For several decades now it has become increasingly obvious that people are failing to communicate well enough to persuade others to the sort of agreement necessary for that success to continue. They are not effective in convincing others in other groups than their own to follow plans that need be common in order to be effective. Then too people are not accepting any responsibility for their failure to persuade others. When one man robs a bank there are people who would place at least some small part of the blame on society. It is usually a very tiny percentage of the blame, even less than one percent. If however a third of the country decided to rob banks, that could indicate a more significant failure on the part of the rest of society to establish its direction. It could indicate a failure to make its direction compelling on words alone.
Neither religion nor science should depend on government to enforce any findings or promote any theories in their respective fields. Religion typically depends and a rather delayed enforcement mechanism in some other realm. Also religion typically addresses issues that science cannot. Religion necessarily then depends on persuasion in this realm. Science typically depends on how obvious and easily and certainly repeatable its findings are. Science necessarily then depends on being persuasive. There is no role for government in either of those.
When government tries to enforce "morality" at the point of a gun it means the people who consider themselves in charge of morality have lost the patience and the skill to persuade. It means they accepted their positions without questioning or understanding anything sufficiently to persuade others to the same positions.
When science turns to government to enforce compliance it can indicate that their "findings" are not really quite as obvious or certain yet to qualify as true, inarguable science. If its proponents were truly convinced by "data" then almost everyone else should be too. Of course in emergencies things can be different. There isn't time to develop a clear response plan and disoriented people need to have the obviously new issues settled by some arbiter, which is the government. It is remarkable how much opposition appeared to emergency requirements for the current pandemic. It really was not as much opposition as television perhaps made it appear and it was certainly not as religious an opposition as some people, perhaps even Trump made it appear. Even if the pandemic were a "hoax" or perhaps greatly exaggerated, that would mean a greater danger than some dumb virus that cannot plot against anyone. If a hoax, there is no telling what people that disturbed might do. There are large numbers of quite sensible people in religion who preferred and still prefer to err on the side of caution.
In and close to government lately are people who did not learn religion nor science themselves and therefore cannot persuade anyone else. That leaves the very obviously bitter divisiveness on television. That leads to their expectations to "win" despite never having made a convincing argument.
Yes, there are things science can and must do, yes there are things religion needs to do, but it will require more sober and articulate people using words to facilitate getting them done. Trump held rallies, not debates, and it can seem he never even attended a debate. That was the formula for what is really his failure whatever vote counts there might be found. With the embarrassment of the violence January 6th Republican leaders might understand that at last.
Too many people are venting their frustrations knowing full well that won't be effective. That's how emotions are. In rhetoric it's called pathos, not ethos.