Since New Orleans was demolished by Hurricane Katrina, there has been no end to the number of factors people have cited as responsible for the resulting damage. Among those reasons have been homosexuality and the "Girls Gone Wild" video production.

If someone would just get rid of the gays and the pornographers, apparently, Americans would achieve immortality and disaster would cease to plague our nation. A quick search on any Internet search engine will quickly find those who have faulted "liberal" sin for the advent of Katrina.

In light of these accusations, I found a recent poll by the Pew Research Center to be interesting. According to the study, the "religion gap" between Republicans and Democrats is widening. Twenty-nine percent of the public sees the Democratic Party as "generally friendly" toward religion, down from 40 percent a year ago and 42 percent in 2003. A 55 percent majority continues to see the GOP as friendly toward religion.

How exactly are we to define "friendly"? Is that term simply a description of those who are most willing to give free money (also known as "tax dollars") and institutional perks to their favorite religious establishments? I'd like to know, because no one is in the mood these days to be particularly tolerant of anyone else. Neither party harbors members who are very friendly toward anyone else's religions or beliefs.

We're witnessing the rise of a sort of "neo-Christianity," defined by so-called Christians who are out to cleanse the earth of its iniquity. They're convinced that credit for all the world's evils rests exclusively with non-Christians and liberals, and they'll find evidence of it everywhere. One religious group wrote, "The image of the hurricane ... with its eye already ashore... [looked] like an unborn human baby facing to the left (west) in the womb, in the early weeks of gestation (approx. 6 weeks)."

Liberal progressives, meanwhile, have been heard halfheartedly mumbling that Katrina was God's vengeance against the United States on behalf of Saddam Hussein. Everyone is eager to claim that God supports their political cause; when people die, they believe God is killing them for not voting the right way. The arrogance inherent to believing that the world's ills exist because God is killing people for not adhering to given political beliefs is astounding.

In 1906, Italy was witnessing the rise of democracy. At the time, the Catholic Church was unsettled at the thought of losing its sway. In that year, the Italian A. Fogazzaro wrote, "Social action... is certainly good as a work of justice and brotherhood, but, like the Socialists, certain [Christians] mark it with the stamp of their religious and political opinions, [and] refuse to share it with men of good will unless they accept that stamp.... They preach the just distribution of wealth, and that is good, but too often they forget to preach at the same time the poverty of the heart; and if they deliberately leave it out... this is abominable in God's eyes. Cleanse your action of these abominations."

Fogazzaro was correct - those who use religion as a means to political ends are nothing more than abominations. Contrary to their own beliefs, they are not the second coming of Christ. They're closer to false prophets.

In God's eyes, all sin is abhorrent. Homosexuals aren't any more despicable than Rush Limbaugh's stellar divorce rate. Newt Gingrich - affairs and all - is no more righteous than the producers of Girls Gone Wild. Death exists because of everyone's sin - not just the sins of specific political factions.

In his book The Illuminating Icon, the Orthodox Russian Anthony Ugolnik noted of Christians during the Cold War, "The proof that Christians have not suddenly arrayed themselves in robes of charity lies in their willingness to rip at each other's garments when it comes to civil issues.... The politics that divide us take precedence over the gospel that binds us as one."

Ugolnik's words were true when he wrote them, and they're true today. Those who manipulate religion for political purposes are no different than the spammers who keep trying to sell me on a "Christian health plan." The only difference is that spammers aren't out for blood. The brutish neo-Christians who are on a mission to "purify" the human race are.

Rudy Takala is 16 and was homeschooled for nine years. He spends his free time attending a community college and writing a book about education.

© Rudy Takala September 2005