The public is partly to blame for all the spiritual spin that comes out of presidential campaigns. Voters tend to equate faith with trustworthiness. Faith language seems to make the decision quick and easy for voters: Candidate A has faith, therefore Candidate A is a good person, and therefore I will vote for Candidate A.

But the voters are not wholly to blame. In a blizzard of positions, it is hard to sort out the issues and judge candidates objectively. Furthermore, trustworthiness is important. A candidate can have a terrific platform on education, health care, and international diplomacy, but if he or she never acts on that platform once elected (an experience voters have had many times), then what good did it do us to judge candidates on the issues?

This is why candidates are so tempted to play the faith card -- because it translates as trustworthiness in the minds of voters -- and why voters are so tempted to bet that the faith card means that the candidate is trustworthy.

But voters and candidates beware. Thomas Jefferson resisted a religious test for political office on religious grounds. All a faith test for office would do, Jefferson argued, is to tempt candidates to the “sin of hypocrisy.” In effect, Jefferson argued, if you make religious faith a condition of electability, you are just begging to be lied to. Both voters and candidates then become complicit in making the spiritual spin machine work. This is bad all around from an ethical perspective.

So what are we as voters to do? There’s no way around the hard work voters need to do to sort out the voting record of candidates and look for consistency and ethical judgment over time. Leave judging the sincerity of faith to God, where it belongs.