In his letter of 19 May (Christianity needs more than just ceremonial support) in response to my letter of 6 May, Ian Newman makes some interesting points.

He seems upset that the Queen has done nothing to ‘Defend the Faith’.

Defend it against whom, exactly? The ‘aggressive secularists’ of whom he speaks? Followers of religions other than Christianity?

Other Christians with whom Mr Newman does not happen to agree?

Second, there may only be 26 bishops in the House of Lords but Mr Newman misses the point: they are there solely because they are bishops.

That is an extraordinary privilege which makes a mockery of persecution claims.

Third, I freely admit that I am not an expert on the intricacies of religious dogma and the religious beliefs of Lord Justice Laws, and the state cannot and should not be an expert either – that’s clearly Mr Newman’s job.

If he wants to spend his time discussing the no doubt gripping intricacies of religious dogma, and what does and does not constitute a devout Christian, that’s his choice.

I have other things to do with my time and, more to the point, so does our secular, non-theocratic legal system.

Interesting that Mr Newman uses the word ‘evidence’ in relation to religious faith and that he dismisses the notion of subjectivity.

Why the need for ‘faith’, then?

Mr Newman’s letter does constitute evidence of one description: evidence why law and religion should remain separate.

Charlie Klendjian, solicitor, Hatfield, Hertfordshire