The Songs of Summer; Doggie Don't; MUGGER Knows/Doesn't Know His Dylan; Praise Tiger; Damn Tiger; More
Christopher Caldwell might be interested to know that the lyric in "Beach Baby" ("Songs of Summer," 5/23) about spilled pop was ripped off from the Beach Boys' "All Summer Long": "Sittin' in the car outside your house/'member when you spilled Coke all over your blouse." I'm old enough to remember "Beach Baby" (and even the Beach Boys), but, thank God, I never actually heard it. Good article.
David King, via the Internet
Och! Fergie's Back!
In regard to Jim Knipfel's very enjoyable essay "The Real Jaws Theme" ("Songs of Summer," 5/23), please inform him that Jaws was not the first film to bear the warning that he cites. That honor goes to the 1971 epic The Andromeda Strain, which was advertised with a warning (rendered all-caps, but that I'll quote in lowercase) as follows: "Some scenes may be too intense for younger viewers." The word "intense" was boldfaced. As this film was lacking in violence or bloodshed, I assume that the warning referred to the only sequence in The Andromeda Strain likely to scare little children: the scene in which the scientists must deliberately asphyxiate a cute little furry animal in order to prevent an intergalactic plague from wiping out Earth's entire biosystem. I had to make that exact same moral decision just last week.
Fergus Gwynplaine MacIntyre, Glasgow
Little Darlings
My two favorite New York Press writers, Russ Smith and Andrey Slivka, are pointing to summers past and music. I appreciate MUGGER's attack (5/23) on the hyperbolic writing on Dylan. The Dylan of 1965-'66 was something of a miracle. Everyone should stop talking and just listen (again or for the first time). Slivka delineates a part of Hudson Valley history that makes me want to find my Neil Young vinyl and light a bong ("Songs of Summer," 5/23). I love the images of Russ harmonizing, and of Slivka banging a roll of caps with a brick. You guys must have been so cute.
Rob Jones, Manhattan
Brought It All Back Home
MUGGER: I rarely, if ever, agree with your politics, but I always read you (online, mostly). Excellent column about Bobby D (5/23). I'm sitting here listening to the windup of WFUV's all-day Dylan birthday celebration, with a break for the heartbreaking Sox loss.
My last civilian summer was 1965; Parris Island on Oct. 8 and in country by June of '66. I have a picture of me sitting in my cot south of Danang with a picture of Bob with some medals pinned to him. I had a little battery-powered turntable; some Kinks, some Temps and Bob. Amazing memories now. Thanks again for the column.
William Breen, Shrub Oak, NY
You're a Liiiii-ar
MUGGER: In the early 60s I was home from four years of active duty in the Marine Corps and living in Boston when I first heard Dylan. I had a few really hip and hippie friends on Beacon Hill who were playing his albums, along with those of some other hippie folk-rock-blues-country style wailers, before he really got big. I could not deny the power and raw energy of his style, but I immediately pegged him as being full of shit. I had gone to high school with Chicago Seven member Jerry Rubin (Walnut Hills High School in Cincinnati) and I later thought of him and Dylan as the same type? guys who make a nice living out of whining about injustice, but never really do anything substantive about it.
I had served in the Far East as a very young Recon Marine, traipsing over Indochina in the wake of the French catastrophe. We knew, in the late 50s, that the U.S. was being sucked into the vacuum and could probably not escape a larger and bloodier involvement in the future. After Tonkin and the landing of the Marine Brigade, I knew that I had unfinished business and that I must go back. I have not been able to listen to the music of that era with the same ears since then, most of all Dylan. Joan Baez had integrity, Dylan was a musical con man. And he still is.
Paul Neuman, Brookfield, CT
Times a-Changed
MUGGER: Just read the excellent Dylan piece. One fact, and Dylan's own explanation of that fact, are missing. Sometime after John Wesley Harding Dylan stopped being Dylan. Everything after that is good, but it's not the real stuff. Finally, sometime in the late 70s, a Rolling Stone interviewer asked him what happened. Dylan's own response, as I recall, was, "One day I was half-stepping along and the lights went out. Things I used to be able to do naturally, I can't do anymore."
Jim Klein, San Francisco
Love Minus Zero
MUGGER: Sorry dear, that Dylan column was a waste of time and space.
