As for Peterson, the man has completely lost the plot. Once upon a time he had some interesting things to say (and I liked his mantra to confront chaos, get on with it and “quit whining!”), but now he sounds like a second-rate, soapbox preacher. His muddled and condescending ‘Message to the Christians Churches’ is just awful.

How about handing your own child over to the village elders to be stoned to death for the crime of backtalking? See Deuteronomy 21:18.

Having just finished reading Smith’s excellent ‘Abolish the Monarchy’ two points struck me. First, his well-argued case that desperately needed, broader constitutional reform and republicanism are closely related. Second, but less positively, I was disappointed at Smith’s failure to draw attention to the freethinking, secularist historical roots of the modern republican movement. Admittedly Republic’s foundation by National Secular Society members is mentioned, but the roots of modern republicanism go so much deeper and the role of personalities such as Thomas Paine, Richard Carlile, Charles Bradlaugh, and those they inspired, deserve more attention. Recognition of such heroic ancestors confers legitimacy on organisations and draws attention to the close relationship between republicanism, freethought, radicalism and secularism. Why else are the Church and Monarchy are so keen to draw attention to their own traditions and past, albeit with appropriate sanitisation?

The progress since Dennett and the other horsemen has been palpable in my lifetime. Thank you. Someone Daniel Sharp’s age may not appreciate atheists were considered a step below pedophiles not long ago. No more, at least in the West where the worry is more about pedophile clerics.

I do hope Prof. Dennet writes his book on free will. I just can’t get on board with his take, for example in his conversations with Sam Harris on the topic. I also agree with Annaka Harris that panpsychism makes a lot of sense.

Finally, Dennett’s thought experiment with aliens is not needed. The woke supply the hideous social situation that requires no imagining.

Blame for the “obscene bombardment” since Oct. 7 belongs on Hamas, Iran, and maybe just a little on the wider world that opposed Israel achieving decisive victories in several previous conflicts. Israel absorbed 700,000 Jewish refugees expelled from Arab and Islamic countries following 1948. Why couldn’t and can’t the Arab world solve the “Palestinian problem” rather than letting it metastasize even further?

There are many well known attempts “to do the arduous work of making a common civic society” by Israel – typically met with rejection by the Arabs and always by the Palestinian leaders. Siding with the appeasers is not far short of asking for the Jews to march into the sea. If that’s your solution, please say it out loud.

Whenever I hear this argument I always think, but who decides what the major religions are? Why just those religions? Why are other religions being ignored? What is the threshold for being considered a major religion? Who would be checking any claims for numbers of followers?

There are so many questions that would have to be answered that the only sensible response is that no religion should be allowed any special privileges.

The Muslims have Mecca, Mohamed’s birthplace, and. Medina, where Mohamed lies after death, where no infidels are allowed. Isn’t that enough? There is no Quranic basis for claiming Jerusalem. There was no mosque in Jerusalem until after the Imperial Muslim siege on Jerusalem some five years AFTER Mohamed died.

Muslims ought to be happy with Mecca and Medina and just let the Jews and Christians share Jerusalem.