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

For practical purposes, let us have this debate simply regard the U.S. Sorry for not clarifying. As for religion, I am fairly sure that we both know what we are talking about regarding definitions, so there is little need to go further in depth at the time. "A policy that is "best" takes these three things into consideration and there inherently is disagreement. Some people prefer liberty, some equality, and some money....There is no such thing as deductive reasoning in the social sciences as the "best" is subjective and is defined differently by others." This is where your argument becomes flawed. There IS such thing as deductive reasoning in politics. What else would you call debates on the house or senate floor, or even debates in general for that matter? Inherently, all a debate does is analyze deductive reasoning to determine the outcome and what is right. And you bring up three things to be brought up into consideration, including liberty, equality, and money. Some people prefer some over others, and this value may be arbitrary. And all three of your themes can be placed onto scales, for example a scale beginning with less liberty ranging to more liberty. The real question is this: how does one determine which level on this scale is optimal for the common good? My point is that one could use deductive reasoning to determine an optimal range in this scale to place the liberty (freedom) level best for the country as a whole. Of course, no liberty is bad for the country as a whole, as no one would be able to do anything. Yet, going to the extremes in liberty allowance also causes problems, as am sure you would agree, that to a degree, our country needs to regulate its citizens (e.g. required processes, like education). So a politician could derive using deductive reasoning that a moderate degree of liberty, which would inherently depend upon the specific issue being presented, might be best. However, there are also those politicians that claim that the "American people" should decide where they want to place its liberty level. The problem with this is that, obviously, not all Americans think the same. Some would claim that less liberty is overall more beneficial, while some may claim that more liberty is overall more beneficial. All this is would be a popularity contest. If someone that is advocating something, but only manages to gather 48 percent support, are you claiming that the other 52 percent should automatically be considered the "right" ones, and allow the other 48 percent of people to have their voices go unheard?? By the way, for my idea involving deductive reasoning, the American citizens of the country would still be listened too, but they would help in the deductive process. The main point here is this: what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. While some people may individually disagree on a particular issue, an issue should be solved to satisfy the common good, which does NOT necessarily mean popularity of a viewpoint. There is indeed a way, by collaborating the viewpoints of all people involved, to determine what is right, often times through debate. Perhaps more attention to actually completing debates with logic would encourage participants in all public debates to offer arguments instead of appeals to emotion, innuendo, name-calling, and sanctimonious prattle. "Should is a subjective word and it looks like we both can agree that should is based on some form of utilitarian measurement....The issue here is that one cannot objectively measure many issues....There are so many ways to measure what we "should" do or what is "best" for society." First, let me point out that my goal in this particular debate is not to identify HOW to objectively measure an issue using deductive reasoning to determine what is best for the common good, but rather to claim its existence, and that, indeed, it CAN be used for a multiple range of issues. As well, with out this talk about deductive reasoning, I just want to bring back the point that it should be used by U.S. politicians instead of religion or personal morals, which is the MAIN point in this debate. "Theoretically, I vote for whomever would provide me with the greatest benefit. If I was a politician and I wanted to maximize votes, I should base my strategy around ways that maximize votes. If I wanted the catholic vote, I might use my religion to influence policy sometimes if this gets me votes. This view is on an individual level." A lot of politicians, quite unfortunately, do just that. Many people simply follow a politician so that their own personal religious morals can be made into policy to be enforced upon others that may not consent, especially if they are affiliated with a different religion. I, myself, am Jewish, but, even on an individual basis, I do not want any of my individual morals to be imposed upon others; that would be selfish. By having politicians incorporate any religious morals that do not serve the common good is illogical; this country has multiple religions, and no one of them is dominant over any others, therefore, we can derive that incorporating religion, while we have freedom of religion, into state or federal laws is completely ridiculous and unreasonable. The purpose of government is to do what is best for its people, ALL of its people (i.e. serving the common good for all American citizens), not just those of a particular religion. That would be discrimination, which is unethical. "On a global level we want politicians who do us the greatest good. Perhaps politicians using religion to make policy is bad though this practice pays out for them. This would be an example of a market failure and some party should step in and do whats "best" for society. When does this stop? Does it get to a point where, unless one objectively weighs every decision one cannot vote?" See above, regarding public weighing in on issues. But generally, issues should not be solved by popularity alone; deductive reasoning should be used to solve disputes and reason out a situation. And of course, anyone, not just politicians, should be able to carry out their deductive reasoning and their thoughts regarding an issue. But when you analyze it, what does a vote symbolize? I mean, if your vote is not among a majority, your ideas are discredited. How is that fair? "If we do enforce this infringement on liberty by banning religion as a way to get votes, who enforces this?" What I am mostly advocating is that religious morals not serving the common good should not count in the deductive reasoning processes and debates which would be carried out in congress. "There is no easy way to define should....I believe that we can maximizes liberty and hence maximize utility by encouraging a factitious system of government where we vote for whom we think is best for us and not whom objectively is best. Religion plays a key part in that. Therefore sometimes religion should effect policy." Most of this I have explained above. But my main point is this: the only thing that should influence political decisions is deductive reasoning; and deductive reasoning is an extremely general term, but absolutely sufficient to carry out a common good to serve the American people as a whole. And religion should not affect policy, as similar religious practices and morals are not shared by everyone in the country. However, the common good, in its definition, is. The term "should" is a huge concept in itself, and is therefore somewhat difficult to explain. But essentially, it advocates ideal conclusions. What SHOULD be done to serve the common good; and serving the common good (American people as a whole) SHOULD be our ideal conclusion. With that, I thank you for being a part of this enthralling discussion, and if need be, I can post a further rebuttal in the comment space, Oboeman.