Don't get me wrong, I like Rick Warren. Among the evangelists he is clearly the classiest act. Nevertheless, the forum at Saddleback, while more interesting than a lot of the debates, made me uneasy.

There are a lot of reasons for my unease, other than my own agnosticism. While I believe morality is the essence of good government, the notion of putting religious "faith" on display in a campaign is an invitation to demagoguery.

Here are my concerns.

1. Quizzing a candidate on "faith" (as opposed to morality) invites a skillful candidate to exaggerate his or her own religious beliefs and adherence. If one doesn't, one loses the support of the questioner. But the test is a false test because the least sincere will do the most exaggerating. I think back to John Edwards' stellar performances in previous "faith" forums. He could pass for a preacher, but was actually a narcisistic liar, who, for all we know, may have lied about his faith too.
2. The faith groups tend to use litmus tests which may not actually be related to "faith." For example, atheists may oppose abortion because they think it is wrong or immoral. And I know a lot of people of "faith" who believe that, on balance, choice is the most moral way to go. But in a faith forum, candidates are invited, almost required, to pander. I had a sense that Obama was dying a thousand deaths when he said that a "marriage is between a man and a woman." That is his official position, and the church crowd erupted in applause, but why is it necessary, and it is, for a candidate to say something mildly bigoted to avoid certain defeat.
3. There is no demand by these groups for consistency or any lifelong commitment to good deeds. John McCain, at Saddleback, returned to one event his life over and over -- the bravery he showed in Vietnam. He glossed over, as quickly as he could, his utterly immoral behavior toward his first wife and wasn't ever asked to comment on his lifelong devotion to war and his consistent opposition anti-poverty initiatives. Nor was he questioned about his ethical misdeeds going back to the 1980's.
4. Obama pandered on several issues and was carefully forthcoming on his youthful indiscretions. But at no time did Reverend Rick give Obama the chance to describe his real moral compass as illustrated in selfless activism in Chicago and support for programs to help the poor.

Polls show that between 10 and 20 percent of Americans are devout non-believers. And there is zero correlation between faith in a supreme being, and morality.

My own notion of morality is centered on my deepest beliefs in fairness, opportunity, caring for the least among us, being responsible for our neighbors' problems, being faithful in marriage, taking care of our children, preserving our environment, and peace.

All of these virtues are mentioned and endorsed in the Bible and other religious texts. But they need not be based on "faith." For me, they are based on a civilized sense of goodness and decency.

When it comes to candidates, I don't want to hear self-righteous pronouncements of "faith." I want to hear how they are going to use their sought after positions to do good deeds.