Religion once again has been thrust front and center in the presidential campaign.

Last week, facing enormous pressure to explain his Mormonism to the American people, Republican candidate Mitt Romney delivered a major address on the role of religion in America and how faith would influence and inform his decision-making as president.

His address at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library came after weeks of mounting pressure, driven by 24/7 media coverage, poll numbers, the incessant murmurings of the political blogosphere, and concerns from conservative Christians and others that his Mormon religious beliefs were a liability.

What was perhaps most unsettling was that a candidate for president had to make this speech at all.

Many of us thought that, by now, a presidential nominee's religion was of concern only to hard-core bigots on the fringe. We Americans had demonstrated our freedom from the shackles of old-line religious prejudice.

Or had we?

To be sure, none of his rivals for the Republican nomination has raised the subject of Romney's religion. But two polls found that at least a quarter of Americans said they would not vote for a Mormon for president. These findings were troubling and disappointing, but so was the fact that some religious conservatives had compared the Mormon religion to a "cult," and its doctrines to paganism.

Americans, no matter what their faith, background or tradition, and regardless of their political persuasion, should respect Romney's commitment to his faith.  It is clear that Romney is fighting an unacceptable prejudice against him because of his faith, and his need to proclaim himself a Christian is understandable. His effort to emphasize our nation's "grand tradition" of religious tolerance and liberty should be embraced by all Americans.

But there was a subtext to the former Massachusetts governor's speech — similar to what we have been hearing from other candidates — which provides some cause for concern. The speech was not truly a reaffirmation of the importance of the separation of church and state in the United States.  Rather, it followed a recent pattern of candidate appeals to religious voters on the basis of shared religiosity.

We have previously called on Americans to judge candidates on the basis of their views on issues and on their qualifications, and not on the nature or depth of their religious commitment. Appealing to voters along religious lines can be divisive, contrary to the American ideal of including all in the political process, and can open the door to promises that violate the separation of government and religion.  Because of this, we oppose the solicitation of support for any candidate on the basis of religion, and we oppose appeals to religious bias in political campaigns.

Candidates should feel comfortable explaining their religious convictions to voters. At the same time, however, there is a point at which an emphasis on religion in a political campaign becomes inappropriate and even unsettling in a religiously diverse society such as ours.

Let's be clear: The Anti-Defamation League is not opposed to candidates who are religious. We do expect that candidates will, from time to time, express their religious beliefs — and how these beliefs shape their worldview and policy positions. 

Candidates should be careful not to cross the line from commenting on their own religious faith to making open appeals to voters based upon their views.  There is a comfort zone for many Americans not of the religious majority — including Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others — that is abandoned when candidates move from openly discussing their faith into almost hawking their religious beliefs on the campaign trail.

As Americans and Jews, we feel uncomfortable when candidates talk of Jesus Christ as their personal savior, or describe themselves as a "Christian leaders." Such appeals may resonate with Christian voters, but leave many others feeling alienated. 

Determining where the line lies is not an exact science, but candidates should exercise good judgment and be sensitive to the fact that the American electorate is politically and religiously diverse.  They should also recognize that many Americans practice diverse faiths or no faith, and yet are equal members of our nation's body politic.
We should remember, too, that while religion does have a role to play in the public square, one's own personal religious beliefs should remain largely the domain of the heart and the home.

_____

Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League and the author of "The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control."

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.