It is a real possibility that by the time of the next general election, all three major parties will be led by a Roman Catholic.
Iain Duncan Smith is as orthodox and proper in his allegiance to the old-time religion as he is in his adherence to old-time Conservatism.
Charles Kennedy is best described as unfanatical in his commitment to the faith of his highland fore- fathers. But he learned the creed and catechisms before he was seven and, as every Jesuit will confirm, that marks him out for life.
Tony Blair is a devout Anglican of what used to be called High Church inclinations. He therefore accepts much of Rome's doctrine without recognising the governance of the Pope. That makes him feel perfectly at home when he accompanies his wife and children to mass.
More significantly, he often attends alone. Paul Johnson, during the time when he was the prime minister's confidant, regularly predicted: "It's only a matter of time before he's one of the true faith."
To my knowledge, none of the party leaders exploits his religion to obtain political advantage or attempts to impose the doctrines of his church on party policy. Their beliefs are not a cause of complaint but a matter of legitimate interest. Religion is becoming an important ingredient in politics again.
In the cynical years that followed the war, most senior politicians followed Harold Macmillan's lead and left faith and morals to the bishops. Not now.
When, a couple of years ago, I talked to Frank Field about the principles that underlay his social security review he told me that his basic view was identical to the prime minister's core belief. I was writing his profile at the time so I made a careful note. "We must ignite the spark of grace which is there in all of us."
That was, I suppose, a theological version of the notion that we must provide more opportunities for self help - a doctrine of limited benefit to the very poor but one that, when expressed in such general terms, does very little damage.
Religion causes political problems when devout Christians, Muslims or Jews think that it is their duty to translate specific beliefs into legislative form. When my Muslim constituents told me that the Koran required women to be treated with proper respect, I could only rejoice.
The Taliban's insistence that proper respect obliges them to be covered from head to foot, never to go out in public without male escort and to eschew both education and employment is more difficult to endorse.
The problem of precision was admirably illustrated last week on the front pages of the Catholic papers. Who will argue with the Pope when, as reported in the Herald, he "pleads with Bush to respect human life"?
But the Universe, describing the same meeting, proclaimed: "Pope tells Bush, stop this evil". The evil in question was stem cell research that, among other benefits, may enable scientists to discover a cure for Parkinson's disease. It seems to me that the real evil would be not pursuing the chance to find a remedy for a fatal illness. There are humanist reasons for opposing casual abortion but not for outlawing life-saving research.
It was because it usually dealt in airy generalities that there was no real problem about the Church of England being the Conservative party on Sundays. And that great tradition of believing in nothing very precise lives on.
Last week the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote that fears of "faith-based schools" perpetuating inter-religious conflict should be calmed by the news that some Church of England schools in Bradford cater, almost exclusively, for Muslims.
We can only speculate about what happens at the compulsory act of worship. But we can be sure that British Muslims will not take such a relaxed view of their educational obligations.
I learned my lesson during the Satanic Verses crisis when I tried to convince my Muslim friends that some of us respected their faith. Attempting to defend my refusal to demand an outright ban on Salman Rushdie s strange book, I said that British Christians had not (at least in any numbers) objected to The Life of Brian. My debating point was brushed aside. If we chose to be casual about our religion that was none of their concern. They would not be casual about theirs.
Our blasphemy laws are tolerated because they are rarely evoked. Extend them to Islam - as equity requires - and they will become a common form of civil action. The same rule applies to schools.
Anglican infants will sing a daily hymn and visit church on All Saints Day. Other faiths will, not unreasonably, take the chance of solidifying belief more seriously - Catholics and Jews barely less robustly than Muslims. And the reasonable Catholics who aspire to lead the country must know it. They have a special duty to oppose the drift towards religious politics.