On religious freedom
Wayne Cusick writes: Surely a doctor who has a religious objection to a treatment should not enter a field where they may be required to perform that treatment? Also, withholding treatment based on their faith is not observing their religion, but imposing it on the patient.
Rhonda Kerr writes: I am concerned that a group who want to discriminate are using religion as a cloak. It is not Christian to discriminate. How does a law to enable discrimination by the churches fit with Galatians 3:28: “So there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free people, between men and women; you are all one in union with Christ Jesus”?
Bob Joyce writes: There is one thing missing from the discussion here. The definition of religion. Christians get a guernsey, presumably all flavours from Catholic to Mormon to Hillsong and everything in between and beyond. So do all the varieties of Islam, and Hindu. I assume that the Pagans will get a look in, and you can’t really deny that Scientologists and Satanists should also get a run. People who believe in Baphomet? Rastafarians? Pastafarians? Me and my mates down the pub who worship the Boags Draught tap? Is there a limit?
On UK Labour’s next step
David Howe writes: Is the question, now Brexit is assured, what happens next for Labour? Or on another reading, what happens to the loyalties of the Remainers with Labour effectively running dead on the issue. Will they forgive and forget? Certainly the Scots have some issues.
On organ donation
Chris Cooper writes: Heartiest congratulations to yourselves for your willingness to walk the walk in publishing an opinion piece from a contributor whose outlook on the world is is typically so different from clan Crikey. Similarly, heartiest congratulations to Bob Katter for his compellingly logical views so clearly expressed. Organ donation is hard to beat as the perfect gift at Christmas — or at any other time.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.
organ donation? Come off it. There’s no donation in compulsory acquisition.
Change it to your wallet instead of your liver, and then say how benign and logical Katter’s idea is.
You don’t need your liver after you’re dead and as an heirloom it is a little odd. In that sense it is very different to your wallet and its contents.
Newsflash. Nobody needs anything when you’re dead, not your liver, not your wallet neither.
Nobody has a right to to them, though, just cos you’re dead.
Newsflash. Nobody needs anything when you’re dead, not your liver, not your wallet neither.
Nobody has a right to to them, though, just cos you’re dead.
Organ donation as a Christmas present – what a novel suggestion – one should top oneself as a Xmas present.
Ah! that would prevent family violence.
New advertisement – Prevent domestic violence, give a gift of a lifetime, go and suicide.
Bob Joyce you did not mention; what about the Canberra United Nondenominational Theologians Society?