I must say that I totally disagreed with Marie Benôit’s article on the “crucifix in schools” issue (TMIS, 15 November). I was surprised by what seemed to be her slightly (sic) militant stance.

Soile Tuulikki Lautsi (her full name) from Finland has every right to complain about her aversion to crucifixes in classrooms, be they in Italy, Malta, Spain or anywhere else. The reason I offer is that religion in any form, especially the Catholic variety, which has a habit of forcing itself on children to create the billion Catholics, a number the Catholic Church take great delight in. The majority of this multitude was not given a choice whether or not they wanted to join this organization. Before they could discuss any article of faith (belief without evidence), they were told that because a mythical man (Adam) had decided on a path of knowledge and because his mythical partner (Eve) who allegedly tempted him to take the wrong road, all humanity must suffer for all eternity with the imposition of what they call original sin … that’s great! We had no choice!

However, if we then believe that another man, who was crucified to save us from eternal damnation, and only if we believe that he is the son of a god and that he is god at the same time, then we would be saved from the fires of hell. This is what the crucifix symbolizes and why Mrs Tuulikki Lautsi objects to her children being subjected to this religious image.

I do not object to anyone following any religion they wish, but when it is imposed on me I object. I object because my free will has been taken away. A free will that this same god is supposed to have given me.

As a teacher it is incumbent on me to be objective. My opinion is secondary. Unless I am teaching religious education, my religious views must remain personal, as must my political ones. So yes, teachers must remain silent on the issues of religion and politics unless they wish to influence their charges one way or another.

Ms Benôit says that most European countries were founded on religion. In most countries there is a clear separation of Church and state too. This, as we both know, is a sham and to say atheists are a minority is not a licence to dismiss their philosophy.

Ms Benôit also says that secularism is more reactive than active. When, throughout history, have we seen any wars led by secularists? Not even Stalin who was an atheist can be counted among these as he portrayed himself as omnipotent and by implication a demigod. Conflict around the world can be traced back to people’s belief in a god who they claim is on their side.

Another point Ms Benôit brings up is her personal faith, or lack thereof. We cannot be half religious. We either believe or we do not. And as to the idea that countries who have given up religion are worse off, I point to Sweden, Europe’s ‘most atheist’ country. I suggest that the Swedes are doing pretty well. And what about the ‘most religious’ countries – Malta, Turkey, Ireland, much of South America, and the Middle East? On balance Sweden is looking pretty good.

I believe Malta needs to amend its Constitution to reflect a population that is not 100 per cent religious. By not doing so, it discriminates against atheists, who are therefore regarded as second-class citizens.

Peter Dingli

Melbourne

VICTORIA