Barack Obama has been seriously affiliated to the Trinity United Church of Christ for the past 20 years, yet his political enemies, without the slightest proof, accuse him of having been a Muslim in his childhood. To believe in the Koran -- or to have believed in it once -- is a serious inconvenient for any Western politician these days. At the same time, Mike Huckabee, who was a Baptist preacher, is accused of being a Christian fundamentalist. He accepts the Scriptures literally and casts doubt on the theory of evolution. He is a creationist, something his adversaries find ridiculous. How can someone be the president of a nation guided by the cult of science and progress -- Huckabee's detractors ask -- and at the same time think that life and the existence of matter are the consequences of "intelligent design" by an almighty being?

Against Mitt Romney, the hostility comes from Christians. Romney is a Mormon and, although the Mormons recognize Christ's deity, their denomination is not part of the American religious mainstream, as also happens to the Jehova's Witnesses. The Mormons subscribe to a certain form of polytheism and their origins are much too recent. Christians are willing to believe that the Archangel Gabriel appeared to the Virgin Mary 2,000 years ago but doubt that the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith exactly on Sept. 21, 1823. Almost all Christians acknowledge that the Mormons have a strong work ethic and a decent and unified behavior, generally speaking, but they worry about their secrecy and the special undergarments they must wear. From their point of view, Mormons are good citizens -- but weird.

Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani -- she, a Protestant; he, a Catholic -- are famous not for their religious beliefs but for the slight mark those beliefs have made in their lives. The fact that they and John McCain are pro-choice (in other words, they acknowledge the right of pregnant women to decide the fate of the fetus) and that they defend the rights of homosexuals and lesbians makes them suspect in the eyes of those who place orthodox moral judgments, inspired by religion, above all other considerations. To the self-proclaimed "moral majority," that immense group of intensely practicing Christians (especially in the so-called Bible Belt of the southern United States), having to choose between Hillary and Giuliani or McCain will be like choosing between a tooth ache and a kick in the shins.

Does this religious debate make any sense? Not much. In reality, the best American presidents have not been religious militants. George Washington was a reserved man, when it came to matters of the spirit. That was not the central preoccupation in his life. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln were believers, but in that intellectually comfortable manner in which deists believed. They were willing to accept that there was a supreme being, an architect of the universe, but apparently had trouble accepting that that omnipotent and eternal God actually became incarnate in a human figure or an organized religion, much less that he meticulously and constantly watches over people's personal actions for the purpose of punishing or rewarding them.

Perhaps the only U.S. president who combined religious mission with politics was William McKinley. The main reason why he ordered the occupation of the Philippines in 1898, after a night of agonizing religious meditation in the White House, was to Christianize those poor people, who until then had been under the influence of either the barbarous Spanish Catholicism or pre-colonial paganism. That blunder cost the U.S. the lives of thousands and half a century of a costly imperial presence in a complicated corner of the planet the nation never understood and had nothing to gain from.

Strictly speaking, having religious beliefs is a guarantee of nothing, much less good government. Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush have been two profoundly devout presidents -- both are born-again Christians -- yet history will not treat them well. However, the two Roosevelts, Teddy and Franklin, perhaps the best American presidents of the 20th Century (judging from the huge popular support they enjoyed in their time) were "low-intensity Christians." They were believers, yes, and they sporadically attended religious ceremonies, but did not make a fuss or beat their breasts. Perhaps that's what is most convenient: to exclude religious beliefs from the debate. God does not carry a candle in this funeral