I am bemused by Giles Fraser’s intemperate article (Now my Thought for the Day, 1 November) that simultaneously tries to equate an essentially ideological worldview (religious faith and belief in a deity) with a range of general interests rightly covered by Today and other BBC programmes (football, Woman’s Hour etc) while at the same time claiming that religion uniquely transcends all other human interests and thus deserves its protected status (“religion is much more than God-based ethics”).

He fails completely to deal with the central criticism that the “God slot” offers close to 20 minutes per week of unchallenged and uncritical ideological dogma that is denied to any other philosophical or political position (humanism being an obvious example, equally influential in shaping western culture) by a broadcaster with a legal requirement to impartiality.

He is outraged at the condescending attitude of the BBC (“a culture of sniggering contempt”, “overpaid panjandrums” etc) and dismisses those who are critical of the BBC’s continued privileging of that minority of British citizens who declare themselves to be religious as “those who have read a few chapters of The Selfish Gene and think this has turned them into philosophical giants”.

So no condescension there then.

Tim Towers

Chichester

• In the light of the criticism of Thought for the Day by John Humphrys it is worth bearing in mind how difficult this slot is to fill well. It has to be related to the news without being political; it has to tease out a theological dimension without being platitudinous; and it has to offer a distinctive insight from one’s own religious tradition in a way that can also resonate with those of a different or no belief. This may have to be done at very short notice, such as after the death of Princess Diana or 9/11. No doubt we are all boring to some people some of the time, but the expressions of appreciation that contributors receive encourage us to think that there are many who are helped by this slot to look at events from a different perspective. The presenters, including John Humphrys (whatever he may be thinking), are in fact always warmly welcoming, and this too is an important factor.

Rt Rev Richard Harries

Former bishop of Oxford

• Of course Thought for the Day should be open to all and not reserved for the religious, but probably more importantly, so should the House of Lords as part of our legislative structure. There should not be 26 bishops in the Lords as of right in a mature democracy.

Bill Stothart

Chester

• With reference to Giles Fraser’s defence of Thought for the Day, religious reflection can be deeply, deeply boring. As can sport, racing tips and most Brexit discussion, which is usually much less informative than a good thought-provoking Thought.

Rev Canon Dr Alan Race

Bedford

• Thanks, Giles Fraser, for an excellent riposte to John Humphrys’ comments. Why not repeat it on air, with the extra thought that the BBC should consider a compulsory retirement age for men?

Peter Moody

Llandysul, Ceredigion

• If religion continues to be part of Radio 4’s Today, as Giles Fraser desires, it should be subject to the same balanced discussion and criticism as other subjects featured in the programme. Fraser compares Thought for the Day to the hourly football slot, but the latter doesn’t allow Arsène Wenger to expound his philosophy, unchallenged, for three minutes. If Thought for the Day must continue, it should be a separate programme, broadcast when Today has finished. The danger is that huge numbers of listeners might simply switch off.

John Shirley

London

• Ever since Anne Atkins told me my being gay is sinful on a Thought for the Day in 1996, I’ve cherished that religious interlude as the time to switch off the radio and start reading the Guardian. I’m beginning to think Giles Fraser’s column is something I can usefully skip, too, time being too short.

John Warburton

Edinburgh

• You can’t have a discussion about Thought for the Day without mentioning the late, great Rabbi Lionel Blue. He oozed humanity, punctured pomposity and came up with Thoughts that made you think. That’s true religion. At least in this household, every Blue’s Day meant a 2 min 45 sec delay in entering the shower.

Mark Davis

London

• Thought for the Day, which focuses on the important rather than the urgent, serves a crucial purpose. If the lessons of the principles and ethics espoused in the three-minute slots were better learned and internalised by people, the world would be a lot better off. If that were the case, the diet of news, dominated by sleaze, scandal and conflict, would be reduced. The daily broadcast, therefore, should serve as a constant reminder to us all that we must do better.

Zaki Cooper

Trustee, Council of Christians and Jews

• Giles Fraser misses the real problem with this programme – its predictability. The standard format runs like this: a minute on some topical event to show how relevant religion is, followed by three seconds of silence. Then some link like: “Jesus did not have a Twitter account, but if he had possessed one, he’d have been the greatest networker the world has ever seen.” The fun in listening is guessing how outlandish the link will be.

Frank Coffield

Brancepeth, Co Durham

• If the BBC’s attitude to religion is one of “sniggering contempt” then I wish they would extend it to humanism. Then maybe we would have not just a daily humanist Thought for the Day but also two minutes an hour earlier (Prayer for the Day), 15 minutes later in the morning (38 minutes on Sunday) to balance the daily service, and 40 minutes of a magazine programme every Sunday morning. And that’s only on Radio 4!

No one is saying there should be no religious programmes, but the exclusion of the non-religious, now 53% of the population, is a relic of Reithian self-righteousness long overdue for the chop.

David Pollock

London

• “The presenters of BBC Radio 4’s Today programme should stop treating religion with lazy contempt,” says the subheading on Giles Fraser’s article. Giles needn’t fret. My contempt for religion is anything but “lazy”.

Sara Neill

Tunbridge Wells, Kent

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters