The voice of reason
Well done on a great edition – Judeophobia, NI 372. I’ve just photocopied the central section for an old friend who, quite disturbingly, and for the first time, expressed anti-Jewish sentiment while we were in the pub together recently.

The incident reminded me of a film I saw not long ago called The Last Supper, which concluded that the most effective way to deal with people who expressed hateful views was to reason with them. This I tried, and it proved very successful, and I really believe I managed to change my good friend’s views.

Many thanks for the help, and keep up the good work. There are a lot of hateful people in this world, but together I think we have a chance of changing their minds.

Peter Traynor Sheffield, England

Mixed company
You give an interesting list of writers and artists with antisemitic tendencies (‘Portrait of the artist as an antisemite’, NI 372); but they are a mixed crowd.

Geoffrey Chaucer was intent on assembling an eclectic mix of stories, some more sophisticated than others, and routinely attributed to his pilgrim narrators attitudes he didn’t himself share. His bit of sedately gory antisemitism is given to the genteel Prioress, who couldn’t bear to look at a mouse in a trap.

Shakespeare did give Shylock the speech appealing to shared humanity: ‘Hath not a Jew hands, organs...? fed with the same food... as a Christian is?’

Wagner, on the other hand, was an enthusiastic hater, especially in general terms. He loathed the French; he gleefully boasted of hating ‘the three Js – Jews, Jesuits and jurists’. He also chose a number of Jews as his close friends and assistants.

Mark Twain is a curious case. He wrote sympathetically of black people, satirized racism and the slave-owning mentality, fiercely attacked Leopold II’s atrocities in the Congo. He never had a good word for the Native Americans.

George Schlesinger Durham, England

Critical debate continues on whether Chaucer was antisemitic or whether his use of a rabidly antisemitic tale was ‘ironic’. However, antisemitism was a common theme of Christian literature of Chaucer’s time and there is much scholarship to suggest he was content to reflect it. The ‘ironic’ reading is attributable more to a modern audience’s desire to be comfortable with the messages in the Canterbury Tales. While Shylock’s speech is often quoted in defence of Shakespeare’s characterization of him, the rest of the play is saturated with offensive references to his Jewishness and villainy. – Ed

Struggle for balance
Your recent issue on Judeophobia (NI 372) was very informative and challenging. I recognized my own struggle in finding balance in my views as I read the opening words: ‘Whether it’s antisemitism or the polar opposite, rarely are Jews seen as ordinary human beings – as flawed and perfect as everyone else.’ As a supporter of peace (for Jews and Palestinians), I admit I have, at times, found it difficult to separate the politics and military actions of the Jewish state from Jews themselves, and this in turn has given me a negative view of Israelis. However, I am proud to say that, since reading your articles, I have been able to confront the fact that I do not approve of the Israeli Government without it clouding my view of the Jewish people. I now have a new appreciation for Jewish culture and can clearly see how leftwing activists can miss seeing the wood for the trees in their own attitudes towards people groups. I believe that with this sort of educational resource available, people will be able to cease either idolizing or despising the Jews – it certainly sharpened my own beliefs.

Emily Chapman Oatlands, Australia

Revolutionary change
Unfortunately, the most important use of religion was not discussed in the recent In the name of God issue (NI 370). Each religion provides a teaching and a way to transform people from childish egocentricity to the sage and compassionate embrace of ever greater dimensions of the human spirit.

The raison d’être of each religion is to mature individuals and communities through four evermore inclusive circles of human development from ego-centred body (me) to group-centred mind (us) to humanity-centred soul (all of us) to universal unity-in-diversity spirit (all sentient beings without exception) until there is at-one-ment of all creatures in divine Spirit. Essentially, the purpose of religion is to encourage the gradual change in individuals and communities from blind selfishness to generous selflessness.

