# Does religion have a place in public debate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2019, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709 "2019-05-29T15:02:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/461 "2019-06-19T19:42:07Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Those are the ones where the response should be “show me that God said it.” They’ll point to the Bible. 'Show me why the Bible can be trusted." They say it is all correct. That’s where the falsifiable stuff comes in. That sounds like a debate, which is all that I ask for. If you think they are being sincere, why would you laugh instead of saying “show me that God said it”? You don’t have to into the weeds if you can point out a previous debate on the matter, unless your religious opposite says they have more to add or the previous debate transcript is inaccessible. If they don’t have anything to add, then you can laugh, but I think it would be bad taste if they were sincere. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/462 "2019-06-19T22:39:42Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Because it’s made up doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. > > We made up this entire conversation; but it exists. > > See also my example about money. The difference between a conversation and morality is that we agree on the definition of a conversation. This record of an exchange of messages is agreed by all parties to exist and constitute a conversation. Likewise we agree that certain papers and coins constitute money, and exist; therefore money exists. The analogies break down because people do not agree on whether a given act is moral, therefore you might say “morality can be found in this act” but another can say “no, it can’t”. You can look to your definition of morality but your opponent can cite a different definition. Indeed, one theory of universal morality is that that morality is like a _post-hoc_ field-guide, first you classify the real, physical act by type then find the corresponding section, upon the proper page it will read “this act is moral if it meets the following criteria…”, and so as a matter of taxonomy any particular act can be given a moral classification. The same break-down could be observed with money or conversation, too. Think of a tourist who holds up _Pesos_ and is told “that’s not money here”, or the father who says “I’m going to have a talk with that child” before fashioning a whip from his belt, whose wife pleads “that’s not a talk at all!”. That being said, I don’t think Pratchett was talking about morality (justice, mercy, duty) as the linguistic classification of physical reality as much as a physical or nonphysical property of physical acts. Assuming that definition, the Death character then is saying that the existence of such properties is a lie; there is no force which acts upon such properties and therefore no objective judgement of souls; no heaven or hell as commonly understood in the Christian tradition; no reason to be good when nobody is looking or nobody will know; no consolation as to the constant suffering in the real world; and for many people who have suffered much, no point in living. Suffice to say, I don’t understand how Death’s dialogue represents anything except nihilism. The penultimate line, Susan’s last line, is the essence of absurdism. Death’s response affirms the Absurd, and his previous description of morality as a lie throws out the possibility for Susan to make a leap of faith (if she is a philosopher). Traditionally this leaves the options of nihilism or suicide. Philosophers tend to throw out suicide so… Actually, it makes sense for a character named “Death” to accept the Absurd while rejecting religion and nihilism. That’s pretty smart from a literary perspective. Or maybe I haven’t got a clue. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/463 "2019-06-19T23:03:54Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > That sounds like a debate, which is all that I ask for. If you think they are being sincere, why would you laugh instead of saying “show me that God said it”? > > You don’t have to into the weeds if you can point out a previous debate on the matter, unless your religious opposite says they have more to add or the previous debate transcript is inaccessible. If they don’t have anything to add, then you can laugh, but I think it would be bad taste if they were sincere. > > ~Max But we never get to the issue, only to the justification for their position. I’m well aware they sincerely believe god said it. When they find they can’t support this position, then I can ask for secular arguments. If they don’t have any, then I can laugh. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/464 "2019-06-19T23:06:21Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Certainly not for the person who had the revelation! It’s bunk (meaningless) to you, not to them. > > ~Max So, you’re saying faith healing is not bunk because it is meaningful to the suckers who believe in it? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/465 "2019-06-19T23:23:42Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > TP, the author is speaking, and he is (was) unmistakably real. Yes, I know, although I am unfamiliar with the man and his works, and have no idea whether he was a nihilist or what. I believe the first time I heard of him was in the Defense of Dualism thread a couple months ago. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > He created an imaginary dialogue to illustrate a point about human existence and the need for a moral framework, which, while entirely “made up” does deal with the concepts of “right” and “wrong” and does tend to choose one over the other, usually (with countless notable exceptions) tending towards that which benefits the overall benefit/good/right/justice for all. I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. A given moral framework doesn’t factor into things unless people defer to that moral framework. What do you mean by “that which benefits the overall benefit/good/right/justice for all”? The moral framework defines what is a benefit/good/right/just. If you are saying people who choose moral acts tend to be moral according to the moral framework they are using, I will admit that tautology. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Futile when everything comes to an unavoidable end. But not until then. Which, again, IS EXACTLY THE POINT. Well now I’m doubly confused. Here I thought something that is ultimately futile is always futile. This is the central dillema of absurdism. So from my perspective we can just do a little edit: Futile when everything comes to an unavoidable end. […] Which, again, IS EXACTLY THE POINT. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > So, Max, are you a nihilist? I haven’t decided because I haven’t worked out my personal beliefs on epistemology. Being undecided is very close to epistemological nihilism, a form of skepticism, but it is not quite the same. But as I said before, I don’t even assume the tenets of nihilism in public policy debate, just like I do not assume the tenets of solipsism. Those philosophies are just so far removed from public policy that I find myself unable to form a political opinion while espousing their views. This is why I’m having trouble applying the Pratchett quote to the original topic. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2019, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/466 "2019-06-20T01:55:59Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. A given moral framework doesn’t factor into things unless people defer to that moral framework. What do you mean by “that which benefits the overall benefit/good/right/justice for all”? The moral framework defines what is a benefit/good/right/just. If you are saying people who choose moral acts tend to be moral according to the moral framework they are using, I will admit that tautology. You appear to be bending over backwards to accommodate all possible moral frameworks. In service of what? Don’t you discriminate at all? > [@Max\_S](#): > > Well now I’m doubly confused. Here I thought something that is ultimately futile is always futile. This is the central dillema of absurdism. So from my perspective we can just do a little edit: > Futile when everything comes to an unavoidable end. […] Which, again, IS EXACTLY THE POINT. No. The POINT is that morality exists DESPITE the seeming futility. And while we can make a pretty good guess that humanity’s expected survival is finite, it doesn’t mean that individual lives are futile. Humans, despite all their failings, tend to find meaning in life. And various forms of morality arise from that. Not all of which agree nor are all created equal. I think you have to admit that much. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I haven’t decided because I haven’t worked out my personal beliefs on epistemology. Being undecided is very close to epistemological nihilism, a form of skepticism, but it is not quite the same. > > But as I said before, I don’t even assume the tenets of nihilism in public policy debate, just like I do not assume the tenets of solipsism. Those philosophies are just so far removed from public policy that I find myself unable to form a political opinion while espousing their views. > > This is why I’m having trouble applying the Pratchett quote to the original topic. > > ~Max Well, let’s see then: If religion is a lie, like everything else, at the end of the day you’ve got to believe something - a moral framework you can live with (and fight for), or what’s the point? ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/467 "2019-06-20T19:30:04Z")
Max, I occasionally find myself in a discussion with somebody in which I explain my position seven ways from Sunday, every possible way I can think of, including in fashions that not only I but also other people in the discussion find perfectly clear; but the person I’m discussing it with can’t make any sense out of it. If other people think I’m making sense, then it’s not just a problem with my explanations. The likeliest conclusion I can come to (aside from the possiblity that the person’s not arguing in good faith or not reading/listening to my explanations in the first place) is that our heads work so differently that we’re never going to make sense to each other. I suspect that this is what’s going on here. In which case there’s not much sense in my trying, over and over again, to explain myself to somebody who’s in some ways living in a different universe. (You seem, by the way, to be living in a universe in which politicians who tell lies don’t get elected. On that particular issue, I wish I were too.) ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2019, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/468 "2019-06-20T19:44:29Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > (You seem, by the way, to be living in a universe in which politicians who tell lies don’t get elected. On that particular issue, I wish I were too.) It’s the, ‘_all moral frameworks are equal if you just bore down deep enough to their axiomatic roots_’, that makes me want to bang my head on the desk. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2019, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/469 "2019-06-21T00:11:47Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > It’s the, ‘_all moral frameworks are equal if you just bore down deep enough to their axiomatic roots_’, that makes me want to bang my head on the desk. That’s what I was trying to bring Pratchett to bear against. But I feel like I’m trying to use a Torx drive on a Phillips screw, or the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/470 "2019-06-23T19:48:28Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > May I take this as your concession (at last) that there are plenty of opportunities and venues for these kinds of discussions outside of the halls of congress where laws are debated/made? Conceded, although I never meant to give the impression that there are _not_ other opportunities and venues for religious discussions outside the halls of Congress. