Sir, The question of who believes in God (Matthew Parris, Dec 22) is ridiculous unless you define God. For most practising Christians, God is merely a reflection of their own virtuous aspirations, certainly not the external intelligence, keeping in being a real afterlife, which is traditional teaching.

Most practising Christians, including some of the clergy, would rather suffer martyrdom than sit down and analyse what they think God is and what they actually believe in. And at risk of atheistic scorn, there is something to be said for going to church and not troubling your head over it.

Roger Copley
Orpington, Kent

Sir, There is only one answer a politician of any party and any faith should give to the question “do you believe in God?” and that is “None of your business.” This is the same, by the way, as the answer to the question “Are you gay?” — however desirably succinct both questions may be.

For the normally sane, clear-thinking Matthew Parris to get such an important issue both so muddled and so wrong is disappointing. First, the principle of the separation of Church and State should be absolute. Paine, Mill, Jefferson etc are all turning in their graves. Surely we only have to look at religious states such as Saudi Arabia and several looming theocracies to understand precisely why more than 400 years ago men of greatness and wisdom adumbrated this principle with passion.

Secondly, and more pragmatically, if you insist on asking politicians about their religious beliefs, you are simply asking to be lied to, a bit like

asking whether they believe in Santa Claus. We must judge politicians on their actions not their intentions.

It was precisely the appeal to religious sanction for the invasion of Iraq that should have led to an implacable Senate and House of Commons flatly rejecting the plans of Mr Bush and Mr Blair. But both bodies profoundly failed their respective peoples and deepest democratic traditions by allowing a lethal mixture of quasi-religious rhetoric and self-aggrandising hubris to launch the most dangerous, anti-democratic war in my lifetime.

How can we expect to resist the evils of fundamentalism if we do not hold true to 2,000 years of hard-won wisdom?

Keith Farman
St Albans, Herts

Sir, What a pity Matthew Parris repeats the same banal reductionism that characterises so much of the debate about religion. I am a religious person and I affirm the Christian creed. But I would need an entire issue of The Times to explain what that creed means for me — how my religious beliefs, sentiments and intuitions express themselves in different times and contexts, how they have evolved and are still evolving, and how I understand God, the Gospels, the Spirit in history and religious values.

At a moment when Tony Blair has been received into the Catholic Church after 20 years of reflection, how can the metaphysical beliefs of anyone, let alone prime ministers, be summed up with such crude terminology as “unlikely” and “probably not”? I would prefer to judge them tolerantly by their policies and decisions, rather than seeking windows into their souls. One wonders which non-believers Mr Parris thinks he is speaking for when he uses that weasel word “we”.

Jonathan Luxmoore
Catholic News Service, Warsaw

Sir, Matthew Parris refers dismissively to Harold Macmillan’s “somewhat theatrical interest in the Church”.

He confined the theatrical to the political realm. Throughout his life he took Communion regularly, describing his faith as “the strong thing in my life”. He should be numbered among those to whom Parris awards a “Yes” for belief.

Alistair Cooke
London SWI

Explore Letters

• Feedback