comment: >
  
  Technically no, but society doesn’t work along those lines (e.g. see the debate around social gender vs biological gender). The premise of your hypothesis is based in a societal context. Hence for the target group “science” is what scientists claim to be science. I made the science point to show how it is ineffective just as well to ensure fair decision making and it all leads back to the question of a balance of powers and views of the people making the decisions.
context: You could do this, but it won't accomplish anything. 
  If politicians can't credit religion, then they will credit something else publicly, but still mean religion. Everyone will know what they mean and wink and nudge at eachother when they say it.
  So, instead of saying, "I want this law to pass because that's God wants," they would say, "I want this law to pass because I believe it is the right thing to do." You say that you are tired of legislators voting against things you agree with, but even with your proposed policy, they will continue to do so. >
  
  I see that as another cop out. I know it’s basically impossible to actually put into law but I think politicians, regardless if they are for or against what I support should give clear reasoning other than the religion thing and also just saying “because I think it’s right” such as if their decision was made for financial reasons, personal rights reasons, if they believe someone should or shouldn’t have that choice and why, believe me I understand how nearly impossible or even completely impossible it would be to make that happen but it’s still my view that it should be that way >
  
  So, your view is to implement the impossible? That's not a very rational stance to have, no?
  I should remind you that your argument says, "to punish" people who use religion. This suggest a real-life application. If you said "it would be ideal," then okay, the impossible might be the ideal. However, if you want something that can apply in real life, then the impossible is not the way to go. >
  
  My view is that religion shouldn’t be given as the reason behind a decision, and that clearer reasoning should be given about aspects that apply to that decision, like financial, health and other impacts. I believe it is rational, and that over time in small steps it could be possible. I would say it would be nearly impossible to implement a law that tries to make a change like that in one shot. A start could be along the lines of just not mentioning your faith on the podium. In the future implementing laws that require an official to explain positive and negative impacts of their decision financially, how difficult it would be to enforce and things like that so the policies themselves could be more explained and fleshed out. I would say it’s not rational to believe this could be done quickly and effectively in a short period though. >
  
  
  clearer reasoning should be given about aspects that apply to that decision, like financial, health and other impacts
  
  Okay, "I am voting this way because that is what my constituents want." It just so happens that the constituents are religions, but a politicians appeasing those that vote for him is not only smart, but it is what they are supposed to do. How do we deal with that?
  To make a law against that in the USA would violate the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. >
  
  Maybe the amendment needs revision then? The reasons laws change is because moral philosophy changes. Religion isn't such.a clap back to justice as it was, so maybe laws should reflect that >
  
  
  Maybe the amendment needs revision then? 
  
  So that human rights can be restricted? Not a great idea. >
  
  When Human right A constantly becomes grounds to take away human right B, then A no longer remains a human right.
  The same way that right to movement ends at the tip of someone else's nose >
  
  
  When Human right A constantly becomes grounds to take away human right B, then A no longer remains a human right.
  
  That's why assault is illegal. Speech doesn't take away any rights. >
  
  So im not completely restricting speech, its when its interfering in politics is when it becomes an issue. 
  Especially speech in which we give special consideration just because of how people feel. Religion is nothing but ideas, but nothing is more protected than religion. Even schools cant outright deny creationism, or the student's religion, because their religious feeling get hurt, even though the religion is false, with pretty definitive evidence,. >
  
  I have no idea how you’ll ever do these things:
  
  
  define what a religious belief is 
  
  
  prove when someone is making a choice based on that belief 
  
  
  Every single person has a life philosophy which governs our decisions, to ask someone to ignore that and take on … some other philosophy? … doesn’t make sense. 
  This is why we are a democracy where your recourse is to vote someone out of office who doesn’t vote in accordance with your life philosophy. >
  
  This runs into the first issue I mentioned. Defining a religious belief is not straightforward or realistic. >
  
  You are correct on many fronts. They obviously are entitled to religious beliefs and such and maybe my wording was bad, I think it should be punishable to blatantly say you’re making a decision on legislation that effects all people of all beliefs because you are insert religion here. Those ideals will definitely come into play, although I do like the comment you replied to where it would be a requirement to justify why they voted the way they did. It just feels very wrong when a politician says “I’m a good Christian, and because of this I cannot in good faith vote yes on this bill” or something along those lines when so many people don’t share those same views and if said bill were to go through it wouldn’t directly affect the life of people who share those religious beliefs but may make a massive amount of positive impact for other people. I understand it’s extremely complicated and almost if not completely impossible to enforce. >
  
