There are three possible explanations of our original state for us to consider, and I suppose the one to which you subscribe tells more about you than most anything else as a human being. We are inherently bad, and life’s purpose is to strive toward good; we are inherently good, and life’s purpose is to resist the temptation of evil; or, we are a blank slate and our life’s journey defines us.

Part of one’s seminary study is devoted to these concepts, or at least it used to be, and the conclusions reached by all acolytes determined the type and style of work each did ministering to their respective flocks. You might think these distinctions to be subtle, but they are at the heart of each person’s, well, heart, and are more about our spirituality than about our organized religious practices. It is interesting to note that many people who describe themselves as “spiritual” also acknowledge that they do not participate in any organized religious practices. Whether there truly is a difference between being spiritual and being religious is not so much the subject of this missive, although it is an interesting intellectual exercise. It does have some application to the presidential campaign underway, though, and public discussions of faith and spirituality have occurred. While it may not necessarily tell us how we should expect to be governed, it is worth knowing, and it will determine how one constituency votes in November. What is it we know for certain about our next president from among the three main contenders, then?

As best we can tell, each is something of a church goer. Campaigns for the White House don’t really permit Sunday attendance, although it does say something about each of the major candidates that they do not “make” the time for Sunday services while in the midst of political battle.

Senator Obama’s religious adviser is now a well known figure, the Rev. Wright, and Obama has played a little push me/pull me on the subject of the Reverend’s “religious” beliefs. His speech on the matter has been labeled “thoughtful” and “heart-felt” by many, including General Colin Powell just this past week. It’s been deemed by many, also, as having fallen short of the question’s answer. He professes to “pray to the lord, Jesus” every night, and we must take him at his word. He does seem very comfortable discussing his beliefs and practices publicly, and that puts him in the company of the last two US presidents.

Words are not actions, though, and he did sit in that pew for all of the Reverend’s “religious” teachings. More than that, he sat on his hands during those sermons, and remained a member of the congregation. More than that, still, he then placed the Reverend on his board of religious and spiritual advisers, where he remains. But, Obama does profess to be a Christian, and his message as a candidate is one of hope and seeking the best in all of us, certainly main stream Christian values.

Senator Clinton’s religion, beliefs and spiritual practices have not been raised as an issue during the campaign to the extent they have with Obama and Reverend Wright. She made an appearance and gave an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) in February of this year, discussing her upbringing as a member fo the United Methodist Church. In the interview she suggested her family understood that her paternal great grandfather listened to the preaching of John Wesley, an early leader in the Methodist movement, and who as a parish priest in Savannah, Georgia, established his evangelical credentials. She also took her faith very public in December of last year when she addressed the Global Summit on Aids and received a standing ovation at the conclusion of her remarks. Like Obama, her husband and President Bush, she is comfortable publicly discussing her beliefs and practices.

The extent to which her membership in the “evangelical” environment of the United Methodist Church will wash with evangelical voters from here on out in the campaign, who are conservative in their politics and tend more toward the Republican side of the ballot, is questionable. It did not serve her well in South Carolina, although it was not the deciding factor in the primary vote. Having had already one “evangelical” Clinton in the White House, evangelical voters may decide he was more than enough. Her religious and spiritual practices aren’t worn on her shirtsleeve as Obama’s have had to be of late, though, and it does not precede her into a room yet.

As for Senator McCain, he says he is not “born again” and has not been baptized. He says he is “just a Christian,” and for many years has been attending the North Phoenix Baptist Church in Arizona with his family. He was raised in the Episcopal Church and attended Episcopal High School, in Alexandria, Va., where he was required to attend chapel every morning and church on Sunday. At the US Naval Academy, church attendance was also required, and he acknowledges he’s certainly “been exposed” to religion and spirituality. His reputation for bluntness and irreverence, and a penchant for profanity, don’t place him in the good graces of evangelicals, and unlike Clinton and Obama, McCain is not comfortable discussing his beliefs and practices publicly, something that hearkens back to an earlier time when personal matters were kept personal.

He’s not likely to get away with it much longer, though. A major divider in the last presidential election was that of those who do, and those who don’t, attend church regularly. Voters will want to know the answer to the religion question, and no matter which of the remaining two Democratic candidates wins the party’s nomination, he will be facing a Democrat who has no hesitancy to discuss faith publicly. He’ll be forced to join in that discussion, and the votes of the faith-based constituency will hinge to an extent on his words.

However, talking the talk is not likely to be enough for the Democrat, no matter which of the two wins the nomination. Both Obama and Clinton, for all their personal faith words, still reach conclusions on public policy issues that don’t sit well with the faith-based voter constituency. Those votes are there for McCain’s taking, and all he will have to do is come out a little more publicly with his beliefs.

One of the interesting side bars of this discussion is the aspect of generation. It shows more, perhaps, on this aspect of the campaign than on others. McCain is from a time when private was private. Catholic families who recited the rosary daily during lent did so in the privacy of their own homes, and the practice was not discussed outside the family. Other Christians who prayed on their knees at night, either as a family or beside their bed before the light went out, did so privately. Soldiers did their duty, and did so in silence, going about their work with stoic virtue. It was not their nature to talk openly about such things.

Subsequent generations became more overt, more public, in their religious practices, and it has become more a “red badge of courage” to publicly demonstrate and profess one’s faith than in the past. Both Obama and Clinton are from a subsequent generation, and this goes some way in explaining their willingness to chat about it so openly. Of course, having someone in the White House now who so openly discusses his own faith, and who owes his White House occupancy to faith-based voting, does set a tone and a level of expectation among voters.

How this plays out in the general election will be interesting to watch, and will play a part in determining the next president of the United States. It doesn’t matter whether it should; it is enough to know that it will.