Perhaps there's something in the water, but candidates in Utah Valley every so often have a tough time separating religion from politics.

John Jacob, who two years ago ran against U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon for the Republican nomination, blurted out to a newspaper editorial board that the devil was trying to keep him out of office.

Both lost.

Now Bennion Spencer, the Democratic candidate for the Third District (against Republican Jason Chaffetz) has stepped up to the plate -- albeit in a less spectacular fashion. He told The Salt Lake Tribune that Jesus would vote for him if he had the chance.

Spencer quickly backed away from that. For whom would Jesus vote? "I absolutely have no idea whatsoever," he told a news service.

Perhaps the original thought came to mind because Spencer, a college professor, is writing a book about how Jesus would view certain national policies. That's an interesting premise for a book. The problem is that we poor mortals have a devilishly difficult time translating religious beliefs into political action. Spencer says that Jesus would back "compassionate" immigration policies. But what does "compassionate" mean?

Is it care for the lives of American citizens and respect for the law? Anyone can point out ways that his or her position is really the "compassionate" one.

It would be nice if political problems could be easily seen and solved through moral or religious reasoning. But, sadly, that isn't the case.

Worse, at times a politician's overconfidence in being on the right side often leads to fatal blunders. Read the Bible, or history, or newspapers, and you will find it to be an almost mathematical equation: Those who are too cocksure of their righteousness invariably fall into arrogance, and from there into the same faults they so ardently decry.

It's not that religion must be banished from national life, as some seem to claim. From George Washington all the way to George W. Bush, presidents have properly acknowledged the role of God in the nation's destiny, and sought divine guidance. But they have done so in most cases with the requisite humility and diffidence, and with reference to a generalized faith, not a particular church.

Americans are a religious people in the main, yet most don't drag deity directly into political struggles. It is one thing to acknowledge that a higher power is at work in the nation's history; it's far different to try to claim precisely what that power wants from us.

Perceived divine imperatives can be tricky. As we noted when Jacob told the world that Satan was playing dirty tricks on his campaign, the interference may have come because Jacob was not the right candidate for Congress. In that case, it would have been God's side doing the interfering. How would anyone know?

It's seldom possible for us poor humans to recognize (except, perhaps, in those few cases where moral principle is clear) what either the devil or God wants when it comes to politics. Candidates and congressmen should remember that in fear and trembling.

Meanwhile, voters should turn their attention to the acronyms WWSBD and WWJCD -- what would Spencer Bennion or Jason Chaffetz do? That's the real issue this fall.