65% of respondents thought that political figures should keep their religious beliefs cordoned off from their decision making, with just 14% saying the opposite. The remaining 21% chose neither option or said they did not know.
The findings echo the recommendations of the National Secular Society's Manifesto for Change, which urges a fundamental rethink of religion's public role and specifically calls for an end to automatic seats 'as of right' for religious clerics.
Responding the latest survey, National Secular Society chief executive, Stephen Evans, said:
"Separating religion from the state would mean our political structures reflect the reality of changing times, but would also ensure every citizen can be treated fairly and valued equally, irrespective of their religious outlook.
Speaking as a Brit this is not surprising. Though I can't say its a major issue with anyone I know. The religious peers in Parlaiment and even the likes of the highly political Archbishop of Canterbury belong to the quite low key Church of England. This church basically believes in nothing that religious anymore,many clerics don't believe in the virgin birth,(27 %) according to this,and a vast majority did not believe in the ressurection,creation in 7 days or Adam and Eve.
As one comedian once joked being a member of the CoE is like being innoculated against religion.
The bigger worry over here seems to be new law as about mocking religion which is contravenes our traditional right of free speech....some good religious jokes in this article...hopefully no one is offended.
Is that the same british public that supports the queen/king who has to swear to god to support and uphold the coe religion? the same public who has no issue apparently with bishops in the house of lords and with the odd rule in the house of commons that as one of 650 mps you can only reserve one of 400 seats if you take part in morning prayer?
Laws and rules say they should not mix. The more it is "called for," the more extremist nutjobs you get in leadership. Hear someone harraighing against something? Means THEY are doing it.
I am so F-n envious … as ‘my nation’ trips over itself to saturate every governmental entity from top to bottom with as much (of one brand of) religion as they can get away with! ...the only thing slowing them up being a smattering of active atheist’s and a handful of conscientious judges..
Politics, law and religion like to control most things in our lives.
We appear to be beginning to throw off religion, maybe one day we will be good enough to throw off the need for the other two.
Humans need governing, but we need to pay attention and hire/elect leaders, not extremist looneys and dictators. That discounts anyone espousing religion--and those who think we need them.
You are probably right that humankind will not reach the level whereby they can co-exist without a superior force controlling them. I hope for a form of anarchy [en.wikipedia.org] whereby people can co-exist without an overarching force to coerce them into a particular behaviour.
Yet we still have 26 Bishops (Lords Spiritual) sitting in the House of Lords and they have been known to interfere with legislation on religious grounds. An example being The Embryology and Gertilisation Bill of the 1990s.
Political science needs to train wannabes better. Make sure the separation is held to. Religious can be politicians, just keep it to yourself. If it were a rule, if not a law.
If you have ever had kids then you will know that hypocrisy is useful in some cases.