Personal faith of a politician should not influence their votes or political decisions

I apologize beforehand for the curtness of this rebuttal. I have my last midterm tomorrow and the debate runs out before I truly get some extended free time. This debate has come down to two main things in my mind. One is based on deductive reasoning. The other is based on stupid definition disagreements. I want to start off saying that I consider myself a utilitarian in most aspects. I see where you are coming from with this deductive reasoning argument and for the most part I agree with it. However I disagree in the assertion that there is communal "deductive reasoning". There can be communal deductive reasoning. If I had a lake house on a lake with many other people and we all polluted it, the lake would be dirty. But we all enjoy a pretty lake in regards to utility than we gain from polluting the lake. Here is a prime place to invoke a law that restricts liberty so the group can prosper. Perhaps one person likes polluting so much that his utility is lessened by this plan. Overall utility goes up so why not go forth with the plan? It gets complicated by adding in other factors. As I tried to say in my examples above, how do we maximize utility on a broad scale? Do we try to maximize income or equality or fairness or liberty. People have great arguments for one or the other. If we could assign a numerical value to each item in a policy and compute how much this policy benefits society then I am more than willing to concede this debate. The problem is, we cannot do this. Deductive reasoning only gets us so far. We cannot list, let alone comprehend, every little action a policy invokes. If we did this debate should be titled "we should maximize utility if we can know utility". Knowing everything and being able to compute all these things is not part of our current world. Maybe one day this will occur but right now we are debating in unrelated hypotheticals. I am debating from the current reality. In the current reality we cannot itemize policy and find out the mass effect of it. We can deduce only so far. Therefore personal decisions come into play at a point. Sometimes these decisions may be religious based. Based on my faction arguments throughout the debate, I think this is the best way to solve issues at least when we cannot deduce any further. My plan is "deduce as far as possible and then set up a system where people can fairly debate what is unknown". Your system assumes we can know all. I advocate voting for the person that is best for me. You advocate voting for the person who is best for society. Not only can we sometime do both (perhaps ruling on religion this one time is what is best in the current situation) but also, why should I as an individual consider other people? Why shouldn't I be selfish and want all that I can get? Why is societies betterment good for me? Some quick definitional things. I will go along with the commonly held should notion but since then we are debating in hypotheticals whether "obviously beneficial action A should be advocated over detrimental action B" I'd rather "should" refer to what action currently holds the best outcome. On religion, I thought we were talking about commonly defined religion and not religion that is detrimental to society. I think my arguments go around this but I think religion refers to the detrimental and the beneficial things it offers. I think in our current reality we need to do what is best for us on an individual level since we cannot know what is best for society. This sometimes entails using religion as one of many ways to decide policy. Using religion as a factor is just like using a political party. And sometimes religion can be right so banning it altogether is ludicrous. Utility is a subjective balance between freedom, fairness, and equality.We are all individuals so life is better decided on an individual basis and not on what makes the group as a whole better.