Well, yes, the atheist industrialist is open to the criticism that he is using a power granted by the nation (the power of testation) to undermine the public order of the nation and the rights it has conferred on all citizens, including his children – “No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, even religious ones, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law

If government should not be, itself, arbitrary, all the more should it repress arbitrary action in others. If the supreme power is not active, then the secondary powers will run riot and oppress.

In most civilised countries, since the law of 18 germinal an X, any condition in a gift or will requiring a person to exercise or to abstain from exercising a cult or to belong or not to belong to a cultic association is void. A fortiori, cannot constitute a ground for depriving a necessary heir (which would include children) of his or her reserved share of the inheritance.

This was already implicit in the Declaration of the Rights of Man – “No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation,” so no individual can thwart or encumber rights granted by the Nation, including the freedom of worship.

All religions are not equal, nor are they beyond critique. To commit to this liberal vision of diverse “faith traditions” kowtowing to one another is to cede the authentic truth-claims of the gospel to a relativistic world in which secularism reigns by virtue of the silence of religion, and “faith claims” are incapable of being introduced into the public sphere. In short, we silence to kerygmatic power of the gospel and end up with the french directorate and the reign of secular “reason”. Is this where our catholic philosophers are leading us? If so, why don’t we just read Voltaire instead? At least he’s entertaining.

But that wasn’t really my question, was it? The question is what you would think of a man who used his money in a manner like that.

Thomas: We can’t respect the atheist without respecting the Catholic.

Catholics are respected and afforded freedom. Freedom is the right to hold beliefs, and they have that right. The demand that is rejected is the one for privilege: the ‘right’ to ignore laws that are not to their liking. I do not have that right, and neither should you.

Thomas: If you understand that, then you understand religious freedom

Freedom is a given, conduct is another. A Jehovah’s Witness may believe that blood transfusions are against his religion, but this does not license him to deny his children life-saving blood transfusions.

Any criticism is called disrespectful. Example: apparently, torching embassies and kidnapping people is not “offensive”, but a few Danish cartoons are. Also, I strongly believe that respect has to be earned. People are not just entitled to respect, and neither are religions.

Wolf Paul: If not, and if he had been opposed to his sons’ faith while alive, I would not be very shocked or surprised.

The question was not whether you would be surprised, but what your moral judgment would be about a man who would use his money to make impositions of conscience.

Wolf Paul: But in the first place I would hope that his sons would have the courage and faith to forego their inheritance rather than their faith.

And do you also admire the courage and faith of the children of the Jewish industrialist, if they decided to forgo their father’s money and not their sincerely held beliefs?

In the same way, we should respect Catholic business that do not want their money to directly pay for contraception and abortion drugs. Same principle applies. We can’t respect the atheist without respecting the Catholic. If you understand that, then you understand religious freedom, and you are on the side of the angels, even though you may not believe in their existence.

And in reply to your second comment: My reaction would depend very much on whether the man had claimed to be a Christian before his death.

If so, I would probably decry his apostasy and/or hypocrisy.

If not, and if he had been opposed to his sons’ faith while alive, I would not be very shocked or surprised.

But in the first place I would hope that his sons would have the courage and faith to forego their inheritance rather than their faith.