Sir – Like so many, Paul Surman (Letters, March 5) is being highly ethnocentric in his feelings about free speech. I am not a Muslim, and wasn’t personally offended by Charlie Hebdo’s pornographic depictions of Mohammed, but I can appreciate how unspeakably vile they must have been to a Muslim.

Perhaps if the tables were turned, more people would understand. What if the cartoons had satirised the Holocaust, or denied it ever happened? (in France the Gayssot Act makes this illegal by the way). What if someone important to you such as a family member had been humiliated in a cartoon? Feel any different?

Perhaps as an exercise is cross-cultural communication, some Muslims would care to write in to The Oxford Times and explain how cartoons of Mohammed make them feel?

Multiculturalism runs in the veins of Great Britain: Celts, Romans, Vikings, Danes, Anglo-Saxons and Normans. Even our monarch is of German stock.

In days of Empire we colonised a large chunk of the world, something which more than anything else represents a long-term historical commitment to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a wonderful opportunity for mutual exploration and enrichment, but it requires cultural literacy and respect on all sides.

In his letter, Mr Surman also makes an interesting point regarding Stephen Fry’s negative comments about God, and whether religious belief deserves respect.

As a balm from the seemingly endless dogfight between atheism and theism, I recently read Treasure Beneath the Hearth, a great book by local author Edward Walker. He makes the excellent point that whether God exists or not is essentially irrelevant.

The purpose of religion is to use myth, symbol and imagination to guide us on our journey to becoming better people. Who could be so indescribably arrogant as to suggest that such beliefs don’t deserve respect?

Daniel Emlyn-Jones, Oxford