Skeptical Voter (in the UK, despite the spelling)

[muriel_volestrangler]

...Skeptical Voter plans to send out a survey to as many MPs and parliamentary candidates as possible to gauge their support for skeptical issues. We cannot do this alone and want to make sure that the questions we ask are well chosen.

Here's our own selection to get started. What do you think?

1. Do you support the use of public funds to provide unproven alternative "treatments" such as homeopathy?

2. Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to evolution?

3. Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?

4. Should an independent government adviser whose views in their area of expertise conflict with government policy be able to express those views publicly without fear of being sacked?

5. Should Sharia law be allowed as an alternative system within UK law?

6. Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of the development of medicines?

7. Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-intuitive?

8. Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?

9. Should religious leaders be entitled to vote in the House of Lords?

10. Do you support the reform of English and Welsh libel law to allow a stronger 'public interest' defence?

http://skeptical-voter.org/node/7

And they have a Wiki for all MPs and their views. Which has told me my current MP is a member of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, which is quite good.

[mr blur]

1. All good questions!

[Occulus]

2. Hmm. In order as posted in the OP:

No, no, hell no, yes, FUCK no, conditional yes (until we can ACCURATELY digitally simulate living systems, which is at least decades away), yes, no (key word: always), absolutely not (key word: entitled), and definitely, especially in cases of copyright and patent infringement.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Interesting

My responses:

(1) No

(2) No

(3) No

(4) Yes (is this a reference to Mr. Nutt being sacked over his marijuana comments?)

(5) No

(6) Yes, but it does need to be tightly regulated.

(7) Yes - but policies are always going to be influenced by a lot more than what evidence you trust.

(8) Yes

(9). No. I think that the House of Lords should become an elected body. Religious leaders can then stand for election, the same as anyone else.

(10) Yes

Additional questions:

Do you support church disestablishment, and complete church/state separation?

Do you support pro-vaccination campaigns?

Do you consider that secularism is a danger to British society?

'my current MP is a member of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, which is quite good.'

Mine too! :thumbsup:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

4. "Mr. Nutt being sacked"

Unintentional?