Sir, – The Scottish Secular Society regard it as an “insult to thousands” that a Christian food bank advertises for a manager who is a Christian (July 18).
Dundee food bank is part of the Trussell Trust which provides forthousands of people in need in Dundee.
They do so regardless of religion or socialstatus. But they are a Christian organisation who get much of their support and volunteers from the churches.
The manager is required to represent the food bank to those churches, speak atservices, therefore it is perfectly legal and acceptable for them to ask that the manager be a Christian.
If the secular society were advertising for a manager they would of course have a closed-shop policy and advertise for someone who was a secularist and agreed with their aims.
Those of us who do not share their aims would not regard it as an insult if we were not able to apply.
If the SSS object to Christians running food banks they are perfectly free to start one of their own.
But this, of course, they refuse to do, preferring instead to go to the media and complain.
This seems to be the pattern. Christians set up a trust to feed the poor in accordance with what our faith instructs us to do and the militant secularists attack the Christians for daring to express our faith in this practical way. It is petty and vindictive and indicates precisely the difference between theChristian churches, who act upon their faith, and the secular faith, which spends all its time attacking others.
David A. Robertson. St Peter’s Free Church, 4 St Peter Street, Dundee.
Embarrassing truths emerging
Sir, – No one can blame the infant Queen for mimicking a Nazi salute.
While the children are innocent, the same cannot be said of the adults.
It’s completely revisionist to start saying people didn’t know what the Nazis were doing.
It’s a myth that no one knew in the 1930s what the Nazis were about. A lot of people in thearistocracy thought this was the perfect obstacle to the threat ofcommunism.
The Queen’s uncle Edward would have been well aware of Hitler’s mission. He had welcomed Hitler’s rise,saying: “It is the only thing to do. We will have to come to it, as we are in great danger fromcommunists too.”
The then Prince of Wales was reportedly a sympathiser of theBritish Union of Fascists, founded by Sir Oswald Mosley, who hoped to emulate the Germandictator.
Edward is said to have sought a secret meeting with Hitler, and even threatened to give up the throne if war was declared. He was forced to abdicate, however, in December 1936, in favour of his brother, George VI.
Officially, Edward’s abdication was caused by his desire to marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee. More critical, however, were concerns that Simpson was a Nazi collaborator who was passing on BritishGovernment secrets toBerlin.
There has been a massive effort to conceal the extent of Edward’s activities, which continues to this day. But the official narrative is that Edward was just a bad apple.
George VI and the Queen Mother were supporters of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement aimed at giving Hitler a free hand against the Soviet Union.
In May 1939, the secret elite Right Club was founded by the Scottish Unionist MP Archibald Ramsay, who described its objective as being “to oppose and expose the activities of organised Jewry.” It is thought to have had more than 200 members from within the heart of the British establishment.
Much still needs to be revealed. But the re-emergence of such embarrassing truths, once long carefully buried beneath a mountain of censorship and lies, must reflect more contemporary and profound conflicts and disagreements that may go far beyond those already offered up as an explanation.
Alan Hinnrichs. 2 Gillespie Terrace, Dundee.
Misplaced moral outrage
Sir, – The show trial of Oskar Groning raises ethical questions and certainly the prosecution’s rush to the verdict when it appeared the ailing 94-year-old might die in the dock was unseemly.
As a 19-year-old bank clerk he had volunteered for one of the fighting units of the Waffen SS but was more useful as an accountant.
He was later sent to Auschwitz to register the money of what he thought were ordinary prisoners. When he realised what was going on he asked for a transfer to active service.
This request was finally granted and he was sent to an SS unit in the Ardennes where he was wounded and hospitalised but returned to fight on the frontline until the war’s end.
After his years as a British PoW he returned to Germany where he had a successful career in industry and lived peacefully until he openlycriticised the spread of Holocaust denial.
It is ironical that it was his public-spiriteddecision to speak out that led to his being jailed in what many consider a cynically belated burst of moral outrage fromGermany’s judiciary.
Rev Dr John Cameron. 10 Howard Place, St Andrews.
