The results of real as opposed to pseudo Faith experienced all the time in every age are immeasurably peaceful and loving, Ben. As you say, take your choice. I've studied Marx all my life. I know where I belong.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

How "better"? 2 different opinions and I personally prefer Marx's. And since Marx was much more recent than Saint Augustine, he was therefore in possesion of more scientific evidence.

Ben, York,

Better to remember St. Augustine, Ben, sayin how much he'd missed before he found God. 'late have I loved You' he exclaimed.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Another, more accurate Marx quote is "Religion is the opium of the people".

Ben, York,

If I may crudely borrow something that Marx once said, religion is an invention of man as something that he can look up to, in order to escape the degradation and depravation of the reality of his own life.
To be sure, I AM a believer: I believe that there is something or some force that guides my life, for there appears to be far, far too much order in my own life and in that of nature for it all to be a genuine coincidence of time and space.
However, the similarity between my beliefs and religion ends there. Religion was and will always will be a way to divide one man from another. How can we rationally argue that religion can and was ever created to unite men, when the very creation of so many different religions is symbolic of the need for people to mark their own identitiy, to separate themselves from one another.
The concept of religion is a fundamentally flawed one, but I suppose it's too late for people to realize that now.

Udaiveer Anand, Birmingham, UK

Abolition of slavery of the heart leads onto abolishing the other slavery, Paul. Jesus cleans up the world from the right angle-inside first..

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

I can only believe that Rees-Mog whose opinions I have read with respect for many years is reaching the age when many start to believe, to quote Brooke, 'this life cannot be all we swear, for how unpleasant if it were.

Organised religion down the ages has clearly been a force for evil. This is not to decry the good done by many of the lower ranking members of the churches but as soon as it becomes the pretended source of morality and authority rather than the purveyor of existing sensible behaviour it tips over to being concerned with the maintenance of it's position and power.

A J Hoare, Haltwhistle, U K

Religious morality was born from pre-conceptions of what it was to be moral. It is circular to look to religion for moral answers. Moreover religious morality is outdated with regard to many modern issues. Morality is not as simple as reading the bible. Careful examination of philsophy and sociology as well as a good concience is what is necessary.

M E Babb, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Our Lord abolished divorce, condemned fornication but said not a recorded word about slavery nor did S. Paul advocate its abolition. In the American South religious orders kept slaves.

Paul Wood, bucharest, romania

Nothing healthier than the religious medicine. Religion, like anything else is abused. Yet real religion is the greatest possible joy resulting in love and toleration.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, uk

Scott of Kentucky, basically agreed. However I think you mean 'spurred' when you write ' Christ's command to love each other has spurned true believers into action'.

Roger NS , Jyvaskyla, Finland

The common denominator to all of these things: the abolition of slavery in England and the US; the US Civil Rights movement; the progress toward the elimination of poverty and suffering; the Allied victory in World War II; and countless other great movements-- are all directly attributable to Christian influence. Christ's command to love each other has spurned true believers into action, to live lives that reflect a true faith in God. Christianity is what distinguishes Western society from all other cultures, and an objective analysis should give it some credit, rather than simply subjecting it to ridicule. Once we realize that we are all loved by an Infinite God, and that each of us is an object of Christ's redemption, then desirable social consequences will follow for each member, and the world.

Scott, Somerset, Kentucky, USA

Whether christianity accepted slavery or opposed it I cannot see how it proves anything, about christianity or religions. Religions were created by people who wanted power and used the population's beliefs and faiths for their purposes, most of the times wealth. Most people confuse religion with faith. Faith is a pure inner force that can help the person and others to live better and understand things better, for the good of everyone. Religion is the use of faith to aid people's ulterior motives by controlling the masses. How can any dogma be called that when it changes to suit popularity? If it stayed a dogma then there would be less and less fan... erm believers yet religion would lose the power that it ahs on people.
I always thought that religion is the last remaining method of suppression. A monority telling you what to think and how to act, not advising but TELLING. How can that be benign when people decide what religion is?
As for Jesus dying for our sins etc... one word: Fairytales

Alex K, Manchester, UK

Religion the cure???...I think decent housing, the opportunity to go to a good school, the opportunity to be heard and feel that your voice matters, to feel you have a part to play in society...I could go on, but I see more cure here then in religion...is it only with religion that one finds their morals?...of course not, there are plenty of people with morlas without religion. I appreciate that many people use religion as a cover for alterior motives, but religion can not shirk its responsibility to the pain that it has cause millions the world over. Still religion acts as a convienient scapegoat.

J. Nicholson, london,

As a former resident in Worksop I am pleased to endorse the sound comments of Mr. Nalty. I well recall the response to a one-time Labour Party campaign slogan "Labour is the Answer" being fly-posted as "Then It Must Have Been a Bloody Silly Question". To adapt that retort to present circumstances, one might wish to say that "If Religion is the Cure..." then "It Must Have Been a Bloody Awful Disease".

Frankland Macdonald Wood, Sansepolcro 52037, Italy

Amazing Grace!! I couldn't disagree with Mr. Nalty's view of the Bible more. God never committed murder. We humans are the murderers. History proves that the Bible and Bible-based countries gave us women the greatest blessings ever dreamed of. There is no other God who bled and died on a cross and rose from the dead—all just to save us from the bondage of sin. If He gave any more, we would accuse Him of being soft.

The Bible has inspired more acts of tender mercy and lovingkindness than all other books ever written. Christianity will never be destroyed, despite the failings of the church and the failings of beleivers. Jesus is the answer and the cure to ALL our problems. You can take that to the bank if you like. He's better than gold or anything one could desire. God is love.

Camille Blinstrub, Chicago, IL

Jesus said 'I am the light of the world'. Perhaps if people spent less time making generalised comments on the Bible and Christianity and actually read for themselves about this Jesus who said 'I am the way, the truth and the life' then we will actually have an informed debate. It seems to me that there is something about Jesus people are afraid of...too challenging...?

Kathryn, Belfast,

Our spiritual and bodily health are much dependent on developing a real relationship with God.One of the hardest things to do yet the most worth while.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Religion is the best medicine. The great Augustine said our hearts never rest until they rest in God. We're constructed for Him whatever delusions may have caused great diversions. Our zest for life grows enormously when God is for us the reality He deserves to be.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

There you are William,Now you know.Is Paradise yet full.

derek bevan, hunts/cambs, England/UK

To Daisy from Cambridge: yes we do in this country have access to healthcare, education and a whole host of other things we routinely take for granted. The fact that we sit back contentedly whilst millions around the globe do not have these basic necessities is a damning comment on our "moral deficiency" (your words) and in no way indicates "moral strength". But then, what hope is there in a world populated by people like you who lazily disregard responsibility for fellow human beings and a whole host of other religious teachings as a "foolish set of superstitions". If your views are in any way representative of modern Britain, then there is no way on earth that it can be juded anything other than a moral "failure".

Scott, Glasgow,

"As a Baha'i I believe the problem with religions is their disunity and the fact that each one claims to be the only right path to God. If only we could see that all religions are from the same source, we would have Unity of Religions and that would be a force for good throughout the world. Each of the great world religions was divinely revealed to bring moral and social teachings suitable for that particular age in human history. The moral codes have not changed but the social laws have changed each time with the coming of a new Manifestation of God.

Baha'u'llah the Founder of the Baha'i Faith and the latest in the line of Manifestions of God ,says : "So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth". Let's try it!

Irandokht, Epsom Downs, England

Adam Hochschild's solidly compiled book on the British slave trade is at odds with your proposition that Christianity opposed slavery with a few "compromises". The quakers, then a persecuted unenfranchised sect, were the instigators of the reform and did so through Thomas Clarkson who enlisted Wilberforce - all Christians it is true. However, the archbishop of Canterbury was on the governing board of it's missionary arm - the "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts" which owned slave plantations, and thus slaves, in the West Indies. They were branded "SOCIETY" and the archbishop must have been aware that they were worked to death because he lamented the high death rate made evident by the constant need to buy new slaves. I very much doubt the Catholic church was any different, at any rate as judged by Darwin's account of slavery in South America and by the fact that Catholic countries came a distant last in abolition.

Robert Hallewell, Danville, CA

This article makes the assumption that morality cannot exist, or that people cannot be good, without religion. Unfortunately, this assumption is not supported by either history or any psychological literature. I do agree that children need to be taught right from wrong but if we draw on the Bible or the Koran for guidance then I'm not sure what we should tell our chidren. On a recent read of the Bible, I found it to be full of murder, hatred, a low opinion of women, some twisted notions of compassion and awash with flat-out contradictions. God himself commits murder yet the Ten Commandments tell us not to kill people. That's a very bad start William. As for Tim Reid's comment, well I couldn't have put it more aptly myself. Although it's been said many times before by atheists and scientists, I really wish religion would just go away so we can devote our mental resources to what's here, real and true - however shambolic that may be it's not science's fault, it's our fault.

Richard Nalty, Worksop, England

Those who religiously debunk religion or see it as a problem more than a remedy are missing the wood for the trees.No religious figure ever preached hatred for fellowmen or used it as a bargaining chip to score brownie points with men. True religion is best left to those who know how to heal.It is a good idea to prise it away from those who rehearse a sermon before delivering it and then claim to have practised well what they preach!Religion can function as a balm provided its proponents and followers use it to advance the cause of humanity and make the world a better place to live in.Leaving it in the hands of those who find just one use for it- killing and maiming innocents for a place in paradise -will not only make a mockery of it but disillusion generations to come about the true value of religious values.

Vishwanathan, secunderabad, India

The idea that religion is the root of morality is one of the biggest fallacies surrounding the concept of religion. Society determines moral behaviour and religions merely absorbs those morals.
Morality is the intellectual by-product of our own societal predisposition to altruistic behaviour for the good of the community and the self.
Although religion is often good at acting as a conduit for spreading moral thought among a community, religion is often a dangerous anvil weighing down moral progression.
Religions hold onto their moral doctrines and concepts long after the rest of sciety has adapted and moved on to higher moral standards. Religion is always playing catch-up. As such, the devout are often playing catch-up also and the result is that they are regularly willing to subject the rest of society to archaic ideas that are outdated in the modern world. This can lead to extremist behaviour against people who are seen to be acting against their outdated moral code of conduct.

Reuben Adams, Romford, England

I agree - Children *do* need to be taught right from wrong: especially they need to be taught that it's overwhelmingly probably that we atheists are right to disbelieve in a God, and it's overwhelmingly probable that the myths of all faiths are wrong, with no more basis in fact than the tooth fairy, fairies at the bottom of the garden, Zeus, Baal, Wodin, or even the flying spaghetti monster.

Why should such myths be felt to have any bearing on morality? No sane Christian will nowadays demand someone be put to death for working on the Sabbath, and yet they do believe other things exhorted equally powerfully in the same biblical text. On what moral basis do Christians decide to disregard certain passages of the bible, if not a morality arrived at from somewhere else? Somewhere like careful though, study of facts and societal debate and consensus, perhaps?

To castigate science for failing to provide a modern morality is like berating your car manual for not teaching you to drive well.

Tim Reid, Saltcoats, Ayrshire

I don't see how religion helps at all. If you need a bizarre collection of 2000-year old myths to tell you what's right and wrong, surely that suggests moral deficiency rather than moral strength. And Britain can in no way be judged a failure morally. Children are not starving in the streets. People do not go blind because they cannot afford basic healthcare. Everyone is entitled to a free education. This is not the case in many countries, including those where people worship much more regularly. I believe these things are more important than adherence to a foolish set of superstitions.

Daisy, Cambridge,

People really should/do not need religion to have morals. Why should it take religion for you to do the 'right thing'? Are you really only capable of being a good person via your religion?

Ben, york,

Nothing to compare with the healing of God worship. We need more of it, much, much more.Otherwise we get more and more bored with our idols, vanity and pride.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Spot on ! It does take that extra effort to put others first.

Buckton, John, Lyon,

I just posted a view, then read the other comments - I was at least half way down before I found anything vaguely sensible and was starting to really regret joining in. Mr. Damo PRESUMES too much; Mr. Honeysett ASSUMES too much: oh, how I wish Dawkins actually HAD such a platform. Trouble is that us 'atheists' (not my choice of word) really don't have much of a platform, would that we did! And the fact that we don't is driving me to this kind of 'thing' which I would never normally do (websites etc). - for all of those who answer this posting, the chances are I shan't even look again - I'm not a 'joiner'! The best Life to all of you...