J. Abramson, Ridgecrest, CA
Dylan and Other Enigmas
MUGGER: About "Like a Rolling Stone"?I love the song but it's a little before my time, and you don't go into the song's meaning. You mention the line, "Ain't it hard when you discover that he really wasn't where it's at." Then you mention the Byrds and other groups that sang Dylan's songs; are you trying to say Dylan was referring to himself with that line and making fun of groups that were copying him, saying that they were pathetic for having to cover his songs?
Michael Brewster, Manhattan
Russ Smith replies: No connection whatsoever. Dylan's vengeance, righteous or paranoid, was directed at those closer to his inner circle, not to the people who were covering his songs and putting money in his wallet. Dylan got along well with Jim (later Roger) McGuinn of the Byrds (save the occasional falling out) and, in fact, McGuinn was one of the people to whom Dylan sent the "Basement Tapes" when they were recorded so that the Byrds could cover some of those songs while he was in self-imposed exile.
Don't Look Back
Somebody throw a spanner wrench into MUGGER's Wayback Machine before we have to endure another "I remember the 60s column." These long, fond looks into the vanity mirror read exactly like the kind of self-important tripe he regularly skewers The New York Times Magazine for running. Mad props to anyone who can talk him out of writing another one.
Lou Manzato, New Orleans
More of a Fantastical Evanescent Evocation
MUGGER: What the fuck, man? Where's my weekly, Proustian-in-scope vomit of words? Only 1745 measly words (5/23)? In the words of the great and sublimely evil Don King, "...that's a ridiculously outrageous abomination of paucity."
Josh Tate, Los Angeles
And Up in the Nursery, An Absurd Little Bird
Your latest Summer Guide (5/23) gave me pleasure that was purely Gevalia Kaffe. Slivka's piece on suburban rednecks was excellent. I can almost smell the arabica beans enveloping me as I enjoy reading the Press. Summer for me brings back memories of the move from the city, fresh cut Bergen County grass, the smell of burgers, Tiny Tim baseball, Miss Oleson's third grade and the longhaired older guys sitting on the hoods of their Cougars blasting Boston's "More than a Feeling." Oh, lets not forget OpSail and the Bicentennial; my father, may he rest in peace, made it happen.
Tom Phillips, Manhattan
Behind the Green Doggie Door
Sounds like Amanda Cale has been reading the "Forum" section of Dog Fancy ("First Person," 5/16). She left out the bit where the hot young poodle next door stops by to smoke a bone with Nero and Amanda, then offers both of them a good licking if they'll only treat her like the bitch she is. I look forward to Amanda's next piece: "How I Lost My Job at Bide-A-Wee."
Patrick Donoghue, Glenmoore, PA
Fido Don't
RE: Amanda Cale's "Sex with the Family Dog" ("First Person," 5/16): What is the reason for publishing this trash? The lady is sick and should be referred to a psychiatrist, and the dog taken away and put in a foster home. This is dog sexual abuse.
Mary Ann Brownlee, City Island
A Ridge Too Far
Love Jim Knipfel's column, read it every week. Read both the books. Went to his readings. But I must take exception to someone who lives in Park Slope badmouthing Bay Ridge ("Slackjaw," 5/16). To tell the truth, he'd probably like it: lots of bars, lots of pool tables.
Bill Condon, Brooklyn
It Ain't So
Please don't tell me you've shit-canned the dissenters Scott McConnell and George Szamuely, plus the other contributing writers under the Taki banner. Maybe I missed them in your new listing format? The courage you show in giving these PeeCee defiers a forum was a mark of achievement, a badge of honor. Please say it ain't so.
Ron Smith, Shrewsbury, PA
The editors reply: "Taki's Top Drawer" is back in this issue. Last week was devoted to our annual Summer Guide.
With a Greek Body and a Roman Hand
I appreciated "Preserved Saints" ("Scouting Report," 5/16). It was very dear. St. Anne's appearance in a newspaper so heavy with "escort" and personal ads is some sort of coincidence. You may not know that she is the patroness of nubile but as yet unmarried young women. Hence, this piece of doggerel popular in the 50s: "Dear St. Anne, please send me a man, as fast as you can." Less spiritual young ladies used to add: "In a Buick sedan." Be sure to make that novena.
George Sansevezino, Manhattan
Meenakshi's Quite Good
Matt Zoller Seitz's Shrek review is good ("Film," 5/16), but I like the more to-the-point review by Meenakshi Shedde of The Times of India, who writes: "Complicated technology and vast sums of money are harnessed for a simple story about inner beauty and affection. Throw in some scatological humour, and you have a studio system showing itself as an essentially benign and artistic enterprise."
Matt Langdon, Los Angeles
Goes Without Staying
MUGGER: Regarding Dylan (5/23), you are, as usual, right on the money. Right arm. Farm out. Outta state.
John Lindley, via Internet
We Prefer the Briefs
Your column on the arrogance of missionaries ("Human Follies," 5/16) was wonderful. I notice that when I watch a rerun of 55 Days at Peking I now root for the Boxers.
Charles McCain, Washington, DC
Dunno, What?
All Writing is Rubbish (except for this). If Lionel Tiger were really serious, he could never have written his "Missionary Come Home" essay. At least he would never have published it where it could influence and perhaps change my views on missionaries. Is he an example of what he is denouncing? A wise (if inconsistent) journalist once said that those "...who claim that they are civilizing others should not be given visas." I say take Tiger's visa away! Lock him up! He's trying to infect us all with his ideas! By the way, what do you suppose old Sam Johnson meant when he said that "...hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue"?
Terry Clark, Carbondale, IL
Missionary Position
Lionel Tiger asks, "What on Earth gives some people the right to decide that their view of God or nature or destiny is the right one? What permits them to conclude that other people pointlessly labor with false gods and false values and need to see the light?" It's simple: Jesus commanded His followers to go and make disciples throughout the world. This is known as the Great Commission. It is not a question of people's thinking their own view of God is right. It's a matter of obedience to the basic doctrine of Christianity, a faith that has been evangelical from the very beginning.
Whatever inspired Dr. Tiger's screed, I suspect his discomfort over Christian missionaries stems from his position within academia. America's great universities, many of which were founded as specifically Christian institutions, have been thoroughly secularized in the past century?something noted by William F. Buckley Jr. in his first book, God and Man at Yale. It is thus possible for the career academic to live a life entirely isolated from the religious beliefs of mainstream America. Small wonder that Dr. Tiger was boggled by the idea that many Christians still believe their faith to be an eternal truth worth sharing with the world?even at peril of death.
Robert Stacy McCain, Gaithersburg, MD
The Voice in the Wilderness
Lionel Tiger: Bravo for a fine editorial. It's great to see someone put into words what I have believed all my life.
Cheryl Steadham, Birmingham, AL
Fare Thee Well
I've really enjoyed reading your paper over the past 15 some-odd years you've been in business. MUGGER's column, especially, made numerous subway trips more enjoyable. But I can't stomach the increasingly anti-Semitic drivel you've allowed to take root. Alan Cabal is a lunatic-fringe denier of the Holocaust ("Holiday in Beirut," 4/25), and yet you treat him as if he were just someone with a slightly different opinion. Of course the massacres at Deir Yassin, Sabra and Shatila ("The Mail," 5/2) were horrible. But they occurred in the course of wars and death tolls were in the hundreds. To say a "continuum" runs from Dachau to Deir Yassin is absurd. Jews were rounded up in a systematic fashion to be slaughtered in a systematic fashion. Millions of people were killed. More than one million young children were led, by the hand, into death camps. While an orchestra played classical music.
Something very frighteningly sick went on in Europe during World War II. Something very different from a wartime raid on civilian targets or a misguided government action. Comparing the two is obscene. And while I'm not fully convinced that Cabal isn't doing the offline equivalent of flaming?taking purposely controversial positions just so that people will continue to talk about him, thus building his reputation?the fact that you continue to give him ink is truly unworthy. Who's next?Charles Manson?
And then there's Taki. Does he realize that my grandparents' rich WASP friends up in Boston consider all Greeks to be slimy, swarthy, untrustworthy Mediterraneans? No matter how many titled Brits they cavort with? Every time I read his column, there also seems to be a paragraph where he's reassuring us he's a heterosexual. Curious. But mostly, I'm struck by the fact that someone who makes a living writing nasty gossip about his friends and acquaintances feels he has the standing to call anyone else vulgar. Donald Trump may be who he is, but he's classy enough not to spend time and energy ridiculing people he considers his inferiors.
So, it's been real. But your paper isn't fun to read anymore. The Learning Annex catalog may not be stimulating reading, but at least it lets me leave the subway in a good mood. Cheers. And you should be ashamed of yourself.
Mike Gould, Manhattan
The editors reply: Too bad. Surely one of the aspects that have kept Gould reading New York Press all these years is the forum we provide for a wide spectrum of lively and outspoken opinions, some of which will inevitably strike some readers as offensive, outrageous or outre. MUGGER, of whom Gould professes himself a fan, is an obvious example. So it's especially disturbing that Gould must malign writers with the canard of anti-Semitism because he disagrees with their opinions on Israel. We wish him luck in his ongoing efforts to read only opinions with which he already agrees.
And yes, by the way, if Charles Manson approached us and it turned out he could write coherently, we'd consider running it.
Not to Us
Of all the papers I read I thought that New York Press would say something about the F-16 attacks on the Palestinian police compounds. Matters like this affect our lives and shape the future. The "jerking off the dog" story ("First Person," 5/16) was good, but there are matters of more importance, with all due respect to your usually fine reporting.
Amed Hawari, Manhattan
Denver Nuggets
I am in Denver, but I have a print copy of the 5/23 Summer Guide issue on my feeelthy coffee table. Some friends returned from a recent weeklong trip to NYC and brought me this requested item.
I lived in NYC from '90 to '95. Traveled the country, got incarcerated, got out, and am now a Denver bartender. Have not seen a hard copy of New York Press since about '98 when I had my webmaster send me one in the Boulder County Jail, where I was lounging for more than two years after stealing some papers related to the JonBenet Ramsey case.
I wish to ramble about any and all aspects of this issue I have in my hands from the perspective of someone who read this paper in its younger days. Blow by blow.
Well, first one turns to the masthead, and recognizes such names as Smith, Doughty and Strausbaugh. Then, one wonders whether names like Tabb and Knipfel are familiar from one's '90-'95 reading of the Press, or from somewhere else.
Next, the "Mail": It's quite apparent there's been a stirring article about a woman masturbating her dog. Wish I'd seen that, and there's a 20 percent chance I'll look it up now that I'm online. But I have a new puppy, and maybe I don't wanna know too much about this subject. From my perspective, it's tragic that I end up with the Summer Guide issue since it's pretty damn useless to me.
The owner of the building I used to live in on 3rd St. (across from the Hells Angels, if they are still there) has showed up on tv lately in promos for the show Extra. This, cuz he had a bullet in his head for 25 years. Damn, on p. 110 there's a mention of the Yaffa Cafe. I'd love to be sitting miserably recounting whatever happened last night on the patio at Yaffa. P. 118: an ad for Punk Rock Karaoke at something called the Arlene Grocery Picture Show. This didn't exist when I was there. This also reminds me to say that even columnists in Denver went on at length about the passing of the first Ramone. Me, I never cared for the Ramones, and don't care who knows it.
P. 120: An ad touts June 5, 6 and 7 as nights where one can see Patti Smith at the Village Underground. I got so drunk at her April 2000 Denver show that I actually started heckling my onetime idol. Finally, porn ads, classifieds ( I read all the freaky ones) and then, Russ Smith on Dylan at 60. Then I'm just sitting around wondering why I left NYC and thinking I'm too old to make my way back there at 37.
So the Summer Guide issue goes into a Denver dumpster, and life goes on till I see another issue in two, or three, or four years.
J.T. Colfax, Denver
Wanna Be Satiated
After reading George Tabb's "Joey's Family" article ("New York City, 4/25), I see that the one good thing about the death of Joey Ramone is that George ("the Pussy") Tabb finally had a decent meal. Surely one can't eat well fronting a miserable band and writing inept stories for a free (albeit fine) weekly. Gobble Gobble Oy Vey, George.
Matt Nuskind, Manhattan
Gooey Luis
MUGGER: It's already happening: the hatemongers are starting to eat their young again like they did with Newty Boy. They're already talking about removing Trent Lott as their leader (which can only mean they blame him). Why didn't we see this when the Democrats lost both houses in 1994? The Democratic leaders in the house then were Gephardt and Daschle and today they are still the leaders of their party. That is the difference between the Dems and the Repugs.
CNN just reported that the Republicans will have to move out of the bigger offices and into smaller ones because Democrats will now be taking over the bigger offices. Republicans will also have to cut their staff while the Democrats increase theirs. Those are some of the perks when you are in the majority. The Haters were gleeful when it happened to the Democrats in 1994 and now they are getting a taste of their own medicine. But the ultimate slap in the face is that people like Trent Lott, Don Nickles, Orrin Hatch and Jesse Helms will now get smaller offices and smaller staff while Hillary Clinton, who has been in office only four months, gets a big office and a bigger staff. And to think I thought I would have to wait until Strom Thurmond was gone for this day.
