On Leadership and Religion

It crossed my mind more than once that the injection of God or gods into political or otherwise organized leadership (not to that of a group devoted for the purposes of religion) has generated a suppression of the rights of individuals and put them at a disadvantage. While often times boasted as proof of principle, I find a leader’s strict adherence to the dogma of their religion to be especially frightening.

Born and raised Roman Catholic, and put through thirteen years of Catholic schooling (kindergarten through high school) I am well aware of the tenants of Catholicism, as well as the fundamental principles of Christianity. A faith bent on suggesting the importance of preparing for the afterlife and worshipping a god, it doesn’t provide the necessary (or most noble) incentives for true humanitarian service. Sure, service to others is an important prescription in the faith, but often times in the sense of teaching what it calls religious “truth” to those it deems to be unfortunate enough to come from a different socio-cultural background. To give you an idea, the Catholic Church uses the term Magisterium to describe the teaching authority of the church. It says (and this according to catholic-pages.com) that each bishop that “is in communion with Rome has the power and duty to teach the Truths of faith to the flock”. Firstly, they have ostracized themselves by claiming they have Absolute Truth, despite being less than 1/6 of the world’s population. Secondly, when the Catholic church, through its self-endowed rule of absolute and indisputable truth, teaches young children that homosexuality is sinful, not natural, and a choice, they are leading impressionable people to believe that this is fact and real truth. In this instance, this is not promoting true humanitarian service, but only creating a blockade of it. Such claims of religion have led me atheism, or at the very least agnosticism.

My point is this: All to often organized religion gets too caught up in expanding the boundaries of its empire of membership to worry about the service to others that is one of its fundamental ideals, and as a leader and a strict subscriber to one of these organized faiths, you are de-prioritizing your role as a agent to better the condition of mankind. In the United States of America, it is truly unfortunate the country is so narrow-minded that the notion of electing a Jew, Muslim, or an atheist is implausible. And not only is it unfortunate, but altogether irrational. While I believe a candidate should have to disclose his principles, he should not be criticized for following needless doctrine (i.e. believing that the wine he drinks at church is the blood of an old dead prophet). Such things are both irrelevant and unrelated to true spirituality.

Around the world, we have seen zealotry and fighting over the differences shared by religious groups and governments. We have seen fear coerce people into electing leaders that advocate total deference to a specific religion, and use that religion as the law of the state. Problem is religion doesn’t allow wiggle-room for argument or accountability. Rulers make their own interpretations of it and call it “truth”, and “truth” is a dangerous weapon. “Truth” is dangerous because it justifies and rationalizes bloody wars. “Truth” is dangerous because it doesn’t allow room for “fact”. More importantly, “truth” doesn’t allow room for “opinion”.

The most important thing is for us to separate religion from morality. Religion can be moral, but religion depends on doctrines created to explain what we cannot explain—truths about existence that cannot be proven. Within religion we often find guidelines to being a moral individual and encouragement to do so. However, morality can be exclusive from religion. A leader should be judged for his moral principles, not his religion or lack there-of.