This wisdom, of course, antedates the Christian Coalition, the alleged anti-Catholic bias of American politicians, terrorist stereotyping, papal apologies and the uneasy headlines accorded to Bob Jones University.

Many years ago while I was still an undergraduate, a total stranger on Boston's MTA-a nattily dressed and intelligent elderly man-engaged me in conversation by asking where I was going to school.

I was attending a New England Christian liberal arts college. In those days, if one said one was attending a "Christian" college, it was generally interpreted as being a Bible school, and since none but Fundamentalists attended Bible schools, we generated a catch phrase, telling people we attended a "nondenominational church-related college."

The subway stranger had heard of my school, but he quickly threw in a demurrer.

"Two things I never discuss in public," he said. "Religion and politics."

He proceeded to politely and gently lecture me on the proper approach to both politics and religion. Only our arrival at the Boston University Commonwealth Avenue station, where I had to leave the train, ended his speech.

I've smiled many times since at the incongruity of the man's convictions and his conversation. Religion and politics may be denied as bedfellows, but somehow they work their way together into our social and political deliberations, and, believe it or not, such dialogue owes little or nothing to the so-called "Religious Right."

Newsweek offers a cover "Special Report" on the battles gays are waging to be accepted in American society. A prominent part of the report deals with the church under the title "A Search for God's Welcome."

A brief report on Pope John Paul's confession and penitence for his church's "sins against other religions" also runs in the magazine, a report that notes when the pope visits the Holy Land "all sides try to exploit his visit for political advantage."

The magazine contains a review of British scholar Karen Armstrong's latest book, "The Battle for God." Armstrong is the author of the best-selling "A History of God." Reviewer David Gates calls her book "a slog," but claims it is not her fault "that her story's ultimately depressing." Gates sees a potential "holy war" coming in the eight months before election day. While he seems annoyed by its prominence,

Gates tells readers that the religious right, instead of going away, is growing stronger and more extreme.

Reading the magazine, I had a flashback to my ride on the MTA with the stranger who never discussed politics or religion. I wondered why America has this unhealthy aversion to religious and philosophical dialogue. Has our pragmatism made us fearful of ideas?

Arguments from the First Amendment on this score don't impress me. The Constitutional Congress was clamping restrictions on itself not on the citizenry when it spoke the so-called "establishment clause."

I've decided it's more closely related to American anxiety of philosophical depth. We'd prefer our religion in animated sitcoms or in saccharine sentimentality. Just as we see every political issue as a "horse race" to be decided on the basis of factors such as TV presence and personality images, so we prefer our religious dialogue to be superficial.

Recently I read that some are protesting the popularity of the TV success "Touched By An Angel," and are asking that the term God be stricken from all future scripts of the show. Will that same closed-mindedness to religious language and ideas be sought when the smart-alecky "God the Devil and Bob" makes its debut?

My observation is that those who don't want to talk about politics and religion are generally disdainful of all religious or ideological dialogue and present behind a facade of intellectual and social openness a closed-mindedness that they often attribute to the most hard-nosed Fundamentalist. More often than not, those guilty of this disdain are journalists.

What is it that makes us think we can bring Arab and Israeli to the conference table or bring Northern Irish into meaningful dialogue with the IRA or have neighborhood ethnic leaders sit down to discuss diversity while at the same time we deny that politics and religion have any occasion for dialogue?

Perhaps if we better understood the interactions of politics and religion we wouldn't harbor such erroneous and misplaced hostilities to each other's beliefs and practices. True bigotry begins with a refusal to listen or an attempt to keep differences from being aired.

Isn't it about time we sat down with religion and politics and said, "Can we talk?"

Copyright 2000 Joe Shea The American Reporter. All Rights Reserved.