Separation of church and state does not require a segregation of religion from politics nor does it strip the public square of talk about religion. The institutional and functional separation between church and state does not prevent public officials’ religious convictions from playing a part in the formation of public policy (as long as the law has a primary purpose and effect that does not advance religion). Nor does it mean that candidates for office cannot discuss their religious beliefs and other values and, specifically, how these would inform the candidates’ leadership style and policy positions.

True, Article VI of the Constitution bans a religious test for public office. However, that legal prohibition does not mean that religion cannot be discussed while running for public office or that voters cannot take religion into account when pulling the lever.

Certainly, candidates’ talk about religion can be overdone and worn on their sleeves to curry favor with voters. Gov. Huckabee’s declaration that he is the “Christian candidate” — implying that his foes are not — comes quickly to mind. One of the reasons candidates are eager to talk about their religion is that 85-90 percent of the electorate claims to be religious themselves. Broad religious claims, if used as a generic substitute for descriptive policies, can both harm religion and political debate. It is always important to scrutinize candidates’ statements about their religion closely and to make sure their walk matches the talk.

There is a sense, then, in which “secularism” — if by that one means a hostile, anti-religious opinion — is getting short shrift. As I have discussed in previous posts in this forum, atheists and agnostics should enjoy full rights of American citizenship and are as moral, if not more so, than many people of faith. Their patriotism and dedication to democracy belie the myth that Gov. Romney peddled in his speech on his Mormonism that freedom can thrive only when supported by faith. Indeed, we have only one open atheist in the U.S. Congress. Everybody else is or claims to be a person of faith. Any presidential candidate who declares himself or herself an atheist won’t be one (a candidate) long.

However, if by “secular” one means religiously neutral, then I think it is very much part of the fabric of our constitutional and political system. The First Amendment’s religion clauses — no establishment and free exercise — require the government to be neutral toward religion, not taking sides in matters of faith, but leaving it to voluntary, individual decisions and private religious associations. Many of the candidates for president, including candidates of deep personal faith, believe in this vision for our body politic and understand it is part of the mainstream of our constitutional scheme.

So, we can and should talk about our faith in public and even during election campaigns. And despite the prohibition on a religious test for office, there are practical reasons religion will continue to be a factor in campaigns, including the right of private decision in the voting booths even based on religion and the reality that an avowed atheist is not likely to be elected president anytime soon. Change will come only when voters demand it. Secularism, properly understood, is not a bad word. Our government should not be hostile to religion, but it must remain religiously neutral.