  Why is religion different from any other difference in values? >
  
  Because it's given a pass way too often. Despite how bullshit and arbitrary it is. >
  
  What makes a value arbitrary versus non-arbitrary? >
  
  Their consistency. Religious values flip and change depending on societal and political  needs. >
  
  How would nonreligious values not do that?
  And clarification on How religious values are more prone to flipflopping also seems prudent, arent they actually known to be quite rigid being set forth from on high?
  And as for say the ten commandments literally as it were set in stone? >
  
  Yeah, but here is the thing. What is written doesn't matter to the people who preach. Actions define a religion more than the text.
  They flip flop based on political needs, they are easily used to mark out an enemy and single them out by divine right.
  "Though shall not kill" did not stop the crusades. 
  At worst all religious texts are open to interpretation and can be easily warped to suit an agenda.
  Non religious values are easier to call out because they don't get the protection of "religious freedom". >
  
  Most religions have certain values. Like Christianity values life, that's why they're anti abortion.
  Politicians are elected people based on the values, ideas, and decision making skills. People voted for Obama because they trust him and believe in the values he stood for. Same goes for Trump/Biden. The idea is that you vote for someone that shares your way of thinking so that you don't have to be there 24/7 but someone else will be there as your representative (i.e. politicians).
  Whether you are or are not a Christian, you make your decision based on values. Let's say you believe that life starts in the womb, so you're pro-life because that's the value you have. It doesn't matter if you're a Christian or nonchristian, you're gonna vote based on values. >
  
  
  Because religion and faith is not universal, and everyone is supposed to be free to believe what they believe
  
  This, and your other criticisms, apply to literally everything. Thinking that murder is bad isn't universal, and thinking that it's bad is a thing that people believe. People who don't share that belief certainly aren't happy that you're willing to lock them in a cage for disagreeing with them. The problem has nothing to do with universality or freedom of belief, you just think that religious beliefs are wrong while your beliefs aren't. That's entirely fine. I agree. Just say that, though, rather than inventing false justifications to sound slightly more politically correct because you don't want to tell somebody that they're wrong. >
  
  Religious faith is inseperable from conscience.  If my conscience is at all involved in how I vote - as it should be - my faith would play a role.
  Congressmen are elected as whole people and expected to exercise their judgment, not just do things on your behalf.  If they're elected, they use what faculties they have to make choices they believe to be right - whether that's religion, commitment to certain political principles or ideologies, rigid amoral pragmatism, whatever.
  If you think public religious expression should be punished, vote against them.  This doesn't extend to people who just hold government jobs or judges who break the law by saying "I rule this way because religion," but Congressmen are allowed to say things like that so long as we elect them. >
  
  
  Religious faith is inseperable from conscience.
  
  This view is antithetical to good-faith participation in democracy, as it entails that those who lack religious faith also must lack a conscience. It is not clear to me that someone who seriously holds such a hateful view could exercise the duties of public office justly, especially as regards the treatment of agnostics and atheists. >
  
  
  This view is antithetical to good-faith participation in democracy, as it entails that those who lack religious faith also must lack a conscience.
  
  No it doesn't.  It means that if you have religious faith, it's inseparable from your conscience.  That doesn't mean that you can't have a conscience without religious faith.
  Kinda...went from 0-100 on that one. >
  
  If you can have a conscience without religious faith, it follows directly that someone with religious faith can separate their conscience from their faith. What do you think prevents a religious person from having the same separated-from-faith conscience an atheist has? >
  
  
  If you can have a conscience without religious faith, it follows directly that someone with religious faith can separate their conscience from their faith. 
  
  No it doesn't.
  
  If you can have a conscience without religious faith, it follows directly that someone with religious faith can separate their conscience from their faith.
  
  All religions carry significant moral components.  Therefore, a sincerely religious person's moral reasoning - and thereby, conscience - is intertwined with religion in at least some respects.
  Anyhow, I'm sorry if my clarification isn't enough to satisfy you.
  Have a good one. >
  
  Being sincerely religious does not make a person stupid. A sincerely religious person does not need to always engage in moral reasoning based on the moral components of their religion, and can always freely choose not to do so, thereby separating their conscience from their faith. Just because I believe something does not mean that I am bound to always base my reasoning or my judgement on that belief. >
  