Rowberry, Ely, UK

For England to truly come back from immoral Modernism it needs to come back to it's true Christian roots; The Catholic Church. The Primacy of the Papacy in the Seat of Peter, where Pope Benedict is the True Vicar of Christ.

It is only when Anglicanism sees the value of the Pope from a unifying standpoint and from the fact God will only protect His Church from corruption. Christ promised this protection to the Catholic Church through the seat of Peter. Jesus also said the Holy Spirit would lead His Church into ALL Truth, not just some Truth.

Come home to the Catholic Church.

Charles, Seattle, Wa

Absolutely right - this country needs to get back to it's Christian roots and understand the vital role that Christianity has played in the social progress of this land. Two hundred years on from the Christian push to abolish slavery we need to reject the PC brigades approach of anything goes except Christianity.

Dare I add that the Labour Party also has Christian roots? We owe more to methodism than we do to Marx.

Fabian, Bristol,

Thank you Lord Rees-Mogg. Michael Portillo's apparently simplistic identification of religious belief with fanaticism demonstrates one of the core reasons for the increasingly polemical nature of the public debate. If we wish to dismiss the beliefs of others then one easy way to score points is to make straw men, comparing the best of what we think with the worst of what we assume others think. Perhaps the most alarming thing about this impulse is our tendency to subsequently use our stereotype to validate ourselves and to justify our failure to engage with the best that others have to offer. We don't have to be accurate, let alone informed. It is all too easy, by this means, for our prejudices to prevent us hearing others let alone dealing with them with respect. This leads to the practice of trying to ensure that views with which we disagree are never allowed to be heard in the public square, a strategy clearly adopted by Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists.

Marcus Honeysett, London, UK

I am very encouraged by Lord Rees-Mogg's article. We need people like him to point out that the values and morality which stem from religion, especially Christianity, are the only things which will save us from slipping, as a society, further and further into the confusion and mess which we see around us.

Jack Peters, Falmouth,

Such a refreshing article. People are almost afraid to admit they still have faith in Christianity in today's PC world - good to read an article that puts forward the positive and practical side of Christianity.

Alison, Cardiff,

Mr. Rees-Mogg's view of religion as a panacea may be a little too rose colored but he's essentially correct. The search for transcendent value is the only thing that convincingly and definitively elevates humanity above base animality and religion above all other movements tries to engage in that search.

Although there are occassional and episodic corruptions of all religions in which violence and repression develop within their cohorts, the generalizing comments above castigating religion for causing violence make two grave errors. They:

a. they paint all religions with the same brush, ignoring the specific role of Islam, a faith which still has not subjected its sacred texts - the more violent elements included - to critical scrutiny and;

b. ignore the clear facts of recent history which clearly demonstrate that the monstrous killing fields of the twentieth century - violence unparalleled in previous history - all arose from non-religious or anti-religious ideologies.

tom, Edmonton, Canada

Persumably atheists all condemn religious doctrines such as loving your neighbour, not judging others, etc, etc, as 'dangerous superstition'. I think most right-minded believers can appreciate scientific discovery and progress, it's a shame that some atheists can't appreciate the moral discoveries revealed in religious texts, simply due to their doctrine of not believing anything.

damo, London, UK

David – just for the record, the context of Jesus’ warning to judge a tree by its fruit was precisely to help us identify false teachers. People might claim to be Christians for a variety of wrong motives, but their actions (fruit) will clearly demonstrate that they are not genuine followers of Christ. The Spanish Inquisition, paedophile priests, the Crusades, the list of examples is depressingly long. Few analogies are water tight, my Beethoven one is no exception. But the motive, the plea, is simply to investigate the man himself; the teaching, the life, the claims of Jesus – before drawing any conclusions. This is far more important than scoring a few debating points.

Robert Frazer, London,

I think Rees-Mogg ignores a simple, observable, fact : tribalism (in all it's forms) is by far the biggest cause of violence and slaughter on the Planet. And Religion is by far the most widespread and virulent tribalising influence. That someone of W.R.M.'s undoubted intelligence cannot be unaware of this, but chooses to ignore it, is itself a prime example of Religion's pernicious influence.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

I have to say that I totally disagree. Religion is nonsense, you might just as well believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, and Santa Claus! May I remind you that religion has been the cause of more division, more wars, more suffering and persecution than anything else. It is also nonsense to suggest that only via religion can we behave in a so-called "moral" fashion - rubbish! Equally, with all the various religions around, they cannot all be right, but they can all be WRONG! Science has demonstrated the falsehoods inherent in religion, and it continues to do so. With each new understanding religion has had to retreat ever more, sometimes in a cruel manner employing terror and torture, or should I not speak of, for example, Galilleo? Religion employs terror and superstition to maintain its hold, and the sooner we cast this aside, the better we will be. Theology is not a subject, and theologians have nothing to say.

Adrian, Donegal, Ireland

If there is no God, why would the existence or otherwise of God matter? How can anything matter if the universe is merely the random outcome of the interaction of blind physical forces?

And why, if there is no God, does humanism automatically become a more rational choice than nihilism?

Moreover, if there is no God, why should I be under an obligation to make ethical choices. And if I am under no obligation to make ethical choices, why am I obliged to prefer truth to falsehood?

And, if I'm under no obligation to prefer truth, why should I worry about the scantiness of the evidence for God's existence? Why not cleave to the faith of my ancestors, which offers me the pleasures of ritual, beautiful music , a sense (delusory or otherwise) of transcendence and a code by which I can live my life?

And, who knows, some parts of that faith might turn out to be true.

Ian Morrison, Auckland, New Zealand

Have no doubt about it, if God is not the one we worship, it's ourselves. We need to remind myself of this every day.We're worshipping all the time! God worship is the panacea. It's codswollop to deny this truism.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Not only is religion not the sickness, it's the royal road to everything better the more we rightly understand it and persevere. We throw in the towel too readily, escape into a barrage of misunderstanding and abuse about it. It's easy to use and abuse religion to promote our own ideas and hatreds. Such is an aberration. We need the real medicine of religion not our human invented shams. The delusions and shams decline the more we persevere on this great road.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

The world certainly does not need religion to address moral issues as Mr Mogg claims. It needs people who open their eyes, switch on their brains and make themselves responsible to their own conscience as to whether an action is morally right or wrong. The impression given by many religious do-gooders is that they act "morally" simply because they wish to appear "good" in the eyes of their assumed maker. If atheists act "morally" it is because their enlightened conscience tells them that this in itself is morally right. (By "enlightened" I mean freed from the burden of religious strictures.)

alan barley, cologne,

I agree wholeheartedly. All of us put our faith into something. Whether its God, man, relationships, money, etc. Religious people struggle constantly with putting our faith in God in the midst of moderan day life with all its distractions. But we know that if there is a God that is soveriegn AND loving, putting faith in Him is a much better bet than anything the world can offer.

Lauren Green, new york, ny

The ONLY way forward is the secular way.

As man slowly evolves mentally, with the aid of science and, if possible, without the doctrine of superstition, (the tool of control and power) at a very early age, the world will move furthur away from what the intelligent man already knows...

THERE IS NO GOD.

T.S.REEDER, UK,

The amazing number of errors in this passage speaks volumes about how certain "Christians" these days are increasingly fact-proof and never read anything except the erroneous books of each other. I'll just mention one howler. Anyone who thinks Bernard Shaw advocated "Social Darwinism" either hasn't read his works or doesn't know what "Social Darwinism" is. Social Darwinism, in fact, was one of the things Shaw spent a lifetime fighting against.

Richard, Tampa, FLorida

It's not "religion" that is at fault, it's human nature! It's man's greed & selfishness that causes poverty, wars and inhumanity. The Bible makes it clear that the "heart of man is deceitful & desperately wicked above all things" However, that said, it is true that the Anglican church has suffered many self inflicted wounds by failing to adhere to sound bible teaching and along with the false church of Rome, have turned many people off church going. The general decline in moral standards only points forward to the nearness of Jesus Christ's return when He will establish His Father's kingdom here on earth and will rule in righteousness & Peace from Jerusalem.

Daniel Doe, Maidstone, Kent, UK

Interesting that Mr Rees-Mogg does not seem particularly bothered which particular religion we should all subscribe to. Does it not matter?
I think the key point of his contorted article is supposed to be that religion is the only source of morality. Suppose for a moment that we accept this flawed statement (for an elegant and readable discussion of the flaws I recommend Dawkins' "The God Delusion") - every religion preaches a different morality. Which are we to choose? These differences range from the subtle to the fundamental and it is clear that there is no consistent morality that transcends all religions.
I could go on and on. I hope Mr Rees-Mogg will read this and provide me with some guidance - I'm worried that if I try to follow all of these moral codes I'll end up having to stone myself to death!

Rob, London, UK

Sorry, but I most certainly will judge Christianity by the behavior of Christians. Your own Bible says that we will know a tree by its fruits and spells out the fruit of the Spirit. The analogy to Beethoven falls apart because Beethoven made no such claim.

David Edmondson, Alexandria, VA, USA

In my opinion faith in the unseen is to be admired and respected - it takes a great deal more intellect and honesty to claim that human beings are not and will never be satisfied with what they can see, than to faith-bash because the unseen scares you.
Religion can never be a cure - it is man-created and man-focussed. Living faith on the other hand, focusses on Jesus first and other people second. I believe that Jesus hates religion...he knows it creates factions, dishonesty and hypocrisy. The only cure for our nation is faith in Jesus, and life lived by his standards of love.

Claire, London,

What lacks in society today is not so much religous conviction but spiritual awareness. The modern world seems to have no place for it and society reflects this. This is not some weak mambi-pambi romantic ideal or a blinkered submition to any of the mainstream religions but a confirmation that we each have a side to us that is beyond the material. It has an authority that is beyound mere rules and regulations. A dicipline, a caring and a feeling of being in touch with ourselves and everyone else.
We all have it and all religions talk about it, and then go rushing off in thier own direction. But if we can tap into the very natural spirit that is within all of us, things may be very different..

Paul Goddard, Letchworth, Herts

I am an awful piano player. But if you heard me try and play Beethoven's 4th piano concerto, you would be wrong to assume that Beethoven was an awful composer. Christians have done dreadful things through the centuries but Jesus himself was always loving, humble, selfless and sacrificial. Grace is the most beautiful word in the English language and the most important and defining word in Christianity. Jesus showed grace, mercy and forgiveness to us. He calls us to do the same to our neighbours. Why do aetheists get so enraged by this wonderful message?

Robert Frazer, London,

<em>Religion is about power, domination and obedience [sic] - nothing else</em> Well, in fact it is something else, at least for Christianity (in it's current form). It feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, contributes to disasters relief -- no secular institution comes close. You should give credit where credit is due for the sake of being fair and credible.

Isaiah Hunahun, Biloxi, MS, USA

If the quote given from Paul shows, as Mr. Rees-Mogg suggests, that Christianity has always been opposed to slavery, then it must also be taken to show that Christianity has always supported gay marriage and the ordination of women. How is it that Christians have, for so long, been so profoundly unaware of what their religion actually opposes and supports?

Gregg Smith, Croydon, England

Although I sympathise greatly with many people's fear of religion I see no better alternative insofar as religion is a path to (and expression of) the divine, without which none of us can lead fully human lives. Philosophy and the arts play their part, but it is central to what we in West call religion. The word 'God' doesn't have to come into it. Indeed, it's probably best not to bring him in because it is such a confused notion, leading many otherwise intelligent people to say and do stupid things. However, whatever you call it: 'the ground of being", "universal consciousness" etc., our experience of "it" is of something vastly greater than our usual every day ego bound self, and which we feel to be "truer" . Out of this sense of something vast, aware, and loving, which at one and at the same time is and isn't "me" comes our sense of ethics, of interconnectedness with all life and responsibility for our brother and sister beings as we all ping briefly into and out of this world.

Alan Goldwater, london, uk

I really don't think the elderly should be taken seriously when they talk about religion. After all, they know death is just around the corner, and that's bound to bias their thinking.

Michael Harris, Pontefract, U.K.

I agree with Mr. Rees-Mogg. To focus too much on what happened in religions name in the past is to miss the point. Religion encourages us to think of a greater being than ourselves, we have all become obsessed about making a impact, but all of us will die and few of us will be remembered beyond the realm of our family and friends.

Religion is about community and has the family at its core. It allows for moments of reflection that we find harder to find in today's society, which leads to both a lack of self-awareness and judgement. Ultimately, it's about discipline and engaging in things we may not necessarily want to do. All these things are important in life - even is there is no God(s) at all.

Edward Chapman-Pincher, London, UK

Religion is about power, domination and obediance - nothing else. God is in each of us not in the disgustingly gauche churches, cathedrals, mosques, synagogues, etc. Religion is a method by which men have been able to dominate men and women. It is disgusting and evil. Faith, belief and goodness on the other hand are an individuals choice and cannot be imposed on them by anyone. What we as individuals do each and every day defines us as men and women of God - in whatever form we wish Him/Her to be. Religion is the root cause, the initial vector of all the wrongs in this world and unfortunately it will continue to be so while there are power-hungry, domineering, zealots - in ALL religions.

Vaughan Morgan-Jones, Leicester, England

What a laugh!

"A recent report by Unicef showed Britain as 21st out of 21 advanced countries in the welfare of children; our national failure is a shame and a disgrace."

And let's see.....coming in at number 20 was (the envelope, please) the United States. A country where according to which poll you believe, has 88 to 92 percent of its populace believing in the "good lord."

And yet you want to tell me that more of this sickness is what England needs as a cure? Instead of more of the same -- the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Holyh wars, etc. -- why don't we try not allowing mythology to guide us, and instead establish well-reasoned and scientific principles to help us deal with our "national failures."

Michael Henry, Milpitas, USA/California

Religion is worship of God. Only this is powerful enough to reverse our strong tendency to be self centred.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

the salvation army is the only lot worth a darn. all they ask in return is a song or two. everyone else wants dibs on your soul

Paul, myrtle beach, sc / united states

People are not just equal in Christ - they should be equal "tout court". Why did it take Christianity 18 centuries to discover the equality of all men and women? Because modernity had pushed christ out of the equation and humanity in - done so notably by Spinoza, to start with!!
All what the three Abrahamite religions stand for is in-group morality with no universal implications! "Love thy neighbour" was originally exclusively meant for co-believers. The claim to absolute truth make it impossible for either of the three to accept each other's adherents as equal human beings. Tolerance has been introduced by Modernity, dragged away from the gates of Hell and Religion.
Religion is no garantee for universal values, to the contrary, for it always clashes with commons sense. Read "Prospects for existence" by prof. John Hartung and you might realise what a load of nonsense you try to sell for the gospel truth.

Charles Rodijk, Lodeve, France

Lots of clever comments but all a little short on the salient point..... what is it that changes people and societies? I guess I'm with Mr Rees Mogg, that Christianity, or rather, the man Jesus himself has proved capable of changing people. True some use his name, but do not appear to be changed, however he has clearly changed some, and society as a whole has benefited. What other movements or scientific advances have actually changed people and made them more altruistic and so benefitted society? Education is certainly one what are the others?

Stephen Newell (Rev), Bristol,

Mr. Rees-Mogg, your columns are usually filled with insightful wisdom, but on this issue you are totally wrong. That Mr. Wilbeforce found a justification for the abolishment of slavery from within biblical texts does not mean that the bible is anti-slavery. The bible, filled with contradictions, can be used to justify just about any viewpoint. However, when read from from beginning to end, the bible is consistently pro-slavery. Lest you are an Old Testament apologist, Matthew 10:24 and John 13:16 remind us that slaves are never better than their masters. Neither the Old nor the New Testaments ever outright condemn this abhorrent practice. There are many reasons to believe that biblical morality is questionable, especially that espoused in the Old Testament. It is time that leading lights such as yourself stop parroting the nonsense that religion is the only solution. There are many coherent moral belief systems which do not require the intellectual dishonesty of faith in the unseen.

Tom Porter, Singapore, Singapore

Spot on! Human beings are profoundly religious beings. Everybody worships something or somebody; the only question is what. Christianity is unique in a number of respects. It's rooted in history. Jesus died and rose from the dead which was documented and witnessed by others. It starts with God reaching out to man rather than man's efforts to reach out to God. And it best explains the nature of man and reality. The West is rooted in Christianity. To return to sanity, we must return to our roots. There is no other way.

Tom, Minneapolis, USA

I was hoping that William Rees-Mogg would counter Michael Portillo's infuriating arrogance with regard to faith.
I'm glad to know that we still have someone able to see off
faith's "cultured despisers." To commend faith in a lukewarm way as some kind of veneer to improve morals is worse than outright atheism, and far more offensive.

Alan Amos, Newington, Sittingbourne, Kent UK

"We live in an age when modernists regard religion with something approaching panic."

AND WHY NOT?111

Martin Bregman, Venice, FLORIDA

I must respectfully take issue with William Garrett above. Islam opposes Judaisim in Israel - and anywhere else. (It supported Hitler's attack on Jews even before modern Israel existed. And ancient, Quranic references to Jews are hardly.......flattering.) Along with its opposition to other faiths. What do you think the Ayodya Mosque/Temple contoversy in India is about? Why do you think the Dome of the Rock stands on, not near or respectfully apart from, the Jewish Temple foundations? What do you think the Sharia Law on apostacy is designed to do? Why do you think non-Muslims' testimony in a Sharia Court is thought less of than that of Muslims'? This opposition or derogation - Islamic "faithophobia" - of others' beliefs - Jewish or otherwise - is in the nature of Islam and always has been. Land disputes are secondary whether in "Palestine" or elsewhere: a territorial manifestation of something deeper and much more, some might say, ideologically and distainfully "sinister".

sebastian, Tiverton, UK

I too feel that there is a religious revival on the way. Unfortunately it is of the pick and mix variety. However, this may be a starting point for some people who may eventually find hope in Jesus Christ. It is interesting that the revival coincides with aggressive atheism from the likes of Dawkins.

Chris, Manchester, England

Come on Mr Rees-Mogg. We have put up with religion and its dishonesty, censorship and propaganda for 2000 years. That's really quite enough. Our religious fellow travellers let their chauvinism boil the Middle East dry and threaten the future of the world, their wizened moral senses ignore human suffering right under their noses. And it has ever been thus with these sky-god worshippers; we do nothing in Rwanda, very little in Darfur, and why? Those non-Biblical types are insufficiently interesting to their faith. And you have the gall to talk of social cohesion.

philip, cambridge,

At last someone who speaks sense. Christianity is generally villified in our society, blamed for most of the violence in our world. However, the 4 biggest atrocities committed in the 20th century- Hitler's Haulocaust, Stalin's purges, Mao's many campaigns and Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia- were all committed by dictators distinctly anti-religion.

Our society is increasingly insular, selfish, self-centred and empty. Christianity is based on community, trust, respect, love and compassion. Things our society desperately needs.

Emma Miles, Basingstoke,

In response to those who claim the Bible supports slavery please note that the OT also had the concept of 'Jubilee' , also in Leviticus, where slaves were set free, lands returned to their owners and debts cancelled. Most scholars agree that when Jesus entered the temple and proclaimed 'The spirit of the sovereign Lord is upon me to proclaim good news to the poor' that he was announcing a new time of jubilee in connection with the coming of the kingdom of God.
Although Paul probably saw slavery as part of the backdrop of daily life in his time, he wrote in 1 Corinthians 'Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.'
Although political change per se is not the main thrust of the NT, it highly likely that Wilberforce and others were deeply moved by a sense of brotherhood with fellow believers, some of whom may have been slaves, and saw releasing them from this bondage as the 'Jubilee' of their time.
I wonder whether we would have labelled Wilberforce as 'fundamentalist' were he around today?

Bill, Exeter, UK

How can religion be the answer when there is no God?

John, london, uk

A call to retreat to superstitions as a basis for moral guidance is frightening.Morality can more effectively be based on rational analysis of the common welfare than on the Christain themes of postmortem rewards or punishment , or the petty dictates of a fikle deity.Isn't it time for all the silly rubbish of Christaianity to quietly float down river and sink into the dismal sea of ignorance from whence it came?

tmulhern, milton, fla/usa

As the Subtitle says : "Our correspondent on the moral failure of modernism" I thought i would comment on this. I Consider it an act of intellectual cowardice to derive your morals from a god or gods of dubious existance, based on books of even more suspicious origin, written by writers, who have their own agendas to push.

Rather i believe it is our duty to examine all possible moral problems based on rationality and reality, rather then abandon reason, and decide the correct action simply because the bible/koran/torah/"graffiti on the back of the cubicle door" tells me so.

The only moral failure here is for people to not think for themselves.

Nigel, London,

Richard Dawkins has described those who perpuate religion, 'As the yapping dogs of ignorance' a better description of William Rees Mogg and his kind, I have yet to see.

arthur, Taunton,

I am not particularly religious but I thought this article made a good case. I get very tired of people blaming religion for all the world's ills - Iraq and Northern Ireland show many problems are more tribally based than religious, and, of course, given my memories of draughty churches from my childhood the Church can hardly be blamed for Global Warming.

Alan, Spalding, UK

1. Love is the cure. Self-obsession is the disease. It is a sleight-of-hand of the religious to claim the capacity to love one's neighbour is contingent upon belief in an imaginary friend or master.
2. The religous are becoming noisy and obtrusive. That is not a resurgence in religion. According to the 2006 FT/Harris poll 35% of us are believers in any type of god or any form of supreme being.
3. If 'the orthodox Christian doctrine is one of liberty and equality' why did it take the deists of the Enlightenment to establish liberty, equality and rationality in human affairs? Why in particular did it take approximately 1965 years and what were then thought the death-throes of orthodox belief to overcome the foul nonsense about women and gays that was a staple of orthodox belief? A single line from the Bible fails to wipe out the sorry history of theocracy. We don't want it back.

Ysabel Howard, London, UK

I totally agree. There are 10 simple laws and a definition of love in the Bible which hold the answer to most of the world's social problems

Jack Henderson, Marton, New Zealand

Lord Rees Mogg is sounding, I fear, like an old man in a hurry.

There's so much here that is irrelevant or inaccurate. I'd just pick up on the point about science only explaining half the world. Accept that for the moment, for the sake of argument... then what percentage does religion explain? Precisely zero.

AndyC, Rowlands Castle, UK

there are now 10 yes ten 24 hour a day religious channels on Sky tv......they will do more good than a bundle of laws from Parliament

wilf proudfoot, scarborough, uk

I really wish people would stop confusing social darwinism and the Darwinian theory of evolution. Social darwinism was a concept thought up by people whose grasp of real Darwinian evolutionary theory was to say the least shakey. In many ways since social darwinism sought to re-shape society according to often arbitrary (if not insane) standards it is in fact the anthesis of real darwinian evolution, where particular changes persist because they confer an advantage. Perhaps the phrase "social darwinisn" should be changed to "social intelligent design" since the latter actually fits the theory and practice far more closely.

Paul Browne, Cambridge, UK

Most people deny that there is such thing as sin, or that they are personally guilty. Sin is anything that offends God and contravenes His law. Sin covers a vast range of human defects that manifest themselves in many ways and prevent man and society from functioning as God intended. There is basic disconnect between man and God that is crying out to be bridged. We need to have God deal with sin on our behalf - anything else is papering over the cracks. This is the essence of ‘religion’, as the author has it: it is the cure for the individual and it will simultaneously alleviate the problems in society.

It is straight forward and it has been said before, but for many different reasons we still fall short.

Arthur Bell, Edinburgh,

The God myth is dead, get used to it. If religion served in the past to inhibit some of our social ills, this may have made it useful but it didn't make it true. With religion now fuelling the most evil causes of our time, we need to recognise it for what it is: a vestige of our evolutionary history which is now dysfunctional and counterproductive.

