Religion's firm place in a secular state

William P. Flynn (The Concept Of A Secular State In The EU, December 5) may have his own perceptions as to the meaning of a "secular state"; but - with all due respect to him - he should leave it to EU lawyers to define what is or what is not permissible for EU member states. What I find particularly fascinating in the European Union is that it allows for a wide range of diversity to its member states with respect to their individual cultures and historical roots. So far as I am aware, there is no reference to "secular" statehood in European law. The EU - at any rate - was fully aware of the provisions of the Malta Constitution at the time when the Treaty of Accession was signed.

Contrary to what Mr Flynn suggests, the particular provision of the Malta Constitution he objects to does not impose the Catholic religion on unwilling subjects. It only guarantees the freedom of the Catholic Church to teach what is right or wrong to willing citizens. Freedom of dissent is guaranteed by the principle of religious freedom. There is no reference to a "secular" state in the Constitution itself.

"Secularity", in my view, implies a separation of Church and State without curtailing the liberty of one or the other to pursue its own ends, together with the common good of the citizens. Mr Flynn's concept of secularisation implies that public manifestations of religious beliefs should be banned. In my opinion such ban is tant-amount to an imposition from above on the culture of believing citizens. It is therefore objectionable on these grounds alone.

Fr Mark Montebello - for all his good intentions - does not impress me at all. His argument is fallacious primarily because he separates (or rather excludes) "religion" from the definition of "culture". A study of the history of mankind, from earliest times, unmistakably shows that religious manifestations have always been among the early signs of culture in all civilisations, and that religious signs have always been inextricably linked to other cultural manifestations. I cannot understand how Fr Montebello can justify himself going against long-standing cultural traditions to accommodate the views of some dissidents.

His public display of the crucifix on TV further shows the frailty of his appeal.

I believe that Mr Flynn should exercise more prudence and leave it to trained experts to formulate proposals for constitutional amendments - if any amendment is needed at all.