Religious debate: one of many influences

Over at Lib Dem Voice, debate has been forthright about whether Scotland's Catholic leader was right to threaten to exclude politicians who disagree with that church's position on abortion. Setting aside that issue itself, I don't see a problem with a church leader being outspoken (as I have explained at Lib Dem Voice). We need more public debate not less, provided all views get a hearing.

One contributor commented: "...religious freaks who think your moral duty to do X, as a committed member of a religion, means you also have a duty to coerce other people to do X."

That sounds like what political freaks do, except we call it "party policy" not "moral duty"!

I was going to say that the main difference between religion and politics is that the consequences that are (alleged) to follow from not going along with religious beliefs are usually worse. (But then I am reminded that death for many was the ACTUAL consequence of not going with along some political ideologies in the recent past.)

In the realm of public policy, is it tenable to say that faith/belief should play no role? Is faith not just one of many prejudices that we all bring to any matter under debate? Sometimes they are prejudices written down in books over 1000 years ago; sometimes we get them from our parents or friends. Are one set more important than the other?

Take global warming. And I don't mean the debate about whether humans are making a difference or not. I mean the bigger issue: the view that global warming matters. Is it a FACT that it matters or just one of belief, albeit a belief shared by most? It only really matters if one is bothered about future generations. Is it a matter of religious faith that I believe I have a responsibility to them? Or because my parents taught me to care about others? If I had no children, would it matter less to me?

I agree with Andy's hope that one day choice of religion will be as relevant as choice of football team. They both have symbols, chants, and a belief (usually irrational!) in the supremacy of their team. But we all know that football is not a matter of life and death: it is much more important than that!

Is the only difference between religious belief and political principle the length of time since the ideas were first articulated? Or perhaps the difference is the number of people who subscribe to them? Or perhaps it is the degree to which a position is supported by evidence? Or is it about what I will do to you if you disagree with me? Is there a spectrum that goes: religion then political principle then science? Do they overlap at the edges?

I guess I end at that fundamental liberal principle: you can believe whatever you like provided you respect my right to disagree. I hold that view whether your beliefs are written in an ancient book or because your mate in the pub convinced you. The problem, of course, comes when YOUR belief leads you to action with which I disagree. Do I have a right to stop you? And that's where society / democracy / politics comes in to decide.

I could go on (e.g. Why are some public policy issues matters of conscience and some not? Are faith schools damaging to the cohesion of society?) but I would be here all night.