Irony. Irony. Irony!

I purchase the Helensburgh Advertiser only with the aim of gleaning local information and news. Often this is permeated with reporting goodwill and charitable gestures by a broad spectrum of local people, often featuring individual ‘religious’ people and also various local churches raising funds for charities (including some charities that provide dementia support that columnist, Mike Edwards, so cherishes).

National newspapers and media tend to inform me on the world, the universe and everything else outwith the Helensburgh area. Within our local paper, I do not particularly see the relevance of including a prominent weekly page to the atheistic and left leaning views of Mike Edwards, where he himself 'bangs on about how other people should live' but I calmly tolerate it.

However, in that context, I was somewhat bemused by the irony and hypocrisy of his use of the column to share his tantrum, to the extent of throwing things at his radio, re Radio 4’s brief ’Thought for the Day’ slot which he accuses of 'banging on about how other people should live'.

He suggests that all the problems in the world are the fault of religious people. While I acknowledge that some/many problems have arisen out of religious intolerance, I am not sure that he would find such atheist regimes as North Korea, China or Stalinist Russia have been free from difficulties?

Many of the freedoms he currently enjoys in this country have arisen precisely because of our Christian heritage (compare with most other societies?). Yet I wonder why he homes in on ‘’evangelists’? A soft target?

READ MORE: Mike Edwards: Religion is not for me - and it never will be

I quote: “I cannot adequately verbalise my contempt for evangelists like him” (referring to a vendor).

If he had substituted the word ‘evangelists’ with ‘muslims’ or 'jews’ would he now be reported for hate crime?

Would King Charles as a monarch who positions himself as a ‘defender of faiths’, consider Mike Edwards' role as a Deputy Lord Lieutenant as being sustainable for five more minutes?

As a grown-up and supporter of free speech, I will not test the hate crime legislation.

Yet harsher and more violent language incites as follows: but for 'Her Ladyship's’ influence he admits that he, given an opportunity, would have ‘hacked and spat’ at a vendor for having sent what sounds like an innocuous, speculative and polite note.

Even Google cannot offer any explanation of Mike’s phrase “taproom tactic”? We all receive speculative junk mail for everything from special offer wine subscriptions to unpalatable political messages - we can all aim these at the bin and it is over in a few seconds without any great injury.

However, it seems that Mike is so ‘distraught’ at receiving this particular note that he had to proudly share his tantrum with the world.

The bottom line is that I do not hold contempt for people who say ‘religion is not for me - and it never will be’ - Mike and others have a freewill.

People also literally hacked and spat at Jesus; it did not stop Jesus loving the people who did this. He only came to provide the opportunity of forgiveness, peace and hope: is that so awful that we must not tell anyone?

Jim McLatchie

Helensburgh