# Does religion have a place in public debate?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 490

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 25, 2019, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/490 "2019-06-25T02:55:44Z")

</div>

> [@Voyager](#):
>
> So it is okay with you that public policy be based on bad science? And eugenics is bad science.

I don’t think it’s right for public policy to be based on bad science, that is my instinct. But when I think about it, who has the right to determine whether a science is moral or good? Certainly I think eugenics is an immoral science, but if the public at large thinks otherwise do I have the right to storm the Capitol? This then begs the question as to whether public policy should be based on science at all, and I tend to think the answer is _no_. Rather, public policy ought to be based on morals (or ethics, but I consider ethics to be a subset of morals while you use a different definition).

And then of course I think, maybe there is no such thing as a moral or immoral science. **Voyager** must have meant “invalid” when writing “bad”. To this I respond that not all forms of eugenics are scientifically _invalid_. Consider the forced sterilization of those positively identified with Huntington’s disease along with mandatory screening for their immediate family. According to Wikipedia up to 10% of people with Huntington’s disease acquired it from a new mutation, the other 90% would inherit the disease. As a matter of science, I hypothesize that forced sterilization and mandatory screening would, over time, reduce the number of people with the disease.

Of course, I think such a scheme is wildly unethical. But why? Because people have the right to reproduce, the right to privacy, and besides, people can live a full and happy life without ever noticing they have the disease. But why do people have those rights?

~Max

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709)._