The Tribune

IN THIS column yesterday, we replied to an objection PLP chairman Bradley Roberts took to an observation we had made on an earlier statement of his that Opposition Leader Dr Hubert Minnis, having “flip-flopped” on the question of VAT could not be considered a serious candidate to become the next prime minister. He accused us of supporting Dr Minnis when we pointed out that we did not understand Mr Roberts’ logic, recalling Prime Minister Christie’s own “flip-flop“ when, himself in Opposition, he changed his mind on a simple referendum vote to give women equal rights with men on the question of nationality. If Mr Christie, despite his flip-flop on an important matter, could be voted in as prime minister three months later, what was there to stop Dr Minnis doing the same, despite the fact that he had “flip-flopped” on VAT?

As far as we were concerned, Dr Minnis was more of a gentleman in how he handled his “flip-flop” by informing the Christie government on the floor of the House that he would not support VAT, while Mr Christie had told the Ingraham government in the House of Assembly that he would go “all the way” with government on the women’s vote, only to do an about face when he got in the public arena. He embarrassed the Ingraham government by encouraging the public to defeat the referendum.

We had no intention of taking either side – Christie or Minnis – the object of our article was to show the illogic of Mr Roberts who always allows politics to get in the way of clear thinking. That is why – as far as we are concerned – when looking for the truth, Mr Roberts’ statements are not worthy of consideration.

The only reason that we return to the subject today is that in this column yesterday we referred to a remark made by Mr Christie in August last year when he said that in the 2002 election it was the church that had largely opposed the constitutional amendment because the churchmen had not been sufficiently consulted. Yesterday, we stated that this statement was not entirely true, commenting – “but that is another story for another time”.

We had no intention of returning to this subject if it had not been for two telephone calls that we received yesterday from persons who insisted that in fact it was the church that had insisted on more time.

We recall the comment of the late Archbishop Burke (Catholic) who wondered why so much time was needed to consider a question that was so simple.

• Should Bahamian men and women be equal, and should they both be able to confer nationality on their spouses and their children? Yes, or No.

As a result of those telephone calls, we have decided to reprint the article that we wrote on the matter on March 5, 2002 – five days after the referendum was lost. It was headed: “The Christian Council and the referendum.” Said the article:

ACCORDING to Archbishop Drexel Gomez, who claims that clergymen who disagree with him in the referendum debate are “by-stepping the moral issues”, now maintains that in the eyes of the Bahamian people the Christian Council is stronger than ever.

It would be interesting to know who Christian Council president Bishop Samuel Green was speaking for when, in the name of the Bahamas Christian Council, he accused government of making a travesty of democracy and taking advantage of the Bahamian people with the proposed constitutional amendments.

Bishop Green accused government of not having sufficient consultation with the people before setting a date for the referendum. However, today many clergymen are pointing the same accusing finger at Bishop Green.

We have spoken with clergymen and laymen from various denominations. However, we have failed to find anyone who remembers a Christian Council meeting having been called to discuss the referendum.

Said one clergyman: “The president of the Christian Council can make statements in our name, but on a matter of such gravity a meeting should be called. None took place and still hasn’t taken place.”

Rev Dr John C Wallace, president of the Grand Bahama Christian Council, was also slighted. He said he was never consulted.

Rather than strengthening the council, this debate has succeeded in highlighting just how weak the council really is when it purports to speak for the church of the Bahamas. By its very constitution the Christian Council does not reflect a true picture of the Christian churches of this country.

The council is made up of two members from each denomination in the Bahamas – Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, among the main groups.

However, the Baptist Church is unique and dominates the council, because, for the seven different Baptist denominations, each church within the group of seven is independent. Therefore, each one of these independent churches has two delegates representing it on the council. Asked how many this would represent, an Anglican clergyman didn’t know. “Just too many to count!” he laughed.

So while the Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and others each have two, the Baptist have “too many to count”. Now that the Methodist Church has split, that church has four members at council — two for the Bahamas Conference, and two for the Caribbean. No wonder there is agitation on the council, and when it speaks it does not speak with one voice — as the referendum issue has clearly shown.

Obviously, the council did not speak for the Catholic Church whose Archbishop did not think it his place to tell his congregation how to vote.

However, he made it clear that what was being put forward to the voters would in his opinion improve the quality of their lives. He pointed out that the church of the Bahamas did not speak with one voice and regretted that the “process” had become a political football. He felt that equality between men and women was a far more basic right and more important for consideration than the process that had become the central issue.

The Methodist Church of the Bahamas (BCMC) also broke ranks. It noted that “the five items to be addressed by referendum are matters that can positively affect our nation”. They recommended the five amendments to their members and urged them to vote.

They too regretted that politics had entered the debate and that the “process” had displaced the important issues. It disassociated itself from the views made in the name of the “Methodist in the Bahamas” by the Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas. “No way do they reflect the view or the position of the Methodist Church of the Bahamas,” said the BCMC.

Rev Dr Wallace from his outpost in Grand Bahama made it clear that the council in Nassau did not reflect the views of the council in Freeport.

And then we had the 15 dissident churchmen and one church woman. Two of them were prominent members of Archbishop Gomez’s Anglican Church. The remainder were mainly Baptist, including Rev Simeon Hall. They urged their congregations to put partisan politics aside “and follow righteousness by voting ‘yes’ to the referendum.”

And so who was Bishop Green speaking for when he announced the Bahamas Christian Council’s position?

“Any amendments made to this document (the Constitution)”, he said, “should take place only after widespread public discussion and debate. To do otherwise would be a travesty of democracy.”

We would suggest that the declaration of the Christian Council would have had some weight if Bishop Green had taken a dose of his own medicine, and consulted his members, before he made his pronouncement.

Archbishop Gomez was at a loss to understand how Christian ministers and leaders could fail to realise that what they were dealing with was a moral issue and had nothing to do with politics.

Unfortunately the Archbishop will be out in the cold for a long time with his “moral issue,” because all those clergymen with whom we have talked — and they have been many — cannot find the “moral issue,” they only see the politics.

However, what we can’t forget is that it was the PLP Opposition’s “flip-flop” in 2002 that made the issue political. Today, it is still political.