  This is an interesting question - can you actually not base your reasoning on something you believe? Let's take a thought experiment:
  I believe the earth is round.
  I can't think of a away I could reason about the earth or space, or direction, etc without working from that deeply held believe that the earth is round. I can't step back and start from somewhere that would see neutral to flat earthers for instance.
  I think your framing assumes that the religious person doesn't actually believe what they're saying they believe, specifically the moral positions. I can't even see how it would work. If I was christian and my morality is defined from my faith - that's my morality. Just like if I'm utilitarian, I can't see how I could divorce my morality from "most good for most people". Like, what are you actually suggesting here? >
  
  You may be personally unable to reason from things you do not believe, or to put aside what you believe when you are making judgements, but most people of ordinary intelligence can do so. (To illustrate, this is basically how all of science works. Scientists consider a hypothesis, which they may not believe and which may require putting aside many things which they do believe. They reason based on that hypothesis to make predictions and understand what observations would be expected if that hypothesis were true. They then perform an experiment to try to falsify that hypothesis. This sort of reasoning is how we know the earth isn't flat. If what you were suggesting were actually not possible, science could not operate as it does.) >
  
  But science does not inform morality. Nor is it a situation where you are asking scientists for their best judgment based on what they know right now.
  You are suggesting that politicians should pass laws they don't think will work or they think are bad just to "test a hypothesis" and the run it for years and come back to it later? That's not how legislation tends to work. Most people would find yeeting out a Yolo law to "see what happens" not really electible.
  I guess my attempt to give an analogous situation backfired because I was interested in the belief part.
  I can reason about magic. I like D&D fantasy. But I don't believe it is real. I can't really see how I would in the real world argue about if a beholder or a dragon was more dangerous in reality . I can talk about game rules, but I mean like I would talk about horse encumbrance or plate mail. If someone actually believes they are real they will just not buy my surface discussion because I don't believe they are real.
  But it's more subtle than that. You're talking about morality. If you don't go by your intuitions or the moral system you believe in - what are you reasoning against? It's pretty subjective. Like let's say you think any killing of a human is murder, and I think soldiers in combat are not serial killers... What outside of our moralityies would be a neutral common ground? >
  
  
  I can reason about magic. I like D&D fantasy. But I don't believe it is real. 
  
  So then you understand that you can choose not to base your reasoning on something you believe.
  
  If you don't go by your intuitions or the moral system you believe in - what are you reasoning against?
  
  The rest of your moral beliefs, with the religious precepts removed. Basically you'd be reasoning against the same basis an atheist could reason against: a moral basis separated from religion. >
  
  What happens when a politician is elected specifically because of their religious beliefs? Why would a deeply religious person want someone not of their religion to represent them?
  
  I’m tired of legislators shooting down ... abortion rights ... because their “god” says it’s not okay.
  
  Not really the focus of your CMV, but abortion can be argued against easily using secular arguments. >
  
  Quick touch on the abortion thing, I don’t mind what side of that argument a politician is on just rather than saying they made their decision “because I’m a good Christian” I’d think it’d be better for everyone if they gave the reasoning behind it, like was it financial, do they believe it’s a matter of life or death, do they believe the mother should make the decision. And as for the first part, I believe that if politicians couldn’t speak about their religion and more strictly could speak about policy, their wouldn’t really be voting on somebody based on their faith but instead their policies. While many of those policies would be influenced by their faith, if their faith wasn’t disclosed I feel people who vote for those reasons would begin voting more for policies they support instead of just voting for somebody because they share their faith. Because even within one religion views on many things may differ vastly. I know it wouldn’t be easy or even possible but it’d be a good thing, I believe. >
  
  Well, they gave you their reasoning behind the way they vote. It's just not a reason you accept. >
  
  I’m saying reasoning that can apply to anybody such as the financial aspects, it’s effect on public health, the ease of enforcement. With separation of church and state as a concept I don’t think religion should be blatantly talked about when having to do with law at all. I am fine with people voting against laws I support, they absolutely have that right, and I think a more comprehensive explanation would be good for every voter. I understand that a religious belief is a reason, but their religious belief does not effect the voter while the implications of how a law will be carried out absolutely effects the voter. >
  
  But if they're not voting against the bill on the grounds of finances or public health, your restriction doesn't help. And if a devout religious person were to tell you they voted against a bill for X reason, would you believe they weren't partially voting against it due to their religion?
  
  With separation of church and state 
  
  This does not mean that people are forbidden from discussing religion as members of the government. >
  
  "This does not mean that people are forbidden from discussing religion as members of the government."
  And maybe that should change because the nature of religion is that it demands imposition on all, not just those who like it. They wanna ban all abortion, not just for Christians, on clearly religious grounds, and secular arguments can be dismantled back to a religious basis, or one where you have to invoke the "possible future" >
  
  What is the difference between 'I do not support gay marriage because of my religion' and 'I do not support gay marriage because of my deeply held personal beliefs'? How do you prevent people who hold opinions because of their religion from lying and saying otherwise? >
  
  So my wording was poor I have realized that while replying. And what I’m saying is that the reasoning should have to be explained in ways it effects the voter such as how it will financially be carried out, public health effects, ease of enforcement. If they’d have to raise taxes to enforce it or be able to lower taxes by legalizing something for example, that would directly effect the voter and would show clearer reasoning behind it. Thing is that many voters may not share the same religious values as their representative so it shouldn’t be spoken about while writing or voting for legislation. People may not feel inclined to vote for a specific candidate purely because they are a part of the same religion if it wasn’t blatantly said what religion they are or aren’t a part of but rather spoke about their policies in ways they would directly effect their voters or even those they represent as a whole. Taxes, public health and public spending do effect everybody and wether I support their decision or not I think it’d be beneficial to know how they see the issue from that standpoint. >
  
  Well how about gay marriage proponents?  Can we use our deeply held belief that equality is super important, or does it have to come down to taxes and crime rates?  Can't we vote for politicians who deeply support equality in and of itself as a religious/philosophical value without having to run the numbers on when it's actually efficient and when it isn't? >
  
  I’m a proponent myself and I’d explain it like this, any two person of age have the right to marriage as their anatomy has no direct effect on my life or anybody else’s and denying those persons that right is cruel and unusual, does not effect crime, does not effect taxes and does not effect public health. That view is not based on religious values, that view is based on human rights. Religion should be kept out of politics. >
  
  Human rights are a religious/philosophical value.  Not everyone shares those values but I think it's reasonable for politicians to promote them anyway >
  
  How could anything of the sort possibly be defined, detected, or fairly enforced? Nobody can make decisions independent of their beliefs. Honestly, that doesn’t even make sense- what else would you use? >
  
  Atheist here, and I would also vote against anti-Christian laws, specifically because laws targeting any religion are unconstitutional.
  But I digress.
  I find that people will use religion in politics to justify a position that other constituents may align with. But that's what they are: a justification. I see someone saying "God says no same-sex marriage so I vote no" as justifiable as "I find same-sex couples icky, so I vote no." Both are personal beliefs for opposition -- one is just informed by a person's religious background. >
  
  Okay for starters there is a huge difference between politicians and judges/officials. Judges and officials are really only supposed to implement the law, with some exceptions for judges. Politicians are making the law based on what they believe is right (ideally if they are not corrupt). And what they believe is right is based on their faith/ideology. So if politicians were punished for making decisions based on their faith they would be punished for doing what they are supposed to do. I personally really don’t like when politicians make decisions based on religion but to say that they aren’t allowed to is highly undemocratic. 
  And while it’s true that religions isn’t universal the same actually applies to human rights. Human rights are not an objective truth. If you were to ask 10 random people on what should be human rights you would likely get very different answers. 
  The problem with politicians implementing religion in legislation is based on the fact that a lot of people agree with it and vote for those politicians. With the exception of corruption politicians only really represent the peoples opinions. >
  
  
  It’s not fair to vote for or against legislation because of your religion at all, it should be based on human rights and what every human deserves regardless of their beliefs.
  
  Where do human rights come from if not from God? America was founded the idea that God gave us rights that no man or government should attempt to circumvent.   
  
  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 
  
  So if not God, who decides what a human right is? It can't be the government or democracy, because you say the government and elected legislators can violate those rights. So where do human rights come from? What authority exactly determines that abortion is or isn't a human right? >
  
  Invoking god doesn't solve this. If I claim god does or doesn't support something you can't prove otherwise. >
  
  If God exists, then objective human rights can exist. God would be the undisputed authority on how humans should be treated.   
  If God didn't exist, who is to say how humans should be treated? Humans could disagree with each other on what is or isn't a right.   
  This is a problem for OP who doesn't believe in God but believes they have certain objective rights. OP claims that we should govern based on "human rights" without explaining where those rights come from. >
  
  So what rights has god afforded us? Be sure to cite your sources. >
  
  You're missing the point.  
  If we were created, it makes sense for us to have objective and inalienable rights. There would be an all-knowing authority who could objectivly say what is right and wrong.   
  If we are accidents of the universe, made without purpose, how can we say how humans should be treated? Saying things like "abortion is a right" would just be op's opinion.  
  OP seems to claim that human rights are objective but doesn't believe in any objective authority that would give us those rights. Saying "but how do we know what God wants" misses the point that OP's CMV has a logical inconsistency. >
  
