catholicsphere

An AP-Ipsos poll conducted in May shows that a majority of Americans (61%) say that religious leaders should not try to influence government decisions; only 37% support the idea. What doesn’t seem to mesh is that 84% say that faith is important to one’s life. Perhaps the problem is that, in general, people don’t view government as being important to their life — which would be consistent with relatively low voter turnout, particularly in non-presidential elections.

The fact of the matter is, as I mentioned yesterday, government plays a significant role in the safeguarding of rights that are in the best interest of society. Personal beliefs and faith are believed and known to enrich lives, so it seems logical that the ideas found in religious circles would also be beneficial the society as a whole.

Even in cases of very complex issues, codes of ethics for research and behavior can benefit from what has been viewed as “religious wisdom”, to ensure that society not only asks the question of what can be done, but also what should be acceptable.

In recent years, that latter question has been seemingly ignored. The argument against its inclusion follows illogic which posits that it cannot be asked and answered in a pluralist society because not everyone can agree on what is acceptable. The logic of such an argument is erroneous because, firstly, it ignores fact that there are things that are acceptable and not acceptable, which underly the human experience — often referred to as “common courtesy” and “mutual respect”. Furthermore, because it does not allow the question, it does not allow for viewing the implications or consequences of a given action.

By ignoring both the potential consequences or precedents, and the opportunities for society to weigh-in on what is acceptable, the framework of a civilized society is at great risk of breaking down over time. This is especially true if respect for other human lives is lost.