Religious Duty or Political Atrocity, Should Political Leaders Face a (non)Religious Test Before Taking Office?

Religious Act


It’s gotten to the point where grandmothers are now strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing up other people. When the families of these suicide bombers are interviewed, they make it clear that the bomber was doing his or her religious duty and is now rewarded eternally. Coincidentally when other members of the bomber’s own mosque are questioned, they clarify that the act was political – all political.

Well, which is it? It is true that the Quar’an does have Surahs advocating for the destruction of infidels. It is also true that some Islamic leaders advocate and recruit suicide bombers, promising eternal rewards. However, these religious leaders are often also leaders of the country or smaller areas in their theocratic. These leaders have a political position as well.

In America, there is a fair number of citizens uncomfortable with “radical” Islamists – those who follow the Quar’an and religious leaders without question, often with a short-term focus of violence. Americans are uncomfortable by a religion dictating loud violence and religious followers actually pursuing these ‘radical’ goals.

The flip side, then, is what happens when the American government advocates violence against enemies and U.S. leaders often invoke God as a being part of the certainty behind his/her decision that leads to violent interaction.

President Truman was a deeply religious man and felt that God had given Americans the right and the knowledge to develop the A-Bomb. Dropping the bombs and killing millions of Japanese while saving American lives was therefore God’s will. President Bush regularly (and publicly) says that God has spoken to him, has motivated him and has guided him in his decisions – especially when he is speaking about the ongoing violent conflicts. Other American politicians have echoed this belief. How does this differ from Middle Eastern leaders (who are also leaders in non-religious matters for their area) advocating violence from their followers? If America’s actions are only political, then why do U.S. leaders so regularly mention God when justifying those actions? If suicide bombers of “radical” Islam are acting straight from the texts of their religious document, then why do members of the same sect and mosque repeatedly claim these suicide bombers are not acting as religious men but as political statements?

Is it only political when a “secular” United States is making the violent action? Or is it only religious when a zealot doesn’t realize s/he’s acting in the political interests of the religious leaders who advocated for the violence?

If God is truly the motivation behind these leaders – if God truly speaks to Bush and tells him to continue fighting in Iraq – If God was really the motivation behind Truman dropping two A-bombs on Japan, if the scriptures, taken literally really do make Arab religious leaders advocate for the mass deaths of civilians be carried out by 57-year-old grandmothers, isn’t that a big problem?

On the books it says the government cannot force someone to declare belief in God or another Supreme Being before holding office ( a religion test). But aren’t we kidding ourselves? In America, to be elected president don’t you need to profess a belief in a (Christian) God?

Furthermore, and this is a radical suggestion that I hope is understood from an academic standpoint; but if God or scripture, and the certainty about the “rightness” of those religious beings and doctrines, really is any part of the motivation behind decisions involving massive loss of civilian life then should secular countries like the United States elect only atheist or agnostic leaders to ensure decisions are being made not from a deity or book but for the good of the country? Should not a “non-religious test" be administered to make sure the leaders of the world are not acting on the certainty that God is speaking to him/her. If American leaders do make decisions on what they think is best for the country, why do they continue to explicitly and repeatedly invoke God? Why isn’t respect for humanity and understanding of the consequences to one’s country enough? My problem is not a leader’s belief, but rather the certainty that that leader’s beliefs are the right ones, making any alternative views wrong.

In fact, if all world leaders were atheist or agnostic, would that not eliminate the majority of man-made destruction and loss of life that we are exposed to every day? All actions advocated then by those leaders would unquestionably be political in nature, rather than deity inspired. If religion in the political realm was kept hidden from the rest of society, made only a private practice of the individual, would society as a whole not benefit?