We have a serious problem with the relationship between the church (used here as shorthand for a select group of religious leaders speaking on behalf of Christian churches) and the State.

Neil Ellis, a known supporter of the Progressive Liberal Party, arrived after a long silence - during which people died and were murdered, suffered through unemployment and could not carry out death rituals as they would have liked - with a vengeance on Sunday to deliver a sermon that seemed to be more of a lambasting or conviction of the Prime Minister than a useful, actionable message for the congregation. Even in referring to the video many of us watched, at least in part, “sermon” is used as a pejorative because it came across as a rant.

In the same week, Bahamas Christian Council made a statement on the recommendation to formally develop a marijuana and hemp industry. It gives no evidence that the body has even a rudimentary understanding of hemp, THC or CBD. The statement says: “The church is all too familiar with the devastating effects the sale, distribution and consumption of marijuana has had and continues to have on individuals most especially our young men and women.” It goes on to credit the use of marijuana for the destruction of homes and human lives, anti-social behaviour of students and missed days of school.

Has the Bahamas Christian Council ever spoken out about the negative effects of alcohol, violence, misogyny, racism, or capitalism on families, homes or students? Is it encouraging climate adaptation and mitigation, or appropriate disaster management plans, particularly after Hurricane Dorian results in mass death and destruction? Has it addressed the persisting issue of gender-based violence that has been exacerbated by COVID-19 and the restrictions imposed upon us and evidenced by the story after story including the murder of Alicia Sawyer and her daughter?

It is not responding to issues on which we have both reliable data and stories and that are affecting the people of The Bahamas, but instead released a statement making various claims with no substantive information to back any of it.

Dave Burrows, of Bahamas Faith Ministries, has taken a similar position on marijuana. Not only is he against the legalisation of marijuana, but agrees with president of the Bahamas Christian Council Delton Fernander that the issue should go to referendum. It is as though they are not paying attention at all. First, we need to stop using the word “referendum” so loosely and make a distinction between exercises that serve as opinion polls and are non-binding and constitutional referenda. We also need to understand our (very recent) history and, in that light, the usefulness of lower-cost data collection options.

The gambling opinion poll - mistaken for a binding referendum - was held in part to prove to the church that the Bahamian people wanted the legislative change. The government wanted to make the people the scapegoat and try to maintain its relationship with its disciples - religious leaders who would influence congregations and build voting blocks from their pulpits. The government was surprised by the result of that opinion poll and went against it - a waste of $5m and the time and trust of the electorate.

When a true referendum came in 2016, many refused to participate because the gambling opinion poll - then called a referendum - did not hold up. Why would an opinion poll on the issue of marijuana be a good use of our resources?

Watch the framing

The language used by the church is disturbing. It frequently presents itself as a small, weak, oppressed body, all while using its power to dominate. Burrows said, “I don’t think some things should be imposed on The Bahamas that The Bahamas is not in agreement with.”

The legalisation of marijuana would not be an imposition on anyone. No one is going to be forced to enter the industry or consume the products.

If we really get down to it, the criminalisation of marijuana is an imposition. Marijuana is for some a part of spiritual and religious practices. It has medicinal properties. It can be recreational and it has other uses. It is important to the Rastafarian community which has the right, under the constitution, to practice its religion.

Burrows also commented on the rights of LGBTQ+ people to civil unions, a conversation sparked by historic remarks by Pope Francis in a new documentary that premiered at the Rome Film Festival last week. The Pope said: “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way [LGBTQ+ people] are legally covered.”

Burrows repsonse: “I, personally, do not endorse or subscribe to such relationships being afforded the same recognition and rights as normal marriage relationships.”

He added: “To my understanding, existing laws allow for persons to have legal rights and privileges as citizens that are sufficient to peacefully exist regardless of their background, persuasion or orientation and there is no need for new or special rights to be afforded.”

This needs to be addressed more fully than this space will allow this week, but it is important to note key words “personally” and “to my understanding”. It is also important to see what is being prioritised - the comfort and (lack of) understanding of an individual obviously influenced by a religious belief over the experiences and needs of a marginalised group of people who could cause the institution of marriage no harm.

We need to remember that while some marriages are religious, marriages are legal. They afford the people in them a set of rights that extend beyond “permission” from certain authorities to live together, but are also economic. The concept of “normal marriage” is an interesting one, especially in a place where marital rape has yet to be criminalised. Protect young people (who can access it anyway) from marijuana, but allow people to rape their spouses?

I mention these examples because they are all recent. They occurred within the last week. Each of them demonstrates one of the main limitations of the church in its insertion into social and political issues - it is incapable of seeing beyond its own interpretation of religious text and doctrine and refusal to recognise the rights of citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs. The church concerns itself, in these situations, with building, maintaining and wielding power with an impact that extends far beyond its consenting community of congregants. It must also be noted that it congregants allow it to get away with this, failing to challenge its ideas of its own power or call it to the principles more universally recognised and widely applicable such as love and peace.

The media is also complicit, often seeking comments from people we can all guess would be on the side of oppression and against recognition of the freedoms we are afforded the constitution.

It is not unusual for religious leaders to use their pulpits to address political issues and influence the behaviour - particularly the voting behaviour - of the membership. It is so common and, in many cases, expected, that we are faced with a troubling reality. Politicians are not interested in meeting the needs of individuals, least of all those of us who are suffering. They prioritise the church, recognising religious leaders as some of the most powerful influencers in the country with congregations that are also constituencies. Together, the church forms a large constituency and religious leaders are able to leverage control of their congregations for political power. They have created an environment in which legislators approach them with bowed head on bended knees, seeking permission to do their jobs.

Is anybody consulted more than the church? Has anybody blocked progress more than the church? Is there any body more inappropriately intertwined with the State and its affairs than the church? A number of men are repeatedly given too much control over the trajectory of the country because politicians are more concerned about being re-elected - which seems to require being in the good graces of the church - than doing what is best for the country.

Freedom of religion, but governed by the Christian God anyway?

One of the crutches that the church uses often is the repeated proclamation that The Bahamas is “a Christian nation”. This phrase has been repeated so many times over such a long period that it is accepted as true.

It is said that it is in the constitution when, in fact, Christianity is referenced in the preamble to the Constitution, before Chapter One which defines the State and the constitution itself.

Even there, it does not call The Bahamas a Christian nation. It says: “the preservation of their Freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to Self-discipline, Industry, Loyalty, Unity, and an abiding respect for Christian values and the Rule of Law.”

It also refers to The Bahamas as “a Free and Democratic Sovereign Nation founded on Spiritual Values”.

This preamble speaks to respect for Christian values and founding on spiritual values. It does not commit the country or its people to Christianity, and it cannot. On the contrary, Article 22 affirms “freedom of thought and of religion” as well as freedom to change religion.

The Bahamas is not a Christian nation. It is a nation, like many others, in which many people profess Christianity. It does not mean that we are all to be legally bound to the faith. It should follow that laws and policies are not based on Christianity and that religious leaders of the Christian church are not the deciding factor in decision-making processes that impact us all. They are more concerned with their own interpretations of religious text and control of their congregant than they are with the human rights of all people.

The government should be concerned about the human rights of all people. The elected and appointed officials that make up the decision-makers in the government, however, are more concerned about maintaining their positions than protecting and expanding the human rights of all people. For that reason, they subject themselves and, by extension, the entire country to the beliefs and demands of the church.

This has been happening for decades, and to our detriment. Right-thinking Christians, activists, members of the press, politicians and citizens need to recognise what is happening as anti-democratic, an abuse of power and deserving of critique and terminable. This does not have to continue, but it requires us - all of us - to do something about it.