Help me automate conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis for this statement: 

Religious doctrine has little to do with the kind of politician someone is.

Reasons to agree

1. "Jimmy Carter was probably more theologically in line with evangelicals than Ronald Reagan, yet we believe that Reagan was clearly the better choice in 1980." http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/why.php
2. Bill Clinton was Baptist. This did not make him a good president.
3. Hillary Rodham Clinton was Methodist. This did not make her a good presidential candidade.
4. George W. Bush was United Methodist. This did not make him a bad president.
5. George H. Bush was Episcopal. This had little to do with his policies.
6. Nixon was a Christian (Quaker) did that make him a good president?
7. Dwight D. Eisenhower was Presbyterian and Jehovah's Witness did that make him a bad president?
8. William Howard Taft was a Unitarian, whatever that was.
9. Wikipedia doesn't say what religion Theodore Roosevelt was, does that make him a ba person?
10. John Tyler was possibly a diest (http://www.adherents.com/people/pt/John_Tyler.html) did that shut the country down?
11. James Monroe was Episcopalian (possibly a deist) http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/James_Monroe.html
12. Thomas Jefferson had no affiliation (possibly Unitarian or Deist in belief). Does that make the decloration of independence suck?
13. John Adams my favorite president was a Unitarian. Historic Unitarians believed in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus. Historic Unitarianism believed in the oneness of God and not the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one God) proclaimed at the Council of Nicaea in 325.
14. George Washington was Anglican/Episcopal/Deist.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

1. Clarify Positions

Reasons to agree:

1. Examples of presidents with various religious affiliations who were considered good or bad regardless of their faith (e.g., Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, etc.)
2. Historical evidence of presidents with unconventional religious beliefs or lack of affiliation who were effective leaders (e.g., Thomas Jefferson, John Adams)

Reasons to disagree:

1. Religious beliefs can shape a politician's moral framework and decision-making process
2. Some voters consider a candidate's religious affiliation as a factor in their electoral choice

2. Identify Interests

Interests of those who agree:

1. Ensuring that political leaders are judged based on their actions, policies, and character rather than religious affiliation
2. Promoting a secular government that separates church and state
3. Encouraging a focus on a candidate's qualifications and track record

Interests of those who disagree:

1. Believing that religious values should guide political decision-making
2. Seeking political leaders who share their religious beliefs and moral framework
3. Viewing religion as an important aspect of a candidate's character and trustworthiness

Shared interests:

1. Electing effective and ethical political leaders
2. Upholding the principles of democracy and fair representation
3. Promoting the overall well-being of the nation

3. Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of the Belief

1. Historical evidence of presidents' performance in office relative to their religious affiliations
2. Studies examining the correlation between a politician's religious beliefs and their policy decisions or effectiveness
3. Analysis of voter behavior and the role of candidate religion in electoral outcomes

4. Analyze Underlying Issues and Root Causes

1. The historical context of the role of religion in American politics and public life
2. The diversity of religious beliefs and practices in the United States
3. The tension between the principle of separation of church and state and the influence of religion on political discourse

5. Identify Unstated Assumptions

1. Assuming that a politician's religious beliefs necessarily dictate their political actions and decisions
2. Assuming that voters prioritize a candidate's religion over other factors such as experience, policy positions, and character
3. Assuming that all members of a particular religious group share the same political views and values

6. Propose Top-rated Solutions

1. Encourage voters to evaluate candidates based on their qualifications, experience, and policy positions rather than religious affiliation
2. Promote public education and dialogue about the role of religion in politics and the importance of separating personal faith from government decision-making
3. Support initiatives that foster interfaith understanding and combat religious stereotyping and discrimination in the political sphere

7. Conduct Cost-Benefit Analysis

Potential Costs of Agreeing:

• Social: Perception of diminishing the role of religion in public life (Moderate likelihood, Low impact)
• Political: Losing support from voters who prioritize candidates' religious affiliations (Low likelihood, Moderate impact)

Potential Benefits of Agreeing:

• Political: Encouraging a focus on candidates' qualifications and policies (High likelihood, High impact)
• Social: Promoting a more inclusive and diverse political landscape (High likelihood, Moderate impact)

Potential Costs of Disagreeing:

• Political: Perpetuating religious discrimination and bias in the electoral process (Moderate likelihood, High impact)
• Social: Reinforcing divisions along religious lines in the public sphere (Moderate likelihood, Moderate impact)

Potential Benefits of Disagreeing:

• Personal: Feeling a sense of alignment between one's religious beliefs and political leaders (Moderate likelihood, Low impact)
• Political: Gaining support from voters who prioritize candidates' religious affiliations (Low likelihood, Moderate impact)

8. Identify Key Resources

• "The Myth of the Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church" by Gregory A. Boyd (book)
• "Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment" by John Witte Jr. (book)
• "The Diminishing Divide: Religion's Changing Role in American Politics" by Andrew Kohut et al. (book)

9. Evaluate Supporting Evidence

Best Supporting Evidence (Agreeing):

• Historical examples of presidents with diverse religious backgrounds who were effective leaders
• Studies showing a weak correlation between politicians' religious affiliations and their policy decisions or effectiveness

Best Supporting Evidence (Disagreeing):

• Examples of politicians whose religious beliefs have influenced their policy positions or decision-making
• Research on voter behavior highlighting the role of candidate religion in some electoral contexts

Most Credible Supporters (Agreeing):

• Robert Putnam, political scientist and author of "American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us"
• Barry Lynn, former executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Most Credible Supporters (Disagreeing):

• Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition
• Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and prominent conservative Christian thinker

10. Analyze Values and Ethics

Values and Ethics of those who agree:

• Prioritizing secular government and separation of church and state
• Valuing diversity and inclusivity in the political sphere
• Emphasizing the importance of evaluating candidates based on qualifications and merit

Values and Ethics of those who disagree:

• Believing in the importance of religious values in shaping public policy
• Valuing the role of faith in informing a politician's character and decision-making
• Seeking political leaders who share their religious beliefs and moral framework

11. Review Supporting Media

• "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt (book)
• "God in America" documentary series (PBS)
• Political cartoons depicting the debate over the role of religion in politics

12. Explore Alternative Framings

• "A politician's effectiveness and integrity should be judged based on their actions and policies, not their religious affiliation."
• Equivalency score: High
• Topic equivalency score: High
• % positivity: High
• % strength: High
• % specificity: High
• "While personal faith can inform a politician's values, it is crucial to maintain a separation between religious doctrine and government decision-making."
• Equivalency score: Moderate
• Topic equivalency score: High
• % positivity: Moderate
• % strength: Moderate
• % specificity: Moderate