I refer to the many contributions to this newspaper by Martin Scicluna, where he pontificates as if he were the last word on every issue that seems to be raised.

His latest article on April 2 was the last straw. He attempts to discredit President George Abela for the way he handled the issue of the civil partnerships Bill and tries to persuade the public to accept what remains his opinion. He may not be aware that trying to persuade and actually persuading can travel very far on parellel lines and not necessarily ever meet.

Scicluna may have all the right credentials to write the way he does and I am certainly no competition for him but may I just suggest that he is limited in his view of things.

At the bottom line, there are two perspectives and most of our reasoning and decisions depend on which perspective we subscribe to. This involves every issue, whether small or big, that concerns our lives.

We either prescribe to the limited perspective that relates to things of this world or to the other, which is the ‘eternal perspective’ for those who believe in the promise of eternal life. For the former, the decisions of the latter may not make sense.

Scicluna may argue that the latter should not be in a position of authority as they do not represent the former and I would argue that the reverse could apply.

It is essential for us to realise that we cannot be represented by the House of Representives nor can we be united, unless our rights of conscience are to be respected in whatever office we happen to occupy.