Sir, The New York president of the World Jewish Congress says that since “Christians, Jews and Muslims are all children of Abraham . . . we should learn what we have in common” (letter, Feb 1). Pope Benedict XVI’s timely encyclical, published last Wednesday, proposes where this common ground might lie. Having established that charity (caritas) “extends beyond the frontiers of the Church” he continues that “a true humanism” should be the common goal of all religions. This is because the instinct to care for our neighbour in need “is inscribed by the Creator in man’s very nature” and is not exclusive to one religious tradition.

This being the case, respect is certainly due to those “religious customs, practices and beliefs” that are derived from this common instinct. Where religions promote charitable activity delivered with “heartfelt concern” to those most in need, they should be positively encouraged and not merely tolerated. Conversely, those religious traditions and practices that emanate from another source must surely be questionable to any democracy worthy of the name.

HAL ST JOHN BROADBENT
Molesey, Surrey

Sir, Respect is a two-way street. Edgar M. Bronfman calls for indiscriminate respect for all religions, even though many dogmas promote disrespect, even hatred, towards others. While society is being asked to respect religions, women and gays are expected to endure humiliating treatment promoted in many texts of, for example, the Koran and the Old Testament. If Mr Bronfman is serious about banning writings that might cause offence, will he please simultaneously advocate the removal of disrespectful passages from holy books?

THE REV DR DAVID USHER
Unitarian Meeting House
Sevenoaks, Kent

Sir, Edgar Bronfman’s interesting and intelligent letter ultimately asks too much. Tolerance is not enough, respect of all religions is required, he says.

But he surely doesn’t mean that anyone who gets up in the morning and manages to believe three impossible things about the cosmos before breakfast is worthy of respect. Rather, he is referring to those people who get up every morning and believe the impossible things that their parents told them were true, simply on the ground that their parents had told them they were true. In other words, it is implied, religions with a pedigree are worthy of respect.

Most of these religions, it is true, have commanded fear because of the harassment, war and destruction they have caused. But respect? Blind allegiance to iron-age folk tales and medieval superstitions, combined with the habit of taking offence when anyone dares to question the wisdom of such an attitude, do not command respect, in this quarter at least.

JOHN WHITEHEAD
Milton Keynes

Sir, The Rev Dr Nigel Scotland rightly questions whether all hatred is wrong (letter, Jan 30) Despite the careless language used in some sections of the popular media, the fact remains that hatred itself is not a criminal offence under existing or proposed legislation. Nor should it be, because it is simply not the business of the state to tell its citizens what they can and cannot think or feel.

Whether one form of hatred is more justifiable than another is entirely besides the point. As it is not a crime to inwardly entertain a thought or feel an emotion, it should not be a crime to outwardly express that thought or emotion to others.

There are well-tested laws relating to threatening behaviour, and the incitement of violence and other crimes, which can be used to protect individuals and ensure public order without suppressing free speech and flirting with the Orwellian concept of “thought crime”.

DR D. R. COOPER
Maidenhead, Berks

Explore Letters

• Feedback