John Milloy, in his column of March 14, profoundly misunderstands the rational aversion many of us have to the mixing of religious faith with public policy. And he also misrepresents the secular point of view.

All public servants bring their world views to their positions, whether those world views are formed in religious or secular traditions. No one is denying this.

But a government of the people cannot be formed by religious reasoning alone. A secular government needs secular reasons for its policies.

For example, if a Christian politician demands Sunday business closures solely because of his faith, how is a Jewish or atheist constituent supposed to argue against it? There is simply no rational basis for the two to have a discussion.

If, on the other hand, the rationale is to give small business a day of rest while creating an even playing field, then we can have a discussion of the pros and cons of this policy. We can then examine the policy of statutory Christian religious holidays, but not holidays for other faiths, from a fresh perspective.

Milloy claims that "faith and faith communities" have been "at the forefront of progressive movements." That much is true . sometimes.

But he neglects to admit that, as in the case of fundamentalist Christian opposition to integration and gay rights, they also have been at the forefront of regressive movements.

Milloy claims "people of faith are unafraid to challenge conventional wisdom ." Considering that many faiths emphasize dogma over reason and evidence, I am not sure Milloy's generalization is always correct. And he fails to observe that it is atheists, agnostics and other freethinkers who have challenged "conventional wisdom" for centuries - often at the cost of their lives.

The most grotesque statement in Milloy's commentary is "I am still unsure why the anti-religious crowd is so opposed to electing someone simply because they believe in something greater than themselves."

Agnostics, atheists and other freethinkers also believe "in something greater than themselves." These things can include: the Earth and all its people, the nation of Canada, the community of all living beings, and so forth.

It is not this straw man that concerns secular voters; it is the excessive religious involvement in government that results in oppression of minority beliefs. Whether it is Calvin's Geneva or modern-day Iran, history demonstrates again and again that a religious government is not a good government.

Canadians have a right and a duty to consider how the religious beliefs of a politician might affect their judgment and their votes.