It's high time we do away with the pompous, fatuous, and self-serving Bahamas Christian Council

Time to 'do away with' the Christian Council
By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor



The audacity of the Christian Council's demand that it be placed in charge of blessing the airport's new US departures terminal on Friday is a perfect example of why it's high time we do away with this pompous, fatuous, self-serving organisation.

I don't mean "do away with" in the sense of outlawing or forcibly disbanding it. The satisfaction of seeing the council subjected to its own tactics aside, no one can or should infringe upon it's members' right to associate.

What I do mean is that the silly masquerade in which the council poses as the nation's moral authority should be brought to an end once and for all. The Christian Council has no right - none whatsoever - to this self-imposed title.

Its officials are not elected by the public, nor appointed by the country's executive, and they do not represent the general public in any other capacity. Their authority does not extend beyond their own respective congregations - and even then is only on a voluntary basis.

And, despite their constant appeal to the "spiritual principles" mentioned in preamble of the Constitution, two of the architects of our independence, Governor General Sir Arthur Foulkes and George Smith, have already made it clear this was not meant to privilege any particular group, or even any particular religion.

In short, the council is nothing more than a private association of religious leaders and should be treated as such - no more, no less.

There is, therefore, no reason why this group should be allowed to tell our Immigration Department which foreign performing artists can entertain us, what films we are allowed to see, or whether it should be illegal for a man to rape his wife. And there is certainly no justification for its president Rev Patrick Paul feeling entitled to demand that he be the one to bless a public building like the new US departures terminal.

According to its mission statement, the Bahamas Christian Council was founded in 1948 to promote "understanding and trust" between churches, to "further Christ's mission of service by joint action" and to "witness for the Christian community in the Bahamas on matters of social or common concern."

The first two aims are more or less self-explanatory; the third less so, and is perhaps the source of the modern-day council's hugely inflated view of itself, which has been used by certain prominent members over the years to spread fear, reinforce personal prejudices and indulge petty jealousies.

If so, this relies on quite a twisted reading of the phrase. The intransitive verb "witness" means to give or serve as evidence of; to testify. In Christian terms, this refers to spreading the message of Christ's Eternal Kingdom.

The council seems to have dislodged this term from its original meaning, appointing itself the official advocate of a make-believe homogenous Christian community with regard to far more worldly "social or common" concerns.

But the council does a great deal more than just "witness" on behalf of its invented community of like-minded Christians.

Over the years, its officials have done all they can to burrow their way into the actual decision-making process, with an eye to accruing as much power as possible.

In the last few years alone, they have: demanded the final say on musical artists being granted entry to the country, approached the Immigration Department seeking to "form a partnership" in an effort to curb "social ills" and insisted that the government work more closely with churches.

They also submitted their own amendments to the proposed Marital Rape Act in an effort to maintain control over what happens in the bedrooms of married couples, and did their best to deny adult Bahamians the right to gamble their hard-earned money if they so chose.

Yet for all its self-importance, the council is also very good at playing the victim. According to a report published in the Bahama Journal on Friday, the uproar over the new terminal began after Rev Paul was first asked to bless the building, then informed by the Nassau Airport Development Company (NAD) that it had been advised to invite Catholic and Anglican clergymen to conduct the blessing instead.

The report said NAD's decision was described as "nothing more than elitism at its worst" by the council, which accused some denominations of constantly disrespecting "certain groups." Never mind that the Anglican Church, trusted with official state funerals, has at least some claim to the unofficial status of state religion of the Bahamas, whereas the denominations represented by the Christian Council, including Rev Paul's Assemblies of God, have none at all.

The council's stance is laughable, not only because the term "elitism" would much better describe its own rank presumption in meddling in other people's affairs, but also because according to the report, after "pressure conditions" - apparently a series of phone calls - were brought to bear on the Anglicans and Catholics, the council got its wish.

The hastily re-invited Rev Paul blessed the terminal at Friday night's ceremony before 1,800 invited guests.

But why does the Christian Council enjoy this kind of power in the absence of any plausible claim to it? Simply put, because it is perceived as having the ability to command the behaviour of a vast number of congregants at the polls or in other crucial circumstances.