Andrew Holliday, Patras, Greece

I would have written more, had it not been for other people already saying everything i had thought of to write. It is obvious to me, and seemingly obvious to everyone else here, that William Rees Mogg, is utterly wrong, and I am heartened by this sense of agreement.
The only thing I feel compelled to add is that when Europe was largely a Christian area-or at least more so than today- we had two of the most destructive wars in history. Immediately after these wars religiosity has generally declined, adn we have had peace and prosperity in western europe. All this talk of religion being the cure to societal ills is patent rubbish, Holy texts are usually so convoluted and steeped in symbolism that they are almost the last place to look for moral guidance-morals, as richard dawkins points out in 'the god delusion', can be worked out rationally based on principles like reciprocal altruism, and based on emotions like our innate sense of compassion.

Sam, Manchester,

Read the following books and then make a statement:
The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker
The Ancestor's tale by Richard Dawkins
Straw Dogs by John Gray

Your views on morality may be in for a big shock!

Valerie Kaul, Lahore, Pakistan

Thanks be to God that such sound views can be heared in the media. Faith in Jesus Christ is the only foundation which will enable the moral basis any society needs to operate properly. Only by trusting in Jesus and His sacrificial death on the cross, which put our just punishment for our rebelion against God onto Him, and reacting to this rescue by obaying His commands in the Bible can we be reconciled to God. Rebuilding this relationship, through God's grace, is the only way to gain eternal life and the strength we need if we are to act moraly. Redemtion, being bought back from slavery to our rebelious natures through Jesus' death and resurection, is the only way to God and His power, which enables us to consistently act in a moral way.

Gareth Rhymes, Hull, UK

Religion is not the cure. God is.

As God has revealed Himself as shown through the Bible - this tells us all we need to know about God - He is holy, righteous,jealous, compassionate and loving. - there is more if you want to find out read the Bible.

Therefore as Christians we seek live lives and through "religions" follow as closely to the Bible teaching . Of course religion is man made so to speak and there are times we get it wrong - But that does not mean we can just put religion under the carpet - we can not if we want to live a live pleasing to God.

Once we reject God then we will effectively be left to our own human reasoning - so who is to say that one idea is any better than another? One day we may say this is wrong the next day the same thing is now right - do you see? That is why we lost our moral compass in the UK - the evidence is in the newspapers and TV if you will only open your eyes!

Wayne Lo, Stockport,

Like Bertrand Russell said, and Lucretius before him, "religion is a disease born of fear and a source of untold misery for mankind". That applies especially to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the three major religions which originated in the Middle East. Also they are based on ancient "holy books" full of hatred, violence, genocide and intolerance. When we look at the history of the "Christian" world, we see little evidence that religion has ever made society more moral. Only knowledge and kindness can save mankind, not obscurantist teachings ("intelligent design"!) and dogmas.

Guy, Antwerp, Belgium

I agree with most of this. However I do not agree that the resurgence of Islam is a mere part of a global religious phenomenon, I think much of this, particularly since 1979, is a reaction to the threat Islam poses. A TV poll on Ten Commandments for today (about two years ago) put the Golden Rule at the top, where it has always been for every major religion except Islam. But while (nearly) all can agree on doing unto others as you would have them do unto us, Enlightenment Thought, which informs Modernism, has no answer to those who would do unto us what we would not do unto them. For such people, we do not need a philosophy of peace, such as espoused by Jesus, we need in addition a well thought out philosophy of War - when as well as how to use it. Fortunately there is one, it is the 2500 year masterpiece of Sun Tzu - The Art of War - and it should be required reading. The survival of our culture may depend on it. As Margaret Thatcher said in response to a jibe from Tony Benn after the Falklands War: "The Honourable Gentleman would not be in a position to exercise his freedom of speech, which he puts to such excellent use, unless other people had been prepared to fight for it".

Richard, Preston, UK

Science represents a method, the most accurate we have devised to help us create a model of reality. Over time, the technologies we use have become more refined, and the scientific method allows for changes made by the continuing inclusion of more specific and detailed information. The most that a true scientist can say is that a disciplined study of any phenomena suggests this or that conclusion.
Religion, on the other hand, purports to be knowledge outside of the human mind, information which has always existed, supernatural, complete and immutable. When science concludes something contradictory to this knowledge, such as the age of Earth, some religious folks simply deny science while others duck the issue by claiming these interpretations are too literal, that the scriptures are more poetry than fact, that they are open to personal interpretation. The goalposts are movable.
We must move beyond this Bronze Age nonsense.

Reese Lloyd, Atlanta, GA, USA

No, Christianity has not always been in opposition to slavery. Given the frequently stated Christian principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, we should not cherry-pick a single Bible quote, but instead compare it with the more specific teachings of the Old and New Testaments on slavery. A simple Web search for "Bible slavery" will reveal many lists of those teachings. If we consider them in the spirit of intellectual honesty, we shall see that the Bible is consistently pro-slavery.

DJE, Alexandria, USA/VA

Mr Rees-Mogg, I'm Spanish, and I belive I have something to say about anti-Christianism... just when I think about my president... I think and strong defense as you does is necessary in our days. Perhaps somebody could think tath religion is just something from the past, or, worse, the sickness, as you wiseful say. Well, as we say, the worst deaf is this one no wants to hear.

Rubén, Pamplona, Spain

First Cause and Pascal's Wager as a reason to be Catholic? Ridiculous. As "First Cause" - what created your creator? For Pascal's Wager - what if the Sikhs are right? Or Islam? Or any of the other exclusive religions? You're still going to hell.

Still. No more bizarre a reason for being religious than any other, I suppose.

Lee Duff, Reading, UK

Man is a religious animal. Thus we all must have our faiths. Even Modernism is a form of faith. So are Naziism and Socialism.

Reason can serve any master. Reason in the service of Modernism has become a serpent devouring itself. Reason in the service of true faith should be a lush jungle canopy supporting abundant life.

The greatest human endeavour is to pursue truth. We laud science for pursuing and capturing truth in the physical realm. However, the truth about man has been dissolved away by the acid of Relativism in the Modern Era.

What is the truth about man? We in the West thought a man named Jesus had told us, but we have outgrown that. Where will we find that truth now?

Those who do not know why they exist will not long do so.

P. Flanagan, Denver, Colorado, USA

Rees-Mogg is wrong on at least four counts: St Paul was not arguing against slavery, but merely claiming that slaves can be Christians too; Wilberforce would have been a good man and against slavery regardless of his religion; it is not necessary to be religious to have a moral sense or to be able to make moral judgements; the reforms of the nineteenth century derived from a growing political awareness and activism which eventually even encompassed religious people,

Peter Ellis, London, UK

I find that Rod Nelson's comments in this forum condemning religion as the source of evil in the modern world revealing. People that believe as he does always leave out the fact that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others all were anti-religion and yet caused more violence and death than all of his examples combined. It is much easier to believe in God when you are poor and oppressed, but can the modern world with all of its wealth and freedom maintain its relationship with God or fall into the trap that God and religion are no longer necessary. I hope for our sake that we come to realize that religion can bring fulfillment that no amount of money can replace.

Fred, Kansas City, MO, USA

Mr. Rees-Mogg is quite right to note Portillo's "neurotic response" to the "recognition that religion is again becoming an important influence on society". The secularists who have run our society for several generations — with disastrous consequences — are going hard-ball. But, as Portillo's article illustrates, they will 'take it out' on Christianity, which can be done in safety (Christians tend not to fight back, and are in any case undermined by the intellectual idleness and moral torpor of the secular society they inhabit). The secularists are inhibited by the double standards of their own political correctness from attacking Islam — the real cause of their unease — which in any case risks reprisal. How much easier to have a go at Cameron, Blair and Bush!

M.T.Pearse, Houghton College NY, U.S.A.

Hey Rod, ever heard it put positively?...something along the lines of 'love your neighbour as yourself'..regards Simon

Simon J Ferguson, Llanelli, Wales

Thank you, Mr. Rees-Mogg, for your capsule statement of the traditionalist view of religion and morality which you have so succinctly defined in your article. What a fine example of 19th century thought. This is the paradigm that has brought us the oppression of racial minorities, the degredation of women, and the chronic tendentious bullying of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons and a host of other gifts from religion to our world.

I must strongly disagree, as did leaders of the Enlightenment over 250 years ago. Baron d'Holbach, one of my favorite philosophes said, "To discover the true principles of Morality, men have no need of theology, of revelation, or of gods: They have need only of common sense. Let us advise them to abstain from vice and crime; not because they will be punished in another world, but because they will suffer for it in this." Right on. Humanism teaches morality. We can have morality without gods or God, and without religion. It's simple.

Robert Semes, Ashland, Oregon

To Joe from Manchester: Morality is humanistic? Have you ever actually read Darwin? I think not. If so, you didn't understand it. I guess atheism, like ignorance, is bliss.

Tom , Topsfield, USA/MA

Very insightful and well written.

Kevin O'Kane, Cedar Falls, IA, USA

William Rees-Mogg talks of Islam opposing Judaism in Israel. This is for the blindingly obvious reason that Israel was imposed on the mainly Muslim Palestinians without their consent. Israel now has 80% of the country and has kept the Palestinians under occupation for 40 years. Before the Zionist invasion Jews lived in all countries of the Middle East with no serious problems. It was the installation of Israel in Palestine that triggered most of the problems in the region, with the exception of Iraq.

William Garrett, Harrow, Middx.

Rock on William!

Thanks for having the courage to write the above article. At present Europe is startved of any debate comcerning God and religion. To dare to challenge the emperors new clothes of evolution is to claim that that world might be round. There are many logical, scientific reasons for believing in the existance of God. Most liberals are afraid of anyone challenging their views, in France where I live humanism reigns and is forced upon people as Islam in in Saudi Araibia.

Rev Graham Jones, Saint-Etienne, France

Christianophobia is rampant.
Does no one see the huge difference between moral life and ethical life? One can be totally ethical and highly immoral. Similarly, one can be highly unethical and very moral.

James, Jacksonville, Illinois U. S.

Morality held strong (read Plutarch) until it was usurped by Christianity. This didn´t matter at first but all the eggs were in one basket and when Christianity lost its hold on daily life, it took Morality with.

Nicholas Wibberley, Neuvic Entier, France

Wasir - there is no such thing as "cultural racism". It is a lie made up by apologists for islam who seek to silence any critics of islam as racists. Most Catholics are not white, but critisicm of the Pope is not racism. The sooner people stop propagating the lie of cultural racism the better. It is pure proapganda of the most evil type.

toby, Sydney,

Mr. Duff shows appalling ignorance of the history of the Catholic church during the Nazi period.

To call Hitler a "Roman Catholic" who "enjoyed the grace and favour of the Catholic church" is a complete and utter reversal of the historical facts.

Hitler reviled the Roman Catholic church. Goebbels noted in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian." Hitler acted surreptitiously and at other times overtly to undermine and destroy the church in Germany and in conquered lands.

For example, in the Nazi concentration camps in Poland, over 2300 Roman Catholic clergy were put to death.

P. Flanagan, Denver, Colorado, US

A thoughtful and refreshing view, with historical perspective. A rare departure from the more common ahistorical rants. Any religion can be perverted by minds so inclined, and the best among the followersof the world's religions can find much in common as the worst can just as easil find grounds for persecution ad war.

A. Bates, Washington DC, USA

ie love your neighbour as yourself. It's as old as, well, the bible. because that's where it came from

Not on the slippery slopes of moral relativism.

Ron, Peterborough,

"Now we face a similar global challenge from Islam, which opposes Judaism in Israel, Hinduism in India, Buddhism in South East Asia, Christianity in Europe and America and modernism in the whole advanced world."

If you repeat a lie enough times, people begin to believe it - but I would expect better from Mr Rees-Mogg. It was Muslims rulers who gave Jews full rights to worship in Jerusalem, the Crusaders who massacred them, same story in Spain - Jews flourish under Muslim rule, then killed or exiled durung the Spanish inquisition.
Rights of religious minorities are enshrined in the Koran and teachings of Prophet Muhammad the proof of which is the fact that after hundreds of years of muslim rule, Hindus were still the majority in India and Christians in large parts of Europe and the Middle East.

It is about time commentators like Mr Rees- Mogg stopped repeating the same lies and misconceptions about Islam and actually took the time to study the truth about Islam &
Muslims.

