AELFRIC the Bold is at it again, flaunting dodgy evidence as fact, and piling abuse upon insult into the bargain. His famous Oxyrynchus and Magdalene fragments may well be middle 1st century but they are still not contemporary and they still do not prove that Jesus really existed any more than references to Santa Claus prove there is a Father Christmas, and that has been my point all along. This Jesus story could easily have been a fictitious rendering of old pagan myths, as almost all of its content including the symbol of the Cross actually pre-date the Christian era by hundreds of years. Aelfric will know that there are many papyri which refer to Osiris, one of the mythological prototypes of Jesus, but Aelfric does not try to claim that Osiris really existed. Why not?

Aelfric makes puerile points about famous scientists believing in gods, as if that is supposed to prove something. Einstein also called himself a socialist. What is Aelfric to make of that? Newton wrote tomes on alchemy, what of that? How many atheist scientists like Carl Sagan, JBS Haldane, SJ Gould must I cite in response to Aelfric's childishdebating tactic before he will be satisfied?

However, this is not an argument about scholarship, but about honesty, and Aelfric once again reveals an awesome lack of it. If he really came to SPGB meetings he can't have been listening, because he calls me the 'leader'. This is a lamentable lapse. The SPGB has never in its history had a leader because, to quote Eugene Debs, if we could lead you into socialism then somebody else could lead you out again. Taking orders from some elite is very common in politics but it is not the path to an egalitarian society. In fact we suggest that when people stop following political leaders and think for themselves we human beings might start to make some real social progress. Aelfric also states that we 'condemn' charity. What rubbish! We have always said that charity is not a way to achieve lasting social improvement, but Oxfam itself has said much the same thing, and most charity workers know this to be true. To twist this statement into some callous disregard for human suffering is a very low stoop, even for Aelfric. But he gets lower still, in pretending that our opposition to censorship somehow is an endorsement for child abuse. He calls the SPGB 'repellent', 'disgusting' and 'stupid', but understands nothing about it, since he claims that our philosophy (post-capitalist common ownership) has been tried repeatedly in the past. Aelfric will not be able to find one single example of a moneyless system of free democracy in any political experiment of the last two centuries, unless he invents one. Knowing Aelfric's tactics, however, I wouldn't put it past him.

Paddy Shannon Green St Lancaster