On 30 October, the Friend reported comments by Stephen Fry in which he praised Quakers, saying ‘Honourable, kindly, patient, cheerful, welcoming, non-judgmental – no wonder [Quakers] were persecuted by Puritans in New England and sneered at and scoffed at by warmongers and “patriots” throughout history. The quiet dignity, forebearance and good-natured yet persistent pacifism of the Society of Friends is something that shames most other Christian denominations.’ In a letter published last week responding to Fry's comments, a reader wrote: ‘I read with some alarm Stephen Fry’s patronising head-patting of Quakers. Please let us steer clear of such condescension if we wish to be taken seriously in our faith and practice'.

The debate continues...

The Friend publishing a letter attacking a non-Friend for speaking of us with admiration (6 November) Must be imagining things – surely?

I saw nothing patronising or condescending in the reported remarks of Stephen Fry praising the Religious Society of Friends – and am appalled at your decision to publish this letter.
Diane Brewster


I read with interest and appreciation Stephen Fry’s comments (30 October). If only Stephen’s perception of us as ‘honourable, kindly, patient, cheerful, welcoming and non-judgmental’ could have been reflected in our Friend’s response last week, he might achieve his goal of being ‘taken seriously in our faith and practice’.
Jenny Vickers


I hope that Stephen Fry (still reeling as he may be from criticism of his ‘twitter’ contributions) did not read Ian Flintoff’s letter, calling his remarks about Quakers patronising, condescending and self-satisfied. Re-reading Stephen’s words, I can find no such thing, only genuine admiration. As for actively supporting our aims, through his work Stephen has contributed to the relief of poverty, conservation and mental health awareness. However, he is wrong about the porridge oats, which despite appearances are not a Quaker product.
Annette White


I was mystified by Ian Flintoff’s indignation with Stephen Fry’s ‘patronising head-patting of Quakers’. I hastily re-read said remarks and couldn’t detect anything patronising – on the contrary… ‘quiet dignity, forbearance and good natured yet persistent pacifism’ – couldn’t be nicer.

Was it the ‘porridge oats’ reference that upset him? Most of the Quakers I know can also detect humour when they see it – still, Friendship to all… no patronage intended.
Jill Leeming