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/471 "2019-06-23T19:58:58Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I don’t doubt their sincerity (under most circumstances). But sincerity isn’t evidence. Perhaps you are wrong. Does there exist evidence as to whether an act is moral in the eyes of society? Is not the evidence simply whether your neighbors on balance say the act is moral? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/472 "2019-06-23T20:10:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But we never get to the issue, only to the justification for their position. I’m well aware they sincerely believe god said it. When they find they can’t support this position, then I can ask for secular arguments. > If they don’t have any, then I can laugh. I am well satisfied if you go to that length in debate, although I recommend caution when challenging religious axioms with secular arguments, and I do not agree about the laughing as a matter of taste. If you wish to go on discussing our differences in these matters I would be glad to continue, otherwise I am willing to set aside our differences as you would debate religious arguments down to the axioms at least. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/473 "2019-06-23T20:12:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So, you’re saying faith healing is not bunk because it is meaningful to the suckers who believe in it? You misunderstand, I am saying faith healing is not bunk from the perspective of the suckers who believe in it. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/474 "2019-06-23T20:40:47Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > You appear to be bending over backwards to accommodate all possible moral frameworks. In service of what? Don’t you discriminate at all? I bend over backwards to accommodate all possible moral frameworks in service of my own ignorance as to what is _actually_ moral and what is _actually_ immoral. I have ideas as to what is moral and what is immoral, but ultimately I don’t know if my beliefs are _true_, and this is a consequence of my own inadequate personal epistemology. That doesn’t mean my reaction to a tragic event is “so it goes” or “maybe he did the right thing”. Usually unless I try very hard to think like a philosopher I will take as an _axiom_ some basic principles of religion, and let habit walk right over the cognitive dissonance. I try not to do that when discussing philosophy. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > And while we can make a pretty good guess that humanity’s expected survival is finite, it doesn’t mean that individual lives are futile. Humans, despite all their failings, tend to find meaning in life. And various forms of morality arise from that. Not all of which agree nor are all created equal. I think you have to admit that much. Just remember that you’re standing on a planet that’s evolving and revolving at nine hundred miles an hour… > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Well, let’s see then: If religion is a lie, like everything else, at the end of the day you’ve got to believe something - a moral framework you can live with (and fight for), or what’s the point? Just admitting that there is no inherent moral framework is to embrace the absurd. To also reject religion and the supernatural is to accept nihilism. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether you make lemonade. Really, I do understand what you are saying. You think life is inherently meaningless and people themselves add meaning. I think that’s a form of nihilism too, specifically existential nihilism. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/475 "2019-06-23T20:44:58Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > I suspect that this is what’s going on here. In which case there’s not much sense in my trying, over and over again, to explain myself to somebody who’s in some ways living in a different universe. I’m sorry to hear that, and it is probably me who doesn’t understand something. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > (You seem, by the way, to be living in a universe in which politicians who tell lies don’t get elected. On that particular issue, I wish I were too.) I was probably discussing what _ought_ to be. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/476 "2019-06-23T20:58:11Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > That’s what I was trying to bring Pratchett to bear against. But I feel like I’m trying to use a Torx drive on a Phillips screw, or the other way around. Oh, now I see what you meant to add by bringing in Pratchett. I must only point out that many religious people disagree with the Death character when he says there is no natural order of things; they might say that justice, mercy, and duty are _real_ although immaterial. If faced with irrefutable evidence that religion is a lie, I have no doubt that many people would indeed choose death over nihilism, even existential nihilism. I would venture to say many intentional suicides can be attributed to this exact reason. Have you read _The Sound and the Fury_ by William Faulkner? Though fictitious, I identify Quentin as someone of this character. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/477 "2019-06-23T23:12:19Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > You misunderstand, I am saying faith healing is not bunk from the perspective of the suckers who believe in it. > > ~Max So is astrology. So is anti-vaxx. So is the Flat Earth. Should all of these things be given equal footing with verified science in the public debate? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/478 "2019-06-23T23:16:04Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Iotherwise I am willing to set aside our differences as you would debate religious arguments down to the axioms at least. > > ~Max I’m definitely willing to do that, for efficiency if nothing else. If religious people have n positions, all based on religious axioms, then the best way to refute their justification is to refute the religious axioms. I was under the impression that you thought debating axioms was improper in some way. If I was mistaken about this, then we’re good. ---
