Although I don't actually disagree with a word or a sentiment in what she has written, nevertheless I shrug at her Not in my name comment piece.
What new insights has she to offer, exactly how many minutes at the typewriter did this piece take?
Knocking 'mediaeval religions' for being irrational is like criticising rain for being wet. What would be interesting would be a better analysis of why the majority of the world aligns itself to one or other of the irrational pre-mediaeval religions, and why Catholicism, for example, has equal draw for the uneducated disposessed of Sao Paolo and sub-Saharan Africa, and for supposedly intelligent feminists in Downing Street. I don't suppose Toynbee could begin to understand that. Without an inkling of that understanding, her words are just tonight's chip wrapper.