Impeding this revolutionary change are powerful forces of smug complacency, proud ignorance and dark regression. Such forces delude most of us, religious and non-religious, individuals and communities. In each religion, open-minded, open-hearted saints tend to be rare; while deluded sinners are many. And that observation also pertains to the religion of humanism.

Gerard Bruitzman Hampton East, Australia

Humanist challenge
David Boulton (‘Who needs religion?’, NI 370) describes the problems that religions cause, including the potentially catastrophic showdown between Islam and Christianity-Judaism in the Middle East. Many intractable conflicts are based on obsolete beliefs.

But his conclusion is to stick with the old tribal organizations that religions are, instead of joining forces with the Humanist movement. Why? Because, he says, religions satisfy a deep, emotional need. Humanism by contrast, he says, is blinkered and anorexic, which is why few people join.

Utter rubbish! Religions are strong, even though their foundation beliefs have been rendered obsolete, because they have long-established social status. David Boulton should consider the privileges that religions enjoy, particularly the way that they use schools, often at state expense, to indoctrinate children. The slow growth of Humanism reveals its lack of such institutional power, rather than any (bogus) psychological instinct for religion.

Thank Reason (not Zeus, or any other mythical deity) the other contributors to NI 370 did not chicken out, but followed their critiques of religion with ideas for social reform.

Les Reid (www.humanists.net/belfast)
Northern Ireland

Eco-spirituality
In the name of God was sheer pleasure, particularly David Boulton’s superbly written ‘Who needs religion?’ It surprised me that your only reference to eco-spirituality was one para (God the unauthorized biography) relegating it to historical primitivism. That’s a shame: modern earth-based spirituality is alive and well, with a growing scholarly literature; see Thomas Berry’s The Great Work (1999, Bell Tower) for starters. Australia’s Earth Bible project is a Christian angle on eco-spirituality, but its uniqueness lies in being embedded in the best of scientific evolutionary knowledge combined with a total blindness to culture, creed and dogma.

Lee Andresen Ballina, Australia

Time to ratify
As one of the organizations that has been leading the battle against Big Tobacco for several years, and working for a strong Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), it was gratifying you recognized the urgency of this issue and explained the treaty so clearly and cogently for your readers (Hooked on tobacco, NI 369). As I write this, the FCTC has been ratified by 32 countries with 40 needed to bring it into force. We are on the cusp of an historic, lifesaving international treaty, and I urge those countries that have not yet ratified, including the US, to do so.

Kathryn Mulvey Executive Director, Infact (www.infact.org) Boston, US

The ‘So what?’ test
The NI is to be congratulated on its stance on the centuries-old scourge known as antisemitism (NI 372). However, as is often the case, your report falls short of a full-scale rebuttal of antisemitic prejudice. Since antisemitism is largely based on ignorance, rational arguments are needed to counteract its harmful influence. In many cases, an adequate argument might be the ‘so what?’ test. Even if you accepted that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was the work of a handful of evil Jews: so what? How could a handful of Jews subvert the established European order without an army, without strong political and social support, and above all without the numbers?

Even if you accepted that Dreyfus was guilty: so what? The guilt of one Jew surely does not entail the guilt of all Jews! (Incidentally, when it was revealed that the real culprit was a

Hungarian, there was no corresponding hysteria throughout France against Hungarians).

The deicide charge should also be refutable with rational arguments. The Christian churches have traditionally taught that humankind could be saved only through the supreme sacrifice of a divine Saviour, so should we all not be thankful to those who accomplished what was decreed by God himself? That millions of post-Christ Jews should be held collectively accountable for a crime allegedly committed by a handful of wicked people living in Jerusalem in the early first century should surely be repugnant to any right-thinking individual.

Dino Bressan Heidelberg, Australia

Correction
In the article ‘Portrait of the artist as an antisemite’ (NI 372), Roald Dahl was incorrectly identified as the original author of the story of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Dahl wrote the screenplay when Ian Fleming’s story was made into a film. The quote attributed to him is still correct however.