@LittleMathYou,
This might not be a popular view point, but I think that everyone's moral values are, in the end, based on unprovable beliefs. That goes for atheists as well as religious fundamentalists. And I certainly expect a politician's moral values to shape their policy. So I expect that everyone in politics will be making decisions that are shaped by unprovable, or "religious" (in the wide sense), beliefs. And that's OK by me, at least in theory.
I think we often get distracted by attacking opposing politician's core beliefs when what we really don't like is their policies and actions. Of course that is a normal "Us vs. Them" mentality, and it's a natural response to disagreement. But, I think a better way of going about things would be to try to understand the other person's belief system, and make appeals to them through their own system in attempt to find common ground in policy.
I expect that making appeals to pre-held beliefs is going to be more productive than trying to convince them to (1) leave their belief system at home, and then (2) agree with us on policy. An example of appealing to pre-held beliefs was seen in the first post- appealing to conservative Christians by using the teachings of Jesus to help the poor and denounce violence. The same could work the other way too, for example- appealing to liberals by asking how their belief in the importance of autonomy might relate to a late term fetus. And we could go on and on with this kind of idea.
At least this way we can have a discussion, maybe find some common ground.
(Getting down from soapbox...)
-Luke