Here's an observation: People in the South are overall affectionate. A leisurely stroll down Memphis streets is a recharging experience because all the friendly greetings one receives. Strangers go out of their ways to say something nice. I used to think it had something to do with religion. Now I think the warm weather and laid-back life style are probably the ultimate cause of their friendliness.

And good looks too. Good looking people scantily clad. The South is a paradise. What impresses me the most is the total absence of cynicism. Every time you make a mistake, and before you explain it, people have found an excuse for you already.

+1, but I will note that left-wing ideologies AND new-age spiritualism (see anti-GMO laws) that motivate the opposite side's politicians are in large form NOT in any meaningful way different from Christianity, so singling out Republicans for your example is a bit biased.

@DVK While I recognize that anti-GMO laws are just as unscientific as some laws Republican politicians endorse, the question was more about organized religion. If somebody asked a question about anti-scientific thought in general, I could definitely include some examples from the political left (though luckily those policies do not appear to have as much a hold on Democratic policy on a national level).

@Avi - "God" != "organized religion". Especially since the left explicitly insists on that (Wicca treated as just-as-real religion as well as other more weird ones etc...)

"God", in American politics, typically refers to Jesus' dad. Ie, Christianity. If the question is 'organized religion in general' that'll likely result in different answers.

@DVK The point still stands. Anti-GMO laws and new-age spiritualism tend to a) have less political impact (for now) and b) not derive their support from belief in a god.

@Avi - anti-GMO laws forced famine and hunger on a large swaths of human population. New-age spiritualism caused outbreaks of Measles and other dangerous diseases from lack of vaccination. You don't seem to be measuring political impact correctly on that side. They derive their support from belief. Whether you call it a supernatural "god" honestly, or call it "gaia", isn't very relevant to a person's behavior.

@DVK Those problems are not substantial or too politically influential in the United States, and the US by and large does not have anti-GMO laws. I agree that in places like southeast Asia, it is an extremely important issue. Anti-vaccination hysteria has, unfortunately, had some political influence (in that it has motivated exemption laws), but I do not think that it is motivated by belief in God.

@DVK anti-GMO laws typically stem from backlash against big-ag and support for local and family farming--not a due to some 'belief' system (though that exists, it's a fringe influence on the laws). The anti-vaccine people are all crazy, but seem to span a full spectrum of religious beliefs, so not isolated to those that do vs. do not believe in God. And as Avi states, while issues, they tend to be localized and not really party-affiliated issues.

@DA. - I take it you never argued with anti-GMO people. Their main arguments are about "naturalness", etc... (which I wholly fail to deontologically distinguish from "The Good Book says"). And no, starving masses of people are not in my book classified as "localized" issue. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by statistics but I am pretty sure 90%+ of anti-GMO sentiment is on "D" side of US political binary

@DVK I live in a state that hotly debates it every election. There are definitely the hippy arguments, but the vast majority of the arguments stem from local farming groups and associations. The bigger backlash against GMOs isn't the genetics, but against the MONSANTO patent lawyers suing local farmers out of business.

(and as a complete aside, GMO patents have little to do with feeding the planet and much more to do with monopolizing food--but that's a fun debate for another time...)

@DVK - You seem to be taking the viewpoint that the question asks "How important is personal belief in USA politics?" It doesn't. It's asking specifically about capital-G God. As in Christianity. While I'll certainly agree that a fanatic born-again Christian and a fanatic new-age spiritualist may share certain traits, and will certainly let their beliefs color their political decisions, the OP did not ask about the latter.

@Bobson - as I said, deontologically, they are identical. Both based on faith-based belief in unprovable.

@DVK while I agree that that makes the nameless equally wrong and equally useless, OP was only asking about one such belief in the question

@DVK I have no idea how the left-wing hippy dippy anti-GMO lobby is derivable from a question about capital-G monotheistic divinity in manner the question has been asked. Ask your question directly; as re-framing this one isn't working for you.

@LateralFractal - The fact that OP is likely completely ignorant of the fact that there is a possibility of religious belief NOT involving monotheistic "G"od is not grounds for succumbing to the same bias in the answer. As it is, the Q+A validates - while looking very fact-based - a completely untrue view that only Christians have outsized influence on USA politics due to faith based belief, where nothing can be further from the truth.

@DVK Then it's another one of those questions that presumes their desired answer. But you know - you can still answer the question by posting an answer along the lines of "No, it isn't any more politically influential or important than other non-Christian emotive stances." Blaming the questioner gets us precisely nowhere when you can still answer. Unless asking was the crime? This isn't a hard science stack. I've come to accept that a while back.

@LateralFractal - if you pay attention, that is 100% precisely what I did. I very politely pointed out the possible bias to the answerer, gave them an example to use to avoid said bias, and upvoted the answer anyway. Then everyone else who doesn't seem to be bothered by biases in posts unless they are anti-progressive started arguing with me that my comment was inapplicable because the question as asked (in biased way) put my comment outside the scope.

@DVK Hmm. It it seems you wanted Avi to add your outlook to their answer. I'm not entirely sure that's best approach. Shouldn't the question have been commented on instead of an answer if the question is the root source of the bias?

@LateralFractal - I wanted to avoid an answer that validates a completey biased view, but thanks to how the question was phrased, looks 100% objective and non-biased due to its overall high quality. And because of the latter, adding my own answer to balance the bias is 100% out of the question, I have not much of actual substance to add to Avi's analysis