For Democrats, devotion to the separation of church and state has now become the love that dares not speak its name. Have you heard any viable Democratic candidate say that tax breaks for parents who want to send their children to religious schools, and public support for religiously-backed charter schools, are not only unconstitutional but will inevitably weaken public education?

Have you heard any Democrats announce their determination to appoint federal judges who will strongly uphold church-state separation instead of doing everything in their power to increase religious involvement in government?

Have you heard Democrats discuss the need for national education standards that do not pander to the beliefs of any particular religious group? Have you heard Democrats talk about the damage that anti-evolutionists have done to science education in many areas of the country?

Have you heard anyone in public life discuss the disastrous effects of religious interference in government, such as the earmarking of one-third of our annual international AIDS-fighting appropriations for programs that reject condoms and preach "abstinence only?" Have you heard anyone talk about the scandalous fact that more than 95 percent of federal grants for faith-based programs go to Christian organizations, with a particular emphasis on pet projects of the fundamentalist right?

Finally, have you heard any politician try to explain that this government was founded not only on absolute respect for freedom of conscience--for the right of citizens to practice their religion without any interference from government--but on a determination that religion would not interfere with the new American government as it had, with such horrific effects, in the Old World?

The irony is that no Democrat feels that he or she has anything to lose by offending secularists in the Democratic Party, because we have nowhere else to turn. Somehow, Democrats whose outlook on public affairs is largely secular must find a way to make their voices heard--and to convince candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that there is a price to be paid for softpedaling separation of church and state. I don't know exactly how this might be accomplished, but I am convinced that there must be an alliance between moderate religious believers and nonbelievers who are equally committed to the separation of church and state. We need to challenge the influence of left-wing evangelical Christians like Jim Wallis, who have convinced Democratic candidates that they must constantly refer to religious values in order to win. (And many liberal evangelicals, by the way, also dance around the whole issue of whether abortion should remain legal.) It's fine that the Democratic Party is a big tent, but I'm angry that the promoters of faith-based politics want to relegate those with secular values to the fringes of the tent.

I have no doubt that Democrats, whatever their personal faith, are more committed to secular democratic ideals than Republicans. But the Democrats are scared to say so. I also have no doubt that Christian conservatives are right to suspect that John McCain is, in his heart of hearts, a libertarian conservative in the tradition of the late Sen. Barry Goldwater rather than a faith-based fanatic. But McCain is scared to say so too, for fear of losing the entire religious conservative base of the Republican Party.

We must find a way to rescue secularism, and the separation of church and state, from the denigration of both the religious right and the religious left.