AS a secularist, I would like to ask why the Altrincham Interfaith Group is always given several column inches every week.

I have no objection to seeing this piece at regular intervals, and where a writer explains their religion and what they draw from it, then we all learn something.

What concerns me is that it seems the AIG has a guaranteed pulpit each and every week from which to give its views.

This might at times deprive urgent non-religious issues needing discussion at a particular point in time, eg because of a closing date for consultations.

I found the April 11 contribution somewhat political in that it seemed to be condemning national borders; nothing wrong with this, so long as an alternative comment on it can be made.

Quite practical reasons for borders are actually quoted in the article, which then goes on to say we are all part of one human family.

However philosophically fine this view might be, it omits to deal with people who intend us harm, and borders are there to protect us from them, and such people are indeed "them".

This ought to work the other way around as well, in the sense that Western global business activities which ruin people's lives and environment in the poor parts of the world should be restrained (or even banned).

But sadly they won't be, because Western business is well able to buy influence over those governments and thus do whatever it wants in those countries which are unable to enforce their borders to protect their people against such exploitation.

Peter Thompson