Sir – I’m far from sure that I’m qualified to respond on behalf of “the church”, but your correspondent, Edward Sanderson (Letters, March 12), seems to have very little appreciation either of sociology — or of the raison d’être of Humanism.

Taking sociology first: Humanist, and other non-religious ceremonies are little more than today’s equivalents of the age-old rights of passage — and these, most clearly, were being practised for many, many, generations before our ancestors finally got round to the concept of a single supreme deity — be it Christian or otherwise.

Turning now to Humanism: to suggest that we humanists ‘vehemently oppose’ the holding of rights of passage ceremonies in churches seems, to me, to protest too much.

I challenge Mr Sanderson to provide evidence. Surely, choice/the provision of alternative forms of ceremony, is all that we humanists are now offering? Though choice, of course, just happens to be something that the churches have been fighting, for centuries, to suppress.

Further, given the steady decline in church support throughout the last 80 years or so . . . an on-going reduction in the number of people attending church; a reduction of 75 per cent in church marriages compared to the 1920s; the latest ONS [Office for National Statistics] figures which show that nearly 50 per cent of today’s population does not belong to any religion . . . our offerings appear, if anything, to be long overdue!

It is sad that Mr Sanderson seems unable to face up to the above, but Humanists have no interest in stopping him (or his dwindling band) from holding whatever services they would like, provided only that they are within the law.

John D White, Chairman, Oxford Humanists, Chalgrove