This must be a record for the shortest time any one party has ever controlled our government. I would give anything to see the faces of the freepers who were all gloating when they thought they were going to have all three branches under Republican control for years to come. Boy, is life sweet.
Luis Vazquez, Manhattan
Don't Read It
This is in reference to Wendy A. Goldman's letter ("The Mail," 5/23), which just irritates me every time I read it. She complains that Israel and Jews in New York are constantly being slammed. What is that? Not only does Israel have the world's strongest country for company, but it also has the U.S. supplying its biggest weapon, the F-16 fighter. Palestinians and Muslims in general are known as "terrorists." We are constantly associated with terrorism and heinous acts against the world. When will Americans realize that all Muslims are not terrorists or radicals and that not all Muslims are evil? There are evil people in every group. I believe Sharon is the epitome of this for the Jews. Can Ms. Goldman walk around without fear of being stereotyped as a bad person, or a terrorist? I thought so.
Shakira Syed, Jersey City, NJ
Pinch Hit
MUGGER: Love your columns, and look forward to them every week. Keep up the great work! As for The New York Times, Bush must be doing a great job the way they're hyperventilating. Fuck them.
Bob Callahan, Durham, NC
Valdez Ring a Bell?
MUGGER: I've lived in Louisiana for 46 years. The state has dozens of oilfield drilling beds and platforms dotting its coastline along the Gulf of Mexico. Everyone here knows that the best and surest way to catch gobs of fish is to anchor right near or even underneath one of these "environmental disasters." These drilling areas literally teem with wildlife. I may be missing something, but just exactly what type of environmental damage are drilling opponents talking about?
Jan Folse, Covington, LA
Amen
So a few years ago I went to Joey Ramone's birthday party and saw the great Ronnie Spector, not to mention a reunited Blondie. That one was at a little place called Tramps. May 19 would have been Joey's 50th birthday and this time the party was at the Manhattan Center (aka the Hammerstein Ballroom). Joey, the tall, pasty, shy kid from Queens who led the Ramones through the uncharted region of punk rock, becoming the "President of Punk," as he was dubbed this night. The President sadly passed away last month, but this bash was a glorious send-off.
The show was sold out instantly, so my getting in for free would have made Joey proud. Anyway, Bellevue (with Jesse Malin from D Generation) was the first band and they did "Heartbreaker," by the Stones. Speakers like Legs McNeil and Joey's family members came out and spoke between bands. There were video clips of Sebastian Bach, who got booed, and a shorn Joan Jett paying homage. Rick Nielson of the Trick came out for a song. Then Blondie brought the house down with "Dreaming," "Hanging on the Telephone," "Maria," "Rip Her to Shreds," "One Way or Another" and a great run through "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend."
Little Steven was the master of ceremonies and he introduced the "pride of Rockford, Illinois"...Cheap Trick. Bun E. Carlos was at a drum clinic, so somebody else was on skins, but Trick blazed through "Hello There," "Hot Love," "ELO Kiddies," "He's A Whore," "Clock Strikes Ten" and "Surrender" (which Joey once sang onstage with them at Lollapalooza). Rick said these were songs Joey wanted to hear when he came to Trick shows. I wanted "I'll Be With You Tonight," which Joey had covered.
Then, finishing out the evening, all the way from London, came goth-punks the Damned. Quite a treat, with Elvis-like smoothie Dave Vanian on vocals, Captain Sensible on guitar and Rat Scabies on skins. The band ruled. They finished with "Smash It Up" and destroyed all their instruments, a fitting epitaph for a New York legend. Gabby came out of a cake at the end and snacks were thrown into the audience. God bless Joey Ramone.
Douglas Stone, Queens
He Understands
Does Lionel Tiger really not know "What permits [missionaries] to conclude that other people pointlessly labor with false gods and false values and need to see the light? What profoundly arrogant sense of the correctness of their ideas empowers missionaries to wrestle with the lives of strangers who may be wearing weirdo native gear?" ("Human Follies," 5/16).