Dr Raghib Ali, Oxford, UK

The way in which Rees-Mogg imagines a condemnation of slavery in the verse from Galatians illustrates what an unreliable guide to morality relgion provides. In Rees-Mogg’s view, the fact that God sees no difference between a slave and a free person indicates that God is opposed to any person being a slave. However, the verse could just as reasonably indicate that God wishes us all to be equally enslaved. God also, it is claimed, sees no difference between a Jewish and a Greek (Gentile) person. Does that mean God is opposed to being Jewish or being Gentile? If so, which? To be honest, no one has a clue what the Bible intended to say about slavery, a fact that reflects poorly on its comprehensiveness and clarity. The First Epistle of Peter advises slaves to obey their masters even in the face of harsh treatment, advice that no moral person would give today. In reality, we rarely know where the Bible stands on most important moral issues until Western society itself has reached a resounding moral consensus on those issues. Only then does it become clear that the Bible agreed with us all along.

CSV, Chicago, Illnois, USA

Is it just coincidence, that as our country becomes more and more secular and humanistic, and our social problems just keep growing.

I think the government has really been trying - look at the vast amount of legislation it's introduced, but you have to change people's attitudes to achieve breakthrough, You can't do that with laws, religious, democratic or otherwise.

Rod Nelson, Jesus taught his followers to "Treat others the same way you want them to treat you". The world isn't changed by simply not doing bad things to others as Confucius seems to say, but we have to actively seek to "in humility consider others better than yourselves".

That's a radical, world changing attitude - now who'd have thought that the Creator knows how things work best...

Sam, Llandudno, Wales

Religion a cure? For what? Reason? Objectivity? Debate? Intelligence? Open-mindedness?
As others have rightly commented in response to Mr Rees-Mogg's article, morality can and should exist indepenent of religion. Religious belief is a symptom of a mind either indoctrinated before it is fully formed, or of an understandable but misguidedly simplistic search for concrete answers to complex questions.
Let us not forget that there was a time when most of Western Humanity believed absolutely in God, the Church and in prescriptive morality. This time was known as the Dark Ages.

D Murphy, Lerwick, Scotland

Govt. does not know how to deal with Christians.On the one hand it wants the undoubted good works that many churches do for the communities around them. On the other hand it seems embarrassed by the faith that motivates Christians to do those good works inb the first place! On another tack, it seems that kicking Christians is a proxy activity for those that know that the real danger is JIhadist Islam but dare not tackle it! Instead they prefer to jeer at the faith that shaped and moulded the freedoms we take for granted today!

Ray douglas, Northampton, northants

May God bless you, Mr Rees-mogg! I thought I was the only one to have read Michael Portillo's article with shock and horror.
Religion has not only played a positive role in the lifes of billions of people worldwide, christainity and other religions has been a source of hope to so many people especially in the developing world. When I read the bible, I see a book that teaches me love, peace, unity and how to do the right thing all the time. Even Mr Portillo will agree with that!

Olubunmi olajoyegbe, London, United Kingdom

Rod's view from Vancouver:
"Religion is and always has been the source of most of the evil in this world."

Umm, yeah. Hitler? Stalin? Pol Phot? Attila the Hun? World War I? The Pelopponesian War? Child prostitution in Asia? Japan's rape of Nanking? The Irish Potato Famine?

True, historically religion has been a factor -- or an excuse -- for much violence and cruelty -- the Inquisition and the Muslim conquest of India are two traditional examples. But Rod's overbroad accusation is far too facile -- although one hears it all the time.

Craig Goodrich, Las Vegas, USA, Nevada

I've been reading Joseph Ratzinger's (AKA Pope Benedict) book "Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures". It appears to address the problem that you are considering. It's only 115 pages long, you might wish to read it. His book authored with Professor Pera and entitled "Without Roots" is also to the point.

Art Dusto, Mercer Island, WA, USA

Bringing liberal, secular modernism to the fight with Islam is like bringing a fly swatter to a gun fight. No one will strap on a suicide belt for modernism, and in one sense, that's a very good thing indeed. In another sense, though, it specifies the problem. When the Sophist skeptics undermined the traditional religious myths of Greece, the society entered a spiritual and moral crisis from which it could not recover. When critics of religion focus on its mythical nature, they focus on the wrong thing. Let's think a little deeper, shall we?

Byron Matthews, Sandia Park, NM

Interesting article and comments. I would merely add that atheism and anti-Christian movements have killed more people in the last century than all other movements/religions combined. Think Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot...

George, Albany, US

There's no point in trying to connect Hitler with the Catholic Church, because there was simply no connection. Adolph Hitler was not a religious man, he was a nationalist! The key to world peace and prosperity lies with the followers of Jesus Christ, as the only world prince of peace! The Pope will have increasing importance in maintaining tranquility in a turbulent world. I found Mr Rees-Mogg's to be enlightening and so relevant to the needs of the world today!

Raphael Ramani, Glasgow, Scotland

There was plenty of good, and not particularly religious, morality in years BC. Aristotle's Ethics is an excellent place to start. He avoids the mistake that most religions make, of turning a recommendation for a way of life into a series of commandments. He did discuss the gods, but they are on the fringes of his argument and by no means essential to it.

Richard Baron, London, UK

Well reasoned and curageous argument, which many "moderns" do not want to hear. Mr. Rees-Mogg's argument skillfully avoids the pitfalls of syncretism on one hand, yet manages to be objective regarding the history of Christianity on the other. Judging from many responses, it is difficult to be a prophet in one's native land.

Mark, Suffolk, VA

Nicely put W Rees-Mogg, but why identify only 21st Century Islamic militancy?
The previous episode of this phenomenon was brought to an end in 732 at Tours in Western France. 732 was, please note, 360 years before the First Crusade and nowhere near any Islamic shrine or pilgrimage destination.

R Harris, Carterton, New Zealand

Huge gaping flaw in the argument here: Christianity was also one of the justifications of slavery. The largest protestant denominations in the US (Southern Baptists, Southern Methodists) were founded on the right of men to own slaves, as justified in scripture. Why is it that some Christians were pro-slavery while others viewed it as evil?

Wilberforce's opposition to slavery was certainly expressed through his religious views, but it was also (perhaps more so) based on one of the major tenets of modernity -- an effort to understand and empathize with the individual human condition. You also see this in the simultaneous emergence of the Romantic poets and novelists. Modernity is much more characterized by an obsession with cultural knowledge and awareness than the author's strawman of "materialism, scientism and political correctness". Empathy based on cultural understanding is the basis for modern morality -- not the taboos, fairy tales and hatreds of scriptural religions.

RichB, London, UK

A disgracefully dishonest column. Or maybe dishonesty is becomiong the true hallmark of the believer. Wilberforce was indeed a great man, and undoubtedly driven by his religion convictions. But the same religious drives can be found in many of those who supported slavery before Wilberforce and those who actively opposed him. The deceit propogated here is the same one that is propogated by many others, namely that goodliness only resides in those who have godliness. This is a manifest lie, the two things are seperate and have to be, for if they were not God would be bound by a human idea of goodness, which (if you believe in God) would surely be a highly offensive position to take yet it is one which Mr Rees-Mogg seemingly adopts. As for the references to Neo-Darwinism, what exactly is meant by this?Darwinism is a scientific truth and will remain so until proven otherwise, but if someone proves otherwise then the new theory will become Scientific truth. Don't confuse science and belief.

Thomas Davies, London, UK

If there is no God, all is allowed. So said Dostoievsky, and we have to think, why to be honest, if a hundred years after my dead -rich and happy- I won't have any problem...? If someone of this ones that thinks religion is no a cure can answer, I'll have one of my biggest problems solved...

Friederich, San Abundio, Panamá

I agree that Portillo's characterization and also the modern fear of spirituality to be less than equitable, however the article is a bit misleading. As history has shown, religion can be found on all sides of the debate, both pro and against, for example in the case of slavery in 19th century America which found supporters largely in Southern churches and found detractors in Northern congregations. If it is both the sickness and the cure, then it really isn't either. This should tell us our focus is improperly placed. Rather it should be on the merits and demerits of a particular issue and whether this rings true with what we want for ourselves, for others, for society. This is thought and debate, something not foreign to the fair-minded people of today but foreign to attitudes hostile to discourse and that panders to fear, which factions from both the religious and the irreligious have been guilty of. It is this attitude that is the sickness and social dialogue the cure.

Dave, San Jose, California, USA

The concept of morality, without an objective standard, makes no logical sense. Without a moral standard, such as the bible or the Torah, all morality is relative. Thus, the morality of the radical muslim community is equally valid to the beliefs of those in the west. If one says that western morality is superior to radical Islam you are making a morally baseless judgement that your beliefs are superior to someone else's.

Steve, Folsom, CA

'In the USA the resurgence of fundamentalist Protestantism won two major elections for the Republicans'. (?) Thou glorify-ith too much. In our close elections every tiny minority faction crows "Our vote did it!" and they are all correct.

Bob Hall, New York, United States

The idea that morality in people and society requires religion (usually Christianity, though there is usually some attempt to conceal that limitation) is a fallacy. I have colleagues born and brought up in Communist China who are among the most ethical I have ever worked with, and some of the worst people I have ever worked with were lay preachers. It may be convenient for politicians to appeal to the religious enthusiasms of their potential dupes, but it's no more than opportunism, whether cynical or naive. And religion is a far more profound matter than a means of coercing behaviour that makes life easier for governments.

Arthur, Fayetteville,

Well said indeed! However, Mr Rees-Mogg juxtaposed religion to political correctness - if taken at face value, the hard-core beliefs about, say, sex or the place of women entertained by the generation whose writings shaped the New Testament run against the current of liberal ideals of religious and sexual diversity. Reconciling religion with the modern-day vision of tolerance is not an easy task, as there are good morals on both ends.

Julia Staykova, Sofia,

The "Social Darwinism" of Adolf Hitler? The Roman Catholic Adolf Hitler, who enjoyed the grace and favour of the Catholic church?

What spurious argument, to hold Hitler up as an example of Social Darwinism, then in the very next sentence claim we need religion as a source of morals.

Lee Duff, Reading, UK

Well said indeed! However, Mr Rees-Mogg juxtaposed religion to political correctness - if taken at face value, the hard-core beliefs about, say, sex or the place of women entertained by the generation whose writings shaped the New Testament run against the current of liberal ideals of religious and sexual diversity. Reconciling religion with the modern-day vision of tolerance is not an easy task, as there are good morals on both ends.

Julia Staykova, Sofia, Bulgaria

For such a distinguished commentator, to correctly identify the wrong in 'Christianophobia' (or any phobia for that matter) on the one hand and then to regard Islam as a 'religious issue' on the other hand is depressing. I accept that humans and our social context are complex but a blatant attack upon one religion by reference to fringe elements (extremes) is ignorant and a form of cultural racism. I would have to refer the 'distinguished' commentator to extend his reading and knowledge of Islam before expressing such ignorance.

Wazir, London, UK

Religion is and always has been the source of most of the evil in this world. In the modern world, we need only look at Ireland/Ulster, India/Pakistan, Germany and the Jews, Israel and the Arabs, and on and on. Religion has nothing to do with morality; religion is the antithesis of morality. Real morality is based on one precept, which we call the Golden Rule, that was actually first formulated by Confucius (an agnostic), who said: Ji suo bu yu, wu shi yu ren -- Do not inflict on others what you would not wish for yourself. Religion is irrelevant and antiquated. All religion should be exposed for the illogical claptrap it is and vigorously discouraged.

Rod Nelson, Vancouver, BC, Canada

"Now we face a similar global challenge from Islam, which opposes Judaism in Israel, Hinduism in India, Buddhism in South East Asia, Christianity in Europe and America and modernism in the whole advanced world"

Sums it up.

But no we don't need religion to have morality - on the contrary, religions usually have wierd attitudes to sexuality, women and, in the case of Islam, an immoral attitude towards free speech.

Morality is humanistic - felt and developed as a natural civil instinct - not a childish superstition regarded as the dictate of a fictitious deity.

