Church/State mutual respect vital in our society
Getting Back on Track - Roy Paul
Kaieteur News
January 13, 2007
I personally have no strong views on the current controversial issue that is making huge waves in this country at this time, i.e. whether our government should go ahead with the legalisation of casino gambling.
What attracted my attention most of all in the general debate was a statement by the Minister of Home Affairs in the House of Assembly in defence of this proposal, in which he is reported to have “caution(ed) that religious groups who based their arguments upon doctrines have no place or should have no place in state decisions”.
This is indeed a strong statement, which strikes at the very foundation of the relationship of mutual respect and appreciation that ought to exist between these two main institutions which can claim authority over our citizens, and I think that we need to stop and try to define and reassert this relationship, so that in future we in the society, as well as the representatives of these institutions, can be guided into right and proper action in the expedition of our affairs.
From the earliest times philosophers, both of religious and secular persuasion, have debated strongly in search of the right relationship which should exist between these two forces which have each tried to dominate one another and the people under their control.
Some of the questions which have begged for answers along the way are:
Is the State a divine creation which man must not question, or is it a “social contract” among men, subject to the control and influence of the individuals within it?
How do rulers get their authority?
What place does the Church hold in the State apparatus so as to ensure that the latter does not exceed the powers bestowed onto it by individual citizens acting collectively?
What should be the response of the Church, both through its leaders and its membership, when this happens?
There was a time in the history of the developed world when the Church not only dominated government, but also provided the leadership. This proved disastrous on many occasions, setting the stage for the universal cry for the separation of Church and State, which has informed the relationship of these entities to this day.
But this form of extreme secularism has also proved to be devastating. The most prominent example of this has been the fall of the Soviet Union. This otherwise prosperous federation that dominated the world in many fields of endeavour for decades during the twentieth century collapsed, with its various fragments still striving to regain some measure of stability and progress.
While those who agreed with its atheistic Communist policies have other ideas, many have attributed this debacle to its refusal to be guided by the principles of morality and humaneness which can only be acquired through the acceptance of religious standards in those who profess to be our rulers.
If we look around the world today, we find that the system of democracy is practised in the various countries to the extent that its rulers try to abide to these standards in their governance. Otherwise we witness the resurgence of the Machiavellian principle, which states that, in order to maintain a State free of corruption in which the individual is treated justly, the ruler(s) had the right to use any means necessary, even force, deceit or breach of the moral law.
Guyana is a country that is predominantly religious, and it is a sometimes a matter for wonderment that those in the present government seem to forget this when they attempt to formulate the laws under which we should live. Of course, when we remember the origins of the party in power, then we cease to be perplexed by this unreasonable practice.
As I said before, I have no strong views about casino gambling. Gambling, as an occasional pastime and within the limits of what one can afford to lose, provides yet another diversion from the strains of modern-day living, which are far above the average in our country. But I hope that our government can be more responsive to the appeals and protests of the Church bodies, which after all have the potential of providing sustenance of much more permanence than the transitory system of the State.