Does religion have a place in public debate?

[Max_S]

Prompted by k9bfriender’s post in the thread [POST=21664015]“Pro-lifers want to control women’s bodies” - Okay, but…why?[/POST]

Does religion have a place in public debate? I’m primarily interested in American debate, but the question’s scope is not necessarily limited to the United States.

I am aware of arguments on both sides of the issue, and as of yet, am convinced by none. I suspect there are fundamental disagreements as to the purpose of public debate, the freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state.

So what do you think, readers of the Straight Dope Message Boards? Should religion have a place in public debate? Why or why not?

~Max

[Velocity]

That’s kind of hard to answer without really knowing what “have a place” means. In debate, do you mean, one side using their religion as a talking point or reference for argument? (i.e., a Muslim demanding that non-Muslim people abide by his Quran)

[Czarcasm]

@Velocity

That’s kind of hard to answer without really knowing what “have a place” means. In debate, do you mean, one side using their religion as a talking point or reference for argument? (i.e., a Muslim demanding that non-Muslim people abide by his Quran)

Or a politician saying this country is based on the teachings of the Bible…which is more likely by a factor of 1000?

[QuickSilver]

Religion absolutely has a place in public debate.

Religion has no place in political social policy debate.

[Czarcasm]

I absolutely believe that people should talk about their religionosity-If they are willing to follow their religious tenets to the point of scrapping parts of the Constitution, I want to know ahead of time.

[BrickBat]

No.

It should have nothing whatsoever to do with policy, vis-a-vis the state.

[iiandyiiii]

@QuickSilver

Religion absolutely has a place in public debate.

Religion has no place in political social policy debate.

This is what I believe. The first because everything that affects humans “has a place in public debate”.

[Max_S]

@QuickSilver

Religion absolutely has a place in public debate.

Religion has no place in political social policy debate.

Yes, I mean political debate about social policies.

ETA: Why not?

~Max

[iiandyiiii]

@Max_S

Yes, I mean political debate about social policies.

ETA: Why not?

~Max

Because social policy should be debated on the grounds of evidence, logic, and data, not superstition.

[Max_S]

@Velocity

That’s kind of hard to answer without really knowing what “have a place” means. In debate, do you mean, one side using their religion as a talking point or reference for argument? (i.e., a Muslim demanding that non-Muslim people abide by his Quran)

By “having a place”, I mean should it take up air time, newspaper space, blog entries, conversations in-person, etcetera.

~Max

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

Yes, I mean political debate about social policies.

ETA: Why not?

~Max

Because religion is not a basis on which to build a just society. If you disagree, I challenge you to cite one country governed by religious doctrine that you would call a just society.

[Velocity]

@Max_S

By “having a place”, I mean should it take up air time, newspaper space, blog entries, conversations in-person, etcetera.

~Max

Then it’s usually impossible for it **not **to have a place. You have to cover what’s there. Christianity, etc., has a real influence on many people and things. You couldn’t not cover it in media if it has an influence. How is the media and social media supposed to cover things like the pro-life movement, traditional marriage movement, etc., without pointing out that there is a lot of religious reason propelling such movements?

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

By “having a place”, I mean should it take up air time, newspaper space, blog entries, conversations in-person, etcetera.

~Max

No-one has objected thus far.

[Max_S]

@iiandyiiii

Because social policy should be debated on the grounds of evidence, logic, and data, not superstition.

I take it you identify religion with superstition: the absence of evidence, logic, and data.

I am not religious but it is my understanding that religious people necessarily disagree with you. What is your next step? Do you debate them on the merits of their religion?

~Max

[you_with_the_face]

The purpose of debate is to persuade others to your view. If you’re religious and you’re trying to persuade non-believers, then it’s unlikely they are going to be impressed by arguments that appeal to your religion. Imagine a debate that looks like this:

“We should ban pork.”

“No, we shouldn’t. Pork is a great source of protein and it tastes great. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks.”

“Pork is unclean and is not fit to be eaten.”

“According to whom? I eat it all the time and nothing bad has happened.”

“Ah, that you know of. Your soul is violated every time you eat that wicked flesh of the devil.”

“Dude, what are you talking–”

“The Koran says…”

Not very compelling is it? I’m trying to imagine an example of how a religious-based argument would ever be persuasive to someone who is not a follower, and I’m drawing a blank.

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

I take it you identify religion with superstition: the absence of evidence, logic, and data.

Don’t you?

@Max_S

I am not religious but it is my understanding that religious people necessarily disagree with you. What is your next step? Do you debate them on the merits of their religion?

~Max

If their religious convictions impinge on my human rights, you’re damn right I will.

[Max_S]

@you_with_the_face

The purpose of debate is to persuade others to your view. If you’re religious and you’re trying to persuade non-believers, then it’s unlikely they are going to be impressed by arguments that appeal to your religion. Imagine a debate that looks like this:

“We should ban pork.”

“No, we shouldn’t. Pork is a great source of protein and it tastes great. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks.”

“Pork is unclean and is not fit to be eaten.”

“According to whom? I eat it all the time and nothing bad has happened.”

“Ah, that you know of. Your soul is violated every time you eat that wicked flesh of the devil.”

“Dude, what are you talking–”

“The Koran says…”

Not very compelling is it? I’m trying to imagine an example of how a religious-based argument would ever be persuasive to someone who is not a follower, and I’m drawing a blank.

Then does religion have a place in public political debate among followers of the same religion?

~Max

[Max_S]

@Velocity

Then it’s usually impossible for it **not **to have a place. You have to cover what’s there. Christianity, etc., has a real influence on many people and things. You couldn’t not cover it in media if it has an influence. How is the media and social media supposed to cover things like the pro-life movement, traditional marriage movement, etc., without pointing out that there is a lot of religious reason propelling such movements?

I had in mind coverage with intent to persuade, not mere coverage for newsworthiness.

~Max

[Velocity]

@Max_S

Then does religion have a place in public political debate among followers of the same religion?

~Max

Sure it does. But they still ought to account for the fact that many in their city/state/nation are non-followers.

[iiandyiiii]

@Max_S

I take it you identify religion with superstition: the absence of evidence, logic, and data.

Generally, yes.

I am not religious but it is my understanding that religious people necessarily disagree with you. What is your next step? Do you debate them on the merits of their religion?

~Max

If that’s how they present their arguments, then perhaps. If they say “this is the right thing because the Bible/Quran/etc. says so”, then I’ll respond that public policy should not be based on the teachings of religious texts, but rather on evidence, logic, and data.