Should religious beliefs preclude holding public office?

[Nearly Sane]

Following on from discussions elsewhere, I thought a poll might be in order. Since it might be difficult to be precise people have 2 votes but you don't have to use them. I would be interested if people expand on their reasoning. My basic answer is no, and while I believe certain beliefs are an issue, the fact that they might be religious does not seem relevant in itself. Hence as I covered elsewhere a primary school teacher who argues for sex with 5 year olds should be  stopped from being a primary school teacher regardless of whether the views are based on a religion.

[Walter]

either all religious beliefs are acceptable , which poses many risks  or none are acceptable , which eliminates those risks .

plus , I simply  despise all religious beliefs because they are just that , beliefs . Totally unsupported by ANY evidence .

I personally would not trust them in public office for that reason

[Gordon]

I say 'No': I know people with religious beliefs who I would happily entrust with the welfare of my family and I can think of one atheist that, if we still had a dog, I be worried about asking him to take said dog for a walk.

As a category 'has religious beliefs' is too broad, as is 'has no religious beliefs', to be useful in terms of individuals: and when in comes to public office I'd imagine that factors such as proven competence and relevant experience are more important, and that these aspects are likely to figure more with the electorate and in any appointment process.

In addition, in my experience, those capable of public office or senior public service positions are able to balance their personal views with public responsibilities, and if they don't then there are process where concerns can be raised. I've had experience of one senior NHS manager recusing themselves from discussion and decisions on a matter that involved their personal religious beliefs.

The problem with 'broad brushes' is that everything gets covered in paint irrespective of whether or not painting was required.

[Walter]

I say 'No': I know people with religious beliefs who I would happily entrust with the welfare of my family and I can think of one atheist that, if we still had a dog, I be worried about asking him to take said dog for a walk.

As a category 'has religious beliefs' is too broad, as is 'has no religious beliefs', to be useful in terms of individuals: and when in comes to public office I'd imagine that factors such as proven competence and relevant experience are more important, and that these aspects are likely to figure more with the electorate and in any appointment process.

In addition, in my experience, those capable of public office or senior public service positions are able to balance their personal views with public responsibilities, and if they don't then there are process where concerns can be raised. I've had experience of one senior NHS manager recusing themselves from discussion and decisions on a matter that involved their personal religious beliefs.

The problem with 'broad brushes' is that everything gets covered in paint irrespective of whether or not painting was required.

that's all well and good Gordon , but your experience is based on what HAS happened but what about the future ?

That's what concerns me .

[Robbie]

Earlier I was looking at previous prime ministers who had private, religious beliefs.  None were extreme in any way, no-one seemed to mind - or even care.  We're not like America where politicians have to parade their beliefs and make statements about them. I cannot imagine someone who proselytised being elected over here, it's 'unEnglish'.  We don't talk about religion and our own money!

Of particular interest to me were Gordon Brown and - one from my childhood, much liked by my parents - Harold Wilson.

So I voted, "No".

[Nearly Sane]

that's all well and good Gordon , but your experience is based on what HAS happened but what about the future ?

That's what concerns me .

So Gordon 's argument is based on experience, your argument is based on bigotry and for that you want to make all religious people second class citizens, and create apartheid. 

[Stranger]

I went for "For certain roles only and certain beliefs".

I agree with NS that there are wider beliefs that would also be problematic but the fact that some of them would be classified as 'religious' prevents me from choosing the unqualified 'No' answer to the question as stated. Some religious beliefs should preclude holding some public offices.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, you don't want somebody who regards the Apocalypse as a good thing in charge of nuclear weapons and (for another example) you wouldn't want somebody who thinks demon possession is a widespread problem in charge of the mental health budget.

[ProfessorDavey]

I say 'No': I know people with religious beliefs who I would happily entrust with the welfare of my family and I can think of one atheist that, if we still had a dog, I be worried about asking him to take said dog for a walk.

As a category 'has religious beliefs' is too broad, as is 'has no religious beliefs', to be useful in terms of individuals: and when in comes to public office I'd imagine that factors such as proven competence and relevant experience are more important, and that these aspects are likely to figure more with the electorate and in any appointment process.

In addition, in my experience, those capable of public office or senior public service positions are able to balance their personal views with public responsibilities, and if they don't then there are process where concerns can be raised. I've had experience of one senior NHS manager recusing themselves from discussion and decisions on a matter that involved their personal religious beliefs.

