The European Court of Human Rights' (EHCR) ruling banning crucifixes from classrooms in Italian State schools has produced a surfeit of emotional comments but an astounding deficit of straight forward logical analyses.

From the emotional reactions, one would have to conclude that the judges are, at best, ignoramuses and quite possibly conspirators intent on destroying Europe's cultural heritage. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Let us look at the facts. The ECHR exists to safeguard the fundamental rights of the individual against the dictates of the majority. Italy is a secular state. Children are obliged to attend school. It is their right not to be constantly confronted by religious symbols while attending schools run by this secular state.

Clear and logical. I have been unable to come up with any arguments to justify a different decision.

Claire Bonello (The Sunday Times, November 15) quotes reactions from selected readers of The Guardian, presumably because she agrees with them. One says: "If Catholics are supposed to tolerate pictures of crucifixes submerged in urine, why should an agnostic object to a cross?" When and where did she, or The Guardian reader, see a picture of a cross submerged in urine in a classroom of a state-run school?

The next argument, shared by Mark-Anthony Falzon, is that the cross really does not make an impression on the students so there is no need to remove it.

But, of course, this argument cuts both ways: if the cross is ignored by the students anyway, there is no reason to leave it on the wall, let alone get emotional about it.

Then there is the argument that it is divisive, that there was great uproar following similar decisions in Italy and Bavaria. Then again, as the Maltese court pointed out in the VAT fraud case, judges are supposed to uphold the law, not pander to public opinion.

Then there are those who warn against allowing foreigners into the country because they may ask for similar consideration. This argument seems to imply that the Finns were always agnostic, but they were not. Large parts of the populations of Northern European countries consider themselves agnostics or atheists and have become so by thinking for themselves instead of accepting dogma.

Dr Falzon fears that the decision may have an impact on the decision to allow the building of minarets in Swiss cities. This is nonsense.

Building minarets in historic city centres should and will probably be disallowed, just like the building of skyscrapers in Valletta, or probably all of Malta, should be disallowed. Jumping from the removal of crucifixes from classrooms run by a secular state to being forced to allow min-arets in historic city centres is not reasonable.

However, for the Maltese there is one point of concern or hope, Malta's Constitution forces religious indoctrination on children in State schools.

What if one of the current University students, who, according to surveys, have started to think for them-selves more and more, will not want their children indoctrinated?

Would the court find Malta's Constitution in conflict with fundamental human rights?