Watching faith run amok
RICHARD COHEN

The Taliban are destroying Afghanistan's religious statuary, including an immense figure of Buddha carved into the side of a cliff sometime between the Third and Fifth centuries. Much of the world, including many Islamic countries, has protested, but the Taliban have proceeded with their vandalism. Afghanistan, you see, has a faith-based government.

As is often the case with the pathologically pious, there is no reasoning with the Taliban. Not even The New York Times, which offered instruction -- "Islam does not preach the destruction of objects sacred to other religions and cultures" -- could deter the devout once they understood what they had to do. "There is no place for statues in an Islamic country," said Qudratullah Jamal, the Taliban's information minister.

It is always useful to see faith run amok because it offers, well, religious instruction. We are now in an awfully pious period in our own country; to point out that intolerance and religion often go hand-in-hand can be a perilous undertaking. We are a churchy nation. The Swedes, the Brits, even the Italians seldom go to church. Americans go regularly. Those nations have lower rates of violent crime and other social maladies, but so what? The efficacy of religion is considered proven, even if it is not.

I am appalled by the Taliban. But I can see no more reason to argue with them than with Pat Robertson, who warned the city of Orlando that it would suffer natural catastrophe if it allowed a celebration of gay pride.

Faith is all the rage. Government now embraces it. We have something of a state religion. It is the Church of You-Have-To-Believe-In-Something (conservative), although, God knows, if George W. Bush could have his way, it would be Christianity. (He once said only Christians can get into heaven.)

The president has announced his intention to share the government's largess with faith-based organizations. They must not, of course, use Uncle Sam's dollars to proselytize, but just how Washington will ensure that down in the basement of some church a little prayer will not be required before a little food is doled out is hard to see. Maybe more cops is the answer. More cops is our usual answer to any social problem anyway.

It's thought that religious organizations do a better job at, say, drug rehabilitation, than do secular ones. Only the proof is lacking. Alcoholics Anonymous is cited, but the statistics are suspect. Not only does it have a high initial drop-out rate, but just as likely it is peer pressure that works -- not submission to ``a power greater than ourselves.''

It is no different with other faith-based programs. The proof of their efficacy is often anecdotal but, as it turns out, also beyond any doubt. Most Americans (61 percent ) believe religion can solve almost any problem. Why even study the matter?

It just so happens that my mother worked for a Catholic hospital. It did great work. So I do not oppose government aiding faith-based institutions. But the hospital practiced medicine while Bush would have preferred it to practice faith as well. It's religion that got him to stop drinking, and it's the presumed power of religion that is really behind his initiative. ``In the final analysis, there is no overcoming anything without faith,'' he once said. But in the final analysis, there can be no analysis about faith. You believe what you believe.

Within reason, I am for what works. So, by all means, let us proceed with Bush's initiative -- cautiously and with appropriate skepticism. But we should remember that one man's faith is another's heresy, that religion is sometimes a variant of madness and the cause, not the cure, of what ails much of the world. To point out these things does not, in itself, show hostility to religion but rather an immense awe of its power. Sometimes it can do wonders. Other times it can topple the mighty Buddha's of Afghanistan.