Madam, - None of my critics has addressed the point of my letter of April 2nd: namely, that the right to educate belongs primarily to family/parents, with the state's role being generally subordinate. Difficulties in giving practical implementation to that right do not nullify it.
Second, they assume that all state-funded organisations should be state-controlled. But numerous bodies across civic society receive state funds and are not state-controlled, and nobody thinks it should be otherwise.
Third, contrary to Séamus McKenna's suggestion (April 4th) that I equate a desire for secular education with wanting state control, my argument fully supports the rights of secularist parents, as being no less than those of Christian or Muslim parents.
The state ought not, in its education policy, privilege or endorse any religion - and that includes secularism, since it is the functional equivalent of a religion in this context. Secularism is a definite world view, with a distinctive set of values. It is not neutral or value-free. Secularists, if they are to be pluralist, must accept that others can reasonably hold different values.
Accordingly, my critics' demand that there be a state-controlled school system with all religious education excluded amounts to a demand for secularism to be the recognized "religion" of all schools - in effect a state religion. - Yours, etc,
SÉAMUS MURPHY SJ, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Milltown Institute, Dublin 6.