Jim Wallis, the author of God's Politics< has been one of the leading exponents of the idea that Democrats should outdo the Republicans in putting a holy gloss on their political programs. In a debate with Wallis published in The American Prospect in August 2005, I spoke about the potential dangers of turning political campaigns into a "duel of theologies, with each side claiming that its version of religion--defined, for the most part, as biblically based Christianity--represents the true soul of America. Opponents of the Iraq war would quote the Jesus who said, `Blessed are the peacemakers,' and pro-war hawks would cite the Jesus who declared, `I came not to bring peace but a sword.'"

My prediction is coming true, and I see no reason to alter my evaluation of the dangers that these types of arguments pose for American democracy.

I have no quarrel at all with sincerely religious candidates--and I believe that John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all place great importance on their faith--pointing out that religious values can be translated into liberal as well as conservative social policies. But I have a very serious problem with candidates making faith a prominent and primary argument for their political programs. The Bible can be used to justify almost anything.

The American public has turned against the Iraq war because the war is a pragmatic disaster--not because of Americans' religious beliefs. I judge Hillary Clinton vis-a-vis John Edwards not on the basis of their respective levels of faith but on the basis of Clinton's refusal to say that she was wrong to authorize the Iraq war and Edward's candid acknowledgment of his disastrous mistake. This has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with character.

Furthermore, the damage that faith-based assumptions have inflicted on the political process is not limited to discussions of public policy. One of the most repellent aspects of the Democratic debate on CNN this week was the questioning of candidates about how their faith had affected their most intimate lives.

Clinton was asked if her faith had helped her get through her husband's infidelities, and she replied that without her faith, she would not have survived. Edwards talked about how he had renewed his faith when his son was killed in a car accident. These questions are utterly inappropriate--whatever the candidate's level of religious belief or skepticism.

No one would have dared ask Abraham Lincoln how his faith helped him get through his bouts of melancholia.The stupidity and obeisance to received opinion exhibited by reporters who ask such questions, and the cowardice of politicians who feel obliged to answer them, is a measure of the degradation of our culture.

"None of your business" is the only dignified answer to questions asking candidates to establish their faith bona fides by exhibiting their inner wounds in public. "Have you no sense of decency?"--Joseph Welch's reply to Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy during the Army-McCarthy hearings--would be equally appropriate. But no. All of the candidates, and the reporters, are so intimidated by the hucksters of faith-based politics that they figuratively bow their heads and demean themselves.

It is hardly surprising, in view of the willingness of pandering politicians to answer the most intimate questions--questions that have nothing to do with their qualifications for the
presidency--that they feel obliged to present religious rationales for what ought to be secular decisions involving government policy.

In American society, arguments about vital public issues ought to be be framed in terms that can appeal to voters of many religions or no religion. You are not going to convince people who view Mexican immigrants as a threat to the American economy--and to English-speaking American culture--by appealing to their faith. The immigration debate has taken on an increasingly anti-rational character, and what we need are immigration policies that challenge the public's irrational assumptions. The Bible, in which various groups are always slaughtering new arrivals, hardly qualifies as a rational argument for more humane immigration policies.

In his book, Wallis argues that President George W. Bush is guilty of "bad theology" in his policies on war and social justice and that "the answer to bad theology is not secularism; it is good theology."

Really? By the logic of that argument, the founding fathers should have declared King George III guilty of bad theology rather than bad governance, and they should have written a constitution that, instead of beginning, "We the people in order to form a more perfect union....," opens with the statement, "We the people in order to form a New Jerusalem that emulates the kingdom of God on earth...."

The President of the United States is our nation's chief executive, not its chief theologian. It is fine that Edwards's religious faith plays a role in his conviction that all Americans should have health insurance. But for everyone whose faith tells him that it is our moral obligation, as a people, to provide for the care of the sick and the weak, there is another American who believes that any health program that would result in higher taxes is the work of the devil. That is precisely the problem with basing public policy appeals on private religious belief.

It is the job of political candidates to convince all Americans that we need to do a better job of providing for the poor and the sick--and to talk to us about the practical steps required to accomplish that end. It is the job of religious leaders to talk about what religion requires the faithful to do in the public sphere.

And it is my job, as a thoroughgoing secularist, to point out that decent human values are just that--human--and do not have to be grounded in reverence for the supernatural.

In my article for The American Prospect, I wrote an introduction to a speech that I would like to see a Democratic candidate deliver. Here it is:

"I stand before you as a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and I believe that it is my duty to share my views on the proper relationship between religion and government. I believe in God...and I believe just as deeply that separation of church and state was America's founding gift, not only to its own citizens but to the world. Above all, I believe--as the founders of this country believed--that God has given us the gift of reason to solve our earthly problems. I will never suggest that my policies are the right ones for our country because my God says so. I will never allow one form of religion to exercise a veto power over any policies that I believe to be in the best interests of Americans."

I am assuming that no one, at this point in American history, can be selected as a major party nominee without professing belief in God. That is a fact--a political and cultural reality. However much I might regret this fact, I would have to close my eyes to evidence--as so many religious fundamentalists regularly do--to think that anyone with outspoken secularist views could be elected president in the current political climate.

But let us at least hear more from the candidates about the power of reason--the reason they believe God has given them--and how it can be used to solve the major problems that have been created, at least in part, by the blind faith of political leaders and the public over the past eight years.

Couldn't just one candidate promise to take his or her oath of office on a copy of the Bill of Rights as well as the Bible?