Mammon is in Everything that is not Truth

Probably the single greatest reason for the entanglement of politics into both faith and science is ... money.

Both institutions require money for their operations, and both consist of people, which have a unique attraction to money among the creatures of the earth.

Consider this: for a scientific organization to receive government funding, it needs to be accredited by specific agencies. These agencies have political views, and those are included in their assessments. Example - my position on the current evolution/intelligent design debate is that neither can ever be scientifically proven true. However, an institution that teaches intelligent design as ascendent will not be accredited by the big dollar agencies - and therefore will not receive government funding. On an individual level, an article which proposed evolution as not scientifically correct is challenged indeed to get published in a leading scientific journal - which is necessary for tenure and job advancement. Hence, the dollar drives the experimental results for politically controversial issues.

Similarly, those churches which threatened to leave the Episcopal Church of the USA due to the selection of Vicki Gene Robinson (a priest who had left his wife for another man) as a bishop were told that they would lose their church building and land, since it belongs to the ECUSA. Very few churches actually made the jump - many more had groups of members who left the church and either went to another denomination or established their own church. Again, the influence of money is clear in determining what faith appears to say about a politically controversial subject.

Despite the negative influence of money on faith and science (can it be anything but negative?), the areas in which they tread - beyond their precepts which with no one honest argues - are benefited by the infusion of the other into them. That's next.

UPDATE: I had it pointed out that Bishop Robinson did not leave his wife for another man. Bishop Robinson, and it seems his wife, agree on this. However, by my counting, his 'committed homosexual relationship' began less than a year after his divorce was final. What would we think if a man left his wife, "it's not you, it's me, blah blah blah", and was remarried a year later?

Simply put, a man whose word is not good enough in something as important as his marriage is not going to be believed after he is shown to be untrustworthy - particularly if he is a moral relativist.