State interference

Joe Zammit (Church And State, February 8) believes that if the people who form the Church happen to be almost the same people who form the state, then the natural consequence will be that the state legislates according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Does this therefore mean that the state can, for example, enact laws to fine people who don't go to Church on Sunday, to ban contraceptives, and to imprison people who are cohabiting or who are actively homosexual?

Most probably, Mr Zammit wouldn't use the same "natural consequence" argument if the vast majority of the Maltese people were atheists who happened to believe that religion is an evil thing that needs to be destroyed.

Although 99 per cent of Maltese are Catholic, our attitude to religion and to various moral issues is not homogeneous. According to the Church's own census, only 52 per cent of Catholics attended Sunday Mass on a particular weekend early last year.

According to opinion poll results published in The Sunday Times last month, only 55.9 per cent of respondents agreed with the Church's teaching on divorce, and only 40.7 per cent agreed with the Church's teaching on sex outside marriage.

At the end of the day, the state collects taxes from all of us, irrespectively of whether we are devout or non-practicing Catholics, or have conservative or liberal views. It is therefore only fair that we should expect that the state treats all of us equally and let us make our own personal choices.

Just like the removal of state interference in trade and commerce resulted in a stronger and more prosperous economy, the removal of state interference into issues of personal morality will result in a freer and more tolerant society.