Dear Foxy,

«We are a secular nation with...»

Please speak for yourself - I am not a nation, be it secular or otherwise. I live in this continent in the same way as the people of your presumed "nation" do.

«where your views are out of step with the views of the
club, organisation, or society you inhabit, that club/
organisation/ state/ can choose to either dispense with your
services»

They should have this choice available anyway, at their pleasure regardless whether or not my views are in step with theirs.

«or give you a choice to select where you belong.»

Nobody is to "give me" a choice to select because it is my birthright to select myself whether to belong to anything or not.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Thank you for your thoughts.
I'll keep them in mind.

Hi Foxy,

«where your views are out of step with the views of the
club, organisation, or society you inhabit, that club/
organisation/ state/ can choose to either dispense with your
services»

- I'm really not sure that's how it works.

We have the right to speak our minds, which means you should be able to criticise aspects of a religion if you choose,
- but you can't discriminate against people for their religious beliefs.

So you can say "We don't like or support your religious beliefs in relation to ..."
- But you can't discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs.

Now look at it the other way, the way you usually argue these topics.

That religious organisations can't discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't say that Churches have no right to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation;
- But then say it's perfectly fine to discriminate against someone because of their religion.

Christians can't place an ad or make an offer for employment and say 'Gays need not apply';
Likewise non-Christians can't place an ad or make an offer of employment and say 'Christians need not apply'.

- Both situations are discrimination, whether discrimination because of sexual orientation, or discrimination because of religious beliefs

- And FYI, I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative for the sake of it, (in case you're wondering) it's just the way I see it.

Dear AC,

You can discriminate against people on the basis of their religious belief. Where the religious belief causes people to violate the law of the state, the law of the state overrides religious belief. Where there is a conflict the law of the state wins.

When church and state were united there was no conflict. Certain capitalist aspects violated the precepts of the church. I am reading "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism" by Tawney. One interesting passage is:

'He who has enough to satisfy his wants’, wrote a Schoolman of the fourteenth century, ‘and nevertheless ceaselessly labours to acquire riches, either in order to obtain a higher social position, or that subsequently he may live without labour, or that his sons may become men of wealth and importance – all such are incited by a damnable avarice, sensuality or pride. Two and a half centuries later, in the midst of a revolution in the economic and spiritual environment, Luther in even more unmeasured tones was to say the same. The essence of the argument was that payment may properly be demanded by the craftsmen who make the goods, or by the merchants who transport them, for both labour in their vocation and serve the common need. The unpardonable sin is that of the speculator or middleman, who snatches private gain from exploitation of public necessities. The true descendant of the doctrines of Aquinas is the labour theory of value. The last of the Schoolmen was Karl Marx.”

Neither Karl Marx nor the Schoolmen understood that the speculator or middleman is necessary to make the economy work

Hi david f,

"Where the religious belief causes people to violate the law of the state, the law of the state overrides religious belief. Where there is a conflict the law of the state wins."

I cant argue with that, you're right.

Your book sounds like interesting reading.
But I never really looked in Karl Marx's work too deeply.

"Neither Karl Marx nor the Schoolmen understood that the speculator or middleman is necessary to make the economy work"

Is the answer 'Successful middlemen reduce the costs that consumers pay at retail'?
(I had to dig a bit to find an answer, as you got me curious enough to do so)

Hi AC,

You certainly can't have it both ways.