When Bad People
Do Good Things.

Written by George Jochnowitz to
The New York Review of Books,
June 8, 2006.

To the Editors:

Although individuals on the left may be religious, we generally don’t expect them to write in favor of religious faith. Freeman Dyson is a distinguished scholar and is Professor of Physics Emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study. Individual physicists may have faith in religion, but we generally find that their beliefs are questioning and ambiguous if they are not simply atheistic.

Nevertheless, at the very top of the front cover of the June 22, 2006, issue of The New York Review, we find the words “Freeman Dyson on the Case for Religion,” referring to a review of an anti-religious book by Daniel C. Dennett entitled Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. A pro-religious review was not only accepted for publication, already surprising, but is being advertised on the front cover.

The review begins with a calm, non-partisan air but changes considerably as we come to the conclusion of the piece.

Dennett, according to Dyson, “blames religion for many of the worst evils of our century. He blames not only the minority of murderous fanatics whose religion impels them to acts of terrorism, but also the majority of the peaceful and moderate believers who do not publicly condemn the actions of the fanatics.” One would have expected The New York Review to agree with Dennett on this point. I wouldn’t have been surprised to find citations from the Bible in such a review being used to question religion, perhaps “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). A reviewer could have characterized that verse as a call for intolerance. I wouldn’t have been surprised to read “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (Exodus 22:18) quoted as the reason for the execution of innocent women, and men too, for centuries. Be that as it may, I found no such quotations.

Dyson cites Stephen Weinberg, also a physicist, to illustrate a view he disagrees with: “Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for a good person to do bad things—that takes religion.” Dyson responds to this statement by saying, “And for bad people to do good things—that takes religion.” He is not rejecting Weinberg’s statement but introducing a contradictory point of view. This is typical of the first part of his review, where Dyson seems to be taking a balanced, neutral position.

When we finally get to the last column of what has been a calm, judicious, non-partisan review, however, we find something very unexpected indeed. Dyson writes sympathetically of Kamikaze pilots during World War II. He cites a book by Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney entitled Kamikaze Dairies: Reflections of Japanese Student Soldiers. He mentions a particular pilot, Hayishi Ichizo, a Japanese Christian who carried Kierkegaard’s Sickness unto Death “with him on his final mission together with the Bible.” He tells us about other pilots and their last letters to their parents. He describes them as “thoughtful and sensitive young men, neither religious nor nationalistic fanatics.”

Who knows? Maybe they really were thoughtful and sensitive. World War II ended in 1945 and the issue is merely historical for most people today, too young to remember. Besides, we all know war is hell. Every subject is worthy of exploration, and it could certainly be useful to explore the minds of those who committed suicide. Even so, there was something eerie about Dyson’s sympathy for these kamikaze pilots.

But then we get to the last two paragraphs of Dyson’s review essay. He finally gets to the subject of 9/11, and writes of the perpetrators, “They were not as highly educated and as thoughtful as the kamikaze pilots, and they were more influenced by religion. But there is strong evidence that they were not brainwashed zombies. They were soldiers enlisted in a secret brotherhood that gave meaning and purpose to their lives, working together in a brilliantly executed operation against the strongest power in the world.”

Brilliantly executed or not, brainwashed zombies or not, the 9/11 attackers committed an unprovoked act of murder. It was murder for its own sake since despite all the suffering caused by flying planes into buildings, there was no way that this act could have helped the cause of radical Islam. Dyson writes “we must give respect to our enemies, as courageous and capable soldiers enlisted in an evil cause, before we can understand them.” He is wrong. Gratuitous murder deserves no respect. As for understanding them, we can understand perfectly well that they were motivated by hysterical fanaticism.

The New York Review does not ordinarily support religion. It never before has supported fanaticism. Something odd has happened. I have occasionally disagreed with views expressed in NYR, but in the past I have consistently found its writing to be rational and supported by data. What caused this sudden shift? Why have readers been asked to show respect for purposeless violence? Apparently The New York Review has decided that in order to oppose American policies it does not like it will side with America’s enemies even if that means siding with radical Islam—with radical evil and radical stupidity.

—George Jochnowitz
—Professor Emeritus of Linguistics
—College of Staten Island, CUNY

Comments will be reviewed and
posted on a daily basis.

Harris to
Jet Magazine • Sept. 25, 2006