Bishop Drexel Gomez’s participation at a recent Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) rally raised important issues of the involvement of clerics in Bahamian politics... and the relationship between church and state

Clerics in politics

Front Porch

By Simon

The recent brouhaha over Bishop Drexel Gomez’s participation at a recent Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) rally raised important issues of the involvement of clerics in politics, and the relationship between church and state, more of which at a later date.

Unfortunately, these and related issues were obscured by all manner of uncritical thinking.  This included slipshod editorializing by this journal in its March 8 edition entitled, “Reasonableness, family and politics”.

The editorial weighed into the debate with rushed judgement and little historical context seemingly making judgements based on a simplistic reading of the daily headlines rather than a closer reading of history.

The editorial was a textbook example of making poor analogies.  It attempted to support its sloppy conclusion by equating and forcing a false equivalence between the involvement of Rev. Frederick McAlpine in politics and the attendance of Delores Ingraham at political events on the one hand, with Bishop Gomez’s participation at the PLP rally on the other.

Regulated

Mrs. Ingraham’s attendance at such events is regulated by General Orders and long-held customs.  Moreover, she is not a cleric or a religious leader.  Further, this column has previously argued that clerics such as McAlpine should not be engaged in partisan politics for reasons similar for arguing that Bishop Gomez’s rally attendance was an error of judgement.

This newspaper reported that Bishop Gomez stated of his participation at the political event: “I was there simply because I was invited by my brother, who was having the formal opening of his headquarters in Nicholl’s [sic] Town.”

The Nassau Guardian reported, “He [Bishop Gomez] pointed out that he stayed clear of political statements when he addressed PLP supporters.”  The paper quoted the bishop: “I felt I was the most appropriate person to make the presentation, as the older member of the family and the person who has been in the public domain.”

Bishop Gomez continued: “I chose my comments very carefully.  I only spoke about my brother and our family.  I made no reference whatsoever to political issues or to political parties.  My intention was simply to introduce him to the people at the formal opening of his headquarters.”

The Guardian further reported:  “Bishop Gomez said he exercised two rights when he spoke at the political event.  The first being his constitutional right to speak in the public domain on public issues and the second being his religious right to comment on matters of justice and truth.”

It is not the bishop’s exercise of his right of freedom of speech that is being questioned.  The concern is the poor exercise of his judgement in speaking at a partisan political event.  Good judgement requires that one choose not only one’s words carefully, but also one’s appearances in both senses of the word.

Bishop Gomez also has a right to run for the House of Assembly, a right he is unlikely to exercise.  Anglican priest Fr. Addison Turnquest once ran for the FNM.  Though it was his constitutional right to do so, it was a poor exercise of judgement.

Duties

Constitutional rights come with duties.   This is captured in the adage that though a citizen has the right to speak, he or she does not have free reign to bogusly shout fire in a crowded theater.  Moreover, our rights are exercised within the context of other obligations and the demands of prudence and restraint.

A priest has the right to go out dressed in clerical garb to nightclubs, drinking and dancing into the wee hours.  But that priest risks giving confusion to the faithful and undermining his or her moral authority and the credibility of the wider communion he or she represents.

What The Guardian reported as Bishop Gomez’s defense of his two rights, “his right to speak in the public domain on public issues” and “his religious right to comment on matters of justice and truth” begs for clarity.

What exactly was the religious right exercised by Bishop Gomez at the PLP rally?  What matters of truth and justice did he address at the rally in light of his statement, “I only spoke about my brother and our family.  I made no reference whatsoever to political issues or to political parties.”

In pressing that he exercised his right to speak to matters of truth and justice, Bishop Gomez appears to be making an inference.  Is the inference that his brother’s candidacy as a member of the PLP will better advance the cause of truth and justice?  Is this not an endorsement of his brother and the PLP?

Is it Bishop Gomez’s contention that he in no way imagined that his remarks at the rally dressed as he was in clerical garb would carry any influence with voters in North Andros or The Bahamas in general?  Is it his contention that his appearance would be seen as nonpartisan, even neutral, amidst a general election campaign?

All of this adds more holy confusion than blessed assurance for the faithful and observers seeking to understand Bishop Gomez’s post-rally defense.  The bishop’s appearance at the rally in clerical garb added to the confusion for many.

