Spirituality exists within every culture. It was one of the things our country was founded on. It can be a great source for good in society, as those who truly live their religion often make positive contributions. On all of the money in America one can find the words "In God We Trust." The very term implies that we are a faith-based nation with values and standards that hinge upon a common set of beliefs. Faith, to the truly faithful, plays a very large role in everyday life and can influence our thoughts, actions, and almost everything we do with our lives. However, in our day it seems that many in the United States of America have put God to the side and put their faith and trust in money as well as other things of the world. As this trend grows, many are gaining riches and power, all in the name of God. The use of religion for the gain of money and political power contradicts the values of many religions; therefore, it is morally wrong.
In America, we have the blessing of religious freedom. The reason the pilgrims came here in the first place was to escape the religious oppression they faced in England. They desired a place where they could worship as they pleased and that led them to America. As time went on, the English colonized this land. Eventually, the colonists fought to be emancipated from their mother country, and there are many accounts and stories of divine intervention in their struggle towards victory and separation. Through their struggles and success, a fledgling people had become "one nation under God."
With the formation of this nation, it was decreed that there should be a separation of church and state, meaning that government and religious institutions should be separate and remain separate. However in our day, the line between church and state has become a bit blurred. President George W. Bush "repeatedly emphasized his desire to lower the wall that separates church and state and allow the federal government to finance the work of churches and other houses of worship during his 2000 presidential campaign" (Steve Benen, 2002, p. 4). After winning the election, his administration created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to accomplish this goal. However, it seems as though the initiatives serve another purpose and that is to gain political power. Alexander Saxton wrote "throughout the so-called Era of Secularism…working classes have tended to be more religious than middle classes," and a large portion of voters in America are working class people (2006, p. 308). In the 2002 elections for the House of Representatives, "the Bush administration sent faith-based officials to carefully selected locations to appear with Republican candidates while touting publicly funded grants to religious groups" (Benen, 2002, p. 4). This was done, no doubt, in hopes to help the Republican party gain political strength.
One major blemish on the face of the faith-based initiatives which has plagued it from the beginning was its failure to go through the approval process of the US Congress. "The initiative was put into place primarily through executive orders issued by President George W. Bush and through regulatory changes affecting various cabinent-level departments and lower federal offices "(Rob Boston, 2007, p. 10). The actions of the Bush administration were in defiance of the system of checks and balances which were established by the founding fathers of our nation. They had done exactly what the system was designed to thwart, which was the exercising of their power irresponsibly. By making an executive decision in regards to the faith-based initiatives, President Bush took the power out of the hands of Congress and violated the rule of law of consent. It was stated by Rod Paige, former United States Secretary of Education, that the President did this "because he knows first-hand the power of faith to change lives…because faith changed his life (Boston, 2007, 10)." This makes it apparent that Bush is proselytizing his faith to the world, and to his voters, with "a vehicle for 'good people' to 'act on their spiritual imperative'" (Boston, 2007, p. 13).
The actual concept of the faith-based initiatives is, in my opinion, a good thing. It is good that small congregations can benefit from it and that they will be able to have nicer facilities and be able to do more good with the money that they receive. Ronald J. Sider wrote, "In many of our poorest, most broken neighborhoods, faith-based organizations are almost the only surviving social service organizations "(2005, p. 40). The fact that George W. Bush is a religious man is not a bad thing either, in fact it is quite good. It takes courage to stand for what you believe. However the public display of his affections for his faith is noble, but not necessary. In fact, sometimes I think he plays his religious cards a bit too much and mentions prayer an awful lot for a secular leader. This further supports the theory of his administration wielding the sword of religion in order to win the battle for political power.
While government leaders can use religion to get gain in the sense of political power, those who benefit the most from religion in terms of money are those that preach it. The media can play a large role in the success of preachers. Today, televangelism is a very successful business and many people get their sermons in the comfort of their living room. "During the 1980's, the activities of the contemporary electronic church received so much media attention that televangelists such as Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker, and Jerry Falwell have acquired the notoriety normally reserved for movie stars" (Litman and Bamn, 1989, p. 329). These men used their charismatic ministries to spread the gospel which they professed to love (although they were not free from scandals, among which was a well publicized affair between Bakker and the church secretary). Oral Roberts made a name for himself by hosting numerous religious television specials called "Contact," in which he would have musical spectacles and guest stars mixed with religious messages. As part of the program, a number would come up for viewers to call and they would be prayed for and then the Lord would bless them. This took advantage of those who were not very scholarly when it comes to Christianity, as it says nowhere in the Bible that it is necessary to pay people to pray for you and then you will be blessed. Oral Roberts even went as far as to claim that God was going to kill him if he did not raise a certain amount of money by a specific date. He didn’t' reach the quota, but he didn't die. In fact, he is still alive today, living off the riches he obtained during his ministry. Oral Roberts made his career by exploiting God for money.
The advent of televangelism created a new age for Christianity. It had become the latest form of spiritual sensationalism to add to the ever growing number of different denominations of Christianity. However, it was the political fact of religious disestablishment, or freedom of religion, which gave rise to so many different denominations and televangelism, as well as their roots of American Christianity selling itself as a commodity. "The refusal of the national government to endorse a single denomination left all denominations free to flourish; and to flourish, they had to compete, with each other and with secular rivals, for numbers and money" (Allen Guelzo, 1995, p. 27). The competition among the different sects continues today, causing the religious to become more frenzied. For something that professes a message of love and peace, it has done almost the opposite by perpetuating a cut throat, dog eat dog world in the battle to win over followers among American Christianity. This is because everybody knows that there is strength in numbers and if the followers are few then so is the power and influence of the group. This gives rise to and adds fuel to the fire of competitiveness.
