Two events this past week made me think about the role of
religion in politics. The first was the already infamous “gaffe” by
Sen. Barack Obama, D.-Ill., at a San Francisco fundraiser, in which he suggested
that the religiosity of rural Pennsylvanians was, in part, a reaction to their
sluggish local economies.

The second was President George W. Bush’s decision to pull
out all of the stops for Pope Benedict’s first American visit.

A little reflection on these stories led me to conclude
that while our separation of church and state remains, church and politics are
as tight as ever. Unfortunately, it’s an unholy alliance — one that
breeds pandering and illusion but little worthwhile discussion.

Mr. Obama’s statement has been the focus of both the
political press and the two other major campaigns this week. But they weren’t
looking to engage him in a discussion of his remarks — when it comes to
religion, they only want to play “Gotcha!” 

A dubiously devout Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., came out
with a boilerplate barb, that “people don’t cling to religion, they value
their faith.” Sen. John McCain dismissed the remarks as
“elitist.” And the press was frantically trying to determine the
effect the comments would have on Mr. Obama’s rural voting support. No one,
though, really wanted to address whether the comments were true or not. That is
because talk about religion on the campaign is never an exchange of ideas or a
debate — it’s a contest to see whose statements most closely resemble the
country’s religious orthodoxy.

Yes, as Mr. Obama admitted, the statement was
“inartful,” but there’s nothing earth-shattering about the claim that
people are more likely turn to religion in tough times. That has been one of
the main stories of faith for as long as there have been believers.  But
heaven forbid a candidate consider anyone’s beliefs anything less than divinely
inspired, altruistic or constant.

The only reason such a statement strikes us as even mildly
offensive is that we have come to expect politicians to be completely
reverential when it comes to issues of faith. No major candidate this year
has publicly expressed any doubt about their belief in the Christian God,
though one can hardly be surprised. The last president known to do so was
William Howard Taft. 

Then there was Mr. Bush’s welcoming of Pope Benedict XVI —
perhaps the grandest we’ve ever given a foreign leader. Why? Said Bush —
because “he comes as a man of faith — not as a politician.”

These two instances, I think, help to define the current
state of American political discourse on religion. Political elites are not
interested in questioning or rebelling against the traditional, unthinking view
of religion imposed upon them by the general public. And as demonstrated by the
rhetoric of Hillary Clinton and President Bush, we still treat
“faith,” no matter the kind, as an absolute good.

Yet, in a modern, information-driven world, shouldn’t faith
— as opposed to knowledge — be considered undesirable until proven otherwise,
not the opposite? Isn’t faith the opposite of what we teach our students in
school? That is not at all to say that faith is a bad thing per se, only that
it seems against our modern instincts to exalt it as we do. 

I disagree with what was implied by Mr. Bush’s comment —
that faith is necessarily superior to politics. This is part because the two
are often inseparable. The pope has a huge influence on political life — the
Church’s backward stance on contraception in AIDS-ridden southern Africa is one
example. The American evangelical vote is another. And it only takes a quick
review of the history of religion to recognize faith hasn’t always been as
praiseworthy as Mr. Bush believes.

I’m not calling for complete agnosticism or atheism in our
politics — I would just like to see more openness to debate and a questioning
spirit when it comes to religion. Seeing as even Mother Teresa had doubts about
religion, I have a hard time believing that our politicians don’t. It is time
to bring the discussion of religion in politics into the 21st century — to do
away with the expectation that our politicians be devout believers, to be open
to frank discussions about religion and irreligion in our society, and to
recognize that faith for faith’s sake is without merit.

John Sprangers ([email protected])
is a senior majoring in international studies and political science.