  I get the point but it doesn't make a difference in practical terms. Saying 'I think god grants this right' is no more objective than saying 'this is a right'. >
  
  You clearly don't get it because you are hyper focusing on "what is a right" when my entire post was asking OP where rights come from. 
  If God exists, there is an ultimate authority on how human's act and how humans should be treated; therefore, we have human rights. You can disagree with the premise, but the statement is logically consistent. You can say we can't know for sure how God wants humans to be treated, but the statement is still logically consistent.   
  OP says we shouldn't let religious people govern because their beliefs aren't universal, but OP's beliefs are not objective or universal. That isn't logically consistant. That's all I said. >
  
  
  
  The fact that you used Christianity as a  example in  bad faith shows that you are anti religion and have a grudge over Christianity. Imagine how people would  be pissed if I said  people or legislators who are transgender.................and other sexes. 
  
  
  You need to realize that a huge proportion of America is religious hence several pastors represent that specific group of  people hence taking desicions  in favor of that comunity. For eg.. a black legislator would create reforms suporting the black comunity or solving their problems. Ofc there are exception. Taking away the legislators right to represent their people is taking away their right of fair representation and democracy. >
  
  Info: can you give me a law that cites religion or scripture? >
  
  This sounds good in theory.
  The problem is that you'd then have someone, or some group of people, making decisions about what is an unpermitted political decision and fining/invalidating based on those rules, and that's a dangerous road to go down IMO.
  What's the difference between "I believe this goes against my religion" and "I believe this goes against my moral standards"?  What are the lines and where do we draw them?  Who do we trust to give that power to?  It's a similar problem to the issue of hate speech.  Hate speech is obviously wrong, but who do we trust to define it and set up penalties for it without opening the possibility of them using that power for the wrong things? >
  
  This is an interesting CMV because it needs to start with a seemingly trivial question. Do you value democracy ? >
  
  No belief system is universal including any and all political principals. 
  What authority do you have to decide your principals are superior to others principals? >
  
  God is whatever a person holds at the top of their personal hierarchy of beliefs. Science is God. Allah is God. Jesus is God. Money is God. Sex is God. How do you propose we separate peoples personal beliefs from their decision making process? >
  
  I have put it in many comments and  I’ll admit my wording was poor in the post. What I’m trying to say is that a politician shouldn’t be allowed to talk about their religious beliefs specifically when discussing policy. Like “I can’t vote for this law because I’m a good Christian” is an example I’ve heard many times. Rather they should have to give comprehensive reasoning behind the decision such as the financial impacts, how difficult the law would be to enforce, and things like that as I believe it would be better for the voters and would allow people to listen more to policy than to possibly vote a certain way purely because somebody is heavily religious. While personal beliefs will ultimately always influence their vote I think the policy itself should be discussed and the religious points of view should not be blatantly stated as a reason behind a law. >
  
  Can you offer some specific example of what you're referring to? I consider myself to be very much in the political loop. I rarely ever hear solely religious arguments, outside of gay marriage. >
  
  Religious people are elected by the majority despite them not being secretive about there religion in almost all cases
  If there majority of a population votes for someone due to there polciies it doesn’t matter if there religiously motivated or not because that’s what the majority wants
  Seperation of church and state is not a governmental rule it’s a phrase from a letter written by Jefferson and it meant that the state shouldn’t interfere with the church not that the church shouldn’t interfere with the state >
  
  Those people are elected and appointed with their religious faith as a known  fact about them. The people who elect them to office know they are Christian or some other faith. >
  
  Religion is a system of beliefs. 
  When you look closely, you'll find that practically everything a judge or politician needs to decide is based on nothing but beliefs. Justice, equality, fairness, trust, ethics, social systems, all of these only exist because humans believe in them. You could argue that on a very elementary level, even money only exists because people believe it has value and can be exchanged for goods and services.
  So once you outlawed making decisions based on one belief, which one will you go after next?
  I suspect the problem you're trying to address is that in US politics, for example, it's socially acceptable for a politician or judge to call on god. And I can see how that would be troublesome, as this appeal to higher power indicates that this person has pretty much closed the door to any rational arguments. 
  However, you're addressing the symptom, not the problem. 
  The problem is that this is socially acceptable. It doesn't have to be, but you will need to change society's attitude, not outlaw politicians' figures of speech. >
  