Such sensationalism and fervor can lead to trouble. Unlike the indirect use of religion which the Bush administration has employed to gain political power, some are more up front with their use. Roy Moore, an Alabama politician, has become "the single most significant politician to owe his ascendancy to Christian Reconstruction--an obscure but increasingly potent theology whose top exponents hold that Christian crusaders must conquer and convert the world, by the sword if necessary, before Jesus will return" (John Sugg, 2005, paragraph 5). Such philosophy is reminiscent of the driving force of the religious Crusades in the Middle Ages where many were killed because they were not Christians. Similarly, while not necessarily a religious act, the Holocaust of Nazi Germany was spurred by the radical ideologies of a group which thought themselves to be superior to all others and resulting in the deaths of millions who were different than them. It is this type of use of religion and power that can be dangerous. In the 1960's, after John Lennon's controversial remark on how the Beatles were bigger than Jesus Christ, many Christians held bonfires of Beatles merchandise and some even went as far as sending death threats to the musician. Similarly, in our day Christian groups have burned merchandise from Marilyn Manson to Harry Potter. History shows us that this type of thinking leads to a superiority complex and breeds destruction, whether it is of vinyl records or human life. It can become dangerous for individuals with such ideals to gain power in terms of religious or secular things.
Recently, the world has seen what can happen when power is attained by religious zealots. On September 11, 2001, Islamic radicals hijacked four cross country commercial airline flights on the east coast of America with the intent of crashing them into specific targets. Three of them succeeded, hitting the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and resulting in the deaths of many civilians. These men had done this act in accordance to their religious beliefs. "Specifically, some terrorists are of the opinion that acts of violence against civilians are 'moral' and that martyrdom, even including the sucide of the alleged martyr, is 'the highest morality'"(Barry Cooper, 2007, p. 27). However, they are not a part of the whole of Islam as I have denoted by the word radical. They had very strong convictions that what they were doing was right, so much so that they even died for it. The media has shown much coverage of Islamic jihadists, or holy warriors, since then. Some of the portrayals of Islam as a hate filled and evil religion in the media has been negative and have created intolerance for followers in America because of the misrepresentation of it. I think that it is sad that there is such intolerance for innocent followers of Islam as well as the negative, often biased media coverage of not just Islam, but anything. It doesn't paint a clear picture. We must differentiate between the normal and the radical, the difference being that the normal belief is that of peace and doing what is right while the radical view is that of the militant jihadists who are on a mission to rid the world of evil.
However, this type of mentality which exists among the Islamic jihadists can be found in America among Christians. "'The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise,' Gary North, a top Reconstruction theorist, wrote in his 1989 book, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism. 'Those who refuse to submit publicly…must be denied citizenship'" (Sugg, paragraph 11). What this means is for Christians to have absolute control over politics and government and punish those who do not follow with denial of citizenship. This goal is most definitely a misuse of religion as well as a clear violation of the separation of church and state. But, in addition to those faults it echoes a bit of the jihadist point of view, even that of the Nazis. The similarities in all of them are that they all believed that they were right and doing what was moral and they all have a desire to gain control in order to prevent either the infidel, non-believer or Jew from attaining it. The difference is that Christian radicals have yet to make headlines and break into the mainstream by performing acts such as their contemporaries. But, that doesn't rule out the possibility. The goal of Christians in politics as described by Gary North is dangerous thinking and can lead to actions similar to the jihadists and early crusaders, in which violent acts will be performed in the name of God; clearly a misuse of religion in anyone's eyes. I believe that from a secular point of view, there is no way we can prove which religion is right or which cause is justified, we can only judge on the basis of a consensus of moral decency, leaving religious beliefs aside. As long as laws are not broken and lives are not threatened we are all free to do as we please. Islam and Christianity are peaceful religions wherein the radical behaviors of their deviants are not justified by their respective beliefs. These actions of deviance are all instances of religious intolerance, which is not one of the values that Christ, nor Mohammed, taught, and are examples of the misuse of religion in order to gain power.
But amidst it all it seems as though many have forgotten some of the teachings of the God they love. It was Christ who told the rich young ruler how to get to heaven.
"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions "(Matthew 19:21-22. King James Version).
He later said to his disciples that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. It was also Christ who was upset with the merchants peddling their goods at the temple, for they were desecrating His Father's house. If these things applied then and God is the same today, yesterday, and forever, then ought not these basic teachings of Christianity apply to the world today? Some televangelists and preachers, such as Joel Osteen, preach the doctrine of prosperity causing their followers to believe that God wants us to be rich, while they flaunt their riches and persuade their congregations and viewers to contribute to their collection plates (Biema and Chu, 2006, paragraph 6). The gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of love and peace, yet there are some leaders who want anything but that. It seems, at times, that they forget about these things which are said in the Bible as they are thumping it to win over more followers.
As these things continue to occur in the world, we must wonder about the conviction of those who are guilty of using religion for advancing themselves. If they truly believe that what they are doing is right, then they do not understand the scriptures, which more than likely are the basis of their beliefs. It needs to be taught that we cannot serve God and mammon nor exercise unrighteous dominion over others. This has become a widespread plague which is morally wrong. People need to put their trust in God and not in money or earthly powers. If this occurs it will stop some of the corruption of Christianity and make America a blessed nation under God. There are still many good, wholesome preachers in the world, as well as great leaders who are religious that help to counterbalance the effects of their opposites. In order to resolve conflict and corruption in terms of religion, we must forget politics and riches and get back to the basics and love one another. That's what the world needs now: love, sweet love.
