Fundamentalists

Press, 19 September 1985, Page 14

Fundamentalists

Sir,—lt is not often I have occasion almost to agree with Arthur May, and I hope it will not be the last. Had he claimed that this is not a Christian country but a country dominated by a respectability masquerading as a pseudoChristianity, we would have been on common ground; and I could also add to his list of discrimi-nated-against minorities, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and any other non-Christians. Still, it’s a good country to live in; it tolerates oddballs like Arthur and me.—Yours, etc., KENNETH SCHOLLAR. September 18, 1985.

Sir,—ln our country, Arthur May may, if he has the ability and a worth-while message, publish a book (I, for one, would like to read it) outlining his beliefs, or speak over the radio, or harangue the passers-by in Cathedral Square; but he may not denigrate Christianity in a school class or assembly. In our laissez-faire society “humanists, rationalists, atheists, agnostics and pantheists” may, if they have the time, inclination and energy, do the same. Whether or not Bertrand Russell was being clever or stupid or tongue-in-cheek or passe when he wrote his pathetic, agnostical “It is not likely that there is a God,” no-one stopped his utterance. What really does Mr May want — an atheistic society or an atheistic communist-dominated country?— Yours, etc., STAN WOOD. September 17, 1985.

Sir,—As a Christian who believes in and follows Biblical teaching, I presume I am to be labelled fundamentalist. In no way do I, or any other of my “fundamentalist” friends, fit the picture that Mr Graham Harvey (“The Press,” September 16) paints. I am equally committed to the 'rights and advancement men and women,

I am a trade union advocate, I support our anti-nuclear stance and skin colour is no criteria for judgments. However, I do not support the Wilde bill. For weeks I have followed the letters and articles over this debate and deplore the open use of stereotypes on both sides. I see the formation of political umbrella organisations such as a “moral majority” and the new local liberal coalition as being threatening to our national harmony and destructive in their perpetration of generalisation and irrational hatred. — Yours, etc., P. REVELEY, Prebbleton. September 16, 1985.

Sir,—What is the reason for the media labelling groups of concerned Christians with a politi-cally-tainted title of Right-wing fundamentalists? Surely any one or group concerned with the morals of a society is to be applauded, not labelled with a tacky smearword. I say it is about time someone halted the escalating slide towards total moral decay.—Yours, etc., (Mrs) RUTH PARSONS. Kenepuru Head, Picton R.D., September 15, 1985.