This fact struck me as odd, as why should the testimony and opinion of religious leaders be prioritized when ultimately their opinion is only relevant to their particular religion?

As most religious ethical systems stem from their teachings on God(s), they are useless when discussing important ethical questions as their views can never be practically applied by everyone, (which is surely the point of any ethical system in the first place?), let alone helpful in providing a basis from which to decide the actions of a nation with regards to ethics.

What do you think? What is the value of including religious believers in ethical debate? Can their contributions be meaningful whether or not they can be universally applied?

I read that nearly all government ethics panels have to include representatives from most of the major religion's of that country...

What do you think? What is the value of including religious believers in ethical debate? Can their contributions be meaningful whether or not they can be universally applied?

1. Familiarity with questions of ethics
These people typically spend a great deal of time contemplating ethics, and so they would, one should expect, familiar with ethical dilemmas and questions.

2. Because any given population is comprised primarily of religious people, any given population will consider the ethical considerations of religious leaders relevant in their own lives, and therefore, useful when examining public ethical decisions.

Case in point: when slavery was debated in England and the United States, both pro-slavery advocates and abolitionists often referred to the opinions of their religious leaders.

Also consider the near universality of a great deal of religious ethics. Most people agree: murder is wrong. But we do not ignore this notion because it was first derived from religious sources.

Let's say "contemplating THEIR ethics". The ethics of God who gave permission to kill to one "chosen folk" surely is not the ethics of another "chosen folk"...

Well, as I have just said this is not true ethics if ethics has something to do with happiness of Man. Those ethical studies may harmonise with the words of one guru, yet be absolutely meaningless for our happiness, what is their value then?

Those who took part in discussion on abolition of slavery surely had some notion why or why not it is preferrable and their references to the "holy bible" were just an attempt to do violence against others without rejecting their REAL arguments.

Now it seems that even professional philosophers cannot provide a system of ethics that can be universally applied

Certainly if a government were to be concerned with ethics for whatever reason, would it not be useful to have as many viewpoints as possible presented, especially if these viewpoints represented those of many of the people to whom the government was responsible, but in a hopefully more thoughtful and considered manner?

I'm not sure this amounts to much of an objection - the exact same thing could be said of a purely secular, academic consideration of ethics - the philosopher spends time contemplating "his ethics".

I think if we examine the ethics of most thinkers, religious and secular, their primary concern is the happiness of man.
In some cases, this is true. This is especially true of those citing the Bible in order to further slavery. However, if we look at abolitionist literature, the Bible was often cited as giving credence to those seeking to reduce violence and the violent practice of slavery.
Both sides cited the Bible to address the real arguments of the other side as both sides used Biblical references to build arguments. The Bible was not a means to escape the other side's arguments.

This may take place if someone clings to the system he built. Surely I am speaking of those who don't. On the other hand when someone calls himself Christian, or Buddhist, or Hindoo, or Muslim this means that he is attached to the words of his gooroos.

When I do something because these are words of Christ or the Buddha I do that not because I understand that this leads to happiness, that this is Truth but because my guru, whom I am to obey, said that.

Otherwise why should I care what was the words of Christ? If they are true they are true regardless of what is one who said them and they are true for an atheist or Muslim also, if not not why should I follow them? Thus what's the point to use the bible or koran or dharmapada in discussion as if they are reservoir of truth?

I agree. But these people, Christian and so forth, also spend a great deal of time thinking about what those words mean. In each of these religions, there exists disagreement about what the teachers would have us take to be the proper ethical system.

In Christianity, for example, there are a great many ethical disagreements. Mill says God is a Utilitarian, while Kant, a deeply religious philosopher, proposes a deontological system. Meanwhile, Scholastics typically argued for an Aristotelian virtue ethic system.

So, while it is true that religious people will meditate on the ethical teachings of their particular religion, it also seems to be the case that these religious people often come to the very same conclusions as philosophers working from a completely secular perspective, and that the variety of ethical doctrines espoused by religious people is essentially the same as those espoused on secular terms.

In other words, while religious people may draw their insight from a particular tradition of teaching, religious people can offer up more than simple appeal to tradition when discussing ethics. Religious people have just as much to add to a conversation on ethics as do people who consider ethics without relation to traditional wisdom.
If there is someone who has ethical wisdom, their voice is relevant to a conversation on ethics regardless of the person's background. If a priest has something wise to say regarding ethics, he should be heard. If an atheist scientists has something wise to say on ethics, he should be heard. By embracing wisdom from any source, we are better off for having that many more wise perspectives to consider.

I disagree that this is what Buddhism teaches. The Buddha explicitly advises against doing or believing anything simply because he said it. Hence the phrase, "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." I love that sense of humor.

But even in Christianity, there exists volumes of ethical thought which explain why something is right or wrong with more than just appeals to Jesus or some prophet. And that's my point: religious people are capable of, and often do think more about ethics than just "X person said do A,B,C". Most religious people, I think, have free thought and can think on their own.

Because those texts might very well contain truth, and if they do contain truth, there is no sense in ignoring the source of that truth.

I completely agree that something is true or false regardless who said it. It doesn't matter if Jesus said something, the only thing that matters is whether or not what was said is useful for our pursuit of happiness. That is a very astute point, and I'm glad you brought it up. But at the same time, if it is useful to use, we should not ignore it, we should embrace the wisdom.

I think the problem for certain amount of the population is the fact that faith driven dogma has more influence in society than it should have.
When you consider less than 5% of the population are active members of the church,who are they representing?
I see television chat shows on ethics always has the church represented on the panel,why? It does not always have a humanist there.A hundred years ago it represented the common view but not now.The church is no longer a driving force or relevant influence in most peoples lives.

Agree. But in this case we should invite to our conversations Hitler or Osama bin Laden, shouldn't we? Otherwise this discusion will have little variations within one particular system.

All those Christians e.g. consider killing "without a cause" wrong. What if it is not wrong? Shouldn't we consider every view?

To start with, these are not the words of the Buddha...

In other discussion on Buddhism I have just stated my view: if the Buddha had not been concerned with establishing spiritual authority, he would have never called himself "Buddha", wouldn't he? Even if he had some "transcendental experiences" what difference does it make for us? For us this name "Buddha" is vague and may lead to worshipping only, which probably was the very purpose of its adopting.

O.K. But in this case I think these people cease to be religious, I think.

I did not say that we must ignore them just because people worship them. (That would be just another kind of belief.) I think we should be indifferent to them, that is take from them only what is true.

I think the problem for certain amount of the population is the fact that faith driven dogma has more influence in society than it should have.
When you consider less than 5% of the population are active members of the church,who are they representing?
I see television chat shows on ethics always has the church represented on the panel,why? It does not always have a humanist there.A hundred years ago it represented the common view but not now.The church is no longer a driving force or relevant influence in most peoples lives.

This is opposed secular humanist dogma? Dogma doesn't require one to be active in a religion or anything, it is simply an ideological rule set to action. All ideology is dogmatic once it becomes part of a culture's/person's/group's identity and whether or not someone even believes in a deity or has faith in the doctrines of a religion, s/he is expressing dogmatic faith in something. If people didn't act out of dogmatic principle they would be paralyzed by all the choices they would have to make in the first minute of their day. We make thousands of choices without ever thinking about them based on the dogma ingrained in our identities. It just so happens that even though 5% (i would like to see the study that says this) are active in their religious group, the dogma from the ages of different religions is in our system. Having a figure head representative from one of them is the same as having Barbara Boxer or Al Franken as a Talking head representing the 5% of practicing secular humanists.

I read that nearly all government ethics panels have to include representatives from most of the major religion's of that country.