HAVING been the subject of no fewer than five letters (Feb 15) after making every effort to close this religion debate I can only apologise to bored Citizen readers and point out that when we held the public meeting on religion versus rationality, among the many interested visitors who enjoyed the friendly discussion there was not one of the writers who is so vociferous in these pages. All those Christian martyrs up in heaven must presumably be delighted with their protgs courage and resolve, bravely not going to a meeting to defend their faith.

Harry King tells Christians not to debate with us because we are 'spiritually dead', so maybe that explains why he didn't want to come to the funeral. Like HRS, who thinks that the role of religion is to give a fulfilled life and prepare for the afterlife, this is arguing in circles, assuming the very thing which is under dispute. HRS then offers the interesting opinion, not seen since the Middle Ages, that religion does not encourage the pursuit of material wealth. Well, HRS should go and study the Reformation again, especially Luther's blatant encouragement of commerce. When money sang, Christianity danced. The Vatican is today one of the richest powers on earth.

Lillian Cadoux suggests that religion is for the heart while rationalism is only for the head, overlooking the fact that religion makes truth claims about the physical world which put it squarely in the territory of rationality. They are not in different categories, they are in opposition to and in competition with each other. Lillian's argument also implies that rationalists are somehow heartless. Well, I care about my fellow humans as much as any religious person. I'm just not prepared to lie to them, that's all. Galileo wasn't being heartless by describing the moons of Jupiter, knowing that it contradicted the church's cosmology. He was simply stating a fact, and suffered for it. Indeed, Aelfric the Inquisitor would doubtless have been first in line to shut him up.

Then Yvette Bierbaum weighs in to announce that even if The Vatican held secrets we are probably too stupid to understand them anyway, an argument so grovellingly supine that it illustrates better than I could how religion saps the will to discover and examine objective truth. Yvette can believe, if she wants, that knowledge is 'not for the likes of us' but personally I've got more self-respect than that. Just try me, I say.

And then we come to Aelfric the Bold, again championing God, truth and censorship from behind a mask. What a fine advocate for honesty and integrity, who cannot tell the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' while scoffing at my 'quaint interpretation of rationalism'. I didn't answer those four pieces of 'incontrovertible evidence' because I had already answered several, only to be accused of nit-picking over details, and felt that readers (and the editor) would lose all patience. Anyone who wants a thoroughly debated answer could ask me privately if they wish. Alternatively, perhaps they could have come to the public meeting. But no, too much effort, apparently.

Aelfric the Fearless suggests that 'weird' SPGB supporters might go in for physical attacks on the property or persons of those they disagree with. One advantage of hiding behind a pseudonym is that you can make libellous statements with impunity. Aelfric the Brave needn't worry however, since historically it is Christians who have burned rationalists and unbelievers, not the other way around. Incidentally, the SPGB has never at any time advocated censorship, even against extreme right-wing views, because debate is the best weapon against irrational opinions. Nor do we 'quiver and quake' at the idea of attacking Judaism or Buddhism, or any other belief, as I have repeatedly stated.

What puzzles me is this. If I was God, the ultimate omnipotent power in the universe, and I could presumably choose the most brilliant minds in humanity to defend me against unbelievers, what on earth am I doing choosing Aelfric the Articulate? Why don't I just get somebody good? Perhaps those Christians who proposed that dinosaur fossils were put there by God to test our faith were right all along. God is a practical joker. At all events, I can't see the purpose of religion being well served by the abusive drivel which its most vocal defenders see fit to publish in this newspaper. I doubt if Aelfric's God is particularly grateful for such efforts. I wouldn't be.

Paddy Shannon

SPGB

Green St

Lancaster