It is a curious irony that last week started with the publication of a simple and highly offensive advertisement from some cowardly organisation that felt compelled to express the opinion that speaking “truth” is not homophobia.
This same week ended with an announcement by the University of the West Indies that they have terminated the contract of Professor Brendan Bain on account of statements he made in respect of his support for the retention of the “buggery” laws in Belize. There is, of course, a relationship between these two events and this will manifest itself as the two are interrogated over the next two weeks, starting with THE NATION’s paid advertisement of May 18.
Several of us who consider ourselves thinkers were offended by this advertisement and raised questions about THE NATION’s decision to run the advertisement. I have no concerns about the propriety of running the advertisement, but do think the sponsor should be identified.
Certainly, THE NATION has no obligation to identify the sponsor of every advertisement; however, when the message is clearly a controversial opinion that can easily be construed to be surreptitiously spreading “hate”, it is in THE NATION’s interest to distance itself from the message by identifying the sponsor. One would also think that if the sponsor was convinced that the message was profound and redeeming s/he would be happy to identify with it and not hide behind a cloak of anonymity like several other purveyors of hate.
The central message presented by the advertisement is, however, worthy of comment, not because it is profound, but more because it is too frequently repeated by people who ought to know better. It begins with a suggestion that we identify an objective reality called “truth” and leads to the contention The Bible is the alpha and omega of “truth”. This is an all too familiar Christian obsession that also carries with it the presumption that those who disagree are agents of Lucifer. Their argument is not only ludicrous; it has also proven to be dangerous thought history as The Bible clearly provided support for some of the most reprehensible acts ever committed by man.
If, therefore, I accept that speaking “truth” is not homophobia, then I should also accept that speaking “truth” is not racism, discrimination, subjugation or indeed that the “truth” could never be anything bad. One of The Bible’s most profound “truths” is that there is nothing wrong with slavery. Slavery is justified in both principle and practice throughout the Old and New Testament. In Leviticus 25:44-46 we can find biblical support for the practice of slavery on condition that slaves are “foreigners” while Timothy 6:1-2 and Ephesians 6:5 reminds slaves that their obedience to Christian masters is an important component of their obedience to God. Perhaps more offensive is the sanction given to selling one’s daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11) and the “right” to beat one’s servants to the point of scarring (Luke 12:47).
Naturally, I cannot agree that the foregoing is all “truth” nor will I engage in a specious argument about the appropriate interpretation of The Bible. This type of conversation is as ridiculous as MESA’s suggestion that we need to understand why men beat women before we can put a stop to this practice.
One would hope that a highly literate population that endured the scourge of slavery would be able to appreciate the political origins of The Bible and would happily reject its more backward perspectives, putting “truth” in perspective.
Instead we prefer to persist with this assertion that The Bible is the ultimate repository of “truth” when the reality is that The Bible is equally the foundation of arguments in support of bigotry in all its manifestations.
It is apparent that some sections of the church in the Caribbean are determined to persist with this futile crusade to justify biblically reinforced bigotry and this explains why the church has taken opposition to Caleb Orozco’s constitutional challenge in Belize. They have effectively argued that they are the guardians of Belizean morality and moreover that these discriminatory laws which are being challenged are a reflection of biblical truth and as such they must stand in defence.
I consider their position on this issue unfortunate and would consider it equally unfortunate if they stood in defence of gender discrimination or slavery, but I equally agree that it is as much their right to hold these backward views, as it is my right to think differently. I would therefore argue vehemently in defence of the church’s right to promulgate its position on “truth” through these pages or in respect of the Belize constitutional case. I would only ask that proponents of such backwardness be as anxious to identify openly with their views as I am with mine.
• Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