Joe, Manchester,

Without a moral code given to us by a higher power there is no legitimate restraint which leads ultimately to slavery of the mind and the body. Jesus' ministry began by his reading of Isaiah 61 where the purpose of what would become known as Christianity was revealed: good news for the poor, healing for the broken hearted, deliverance of the captives, recovery of sight to the blind and liberty for the oppressed. The benevolence of God is easily contrasted with the malevolence of man who at various times and in various places has devised all manner of wicked schemes to reverse the good news brought to the world by God through Jesus. This country needs to stop worshipping materialism, alternative lifestyles, house prices and other passing regilions and begin to worship truth who came in the form of a man named Jesus.

Revd. C. R. Hickman, Salford Priors, UK

So Lord Rees-Mogg thinks that “…there is neither bond nor free…” means that St. Paul and the early Christians who followed him advocated the abolition of slavery.

Brilliant. So, logically, his Lordship must therefore believe that the phrase that follows his key quote (“… there is neither male nor female…”) advocated feminism and gay rights. If there is no male nor female, then how can women priests and bishops be condemned, and how can anyone trouble themselves about homosexuals doing whatever they please?

It is a shame that St. Paul did not find the time to clarify his views on slavery as he did on feminist and gay rights. If only he had done so, Lord Rees-Mogg might well have discovered that he (and every Christian for the succeeding 1,600 years) had as much contempt for slaves as he did for women and gays.

Peteran, London, UK

What amazes me about moderns is the widespread ignorance of philosophy among them. Don't schools do philosophy anymore?

A foundation stone for my Christian faith is my acceptance of the First Cause argument put together with Pascal's Wager. From there it is but a short step to my Catholicism.

Dave Livingston, El Paso county, Colorado, USA

Numerous times individuals have told me that they are atheists, when I ask 'why' I am invariably told it is because they do not believe in God. Ergo they are christians, as they define their religious identity by a christian question. Some religions instead hold scepticism as a virtue, and encourage disbelief in the deities of their pantheons. Modern Christianity has far more to with Rome than it does with Christ unfortunately our society seems to regard as authorities on the subject of religion those with most reason to be biased. The sad truth is that an Englishman has already sorted all of this out, not a very nice man (nicer than most of his modern adherents) but he knew what he was talking about. It's a pity that so few today are literate enough to properly follow much of his writing, and don't have the wits to get anything more out of his work than Ozzy Osbourne.

Mr Quick, Nottingham,

"Broken families, drugs, booze, youth gangs, crime, neglect of children and the old, the sheer boredom of shopaholicism, terrorism, the inner-city slums, materialism itself"

And these didn't exist before we stopped going to church? I rather think they did, Mr Rees-Mogg in their 4th - 19th century guises.

MCC, London,

Bravo, Mr. Rees-Mogg! I was appalled at Mr. Portillo's anti-Christian ranting yesterday and your strong defense of Christianity was indeed moving. I saw the new film honouring Wilberforce's life, Amazing Grace, this weekend here in America. It makes the same case you have here: Christianity has a profound role to play in shaping the values and character of those who claim the West home. Intrinsically, I believe most people believe that. If only we can have the cultural elite agree...

Chris R., Denver, Colorado, USA

There may be a way to construct a personal ethical system based on non-religious beliefs, but religion is not just about day-to-day ethics. There's a lot more to it than that.

Once people figure out what that "more" is, they worry a lot less about a few hypocrites or the inconsistencies in a tradition that his been developing for thousands of years. The problems with such things are obvious, and SENSIBLE religious people can distance themselves from the questionable positions of some other religious figures without losing sight of the larger truth. William Wilberforce seems to have done so in a particularly effective way.

Marie, Washington DC, USA

It is clear from some of the comments in reponse to William Rees-Mogg's article that there are indeed a number of people who feel uneasy about religion, and hence Rees-Mogg's article is clearly unwelcome. I welcome it though, because it is a well-balanced, thought provoking and subversive - illustrating the obvious effect that fear has upon a society in the throes of a militant threat, so obviously disguised as religion - but blind to the darkening shadow of a growing totalitariansim. Some of the commentators should perhaps open their eyes and take a look around their country, maybe they will see that they are indeed slaves -speaking to the free.

Sebastien Fiennes, Kingsbury,

I find William Rees Mogg's argument intellectually impoverished.Why present religion and secularism as polerised and the only alternatives. Surely in this 21st. century people should learn from history that empathy for those around one and the environment can provide a moral framework or in the words of his hero 'do unto others as you would be done to '.

Vera Marsden, Southport, Merseyside

As a recent convert from London Cyncism to Roman Catholicism, my initial reaction to Portillo's words were quite negative, but on second reading there is a point here being missed; not against religion per se, but against the conversion of religious to political ideology, which is more precisely the problem with Wahhabism.

The difficulty in the message of this article is that it tries to communicate the benefit of religion to the non-religious. There is one key tenet that is requisite to understanding this article - faith. Without faith, moral relativism is the only rational answer, and, for now, that means "materialism, scientism and political correctness" win the day.

However I do believe there is renewed interest in faith, and I believe that faith itself, rather than the structures of religion, encourages morality. But it does not ensure it. Those that blame religion for the evils of humanity seem to be unaware that the faithful are as weak and human as they are.

Joseph Mulhall, London, England

Before presenting my primary contention, I would like to add a footnote: Hitler advocated "eugenics", but it was a purely subjective process founded on his preferences - true "eugenics" would have led the Jews to even greater prosperity, seeing as Ashkenazi Jews score the highest on IQ tests. Indeed, Hitler thought IQ tests were "Jewish".

The author of this article superficially characterizes any morality that uses science and reason as the kind espoused by Hitler or Shaw. Many aspects of secular morality taught today are both logical and utilitarian. Immorality is not only a character fault, it is illogical and uneconomical - conflict, for example, is counterproductive by nature. Religion claims that the world "needs" it, but as stated earlier, morals can be logically reasoned. Religion asserts itself as higher than logic, and argues from the premise of itself. With a choice between morals that are their own premise, and morals that can be chosen, the latter should be chosen

Ashton Johnson, Seaside, Oregon

Amazing how the comments on this forum--those invoking the "hegemony and oppression" and the like of Christianity--miss the point. To whit: Britain will be religious, whether you like it or not, you merely have to choose between your historical relgion--Christianity--or the one soon to be imposed on you--Islam.

Paul Kelley, Columbia, SC, USA

W R-M:

Well said! The pseudo-intellectual atheism that permeates Western society hasn't yet owned up to the fact it cannot answer it's own questions. The mis-placed hope and confidence in 'science' is starting to show. The cracks in society do not stem from an excess of faith, but from a lack of hope. Modern Man is now "free" from the bondage of 'sin,' and finds himself in the iron-clad determinism of evolution, heredity, genetics and other neo-boogey-men of our day. Difference is this...a 'sinner' has an option of repentance. If the cause of one's trouble is genetics or heredity, there's someone to blame. But, who does one turn to for hope? Considering what we know of the human condition, to paraphrase GK Chesterton, orthodox Christianity accounts for man's two ears, two eyes and one nose better than any other philosphy or idealogy to date.

The resurgence of interest in religion is encouraging. For some of us, at least.

Dan'l, Gorham, Maine (US)

Even though I myself don't do belief in the absence of evidence, I will begin to respect religion for the first time when it puts the cessation of worldwide population growth front and centre among its policies. Similarly, here in the United States, religion has given us a ban on stem cell research - potentially the greatest medical breakthrough of all time. Its like Galileo and the Catholic church all over again - except that stem cell researchers have not been threatened with torture as far as I know. Religion is a medieval institution. Which adjective is applied most often to Islamic fundamentalists and their actions - "medieval". Lets leave it back in the middle ages and move forward.

Hrothgar, Schaumburg, USA

If a designer wishes to change the way we think about the motorcar he produces a concept car. New designers come and go. The car evolves yet it is still a car. So with religion, first Adam, then Abraham, Moses, Christ etc. From time to time the car has been influenced by other concept designers such as Dr. Porche, who showed that an aircooled Boxer engine could work well in the rear; but Subaru like the concept of the horizontally opposed pistons but prefer it all to be watercooled and in the front. Christians faced the Muslims before and their beliefs were reinvigorated by the Crusades and they experienced a period of Renaisance. Concepts as AJS seems to deride are the arena for abstract thought. Abstract thought is where invention, and morality reside hopefully in balance. Religion is introduced to man as concepts just like the motorcar. RHB Christchurch NZ

Richard Battrick, Christchurch, New Zealand

How good to read an article that challenges the 'scientism' that is so prevalent in much of the media today and championed by the likes of Richard Dawkins. Science indeed has much to offer to humanity, though some of its achievements (eg explaining how we got here) are rather overstated. However as Rees-Mogg rightly says it is unable to provide humanity with a moral code to live by. Indeed if our genes are really as selfish as they are supposed to be the whole idea of morality is inconvenient at best and at worst potentially disastrous. A Christian preacher was once asked to a debate with an atheist and said he would happily come if the atheist could bring along someone who had been rescued from addiction or had stopped beating his wife by discovering atheism. The debate never happened. Humanistic materialism has no power to change lives for the better. Whatever the critics say, religion (at least in some forms) does!

Andrew Brown, Derby, UK

Religion is no more a basis for morallity than science. It is fallatious to argue that we are morally bankrupt in the west - in the majority of the less developed world there is just as much social breakdown, but it is due to social practices that are not condoned in the west.

Religion offers no more answers to the doubter, only a panacea to sooth the mind - Marx was right in calling it the opiate of the masses. By moving beyong religion we are able to answer the hard questions critically, and without resorting to prejudice.

Belief in a higher being is laudable, and if that otherness is none xenophobic then all the better. The only way to defeat fanatics is to defuse them with education and rational thinking - which is why the west is a generally more peaceful place.

Ultimately do you want to live in Saudia Arabia, Isreal, Italy, America, or Malayasia. The choice is yours because we are free to think and be critical and it is a luxury of our society.

Rachel Saunders, York, UK

Christianity may, in human hands, suffer many defaults but with all its problems and contradictions, it offers more to world culture than any of the other ideologies with which we have tinkered so enthusiastically since the Enlightenment. We have discovered that education is as much a force for evil as any of the failings attributed tor religion. We have found that much of modern science, especially in such areas as stem-cell research, euthanasia, etc reeks of the medical practice of the Nazis or the Japanese militarists. We have found that much of what passed for socialism for so long was no more than state tyranny under a veneer of goodness. We have found nothing in any of our 'scientific' values that remotely approaches the kind of morality of Christianity. It is indeed the only remedy for our defective society.
Ian Welch
Canberra, Australia

Ian WELCH, Canberra, Australia

After reading some of the comments in response to William Rees-Mogg's article; clearly there are a number of people who are indeed uneasy about religion, and hence so too is Rees-Mogg's essay seemingly unwelcome. I welcome it though, because it a well-balanced, thought provoking and indeed a subversive reflection on what fear can do to a society caught in the throes of a militant threat disguised so obviously as religion - but ever under under the darkening shadow of an approaching totalitarianism. I think some of the commentators should open their eyes and take a look around - maybe they will see that they are slaves.

Sebastien Fiennes, athbaska,

Re: The Ego
Does this mean that Jesus was an early Freudian? Rather along the lines of John the Baptist being a Proto Christian?

Mr Useless 2, Manchester, UK

Morals are not present only amongst the religious. In essence they are an ability to consider the welfare of others as well as yourself. I believe I am perfectly capable of having good morals without any recourse to an imaginary friend. It is offensive to suggest otherwise.

Social cohesion has weakened not because of the decline of religion but because of the increase in inequality combined with division caused by mass immigration. Perhaps religion will heal the wounds but I would hope for a more modern solution. One thing is for sure, none of the major political parties has any answers because they are in thrall to the businessmen that line their coffers.

Steve, London, England

"We live in an age when modernists regard religion with something approaching panic. It is like the Devil’s attitude to Holy Water." Nice soundbite that. Skepticism and suspicion of religion go back at least 300 years, hardly something "modernist". And the devil's attitude to "holy water" is that he doesn't care one iota about it.

Can the good Lord tell us what the other half is that science cannot explain (and, presumably religion does?). Then he comes up with the pseudo science of Marxism and Social Darwinism to illustrate his point. But to label those ideologies as "scientific" can only be done by someone who doesn't have a clue about what "science" is. Astrologers too claim themselves to be "scientific", but it's all nonsense, really.

