You would think this message would be old hat by now. But it’s not, because such large parts of the policy world, in particular, still don’t get it. When the topic of religion comes up, they squirm or their eyes glaze, or they bristle with hostility.
So, amid the inspirational words about what this new foundation, a big new player in the religion business, plans to do, one Tony Blair sound bite particularly struck home: "I believe, as someone of faith, that religious faith has a great role to play in an individual's life. But even if I didn't, even if I was of no faith, I would still believe in the central necessity of people of faith learning to live with each other in mutual respect and peace."
The statement left me pondering the mental and emotional block that prevents so many from engaging with issues of faith. It is one I often encounter in urging attention to the role that religion plays in development. It explains why a World Bank program to initiate dialogue with faith communities, launched a decade ago, hangs on by a thread. No matter the extraordinary assets that faith communities control--schools, health programs, land, and money; no matter the surveys that show that most people trust faith leaders more than politicians: It is still rare to see faith high on the policy agenda.
Religious illiteracy is one big reason. Many people simply don’t know much about religions other than the one they were raised in. Some are avowedly ill at ease with religion, seeing it as irrational, and more likely to do harm than good. Others are ill equipped to deal with the emerging pluralistic society of today, which can be full of real tensions growing from fundamental differences in approach.
But, as Tony Blair and Bill Clinton both stressed at the Blair Foundation launch, you ignore religion at your peril because it is so important to so many, and you also miss enormous opportunities for real social good.
The Bush administration has hardly ignored religion, with the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives a prominent piece of the administration outreach. But what of Bush’s successor?
Both candidates have already had to apologize about their associations with intolerant religious leaders. But we have not heard much yet about how they will address “faith in action” when they reach the White House.
Instead of avoiding the subject, they should publicly recognize the importance of religion in all its dimensions and manifestations. They need to show that they will be inclusive of a wide range of faith traditions, and take religion into account both in domestic and international affairs. They will need to work from a good base of knowledge about the work of faith-inspired organizations in poverty and social justice work. They should bring a wide range of faith leaders to the table as an integral part of the policy process, whether for diplomacy or education. They should engage different religious perspectives in tough issues, whether that is condom use in HIV/AIDS programs, the role of women in Muslim societies, or care for the environment.
Eboo Patel in his post on this site sees the potential for Blair to change the public discourse on religion and public affairs much as Al Gore did on the environment. I hope he is right, and that another strong voice can help breach the barriers to thoughtful discussion. My experience with similarly emotive and divisive issues – for instance gender in development work-- is that barriers are breached by a combination of evidence, social pressure from below, and leadership. The Blair initiative sensibly looks to all three. Here’s to its success.
