KEY POINTS:
You cannot teach faith. My mother tried for years with me, to absolutely no avail. No matter how much of an example she set as a deeply faithful Christian, who loved and forgave and gave endlessly to those hardly less well-off than herself. No matter how much I envied her ability to connect through fervent prayer with something beyond herself. No matter how often she tried to persuade me, I couldn't recapture the belief I'd had as a child.
I thought I knew too much. The truth is, I knew too little.
I could tell you, as others once told me, that my change of heart and mind has been achieved, as it must for someone with an evidential bent, through reason - a re-acquaintance with Scripture, an examination of the historical evidence, and my own experience.
But that wouldn't persuade those of you who are certain that humanity is as good as it gets. And nor should it.
Whatever the atheists say, true faith, the Christian variety, isn't something you can get from someone else, or absorb by osmosis. Nor can it be imposed from without. It's a journey that must be travelled, if it is to mean anything.
Which, perhaps, is the point missed by Christian organisations like Destiny Church, protesting the declaration in the draft statement on religious diversity that "New Zealand has no state religion".
Can Brian Tamaki and others seriously believe the state can impose a religion almost half the populace doesn't want? Given the history of the Christian church, no thinking Christian should wish it.
It was Christians, after all, who formulated the principle of separation of church and state, beginning as far back as the 4th century, with St Augustine (from whom comes one of my favourite lines: "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet".) Even earlier, was Jesus' instruction in the New Testament to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".
As United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said in 1962, "A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion."
Over the centuries, Christians have had cause to be grateful for the freedom and protection afforded by that separation.
America's founding fathers were mindful of that when they wrote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
As Thomas Jefferson said, "It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
But let's face it - he wasn't under that much pressure. Tolerance isn't hard in homogenous societies. With the growth of secularism, and the increasing diversity of modern Western societies, that tolerance has been wearing thin.
In particular, 9/11 and the ongoing terrorism threat from radical Islam, especially in Britain, has left the ideal of a multicultural utopia somewhat battered.
Christians could be forgiven for feeling the squeeze, as battles are waged over prayers in school and in Parliament, and the proper place of God and religion in the public place. We've changed since my Indian friend went to primary school, and did Bible classes with everyone else, despite her Hindu roots.
She didn't become a Christian, but when her father died, she chose a Christian hymn, The Lord is My Shepherd, just because she liked it.
Are we a Christian nation? Herald readers insist at a ratio of four to one that we are. We're certainly a nation founded on Christian values and principles, but at just over 51 per cent, we can hardly claim to be a nation of Christians.
Even non-religious Herald readers feel that a cultural heritage and way of life is under threat. They echo commentators who fear that "diversity" is just code for "one-way multiculturalism" and a kind of "cultural masochism" on the part of the majority. And they have a point.
But John Gray, professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, argues in this week's Spectator that while "the political consensus on multiculturalism has visibly crumbled" and "tolerance has fallen into disrepute", the attempt in Britain to create a liberal monoculture "founders on the fact of diversity".
"Belief may be beyond regulation, but for the sake of public order its expression must be controlled." He says political leaders should focus on the genuine obstacles to peaceful co-existence between communities, including shutting down organisations that preach hate.
Gray writes that tolerance may be the best we can hope for - though that clearly isn't enough for the Canadian Buddhist quoted in Monday's Herald. She'd prefer respect. But, as with faith, you can't legislate for that, either.