Former Commissioner of Police Reginald Ferguson also had a brother in politics, Johnley Ferguson, who ran for the House of Assembly as a Free National Movement (FNM) candidate.  Assuming that the former commissioner was in that post when his brother was running, would it have been appropriate for the former, dressed in his police uniform, to address a FNM rally to speak about his brother?

Of course, there is a prohibition against such a thing in General Orders.  The reasons behind the prohibition are compelling.  Among them, the risk of undermining one’s authority and that of the institution one represents by giving the appearance of partisanship.

Doubtful

Would Bishop Gomez have spoken on behalf of his brother were he still the head of the Anglican Church in The Bahamas?  It is extremely doubtful that even as the retired head of the Anglican Church that the late Bishop Michael Eldon would have spoken at a political rally to introduce a family member.

Suppose current Anglican head Bishop Laish Boyd had a sibling running for office.  Would it be prudent for him to mount a partisan political platform in an election season to speak about that sibling and their family?

Bishop Gomez pleaded: “My intention was simply to introduce him to the people at the formal opening of his headquarters.”  In moral theology, as in normative ethics, one is judged by one’s intentions and actions either of which or both of which may be flawed depending on the case at hand.

The four cardinal virtues in the Christian tradition are prudence, justice, temperance and courage.   Prudence is the virtue which helps to guide or balance the other virtues.  A classic definition of prudence is the ability to “judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time”.  Restraint or temperance refers to “practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation”.

For many, Bishop Gomez exercised neither prudence nor restraint by speaking at a partisan political rally.  Before acting, a cleric must ask whether his or her actions will be an occasion of confusion for the faithful.

With the benefit of centuries of historical hindsight and chastened by its blurring of the lines between church and state, the Roman Catholic Church is clear about the restrictions on clerics and bishops involving themselves in the political process.

The likelihood of Archbishop Patrick Pinder even attending a political rally as the ordinary or as a retired archbishop of Nassau is next to nil.  Any Catholic priest who went on a political platform with or without his clerical collar to speak about his sibling would make that mistake only once, if ever.

Adding to the confusion, were Bishop Gomez’s comments after Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham suggested that Opposition Leader Perry Christie apologize for the attendance of the bishop at the rally.  Though the prime minister’s comments were not addressed to him, it was the bishop who responded in language that can only be described as bellicose.

As other religious leaders are calling for more civil dialogue and restraint, Bishop Gomez blustered that the prime minister would lose a fight with him.  Is that the appropriate language and tone for the former head of the Anglican Diocese or for any religious leader?

In this entire matter Bishop Gomez has acquitted himself as a political partisan and combatant instead of as a moral leader.  Many Anglicans are alarmed at his conduct.  So too are many other people of good will and Christian faith.

frontporchguardian@gmail

bahamapundit.com

Mar 13, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

All the pillars of society - the government, the opposition parties, the church, the judiciary, the security forces, the educational system, the family to name a few - must work cooperatively and congenially for the reduction of crime in our Bahamas ...The blame game is most dysfunctional and, at best, divisive...

IS THE SOLUTION TO CRIME TO CHOOSE ONE SIDE OR TO WORK TOGETHER?

By JOSEPH A WALKER
PhD, LLB (Hons) CLE



KINDLY allow me some space in your valuable column to make a few comments on the issue of crime in The Bahamas.

In recent times, it has become fashionable and convenient for those who were themselves at one point or the other, in one capacity or the other, in charge of our country to make public proclamations on the cause of crime and to point fingers at others for the same.

Nothing is wrong with this as it keeps focus on the problem but, in all of it, the proclamations appear to miss the real target. I will return to this point later.

One has heard the Leader of the Official Opposition pontificate about who is responsible for the crime wave we are experiencing and as to what he would do about it if he and his party were returned to political power.

It appears, however, that he has conveniently forgotten that he and his party had five years to deal with this said problem of crime but he and his party did little or nothing to solve the problem and they were removed leaving the problem to grow and fester.

When the crime, at the material time, touched personally, the Leader of the Official Opposition, there were many promises of what he was going to do to get to the bottom of it but, alas, nothing was done. The problem remained unabated.

