Yuyutsu wrote: Any private person, or private organization (by private I mean, who does not receive any assistance, benefits or preferences from the government and its associated bodies or by listing themselves as public bodies), should be able to hire and fire anyone at any time as they please, for whatever reason or for no reason at all.

But, religious organisations get all sorts of assistance, benefits and preferences from government, eg tax exemption. Where does that leave your argument?

This case seems rather strange - it was over a disability claim not a religious disagreement. (It's worth reading the comments on the original NYT article).

The ruling seems to imply that churches etc, can be exempt from all the rules of law if they chose.

Cossomby, religions are excused all sorts of laws right here in Oz.

Here's some notes on Jefferson's church state separation thoughts:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/peterson.htm

And here his full text:
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/page.aspx?pid=512

He made it plain religion had to pay its own way, unlike here in Oz, and those who ran civil and religious institutions were only men (well, they were then) and were all as corruptable as any other man, so should refrain from imposing any form of religious special case on individuals or the state.

Too bad our politicians and church people do not support the separation of church and state, except where it allows, say, the Vatican to bugger children and get away with it or for drones like Garrett to pay off the extreme religious right with $222m of new ATO funds to plant evangelisers in every state school.

Of course, having a bleeding heart Baptist as a PM, following on from an evangelical supporting fruitcake, who followed on from John Winston Machievelli has not helped the Jeffersonian cause at all in our non secular nation state.

Dear Blue Cross,

"The state has every right to impose the national law on all its citizens, that is what makes it a nation state."

No, it hasn't.

The state has no more right to impose its ideas on innocent people who have not sought its protection and "assistance" than any other mafia or pirate gang. Its desire to make a "nation" should not come at the expense of ordinary people who do not wish to belong.

Having said so, if a church [stupidly] chooses to use the money which the state prints, then it must abide with the conditions and attached-strings that come with that money, such as paying taxes.

Religion indeed is and should be, a private affair between individuals and God (the worship of mythical gods may or may not constitute a part of one's religious path, subject to personal and cultural circumstances).

---

Regarding Israel, which you mentioned, Judaism is not a religion, never was. It is roughly closer to a nationality, which just happens to include a so-called 'religion' in its armoury. As such, you cannot blame the nation of Israel for doing what all nations do and always did, e.g. defend themselves (but you may blame it for posing as religious).

---

Dear Cossomby,

I absolutely agree. Religious organisations should not receive assistance, benefits or preferences from the government. Shame on those who do. It is an affront to God.

"The ruling seems to imply that churches etc, can be exempt from all the rules of law if they chose."

Everyone should be exempt, not only churches!

Yuyutsu

Sorry old boy, citizens can disagree with what their state says, thinks and does, but they are not able to opt out of being a citizen, unless, like Rupert, they ditch their citizenship.

If you want to have no citizen status, then you might end up in an airport waiting room for the rest of your life, should you choose to leave the safer enclosure of your own nation state.

Nice try for Judaism but it doesn't wash. Of course there are Jews who deny their god, and good on them too, but Israel likes to weave its religion into its foreign and domestic policy all the time, so it has lost its right to appear to be a secular state, as has Australia of course.

Israel's opponents, the ones it steals land from every day, also appear not to be the least bit 'secular' and fall into the same category as Israel.

There are no 'innocent parties' when nation states, or would be nation states, hide behind, inside and alongside the religions they think they belong to.

Dear Blue Cross,

"Sorry old boy... you might end up in an airport waiting room for the rest of your life"

This is an accurate description of present reality, not a moral argument. Any old mafioso could have created similar conditions and uttered similar threats.

"but Israel likes to weave its religion into its foreign and domestic policy all the time"

Well, shame on them for that, how much more so when their "religion" is not even a religion, but a nationality-tool.

"so it has lost its right to appear to be a secular state, as has Australia of course."

No - telling lies does not change what you are. Israel is still a secular state despite what it is saying... and so are its opponents!

Both Israel and its opponents should stop using "religion" as a weapon.

Runner,

Another year of generalising ahead?

"Secularist have very little moral ground for complaint".
So despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, sectarians are somehow instantly more moral?

Then

"How many conservative journalist work for the ABC/SBS".
Why not ask "How many priests are not paedophiles?"

Same dodgey argument.

The Nazis were honest about their discrimination too.

Otherwise, let the Churches do whatever they want as long as they pay their fair share of taxes.