**Author:** ![Boycott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boycott/32/6741_2.png) [@Boycott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boycott)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2019, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/479 "2019-06-24T09:57:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Dear White Evangelicals, > > I need to tell you something: People have had it with you. > > They’re done. > > They want nothing to do with you any longer, and here’s why: > > They see your hypocrisy, your inconsistency, your incredibly selective mercy, and your thinly veiled supremacy. > > For eight years they watched you relentlessly demonize a black President; a man faithfully married for 26 years; a doting father and husband without a hint of moral scandal or the slightest whiff of infidelity. > > They watched you deny his personal faith convictions, argue his birthplace, and assail his character—all without cause or evidence. They saw you brandish Scriptures to malign him and use the laziest of racial stereotypes in criticizing him. > > And through it all, White Evangelicals—you never once suggested that God placed him where he was, > you never publicly offered prayers for him and his family, > you never welcomed him to your Christian Universities, > you never gave him the benefit of the doubt in any instance, > you never spoke of offering him forgiveness or mercy, > your evangelists never publicly thanked God for his leadership, > your pastors never took to the pulpit to offer solidarity with him, > you never made any effort to affirm his humanity or show the love of Jesus to him in any quantifiable measure. > > You violently opposed him at every single turn—without offering a single ounce of the grace you claim as the heart of your faith tradition. You jettisoned Jesus as you dispensed damnation on him. > > And yet you give carte blanche to a white Republican man so riddled with depravity, so littered with extramarital affairs, so unapologetically vile, with such a vast resume of moral filth—that the mind boggles. > > And the change in you is unmistakable. It has been an astonishing conversion to behold: a being born again. > > With him, you suddenly find religion. > With him, you’re now willing to offer full absolution. > With him, all is forgiven without repentance or admission. > With him you’re suddenly able to see some invisible, deeply buried heart. > With him, sin has become unimportant, compassion no longer a requirement. > With him, you see only Providence. > > And White Evangelicals, all those people who have had it with you—they see it all clearly. > > They recognize the toxic source of your inconsistency. > > They see that pigmentation and party are your sole deities. > They see that you aren’t interested in perpetuating the love of God or emulating the heart of Jesus. > They see that you aren’t burdened to love the least, or to be agents of compassion, or to care for your Muslim, gay, African, female, or poor neighbors as yourself. > They see that all you’re really interested in doing, is making a God in your own ivory image and demanding that the world bow down to it. > They recognize this all about white, Republican Jesus—not dark-skinned Jesus of Nazareth. > > And I know you don’t realize it, but you’re digging your own grave in these days; the grave of your very faith tradition. > > Your willingness to align yourself with cruelty is a costly marriage. Yes, you’ve gained a Supreme Court seat, a few months with the Presidency as a mouthpiece, and the cheap high of temporary power—but you’ve lost a whole lot more. > > You’ve lost an audience with millions of wise, decent, good-hearted, faithful people with eyes to see this ugliness. > You’ve lost any moral high ground or spiritual authority with a generation. > You’ve lost any semblance of Christlikeness. > You’ve lost the plot. > And most of all you’ve lost your soul. > > I know it’s likely you’ll dismiss these words. The fact that you’ve even made your bed with such malevolence, shows how far gone you are and how insulated you are from the reality in front of you. > > But I had to at least try to reach you. It’s what Jesus would do. > > Maybe you need to read what he said again—if he still matters to you. > **[White Evangelicals, This is Why People Are Through With You](https://johnpavlovitz.com/2018/01/24/white-evangelicals-people/)** > > Dear White Evangelicals, I need to tell you something: People have had it with you. They’re done. They want nothing to do with you any longer, and here’s why: They see your hypocrisy, your inconsistency, your incredibly selective mercy, and your... ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/480 "2019-06-24T16:27:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So is astrology. So is anti-vaxx. So is the Flat Earth. Should all of these things be given equal footing with verified science in the public debate? Not quite, I think the “footing” _should_ be proportional to the number of people who espouse those views. So let’s pretend half of the country is anti-vaccination while the other half is pro-vaccination. Then the totality of public debate on that matter _should_ be split evenly between both sides. Presumably the pro-vaccination arguments are more persuasive and over time more people will support vaccination than oppose it, and that trend will continue until anti-vaccination is a fringe position (as it is currently I believe, on a national level). In public debate anti-vaccination might not have any followers in the legislature, and thus public debate on anti-vaccination measures is limited to fringe groups. Then the law should support stronger vaccination policy. Now pretend the opposite happens. If anti-vaccination arguments prove to be more persuasive and support for vaccines becomes a fringe position, less people will argue in support of vaccines, and the law should support weaker vaccination policy. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=25)