Faith versus Science and Sex Education

John Lyne is Professor of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh.

This is an interesting question for the Republicans, because it actually packs a double punch. It’s not just that the appeal to abstinence is faith-motivated. It also seems that the approach doesn’t work, maybe even backfires. A recent study showed that students who have been exposed to the abstinence pitch have a greater tendency to practice oral and anal sex (positions which are not in the Republican platform). So you have an “even if” question–even if a candidate’s faith tells him or her that abstinence is best, the abstinence curriculum doesn’t seem to to produce it. So the faith advocate would seem to have to address the “practical” issue even to be consistent with the faith position–unless their view is “teach abstinence and let the consequences be damned”. I think the question might try to take advantage of if the “even if” tack. That way it frames the matter in practical terms, without denying the legitimacy of a morally based motivation, and it avoids the stark choice between science and religion. It starts with an affirmation of common ground (we all want to reduce the spread of diseases and unwanted teen pregnancies…)One concern I have is that “moral” considerations in these discussions tend to be equated with “religious” motives, and that is of course very misleading. People who adhere to science usually feel themselves to be highly moral people. So there is a broader question here about the general role of moral considerations in public policy.

Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose a candidate advocated abstinence purely as a matter of faith. And suppose that abstinence education did work in reducing disease, teen pregnancy, etc. Where would the questioners stand then? Would the fact that a candidate advocated it for religious reasons pose a problem? (This is sort of the other side of the even if question posed to the other side.)

It will be interesting to see if Rudy G separates himself from the pack on this one. I imagine he will try to embrace some “both/and” strategy. Watch for subtle differences of articulation between Brownback and Huckabee. The latter is far more articulate in dealing with the faith and science questions. I think his statement on evolution was the most articulate I have heard from a religious conservative–pitch perfect, even incorporating humor. He avoids a clash of science and religion by saying he doesn’t know how, when, or how long it took, etc. But he affirms a baseline commitment to the idea that God was involved in the creation of our world. In effect, his is the view accepted by most Americans, in my opinion. This seems compatible with some versions of the Intelligent Design theory. This seems to me the best strategy for the Republicans. To deny evolution altogether, or to adhere to the young earth theory, just confronts science too frontally.

The Republicans know they score points with the electorate by declaring their faith in God. Democrats do it more reluctantly, and many Republicans suspect that Democrats are anti-religion. (Look for the Democrats to be kissing up to God in this election–they are encouraged that He sided with them in 2006 after supporting Republicans in 2000 and 2004.) Remember: Americans would accept a female, Black, Austrian, or gay person as President before they would accept an atheist (I am not sure about a transvestite, but I think it would be close). Confronting religion outright is electoral suicide.

Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose a candidate advocated abstinence purely as a matter of faith. And suppose that abstinence education did work in reducing disease, teen pregnancy, etc. Where would the questioners stand then? Would the fact that a candidate advocated it for religious reasons pose a problem? (This is sort of the other side of the even if question posed to the other side.)

Another technical issue. There is a sing-songish pattern in the way the question is asked–the sort of pattern one associates with detachment from the meaning of the question. I couldn’t tell if the students were reading the question, but I would suggest that they not read it. Talk to the candidates as if you were standing face to face in conversation. On one of the other videos, by the way, there were web addresses appearing on the screen, but they disappeared too fast for anyone to copy them down. The trio of religion and science questions was very good, and it is an underlying issue in every national election. I hope you get through the screening. Which leads to an observation about the YouTube Debates. I like them, and it is good to see ordinary people asking questions. But out of the thousands submitted, the gatekeepers select the ones they want. So the idea that this opens things wide open is a little misleading.

Here is a topic for discussion. I have noticed that in recent decades, when people have a chance to address major political figures, they tend to ask a “What about MEEE?” question, often trying to appear pathetic so that the candidate would be “insensitive” if he disagreed or didn’t move in the desired direction. Granted, Aristotle said that arguments should use pathos and ethos, in addition to logos. But I think there was a time when people framed questions more in terms of “the public good.” They still do sometimes, but the preferred frame seems to be the individual wants and needs of citizen-consumers. I wonder if the You Tube phenom might in some way accelerate that, since it is more personalized. (Discuss amongst yourselves.)