Being a significant part of life for a large part of the human population, the issue of faith must be addressed in any system of governance, because its presence greatly affects it, directly or indirectly, since, for said population, their life will ultimately be made in relation to it.
First of all, it should be noted, that within the groundless sphere known as postmodernism, blind faith may be all you have, since, as it defines itself, everything is just a description: a personal and collective aesthetic. Our description of the world is embedded in our very language and drilled into us while we are children; hence, it is taken for granted.
Secondly, there may be rational basis for considering an option of blind faith with respect to an Eternal absolute reference frame. In the space of such Infinitude, if there even exists the possibility of a perfect system or Being, it must be present. The fact that we can uphold any belief consistently at all suggests that perhaps we already exist in such a system. This issue is directly relevant to the limits of reason.
For example, it should be noted that reason can never get to the infinite. It can only postulate it, at best. More often, it becomes a entangled quagmire. The penchant for Reason is very much like following an endless ladder or asymptope -- it always seems like you're getting closer but in the scale of the unbounded (i.e. uncountable) infinite, it's merely an illusion -- an indicator that reason has become the master rather than the servant. This is where trust and good faith enter in.
A technical solution to governance, like any system of law can become very much like an oppressive State -- a system that simply and essentially cannot accomodate the creative, living Spirit. The only solution is not more reason, but to transcend it; like the Buddha, throw in a koan that will upset the system of logic. Nature continues because of this.
And don't forget: any system of logic ultimately rests on the a-logical, for reason cannot support itself (that would be circular). Any system of logic ultimately rests upon/within the a priori. Without a Foundation, as Ken Wilber and others have noted, there is only a postmodern shiftiness. But to resort to the opposite extreme of arbitrary absolutism is equally (if not moreso) dangerous.
In any case, among atheistic intellectuals such a notion would not be considered vogue, I propose for consideration that the being known as YHVH in the Hebrew scriptural documents -- and the one still held so steadfastly by the religions which dominate our social-political sphere -- is one such being who realized such a perfection, or, in the absence of such a linear view of time, simply IS such, ipso facto. What remains for us then, in that case and in relation to that narrative, is for Man to realize and complete the Tree of Knowledge for himself -- that journey which he embarked upon when he left the Garden and in which he lives in today (i.e. Civilization). If there is any doubt about that, consider that we organize time (ex. year 2009 A.D.) specifically in relationship to that narrative and thereby are all participating in its resolution -- deliberately or not.
Regarding any reluctance to believe in such, it should be noted that one exercises blind faith daily each time one blithely sets ones foot upon the ground. That ground which physics tells us is greater than 99.999% empty space and really consists only of cloud-like probability waves. What ensures your next step will rise up to meet you?
And lastly, observe that blind faith is the default: one must learn to doubt!