Really? Really, folks, are we really going to elect a president based on his religiosity?


In a nation whose Constitution mandates separation of church and state, a presidential candidate’s religious intensity seems to have become a major criterion this year.

In a time when many Americans have to get rid of their pets because they can’t afford to feed them, Rick Santorum wants wives to stop having sex with their husbands if they can’t afford more children.

In an era when millions don’t have jobs or are underemployed, Mitt Romney says women who accidentally get pregnant should not be permitted to get abortions.

While Newt Gingrich has had three wives, he wants us to believe he is of good character because he has newly committed to a faith that condemns adultery and forbids remarriage after divorce.

President Barack Obama is incapable of speaking to us without ending with “God bless America.” He regularly goes to church. He’s faithful to his wife. He prays at public prayer breakfasts. Yet many of the Republican presidential candidates who have been denouncing him for months keep insinuating that he is not really a Christian or at least not as Christian as they are.

Never mind that there are many faiths in America, as well as agnostics and atheists. Can you even imagine an avowed atheist running for president in the United States? He or she wouldn’t be given the time of day.

Evangelist Billy Graham’s son, Franklin, who openly questions Obama’s faith, also darkly suggests that Romney’s strong Mormon faith isn’t a real form of Christianity. “Of course, (Mormons) believe in Jesus Christ. But they believe in a lot of other things, too, that we don’t accept,” Graham said on MSNBC. And he is the final arbiter of who is a “real” Christian?

At the 20th GOP debate the other night, the topic that got the candidates’ blood pumping was contraception. The debate ended before the candidates could debate how planes stay in the air, whether a tree falling in the forest makes a noise or how many hours in Sunday school are necessary for salvation.

After watching Congress in action recently (OK, not real action), it seems there are a lot of men who advocate insurance coverage of Viagra, while forbidding women easy access to health care that might be essential after the men get enhanced. Yet some of these same men want to gut benefits for programs that feed and shelter children.

What’s going on here?

Aside from the fact that the Republican presidential candidates are desperate to appeal to the most socially conservative Americans, part of the reason for this renewed desperation for showy religious demonstration is that nobody has a proven solution to the complicated economic ills that plague our planet.

It’s much easier to rouse the people with cries that birth control (widely used by the vast majority of American women of child-bearing-age) promotes irresponsible behavior. Or to condemn those who don’t wear their faith on their sleeves. (And why didn’t Catholic Santorum and Gingrich have ashes on their foreheads during Ash Wednesday’s debate?)

It’s much easier to gain support by invoking your God-fearing grandfather who worked in a coal mine than to admit we can’t afford to cut taxes, give the military everything the commanders want and keep the government intruding in our private lives.

When Americans are stressed, they seek leaders who are like them and in tough times like these, many seek the comfort of religion. If a candidate goes to my church, he must think and act like me, so I can trust him. It’s better still if he tries to impose the tenets of our faith on everybody else. Clearly, he has “family values.”

Here’s betting that in November, most Americans will try to elect a president who is competent, intelligent, experienced, personable, knowledgeable about global problems and committed to the good of the nation. And his religion won’t matter. Really.

Scripps Howard columnist Ann McFeatters has covered the White House and national politics since 1986. E-mail amcfeatters@nationalpress.com.