Response to terrorism. (Letters to the editor).

Wow! The heartiest of congratulations. The November/December 2001 Humanist topped even the last few terrific issues. Every article was well researched, insightful, timely, and right on target. For example, my issue arrived the day after our Congress passed the so-called Patriot Act, which severely limits the very civil rights which patriots have fought so vigorously to defend for over 200 years. Barbara Dority's article, "Invading the Bill of Rights," put everything in a very clear, well thought out perspective.

Many of the other excellent articles also struck me as not only fitting all the adjectives above but also as more "bold" than I remember reading in the recent past in the Humanist. As an activist, I couldn't help but yellow highlight some of the strongest statements from a variety of the articles that had me saying, "Yeah, right on!"

Surely the November/December issue of the Humanist will be regarded in the future as a classic.

Donald S. Havis
San Mateo, CA

In this time of intense patriotism, who among us is truly ready to risk death for our freedoms? I suspect that many people deeply believe that they are. But which freedoms will they risk death to preserve? The freedom of privacy? Of habeas corpus? Of speech? Of free assembly? Of free expression? The freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Are we willing to risk death at the hands of terrorists as the price of these freedoms?

I see many people waving the U.S. flag and--remarkably--at the same time proclaiming that we must give up our constitutional freedoms in order to be safer. I see members of Congress quick to legislate away our freedoms for our safety. Where is the courage and patriotism in that?

Now that we must choose between safety and freedom, we must not flinch if the flag is to mean anything. The courage of our convictions is being tested by history. We should let our representatives know that we aren't so fearful as to have them legislate away the freedoms and privacies that other generations have died to give us.

Dennis M. Burke
Phoenix, AZ

I think the next issue of the Humanist needs to present mainstream humanistic rebuttals to the anti-war articles I have just skimmed in our November/ December 2001 issue (and will study subsequently). As Fred Edwords, editor of the Humanist, stated at the national conference of the American Humanist Association last May in Los Angeles, "Humanism is not monolithic."

I must say that, when someone attacks you and indicates that the attacks will continue, you eschew self-defense only at some peril. The alternatives to war, which is distinctly unpleasant, surely seem much worse. In brief, I don't want our fine magazine to be viewed as weirdly idealistic. (Idealistic is fine.)

Joe Silverman
Altoona, PA

With the announcement by the United States of its intention to rid the world of religious fanaticism, I thought there would be humanists dancing in the streets. But all I see in the Humanist, with regard to September 11, is criticism of our government. I guess, according to the Humanist establishment, our country can do no right. If we humanists really want to do away with religious tyranny, Afghanistan is certainly a good place to start.

Ray Sherman
Duarte, CA

Tamim Ansary in his "Up Front" piece in the November/December 2001 Humanist has expressed exactly how I felt since September 11. I read his words for the first time in your publication and was amazed to find a reflection of my own ideas.

Probably having lived as a child through Stalin's occupation of my country (Estonia), then in Hitler's world (Germany), gone through World War II "over there," emigrated, adapted to life as a refugee, lived my parents' struggle to build a new life for us in South America, and having immigrated to the United States more than thirty years ago has given me a similar outlook on things as Ansary has.

Yes, I too compare the Taliban to Nazism or any other "ism" out there. I also think of bin Laden as a criminal like Hitler. In my letters to friends I have referred to him as someone with a dictatorial mind who has ambitions of ruling his world which he tries very hard to make as large as the whole of the Islamic world. And he uses the Western world like Hitler used the Jews. Whipping up the Muslim world against "the West" brings bin Laden the power he craves.

The quintessence of "the West" in his mind is the United States, and that is why he uses us to instill hate toward the West. He entices the Muslims to fanatically hate the United States of America as a tool to become powerful himself.

As you see, I differ from Ansary's view on how the comparison with the Jews fits into the picture we are seeing now. They were Hitler's tool to power and we are bin Laden's tool to become the ruler in the world he is trying to create for himself.

Yes, the Afghan people are as much victims of the Taliban as we are. But many of them are also being radicalized against the West just as most Germans and Austrians were indoctrinated by Hitler against the Jews. I look at the TV programs where they show us schools in which Afghani, Pakistani, or Saudi children are being taught to hate us. It reminds me of all the glories about Hitler we had to learn in school during Hitler's time in Germany. I saw the same happen with Juan and Evita Peron in Argentina. School children are always being taught by dictatorial regimes how great their leaders are.

Children and young people in countries where the regimes are repressive can't get from their parents any knowledge of what came before or of what would be better. Parents try to protect their children and themselves by not telling of their former experiences and the knowledge they have of how things are in other countries out of fear the kids will say something to the wrong person and the whole family will be wiped out by the dictatorship under which they are living.

It was this way in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. I am sure it has been the same under the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Sigrid Maldonado
Dunbarton, NH

The four excellent articles in the "Up Front" section of the November/December 2001 Humanist pretty much explain why the West, and especially the United States, is hated in the Middle East and elsewhere. One aspect, though, should have received more attention: Information Age-related phenomena such as culture shock. As we exchange ideas much faster, these same ideas are also more likely to clash, as my article "Mixed Blessings" in the September/ October 1996 issue of the Humanist points out. I think it is important that we all become familiar with these underlying causes so we can find ways to avert a global disaster.

We usually associate culture shock with the difficulties that immigrants to the United States encounter. These newcomers to our culture, having come here voluntarily, are generally willing to adapt and will do so over the course of a few years. One should remember that such new residents are generally quite ready to change--either out of conviction or necessity.

But what happens if we export our way of life or culture through modern media? Don't we expose others to culture shock--people who aren't quite ready to embrace our lifestyle? And when they didn't invite our exports (for example, movies, TV shows, and the like), wouldn't they often feel offended? If, for example, you were a teacher or a mullah in a developing world country with the mission of educating children, wouldn't your authority be threatened when your charges ask questions like, "How come we can't live like people in the United States?" We in the West must become much more sensitive to the feelings of others and respect their dignity.

Richard H. Nethe
Los Gatos, CA