Religious debate

I have news for Angus Logan who complains (Letters, 3 September) about secularist campaigns to separate church and state.

Scotland is no longer a Christian country – at least in the view of the Scottish Parliament which decided on 9 September, 1999, by a vote of 99 to nine with 13 abstentions, that it would not have exclusively Christian prayers.

Recent surveys have also indicated, what the 2011 census will shortly probably affirm, that Christians are now no longer, or only slightly, a majority in the Scottish population.

Time for Reflection in the Scottish Parliament will thus have to adjust to this by lessening the contributions that Christians make to its proceedings if it is to reflect its founding principles.

Norman Bonney

Palmerston Place

Edinburgh

Gary McLelland (Letters, 3 September) continues to commit the secularist fallacy: treating the views of religious people differently from everyone else’s.

When I argue my case from a Christian ethical perspective, and contribute to policy debate in our democracy, why does that amount to trying to “dictate”? When tiny secularist groups ask that all government schools be recast in their own image as exclusively secular humanist institutions, I don’t accuse secularists of “dictating” policy.

I just respond to their weak arguments and argue for the alternative of diverse voices being heard in schools.

Of course, I realise that Christian teaching must now compete with other world views, but Mr McLelland should stop crying foul when it does so in the open forum of public discourse.

In contemporary Scotland, it’s not Christians who demand that all must accept their philosophical standpoint and ethical framework.

I’m not sure why Mr McLelland thinks I am “concerned about how homosexual couples are to contribute to society” – they can contribute in lots of ways, as I can, despite my moral failings in many areas.

Richard Lucas

Broomyknowe

Edinburgh

Responding to secular challenge about religious observance in schools, the Church of Scotland claims that far from indoctrinating children into religion its remit is to “explore the big questions” and teach about relationships and general philosophy.

When I studied philosophy at Edinburgh University, religious thinking was a tiny part of the syllabus and taught in a historic context.

While I’m sure that Church of Scotland ministers are expertly equipped to impart the tenets of their own particular religious faith, why do we imagine this qualifies them to monopolise the coaching of children in philosophy? And relationships?

We know only too well the narrow confines of tolerance the C of S extends in that department.

In delivering statutory religious observance in schools the church protests that its seeks only to prompt thought about “the bigger questions” but it is quite clear where it hopes the young minds in its charge will find their answers.

Neil Barber

Edinburgh Secular Society

Saughtonhall Drive

Edinburgh