I am no musician, but I have a distinct preference for Bach, Beethoven and Vivaldi over Rap, Jazz, and Heavy Metal.

Similarly, I have no religion; but I have a distinct appreciation for Paul Collins’ informed, caring and thoughtful take on it: so much a contrast against that of the belligerent, fundamentalist, superficial alternatives. He so often provides a valuable window into a section of society which, while it is other than my own, is irretrievably enmeshed with our affairs.

Our National Broadcasters have been about propaganda and dogma for a long time. From the promotion of the perverse lifestyle to the unscientific dogma of man made gw the ABC is a champion. When it comes to tolerance they are champions except when it comes to godliness and decency. Their is little balance with our preachers of secular humanism. Their faith in such unscientific dogma puts many true believers to shame.

The ABC is dumbing down. Stephen Crittiden's talent for insightful and in-depth interviewing - I am sorely missing. Don't forget they tried to sack him once. The demise of the Religion Report was like the loss of a good friend. Crittiden would be one of the very very few honest and thinking Australian journalists around. Scott and his posse of ABC managers have shallowly dismissed religion as irrelevant in today's world when it is clear that it is totally significant. Doesn't make any sense to me. Unprovocative, unchallenging, dull, anti-intellectual and generalised pap reporting is becoming the norm.

Personally I feel good riddance to the religion report.

It is probably catering to less than 1% of the listeners (those with radios attached to their Zimmer frames), and was mostly a advert for Christianity.

“And part of the challenge about faith is that some of the things we hold to be true ... are not visible, cannot be proven.”

Does that apply to this ‘truth’ as well? If we do not have to prove the truth of matters of faith then why bother proving the truth of anything. Why bother proving the truth that religion is irrelevant to the ABC. Why should only matters of ‘faith’ be exempt from the burden of logic, reason and proof? Who would have the arrogance to claim that matters of religion lie outside the constraints of every other discipline? Why should the ABC make an exemption for religion? Should they also have a UFO report? A drug addicts report? A show about alcohol abuse?

Just because a phenomenon like religion exists does not mean that it has a right to be reported on. Many things exist that do not have their own report. Each subject must be examined on its merits. If it has good reason to warrant a report then it should have a report. The only reason that seems forthcoming about religion is that it exists and is claimed to be relevant to many people. So are drugs, alcohol, and UFO’s. It is not just a question of numbers. Those who decide what merits a report and what does not have obviously rejected religion because it has not given good reasons why it should be supported. When religion comes up with a good reason why it should be reported on then it should have its own show. The problem is by its own definition it cannot prove its reasons and ABC managers need reasonable proof. Religion cannot have it both ways.

I remember when Paul Collins was on the ABC and the energy and incisiveness he brought to the role. Perhaps Paul could make a comeback? But it is the same old boring story with the ABC, they are interested in religion but not interested in the really interesting bit, the theology. So we have endless and pointless programs featuring religious people and not a well thought out idea in the whole program. I think we should start a "come back to the ABC Paul" movement and try to get the nation thinking again about God in a disciplined fashion.

Peter Sellick