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

Greetings, I thank you for participating in my debate, and I hope this turns out to be an enthralling discussion. Before you proceed with the debate, I would like to note how I used the word "should" in my title and opening argument of the debate. The word "should" refers to what SHOULD occur (idealistic), rather than how things are currently functioning. Also, do realize that many of the questions you will see throughout this round are rhetorical. "If one is a strict orthodox member of a religious group that requires its members to adhere to certain doctrine, one must then theoretically base policy off of one's religion. Therefore in some cases, religion should influence politicians." In order to further my rebuttal, some definitions are in order. First of all, I somewhat defined religion in my first round. Religion is essentially organized faith; and faith can be considered a profound belief toward that in which cannot be proven at the current time. An obvious example would be the world being created in six days - this detail resides in ones own faith, as no one was around back then to determine what is indeed true or not true. But, referring back to what we were talking about, why should a politician be able to allow faith influence their decisions, considering that faith could be anything that fits within the definition shown above? How is it alright for a politician to vote against something, simply because it may contradict their faith? An example for this would be evolution, as many politicians would vote against it for frivolous reasoning, simply being becomes it contradicts their religion. However, evolution is just as valid a scientific theory as cell theory, and extensive data and evidence has been collected to support evolution theory. Yet, many politicians are still against the public teaching of it, as it rejects creationism and intelligent design. By the way, I realize that a politician may have personal morals and even a religion, but I am advocating that they just not use their own personal morals to legislate laws that are going to affect people that do not share the same morals. "Besides the fact that many of our founders were very religious and used this to effect policy there are also other countries that are not democratic but are theocratic. Would one discard religious influence in a society ruled by religion. No." Pertaining to our own country, we are not and should not become a theocracy. "Our lawmakers use religion to shape policy also b/c they got their own morals due to their religion." I understand that some personal morals may originate from religion, however, under your reasoning, people without a religion would not be considered moral. Is that what you are implying? If the answer to this question does indeed turn out to be "no," then one may have no affiliation with religion, but still have moral standards. The real question here is this: Why can't morals originate from one's own intellectual capabilities and good deductive reasoning? Because, if one can indeed have morals originate from deductive reasoning and their own intellect, then the need for religion in the public sphere has already diminished. "They understand what is right and what is wrong from their religion. We want our politicians to do what they think is right. Therefore religion can predict policy and in some cases should be used to influence decisions." Again, how do we determine what is right and wrong? As I mentioned, we should use deductive reasoning to determine whether particular things are ethical or unethical. And we do want our politicians to do what is right; and what is right can often be determined through multiple-person debate and deductive reasoning. One would, in this case, NOT be able to use religion or faith for determining such ethics, as there are many part of religion that are simply unethical, bringing me to yet another question: If one WAS to use religion to determine ethics, how would that person distinguish between what is right and what is wrong in their religion? Obviously, as I am sure you would agree with me, not every passage of the torah, for instance, would be considered ethical in the public sphere, but like I said, how would you distinguish between what is right, and what is wrong? Would you be able to without using deductive reasoning? The answer, unless you desire to debate me on any of this, is no, as, according to my own theories, one must use deductive reasoning to determine ethics (what is right or wrong). "Politicians get elected by support. They can often get support from preaching their religion and voting on religious lines." In my view, it is quite unfortunate that many people vote for a candidate simply because of their desire to incorporate their religion into politics. That is mere ignorance. The goal of a politician is to serve everyone, not just those of your religious affiliation. Any citizen can use deductive reasoning to come to the same conclusion for a bill or law; however, only those of a particular religion might come to the same conclusion if a bill or law is passed merely because of religious affiliation. "If we want the most democratic politicians then religion will be a factor in electing many. The idea w/ America is that there would be so many conflicting factions that not one could gain total control. Religious groups are just one more special interest faction in America. If we want a semi-democracy, religion must be allowed to be a factor with our politicians. There is a reason the founders did not ban church and state entirely." The goal of government is to do what is best for its people. How do we determine what is best - through deductive reasoning. With that being said, if religion were to be allowed as a factor with our politicians, one cannot use deductive reasoning in a bill that has only been reasoned with religion. And without deductive reasoning, one cannot determine what is best for the country as a whole. I look forward to your rebuttal.