The Next Word on Christianity

In the May 22 and 29 issues there were a few letters bitching about a letter I wrote so because I don't like letting Christians or their sympathisers have the last word I thought I'd better reply, at least to some of them.

She also says "As for 'scrapping' the Christian clubs and the Chaplaincy - Mr Herrington has no more right to do that than one would have to scrap a Bigot's club were he to form one". I don't have delusions of grandeur. I suggested the "University" could set an example by scrapping them. I have to admit I'm not sure how they are related to the University so I may be suggesting something which is impossible.

K. Francisco: K. F.'s letter was in three main parts. In the first he says I was "indignant" last year "for the cause of the Croatians". Actually it was the Croats who did over the Serbs but compared with the other inaccuracies in his letter this is a minor point.

In the third part of his letter he says "It is refreshing to see someone taking life so seriously as Mr Herrington". If the Christians were an important minority it would be different, but with their present influence there doesn't seem to be any alternative to taking them seriously.

He also asks if I have thought of lending a hand to Christians such as Mother Teresa. Perhaps it's different with the Protestants but in the case of the Catholics their charity has to be seen in perspective. We hear a lot about individuals like Mother Teresa but any poverty the Catholic clergy alleviate is insignificant compared to the hardship they cause in countries or areas where they are influential. The main ways they undermine living standards is by supporting restrictions on birth control, helping right-wing parties and by preaching a naive anti-materialism eg Jesuit "Industrial Leadership" courses at [unclear: loyola] Hall, Liverpool).

Peter Cotorceanu: P.C. says I have "misconceived" the Christian position on the admissibility of using common sense to judge their religion and then goes on to state that we can be "led to Christ" only partly by reason but some faith is still required. This is simply an incomplete version of the same old assertion that Christian beliefs shouldn't be judged by the standards of common sense. He still hasn't explained why they are entitled to this privilege.

He also says "By no means is the Christian message an irrational faith for the intellectually weak". It seems to me it is an "irrational faith" but obviously Christians aren't "intellectually weak" in general. Neglecting their common beliefs they seem to be roughly a cross section of the population but they can follow an "irrational faith" because they don't apply their usual standards of proof to their religion.

If this situation could be attained there would at least be the basis for de-emphasising the role of religion in society.

Zurdo: Z. seems to be under the impression I was comparing myself with the authors of the Bible and, for some reason, with Isaiah in particular. I claimed to be above being judged by reason (and used answers in exams as an example) to illustrate how ridiculous it is for anyone, including Christians, to make claims of this kind. Apparantly the "subtlety" of this device caused Z. to miss the point.