i go to an all girls catholic highschool (just to help explain the idea of a relgion class) ; today in our religious class someone brought forth the topic of praying for elections in november for president during intentions; that bush should win. this initially set up basically what seemed a political speech on behalf of our religion teacher. In which he decided to steam out his opinion on how much it effects him that there should be a president that is driven from his relgious background. it went into really broad topics like what the church has to say on cloning/abortion/etc. and how the president has followed through in the church’s opinion. until today, after all of what we have been taught in our Civics classes, i never beleived that one of the traits to look for in the president is that of someone who is enveloping his religion into his job. honestly, for me and some of my friends, this was the last thing we felt like debating in religion class. i’d like to question just out of curiosity: in the states/ anywhere in europe/ and in pakistan/india: are you looking for a strong religious background in your leader?
In spite of all that you hear through the media, you would be surprised to know that being seen as religious is a liability for politicians in many parts of India.
In Tamil Nadu, the two dominant parties are rooted in atheism (though that has been diluted some in the recent past). Karunanidhi, a self -proclaimed rationalist and many times chief minister, is know for his acidic barbs (on religion in general before he came to power and hinduism later). He would not greet, even as a CM, his people on Hinduism's major festivals, but as most politicians go, would greet all minorities on their major festivals. He has no qualms about joining the muslims in an Iftar party and join them in breaking the fast during Ramzan. Many politicians do that in India in any case.
The communists, who have been in power in three states are also self-proclaimed atheists. Many of them are a bit more straightforward in the sense that personally, they treat all religions with equal aloofness, though aligning with the Muslim League or some of the Christian parties in Kerala is not seen by them as being communal.
You would be surprised to know, that for all his image about being a hard-core Hindu, Advani is pretty irreligious, in the sense that he does not pray or worship.
In many other parts of the country, politicians would change their garb depending on the community predominant in the localities they visit. But then, this is not only about religion. Many of the national level leaders will try to endear themselves to the locality by attempting to speak a sentence or two in the language of the region.
Religion per se or religious beliefs are hardly ever discussed in the political field. During elections of course, there would be accusations of one or the other being pro-hindu or anti-hindu or pro-minorities or anti-minorities. That is not the same thing as talking about religion.
I think much of the indifference in India amongst the masses about the religion of at least their major leaders is due to Nehru being a rationalist himself. He was of the opinion that politicians, even in their personal capacity, should not be seen in temples or mosques or churches or amidst religious men. But then, most thought that he was taking things too far.
Except in missionary schools or in muslim institutions, a vast majority of schools in India have no 'religion' or 'morals' classes. Now you know why we are so immoral:)