Going back to one of the things that you wrote on the 15th March, Joe:

"I think it's far better to consider things from a variety of perspectives, even from various religious perspectives. If we look at things from various directions, we're far more likely to come up with a valid approximation of reality."

I'm not sure that that is true. Can you give us any examples where "considering things from a variety of perspectives" has worked?

The media, both in the US and the UK, are a bit obsessed with even handedness. There was a very perceptive article in the UK newspaper, the 'Independent', the other day, in which the opinion was expressed that the BBC's "two sides to every story" policy means that very few meaningful opinions are expressed at all. We've got a referendum coming up soon about whether or not the UK should remain in the European Union. How should I, or any other British citizen, vote? If I relied solely on the BBC, I wouldn't have a clue!

Then there's Naomi Klein's brilliant recent book, 'This Changes Everything' about anthropogenic climate change. She points out that the media have tended to give equal weight to those (97% of climate scientists) who have mountains of scientific evidence to show that climate change is happening and 'climate change sceptics'. As the latter are largely people who profit from extracting and burning fossil fuels she asks if they really should be given equal air-time? She thinks not - given the dire consequences of climate change - and I agree with her.

And should people who are aspiring to high office be allowed to preach hatred? Perhaps they should be made to keep their obnoxious opinions to themselves.

And back to religion. Are there really two sides to the question of religion? Well, at the very least, religion should not be exempt from criticism (as it has been for centuries).