The problem with 'broad brushes' is that everything gets covered in paint irrespective of whether or not painting was required.

That's right - it is far more nuanced.

It is more than just about the individual and their belief (whether religious or otherwise) it is critically about how they bring that belief to the table within public office, and also the effect that has on their ability to do their job.

So if someone takes a decision to park their (private) beliefs at the door when performing their public function then that will be much easier to justify than someone who takes an approach whereby they feel they must stamp their belief on the role.

Also the effect on doing the job is important, as gaining the confidence of stakeholders is often critical to doing a public role. So it would be challenging, for example, for a young earth creationist to be an effective minister for science as they would likely have grave difficulty in gaining the confidence of the scientific community.

[Nearly Sane]

That's right - it is far more nuanced.

It is more than just about the individual and their belief (whether religious or otherwise) it is critically about how they bring that belief to the table within public office, and also the effect that has on their ability to do their job.

So if someone takes a decision to park their (private) beliefs at the door when performing their public function then that will be much easier to justify than someone who takes an approach whereby they feel they must stamp their belief on the role.

Also the effect on doing the job is important, as gaining the confidence of stakeholders is often critical to doing a public role. So it would be challenging, for example, for a young earth creationist to be an effective minister for science as they would likely have grave difficulty in gaining the confidence of the scientific community.

or indeed a Minister for Health who thinks homeopathy has some worth.

[Walter]

So Gordon 's argument is based on experience, your argument is based on bigotry and for that you want to make all religious people second class citizens, and create apartheid.

I find that extremely offensive .You have made incorrect assumptions about me and used language of a contemptible nature  ,

I want you to withdraw that comment and apologise

[Nearly Sane]

I went for "For certain roles only and certain beliefs".

I agree with NS that there are wider beliefs that would also be problematic but the fact that some of them would be classified as 'religious' prevents me from choosing the unqualified 'No' answer to the question as stated. Some religious beliefs should preclude holding some public offices.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, you don't want somebody who regards the Apocalypse as a good thing in charge of nuclear weapons and (for another example) you wouldn't want somebody who thinks demon possession is a widespread problem in charge of the mental health budget.

Surely though the point is that it isn't religious beliefs, it is simply what beliefs are acceptable. That one might be branded religious as opposed to not religious is irrelevant. It is the individual and their beliefs that are important not the classification.

[Nearly Sane]

I find that extremely offensive .You have made incorrect assumptions about me and used language of a contemptible nature  ,

I want you to withdraw that comment and apologise

I haven't made any assumption. It is based on your statement that you want to ban religious people from public roles as a class. That's apartheid. You can be offended as you like but it's just what comes of your position.

[ProfessorDavey]

or indeed a Minister for Health who thinks homeopathy has some worth.

Yes - although the approach taken again is important.

So someone who believes in homoeopathy but takes the view that this is a personal belief and parks it at the door when service the public function of health minister may well be fine. That may act in a professional capacity on the basis of accepting that conventional medicine alone should be supported as part of their health brief, even though their private belief is different. Indeed if they treat this as very much a private view then we are likely to be none the wiser as to their views on homeopathy.

[Stranger]

Surely though the point is that it isn't religious beliefs, it is simply what beliefs are acceptable. That one might be branded religious as opposed to not religious is irrelevant. It is the individual and their beliefs that are important not the classification.

Indeed - but if you answer 'no' to the question 'Should religious beliefs preclude holding public office?' - that might well be taken to mean that there are no religious beliefs that are unacceptable in any public office; that if a belief can be called 'religious' it is automatically acceptable.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed - but if you answer 'no' to the question 'Should religious beliefs preclude holding public office?' - that might well be taken to mean that there are no religious beliefs that are unacceptable in any public office; that if a belief can be called 'religious' it is automatically acceptable.

It's almost impossible to phrase that clearly, and I take your point. I think though that the very classification of religious beliefs as being unaceoryavke rather than beliefs is a mirror of the claim that that should be specially privileged by thinking that they should suffer some special opprobrium.

[Rhiannon]

I haven't made any assumption. It is based on your statement that you want to ban religious people from public roles as a class. That's apartheid. You can be offended as you like but it's just what comes of your position.

