Should religious belief inform public policy?

[Caliban]

*This is inherently a political issue and I think belongs in the Politics section of the forum.


Ever since Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, Americas have used the term, a "wall of separation between church and state.” This phrase is sometimes used in support of protecting churches from the state and also to ensure state policy is separate from religious influence. Opposing groups tend to emphasize one of these positions. How do you think it applies to public policy?

 

[JackRT]

Religious belief should not be the direct basis of public policy. But, that being said, it is impossible for legislators to not be influenced by their religious belief. Many RC legislators have ignored church teaching in favour of the wishes of the majority of their constituents.

 

[iluvatar5150]

As much as I hate the way in which this is usually manifested in this country, I do believe there is, and ought to be, room for some religious influence.

 

[dzheremi]

I feel like I can't really vote in such a simplistic poll, because while I don't believe any particular senator's or other lawmakers personal religious views should shape public policy, it would be a bit much to expect that no individual voter's beliefs shape their own voting behavior. The difference, of course, is that one is elected to be a representative of of all people in their district/state, and the other need only really represent himself or herself.

So...eh...yes and no? It's a tricky subject because of course the two aren't as far removed from one another as we would like them to be, since if a legislator represents a constituency that is primarily of one religion or version of religion then doing right by them would have to keep that in mind, even if the result would seem to people in other places or of other beliefs to be reinforcing this or that [religious] opinion. A lawmaker can only be as religious or as secular as those who keep them in office mandate that they be.

 

[Caliban]

Religious belief should not be the direct basis of public policy. But, that being said, it is impossible for legislators to not be influenced by their religious belief. Many RC legislators have ignored church teaching in favour of the wishes of the majority of their constituents.

I don't think it is impossible. For instance, they could give priority to objective research and scientific models instead of their religious instincts.

 

[Caliban]

As much as I hate the way in which this is usually manifested in this country, I do believe there is, and ought to be, room for some religious influence.

Why should non religious people be subjected to laws shaped by religious presuppositions? What about people who may have a different religion than the majority?

 

[Caliban]

I feel like I can't really vote in such a simplistic poll, because while I don't believe any particular senator's or other lawmakers personal religious views should shape public policy, it would be a bit much to expect that no individual voter's beliefs shape their own voting behavior. The difference, of course, is that one is elected to be a representative of of all people in their district/state, and the other need only really represent himself or herself.

So...eh...yes and no? It's a tricky subject because of course the two aren't as far removed from one another as we would like them to be, since if a legislator represents a constituency that is primarily of one religion or version of religion then doing right by them would have to keep that in mind, even if the result would seem to people in other places or of other beliefs to be reinforcing this or that [religious] opinion. A lawmaker can only be as religious or as secular as those who keep them in office mandate that they be.

I would defend against the charge that this poll is simplistic. It presents a binary choice and it's a binary issue. If there is ever a time when religion should inform law, then the answer would be yes. There is no middle ground. It is a good example of the excluded middle.

 

[WolfGate]

In the square of public debate, belief systems absolutely have a place. That doesn't mean religious ones determine policy or have extra influence on policy. It is absurd to say that you can argue for "X" because science or experience or something else has convinced you, as long as that something else is not a religious teaching. Regardless of basis for a policy, the rights of the minority viewpoint must be protected over the will of the majority.

I am unclear on the semantics of "inform" public policy, so I didn't vote but stated my thoughts above instead.

 

[Caliban]

In the square of public debate, belief systems absolutely have a place. That doesn't mean religious ones determine policy or have extra influence on policy. It is absurd to say that you can argue for "X" because science or experience or something else has convinced you, as long as that something else is not a religious teaching. Regardless of basis for a policy, the rights of the minority viewpoint must be protected over the will of the majority.

An example might be the gay marriage debate. Many Christians opposed gay marriage because it conflicted with their religious beliefs. However, those religious beliefs were not shared by everyone--not even all Christians. Should the broader population be required to live according to the religious instincts of some Christians in this case?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Policy? No. How you personally vote for policy? Sure.

