Religion should have no role in how our laws are formed, debated, passed. Science, evidence and reason should prevail, writes Tory Shepherd.

GO ON, admit it. You think your religion is superior.

If you don't have a religion, you probably think your atheism is superior.

In order to believe in the Second Coming or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or thetans - or in none of them - you have to believe other belief systems are inferior.

Just because it's not polite or politically correct to say it doesn't make it less true.

Sure, people can hold the nebulous idea that really all Gods are the one God and so different religions are just different interpretations of some immense truth. And you might concede that if you were born in another country, you could well have adopted that religion.

But, on the whole, in a free society, people don't get about thinking, "Geez, I rather prefer that elephant-headed bloke to this Thor-type entity I've been worshipping". They think they're right.

Eric Abetz, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, says we should be able to debate religion like we debate footy teams. He also says that only the "intellectually bankrupt" expect religion to be left out of policy making.

Two very interesting points, particularly in light of the ongoing debate over gay marriage, and lingering concerns that soon-to-be prime minister Tony Abbott's Catholicism will affect the way he rules on issues such as abortion. Senator Abetz is right; we should be able to debate religion. We should not be afraid to question practices that may be associated with religion.

But we also have to be aware that there is more variation within groups than between groups - and that makes it almost meaningless to debate whether one is superior to another.

Saudi-style Islam, for example, is a frightening, totalitarian, inhumane interpretation. The Christianity practised by the Westboro Baptist Church, and to a lesser extent the Australian Christian Lobby, is an intolerant version, miles away from the more social justice-oriented churches.

There are gentle, wise forms of Islam. And then there's the Catholic Church. There are violent Buddhists and peaceful jihadists.

So it is not quite as simple to debate which religion is better as it is with footy teams - there's no score in black and white at the end. And yet it is still worth having the conversation about specific beliefs, practices, influences.

The next question is whether it is desirable, or even possible, for individuals to leave their religion out of decision making.

Religion should have no role in how our laws are formed, debated, passed. Science, evidence and reason should prevail. But it's overly optimistic to think that is what happens. Politics is by its nature ruled by subjectivity.

Mr Abbott has vowed to keep his religion out of policy.

He says his faith shapes his values but doesn't dictate his politics.

So we have a religious man vowing to leave his religion at the door.

Then we have the non-religious leader, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, saying while she is "not an active person of faith" Christian values inform her decision making. Politics is not a values vacuum.

The problem with both of Senator Abetz's points - that we should debate which religions are better and that we should embrace religious views in Parliament - is one and the same.

It's conflating ethics with religion, when these are two distinct things. You can have ethics without religion and religion with bad ethics.