Very well. Let's logic for fun. In philosophy debate there is a means of breaking down a proof into separate points and evaluate an arguement as a series of statements which build on each other. Anything that does not build off of the points but instead on something that isn't relevant to the arguement is a fallacy . Normally you atomize it and break down each point as a series of statements. In the interest of brevity let's break yours roughly into two main points.

• That Religion is a Mental illness.

• Mental illness is a valid disqualification from participating in a government service

So let's take the two halves of your arguement and cut it down to one and deal with the pieces separately. For now we'll entertain this notion that religion was a mental illness for purposes of getting past you sounding like a bloody broken record.

So in the matter of ethics in the field of mental illness and disability it is widely accepted thay Employers are prohibited from discriminating against mental health in the workplace. Under human rights legislation in the US and any number of democratic societies at this point employers have an obligation to accommodate their employees with disabilities, including mental health concerns, to the extent of undue hardship.

Where I am this is covered under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the main constitutional document of my country. In the US this is covered more by a smattering of federal laws - an overlap of the Equality act, The American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act which was fought for in the era of civil rights alongside racial discrimination. Both have a history of activism. The disability front at the time is actually quite heroic. I would look up "Ed Roberts and The Rolling Quads". Think Martin Luther King but paralyzed from the neck down performing sit ins and demonstrations in Government buildings.

Whether something should be illegal (such as mental illness discrimination) usually is built off an ethical arguement. This one, campaigned for so brilliantly by people who had to overcome more than the regular obstacles has a lot of roots in the evolution of thought in Natural/Human Rights. The idea that you as a human simply by virtue of being one have a right to live, not be subject to undue cruelty, and are assured equal participation in your society. At a more fundamental level rests the idea that your natural advantages and disadvantages are randomly determined and a fair society is one that compensates for this randomness by not excluding people by mere lack of effort. There's this concept that social systems ideally should be created from a standpoint of pretending you are a person who doesn't yet know what random attributes you will have once you exist inside the society you build.

So the first question as to whether our veiws are at all reconcilable is :

1. Do you believe in the underlying principles of universal human rights?

2. If so, should human rights extend to people with mental illness?

If you do not agree with either of these two points we really have nothing in common and I feel justified that your views are by my standards unethical and there's very little we can reconcile... because even if we look at religion as an illness it's my dearly held belief that it should be an unlawful and widely agreed unethical grounds to refuse hiring someone or not reasonably accommodate a mental illness in any job much less one that is a democratic institution that serves "the people". In all cases where governments decide they don't have to follow their own rules I rarely like the result.