

An interesting quibble needs to be raised with Michael Shermer's excellent thumbnail history of anti-evolutionism, "75 Years and Still No Peace" ("Up Front," September/October 2000). He writes of the latest evolution of creationism, calling itself intelligent design theory, that all of its adherents are Christians. Aside from the fact that there are a few dubious examples who claim to be atheists or agnostics (and some Jews, including at least one fairly central to the movement), one of the leading lights in the intelligent-design cause is Jonathan Wells, a follower of the Reverend Moon and his Unification Church. In fact, Wells has said that he pursued a Ph.D. in order to follow "Father's wishes" to get the credentials needed to overthrow evolution from within the science camp. Most of his fundamentalist Christian acolytes are no doubt unaware of his "heathen" background!

John R. Cole
Oakland, CA

Humanist Bias

Recently we have heard the right-wing claim that the left no longer represents freedom of speech or thought and instead itself has become dogmatic in nature. Right-wingers point to "political correctness" in trying to curb "hate speech" through legal means and social ostracization (for example, as was done in the case of John Rocker of the Atlanta Braves baseball team, who made disparaging remarks about New Yorkers). Though I believe their claim is hypocritical at best, there are times when even a broken clock is correct.

For example the July/August 2000 issue of the Humanist had a few of those dogmatic moments.

In his "Up Front" item, "Corporate Versus Independent Media," Norman Solomon characterizes as "incisive" this quote as heard on a CNN report: "We believe that objectivity is, in fact, a myth--that everyone has a bias, everyone has an agenda, and that corporations, like major news corporations, have a corporate bias."

It is fascinating that, as part of a critique on corporate ownership of news media, a statement is deemed incisive which tends to minimize the problem that most likely truly exists! If everyone has a bias and an agenda, does it matter to someone hoping for objectivity which bias or agenda is in control? I'd say no. If everyone has a bias and an agenda, why complain if it's a corporate bias and agenda as opposed to some other? No matter what, it wouldn't be objective.

The point is that, in fact, the "incisive" quote is more insipid than anything else. But it is disturbing to see someone endorse such a pointless view of reporting on reality. Though all of us may have biases, agendas, or points of view, the whole idea of using evidence, reason, and logic is to attempt to mitigate those biases to the point where challenges to the facts can be met. Yes, objectivity exists, and it is the challenge and goal of the media to be objective. To believe that objectivity is a myth is to surrender to bias, and that means complaints about corporate media bias are nothing but hypocrisy.

Yes, the media is becoming controlled by too few giant corporations that may corrupt objectivity for the sake of the bottom line. However, I certainly have no use for some kind of anti-corporate bias or dogma in its place that would masquerade as "independent." I believe we should, instead, once again appreciate the power of evidence, reason, and logic and resist ideology. A partial solution is a government that would more aggressively enforce antitrust statutes, particularly regarding the media.

In the same issue of the Humanist, the thirtieth anniversary of the Kent State massacre is reported, including the story of a taped message from Mumia Abu-Jamal played at the commemoration. Although I also oppose the death penalty and would prefer a new trial for this prisoner, I have not concluded also that he is a hero. Not all persons who have had unfair trials are admirable or innocent, and it would be more sensitive to the families of the victims to have him exonerated before making him a hero.

Further, the linking of every issue in this article--from Kent State to Amadou Diallo--starts to sound a little too "X-File-like" for me. Without going into great detail, it would seem that Diallo's killing was indeed a tragedy, possibly born of prejudice ingrained in the officers from the time they were young, keeping in mind that many of the rest of us were brought up to react similarly. To link this with Kent State is a remarkable piece of dogma.

This kind of accepting state of mind for "favorable" beliefs is not going to help our argument that humanism depends on unfettered inquiry and reason. We need to be more skeptical of our analyses and more conservative in our claims.

Gerry Dantone
Greenlawn, NY

Exploiting the Holocaust

Joyce Arthur is on the money when she suggests that a comparison of abortion to the Holocaust is offensive ("No, Virginia, Abortion Is Not Genocide," July/ August, 2000).

I suppose I've been pro-choice as long as I can remember, but patronizing cracks about my religion--oddly designed to recruit me to the anti-abortion side--contributed to solidifying my pro-choice position.

Some years ago, a colleague demanded that I oppose abortion because I am Jewish. This fundamentalist Christian pointed out that the Old Testament rules against abortion. Whatever the Bible says, I live in the real world and accept what makes sense. How offensive can anyone get, dictating to others how they should interpret their own religion?

I suppose the comparisons between abortion and the Holocaust, which I have heard on numerous occasions, mean that I should identify with the unborn. It is always risky to compare any issue to a monumental historical event. These zealots repeatedly exploit the most painful period in the modern history of my people to make a cheap political point.

That combined with evangelical Christians' invasions of my life to convert me helped me to recognize how dangerous these abrasive, bigoted lunatics are. Since I realized this, I have had no interest in what the anti-abortion side has to say. They have absolutely no credibility with me.

Arthur makes some other great points in her article. Bravo.

Bruce S. Ticker
Philadelphia, PA

Nostra Culpa: We regret one omission and one error associated with our September/ October 2000 Humanist. First, we omitted to mention that William Schulz's article, "The Humanist Basis for Human Rights, "will be a chapter in his forthcoming book, In Our Own Best Interest: How Defending Human Rights Benefits All Americans (Beacon Press).

Second, we misidentified the solar car discussed in Richard Rosentreter's cover story, "Oil, Profits, and the Question of Alternative Energy, "as being built in Neosho, Montana, when in fact it was built in Neosho, Missouri. We thank our reader Oscar Markham of Joplin, Missouri, for correcting us. As he notes, "Credit should go to those who are due it."

--the Editors