IT has officially been 50 years since The Bahamas claimed its independence from Britain and became a part of the British Commonwealth which now has 56 member countries in Africa, Asia, the Americas (which includes Caribbean countries), Europe, and the Pacific.

The 50th Independence celebrations spanned months and came to its peak on Sunday with the always-anticipated Clifford Park night-long event. It is a predictable event, and maybe that is the reason so many people attend, knowing exactly what to expect and being certain that their favorite parts will be a part of the programme again.

Year after year, we go through the same motions. There is an ecumenical service at the beginning. There are numerous performances, from popular Bahamian entertainers and choirs to choreographed dance troupes. The prayers are plentiful and have become the norm for religious leaders to use the guise of prayer to speak directly to those in attendance with a mini-sermon. Religious leaders of Christian churches monopolise the space, and there is no acknowledgement of other faiths or the people of those faiths. This is not to be overlooked, but an issue to be raised as often as it is seen, particularly as we put forward the idea that independence is an achievement and has led to progress.

At the time of independence, The Bahamas adopted a constitution. That constitution is most often referenced when Christian fundamentalists want to assert themselves and their beliefs as more important than other people and their beliefs and expect to end conversations that suggest that Christianity is not universal or an appropriate way to govern a (secular) country.

The preamble, in particular, is referenced with misquotes. People insist that The Bahamas is a Christian nation and that the constitution made it so. This is false. The preamble of the constitution references “an abiding respect for Christian values” — which is not the same as agreement with or commitment to Christianity as a faith, nor is it a rejection of or disrespect to other faiths—and this is immediately followed by “and the Rule of Law”. The following paragraph of the preamble states that the nation is founded on “Spiritual Values” and, again, this is not synonymous with Christianity, nor does it place Christianity above any other faith.

The Bahamas is a secular State. It is not a Christian nation. Citizens are not required to be Christian, and nor are residents or visitors. People should not be assumed to be Christian. National events should not reverence Christianity to the exclusion of other faiths.

Chapter III of the constitution is titled “Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual”. In this chapter, Article 15 says “Whereas every person in The Bahamas is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say, has the right, whatever his race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex, but subject to respect of the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest, to each and all of the following, namely—” and it goes on to list life, liberty, and security of person, freedom of conscience, expression, assembly, and association, and protection for privacy of home and property.

We need to know and understand our fundamental rights and freedoms. We need to be clear on our individual identities, and understand that these identities do not affect our rights. The reality, however, is that our identities affect our access to our rights and freedoms. Note that Article 15 speaks to the rights of “every person in The Bahamas” and specifically notes that place of origin is not a factor. Do people from different countries have access to the same fundamental rights and freedoms as people whose place of origin is The Bahamas?

How are the experiences of people who claim and identify with Christianity different from those who do not? How often do you see or hear references to people of other creeds? Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Rastafarianism among the religions practised by people in The Bahamas. It may not be apparent to you, but these religions exist here. People who practice them exist here. What does it mean that these people and their faiths are not acknowledged at national events?

There is further articulation to the right to freedom of conscience in part 1 of Article 22 of the constitution says, “[…]no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, and for the purposes of this Article the said freedom includes freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

One of the areas of rights and freedoms that frequently confuses — or is completely missed by — people is that one set of rights and freedoms do not supersede another. Not only are they interrelated and interdependent, meaning that they must all be accessed in order for all of them to be enjoyed, but they do not compete with other people’s rights and freedoms. You have the right and freedom to be a Christian, and I have the right and freedom to ascribe to another religion or no religion at all. Your faith is not more important than mine, and mine is not more important than yours. Your enjoyment of your faith ought not interfere with my enjoyment of my own and vice versa.

Consider the way national events go. What do the programmes look like? Who takes up the most space. What gets time, attention, and injection of resources, and what does not? Which parts are well-planned, and which parts are the afterthoughts? What happens first and last? Which parts of the programme are the first to be cut, and which parts of the show must go on, no matter what?

The 50th Independence celebrations included at least one church service. Why, then, was the ecumenical service so long on July 9, 2023, and why was even more Christian rhetoric and performance delivered in heavy doses throughout the rest of the programme? There was no way to even opt out of the hyper-religious parts because they were everywhere. Perhaps that was the point.

Maybe government has come to realise that most people choose to skip the ecumenical service, arriving when the entertainment begins because that is what they want to see. Maybe this government administration has decided to be heavy-handed with the Christian fundamentalism, forcing anyone who was committed enough to the independence celebrations to show up to endure it. Maybe this government administration has someone bought into the idea that this a Christian nation, and has failed to do the reading of the constitution or refused to abide by it. When, in any case, has the government ever demonstrated any concern for our rights and freedoms when it is for our direct benefit rather than to be used for the political advancement of its operatives?

Article 26(2) says, “[…]no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or in the performance of the functions of any public office or any public authority.”

Is it discriminatory for the government of a secular nation, with a constitution that guarantees freedom of conscience and is explicit about including freedom of religions, to hold national events — especially one that celebrates 50 years of independence which coincides with the coming into force of the constitution — that centre one religion and ignore all others?

Not a single religion, aside from Christianity, was acknowledged. At the celebration of the 50th year of Independence, The Bahamas chose not to acknowledge religious freedom and diversity. It decided to continue in the vein of colonialism, focusing on the one religion that people in positions of influence consider to be “right”. It would have been easy to opt for an interfaith prayer. It would have simple to run the Christian programming at the church service. It is unacceptable to subject the entire park, full of people of many different identities, to the monotony of Christian messaging, especially from people who have shown, particularly in the conversation about marital rape, that Christian values are not necessarily their strong suit.

People who practiced for hours and hours, spent money of costumes, makeup, and transportation, and were excited to perform were disappointed when they were cut from the programme. Many of us who attended or watched online were disappointed when we did not see them. And for what? It was not worth the cost.

Rather than appeasing people who think they need to be centered in everything, the government needs to centre our rights and freedoms, break away from harmful norms, and accept that people may be uncomfortable with what needs to be done. We are not all the same. We will never all be the same. We can, however, come to understand and respect one another. To do that, we need to know. We need to experience. We need to share space. We need to appreciate diversity and position ourselves to benefit from it. We will not get there with government administrations that run scared, directly into the dual chokeholds of colonialism and fundamentalism.