LAWTON: In fact, Professor Ribuffo believes there are only a few circumstances where such discussions would do more good than harm.

Prof. RIBUFFO: If a major party nominated a serious believer in Bible prophecy, who thought that the European community prefigured the coming of the anti-Christ, then I would say sure, we'd better ask, and we'd better ask fast, how does this influence policy. But since every plausibly nominated [presidential candidate] is well within the civil religion tradition, I don't think asking the questions would get very good answers, and I think it's more likely to stir animosity, which the country doesn't need.

Bush: I wish I knew the law to make people love one another. I would sign it.

Lieberman: If you believe in God, I think it is hard not to be an environmentalist.

LAWTON: Many observers admit it can be tricky to find the right line between God-talk that is illuminating, and God-talk that is inappropriate.

JEAN BETHKE ELSHTAIN (University of Chicago): It is a hard thing to talk about and to talk about well in a political context. Because it is deeply personal. Yet, it helps to make you who and what you are. So, I think there is no law about it, there is no general rule to follow. You just have to hope that the candidates have a sense of appropriateness of the occasion, [and ] remind themselves at every point about the religious pluralism of America, so they don't exclude those who aren't of their own faith community, and I think we should ask that of candidates and we should insist on it.

JIM WALLIS (Call to Renewal Coalition): I think it very important to get this right. In other words, I don't think candidates, or any of us, should say "Biblical faith dictates particular policy prescriptions." Rather we have to say, "What are the fundamental kind of moral issues here?" Vision and direction, and I would say, moral imperatives have to be there, or else faith-talk is sort of "vote for me, I'm a nice religious guy and you can trust that."

LAWTON: Jim Wallis wrote to both presidential candidates last month on behalf of the religious leaders in his broad-based Call to Renewal Coalition. He suggested they use the issue of child poverty to further explain how their faith might impact their politics.

WALLIS: Let's now become specific, let's be concrete. Isn't it right? Isn't it good, wouldn't it be a moral goal to say, "let's cut child poverty in half by five years." To me that's an appropriate thing for religious leaders to ask of politicians.

LAWTON: It's unclear how any of this may play with the voting public. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 70% of voters prefer a president with strong religious beliefs. But half also say they are uncomfortable when politicians discuss how religious they are.

Prof. RIBUFFO: Most Americans are satisfied with what we've got, and what we've usually had since Eisenhower: an affirmation of a civil religion, a sense that God likes America, even if he's not quite an American, and a belief that our candidates hold some sort of theistic religiosity.

LAWTON: Stephen Carter says, he hopes voters won't be satisfied with mere political pandering on religious issues. And, he says, the voters are the ones with ultimate control.

CARTER: In the end, in a democracy, our best security against any error is going to be the wisdom and goodwill of people, of voters, of you and me. If we have, or think we have, too much talk about religion in politics or too little, then the only real security for them is for voters to push one way or the other.

LAWTON: I'm Kim Lawton reporting.