With the headline, something distant from direct politics, but circling into relation.
Carbon, the source of the industrial revolution, making combustion usage the energy not needing a water drop for hydro powered torque, not needing animal power. Remember that at the start of the twentieth century local delivery by horse or mule cart was the norm as automobiles powered by internal combustion were experimental rather than established.
So if you have to worship something, worship carbon instead of a big man in the sky preordaining everything but giving you free will.
Carbon is the necessity of all life. Carbon is diamond and graphene, both still research items in a reach to understand. Carbon is the ring around the central metal in chlorophyll and hemoglobin. Carbon is the devil in climate science. Renewable energy depends on silicon for photo cells and processing it takes temperature, so combustion again. The resin needed for wind turbine blades comes from carbon chemistry. Without carbon and knowhow, renewable energy would be a myth instead of a reachable goal subject to planning.
So, carbon is the backbone of all life, just as all energy on earth is solar energy. Be it a wood fire or an electric heater combustion energy is utilizing stored energy traceable to past photosynthesis. So whatever the knowhow, primative pre-human use of fire, smelting to make swords, the knowhow is knowing how to use, ultimately, solar energy.
Second reason to worship carbon instead of a mythology, Copernicus. The same mentality powering Pence and Wardlow and Sunni against Shia is the mentality that had a good enough explanation for moving on to war and tribalism and on a grander scale nationalism with its earth centric Ptolomeic explanation of the universe and its mechanisms. It was embraced by the Roman Church. Copernicus by thought divined the heliocentric hypothesis which withstood the Roman Church assault because it explained things more sensibly without the need of myth.
Copernicus upset prevailing limited thought, and is a cardinal figure in any history of reason.
So, throwbacks exist among them and their political bent is to strait-jacket thought and to say we as sinners all must better ourselves by following righteousness as the priesthood/pastors explain it to us because of a book of writings predicated upon order among a nomadic tribe which reporduced at a sufficient consistency to survive Rome and diaspora, whereas Constantine saw a basis to retool prior Roman mythology with a newer one upon which even century later feudalism could be predicated per divine rights of kings.
The political dimension is that reasoned secular humanism can be a bedrock of governing peoples of the world, without myth, and the myth sellers are the danger. Reduced to its most micro dimension, the Wardlow mythology is a greater danger than the Ellison mythology in our local context, politics being local, because the Muslim rather than the Christian is the one showing flexibility and a broader perspective of live-and-let-live, with the intent to see a betterment for all as a government duty and not at the whim of private charitable feelings be the latter weak or strong. Govern less, govern best, but keep the rich man's thumb off the scale or else there will be imbalance with, no surprise, the rich man gaining more and the poor relegated to generations of poverty.
The Muslim man in a candidacy has a better and more humane outlook than the Christian opponent, who has more baggage when it comes to articulating a sense of what is good government. Hanging with cop Kroll is not a strength but a weakness. Each candidate has had one divorce, the Muslim having had a stable lasting marriage for a longer term than the Christian in his second marriage.
So leave the family status of each as private, and look to the policy not only as promised, words being cheap, but as expected by examination of what we can see of the character of each contestant. One for a paycheck and out of dogma supported the hounding of a woman from her job and made a big stink of it. The other has ties to the million man march which was a good statement, and has expressed a mild degree of Zionism skepticism, being shouted about as "Anti-Semetic" where Zionism is not Judaism, but separate and it involved post WW II disorganization of a neighborhood by force which continues. The very term "Anti-Semetic" is bothersome because it obscures a truth that Arabs and middle eastern Jews both are Semetic people whereas Jews of European descent are not.
Anti-Judiasm is a fine enough term, but usage has not favored it. At any rate an answer to Anti-Judiasm is not Anti-Islam, since both embody a bigotry that is slowly being drained from racism and sexism, for the betterment of the human race. If the -ism biases could only be curtailed in the next few generations the world would be better. Given rising population upon the fixed earth, getting into better modes of relating to one another is becoming greater in importance and Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul having a bidding war over a crooked Iowa politician shows what "throwback" really means. Bachmann and Paul each being a slave to counterproductive dogma. Take dogma into mind, and Wardlow's is more visceral than Ellison's to the point Ellison and his policies should represent a greater cause for support than Wardlow-Kroll "law and order" and "rule of law" from one having been on record describing to Tea Party malcontents a notion of a proto-Constitution because we all are astray. I am not, Wardlow is, and Ellison less so, if astray is to be the yardstick.
The micro-thinking is quite distant from an appreciation of carbon and of Copernicus, one being appreciation of Nature and the other of thought over dogma. Yet the over-arching belief set can leaven all the name calling and mud slinging that U.S. of A. politics has degenerated into differentiating between Tweedle Dee and Treedle Dum, where Clintonian "triangulation" was nothing more than the thought both parties might prosper more by serving the rich more than the needy. Two-party politics being illogicial, but akin to any we-them thinking which is most certainly low-level tribalism at its worse. Clash of Culture BS is not as sound a worldview as well mannered coexistence grounded upon respect for the fundamental humanity of every other living human person being a preeminent consideration to where the intrusion of others into the lives of each should be done with utmost caution and restraint. And that appears to me to be something James Dobson does understand, but he does not like it nor live it. Wardlow being a Dobson acolyte, he similarly is a threat to peaceful coexistence within a State, a nation, the world, and the universe.