The thing is, religious people don’t choose to believe. So to exclude them across the board is to exclude them because of who they are.

It’s possible to be religious and also secular when in public office. If someone abuses their position by pushing a particular agenda then that is a misuse of office, but that’s not something confined to the religious.

[Sriram]

Rational thinking is not really equal to balance and wisdom. 

We know that pure rational thinking is too narrow to solve most real life problems. People with religious beliefs (any religion) tend to rely more on their intuition than on pure rationality. This is a good thing for most decision making at higher levels.

I am not talking of religious fanatics of course.

[Robbie]

Rhiannon:- It’s possible to be religious and also secular when in public office. If someone abuses their position by pushing a particular agenda then that is a misuse of office, but that’s not something confined to the religious.

Agree Rhiannon. On the whole we'd mind our own business about personal beliefs, if someone in public office starting pushing them they'd soon find themselves out of office.  Our past PMs, good and bad, who had personal religious faith got on fine because they upheld the law & democracy, as far as it goes, and were not fanatical.  They also didn't sit in judgement on anyone with a different lifestyle, their religion was for them.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I voted "no".

I would agree that any belief can be problematic if it clashes with the beliefs of the prevailing culture. So for example French laws did not define that having sex with a person below a fixed age would automatically be rape. Now the government has defined that age as 15 but were originally debating an age between 13 and 15. In this country it might be more problematic if someone held public office and believed that consensual sex with a 13 year old was not rape, but in France the government seem to have been able to have that debate.

Which leads me to the question - what happens if the public office requires the holder to push a particular belief on the public? If the government had decided on 13 instead of 15 and the person holding the public office was required to push this belief onto people who thought 13 was too young for consensual sex, what's the difference between that and pushing any other belief while in public office on people who disagreed with that belief?

What's the difference between saying "I think sex with a consenting 13 year old is ok" and "I believe the Bible says child marriages were ok in the time of Isaac and David so it may be ok to have sex with a consenting 13 year old"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rhiannon:- It’s possible to be religious and also secular when in public office. If someone abuses their position by pushing a particular agenda then that is a misuse of office, but that’s not something confined to the religious.

Agree Rhiannon. On the whole we'd mind our own business about personal beliefs, if someone in public office starting pushing them they'd soon find themselves out of office.  Our past PMs, good and bad, who had personal religious faith got on fine because they upheld the law & democracy, as far as it goes, and were not fanatical.  They also didn't sit in judgement on anyone with a different lifestyle, their religion was for them.

Your post seems to me to be written understandably in the context that being religious is automatically suspect. Surely it is fundamentalism which is suspect? Nevertheless hopefully atheists will come to an awareness that, "yes, we didn't do our best by the theist by treating them in casual conversation, and our institutions and in our secularism as though they were odd and suspect".

[ProfessorDavey]

It would be useful to know where there are currently any public offices or public sector (state funded) jobs which religious people are banned from holding purely on the basis of them being religious (rather than any beliefs arising thereof). Perhaps there are, but I cannot think of any.

There are, of course, thousands of public sector jobs which atheists are not permitted to hold, purely on the basis of them being atheist.

[Nearly Sane]

It would be useful to know where there are currently any public offices or public sector (state funded) jobs which religious people are banned from holding purely on the basis of them being religious (rather than any beliefs arising thereof). Perhaps there are, but I cannot think of any.

There are, of course, thousands of public sector jobs which atheists are not permitted to hold, purely on the basis of them being atheist.

Ah yes, good point Prof D - It would be interesting to see if anyone wants to justify that, and of course it's not just atheists that might be excluded.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah yes, good point Prof D - It would be interesting to see if anyone wants to justify that, and of course it's not just atheists that might be excluded.

Presumably a humanist or atheist foundation school would have exactly the same the same legal status as a church or religious foundation school.

[Nearly Sane]

Presumably a humanist or atheist foundation school would have exactly the same the same legal status as a church or religious foundation school.

That it could ban people because of their religion as you seem to want to support? I would doubt that. But at least we  see that you want to support apartheid in the job market consistently.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That it could ban people because of their religion as you seem to want to support? I would doubt that. But at least we  see that you want to support apartheid in the job market consistently.

Privilege, apartheid......... where next is nearly sane going to take this Dodgem which has Professor Davey straddling Teddy Boy like.