LAST WEEK’S SUNDAY SUN presented a pageant of articles penned by authors with various biases, but all speaking to the issue of Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron’s condemnation of our “anti-gay” laws and inadvertently chastising the sole local commentator who expressed support for Cameron’s position.
Naturally, I have no intention whatsoever of moving from my initial position, which was prefaced by articles that spoke to those human rights issues and policy complications before Cameron made his remarks.
As one reflects on these articles, it is sad that until Sir Ron Sanders made comments last week, no other professional in this region seemed to be able to separate the “rightness” of Cameron’s remarks from the “inappropriateness” of references to money when speaking to the need for change.
As a result, both the print and electronic media have been dominated with opinion, supported by all manner of “evidence” based on faith, logic, diplomacy and law implying that it is “good” for us to discriminate against homosexuals in this country.
While all of these perspectives are easy to counter, the religious perspective is a good place to begin, largely because this group is consistent in its position that this issue can begin and end by reference to the Bible, notwithstanding the “fact” that an adherence to biblical instruction would lead us down a slippery slope that demands all manner of discrimination and barbarity.
It is important that we grapple here with the suggestion that we are a Christian nation, which presents an image of biblical righteousness in our thoughts, words and deeds.
Certainly, this postulation is neither true in the letter nor (God forbid) the “spirit” and one needs to begin with Section 19:1 of the Constitution Of Barbados which guarantees “freedom of conscience”, understood to include religion.
Contrary to popular belief, religion does not mean Christianity; hence there is no requirement in Barbados that anyone be a Christian under our laws, or indeed that any one of us should observe any religious tradition.
If we attempt to widen our conception and look to both observance and practice, we also have some challenges with this Christian nation idea. A 2004 CADRES poll is presented on this page and speaks to the fact that in this “Christian nation” of ours, only 57 per cent of us self-identify as “practising Christians”, while a further 35 per cent claim to be Christian, but admit that they do not “practise”.
It is difficult to find a trained theologian who is comfortable with the concept of a non-practising Christian since I am advised that a Christian is someone who essentially believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God and lives accordingly.
If therefore a person claims membership in that club, but argues that they do not “practise”, then the basis of that person’s claim is flawed.
Clearly, we are an apparently Christian nation but just over half of us profess Christianity, while more than one-third admit to being “convenient” Christians. All of this takes place in a country where there is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom to practise any religion or none at all.
We can go beyond observance and look to practice which presents further challenges. Commandment 7 and 10 immediately come to mind since the 504 divorces in 2002 could not have been caused by infidelity in a Christian society where men do not covet their neighbour’s wives or their asses or commit adultery.
If we are honest with ourselves, we understand our reality is very different and attention needs to turn to a more conventional definition of Christianity, which I have over time gleaned from participation in public debate on social issues.
It would appear from the data that is also presented in CADRES polls that Barbados is indeed a Christian nation if Christianity were defined in terms of beating your children, support for lynching and opposition to the decriminalization of homosexuality.
In all these instances, Barbadians refer to The Bible and their Christian principles to support these positions, which coincidentally are all out of step with conventional notions of human rights.
This biblical conundrum is typified by the somewhat amusing sight of a well known female evangelist who is always passionate on this issue, but seems to ignore The Bible’s admonition at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that clearly states: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
“And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
Such persons are offended by the suggestion that their selective adherence to biblical dictates may amount to hypocrisy, but as Bob Marley says, “if the cap fits . . .”.
Peter W. Wickham (peter.wickham@caribsurf.com) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).