How convenient for nonreligious thinkers to somehow determine that there is no such thing as religious truth, that certain theological positions are not more correct than others. In such a world, religious freedom is reduced to a choice among pointless differences of taste and tradition, instead of a real struggle for a conviction that one believes is true, and about which one is compelled to tell others. I'm not a religious fundamentalist, and I've certainly got my reservations about missionary activity. But to broadly dismiss such activity as arrogant and insulting seems unworthy of Tiger's vast understanding of human cultures.
Jason K. Burgett, Edgewood, KY
Yeah, But He Wouldn't
Lionel Tiger is perfectly entitled to preach and proselytize against all missionaries. And while I am sympathetic to the moral thrust of his approach insofar as it seems to be an argument for tolerance and rationality, there is a serious problem of consistency. He attempts to persuade us that what the U.S. missionary in the South American jungle was doing was absurd, since for Tiger any attempt to persuade others of an opinion about religion is absurd. But this is manifestly contradicted by his doing just what he condemns the missionary for doing. He, too, is engaging in a missionary activity. Surely the really consistent thing for him to have done would have been to think these thoughts to himself in private, or speak about them with like-minded friends, but not to have brought them into the public realm.
There are only two differences worth noting between the anthropologist and the missionary: he would think of himself as doing his missionizing by a more "civilized" means, i.e., by writing an article in New York Press, rather than by trudging through the jungle in order to speak to the natives; and he missionizes for modern science as an ideology, which in his version conceives of itself as inherently rejecting the God that the U.S. missionary died trying to spread the word of. Would it not have been more tolerant of him to have argued for letting the missionary preach her gospel, while leaving him free to preach his? And if he, too, decides he must forsake New York and go to the jungle to preach his gospel, he should also be free to do so.
K.H. Green, Toronto
As Below, So Above
The following is a short response to Lionel Tiger's "Missionary Come Home." "What on Earth," asks Tiger, "gives some people the right to decide that their view of God or nature or destiny is the right one?" The answer?nothing. The operative word, of course, is "Earth." Heaven is another matter. Tiger's implicit evangelism for his atheism is his natural right, but that doesn't make him right. It's plain from his article that he's on a mission of his own to convert the theists to his view of reality. I wonder if it's dawned on him that his own rhetorical attack on missionaries who conclude that "other people pointlessly labor with false gods and false values and need to see the light" has an application rather closer to home than those he assails with righteous indignation.
Arthur Williamson, Johannesburg
Tigers Are Better-Looking
Lionel Tiger really has a huge opinion of himself. He has no understanding of the arrogance involved in promoting his own fancies of what people need. Liberals are always upset when they don't hear their religion being intoned back to them by those whacked into their selfish, mindless thought patterns. Tiger has just revealed how much his world revolves around him. He should treat himself to reading something by someone who doesn't look like himself in the mirror. Of course, he will need an open mind, but then tigers can only think of their next meal just like any other animal.
Henry Rohrig, Fremont, CA
Menckenesque Is a Compliment
It was with a mixture of sadness and alarm that I read Lionel Tiger's column "Missionary Come Home." I am an evangelical Christian, and the differences between the basic elements of my worldview and those of Tiger's I could only begin to elucidate here. Nevertheless, I think he's being a bit disingenuous when he (or his editor) calls the column "Missionary Come Home." What is really meant is, "Evangelist shut up," as his fulminations against those who think that "their view of God or nature or destiny is the right one" show. Tiger fails to notice that his high-minded religious pluralism presumes at least as much knowledge of spiritual matters as the attitude it seeks to refute. To say that we can't know who God is assumes a great deal, and, in the words of British theologian and missionary Leslie Newbigin, conceals the very arrogance it seeks to condemn.
It probably doesn't matter to Tiger that most modern evangelical missionaries go out of their way to avoid past sins and bend over backwards to be sensitive to local culture and language. What I suspect he is really interested in protecting is not indigenous culture, but unfettered Western individualism, which in the long run is far more out of step with the Christian gospel than any local tradition.
Tiger is, of course, free to think as he does, and thank God for that. Nevertheless, as an evangelical campus minister in this country it disturbs me to read that he thinks missionaries should be denied visas. It's akin to Richard Rorty saying that those who believe, a la the Westminster Confession, in a "Chief end of Man" are mentally unstable and Daniel Dennett's suggestion that we create cultural zoos to preserve a few Southern Baptists once everyone finally accepts Darwin's Dangerous Idea (though I'm sure he was trying to be tongue-in-cheek).
