Freedom for all religions can *only* be guaranteed under secular government. Tai Lo Chin has already set out the reasons for this very clearly in his letter 'A state of checks and balances' (Aug 7).

Nonsecularist 'Secularism contradicts the belief of Muslims' (Aug 15) may have a problem with that, and though some may deem it a waste of time to reason with someone who has drawn an a priori conclusion and is not interested in looking at any of the arguments, I'll try again.

'Secularism' is not only a dirty word in fundamentalist Islam, it is a dirty word in fundamentalist Christianity, too. It's used as an epithet by people who do not understand its implications; people who believe that everyone else should adhere to their particular religious view and submit to its sole authority.

On the other hand, religious moderates tend to have no objection to secular government, because they recognise that in the real world, different faiths (read: living, breathing people with different upbringing and different beliefs) have to coexist.

Attacking secularism is like throwing punches into thin air. Secularism, as I explained before, does not compete with religion. It's simply a milieu in which belief - not necessarily yours, but grow up and deal with it! - and non-belief can flourish.

It's neutral , for crying out loud! Treating a secular state as some sort of abomination just because it's not religious is like refusing to let people drink water just because it's not coffee.

If mixing religion and politics is such a good thing, I imagine that there can be no objection to Malaysia becoming a fundamentalist Christian state. What's that? Muslims might be discriminated against under strict Christian laws? But surely, turnabout is fair play, isn't it? Maybe, then, the state shouldn't take sides.

Are we starting to get the picture?