Two republican leaders got things right, or pretty much so, during the past fortnight. I am referring to recent debates concerning religion and politics, personal faith and public policy, and private spirituality and the open parading of it.

Senator John Danforth, now U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations comes first. I've long admired him, despite my case against his loyal support and promotion of Justice Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. But, back on course: Warren Hoge (New York Times, July 1) reports on a meeting Danforth had with Christian and Muslim leaders in which he acted congruently with his Christian faith while showing empathy toward the interests of the Muslims. Danforth holds "a belief that religious leaders have a role in public life," and asked, "Where are the religious voices in the world? The silence to me has seemed deafening."

Since religious voices so often mess up things public and political when they do break the silence, it's good to check up on Danforth's own approach. At the Ronald Reagan memorial in Washington National Cathedral, responsive to the setting and family interests, he included specific Christian references in ways he would not have in simply secular settings. Theologically I agree with his judgment that authentic prayer "is almost by definition sectarian prayer," sectarian meaning grounded in particular views of the universe, be they Christian, Judeo-Christian, New Age, or would-be generically "spiritual."

In that context, note that faithful Episcopal priest Danforth, "used" the name of God only once in years on the Senate floor, we are told -- and that was during the debate on the school prayer amendment. He was against it.

The other Republican who had things right was President Bush, who at a NATO meeting in Istanbul at the end of June said in respect to some Muslim leaders: "They represent the best of Turkey, which is a country that is secular in its politics and strong in its faith." And, to the Turkish leaders: "I appreciate so very much the example your country has set on how to be a Muslim country and at the same time a country which embraces democracy and the rule of law and freedom." Note: the country is "secular in its politics" and "strong in its faith."

Turkey is nominally 98 percent Muslim just as the United States is nominally over 80 percent Christian. Both have secular constitutions. Both have citizenries strong in faith. Americans, from the President on down, who have hopes for Turkey are very emphatic: its government is secular. Let faith there prosper, but neither as a political voice, nor as the voice of a privileged faith.

Turkey is a few thousand miles away. Inconsistently with the President's praise of Turkey, his campaign and many of his backers on this side of the Atlantic work to de-secularize the legal structure of U.S. Constitutional life and risk tainting "the faith" through aggressive attempts to intrude on church life and exploit church ties. Some evangelical leaders, Southern Baptist spokespersons, and Republican people of conscience have started hollering "enough!" and saying, in effect, "back off, play fair, and respect the integrity of faithful people."

What is beginning to work in Turkey worked here for 217 years. Why mess it up now? 

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, upcoming events, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.