Here we go again.  With election season upon us, the issue of religion in politics is surfacing again on the national scene.  The presidential candidates and others seeking office are discussing their faith in highly personal terms on the campaign trail while looking to key religious constituencies for support.

As in the last presidential race, when the candidates seemed engaged in a disturbing pattern of one-upmanship when speaking about their faith – with some even advocating a greater role for religion in government – the 2004 election season has already witnessed its share of attempts to inject religion into politics.

Recently, some of these efforts have taken on a different cast then they did during the previous campaign.

In 2000, we became increasingly concerned as the presidential candidates began discussing their faith in highly personal terms.  Some voters, including nonbelievers and those of minority religions, felt alienated.  We urged all of the candidates then to carefully consider their words when discussing matters of personal faith. 

This prompted a national debate about the role of religion in politics, with the concerns raised by church-state watchdog groups bringing closer scrutiny to the candidates' talk about religion.  Newspaper editorials urged candidates to refrain from overt expressions of religiosity.

This election season has brought more troubling phenomena into the mix. 

In a move designed to enable sectarian groups to play a more dominant role in influencing the vote, a congressional committee recently introduced an amendment that would enable churches, synagogues and other houses of worship to make political endorsements despite their status as 501(c)(3) nonprofits.

The "Safe Harbor for Churches" amendment introduced by Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA), chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, proposed loopholes in the tax law that would remove political-campaign restrictions for houses of worship and their clergy.  The measure, which has since been stripped from the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, was similar to a previous bill defeated in the House in October 2002.

Thomas and sympathetic members of Congress argue that religious viewpoints have been unduly muzzled in the public arena.  This argument is baseless.  Any attempt to remove campaign restrictions on houses of worship is unconstitutional, unnecessary and bad public policy.

Houses of worship, like all other tax-exempt, nonprofit institutions, as well as their religious leaders acting in a private capacity, are currently permitted to speak out on the full scope of religious, political and legislative issues.  They may also support voter participation and voter education initiatives.

But tax-exempt status provides houses of worship with a substantial monetary benefit.  The present law creates an incentive for people to donate to tax-exempt religious organizations because such donations are tax deductible.

In exchange for this benefit, it is reasonable to prohibit religious institutions from participating in political campaigns.  Without this restriction, the U.S. Treasury would be subsidizing political activity and undermining its own institutional neutrality.  Should a house of worship believe that participating in political campaigns is critical to its mission, it is always free to relinquish its tax-exempt status.

Another concern this election season is the growing emphasis by both parties on reaching out to sectarian groups and congregations in an attempt to "recruit" members to distribute campaign materials to voters, or to use houses of worship to initiate voter registration drives.

Members of President George W. Bush's re-election campaign have announced plans to launch a nationwide program to recruit the faithful to help the President's re-election bid.  The Democratic Party, in boosting the campaign of the presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, has not ruled out using similar tactics to register the vote.

There is a long tradition in American public life of using religious constituencies as a means to get out the vote.  Many candidates for higher office have used churches, synagogues and other houses of worship as a source of support.  The line has been crossed over the years by candidates in both parties.

On the one hand, while houses of worship are public forums that lend themselves to discussions of policy issues, participants must be careful not to politicize them.  Synagogues, churches and other houses of worship should not be abused for the purpose of politicking.

The line between legitimate outreach based on shared values and improper politicking based on religion is not clear, and is often difficult to discern.

Freedom of religion is one of our nation's most cherished liberties and Americans are among the most religious people in the world.  This liberty obviously extends to candidates, and many will be people of faith.  Certainly, they should not hide their identity or refrain from explaining their convictions to voters.  At the same time, however, there is a point at which an emphasis on religion in a political campaign can become inappropriate – and even unsettling – in a religiously diverse society such as ours.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.