Opinion: When Religion Becomes a Tool for Political Control

In an alarming parallel to history, political manipulation of religious institutions is gaining traction in America’s current landscape, experts warn. The controversial rewriting of IRS codes now permits churches to endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status—a significant departure from longstanding regulations separating religious institutions from political campaigning.

The tactical playbook resembles disturbing historical precedents, particularly from 1930s Germany, where authoritarian regimes successfully harnessed religious sentiment to advance political agendas. According to historical documents, Adolf Hitler explicitly outlined his propaganda approach in 1925, noting that “the art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding the way to their attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses.”

Hitler recognized that emotional beliefs often override rational arguments—a principle that continues to guide modern political manipulation. His assessment that “the receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous” led to his conclusion that effective propaganda must be “both simple and repeated over and over.”

Political analysts now observe similar patterns emerging in contemporary America, where religious faith—an existing source of moral authority for millions—is being leveraged for political gain.

The exploitation of religious institutions presents particular dangers in democratic societies. Faith communities, which often serve as moral compasses for their members, can be manipulated to rationalize policies that might otherwise face ethical scrutiny. Historical precedent shows how this approach can lead faithful citizens to passively accept questionable or harmful policies when cloaked in religious language or endorsed by trusted religious figures.

Another concerning parallel is the strategic creation of perceived enemies. Political leaders throughout history have identified and magnified threats—real or imagined—to unite followers, divert attention from policy failures, and justify harsh measures. Today’s political landscape features similar rhetoric targeting immigrants, political opponents, media organizations, and minority groups.

“By defining enemies, a political leader reinforces their position as the protector—the only one capable of ‘saving’ the nation from these supposed threats,” explains Fred Gault, a former journalist who has studied these patterns. The infamous declaration “I alone can fix it” exemplifies this approach, creating a narrative that consolidates power while discouraging dissent or nuanced discourse.

This strategy proves particularly effective during periods of social instability or economic uncertainty when people naturally seek certainty and straightforward explanations. The danger lies in how hostility toward designated “enemies” gradually becomes normalized, eroding moral boundaries and potentially opening doors to violence.

Social psychologists note that once religious institutions become politicized, their moral authority can be weaponized against their own members. When dissent is portrayed as unfaithful or immoral, believers face a challenging choice between their religious identity and their civic conscience.

The historical consequences of such manipulation offer sobering warnings. When faith is used to shield political power, silence opposition, or demand unquestioning loyalty, democratic institutions become vulnerable. The dehumanization of targeted groups creates moral justification for increasingly extreme measures against them.

Civil rights advocates emphasize the importance of maintaining clear separation between religious institutions and political campaigning, arguing that the recent IRS code changes threaten this crucial boundary. Meanwhile, religious leaders across denominations have expressed concern about political infiltration compromising their spiritual missions.

As the country approaches another election cycle, vigilance regarding these historical parallels becomes increasingly vital for preserving both religious integrity and democratic principles.