The Leader of the DNA, like the Leader of the Opposition, has blamed the present government for the problem of crime going so far as to hold the Minister of National Security personally responsible for the problem, quite conveniently forgetting that he was a senior member and Cabinet Minister of the now governing party and therefore shares part of the blame.

While one acknowledges that the crime issue is one of grave concern, leaders as well as those aspiring to be political, religious and social leaders ought not to allow themselves to make pronouncements on this most serious issue based on emotions, spite, political pandering, personal, arbitrary and ascriptive criteria or on poorly understood facts or principles. To do so is to be divisive and it bodes no one well nor does it contribute to the solution of the problem which should be the aim of all those who engage in the debate on the issue.

With all the noise in the market place about crime, particularly crimes involving murder, the salient point that is being missed or ignored or not understood or factored in the analysis is that no one, not the government, not the Minister, not even the parent or spouse of the murderer can prevent a murder unless the murderer makes his intention known prior to carrying out the act.

Even so, one may articulate an intention and may not follow through on the expressed intention or follow through may be delayed.

Murder is ideally personal and, in most cases, private, even if it is committed in a public way. Some murders are spontaneous.

Thus, because murder and other violent crimes can only be prevented if one has prior knowledge of their impending incidence, it is shortsighted and, in many ways, unfair, in one's view, to hold any one personally responsible for them save the perpetrators.

It is for this reason that when the accused of a murder or other crime is convicted of his crime, not the government, the minister or his parents, is punished personally.

This is not to be construed to say crime cannot be prevented for surely certain measures can be put in place to discourage or reduce its incidence, but this will only be effective when we as a society have a clear understanding of the root causes of crime in our society.

Not the causes of crime in the US or other Caribbean territories as published in reports and textbooks, but those causes, if any, characteristic to The Bahamas.

The factors involved in causing crime are varied, multifaceted and, some cases, interrelated and, as such, any number of or any combination of them can synergise in any individual or group of individuals to result in the commission of a crime.

What we, as a society, need to do is to try through detailed and valid longitudinal scientific research, to identify, if we can, those factors, conditions, circumstances, community characteristics, family variables and even national linkages that are common among murderers and perpetrators of other violent crimes that may be trigger factors and therefore attempt to identify and develop and apply practical ameliorative strategies.

Even so, we may, at best, only make a small dent in the problem.

If we can, that would be a starting point from and on which we can build and learn. Crime is not a simple issue in any society.

There is no simple or easy solution therefore. If there were, other more developed and advanced societies would have solved it a long time ago because they have been grappling with it longer than we have.

All the pillars of society - the government, the opposition parties, the church, the judiciary, the security forces, the educational system, the family to name a few - must work cooperatively and congenially for the reduction of crime in our society. The blame game is most dysfunctional and, at best, divisive.

October 20, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

...the job of Immigration is to protect The Bahamas from illegal immigrants... but... The schools, the churches and the hospitals are off limits to immigration officers... so... The Bahamas' Haitian problem continues

Schools, hospitals and churches off limits to Immigration

tribune242 editorial




THIS WEEK Belinda Wilson, president of the Bahamas Union of Teachers, agreed that undocumented Haitian students should be removed from the Bahamas' school system.

While recognising that it was a delicate situation, that no child in the Bahamas can be denied an education, and that no roundup of Haitian students whose parents are illegally in this country, should be carried out on school property, Ms Wilson said teachers are willing to assist Immigration in identifying the students for their eventual removal. She was supporting an intention allegedly made by Immigration Director Jack Thompson in a speech to the New Providence Association of Public High School Principals' annual retreat. However, Mr Thompson denied a newspaper report - not a Tribune report - that quoted him as saying that the country has to "flush out" undocumented immigrants who are enrolled in the country's school system "absorbing our resources."

Mr Thompson denied any suggestion that the Immigration Department intends to target these children. He said he made it clear to the educators that education is a fundamental human right which every child is entitled to receive.

"Administrators were told," said Mr Thompson, "that students of foreign nationals attending schools should apply to the Department of Immigration for a residency permit or permit to reside." He said it was "emphasised that while students should not be denied the right of a basic education, records by the Department to Immigration are critical for future applications, or permanent residence or citizenship."

