Let's start with the followers. This group seems to consist of those who have sincere religious beliefs based upon things that they were taught as children. Many are not deeply involved in issues of dogma and know only the fundamentals of their religion. Some, however, are very well read in the Bible, but use it for moral guidance selectively. The parts that get the most attention at any period of history are primarily determined by the concerns of the leaders. So, at one time slavery was frequently discussed from the pulpit. Later on it was the temperance movement. During the Victorian era the saving of heathen souls and the sponsorship of missionaries was seen as an important goal. These days sexual mores seem to be an area of much focus.

So, ultimately, the issue is, what motivates the leadership? At the risk of over-simplification I think there are two groups. The first group is typified by the Quakers. They attempt to do good on earth through personal efforts and tend to stay away from politics and the lure of the big religion "industry". These groups have never been an issue with those seeking the separation of church and state.

The second group, typified these days by the mega-churches, is in the religion business. While espousing all the usual beliefs about charity and humbleness they belie this with their actions. They have created large enterprises which take in vast sums of money. To their members they offer religious platitudes while pursuing their own agenda. We have seen religious hucksterism as a continuing theme in US life. Elmer Gantry was written in 1927, for example. Previously these showmen were content with raking in the money and living a plush lifestyle. What has happened in the past 30 years is that these people have expanded beyond an interest in personal enrichment into a lust for power.

Using the funds supplied by their sincere followers they are pursuing a course where they get to influence policy and help pick politicians. It is doubtful that they can have sincere religious beliefs while acting in a way that is the complete opposite to the foundations of their church.

So, perhaps the way to approach these organizations is to "follow the money". If their goal is power, influence and wealth, then arguing on theological grounds is not going to be effective. An individual like Jim Bakker can be brought down by showing how financially corrupt his organization was, but most of the mega-church operations are now bigger than a single leader.

I don't have any concrete proposals, but a new emphasis on where the money is coming from and where it is going might be worth further investigation. Certainly the stories about Ralph Reed that have emerged show that this may not be such an unusual connection.