If religion were not so entwined in American politics, there would be little controversy about federal aid to faith-based charities.

Does anyone doubt that the Salvation Army does good in the world? Or Catholic Charities? Or Lutheran Family and Children's Services? Or Jewish Family and Children's Services? They help all comers, no matter what their faith. They are as deserving of federal support as any secular charity.

But in the business of politics today, churches and synagogues are viewed as interest groups to be pandered to and swayed. Certain religious leaders play into this cynical game by herding their flocks toward one candidate or another.

President George W. Bush created a White House office for "faith-based initiatives" in 2001. Last week, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, surprised a lot of people by proposing to expand the program.

Political calculations certainly played a role in both decisions. But that shouldn't disguise the fact that aid to faith-based charities, with certain restrictions, is a good idea.

"The challenges we face today ’?? from saving our planet to ending poverty ’?? are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama said last week. "We need an all-hands-on-deck approach."

The First Amendment famously forbids government from establishing a religion. But the government can help organizations that feed the hungry without imposing a religious obligation; it shouldn't matter if the sign on the kitchen door says Christian or Jewish or Muslim.

To keep faith with the Constitution, religious charities must agree not to discriminate, or use government money to proselytize. That's pretty much how the Bush initiative works, and after a rough start, it has done some good.

Faith-based charities say it's made it easier to land grants. "Sometimes, just the mere word Lutheran in our name makes people think that we're going to proselytize," says Paulette Foerster, vice president at Lutheran Family and Children's Services in St. Louis. "Our services are open to all. We're not trying to convert people."

Lutheran Services has taken federal money for its child care operation, counseling for pregnant mothers, foster care and adoption.

Mr. Obama touched a nerve when he proposed another restriction ’?? that charities getting federal aid must not discriminate in hiring because of religion.

That's fine with some charities. "As a matter of fact, I'm Catholic," says Foerster of Lutheran Services. But other denominations think hiring people of other faiths would dilute the religious nature of their mission.

Of course, religious charities don't have to take the grants, and federal aid shouldn't support discrimination. Still, we might suggest a compromise: The charity's board of directors could come from the church, but everyone else directly involved with a federal contract would be hired without religious preference.

Whoever is elected this fall should take care to insulate the Office of Faith-based Initiatives from the kind of political interference that hampered it in the early years of the Bush administration. The office's first director, John DiIulio, resigned after one year, later blaming political operatives he called "Mayberry Machiavellis" for trying to politicize the office ’?? one more reason politics and religion should remain separate.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH.