This fall as my mother and I flipped through a bucket of magazines, we picked up a Newsweek with an angelic picture of a devout Hillary Clinton on the cover. In that October issue, the main story was called "Soulful Matters." The topic: Bill and Hillary Clinton as the most openly religious first couple this country has seen.

Our first reaction -- skepticism. Our first question, "Is this for real?"

Real or embellished, the article focused upon the Clintons' history of hymn singing, church going, and Bible reading.

Advised by her aides that talking about her faith might be seen as an attempt to manipulate her public image, Hillary Clinton avoided interviews with Newsweek for three weeks. The assumption was, then, that a good bit of the public favors a religious image, though it may not trust the validity of it.

But in a country where church and state are to remain separate, why would we want a faithful first lady?

Because beyond "image," the public cringes at the influence of religion. There is a fine line drawn between a faith practiced in appearance and in action that makes the overall message of the role of religion in our country blurred in conflicting messages.

Newsweek says that the American public wants a first family that is religious, but not strongly so. I would say that any belief that is not strong is not worth having and that believing halfway is a contradiction in itself.

On one hand, Time magazine reports that Newt Gingrich has been highly criticized for visions of reinstating school prayer. On the other hand, Newsweek appeals to the public with Hillary Clinton's statement, "I believe in prayer."

We all have heard of the separation that we believe our forefathers said should exist between church and state. Yet the day after passing the First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of religion, the House of Representatives of the First Congress proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.

And although the Supreme Court decided in 1962 that prayer in public schools was unconstitutional, Congress continues to pray every morning before holding session.

While we argue based on what the founding forefathers set forth, while we think that there are set boundaries to religion based on a declared separation between church and state, in truth the arguments are based on nothing. We have yet to establish basic truths about religion and government. If we were sure of what we wanted, these inconsistencies would not exist.

The week before Tom Ridge was sworn in as Pennsylvania's new governor, a small article appeared in the Centre Daily Times that focused on the Bible he would use, one which once belonged to William Penn. Gov. Dick Thornburgh used this same Bible when sworn into office, while Gov. Robert Casey chose a family Bible.

Why is it that a governor uses the Bible, God's divine word, to become an executive of the state? His new position is validated symbolically before God, but then he is supposed to discount religious principles in his actions.

In this country we are walking a fence at a height from which we cannot decide where to commit. Somehow it is acceptable to have an outward appearance of religious practice, but it is unacceptable to institute that practice in the laws.

To swear on a Bible is a practice of ceremony, something to be seen. The Clintons attend church and appear on the covers of magazines singing hymns, and we find this comfortable. Bill is labeled a "hymn-humming, sermon-loving, liberal Southern Baptist who feels at home in any pew," and Hillary calls herself an "old-fashioned Methodist," but shouldn't these be more than labels?

I am making no judgment on the truth of the Clintons' claims, but instead upon the inconsistency of our acceptance of an ideal without looking to what that ideal means. If President Clinton would have begun last week's State of the Union address in silent prayer, how would we have reacted? When religious beliefs are instituted into policies, the reaction is fearful and immediate.

In 1988 the Supreme Court decided that a Louisiana law calling for the equal teaching of "creation science" and evolution violates the Constitution's amendment against establishing religion.

Today, when Newt Gingrich plans to implement prayer in public schools, we cry out that he is establishing religion, and quickly he drops the matter.

But what is belief without action? One thing -- hypocrisy. It is a show that amounts to nothing.

Before we make decisions based upon known truths, we must establish what those known truths are. Before we say we want our first family to be one of faith, we should understand how far-reaching true faith is.

We cannot use a Bible to swear in our officials, and then refuse to look at what it says inside.