Quote: West Leeds Rhino "Religion has no place in politics. While I agree with them that the rich are getting richer and there are people who are struggling to survive, this doesn't mean that the government should give some free money away. There will always be people who prioritise smoking, drinking, gambling, etc over eating properly, no matter how much you give them to live on. Just because society seems to put a high value on the opinions of the clergy, doesn't mean they actually know what they are talking about.
On a related note, you can tell Cameron's not going hungry in that picture!'"
So are you suggesting that people who hold religious beliefs should be barred from public office and disenfrachised? Religion is a way of looking at the world and the relationship between people, the world and other people. If somebody holds religious beliefs it would be very difficult if not impossible for those beliefs not to influence their political views. Therefore there is possible way to divorce religion from politics without banning people who hold religious views from participating in our democratic system.
If you believe that this should be the case, then I would like to know why the opinions of a non-religious person are inherently superior to those of a religious person? Should a person really be disenfranchised just because they oppose the killing of children or military action abroad for example. There is no evidence that the political views of the non-religious are any better than those of the religious. Monotheistic religious beliefs have led to the Inquisition, Crusades and Jihand for sure. But then atheist beliefs have led to the Holocaust, World War 2, the Great Terror, the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution.
