Thirty-two years ago, presidential candidate Jimmy Carter had to explain to many skeptical and wary voters what being a “born again” Christian meant. Sixteen years before that, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy had to persuade voters that his allegiance would be to the Constitution, not his Roman Catholic pope.

Today, having some sort of Christian bona fides is as essential for a run at the White House as knowing the words to the national anthem. But for Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, the faith connection has been a liability. Over-the-top remarks by Sen. Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, lifted from his sermons, eventually led to the candidate disassociating himself from his spiritual mentor and later to resign his membership in Wright’s church. Sen. McCain has rejected the endorsement he sought from the Rev. John Hagee, an evangelical pastor whose interpretation of a portion of the Bible linked Hitler to fulfilled prophecy.

Perhaps the time has come to remove the religious resume from the application packet for our presidential aspirants.

Republicans first injected morality and faith into presidential politics in 1988, when their convention theme was “family values.” The appeal to voters, which actually echoed Richard Nixon’s “silent majority” pitch, was that the GOP would provide candidates who were traditionalists on sex education, gay rights, abortion, guns and church.

By implication, then, Democrats were elitist, promiscuous atheists. Of course, President Clinton later made the GOP case by his affair with Monica Lewinsky, which revived the personal morality litmus test for another election cycle.

As Sens. McCain and Obama have seen, there is no real mainstream religious view with which they can align themselves; or at least, not without some liabilities. Would our leaders be better suited to discharge their duties if they are also self-controlled, have faith in a higher being and adhere to traditional moral values? Perhaps. But some of our greatest presidents, such as Franklin Roosevelt, who biographers say had five or six drinks a day, or Thomas Jefferson, who had children with one of his slaves, would fail this test. Did those moral shortcomings inhibit their ability to lead?

The next president could remove his personal morality and spiritual beliefs from the public discussion by instead urging voters to judge him based on the integrity with which he conducts himself in the public realm. He could pledge to make decisions based on clear policy principles and goals, using sound reasoning, and to explain how those decisions were reached with utmost transparency. If the next president is measured by these standards, then voters should grant him privacy when he bowed his head and closed his eyes in church.