Church and State

Press, 8 March 1978, Page 16

Church and State

Sir, — Your editorial does your paper no credit. The intolerant implications will offend many but will hardly surprise those who read the full text of your "survey” to members of Parliament, for the intent was clear. To endeavour to justify a viewpoint by speculating what would have happened to the passage of a bill if 11 members from a total representation of over 80 had not voted in a certain way is hardly logical. To proceed and suggest that, if anyone found the position embarrassing, their resentment should be directed to the Catholic Church is irrational. You initiated the “survey,” any resentment should be directed towards yourself. I believe that many people are genuinely concerned at the deteriorating standard of media reporting generally and on the principle of “better late than never” I urge your paper to consider its obligation to readers to publish fair and balanced journalism. — Yours, etc., J. M. RICHARDSON. March 6, 1978. Sir, — I support your action in publishing the religious affiliations of members of Parliament in relation to voting on the C.S. and A. bill. I would also be very interested to know the affhiations of your correspondents on this matter, and consider they should declare themselves. I am willing to declare myself an agnostic, but apparently some politicians are unwilling to admit to lack of religious belief. Does this indicate that tolerance towards the agnostic or the atheist is still only gruding? I respect all religious views sincerely held, and claim equal respect for my own. An individual’s religious affiliation, if he has any, is an important influence in his thinking on social issues. The more doctrinaire his church, the more circumscribed his conscience, and the more uniform the views of its members are likely to be. I therefore consider that the religious affiliations of politicians are certainly a matter of public interest.— Yours, etc., HELEN HERVEY. March 7, 1978.