Madam, - Fintan O'Toole (Opinion, January 20th) advances three arguments against those who oppose the French Government's proposals to ban religious symbols from public schools. All of them are ill-founded.
Firstly, he states that "by taking the teachings of a conservative élite as the essence of Islam" we are practising "a kind of tolerant bigotry". Referring to the Koran, he writes that "the only clear requirement is modesty". However, the whole point of tolerance is accepting someone else's different interpretation of, for example, either scripture or tradition and letting them live by it. Why should Mr O'Toole think that only his interpretations of the "the essence of Islam" and the "only clear requirement" of the Koran are the only valid ones? Others believe differently; why should they not practice differently?
Mr O'Toole's second argument muddies the waters by bringing in issues that have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Thus he raises the issues of female circumcision and those who oppose girls' rights to education. Obviously, where a religious tradition clashes with fundamental human rights, the latter must always prevail. But the wearing of Muslim headscarves or Jewish skull-caps or Christian crosses, unlike female circumcision and depriving girls of education, are in no way inconsistent with fundamental human rights.
Mr O'Toole's third argument is that "a spurious notion of 'diversity'. . .undermines the far more basic need for equality". I think he is confusing equality with uniformity. True equality, as every parent knows, is allowing people to be different, not imposing one ideal on different individuals. It is ironic that is the French who say "Vive la différence!" - Yours, etc.,
PAUL DALY, Bayside Boulevard North, Dublin 13.