So what, then, are the appropriate uses of religion in elections?

I would suggest three guidelines. First, discussion of religion can help explain who candidates and political leaders are and what they are about. Could you really understand George Bush, Bill Clinton, or Joe Lieberman without understanding how religion shaped their lives?

Second, candidates not only can, but should, express their views on policy issues concerning religion, e.g. religious freedom legislation, school prayer, constitutional amendments, intelligent design, the posting of the Ten Commandments in government settings, protecting the religious rights of American workers on their jobs, and charitable choice.

Third, the American people have a right to know how candidates' religious beliefs and values will inform their policy views on general domestic and foreign policy.

What, then, is not appropriate? I would, again, suggest three guidelines.

First, in discussing policy, it is inappropriate to suggest that one should support or oppose a policy solely because of religious beliefs. Something that must be taken by faith alone does not allow itself to be tested in the free marketplace of ideas, a quality that is essential for democracy to work and for any kind of meaningful public policy debate to take place.

Second, it is never appropriate for candidates or others, explicitly or implicitly, to suggest that there is a religious test for holding office. While the Article VI constitutional prohibition limits only the government, the spirit of this prohibition should infuse all political statements. Teddy Roosevelt observed that any religious test for public office, even one imposed by the voters rather than law, “directly contravenes the spirit of the Constitution.” For example, candidates who suggest Jesus would not vote for their opponent or who flaunt their religiosity in a manner to suggest voters should support them because they are “more religious” than their opponents violate the spirit of the ban.

And finally, candidates should minimize their use of divisive and exclusive language. I say “minimize” because the dividing line between inclusive and exclusive is not always clear, for while some religious language is far less sectarian and divisive than other language, all religious speech excludes someone. But Americans, in the main, should not be made to feel like outsiders because of their political leaders' rhetoric.

If candidates hewed to these guidelines, discussion of religion in our elections could illuminate candidates and policy rather than be, as they are so often these days, a source of discord and division.