 

[Speedwell]

As much as I hate the way in which this is usually manifested in this country, I do believe there is, and ought to be, room for some religious influence.

The religious influence is that of each individual voter. No institutional religious influence should be tolerated.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I am of the opinion yes. The myth of secular neutrality has lead gradually to the erosion of traditional Christian morals in western countries and a new morality which is enforced on us from an secular enlightenment perspective. It has contributed to the decline in religious participation and this overall is a bad thing.

I find the Idea of completely segregating religious principles in the private sphere absurd, as if the religious are expected when trying to advocate for certain laws or governance on grounds not of their faith. It concedes too much to secularism that I think no Christian should concede, especially if we actually believe Christianity to be true. Why subjugate divine authority to secular authority as if the latter needs to vindicate the former?

 

[Caliban]

Policy? No. How you personally vote for policy? Sure.

Policy is legislation.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Why should non religious people be subjected to laws shaped by religious presuppositions? What about people who may have a different religion than the majority?

It would still have to be filtered through the secular pluralism underpinning our government. Where I would most like to see these religious views be manifest is in how we treat each other and in how we value or prioritize elements of our society. It's not hard to develop a secular society that fosters a totally amoral, winner-take-all outlook where losers and criminals are crushed and the powerful are free to seek more power. The better parts of religion fight against that sort of carnality and admonish us to exhibit self-control and extend grace and mercy to others.

 

[Caliban]

It's not hard to develop a secular society that fosters a totally amoral, winner-take-all outlook where losers and criminals are crushed and the powerful are free to seek more power. The better parts of religion fight against that sort of carnality and admonish us to exhibit self-control and extend grace and mercy to others.

That is not my assessment. As secularity as become more dominant, rates of violence have fallen, education has increased, and general well-being has been extended to billions. There is often a difference between what secular and religious people consider amoral or carnal. When religion held greater cultural and political power, these positive developments and freedoms struggled to get off the ground.

 

[Bobber]

I think it all depends on what one is talking about. Many Christians of course oppose abortion but that DOESN'T MEAN they can't cite even a secular way of reasoning to be against it as well. So what do you end up doing to your citizenry? If you claim you can argue a secular reasoning to be for or against something and just because it reflects their religious view too that means what....sorry your vote doesn't count? You should have NO SAY? Seems like a convenient way to force direction of society not giving people the benefit of the doubt that they GENUINELY can cite various reasons.

So what do you have then....a society in which some citizens are more equal than other. This is so true with so many things. Many Christians support Israel due to a religious reason....but there can be non religious reasons to do so as well and there are non religious people who do support Israel too. So you end up with unfair critics claiming religious reasons are the basis for supporting that country when in all fairness there are a variety of reasons.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That is not my assessment. As secularity as become more dominant, rates of violence have fallen, education has increased, and general well-being has been extended to billions. There is often a difference between what secular and religious people consider amoral or carnal. When religion held greater cultural and political power, these positive developments and freedoms struggled to get off the ground.

Religion and secularism can fall prey to many of the same temptations and human faults. When either one seeks to care for and protect others, things get better; when they seek to protect themselves and enshrine their own power, things get worse.

 

[jayem]

Civil law must have a primarily secular purpose. It’s not a problem if laws coincidentally reflect a religious view. But no law should enforce a purely religious belief or doctrine. And our laws should not show any preference or favoritism to any particular religion or sect, or favor religion over non-religion.

 

[Caliban]

Religion and secularism can fall prey to many of the same temptations and human faults. When either one seeks to care for and protect others, things get better; when they seek to protect themselves and enshrine their own power, things get worse.

I agree. The more we think of other humans, and not merely ourselves, we progress.

 

[Caliban]

Civil law must have a primarily secular purpose. It’s not a problem if laws coincidentally reflect a religious view. But no law should enforce a purely religious belief or doctrine. And our laws should not show any preference or favoritism to any particular religion or sect, or favor religion over non-religion.

That's my take also.