I refer to the letter NGOs should respect Islam's views in which the writer said '... in America, if a man commits adultery, the state cannot touch him. But the moment he drives above 65mph on an interstate highway, he immediately gets a ticket. Such contradictory values are simply abominable'.

Perhaps the values are not as contradictory as the writer believes. When a man drives above 65mph, he endangers more than just himself. He endangers other road users. He will also pollute the environment even more as his car engine will burn more fuel.

Therefore, what this person does affects others. I believe this is the test used by secular liberals. Matters of personal morality do not affect the public. If a person chooses to drink intoxicating beverages in public and does not operate any equipment that could affect others (eg, cars) then it is a personal choice.

However, if a person chooses to smoke in a public place where others are subjected to their second-hand smoke, then it is no longer a personal choice. Hence, in the latter instance, the state should legislate and police against such behaviour.

I hope this helps to clarify why the values stated by the writer are, in fact, not contradictory. However, the writer is fully entitled to believe that certain values are abominable, and I will fully support his right to his beliefs as long as the exercise of this right does not impose on the rights of others.