Madam, - Bertie Ahern deserves warm applause for the recent speech in which he highlighted people's religious dimension. It was praiseworthy both for what he said and because it was he who said it.
Not only has a leading politician now declared in favour of the recognition and promotion of the transcendent. He has also gone on to imply that social development and, by extension, public policy would benefit from such recognition.
It seems reasonable to presume that Mr Ahern, true to his Europe-wide reputation for pragmatism, has reached this conclusion by simply observing what is happening all around him: that the Gadarene gallop of recent years away from God has made the social development of Ireland difficult to the point of intractability. In other words, far from representing a retreat into the past, a vibrant belief in God is the best guarantor of the social development of our peoples.
It will be interesting, indeed, to see how this debate is joined. - Yours, etc,
FERGUS KILLORAN, Granville Park, Blackrock, Co Dublin.
Madam, - John Waters warns that if we discard religion, we risk creating a world without hope, meaning or freedom.
Why should any of these human qualities need to be supported by a set of archaic religious dogmas? - Yours, etc,
ROBIN HILLIARD, Westland Square, Dublin 2.
Madam, - If I had religious faith I would ask God to give me the understated erudition of a John Waters. His column on Monday was a prime example of Pope's line, "What ere was thought but ne'er so well expressed". - Yours, etc,
KEVIN HEALY, Hampstead Avenue, Glasnevin, Dublin 9.
Madam, - It was difficult to engage with John Waters's woolly article of March 5th, in which he elaborated upon a recent speech by Bertie Ahern (himself a master of the fleecy flight of fancy). There was more innuendo than argument in the Waters thesis: "Our society seems merely to put up with people who believe in God because such 'tolerance' is part of our liberal ideology," he shrewdly observes. I have to concede that he is right: we do tolerate religious people because we believe we should tolerate them! Shame on us!
Another difficulty with the Waters exposition was that it was entirely given over to telling Irish society what it is short of, while failing entirely to explain what he wants it to be. Should we abandon the principle of the separation of Church and State? Should we all become Roman Catholics? Should we try to forget that millions of people all over the world believe in a wide variety of religions, all different in their tenets? Should we outlaw atheism and agnosticism?
Perhaps Mr Waters could let us have the second half of his exposition some time soon. - Yours, etc,
COLIN BRENNAN, Nutley Square, Dublin 4.
Madam, - John Waters writes with an undisguised sense of reverence for the Taoiseach with regard to his speech warning against "aggressive secularism". Mr Waters goes on not just to defend religion, but in effect to make the audacious claim that tolerance towards religion is not enough, and that society should afford it more respect. He finishes on the depressing note that "in the absence of a religious consciousness, there is, ultimately, no hope, no meaning and no freedom".
In his disparagement of secularism he seems to be confused as to what it means. People's personal beliefs and practices, from believer to atheist, should be afforded respect and tolerance, but religious groups should have no more nor less influence on society than any other communities, groups or individuals.
This is the secularism that best serves a democratic state; it is not a refusal to accept and respect religion, but a refusal to allow matters of State and society to be unduly influenced by any one sectional interest group. - Yours, etc,
DARREN HENRY, Iveragh Road, Whitehall, Dublin 9.