The politics of religion: Who gets paid, and who gets played? (America, preacher)

[Rex]

The politics of religion: Who gets paid, and who gets played?
By: Karl B. Johnson
Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder
Originally posted 7/28/2004

Religion and politics have been a part of every society and culture as long as humans have been writing. Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Hebrew, politics and religion have always been the opposite sides of the same coin, influencing people.

One of the most fascinating stories about how this plays out is found in the Bible. It’s a story of a Hebrew king, Ahab, who desired the land and resources of another country. He called his ally who had familiar ties with his country (much like Britain and the United States) and asked him to join in an attack on the land he wanted.

The second king, Jehoshphat, asked Ahab to first ask the Lord. Ahab agreed. He called all the religious leaders together (400 of them) and in the presence of both kings, the religious leaders spoke with one voice. They told the kings that they would be victorious in this battle.

But Jehoshphat sensed that something wasn’t quite right. He knew that all these religious leaders were dependent upon the king for their resources and, therefore, would say what the king wanted to hear. So, Jehoshphat asked, “Is there no other prophet of the Lord here of whom we may inquire?”

Ahab’s response was yes, “but I hate him because he never prophesies anything favorable about me.”

Within the last few years, religion has moved to the center stage of public policy. On July 23, Reverend James Forbes of Riverside Church in New York City spoke in the Twin Cities as a part of a campaign entitled, “Let Justice Roll.”

Riverside Church is the place that Martin Luther King Jr. came out against America’s

involvement in Vietnam in 1967. It is considered a stronghold of “liberalism.” Forbes is one of the foremost African American preachers in America, and “Let Justice Roll” is a campaign sponsored by the National Council of Churches. The campaign is a voter registration drive that is focused in communities that have been disenfranchised by poverty; for Minnesota, that translates into communities of color.

The political tension met Forbes before he had an opportunity to preach in Minneapolis. During the news conference held prior to the luncheon wherein Forbes was to speak, Forbes stated, “The poor are important. Who is actually religious — those who make claims of being religious, or those who do not speak about their religion yet produce fruit that gives evidence of such?”

He went on say that Riverside Church had adopted “Emancipation of Poverty,” a program started by the United Nations in 1997. He added, “Politicians from neither side talk about poverty.”

During this conference it was announced that Forbes had been asked to speak at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. From that point on, the questions from the mainstream media were loaded with traps. The first question was, “Is this an effort to register people or to influence how people vote?”

Many churches are granted nonprofit status from the federal government. If, however, it is determined by the government that a religious organization is attempting to influence the outcome of an election, they could lose their nonprofit status. Rev. Paul Sherry of the National Council of Churches handled the reporter’s question by stating, “No matter how this election turns out, efforts will continue to influence people to vote.”

Martha Stewart Allen, a reporter for the Star Tribune, looked intently at Rev. Forbes and asked, “Here we are, 40 years later; aren’t you tired?” The shocking implication of the question sent a chilling hush across the room. Dr. Forbes, with great patience and humble words, spoke about the “friends that America has lost around the world because of the war in Iraq,” and said that “Whatever we do, there is a global consequence and too much is at stake. I believe this is a crucial time. As we move from city to city, I am exhilarated!”

Rev. Ian Bethel, president of the Minnesota State Baptist Convention, one of the co-sponsors of the event along with the Minnesota Council of Churches, responded vigorously by stating, “I’m tired: tired of poverty and the outcomes of poverty-crime. I’m tired of governments that have no policies on poverty, and particularly in urban areas!”

I later asked Rev. Bethel what he thought of the comment by the reporter. He stated, “She went over the line.” Bethel went on to say, “We intend to use voting as a political strategy to address [and] eradicate poverty by using the electoral process to leverage opportunities. What we do comes out of our faith.”

Rev. Forbes was asked if he would speak to the Republican National Convention if invited. Forbes said, “It would be something I would have to think about. It is not usual that a party invites one who is critical of the direction it has taken.”

The politics of religion has been a very effective weapon in the arsenal of American conservative ideology, and it appears that there is a growing response from those who are not conservatives. American Christianity has become a political tool. Conservatives have used one interpretation of the Bible while other groups apply another interpretation. The group that has an impact on Congress and the White House gets to apply its interpretation to public policy.

According to William Martin, author of “How Ronald Reagan Wowed Evangelicals” in Christianity Today (www.christianity today.com), the noticeable change in the use of religion as a political agenda came in 1980. “In his acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican National Convention, after assuring his party and the nation that they could trust him to restore American to its God-ordained greatness, Reagan ended by asking, in an emotion-choked voice, for a moment of silent prayer. When he brought that pious pause to an end with the official benediction of the nation’s civil religion, “God bless America,” the throng rewarded him with a 20-minute ovation.”

Thomas Frank, a former conservative Republican from Kansas, offers a more in-depth perception of how this really works: “While earlier forms of conservativism emphasized economic solvency, the backlash mobilizes voters with explosive social issues summoning public outrage over everything from busing to un-Christian art, which it then marries to pro-business economics.

“Cultural anger is marshaled to achieve economic ends. And it is these economic achievements — not forgettable skirmishes of never-ending culture wars — that are the movement’s greatest moments... The movement’s basic premise is that culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern — that values matter most....

“Over the last three decades they have squashed the welfare state and reduced tax burdens on corporations and the wealthy. It is a working class movement that has done incalculable, historic harm to the working class people. The leaders of the backlash might talk Christ, but they walk corporate.” (Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, Metropolitan Books, 2004).

In essence, working class and poor people who buy into the conservative “Christian” values of Republicans end up getting played while the very rich, who lead this movement, get paid.

During Rev. Forbes sermon, he said that any Biblical interpretation that does not take into account the welfare of the poor couldn’t really be considered a valid understanding of the God in the Bible.

I believe that Vice President Dick Chaney relayed the conservative response to issues of religion and welfare when U.S. Senator Pat Leahy recently asked him about the corporate welfare that Halliburton was receiving from the American taxpayers. Chaney’s reply was an obscenity I will not stoop so low as to repeat here.