Does, and should, religion influence politics?

[Greendruid]

This occurred last week and I guess I was too distracted to post it. Our federal Science and Technology minister, Gary Goodyear, decided to play political games (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/03/18/tech-090318-gary-goodyear-evolution.html) with what I think is a key matter in politics. Knowledge of one's portfolio should be at the top of the list of qualifications for ministers in government or ... (can't remember the American equivalent at the moment). At any rate, his later comments (http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2009/03/18/tech-090318-gary-goodyear-evolution-scientists.html) seem to bring about the real reason why he wouldn't comment on this issue at first.

So the question and pulse of this OP is does, and should, religion influence politics? As a specific sub-question to this, if the science minister of a government doesn't agree with or hold true the scientific theories of the people that depend upon that portfolio for funding, is this irresponsible government?

Play nicely :)

[Michael]

So the question and pulse of this OP is does, and should, religion influence politics?
In my personal opinion, I say 'categorically no'.

However, I will also assert that religion has every right to try to influence politics so long as the process is legal and democratically supported.

As a specific sub-question to this, if the science minister of a government doesn't agree with or hold true the scientific theories of the people that depend upon that portfolio for funding, is this irresponsible government?
I see no reason to agree here. If the people choose to be represented by a bunch of evolution-denying, heads-in-the-sand, global-warming denying anti-science type politicians, then that's the 'ruling philosophy' that the government has a democratic obligation to follow.

I firmly believe that an anti-science government has every right to eliminate all subsidies for scientists.

[phungus420]

So then do you phillosophically appose the 1st ammendment separtion of church and state clause of the United States Constitution?

[SMadsen]

I see no reason to agree here. If the people choose to be represented by a bunch of evolution-denying, heads-in-the-sand, global-warming denying anti-science type politicians, then that's the 'ruling philosophy' that the government has a democratic obligation to follow.
I agree, but then it must also take the consequences of the foolishness of the choice of representation. In this case, IF mr. Goodyear is a creationist nutjob and IF it affects the office he holds then it must be accepted that the purpose of the science ministry becomes that of an anti-science ministry. Which is fine, of course, but only as long as it's what government wants. In any other case, new dispositions must be made.

[SMadsen]

So the question and pulse of this OP is does, and should, religion influence politics?
Saying that religion must not influence politics is the same as saying that religion must not influence people that influence politics. Which, in effect, is the same as saying that people must not influence politics. And that would of course be a rather bizarre situation :)

[dilettante]

So the question and pulse of this OP is does, and should, religion influence politics?

I'd have to say yes, religion both does and should influence politics.

That religion does influence politics seems to be patently obvious from looking at the news.

Religion should influence politics because, at the very least, religion has a massive influence on the thoughts and actions of billions of people. To disregard religion in making political decisions would be supremely foolhardy.


As a specific sub-question to this, if the science minister of a government doesn't agree with or hold true the scientific theories of the people that depend upon that portfolio for funding, is this irresponsible government?

Certainly not. Matters of religion aside, there's no reason that the science minister must agree with the theories of any scientist who wants money from the government.

If the people feel strongly enough that the state should be funding something which the current minister refuses to fund, doubtless in time the minister will be replaced. But I feel uncomfortable with the notion that the government is somehow responsible for funding scientific research.

[Michael]

So then do you phillosophically appose the 1st ammendment separtion of church and state clause of the United States Constitution?
Well, I know that you know as well as I do that there is no such thing in the US Constitution! ;)

Alas, I wish it were stated exactly so, but I certainly am a 100% supporter of the 'non-establishment' clause as it does exist in the 1st Ammendment.

[Michael]

I agree, but then it must also take the consequences of the foolishness of the choice of representation. In this case, IF mr. Goodyear is a creationist nutjob and IF it affects the office he holds then it must be accepted that the purpose of the science ministry becomes that of an anti-science ministry. Which is fine, of course, but only as long as it's what government wants. In any other case, new dispositions must be made.

Well, the whole issue is rather 'political' in Canada. The present Conservative minority government is, technically speaking, a very new political party (less than 20 years, actually less than 10) - one born with very strong Christian evangelical association at its heart. This party has been forced to change its name (couple of times) and now enforces a very strict party-discipline in order to keep this 'quiet' and out of public awareness.

The more the voting public knows about the strong evangelical Christian values of many members of this political party (specifically, its MP's) the more it looses at the ballot box. The success of the present version of the party comes from having a leader (Stephen Harper) who has no official associations with any evangelical movements - and who is obsessive about party discipline and message control (and a public vow to avoid all "gays, abortion and immigration" issues where the public doesn't trust/agree with him or his party - they've lost several elections in a row when they mention these three topics - Harper totally freezes out these topics).

That's the political 'context' to this issue. Many of PM Harper's cabinet ministers are in fact evangelical Christians and at least one is known to be a 'creationist' (who claims the world is only 6000 years old - former leader of the party no less!). Harper's government works very hard to keep this off the public radar.

[Michael]

...But I feel uncomfortable with the notion that the government is somehow responsible for funding scientific research.
Indeed! It is a democratically supported policy choice - nothing more, nothing less. I do support it, but I don't agree that government is responsible or required to fund any of it.

[SMadsen]

Certainly not. Matters of religion aside, there's no reason that the science minister must agree with the theories of any scientist who wants money from the government.
That's a given, I think. The more important question is whether or not one who holds an office that concerns scientific matters and who doesn't have a clear notion of what science is should stay in such an office.

If the people feel strongly enough that the state should be funding something which the current minister refuses to fund, doubtless in time the minister will be replaced. But I feel uncomfortable with the notion that the government is somehow responsible for funding scientific research.
I feel quite comfortable with the notion that the government is responsible for funding scientific research. In fact, if it wasn't for the self-regulating properties of science, I would feel very uncomfortable with a notion that scientific research was exclusively based on private interests.

Reason is, of course, that lives are actually dependent upon such research and I'm rather uncomfortable with the notion that these lives are to be in the hands of purely economic interests. Hence the vast array of control entities surrounding every privately based branch of research. Such as medicine, for instance.

[dilettante]

That's a given, I think. The more important question is whether or not one who holds an office that concerns scientific matters and who doesn't have a clear notion of what science is should stay in such an office.

Well, certainly, if someone dosn't understand what science is then I'd say they're unqualified to be minister of science and I wouldn't be inclined to appoint them to that post. I just don't think there should be some official checklist of "scientific" facts one must affirm in order to be eligible for the position.
Whoever's appointing/electing someone to that post can, of course, have their own litmus tests, but that's another matter.


I feel quite comfortable with the notion that the government is responsible for funding scientific research. In fact, if it wasn't for the self-regulating properties of science, I would feel very uncomfortable with a notion that scientific research was exclusively based on private interests.

Reason is, of course, that lives are actually dependent upon such research and I'm rather uncomfortable with the notion that these lives are to be in the hands of purely economic interests. Hence the vast array of control entities surrounding every privately based branch of research. Such as medicine, for instance.

I have no problem with government funding research; in fact I'm glad they do. But, in agreement with Michael, I see it was something that can be done or not done based on whether the people want it, not a core responsibility of government qua government.
And, personally, I don't put much more trust in the hands of political interests than I do in the hands of economic interests.