The July 12th TIME magazine features an article How The Democrats Got Religion pointing to what they see as increasing amounts of faith discussions in this presidential campaign. They state :

A president has to be a preacher of sorts, instructing, consoling, summoning citizens to sacrifice for some common good. But candidates are competitors, which means they seldom manage to talk about faith in a way that doesn't disturb people, doesn't divide them, doesn't nail campaign posters on the gates of heaven. Republicans have been charged with exploiting religious voters, Democrats with ignoring them.

What follows is an interesting view of current candidates on the Democratic side -- but one which is not beyond a small tinge of cynicism. Granted, candidates hiring religious consultants does not exactly seem like spontaneous faith statements, but in today's election environment it does seem wise.

When I put my finger to the pulse of what I see, it is not just a cut and dried issue of candidates trying to get votes. I think what we are seeing is a response to a deep thirst in America -- not one for explicit religion per se, but one for;
..........reliable values,
..........ethics not made of twisty pipecleaners,
..........hopefulness,
..........a sense of national and world community,
..........a positive vision, and
..........a desire for goodness that is rooted in something stable.
For generations we have been able to at least look for those qualities among the religious. Caveat: I know about other things present in religious groups, I know, I know. Just hear me out.

Over the past few decades we have let the radical right hijack God language, faith discussions -- until the phrase "devoutly religious American" conjures up only Christian, only conservative, only Republican people. And that is just plain wrong. The Liberal faithful have been tolerated by the far Left, but with an accompanying wink and nudge.

The TIME magazine article goes on to state :

The revival comes at a time when the entire religious-political landscape is changing shape. A new generation of evangelical leaders is rejecting old labels; now an alliance of religious activists that runs from the crunchy left across to the National Association of Evangelicals has called for action to address global warming, citing the biblical imperative of caring for creation. Mainline, evangelical and Roman Catholic organizations have united to push for immigration reform. The possibility that there is common ground to be colonized by those willing to look for it offers a tantalizing prospect of alliances to come, but only if Democrats can overcome concerns within their party.

Some Liberals have even stepped away from any faith discussions -- as though faith is un-hip, un-intellectual, and populated only by people who just do not understand an inclusive agenda. For some reason in parts of America, it has become difficult to mention one's faith publicly or casually - not only because faith can be a very personal thing -- but because some people are afraid of being perceived to be "like them" -- those card carrying, abortion-clinic-bombing, gay-rights-destroying, far right Christian conservatives -- people who will stuff Bible tracts into your hands with glassy eyes that are not prepared to see you, let alone listen to you.

What that has left is a vacuum -- and a thirst for moral leadership. There are not a lot of women writing about faith and this election. Let me know when you find such bloggers. I will be writing about it here.

But there is one atheist man with an interesting take: Alonzo Fyfe in Atheist Ethicist Journal quite correctly adds that it is dangerous to assume that religion = morality.

The idea that it makes sense to use religion as a proxy for moral character is, first, just the type of nonsense that got us into this mess. Most people who voted for Bush were people who were using religion as a proxy for moral character. The people they elected turned out to be the authors of wars of aggression, extraordinary rendition, the repeal of nearly every amendment in the Bill of Rights, torture, an attempt to abolish the systems of checks and balances, and 'get out of jail free cards' for administration staff members convicted of breaking the law, torture. This is the consequence of using religion as a proxy for character.

Britt at Bold Words sees the same issue in play:

Lately, America seems inclined to only elect candidates who make religion a visible part of their lives. In spite of our founding as a nation built on religious freedom, the most extreme beliefs end up running the show. Look at the Republican party during the last ten years. No one believes that the entire Republican party is Evangelical. However, Evangelicals are one of the loudest sub-sections and their opinion has resonated, resulting in public policy decisions that favor their beliefs. And it’s no longer enough to be religious. Your flavor of religion is of equal if not greater interest.

A fine analysis of the TIME magazine survey can be found written by Kristjan Wagner . Kris has some great analysis of the survey instrument itself and some useful commentary, such as:

On this point, Clinton undoubtedly suffers from the double whammy of being a Democrat and a Clinton. Even Democrats tended to chalk up her husband's religious fluency to his general political skill, the ability to be everything to everyone, while Republicans saw him as a fake who exploited religion for political purposes and pandered to voters. Now Senator Clinton, the lifelong Methodist and one-time Sunday school teacher, is in a bind: So many voters think they "know" she can't possibly be religious that when she speaks about her faith, they interpret it as pure political posturing.

So, folks, like it or not, trust it or not, faith will be playing a role in this election -- and when I wear my cynic's hat, I get upset by what I hear. But when I calm down and start listening to the best of America, I think that maybe -- just maybe -- this speaks to a larger desire on behalf of our citizenry for America to be more moral, and compassionate, and visionary -- to stand rooted in values not just rhetoric and opportunism. Maybe, maybe there is reason to hope. I am NOT suggesting a connection between church and state. Heaven forfend such action. I AM suggesting a connection between politics and sustainable human values.

Perhaps the consultants and the speech writers on all sides are responding to something real in America, to a coming forward of the best part of us. Perhaps we are emerging from the shadows of the past years at last and saying that we are soul-sick and tired of what is wrong being done in our name. Perhaps America is about to demand more of her candidates. That may be the pulse beat turning to a drum beat in the campaign headquarters of America.

What do you hear in this?

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also natters on and on at Time's Fool