THIS is apropos of the column 'Morality and atheism' in your paper (Feb 17). I would like to commend the writer for writing an interesting piece that must've captured the attention of many amongst us. I agree with the writer that it is important not to impose one's views on others; however, I fail to understand why it is always assumed that a believer is imposing his belief on others.

An atheist can equally and more so try to impose his ideas on a believer. This has happened historically and is still happening everywhere around us. (Have we forgotten Russia's forced secular conversion?)

As we whine and complain of religious intolerance in our daily lives, so are we bombarded with ideas that provide atheism or secular humanism as the only answer to worldly issues.

In fact, it is rather unfortunate that today intellectualism is identified with atheism. I would go to the extent of saying that the assertiveness of these ideas and philosophies is trying to create a world where the meaning of 'right' and 'wrong' gets distorted.

If I am correct, probably there are only four sets of ideas in this world. Two of these have been highlighted in this article also and are identified as agnosticism and atheism versus the other kind which I would like to call believers with knowledge and believers with blind faith.

The reasons why the latter two have a complete right to raise their concerns on the thought pattern of the earlier are as follows.

Agnosticism is when one is unsure or lacks knowledge about God. The obvious argument is that how can a person who lacks knowledge be compared to a person who has no knowledge and what is wrong when believers with knowledge are asking such people to seek knowledge?

It seems atheists or believers in the concept of secular humanism have become the guardian of humanity similar to mediaeval zealots.

If we all start believing on this concept, how will the ethical dilemmas be addressed in our lives? Who will classify as to what is right behaviour versus unacceptable behaviour?

Another important concept being widely spread is that inviting people to listen to the views of a 'believer with knowledge' amounts an imposition of views on others. However, when a similar expression of opinions, some times even uninvited, is done by an atheist, it is termed freedom of expression. Aren't these double standards?

What matters is knowledge. When all of us would try to seek knowledge, then alone would we be able to behave correctly.

IFFAT ZEHRA MANKANI
Karachi