I ask Stephen Warden ("Secularists are guilty of intolerance", Mailbox, March 5) to think again.

Secularism is not the passive "of no particular religion" thing that you suggest: it vigorously promotes a civil society where people are free to have a belief, or not, and to which all contribute equally.

I objected (Mailbox, March 1) to an amendment to the Bill dealing with Sex and Relationships Education, the effect of which was to permit faith schools to ignore the following principles laid down in the bill:

"That the information provided should be accurate and balanced and should be taught in a way that is suited to the pupils' age and religious and cultural background, reflects a reasonable range of religious and cultural perspectives, encourages acceptance of diversity, and emphasises the importance of both rights and responsibilities."

What religious objections do you have to these principles?

Secularism opposes faith schools because they are used to promote their own religion, select staff and pupils on religious grounds, prevent young people from learning to live together and pose an increasing threat to cohesion. We are convinced of the need for separation of religion and state, and proper recognition of the non-religious.

Many religious people agree with us on all the above points.

The Secular Society has one of the best records for engaging with others. Its talks are open to all.

Many of us are on good terms with several religious groups. I serve as humanist representative on the Leicester Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education and am invited to give talks to religious groups and schools. We contribute significantly to Leicester City of Sanctuary and the Red Cross.

I suggest that the above is more than sufficient for Leicester Secular Society to pride itself for promoting free speech, tolerance and caring, and shows a readiness to engage in the productive criticism that we must have.

Allan Hayes, president, Leicester Secular Society.