Madam, - Fintan O'Toole's solution to the problem of whether or not to allow Sikh members of the Garda Reserve to wear turbans appears simple enough at first glance. He says the State should allow the display of all religious symbols, or none. He opts for none ("The choice is simple: all or nothing", August 28th).
Mr O'Toole has undoubtedly worked out the implications of this, but has everyone else? What he proposes goes far beyond merely preventing gardaí from wearing a turban, a crucifix or a burka. As he implies, it would also mean withholding public funds from all religious institutions including schools and hospitals.
Is this really what the public wants? Does it really believe, for example, that no Catholic school, no Jewish school or Protestant school or Muslim school should receive any public funds whatsoever? Or that if they do receive such funding, in return they must sacrifice their ethos, right down to stripping their walls of all religious symbols?
There are many models of secularism. The more moderate versions are content to ensure that religion cannot impose its will undemocratically upon the State, or vice versa. The more extreme versions want hardly a trace of religion in the public square, and insist that religions should receive no support from the State even if that is what people want and if it is done in an even-handed manner.
Fintan O'Toole adheres to a version of secularism that would allow very little room for religion in the public square. It is, I suspect, one to which most of us would be very slow to subscribe. - Yours, etc,
TOM O'GORMAN, The Iona Institute, Merrion Square, Dublin 2.
Madam, - According to Fintan O'Toole (Opinion, August 28th), Article 44 of the Constitution commits the State to hold the name of Almighty God "in reverence".
Last week The Irish Timescarried an advertisement for Ryanair which showed Bertie Ahern using the expression "Jaysus", an irreverent form of "Jesus". Christians believe Jesus was God.
If Bertie had been saying "Muhammad" instead of "Jaysus", would you have published the ad? I doubt it, because "Muhammad" would most certainly have been deemed politically incorrect in such a context.
But, it would seem, "Jesus" is game for a laugh. - Yours, etc,
EDWARD HANLON, Troys Lane, Kilkenny.