YOU are confident that Dr Rowan Williams “is not the man to lead” the public debate on the issue of relations with religious minorities (Focus, Editorial and Comment, last week). I wonder who is. The secular society would find fault with any religious leader. Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was criticised when he sought exemption for Catholic adoption agencies. A Muslim would find it very hard to gain an impartial audience. Most would not trust a politician. Would the Chief Rabbi have been listened to?

It is the “subtleties” of issues such as this that lawyers have to deal with – and it was they who were being addressed. Interestingly the media don’t appear to have found any lawyer from his audience who has spoken publicly against him. I think he was right to address this sensitive issue – and I hope he continues.

(The Rev) Mark Russell-Smith Slaidburn, Lancashire

WRONG THINKING: Minette Marrin was too severe in her criticism of the archbishop, but his bizarre ideas at least highlighted what’s been happening, viz people in high places chipping away at our culture without any mandate or common sense – mandatory multilingualism, “cancelling” Christmas in schools, the media shrinking from publishing “that” cartoon and Sainsbury’s allowing Muslim staff to opt out of handling alcohol.

For the most part these policies have not risen from demands by ethnic minorities but were dreamt up by well meaning “loony lefties” such as our esteemed archbishop. Tolerance is a virtue, but we should be no more tolerant of cultural engineering than of antisocial behaviour.

Mervyn France Usk, Monmouthshire

LEGAL ACTION: The negative responses to the archbishop have tended to argue that everyone in the UK is subject to one legal system and should remain so. This is incorrect. There are at least three, and realistically four; the law of England and Wales, of Scotland (which is significantly different substantively, procedurally and semantically), of Northern Ireland (which is less different, but still importantly so) and, more controversially, the law of the European Union.

There are good arguments against sharia (Islamic law) being used, but the idea that the UK has only one legal system is not one of them.

Christopher Knight Christ Church, Oxford

NARROW VISION: The FA, the universities and the Jewish community have their own courts. What Rowan Williams has done is to expose the crypto-fascists among us. He expressed an opinion about social life in Britain, the free expression of ideas being an expression of responsible participation in democracy.

Subsequently a large number of “commentators” such as Marrin have decided that “Anybody who does not accept it [British law in its entirety] does not belong here”. So no more political protests about the law and its implementation then? No more belonging to small self-regulating groups with rule systems.

Such views fail to recognise that Muslims are British citizens and that many of them are not immigrants. What would Marrin advocate? Exile? Forced conversion to Christianity?

Ruth Woodhall by e-mail

BETWEEN TWO STOOLS: You have me confused. Marrin argues forcefully and passionately that there should be one law for all, and that anyone who does not accept that “does not belong here”.

Then John Waples (Business) argues forcefully and passionately that scrapping the special treatment of “nondoms” would be a disaster because they would, er, all leave the country.

So one law for the rich or one law for all of us? Or is it one law for all, with certain concessions? Oh damn, that sounds like what the castigated archbishop was suggesting.

John Turner Kent

TAKE TWO: Why is the British taxpayer contributing to what, under British law, is considered to be bigamy? Is this sharia by the back door?

F Dean Coventry

WEAK WILLED: I refer to those who have defended Williams. Have they not fallen into the danger (which we were warned of by Horatius Bonar, a 19th century minister) of a “soft and effeminate Christianity, under the plea of a lofty and ethereal theology”?

Brian Kirkpatrick Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex

PLAIN TALK: The messages of Christ were in a language clear and simple. Could the archbishop not learn from this?

Peter John London N16

Explore Letters

• Feedback