WRT to the 'government' issue. No government should allow religious beliefs to influence them. A government should run a country for the people, all people, regardless of religion, sex, sexual-preference etc. To allow religious beliefs into a debate regarding how a country should be run opens up the possibility of introducing laws which are unethical.
Here's one from a country where religion defines law:
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/200...ns-new-law-allowing-men-to-rape-their-wives/"
http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/04/19/update-new-afghan-law-does-not-permit-rape-but-permits-starvation-of-wives-who-withhold-sex/"
I also believe the US constitution states religion and law should remain seperate. Any person in politics should leave their religious beliefs to the side when discussing the running of a country and defining new laws.
Until someone provides evidence that backs up any religious claims, they should be dismissed. I would like to note I hold this view of all things, scientific included. No evidence to show me, no belief from me. Simple.
When I say some biases are needed, I mean so long as they are justifiable and acceptable (. A bias, as someone put earlier of 'the holocaust being right' is certainly not acceptable and should play no part. You say meter, well ok, let's set it shall we, if you can provide clear evidence which backs up your hypothesis/theory etc., then it becomes acceptable to have a bias towards that belief. If however you cannot, which is the way religions and most crackpot ideals are, then they should not be acceptable and influence any decision making that occurs.
Your poverty example is one where people do have evidence to back it up, (poor housing, healthcare and so on), and yes, it should influence their vote for a party who will help them. Where as a person who says "i won't vote for (example) labour because they advocate teaching evolution in schools" is forming that opinion purely on the back of unproven religious beliefs or un conventional beliefs in a far fetched creation idea.
Right, more of a political thing than anything else on global warming here. But let's ignore GW for now and let me give my opinion on democracy, so you can see things (hopefully) as I see them.
I like democracy, everyone gets a say in what goes on. But, to me it's a good concept but not a good solution when it comes to running a country. You see I think only people who actually understand the subject matter at hand very well, and, the people who the proposal will affect should be allowed to vote on them. Let's say, the government wants to build two nuclear reactors in south england. Now, they put it to the vote on the subject. I understand the people around the areas they will be built in getting a say, and I understand the scientists for and against them getting a say. But I don't see why a scottish highlands sheep farmer should get a say in the matter, they don't directly affect him and unless he's hiding his credentials well, he isn't going to have a comprehensive knowledge nuclear power. To me, his vote is not worth anything as it will be purely opinion based. Opinions which may be biased strongly based on false information.
A bias, based on a good, strong, knowledge of the subject matter can certainly be a good thing. A bias based on nothing more than faith, media influence or a very limited knowledge is a bad thing and potentialy dangerous to a country/project.
Jared
