A compromise

Following my previous post concerning a letter that I almost sent to my local newspaper, I found that I couldn’t let the matter rest. The reason I did not send the letter was because my wife felt that it may upset some of our friends who happen to be Christians and she did not want my name to be included. I in turn did not want to submit the letter anonymously because I have always felt that if you have something to say, you should have the balls to put your name to it. I am not inherently anti-religious, quite the opposite in fact. Whilst not being religious myself, I think that in a democracy everyone should have the right to follow their beliefs and express their views however distasteful they may be. That is the very essence of freedom of speech and long may it live.
On balance though, I was forced to concede that the original draft of the letter was perhaps a tad long, coming in at over twice the recommended word count. I realised that I could remove most of the anti-religious rant without losing anything of the sense of my main argument. After all, my main beef is that an important political issue is being clouded by religious rhetoric that has no place at the debating table. To include too much anti-religious diatribe would make me a hypocrite.
I redrafted the letter and my wife, bless her, was happy for me to submit it, name and all. I have sent it off this morning. The debate has been going on for a while now, with most interested parties having had their say, so I do not expect much feedback. If I do receive any emails I will of course post them, but for now I consider honour to have been satisfied and a line drawn under the subject. I will of course post the outcome of the States debate, but quite when that will be I don’t know.
I have posted the text of the revised letter here for anyone who cares.