Given what he already thinks, why wouldn't Tiger see someone like me, who believes that Christianity is the, not a, truth, and who is quite intent on persuading others of that belief, as a threat to the plurality and tolerance of the contemporary university? Why, perhaps I ought to be barred from proselytizing or perhaps from the campus altogether as should any organizations that practice similar intolerance. This is not a fantasy, as last year's case of the Tufts University Christian Fellowship shows. Evangelicals and orthodox Catholics are rapidly becoming to the American intelligentsia what Goldstein was to the Party, and Tiger's Menckenesque ramblings strike one as like nothing so much as a Two Minute Hate.
Jay Woodham, Tallahassee
Overkill, Perhaps?
Re: Lionel Tiger's article on missionaries, I just want to say that his message in that article has needed to get out for a long time. It is amazing how people are so blind to the damage they are causing everyone around them. This applies not only to the missionary. People go through their entire lives mentally tormented by the teachings of those who believe their doctrines are the true doctrines. This is especially true when it's doctrine that has been widely accepted, basically spoon fed to us as kids to the point where free will or freedom of religion is robbed from us at an early age.
I am not sure how to address that issue but I will be there for the ones who find it hard to cope after being subjected to religious indoctrination. I am starting an online ministry that addresses spiritual abuse. It is my hope to offer those in pain a religion-free zone where they can regain their strength and spiritual center. Again, thank you for the marvelous article.
Rev. Joseph E. Hodge (ULC Agnostic Minister), Winston-Salem, NC
He Forgot to Tell Tiger
I suspect that Lionel Tiger knows the answer to the question he poses in the column entitled "Missionary Come Home." He asks, "What were they [the missionaries] doing there in the first place? What on Earth gives some people the right to decide that their view of God or nature or destiny is the right one?"
For the missionaries in question, the answer is Jesus Christ himself. The missionaries were following commands given them by their savior, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Tiger might just as well ask why schoolteachers make the time and effort to disrupt children's traditional mathematics culture by inculcating in them the conviction that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and only 4.
It is true that there have been many arrogant missionaries completely bereft of respect for the traditions of indigenous peoples and that many sins have been committed by missionaries throughout history. That fact, however, does not negate Christ's commands. If we reject Christ, then the Bible tells us that we will die forever in hell. If one sees a family asleep in a burning house, one is not being an arrogant busybody by disturbing their sleep and helping them escape the flames. If one accepts the truth of God's word, then one is bound to follow its instructions, which answers why the missionaries were there in the first place.
Shawn Ritenour, Bolivar, MO
Limp Opinion
Lionel Tiger wrote a particularly hypocritical and limp article the other day. In the name of the glorious cause of defending other peoples' cultures, he wrote: "They [missionaries] trashed local customs, costumes and credos in the process, without understanding the meaning of their subversive impact or the power of their psychopathic jungle righteousness." I would rewrite this as, "They [self-appointed media clerics] trashed religious customs, motives and credos in the process, without understanding the meaning of their subversive impact or the power of their psychopathic, faux-intelligent righteousness." This was a typically vapid article, recapitulating pablum from the academic left. Please raise the standards of your publication. "Those who claim that they are civilizing others should not be given visas"?or in this case, column inches.
Ben Ibach, Canton, MI
You Mean Libelous
The title ("Human Follies") of the recent column by Lionel Tiger is more a description of his own thoughts than the issue that he raises. Tiger shows that his own understanding of the role, cultural sensitivities and goals of modern day missionaries is quite deficient. His mischaracterization of "missionaries" in general is slanderous at best, and misguided, misinformed, ignorantly and unself-consciously biased as well as factually inaccurate at the very least.
Though the press often mischaracterizes Christianity by focusing purely on its abuses, and caricatures its beliefs, rarely do we read such facts as "USAID has been increasingly willing [in the midst of a global drop in foreign aid and assistance] to fund organizations such as World Vision, Opportunity International, and World Relief, accounting for as much as 40% of their annual budgets" (Books & Culture, January/February 2001). Many would argue that Christian NGOs are more dedicated, successful and fruitful in the long term than any government development or other aid groups. They create indigenous movements with lasting effects.
It is indeed a shame and disservice to the public that such a biased, uninformed and unresearched opinion regarding the efforts and successes of Christian missionaries was published. All that, and I haven't even mentioned the lack of compassion for the family of the recently deceased missionary that this article exhibits.