This is the "We've got the numbers" version of might-makes-right; the manipulation of the beliefs of a large number of people in order to aggregate power in the hands of a few men - in such a way that there are always only a few of them, and they are almost always men.

I believe this kind of power is inimical to the kind of society we have in name, and the one we are trying to build in reality. The Bahamas is a parliamentary democracy, a system created in specific opposition to the far older, far more autocratic forms of power with which the Christian Council deserves to be categorised.

Furthermore, if there ever was a time we needed an organisation to "witness" for us, it has obviously long passed. This is now a country with a far higher concentration of churches than schools, in which everywhere you turn there is someone imploring you to return to religion "before it's too late". We have become a society of prayer breakfasts, prayer lunches, prayer dinners, prayer meetings; of memorial services, long services, annual services, commemorative services.

Witnessing has gone viral in the Bahamas. And yet our problems persist.

What we actually lack is concrete structural and policy ideas for how to fix our broken education system, revitalise our woeful public services, reform our corrupt electoral process and give our young people a chance to succeed.

Perhaps this is because too many of use continue to listen to a group of fear peddlers, who tell us we cannot trust ourselves to make decisions, who believe freedom of expression is a dangerous thing, and that religion is not about one's personal relationship with God, but rather a question of one's willingness to submit to their will.

The irony is that in reality, the Christian Council has no concrete power at all. They depend on supporters whose allegiance they can't really guarantee, particularly if it comes into conflict with political tribalism or self-interest. They only meddle because we let them.

If everyone told them to get lost when they came demanding special privileges, as they did with NAD, we would soon see how silly the emperors looked with no clothes on.

* What do you think?

pnunez@tribunemedia.net

February 28, 2011

...the Free National Movement (FNM) must be careful that it does not make a rudderless and reactionary opposition Progressive Liberal Party seem attractive to voters based on its decisions

Angering electorate at election time
thenassauguardian editorial


We were surprised at a notice in the newspapers on Tuesday. The government has decided to inform the public that police, beginning on Monday, will strictly enforce the seatbelt laws enacted in March 2002.

We support the enforcement of the seatbelt laws. The laws protect drivers and passengers. They also help reduce health care costs by preventing more serious injuries.

However, the government must understand the culture it is a part of. Bahamians are not accustomed to wearing seatbelts in The Bahamas. Consequently, a more reasonable notice period is needed in order for motorists to become aware and more comfortable with the change in enforcement policy.

That notice period could have been a month to two months, including a robust public relations campaign focused on ensuring the seatbelt message is widely disseminated throughout the country.

If on Monday police start handing out $300 fines to motorists for not wearing seatbelts, the electorate will not be pleased.

Even if a member of the government mentioned that this would happen in some obscure speech, few Bahamians thus far are aware that this significant change is to take place.

The Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) sale is also leading to growing unease in the country.

The government is about to sell 51 percent of BTC to the British firm Cable and Wireless Communications.

This paper has gone on record stating that Bahamian assets should be sold to Bahamians – this includes joint ventures between Bahamians and strategic partners.

Having a Bahamian owner, or a joint venture ownership structure between Bahamians and a strategic partner, would ensure more profits from the company stay in the country. Those profits that stay here would help create more jobs and prosperity in The Bahamas.

Both unions that represent workers at BTC have said they support Bahamians being owners of a privatized BTC.

Christian Council President Rev. Patrick Paul made comments yesterday that should concern the government.

“And so we stand with you this morning in agreement that (BTC) should belong to the Bahamians,” said Paul to those assembled during the union protest at BTC.

Paul assured the hundreds of BTC workers that the Christian church in The Bahamas supports their cause – that is, standing in opposition to the BTC sale to foreigners.

Earlier this year, the Free National Movement administration considered legalizing gambling for Bahamians and legal residents. The opposition, led by the church, stopped the government from making the bold move. That same church movement the government backed down from is now standing in opposition to the BTC sale.

Governing parties must pursue policies considered right for the country. They have an electoral mandate to do so. This authority, however, must be exercised in conjunction with the current moods and sentiments of the people.

When a political party pursues a policy it thinks is right, but that policy angers the people, this decision by the party usually leads it to opposition.

For its sake, the FNM must be careful that it does not make a rudderless and reactionary opposition Progressive Liberal Party seem attractive to voters based on its decisions.

12/8/2010

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International