 Why do journalists give so much support for atheistic writers (In gods we trust, Comment, May 1)? Barry Didcock s essay of the week suggested that religion is superstition and it s bad for you. Given that many of the world s leading scientists and philosophers have religious leanings, it is a little opinionated for journalists to be so anti-religious.  Mr Didcock quotes aC Grayling as saying:  In 10,000 years time ... people might look back at the last 2000 to 3000 years and see it as a period when humanity was having to shake off [religious] thinking . He was voicing a naive faith that we are getting better and better. This was quite in contrast to the sensible view taken by Tom Devine in his November essay, The lion, the tiger, and the fat cats. He claimed that the dishonesty which caused banks to become casinos shows that society as a whole needs to make changes in behaviour. This morality drum is the one journalists need to keep beating. More Devine and less Didcock, please.  The idea that there will be anybody here to look back on us in 10,000 years time seems to me to be ridiculous, given our destruction of the environment, our overuse of oil and the myopic complacency which characterises our political establishment. a moral political solution to our debt crisis would involve more taxes on the middle class, and then there would be less need for unemployment. The middle class might even give up its avaricious appetite for fast cars and foreign holidays; we might conserve oil, and keep down greenhouse gases.  andrew Vass  Edinburgh  Barry Didcock s article betrays the usual sloppy thinking about belief in God it appears he, philosopher aC Grayling and historian alistair Moffat attribute everything to social conditioning, and dismiss it arrogantly as superstition to be  overcome . They ignore what our old Professor JG McKenzie used to say 50 years ago (he had been one among the first to treat Freud seriously):  God is a fact of human experience.  Kevin Nelson s neurological approach might begin to address this part of the evidence   though the account is far too sketchy to tell. We need to look beyond medical trauma and narrow reductionism.  I wonder why Mr Didcock ignores the studies which indicate that people with an active faith are happier and healthier both physically and mentally than the average, though this is no reason for belief. Those who  overcome  may not have much to be thankful for.  Bob Philip  Shieldhill  Iain Macwhirter fully and succintly covers the important factors that voters should have considered before casting their votes in the Scottish Parliament election (It s time for Labour to walk on the wild side, Comment, May 1). His column highlights the policy and leadership chaos in the Scottish Labour Party, and the weaknesses inherent in the other two Unionist parties.  There is, however, an aspect which underlines the hypocrisy of the so-called socialist members of the politico-social class and that is their readiness to maintain a class-based society, best exemplified by the apparent readiness of Labour politicians and members to accept honours based on nobility, such as knighthoods, and outdated British Empire awards. The sooner everyone realises that a society quite obviously built on inequality will probably lead to the disintegration of this dis-United Kingdom and, to the benefit of a more equal Scotland, independence.  Ian FM Saint-Yves  Whiting Bay, Isle of arran  I m surprised Iain Macwhirter didn t mention the gaffe which was quite contrary to the inclusive  British  spirit of the royal wedding (The royal wedding: what did it tell us about Britain today? Special Report, May 1). Why did they have to sing a hymn all about England, a work which a Kirk minister once defined as jingoistic and theologically unsound ? Maybe that s why the Scottish state coach was given pride of place, to compensate for the lack of sensitivity, but that last hymn spoilt for me an example of otherwise enjoyable theatre.  Jane ann Liston  St andrews  Iain MacWhirter asks:  Why do we all seem to be on our best behaviour when members of the Royal Family are around?  It s by no means  all , but the significant number that fall into this category can be described as the boot-licking brigade, people who, devoid of rational thought, see anyone as automatically better because they happen to be  royal .  Sandra Busell  Edinburgh  The letters published in response to my feature on sectarianism make for sad reading, arguing as they do that the existence of denominational schooling in Scotland is a root cause of sectarianism (Two schools of thought, Letters, May 1). I honestly thought that this hoary old myth had been consigned to history. Your respondents fail to consider the international context. Catholic schools exist throughout the world. Nowhere else but in Scotland (and to some extent in Northern Ireland) are they criticised for causing sectarianism. Similarly, no nation where such schools are established suffer from sectarianism of the Scottish kind. Do your correspondents therefore not comprehend the absence of logic and contextual understanding in their remarks? The sources of our problem lie in distinctive influences associated with our history and culture, not in institutions which are commonplace across the globe b 