I wonder on what basis Terry Kirby ("In defence of faith schools", Mailbox, March 12) makes his assertions.

He describes "the jaundiced view of secularism" and a "self-centred, personality-obsessed, secularist society, which increasingly sees 'me, me, me' as the goal to aim for, despite all the problems this causes for the individual and society as a whole".

Perhaps he would like to visit the website of Leicester Secular Society (www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk), or come to one of our meetings at 6.30pm on Sundays, which (apart from formal meetings such as the AGM) are open to all, and see if secularists are as he describes them?

Most people from both religious and non-religious viewpoints would agree with him that schools need to give today's young people a well-rounded balanced understanding of the world around them.

I would suggest that the best way of achieving this is by them learning together, so that they understand that we are all human beings with similar needs and hopes, regardless of religion and race, and that it is human relationships that provide happiness in life, not consumption of products or supernatural beings.

As to religions contributing to the cost of state-funded religious schools, the state meets all of the running costs and capital costs of voluntary-controlled schools, with voluntary-aided schools only contributing 10% of capital costs.

In many cases they don't even have to find this.

Also, it is not true that religious schools are required to take a proportion of pupils who are not from their faith. The Church of England has made a "commitment that all new Church of England schools should have at least 25% of places available to children with no requirement that they be from practising Christian families".

This commitment applies only to new schools, not existing ones. The Roman Catholic Church objected to any such restriction when this was proposed by the Government and were successful in having the requirement removed.

John Catt, Loughborough.