Your original article was a prime example of “Christianophobia”. That is, you seemed to be suggesting that Christians have no right to put their case in public, and you jumped to judging them on the basis of negative stereotypes about Christians, based to a large extent on assuming they all fit into the image portrayed of them by unrepresentative but vocal extreme adherents. When this sort of thing happens with Muslims, we use the word “Islamophobia”. I have seen it used in LibDem blogs, and I have not seen anyone complain about it.

My particular fear is that this kneejerk anti-Christian attitude which now seems to be common amongst liberals is actually having the effect in Christian circles of strengthening conservatives at the expense of liberals, or of pushing liberals into conservative hands.

My issue with Cristine Odone, which I spelt out to you time and again but which you continue to reject, is that she was claiming discrimination and citing examples that were at best factually wrong and at worst downright lies. That is ultimately all I had to say on the matter, although I will admit to teasing you as you continued to fail to engage with that basic underlying point.

Give me some actual evidence that Christians are being actively discriminated against in this country. Ultimately the argument that dismissing Christians who claim to be discriminated against is itself discriminatory is tautological at best.

Regarding Paul, I think there is a difference here between The Law and laws. There are plenty of rules in Pauline writings, they just aren’t the same thing as what the Jews recognise as such. I will accept that he didn’t go as far as the pharisaisim that he rejected, just the little bits of pharisaism kept poking through.

Perhaps I’m wrong to single him out however. It is almost inevitable that a small cult will form a tightly knit identity around itself in the early years. My beef is ultimately not with the pharisees in the first century AD but the ones which control so much of Christianity in the twenty-first.

I hope you always seek permission from people before praying for them or you could be liable for a hefty fine.

You are, by the way, completely wrong on Paul. Far from reinstating the role of laws, the main point of Paul’s letters, particularly the key one, the Letter to the Romans, was a rejection of the idea that salvation in religion comes from following ritual laws. This was the thing which changed Christianity from a Jewish sect to a separate religion. There was a problem with this approach, in that one way of viewing it was that not only was the piling up of ritual law rejected, but so was the idea that how we treat our neighbours was of some relevance. Hence the very necessary riposte to Paul in the Letter of James.

It was Martin Luther’s reading of Romans which led to the foundation of Protestantism, with its keypoint being “Justification by Faith alone” i.e. a rejection of “justification by works” the idea that our behaviour is what we will be judged on. Again, while its positive aspect was scepticism about the piling on of religious ritual, its negative aspect was a rejection of any idea that we have a duty of care to our neighbours – Luther hated the Letter of James, and wished it could be removed from the Bible.

This basis of Protestantism is perhaps why it tends to be more favourable to the economic right, and why it has moved to support the “religious right” in the USA for example, while Catholicism has tended to be more left-wing in its economic approach.

Your use of the phrase “bells and smells” is to criticise the Catholic wing of Christianity (including the Catholic wing of the Anglican Church, with which this phrase is particularly associated). There is in fact no correlation between a liking for more ritualistic and decorative forms of worship and lack of concern for the social aspects of Christianity. Or, if anything, the correlation is the opposite of what you suppose with your comments. Anglo-Catholicism has a long and honourable history of social action.

A great piece and as a Christian I haven’t been at all offended by you. Frankly those Christians who bang on about Christianaphobia completely miss the point. As a product of the evangelical tradition I sometimes despair at the narrowness and judgementalism of those who claim to follow the man who, as you point out was a radical who was far more interested in challenging hypocrisy than constructing a narrow tightrope of religious observance. And, it has to be said, my attraction to the man Jesus is very similar to yours.

But I think becoming relaxed about usury is one of the better moves that Christianity has made. Arguably dropping the demands for zero interest and “fair prices” is what made the Protestant economic miracle possible.