Tom Elenbaas, campus minister, Ann Arbor, MI
Powerful Media
That "Missionary Come Home" was a great piece. I am a native Boston boy living in Taiwan. Here the Mormon missionaries are all over the place, and guess what? I chat with them and ask about world news, or even local Taiwan news, and they tell me that they sign a pledge when they leave for their overseas missions that they will not read a newspaper for the entire two years here. No newspaper news, no CNN or tv news, no BBC radio. Why? I asked. So that they can concentrate on their recruiting work, I was told.
Dan Bloom, via Internet
But Not Jeffords
Lionel Tiger: What a great article! I hope that you sent this to the Christian Coalition and also to George W. Bush and his fellow conservative Republicans.
Susan Fults, Naples, FL
Pissed-Off Pagan
I should probably open my letter by saying that I have no idea how this article got picked up by the Witchvox site ([www.witchvox.com](http://www.witchvox.com)). In any event, I enjoyed reading it because it made me think?although there seemed to be a number of areas that weren't very well thought out. Notably, the paragraph addressing the "profoundly arrogant sense of [the] correctness..." that missionaries feel allows them to interdict in other people's lives. Gosh, I thought that everybody could be that arrogant. Isn't that what environmentalists do when they confront logging companies? What Civil Rights marchers did when they opposed segregation? What the Ku Klux Klan does when it holds constitutionally protected marches in the least appropriate areas of the country? Isn't that what the 13 Colonies did when they wrote the Declaration of Independence? Isn't that what Tiger did when he wrote his article?
Tiger states that it's objectionable and cheap to help people for the sole reason of winning what you consider to be their spiritual salvation and your own way to heaven. I think that it's objectionable and cheap to assume?as he obviously has?that this is what missionaries in general do with their time. If he finds it difficult to deal with people who pander themselves and their values in order to distract other people from their core beliefs, he must have a great deal of trouble selecting a presidential candidate to support. I don't think that I have enough space to address his hypotheses regarding the relationship between "imperial expansion" and "missionary movements," other than to say that they reflect a total ignorance of history. The Catholic missionaries?just as one example?are the only reason there are any Indians left alive in Central and South America. I'll bet you thought they wiped them out. The strong presence of the Catholic Church (following the Reformation) is the only thing that prevented mass slaughter throughout Europe.
The real tip-off for me was when Tiger said that "...in sensible countries such as this one...people can do and say what they like...as long as they don't violate anybody else's rights..." Etc., etc. I probably don't have the quotation exactly correct. Well, Lionel, who's violating anybody's rights? What was the deal with those people who were killed when that plane was shot down in Peru? They were probably just really nice people. Trying to help other, less-fortunate people out. Yeah, sure, I imagine they talked about Christianity a lot, but my feeling is that by the time a person makes it all the way to the jungles in Colombia, they're probably mostly distributing food, medical aid and encouraging words. Just trying to help people have a better life. I mentioned that I ran across this article on Witchvox, so I hope you understand that I'm not writing from the Christian perspective.
Name Withheld, San Antonio
Thoroughly Postmodern Tiger
Greetings from a missionary living in Papua New Guinea. I'm surprised and disappointed by Lionel Tiger's recent article. Surely as an anthropologist he must at one time or another have been tended to by a missionary doctor or nurse or even your plain old-fashioned missionary who opens his door for food and lodging. I remember once around eight years ago we were living with a remote mountain tribe located near Marawaka in the Eastern Highlands Province. One day we had a French anthropologist show up at our doorstep. We provided her and her sister, an historian, with food and lodging for several days. She was working on her thesis and we were able to help her acquire some information about how the houses in the village were constructed. At night, over meals and coffee, we enjoyed some good conversations ranging all the way from the one-sidedness of Survival International to the theories of Levi-Strauss. In the course of our conversations she told me of a book written about one of the neighboring groups of people that I had not heard of. It sounded very interesting and when she got back to Paris she was kind enough to send me a copy of it. She was a modern communist and I an evangelical missionary and we got along wonderfully.
My wife and I know hundreds of missionaries. We know there are some out there like those Tiger describes but we also know there are many more who are less like them and more like us. It amazes me how an intelligent materialist like Lionel Tiger can tell someone else that they are doing something they shouldn't. That is, he says the missionaries should not "tell others how to live and worship," while he does just exactly that to us. Perhaps he is so completely postmodern that he doesn't worry about speaking in contradictions.
Mike Cordle, Papua New Guinea