Dear George,

I was reacting to some of Selleck's statements in the past with my mention of mumbojumbo. Otherwise I would have characterised my feelings to his article in a more thoughtful manner. I believe Christianity would be improved without Christ. Rather than the foundation he is a mythological justification for an ethical system. One improvement would be to take responsibility for one’s own actions rather than have the belief that by assenting to certain unprovable propositions one’s sins or wrongs could be placed on someone else. Another improvement is eliminating the idea of a perfect individual who one is supposed to emulate. When humans try to emulate perfection they inevitably fall short. This promotes a neurotic guilt. It is healthier to try to be as good as one can be within one’s limitations.

In the United States we had a period called McCarthyism named after the late Senator McCarthy. He destroyed people’s lives with his accusations, mostly baseless, of their attachment to communism. A New England lawyer named Welch in the army-McCarthy hearings resulting from the baseless attacks by McCarthy on members of the US military quietly asked McCarthy, “Have you no shame, Senator?” That was the beginning of the end of McCarthyism. Arthur Miller wrote “The Crucible” which was based on the witch hunts in New England during the colonial period. The analogy with McCarthy’s reckless charges was obvious, and that also helped put an end to that period.

I think it is possible to be a committed adherent to any religion and also to be a thoughtful, compassionate individual. However, Sells accusing Rhrosty of being in the pay of the defunct Soviet brought back memories of the ugly McCarthy period. His accusation was neither thoughtful nor compassionate

Dear Ponder,

<<Religions all hold some fantasy being as the boss of life. None proclaim that each person is totally responsible to and for himself, not some imagined deity.>>

Both Hinduism and Buddhism proclaim that each person is totally responsible to and for himself. The concept of God being a deity, is specifically a Western one.

Dear david f,

I gathered that you were not reacting to what was in the article but to what upset you in Sellick’s other articles.

I am aware of statements like “Christianity would be improved without Christ” or e.g. that “secular humanism is castrated Christianity”, but I think the relation of secular humanism to Christianity is more complicated than either of these cliches, although it might not be easy to describe it in a short article, as reactions to this one show. I think more insightful is Charles Taylor in his book “A Secular Age” or the atheist philosopher Juergen Habermas in http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html .

So you shall not be surprised that I do not share your understanding of what Christianity is all about, and that there have been, and are, many thinkers - philosophers, historians, psychologists, sociologists etc - that do neither. I could describe your view of Christianity as an outsider’s view, maybe “dawkinsian oversimplification” but I would never call it mumbo jumbo.

We have been through this already a number of times.

Another simplifying view (that is becoming very relevant here in Europe in view of the recent tsunami of refugees and migrants, mostly muslims) says that secular humanists (or rather their extreme branch, secularists) who cannot co-exist with a post-Enlightenment Christianity on the public square will have to learn to live with a “pre-Enlightenment” islam.

While you were experiencing McCarthyism I was experiencing Stalinism, and whatever we knew of the former we saw it only as a reaction - maybe overreaction - to the latter. I do not think either should be compared with whatever Christian rulers did a number of centuries ago.

Dear George,

You wrote: "Another simplifying view (that is becoming very relevant here in Europe in view of the recent tsunami of refugees and migrants, mostly muslims) says that secular humanists (or rather their extreme branch, secularists) who cannot co-exist with a post-Enlightenment Christianity on the public square will have to learn to live with a “pre-Enlightenment” islam.

While you were experiencing McCarthyism I was experiencing Stalinism, and whatever we knew of the former we saw it only as a reaction - maybe overreaction - to the latter. I do not think either should be compared with whatever Christian rulers did a number of centuries ago."

We will all have to learn to live together or be in continual conflict. At no time have I compared either Stalinism or McCarthyism to what Christian rulers did in the past. My remarks were directed at Sells - not Christian rulers. He evoked echoes of McCarthyism in his post accusing Rhrosty of being in the pay of the Soviet. I do not assume Sells is a representative Christian. I assume the average Christian is better than that.

Dear david f,

I think Sellick has understood in the meantime that his use of the phrase “Soviet sponsored trolls” in response to an emotional (and little relevant) reaction to his article was not only uncalled for but simply silly.

Come on you guys can't you take a joke! I have to have all this abuse on this thread and when I try a bit of levity I am condemned. I thought it was quite funny