SNP should vote on all matters
Sir, – Has the SNPMPs’ stance on foxhunting south of theborder helped itmature as a force in Westminster?
Certainly it has left itself open to all sortsof charges of duplicity.
This has not been helped by televisionfootage of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on Question Time lastFebruary.
She suggested thatfox hunting in England and Wales was not amatter the SNP would vote on.
Now it would do so and it appears it is nowdetermined to extend its influence on all matters that come before Westminster. Is it right todo this?
The nationalists are now a main opposition party. It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate issues that affect only England and Wales. Although the Conservative government seeks to limit Scottish MPs’ voting rights, it is by no means certain this will be successful.
To retain anycredibility, the SNP must seize the opportunity and not just in the interests of people north of theborder.
It should support those in the south who may feel they need a stronger voice, feel disenfranchised, or simply want to see better co-ordination between bodies in both Scotland and England.
In the end, it is a matter of accepting both power and responsibility.
The SNP should vote on all matters that come before the House of Commons.
Bob Taylor. 24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.
Backlash was predictable
Sir, – David Cameron’s attack on people who blame the rise of the Islamic State on the actions of the West can be likened to the fox accusing the chicken of discrimination for the annihilation of the chicken run.
Time will never change the fact that the illegal invasions of Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya were indefensible.
The emergence of the Islamic State can be seen as a direct result of the West’s interference in these countries.
It was inevitable that the replacement of these countries’ leaderships with compliant, puppet regimes of the West would bring intoexistence some form of Islamic united front to right the wrongs of the past.
Whether it is called al Qaida, Isis or any other label is irrelevant. What is important is that they can justifiably be regarded as a directcreation of the West’s geopolitical tactics and atrocities in these wretched countries.
If the political leaders of the West could not foresee this vacuum being filled, they must be either thick-headed or are themselves puppets of the West’s financial elite.
Their latest tactic is to claim that youths who join the likes of Isis are being radicalised. Some might substitute radicalisation with education.
If David Cameron must attack anyone, he ought to direct his offensive against the West’s political leaders of their respective periods; whether or not they were simply lackeys of faceless tycoons.
William Burns. 41/8 Pennywell Road, Edinburgh.
An insult to feminism
Sir, – In her book, Separate and Dominate: Feminism and Racism After the War on Terror, so-called feminist, Christine Delphy defends Muslim women and girls wearing a scarf as “expressing solidarity with people of the same racial group”, attempting “to escape that condition by taking refuge in the spirituality that religion offers them” or, as “an unspoken way of showing defiance towards the establishment”.
It is a sign of desperation for her to go on and question whether women wearing high heels and using lipstick “might just as well be labelled symbols of oppression”.
Spending most of your life covering your head not only contributes to the high levels of osteoporosis in Scotland, it represents a failure in our education system which sees girls leaving school bound by symbols of patriarchy; equipped to rattle off verse and chapter of any number of quotes attributed to a prophet, yet not remember a single name of a woman who gave their lives for their freedom to wear what they want.
It is an insult to feminism and the noble cause of women’s liberation.
Garry Otton. Secretary, Scottish Secular Society, 58a Broughton Street, Edinburgh.
Keep our sport free to view
Sir – I just had to write to express my amazement at the acidic vehemence shown by Alex Salmond in his column earlier this week and ask if this is not just a bad case of sour grapes due to Mr Salmond, himself a keen golfer, missing the hospitality once enjoyed as First Minister?
His views on BBC staff such as Peter Alliss, Ken Brown and the like are wrong. These men have knowledge and skill and are not only admired but emulated throughout the world.
Will we soon see Mr Salmond entering the debating chamber sporting a Sky Sports jumper?
Mr Salmond commented on the BBC’s choice of featured player saying that coverage of Tiger Woods was ridiculous as he is no more than a “harmless tabby”.
If the BBC had only shown the leading players, we would not have seen the glorious and dignified retirement of Tom Watson.
As a lot of fans of the game cannot afford Sky, unlike an MP. Let’s keep some great competitions on the BBC where they can be enjoyed by all.
John Pepper. Willowgrove, Pugeston, Montrose.