Religion on the Stump

Until recently, Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura has been able to ignore the political rules without doing himself any damage. Then he hit the third rail in a Playboy magazine interview in which he called organized religion “a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people.” The swift and powerful reaction showed that religion remains a matter dear to Americans and that politicians demean it at their peril. The current crop of White House aspirants takes pains to make beliefs part of the campaign. Religion in the presidency is being discussed more publicly than at any other time in years, along with the role of religious organizations in public life.

Vice President Al Gore, Texas Gov. George W. Bush and former Sen. Bill Bradley all have expressed interest in working with faith-based organizations to address poverty and social problems. Sen. John McCain said last week that he supported vouchers for parochial schools. Pat Buchanan was talking about a “religious war going on for the soul of the nation” long before the recent controversy over his statements on World War II. President Clinton, long a cheerleader for religion in public life, is open about the pastoral counseling he receives for his own transgressions.

This is all part of a well-established tradition going back to the nation’s founders, restated by Abraham Lincoln at the end of the Civil War and given a modern cast by President John F. Kennedy, who in his inaugural address said, “Here on Earth God’s work must truly be our own.” This concept, of a civil society that is guided by general religious precepts, was outlined by the 18th century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. More recently, “civil religion” was identified and traced by the sociologist Robert N. Bellah.

This nondenominational tradition, arising historically from natural law, Christianity and Judaism, runs deep in our national life and politics, existing quite separate from private religious practices. Its key tenets include belief in higher authority and religious toleration. It provides room for official expressions of religiosity in making public policy, but without violating the separation of church and state or imposing the personal beliefs of leaders or their denominations.

Today, the civil religion tradition offers some sturdy principles that can be freshened to guide presidents in our more diverse time, when we have a buffet table of religions and individually tailored philosophies.

The need for a nonsectarian approach increasingly will be important as followers of different religions take their place in modern democracy. In places where religion and the public’s business intersect, whether in the Rose Garden or the marketplace, we should identify those values that are consistent both with democratic ideals and the nonsectarian values, such as tolerance and fairness, common to any number of religious traditions. Presidents can appeal to these values because they do not arise exclusively from one religious tradition and they appeal to all citizens.

Politics in the new pluralistic America requires sensitivity to a nation of many forms of belief and unbelief, a challenge to future White House occupants. But the tradition of a civil religion gives U.S. presidents a strong base on which to help build a civil society.