» Governor Eliot Spitzer extracts wads of cash from an ATM and somehow piques the interest of the IRS and the Justice Department. It soon comes to light that he is engaged in un-Pilgrimlike activities with a prostitute at the Mayflower Hotel. "Whoremongering," as the passengers on that ship may have referred to it, is against the law in New York. A few days later the next Governor "confesses" to something that is not against the law. In an apparent preemptive strike David Paterson freely admits that both he and his wife have had extramarital affairs.

» In the wake vortex of the Jeremiah Wright flap, the question arises as to whether a house of worship is a public or private space. Some allege that--have we no shame?-- anything said in a religious sanctuary is clearly “off the record” (See “On Faith” columnist Susan Thistlethwaite for a good discussion of this point). Others insist--can there be privacy in a megachurch?--that sermons are fair game.

» In his book Character Makes a Difference, Mike Huckabee is just talking about religion (like he always does). He shares with us his response to those who urged him to tamp down the biblical stuff in his speeches: “The fact is that since my childhood, that Book and its Author have been the guiding forces in my life. And it would be much easier for me to give up being governor than it would be to give up taking the counsel that I have had from God and His Word.” Huck’s remark is reminiscent of a similar comment from Congressman Mark Souder of Indiana in 2004: “To ask me to check my Christian beliefs at the public door is to ask me to expel the Holy Spirit from my life when I serve as a congressman, and that I will not do. Either I am a Christian or I am not. Either I reflect His glory or I do not.”

The common denominator binding these far-flung examples is the willful blurring of the line between public and private spheres by politicians and journalists. Sexual space is now open to the seedy gaze of the media (and certain governmental agencies). Sacred space is no longer sacred. And various elected officials have insisted that personal psychic space--where one's deepest religious convictions are sheltered-- must be revealed to the public, if not called upon to inform public policy.

Interestingly, the public/private distinction does not correspond perfectly with the religious/secular divide in American political life. True, secularism's affinity with liberal political theory assures that it will always feel compelled to defend the private sphere. True, Evangelicals have well known difficulties with the idea that the constitution guarantees "a right to privacy."

But more than a few secularists are particularly concerned about radical Islam and seem willing to forgo various civil liberties in an effort to combat what they see as a threat to Civilization itself. As for Evangelicals, I would surmise that many are dismayed by the prospect of communing with Christ at the Family Worship Center accompanied by crack members of a politician's Opposition Research team.

Of late, discussions of privacy have centered on the rise of security cameras on city streets and the information gathered on citizens who use the internet. These are weighty and worthy matters. My only suggestion is that our Faith-and-Values-saturated political life brings many related issues to the fore.

(For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs).