why dont some people understand the importance of basing policy decisions on objective evidence...............

Question

instead of middle eastern superstition?

africa has a religious policy on contraception, and look at the chaos and mass death caused by AIDS because of it!

people can practice their religion, but religion should NOT influence political policy, because religious belief is NOT based on objective evidence

the scandinavian countries have the most successful societies in the world because of a strong sense of social responsibility and NO meddling and interfering from religious groups

the USA is a disjointed mess of a society because it is the exact opposite to countries like sweden - no sense of social responsibility and considerable influence from religious groups. heck, the man in charge is a christian fundamentalist who gets his instructions from an imaginary space ghost with gas legs!

insane!

a quick look at rates of poverty and crime and murder and healthcare performance etc will demonstrate the difference between USA and scandinavia in glorious technicolour

yeah - it has better education because it believes in providing education for EVERYONE, whereas the USA way is to profit from EVERYTHING

like i say, more socially responsible!

Answer 1

Had HIV been contained the way outbreaks are today, most people would have never heard of AIDS. Instead, policy makers at the time ignored the outbreak since it was only infecting a group that they felt were immoral. Today such foolishness isn't permitted and anyone doing such a thing would most likely be fired. It's a shame it cost hundreds of millions of lives to get such a sensible policy.

Answer 2

Objective influence is paramount to a successful government. Individuals may be encouraged to decide upon constitutional matters based on their faith but they must concede that the final decision must be secular in order to benefit society as a whole. The practising of their faith is a decision made by an individual and should not be forced upon other people with opposing or differing mindsets.

This is the only way a country can thrive. I have heard it argued (largely by American hardcore God worshippers) that society would fall into an immoral pit of decay without the influence of Christianity, for example, within the White House. Yet the Bush Administration is currently leading one of the most bloody Holy Wars yet.

Furthermore, I practice no religion, yet my larger community and I have decent morals and good judgement based on the continuous prosperity and happiness of my surrounding community.

Religion didn't teach me that, but rather, humanity and the ability to weigh up a situation in a rational and un-biased manner brought me to that conclusion.

Answer 3

I think you hit the nail on the head in a lot of ways here.

The way I see it is: When religion influences policy, it does so from its own moral or ethical standpoint without actually looking at both sides of the equation.

IE: the pope on contraception.

While the logical standpoint here is:

"While we disagree with contraception, we feel that greater good is done to the human race by accepting its use"

rather than:

"All contraception is a sin against god - don't do it. We don't care that it's is an effective way to stop the spread of disease because it is against part of our theological views"

Basically they disregard human life to uphold religious dogma, and they do this only to save face. To change their minds on this would (to them and others) be admitting a policy error and thats the last thing religious organisations are likely to do. To be honest, I would have a LOT more respect for the pope and the multitude that hang off his every word if he did change his mind here.

It is a lot easier to change a theological view on human nature than it is to change human nature to fit theology.

The total separation of church and state is the greatest step the world could take towards a just global society. Not holding my breath though.

Answer 4

The US is still secular, even though there are a few laws on the books that have no secular purpose. They are fairly limited and rarely enforced.

Scandinavia has much better education than the US, which I would say accounts for the poverty and crime stats more than anything else.

Answer 5

Because objective evidence alone is not sufficient to come to any decisions at all. The objective evidence can only guide your decisions once you have decided what your aims and principles are. If you have no principles, no aims, objective evidence is useless.

You also have your facts wrong about Africa.

Answer 6

Objective evidence removes their emotional security (their religion), which is more important to them than a properly functioning government. This is made plain by seeing that there are still people who think the Bush administration has done a good job, simply because he is anti-abortion.

Answer 7

I wonder if anyone in the next batch of politicians base their govt policies on objective evidence. If not, I might start looking into living in Sweden myself.

Answer 8

You make good sense I agree with you!
Some people feel very insecure & are easily manipulated by those who hide behind religious dogma!

Answer 9

It sounds like you have found your calling.

Try to imagine what it would take to correct this in a manner that will be received by all and you'll get the Nobel prize.

Answer 10

move to Scandinavia then- you are free to do so.

Africa's AIDS epidemic has nothign to do with the policy on contraception- whether or not a policy is in place, each person has a choice to engage in risky and inappropriate behavior.

Real social responsibility is the ability to have self control.

A person that has sex with ten people and uses contraception and abortion to "clean up" their irresponsibility is not any more 'socially responsible' or morally superior to someone who doesn't.

Self control is the key - it's quite simple.