  I think Judges are different than politicians. Judges should be basing decisions on law and precedent. Whether you believe one thing or another should not change what the law and precedent means - certainly at the trial level.
  Officials should be even more constrained IMO - you have specific remits and you carry those out. You shouldn't be making religious decisions. 
  Politicians I agree with you - they are determining the laws and such, and I don't know how you could remove your beliefs from what you feel should be the law. >
  
  Politicians have one sole purpose, and that is to represent the views of their constituents. If the people who voted them into office are Christian, then it is likely that they were elected precisely because they are expected to make decisions based on their faith. Democracy does not necessarily mean secularism. If the majority of a hypothetical country is composed of Christian puritans, then democracy means a puritanical Christian government. 
  The price you pay for having your views represented is that people you fundamentally disagree with also get to have their views represented. >
  
  You can’t really measure or prove what makes someone make a choice, nor is doing such a thing in the spirit of America and freedom. It’s basically thought police. Officials are elected by the people so if the people want someone making a decision based on their religion then that’s what they should get. >
  
  
  this law is anti Christian so I will be voting against it
  
  Maybe it's splitting hairs here, but choosing to vote against a law because it is unchristian is not the same as not voting for a law that is anti-Christian. If a law is truly anti-Christian, as in discriminates against Christians or in some way restricts their ability to openly practice Christianity, it should be voted against on constitutional grounds. Those things would violate the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. There is certainly room for argument about whether a particular law might fall into that category (truly anti-Christian), but it is a valid secular, constitutional reason not to enact some legislation. >
  
  You're going to prove what someone was thinking when they made a decision? >
  
  You might as well ban religious people from holding office. If someone takes their religious beliefs seriously, it's always going to affect their perceptions of morality and politics. 
  What if a person's religious beliefs lead them to believe gay marriage and abortion should be allowed? Many people of the Jewish faith believe this. Besides, many people who are against gay marriage and abortion aren't religious, and non-religious arguments can be made against these things.
  The separation of church and state keeps politicians from endorsing a specific religion. It doesn't mean said politician needs to ditch their religious beliefs to be able to take office. >
  
  (I’m a Christian)
  As mentioned elsewhere, people have their own hierarchy of values that makes them who they are. They place certain issues or ideas above others so that they can think coherently and, well, be who they are. Christians in politics, I think, is great for representation. Many conservatives claim to have Christian values, but often go against some principles. Their hierarchy of principles is based upon Christianity. Christianity has a great set of moral values and virtues that, honestly, the West has lost and has suffered because of it. 
  Gay Marriage has led to rampant sexual immorality, the destruction of marriage - which has in turn led to children not having sufficient parenting and men losing purpose. Losing purpose means worsened mental health, which we have seen increased drastically. Abortion (something I disagree with) seems to have turned into an excuse to be sexually irresponsible, like another form of birth control. 
  But to be fair, I don’t think that Christians in politics is ‘the answer’ for Christians, or for the nation. I think the Church needs to establish itself more strongly, and again separate itself from the State, so i do kinda agree with you. >
  
  What “human rights” are and what “every human deserves” are largely based on moral/ethical reasoning, which is in turn religious/philosophical. >
  
  Faith is a belief system like “the science”. Making science based decisions can be just as wrong and fatal. Christian believe systems have a lot of ideas implemented that made social sense for thousands of years. Having ideas that last over generations and served them well enough holds just as much merit as science based evidence. Both, science and religion can be misused to make poor decisions. >
  
  Christianity (or any religion) requires accepting certain claims as true without ability to question them.
  Science requires adhering to the scientific method, which is based on observation, testing, and independent verification.
  The difference is that the second one is "the best we understand so far", whereas the first one is "this is true because someone said so long ago".
  There is a reason why the phlagiston or the caloric ideas were abandoned. Had those been religious claims, we'd still be using them. >
  
  Your second paragraph describes science in an ideal scenario, but the scientific method has been corrupted so profoundly that it is just as bad as making political decisions based on religion. 
  The corruption of food science
  Corruption of pharma science
  The problem is not if something is decided from a religious or scientific motivation. The problem are undemocratic power structures that corrupt influential systems to their advantage. I could extend the list to “economical aid” programs or “bringing democracies” to countries. Crimes against humanity can be made under any of these labels. >
  
  I did not listen to either of your links. Let's assume that both claims are true, is it still science?
  If I manipulate or fake data to present the outcome I want, is it still science?