comment: >
  
  You are correct on many fronts. They obviously are entitled to religious beliefs and such and maybe my wording was bad, I think it should be punishable to blatantly say you’re making a decision on legislation that effects all people of all beliefs because you are insert religion here. Those ideals will definitely come into play, although I do like the comment you replied to where it would be a requirement to justify why they voted the way they did. It just feels very wrong when a politician says “I’m a good Christian, and because of this I cannot in good faith vote yes on this bill” or something along those lines when so many people don’t share those same views and if said bill were to go through it wouldn’t directly affect the life of people who share those religious beliefs but may make a massive amount of positive impact for other people. I understand it’s extremely complicated and almost if not completely impossible to enforce.
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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  Maybe the amendment needs revision then? The reasons laws change is because moral philosophy changes. Religion isn't such.a clap back to justice as it was, so maybe laws should reflect that >
  
  
  Maybe the amendment needs revision then? 
  
  So that human rights can be restricted? Not a great idea. >
  
  When Human right A constantly becomes grounds to take away human right B, then A no longer remains a human right.
  The same way that right to movement ends at the tip of someone else's nose >
  
  
  When Human right A constantly becomes grounds to take away human right B, then A no longer remains a human right.
  
  That's why assault is illegal. Speech doesn't take away any rights. >
  
  So im not completely restricting speech, its when its interfering in politics is when it becomes an issue. 
  Especially speech in which we give special consideration just because of how people feel. Religion is nothing but ideas, but nothing is more protected than religion. Even schools cant outright deny creationism, or the student's religion, because their religious feeling get hurt, even though the religion is false, with pretty definitive evidence,. >
  
  I have no idea how you’ll ever do these things:
  
  
  define what a religious belief is 
  
  
  prove when someone is making a choice based on that belief 
  
  
  Every single person has a life philosophy which governs our decisions, to ask someone to ignore that and take on … some other philosophy? … doesn’t make sense. 
  This is why we are a democracy where your recourse is to vote someone out of office who doesn’t vote in accordance with your life philosophy. >
  
  This runs into the first issue I mentioned. Defining a religious belief is not straightforward or realistic.