He agreed that the children's issue was a sensitive one and requires professionalism and discretion.

He said that his department, fully appreciating the sensitivity of the matter, always tries to make certain that its policies and actions are in "compliance with international law and acceptable national and international standards and practices."

This is a most difficult situation and unless handled extremely carefully can be turned into a human witch hunt. If vulnerable parents believe that they can be targeted through their school children, there will be a mass exodus from the schools, which then becomes a police problem as the children take to the bush.

The last problem will then be far greater than the first.

The situation of the children is not of easy solution. Many of these children have been born here of parents who have lived in the Bahamas for many years. No child born in the Bahamas after 1973 is automatically a Bahamian citizen. However, at the age of 18 that young person can apply for citizenship. No impediments being in the way, the grant of citizenship should be automatic.

However, a Haitian child born in the Bahamas, does have an impediment to block his automatic citizenship -- his parents are illegal residents. We don't know if over the years the Bahamas and Haitian governments have worked out another thorny problem. However, at one time Haiti did not recognise as Haitian citizens a child born in the Bahamas of Haitian parents. If this is still the position it means that the Bahamas will have many stateless children on its hands. This is indeed a major problem -- an international problem.

Many vocal Bahamians want Haitian children not only removed from the schools, but all undocumented residents -- mostly Haitians -- to be banned from the hospitals and clinics. This is a most shortsighted and dangerous position, and the fastest way to fan an epidemic that could affect us all.

Let these people fear seeking medical help for a disease that could be contagious, and rather than be arrested stay at home, they could infect their family, their neighbours, their community and eventually all of New Providence.

Doctors, for example, swear the Hippocratic Oath, which is one of the oldest binding documents in history. Its principles are still held sacred by doctors today. Doctors swear to treat the sick to the best of their ability, preserve the patient's privacy, teach the secrets of medicine to the next generation, etc. And so doctors, in practising their profession are bound to keep information about their patients secret. They are also obliged to treat them regardless of who they are or from where they come.

Mr Thompson has made it clear that the job of Immigration is to protect the Bahamas from illegal immigrants, but he stresses that it is a task that must be carried out with sensitivity.

"We never send any immigration officers to the schools," said Mr Thompson. "The schools, the church and the hospitals are off limits."

This does not remove the Haitian problem, which has to be approached in another way.

July 07, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Lottery in The Bahamas... games of chance...

The lottery and the church
thenassauguardian editorial



It seems that at least once a year the issue concerning a lottery in The Bahamas raises its head. Each time the subject comes up, it raises arguments among members of the public and puts up the dividing wall between the church and government. Yet, each year the subject comes up, the same arguments prevail and the same results are experienced.

Nothing happens and the subject dies down.

Of course the Christian Council continues to stand against the formation of a lottery, claiming that it would further sink this country into a mire of immorality.

With a high crime rate, an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, a high rate of high school drop outs, an ever increasing turn by many to alternative lifestyles and the constant Bahamian past time of “sweet hearting” one can only wonder if the country has not reached the bottom of the barrel of immorality.

In decades past, the church’s view was highly respected, which explains why every time the subject of a lottery came up and the church protested, it was pushed aside, without another thought.

Now, with some consideration being given to the idea, it proves that the respect which the church in The Bahamas once held is waning. With so much of its own dirty laundry being placed into the public light, the church no doubt has issues of its own.

But have we reached that point in our nation’s history where the voice of reason, justice and fair play is no longer being adhered to? If that is the case, then God help us.

Some claim that the reason many pastors are against the formation of a lottery is because they fear losing tithes and offerings to a gambling practice. But pastors, in taking their stand against the lottery, say they fear that it would destroy households, as husbands would then use their money to play the lottery in hopes of winning.

If the ratio of men to homes in this country is correct, then no doubt this argument is moot. To think that single mothers would take hard earned money to play the lottery instead of feeding and clothing their families goes beyond reason.

But it can certainly happen.

However, the truth is, those parents who are responsible without a lottery would continue to be responsible with a lottery.

After all, games of chance can be bought on just about every corner in the country.

Yet, only those who are willing to take that risk with those games of chance continue to do so.

Those who are not interested are not moved.

12/3/2010

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International