“God” is scarcely a theological concept any more because it means too many different things to so many different people – from the agnostics among the Founding Fathers to the literal fundamentalists making dire predictions about the End Days. In my opinion, “God Bless America” at the end of a speech is little more than cultural coinage, scarcely different from saying “God bless you!” when someone sneezes.

Of course, shrill anti-religious fanatics will mount a soapbox to claim their rights to be atheists are being violated by public endorsement of belief, just as the anti-anti-religious fanatics will make as much noise about retaining “In God We Trust” on pennies. Both extremes can be safely ignored, if only because the bulk of sensible people recognize that tolerance for other people is the hallmark of a free society.

Politicians often make up their own religion as they go along (Ronald Reagan comes to mind), but this doesn’t mean they don’t rely on certain definable religious premises. As Mr. Bush and company have found out, there is a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims and that difference is often a matter of life and death.

Voters should know beforehand whether or not religion is relevant in the practical decision-making of an office-holder. Rather than worrying about using or not using the word “God” in a speech, I would want to test a politician’s degree of denominational loyalty. If they are believers, there should be differences among the likes of Assemblies of God John Ashcroft, Roman Catholic John Kerry, and United Methodist John Edwards. Each affiliation suggests a theological perspective. The theology in turn helps predict one’s mindset, if not one’s eventual political decisions. Admittedly, there is a great deal of overlap in most Christian theologies, so these denominational and theological differences don’t always divide candidates – Kerry and Edwards were on the same ticket in 2004.

All the politicians mentioned above, for instance, could invoke religious faith in advocating a social need to aid the poor. They would likely differ on how much of the responsibility belonged to private institutions and how much to governmental agencies, with the Roman Catholic and Methodist likely on one side and the Pentecostal on the other.

To a question about same-sex marriage, the responses might vary from “Never!” to “Always!” but probably include many more in-between answers that make distinctions between civil unions and sacramental marriage, between civil rights and privacy, and so forth. If the devil is in the details, so too is faith.

All of these distinctions rest on the premise that the politician has loyalty to the teachings of his/her religion. The current president Bush, for instance, professes to be a Methodist, yet defied the leaders of his own denomination in starting the war in Iraq. Bush’s identification with Evangelicalism rather than with Methodism has complicated the decision of Southern Methodist University to become the home for his presidential library. And don’t forget that Senator Hillary Clinton is a Methodist, along with Bush.

The issue is not what faith you belong to, but which faith you follow. Similar issues of denominational loyalty confront Roman Catholics who are taught to oppose the Iraq War and the death penalty on the one hand and to annul abortion rights on the other. Since at present no political party’s agenda corresponds completely with any one denominational teaching, we should expect believing candidates to exercise prudence in evaluating what is personal belief and what is civic responsibility to the common good.

We shouldn’t let the rationalists and atheists off the hook either. So many of them ridicule opposition to abortion as a “faith based” and not rational. Yet modern science has proven that the fetus is a human being with its own DNA and chromosomes. Rationally approached, one must say that a fetus is not a part of the woman’s body! Nonetheless the partisan ideology of atheists – like that of all too many Christian politicians – often sacrifices logic on the altar of groupie-like expediency.

I would oppose a government that allowed theological (or atheistic) doctrines to become political dictates. On the other hand, in a democracy the majority vote should count for something. I see nothing wrong with political debate being enhanced by religious conviction and theological reasoning about faith, as long as a majoritarian perspective is the result. In fact, it might be helpful in the forthcoming presidential campaign to frame questions about key issues by reference to each candidate’s denominational loyalty. Even if I recognize that my suggestion is unconventional, I would still like to be on a panel to ask Senators Dodd (Democrat) and Brownback (Republican) what Catholic pro-life teaching means to each of them. We need clarification from Protestants too about the meaning of biblical inerrancy and the role of tolerance for non-Christian religions.

If we want to get away from the pre-programmed answers we need to ask new questions of our candidates. A wise study of responses on such issues may also produce insights into how potential presidents will approach politics and religion in Muslim countries.

In sum, the details about religion may be more important than labels. We have until November 2008 to find out.