Wouldn't it be nice...

If I could touch your body...

Oops, I mean if this year's presidential campaign didn't allow religious overtones to leach into the debate on everything. Timothy Egan, of the New York Times, thinks so*. Egan sees some potential that this year will be different, as some of the bigger evangelical leaders are making a commitment to stay out of the race,

Joel Osteen, the feel-good Texas optimist who is perhaps the nation’s most popular minister, and Warren have both disavowed politics this year. They will not endorse a candidate, allow politics in the service, or issue thinly disguised election “guidelines,” hint, hint.

Of course, neither political campaign will allow religion to go away, as both probably presume that they are the more attractive "god" candidate.

* If you have some time, read through some of the comment thread. One of the thought gems is exemplified by the first commenter, who claims the religion is inescapable. To quote "Bob S," "Further, religion is the source of law for whatever society one chooses. We will have some kind of religion even if it is only a religion of man or humanism." Equating religion and secular humanism is a pretty signficant stretch, in my opinion. Additionally, "Bob S" makes the case that the Constitution is a blend of Protestant religion and Enlightenment values. Even if you accept there is a blend going on, I don't think religion would be seen as more than a tangential influence on one of the most Enlightenment / secular humanist documents ever produced.