9:10am Monday 6th October 2008
SIR – John E Iebole referring to our correspondence (September 29) says “that there is no personal animosity between us and that we are grateful to the Worcester News for allowing us to vent our ideas.”
John goes on to state that he believes “firmly in freedom of opinion and I do welcome dialogue, yet the dislike of Christianity in the correspondence was palpable”.
I don’t know what the “yet” is doing in that sentence. Is he saying that my response can be contrasted with, or fell outside the range of, valid freedom of opinion?
Similarly, John earlier said I made “anti-Christian barbs”. The term “anti- Christian” seeming to imply some kind of prejudice, and “barb”
sounding like I made a gratuitous insult. This I would contest.
Yes, I do “dislike”
Christianity as a doctrine, in as much as I disagree with it as purported fact and as moral philosophy.
However, the language and content of my letters is not prejudiced or gratuitous.
The EU provokes much more vitriol and even personal aggression in these pages than my response to the bishop ever contained. It seems that only because my point was a criticism of a religious belief that it could be interpreted so harshly.
BOB CHURCHILL, Worcester.
© Copyright 2001-2012 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk