comment: >
  
  
  clearer reasoning should be given about aspects that apply to that decision, like financial, health and other impacts
  
  Okay, "I am voting this way because that is what my constituents want." It just so happens that the constituents are religions, but a politicians appeasing those that vote for him is not only smart, but it is what they are supposed to do. How do we deal with that?
  To make a law against that in the USA would violate the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.
context: You could do this, but it won't accomplish anything. 
  If politicians can't credit religion, then they will credit something else publicly, but still mean religion. Everyone will know what they mean and wink and nudge at eachother when they say it.
  So, instead of saying, "I want this law to pass because that's God wants," they would say, "I want this law to pass because I believe it is the right thing to do." You say that you are tired of legislators voting against things you agree with, but even with your proposed policy, they will continue to do so. >
  
  I see that as another cop out. I know it’s basically impossible to actually put into law but I think politicians, regardless if they are for or against what I support should give clear reasoning other than the religion thing and also just saying “because I think it’s right” such as if their decision was made for financial reasons, personal rights reasons, if they believe someone should or shouldn’t have that choice and why, believe me I understand how nearly impossible or even completely impossible it would be to make that happen but it’s still my view that it should be that way >
  
  So, your view is to implement the impossible? That's not a very rational stance to have, no?
  I should remind you that your argument says, "to punish" people who use religion. This suggest a real-life application. If you said "it would be ideal," then okay, the impossible might be the ideal. However, if you want something that can apply in real life, then the impossible is not the way to go. >
  
  My view is that religion shouldn’t be given as the reason behind a decision, and that clearer reasoning should be given about aspects that apply to that decision, like financial, health and other impacts. I believe it is rational, and that over time in small steps it could be possible. I would say it would be nearly impossible to implement a law that tries to make a change like that in one shot. A start could be along the lines of just not mentioning your faith on the podium. In the future implementing laws that require an official to explain positive and negative impacts of their decision financially, how difficult it would be to enforce and things like that so the policies themselves could be more explained and fleshed out. I would say it’s not rational to believe this could be done quickly and effectively in a short period though.