Love and equality

Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in an extraordinary piece of confused reasoning has said that “we should love people for who they are and where they are”, but goes on to say of marriage equality that “people are not equal, they’re different” and that equality as an end in itself would be “a huge mistake which would take away diversity” (your report, 20 March).

Is he really trying to appease those who have fought against religious discrimination for generations with the consolation prize of “diversity”?

Given his commendable, if unsuccessful, efforts to remove gender inequality from his church it is disappointing indeed that, rather than sweep away all discrimination, he has reconsidered and redefined where his prejudices will continue to lie.

Neil Barber

Edinburgh Secular Society

Saughtonhall Drive

Edinburgh

Michael Kelly wrote well 
on the demands of following Christ (Perspective, 21 March), but his claim that the Church 
demands “blind faith” is not 
correct, reflecting the teachings of Richard Dawkins, not 
the Catholic, or any other, Church.

“Faith”, in Christian theology, is best understood as an expression of trust, not as belief without evidence: an attitude of commitment, not the poor relation of knowledge.

For example, getting married is an act of faith in another person, based on evidence, but making a commitment founded on trust.

Those seeking a belief system that does not make stringent ethical demands might investigate Humanism.

Professor Hugh McLachlan joined the previous Pope in 
expressing intelligent reservations about human rights, but left-wing liberal Scotland has placed human rights culture at the heart of politics.

Human rights language often assists the side of the debate arguing that people should be allowed to do as they please, against those pointing out 
negative implications to wider society.

That’s why human rights are cherished by our secular 
liberal elite

Richard Lucas

Broomyknowe

Edinburgh