Give us more of Portilo and less of Rees-Mogg, please!

Ed Zuiderwijk, Cambridge, UK

Sir, I disagree that religion is the cure,Christianity is. I was amazed by the letters, not the negativity, but the lack of knowledge by people responding to something they know so little about. One really ought to do one's own research rather than relying on hearsay. One needs to be careful of what one "eats",accepts into the mind, that is. The measure is Jesus Christ, what he said against what one is actually seeing. The Bible is not about a physical creation, but about the spiritual creation. In the spirit of God, it has absolutely nothing to do with spiritism, in fact that is forbidden. As for slavery, well everyone is a slave to something or other, whether one realises it or not, Worship is whatever one has dedicated oneself to. One may say that Richard Dawkins god is science, since that is what has captured his mind, for example. For others it may be money, or prominant today, sex. Albert Einstein said it,"Science without God is lame, religion without science is blind".

Peter Richardson, Kippens, Canada

I am not the leaste bit interested in a utilitarian brief for something called "religion." It doesn't exist for the purpose of satisfying a moral need. It exists because God has revealed Himself in people.

Owen Jones, Beaufort, USA/South Carolina

What Sir William does not mention is that the future, even in secular Britain, belongs to the religious.

Seculars and atheists need not panic, though, at least for the next decade or so. Pew attitude survey showed only 35% of Britons thought religion important. Unfortunately this low number won’t last, all things remaining equal. That one-in-three religious Briton has/will have two in three of Britain’s children. So the population will shrink and become more religious at the same time, unless the children the atheists did not have are replaced by children of religious Poles, Lithuanians, west Africans etc....Still makes the future belong to the religious. Atheists and secularists: panic in 2017! (Or start making some children right now, procreative sex, anyone? Now *there’s* an ancient concept).

Mary Shelley, London, UK

For every example of people ebing freed (literally) by religion it is possible to cite numerous examples of wars started by religion. I would wager that for every one person 'saved' by religion, at least 100 have been killed because of it! You just need to watch the news each day to see the latest casualties of religious violence shia muslims killing sunni muslims and vice versa in iraq.

Dr No, Secret lair in the carribian,

Thank you very much for this inspiring article. It's pure shame that conservatives like Portillo behave themselves as intolerant marxists with religion. Both this kind of conservatives and leftists have in common a deep materialistic background.

Though, I would go a step even forward, the solution is not religion itself but Christ himself. We christians (I speak as a practicing Roman Catholic) follow a person not an ideal neither a system of ideas.

Charles Robinson, Madrid, Spain

"Yet science itself was unable to produce a science-based morality for society"

No rational scientist or modernist would claim that science should give us our morals. Science is not some kind of life choice or a belief system. Why do the religious so readily make this mistake?

We should chose our morals by using intellect mixed with kindness and compassion, not by studying centuries old texts with little to no relevance to the modern world.

John Johnson, Birmingham,

It is too easy to sustain a thesis starting from the conclusion. Too easy to say God is the solution and then do not care to explain where God comes from. To easy to cherry pick the passage on the bible that are morally acceptable. Science work at the opposite. Trying to explain something using evidences for its statements, and always trying to find something that do not support the thesis, not at abstract universal panacea called God.
Some pople should re-read Karl Popper!

Nicola P, London, UK

There is, of course, what the Church says, and what the Church is said to say. Many people, for example, confuse the bible with Christianity. Most of what is written in the bible is "Old" Testament, how the semitic tribes developed, hygiene laws for survival, the complicated social hierarchy, morality, prophesy and wisdom, and so on.

In the year 0 God became Man to take us forward into a "New" Covenant. One and universal, with a leader - Peter, and an apostolate. The old testament had fulfilled its purpose, significantly providing the backdrop to proving (for many) the Messiah, and a foundation on which to base the way forward. The Catholic (universal) Church is this continued. And there is only one.

Its progress is troubled because of human nature. History is full of wars and injustices and cruelties and bickering over meaning. But it is also full of goodness and kindness, which we are all capable of and which we should strive for.
On analysis, the teaching of the Church is precisely about that - goodness, and love.

People in the Church don't always live up to that, probably none of us do. But that doesn't disprove its message - it merely points to our failings.

And I haven't seen anything else which matches the teachings of the Church on how we should be behaving towards each other.

John Anthony, London,

William Rees-Mogg reinforces his argument for Christianity with quotations from the Bible but his language is anachronistic, divisive and fanatical in a secular society.
He gloats over the resurgence of Christianity whose history is filled with the blood of millions of innocents. I feel only fear and trepidation at its return.
The contemporary Christian churches both Church of England and Roman Catholic are political and economic institutions and their Bibles propaganda that influence the young and the gullible with their superstition and myth.
In the 21st Century the Churches and their teachings should have no special place in our life and they should be allowed no special status or privilege. A good start would be disestablishment of the Church of England and an end to faith schools.

Mike Freeman, London, England

I must be a modernist. This article bored me to tears!

Peter Tooth, Telford, UK

Thank you very much for this inspiring article. It's pure shame that conservatives like Portillo behave themselves as intolerant marxists with religion. Both this kind of conservatives and leftists have in common a deep materialistic background.

Though, I would go a step even forward, the solution is not religion itself but Christ himself. We christians (I speak as a practicing Roman Catholic) follow a person not an ideal neither a system of ideas.

Charles Robinson, Madrid, Spain

By the way, Stewart Ware, in the 1950s--a time when religion had a greater influence in the United States--nearly all the societal ills that you mention were less of a problem. I agree with those who point out that the Old Testament merely regulated slavery, though more humanely than was usually the case at that time, and the New Testament doesn't take a firm stand against it. Ultimately, though, the effect of Christianity's most important principle, the Golden Rule, did have an effect. It undoubtedly played a key role in the efforts to end slavery in the 19th century.

I don't believe that religion is the "only possible remedy" to the world's moral dilemmas. Nor do I believe that religion is the source of all our problems (note the millions killed by anti-religious fanatics, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). Until recent centuries nearly all great persons were religious. Religious fanatics were also among the worst (judged by my set of values)--and some still are. It's not a black-white issue.

Jean Carent, Columbia, USA

When will people learn to accept the bible as a whole when stating what its stance on a particular issue is. To pick this or that passage does not in itself prove a particular point - only a holitsic view will do that. The bible does not state that slave ownership is good, but it does nonoetheless take a sensible approach to regulating what was a common occurence where it happens. This was utterly different to the slavery which people imagine when the word is used, which was justified (wrongly) in the name of Christianity. As the author points out, under Christ, we are all one.
The argument that people are turned off "religion" becuase of hypocricy is fair, but it does not mean that that religion is wrong, just that it is misused, or claimed by people who do not actually believe it. the morality of the bible is clear, and many social ills which we see today - teenage pregnancy, war, addiction etc would be eradicated if it were adhered to - notwithstanding the age of the bible

David Filmer, Lytham,

After the fire, the wheel, and the atom, what the world most needs now is the belief that there is no god, never has been and never will be, to finally free all of us from the biggest conjuring trick ever.

Jean-Louis Guiot, Longfield, UK

As a lesbian I find Christianity's influence on the state far from benign. After two millenia, we gay people are finally managing to shake off that oppression. When I argue for a secular state, I'm often exhorted to "live and let live". That's precisely what I want to do, and in a country that contains people of many faiths, and no faith at all, and agnostics of all types, then a secular state is the only way for the state to "live and let live". If the religious are sincere in their beliefs, then they can live in accordance with their religion without stamping those beliefs on the laws of the land. As to god being the only source of morality, what nonsense. Someone who lived by _all_ the moral codes in the bible would be locked up for life in a maximum security jail!

Anna Langley, Cambridge, UK

We really promote science when we can do as Jesus teaches- have a genuine openness to the Creator. This truth is latent in Conscience. Since we're inveterate worshippers of something, somebody or ourselves all the time, we're well advised to follow the Saviour and make it God we worship first and foremost. That's where our fulfilment lies. Nowhere else.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

The world most definitely does NOT "need religion to address moral issues" as W R-M suggests. Human morality comes from a far deeper fount than mere religion, is universal and innate and is the the greatest product of evolution.... our intellects. It is basically the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong and, in most people, comes with the developing intellect between the age of 5 and puberty. For a variety of reasons a proportion of the population never reach this state of knowledge or, if they do, choose to ignore or deny it. If you need a charlatan priest or book to tell you the difference between right and wrong you are morally, emotionally or intellectually stunted (for whatever reason). You may be, possibly, all three! That an elected politician should 'listen to God' rather than use his (or her) brain fills me with horror. Vanquishing religion remains humankind's greatest task. Viva Darwin! Viva Dawkins! FTP.

Paolo Bagarino, Roma, Italy

Sir William's article does its author no favours when he puts the words "modernism" about as if it were some sort of stick.

"Modernism" refers to the thought of the Enlightenment, and it's been in eclipse for most of the 20th century. Contemporary, post-Heideggerian, thought has a lot of time for religion, as any reader of Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Lévinas would be well aware.

I'd suggest that the problem is that a large section of the western world is so taken with expediency that the mere thought that there might be merit in a view which rejects such a concept gives them the vapours.

On the role of science in our understanding of the world there would be merit in reading Bertrand Russell's Sceptical Essays.

John Reid, Rotorua, New Zealand

in this age we live in, moral decay is the norm, crime, child abuse, materialism, terrorism, drugs and alcohol abuse are all high on the agenda, even our children have learnt to kill each other over petty arguements, the fact is what do we expect when we chase religion which builds a strong moral foundation out of our schools and everyday life. Isaish 32:15 says "unless the spirit of the lord is poured from on high onto his children" we will continue to degenerate as a society and thats exactly waht we are seeing, where political leaders get on the t.v and lie, tooth and nail, when leaders have no moral conscience. God help us

K. Hagher, Luton, Bedfordshire, UK

What the mostly anti-religious posters here are ignoring is that a lot of morality is explicitly taught and learned in a religious context, and the rest is still mostly a direct descendent of Judeao-Christian precepts of right and wrong. Whether there is an actual 'God in the sky', or not, is irrelevant (in this context). WRMs point is more properly the failure of a science-based secular humanism to provide a credible (and acceptible) alternative to a morality based on religion. We want to have our cake and eat it: to keep the ten commandments, but to deny them the status of an absolute morality based on the will and the word of God. If human beings are the final moral arbiters, then if human beings decide that extermination camps, torture, slavery, and the sexual abuse of children are morally right, then they *are* morally right. And human beings *have* from time to time decided exactly those things. See De Sade and Nietzsche: they know that the Enlightenment had it's dark side too.

Richard Graham, Gateshead,

Jesus has it right when He says we only find life through overcoming our ego. If we're not worshipping God, we're worshipping ourselves.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

how old does a religion have to be to qualify to be a religion - how many believers does it need to have - does it need to worship anything - will make believe do instead of belief - open the history book and you will see early Quakers walking naked in the streets - who are they today

Mr Useless, London,

Morality without religion is like tanning without the sun. All morals must be deduced from a higher spiritual form, lest they be condemmed to mere social convention. Eternity is not only a privilege of God, it is only possible in Him, for all else passes on. As our friend Frieddie said (Nietzsche): "A man's, and for that matter a society's, value is measured by their greater or lesser relation to eternity."

When Frieddie went wrong was when he tried to form the concept of eternity without God. God is not dead. Dying, as individuals, is our thing; not His.

Eugene, Heidelberg, germany

Unfortunately, "religion is the cure" has been the war cry of many a misguided group. Religion is only the cure when the theological pharmacy has just one drug in stock. However, this cure is more like a long term treatment for a psychological disorder, which works just as long as everyone is taking their pills, but the side effects include a changed personality and being in a state of vegetation. I am certainly not stating that religion is the root of all unpleasantness in the world, nor am I denying some of the many wonderful things that have been done in the name of whatever god was being worshiped at the time, but to state that religion is the only possible remedy is ludicrous. The prospect of blind faith to a code of conduct and a belief system invented (by man) to mould man's behaviour to suit a world that no longer exists is a frightening sort of "cure", and I for one would rather learn to live with the disease.

