One of the obvious blessings of living in a free community is the freedom one has to give public expression to one’s views. In recent weeks the community has been exposed to many of those views as various groups and individuals have weighed in on the subject of constitutional modernization, and, in particular, the subject of human rights.
One cannot help but to entertain a certain level of cynical amusement, however, when in the name of human rights and freedom of expression, one hears the same sort of rhetoric that was best expressed in George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’: ‘all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.’
In particular I’m referring to the clear message that the clergy should be quiet. Apparently certain parties (whom one suspects seldom darken the door of a church) feel fully competent to say what the church does or doesn’t do and what the church should involve itself in, and what it should refrain from voicing its view on.
On the other hand, there are those more pragmatic souls that clearly understand that the church is not some vague entity, but actually consists of the men and women who pay taxes and cast votes. Whether from enlightened self-interest or genuine empathy with the church, these persons have given an ear to the church
So, I ask myself, what does the public think the role of the church should be? Should we speak up on matters of national importance, such as the constitution? And, if so, what should we say? Some self-appointed critics of the church seem to think that if the clergy listens to one side of the issue it has become partisan and ‘political’. So, what happens when the same group listens to the other point of view?
Not long ago I came to the opinion, based on free expressions in the local press, that some persons felt that the church should be silent on moral matters, that is, until I realized that many no longer feel that sexual conduct is a moral issue; instead it is now to be considered a ‘personal’ issue, such as one’s choice of food or clothing. So, if I get the vibes correct, we the clergy should not speak up on moral matters, nor should we speak up on matters of national importance from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint; rather we should relegate ourselves to speaking what those who are clearly anti-Christian and anti-church dictate that we should speak.
Sorry folks; if we want the process to be free and fair, then we have to allow all voices to be heard, whether we agree with them or not. This matter of our constitution is too important an issue to be left under the control of a few individuals.
This is a national issue-one that demands national involvement. It is not for the Human Rights Committee or for the ‘political directorate’ to say what should or shouldn’t be included in this singularly important document; this must be the people’s document. And if the people are alarmingly silent, it may indicate that there is insufficient light on the issues for them to read the matter and ask reasonable questions. After all, no one likes to parade his ignorance.
My advice, for what it’s apparently worth, is for the present government and the political opposition to aggressively agitate this process-stimulate the public’s input by genuinely listening to us. And, for the good of all, try to find some common ground that shows us that your motives are less political and partisan than in the national interest.
Rev. M. Alson Ebanks
Related Videos