John, South Caicos, Turks and Caicos Islands

I do believe that religion (I mean the essential human faith, not the institutional organizations which support dogmas and rules) and science are not contradictory views, instead, I consider that both of them span from the same and only possible sources: the human brain and its inevitable ways of creating culture through human interaction. Culture (civilization and technology) can only be created by means of a selfconscious brain activity. In my view religion is an instinct just the same as language is an instinct (Chomsky). It may be part of our surviving instinct. We are small, fragile beings and need someone big or powerful to take care of us all. If we do not find it there we create it. Religion is selfexpression an useful tool. Institutional religions are optimal means to teach a moral basis and behaviour but they always should have a flexible frame. We must feel free to affirm that we believe or to deny so, and to interpret the particular sense of our own subjective lifes.

Ángeles Sánchez, Madrid, Spain

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article and agree with everything Rees-Mogg wrote. Religion is, indeed, far from worn out and I, for one, look forward to a resurgence of faith in this benighted country. Encouraging though Rees-Mogg's belief that this will happen is, the most comforting aspect of the debate he has begun is the realisation of how totally ineffectual, impotent and now thoroughly discredited are the arguments of your secularist correspondents. There were more red herrings in their diatribes than I can mention and this was so well represented by the straw man attack by M.Wilkinson who falsely claims that Christians base their lives on mythology, the ad hominem attack on Rees-Mogg by Bob Green, and the claim by others that ethics could have developed without the existence of a supernatural being, to which my response would be, prove it.

Cliff Pooley, Cheltenham,

Religion is the cure for the religious in the same way as heroin is the cure for drug addiction. Both bring happiness for the deluded addict but have nothing to do with being a moral human being

john smith, Manchester, UK

Problem for those who want a morality without religion is that it's not on the cards. The only way to grow in love, as Jesus teaches, is though overcoming our egoism. This is only achievable by switching our enormous self worship to God. There is no other way.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

This article is superficial and simplistic, if not PC. Religion is a myth that springs from man, not a fact of life because animals don’t have it. It has been a convenient means of ordering and supporting man’s moral attitudes in what were broadly ill-educated times, but it has equally been a convenient means for secular powers to exploit that ordering - as at the present time. You say that The world needs religion to address the moral issues. This is nonsense. If moral issues are dealt with today, it is in parliaments not churches, because they now make the laws - Islam temporarily excluded. Hence a main weakness of formalised religions - they have been essentially written up and codified in simple times and contain anomalies that don’t fit with the modern world and which they are unable to rationalise, eg the creationist position with Christianity and birth control with Roman Catholicism. Religion may be a support to some people and an interesting part of life and history for others, but it isn’t something we need. We need good laws that are respected and supported.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Belief is just that, and no more.

What sticks in my throat is the moral righteousness purveyed by so many smitten with belief.

"My religion is the right one, and the rest of you are condemned to hellfire" is the attitude of so many believers, and is the source of so much misery over the centuries.

And of course, the power of such belief has, and is, used ruthlessly for the domination of others.

David Jefferis, Brill,

How can basing your life on religious mythology be a
solution to anything.

M Wilkinson, London, UK

Shouldn't all of these profound questions be referred to the entity or entitiies that created the God whose alleged words may be used to support or deny various moral interpretations , war , descrimination and hate?

Once we've heard from it or them maybe we should go to the next level of authority , and then ad infinitum up the god chain for the definitive viewpoint.

When religious beliefs , based solely on ancient written texts of uncertain human provenance which may be used to justify all manner of interpretations , are proffered by the William Rees Moggs' of this world as a sound basis for human co existance is it any wonder that our species is in such dire straits?

Surely the Times can afford to employ columnists more in touch with the realities of the world we live in ?

Bob Green, Essex, England

"From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery." says Mr Rees Mogg. I fully disagree.

If we read the Bible, we find instead a God who embraces slavery wholeheartedly.

For example: Exodus 12 verse 43: The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover:.... Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not". God shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery and singles out slaves for special treatment.

St. Paul apparently saw no evil in the concept of one person owning another as a piece of property. In his Letter to Philemon, he had every opportunity to discuss the immorality of slave-owning, but declined to do so.

The Bible is so supportive of slavery, in fact, that it was frequently used as a justification for American slavery prior to the Civil War.

L. Ersanilli, Brussels,

Religion ...a virus you say...surely there will be medical research for a cure......hopefully before it destroys the world with the "GOD is on my side" epidemic.....GJW

Jean G Seibert, Phoenix , Arizona USA

>> The modernist attack on religion was based on the victory of science, and
>> particularly of neo-Darwinism

In some people. In others, the majority I suggest, it was based on the revulsion and disgust which the hypocrisy of the "faithful" aroused in decent folk.

I agree with William Rees-Mogg that religion isn't the problem. I agree with Leo Tolstoy that the faithful are.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

The bible is actually pretty clear about the ownership of slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46: states emphatically: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." US president Jefferson Davis argued that slavery "was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation", so christianity managed to argue both sides of the argument, using exactly the same text. Wilberforce's argument, then, illustrates more about the moral pliability of the bible and its weakness as a source of guidance, than it enforce it. The problem with christianity is that it is a tool of hegemony and oppression.

Mike, London,

1. Love is the cure. Self-obsession is the disease. It is a sleight-of-hand of the religious to claim the capacity to love one's neighbour is contingent upon belief in an imaginary friend or master.
2. The religous are becoming noisy and obtrusive. That is not a resurgence in religion. According to the 2006 FT/Harris poll 35% of us are believers in any type of god or any form of supreme being.
3. If 'the orthodox Christian doctrine is one of liberty and equality' why did it take the deists of the Enlightenment to establish liberty, equality and rationality in human affairs? Why in particular did it take approximately 1965 years and what were then thought the death-throes of orthodox belief to fully overcome the foul nonsense about women and gays that was (is) a staple of orthodox belief? A single line from the Bible fails to wipe out the sorry history of theocracy or less pliable verses..

Ysabel Howard, London, UK

The USA, the most religious country in the developed world, has the highest incidence of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, teenage pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted infections. These indicators of societal ill health show the country to be almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies and sometimes spectacularly so.

In the least religious countries, for example France and Japan, the indicators of societal health are much more benign.

A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies. In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows.

There simply is no evidence to show that a widespread belief in, and worship of, a supernatural sky-god has a beneficial effect on society. The sooner that embraces reason, rationalism and a moral outlook based on the greatest happiness for the greatest number, the better it will be for all.

Stewart Ware, London,

So why are we moral? Because God said so? Or because it is actually the right thing to so? If the former, then we are just obeying another being's (subjective) opinion, to secure a place in Heaven (selfish?). If the latter, then there must be some higher than God, and so God is not the ultimate power.
Or perhaps it's just in our human nature to have some kind of moral - or survival - instinct. We are animals after all, if only naked animals with an evolved brain function.

CK, Nottingham,

It might come as a surprise to William Rees Mogg that it is possible to have a moral and ethical code without having to resort to belief in the supernatural, gods, mystical beings etc. If you consider that Man made up the description of the supernatural being admirably, and devised a moral code from it, then surely Man is capable of creating a moral code simply by missing out the God bit? After all, we created the concept of universal human rights after World War 2 which is far more compassionate, respectful and dignified than anything the religions have come up with, and it didn't take supernatural belief to inspire it, just commonsense and a sense of equality between all human beings.

Nigel Dingwall, Exeter, UK

Morality and religion should not be confused. Morality without religion, but with recourse to non-mystical philosophical systems, is certainly possible and must be the source of a new system of beliefs.

Marzo, Henderson, Nv, USA

Perhaps in theory societies can be moral without religious faith - but in practice they tend not to be. Be careful not to fall for the "science vs religion" trope - almost no serious thinkers or scientists believe that "science has disproved religion" - that is left to philosophically ignorant self-publicists and people who don't understand science. Quantum Mechanics is a good deal more mysterious than most religious worldviews. John Polkinghorne is very good on all this.

Nicholas Beale, London, England

Abstract concept or not, it's up to an individual to decide. What disturbs me now is the pointing of finger(s) to Islam. Can anyone not comprehend that extremists are distorting the very peaceful nature of Islam? How many of you out there have personal contacts with kind-hearted and compassionate Muslims? The majority of Muslims are UNLIKE the extremists. I am a Catholic and I'm very proud of it. My God did not teach me to pound discreet or indirect accusations at Islam, but to embrace my fellow man. I can't help but to feel that this article seeks to undermine Islam in a way.

Cel, Perth ,

The number of Christian believers in the UK through the past centuries cannot be directly responsible for 'a century of social reform' or an apparent 'accelerating decline in social cohesion'. And surely the author is confusing the need for morality with the need religion. What 'modernism' has reflected is society's desire to move away from separationist religion that only widens the chasm between the (faithful) Us and the (damned) Other. A Christian Britain may well have suited the Empire 100 years ago, but in today's international community we should focus on teaching children strong ethics rather than abstract religious beliefs that are often ambiguous, and controlled by leaders hungry for power. Religion does not explain ethics - one is perfectly capable of being atheist or agnostic and still hold strong moral values. Morality must stand away from prescriptive oppression, and we must look forward to a harmonious future, without being held back by an outdated past.

CM Kong, Nottingham,

Even if it were true (which it's not) that morality could only really come from religion, there is just no way that the majority of people in the West today could be persuaded to accept the frankly nonsensical metaphysical and world views contained within conventional religions, including Christianity. The impact of scientific, and especially Darwinian, ideas cannot just be swept under the carpet, so it is quite pointless to suggest otherwise. We cannot go back to the nineteeth century, and it seems highly improbable to imagine religions truely adapting to the 21st century, at least whilst maintaining any sort of popular appeal.

M.C.Hulme, London, UK

Paul also said "Masters, be fair and just in the way you treat your slaves. Remember that you too have a Master in heaven." Colossians 4:1.
In his book Letter to a Christian Nation Sam Harris quotes the Reverend Richard Fuller who in 1845 said "What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and permitted in the New, cannot be a sin" so as Sam says "abolitionists of the nineteenth century were morally right, but they were on the wrong side of the theological argument." My own feeling is that had William Rees-Mogg been around in 1845 he would have been supporting the Reverend Fuller and voting against the likes of Wilberforce.

Alan Lewis, Bangkok, Thailand

AJS, what higher plane do you have in mind? Without God we're just creatures from the swamp, bred and born in the mud and incapable of being anything more than animals. The only way to transcend that base existance is through belief in God and God's laws. Animals have no sense of morality, no "moral existence." The basis of all our morality is in God's greatest commandment, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Obeying that law is the foundation of a moral life.

Loveday Marie, Rumson, NJ, USA

Wilberforce's belief in Christianity inspired his anti-slavery stance; but that does not mean the same as saying that religion is the only route to morality. Religions have had about six thousand years to get it right but now are mainly just bickering with each other (e.g. Islam versus everyone else as described by William Rees-Mogg). Rather than a revival in religion we are witnessing its death throes. A natural view of the world (rather than supernatural) is becoming the norm.

And we all have a natural moral compass. "Do as you would be done by" is a good start to teaching morality. And whilst it needs teaching, and a personal belief, it has no need for religious enforcement. Emphatically the world does NOT need religion to address moral issues.

Roy Marsh, ex-pat Brit, Singapore

I agree that many of the values taught in religious faith can assist in guiding a person to a happier life, hopefully with respect and regard for others in society. In this respect, religion can have a positive effect in a person's life.

As far as my absolute faith in any religion is concerned, the jury is out. I will not simply reject the explanations of science and philosophy, just because another human being tells me to.

nicko, Sydney, Australia

Dear AJS

You (or anyone else that I have read) have yet to offer an intellectually sound alternative basis for moral existence that surpasses the 'abstract concept' you willingly deride. Be slow to throw stones.

CRB, washington DC,

For religious people God is not an abstract concept but an experienced reality. Religious beliefs are not irrational - plenty of great philosophers have given them a rational basis. What is this higher plain?

william, London,

It is a great shame to think that the only way to a moral existence is through belief in an abstract concept. Such irrational beliefs have also been the cause of terrorism, death and suffering. When will man rise to a higher plain.

AJS, Pensacola, Florida