Let God be the judge?

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 17 December 2011)

Yet another man in a high position is accused of violence against a woman. I am so completely sick of this garbage that I might literally lose my lunch on the shoes of any of those so-called men who dare to come face to face with me.

A 34-year-old woman has accused Commissioner of Police Henry Greene of sexually abusing her after she went to him for help on a matter involving another police officer and his wife. At the time of writing this column, Greene still held his position as Commissioner of Police. This issue must be investigated and for that investigation to take properly take place, Greene must be out of the picture. If he does not step down as he should, he should be removed.

Let’s think about this logically for a moment. In any other country, if such serious allegations were levelled against the commissioner of police, that person would be immediately removed from his position until an investigation was completed. Why is it that there must be an outcry from the whole country before justice is seen against those accused of wrong-doing in high positions in Guyana?

Greene told the media, “Let God be the judge.” Nah, I think we mere mortals can handle this one. I’d rather see a human judge Greene first then karma can deal its own judgement.

Is homosexuality an abomination?

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 01 June 2011)

Last week I wrote on how homosexuals should be able to choose whom they have sex with (just like anyone else) without feeling adjudged by the rest of society. As expected, I received a couple of responses that steered me back to biblical scripture in an attempt to point out to me the “abomination” of homosexuality.

One person sent me an email that said, “Remember certain things God would forgive easily but certain things he said in an abomination. It is not forgiven that easily. Men sleeping with Men and Women Sleeping with Women are some of the abominables.” [Sic]

This ongoing debate concerning the morality of homosexuality carries the weight of validation for an entire segment of people. It is not as if they require the validation of society to exist, for they will exist regardless. However, if and when society finally accepts them, those who are homosexuals will finally be able to live their lives to the fullest without fear of reprisal for being who they are.

Let’s face it, society has at countless points in history sought to rid itself of varying segments of the population that it feared would change the status quo.

These offensive segments typically reflected factors such as race, gender, intellectual capability, financial status, physical health, mental health and political ideologies, etc. This list could go on forever.

The morality police are watching

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 25 May 2011)

I am often disappointed, and at times even offended, at the way homosexuals are viewed. Those who interact with me throughout the day will customarily refrain from their usual sexist verbiage so as not to offend my sensitivities on this topic.

However, I am also quite offended by homophobic speech because as a woman I understand all too well the plight of a group of people that is besmirched and degraded simply because of how they were born. This is not an easy life.

For example, imagine that you have decided to have sex with someone. Whether you are in love with this person or not is not the issue. Neither is whether you want to pursue a relationship with this person. The only issue is that you are going to have mutually consenting sex with a person of your choosing.

In Guyana, this choice could get you arrested if you are a man and the person with whom you choose to have sex is also a man. The enforcers of the law would not care if both people involved were mutually consenting adults. They would not care if the two were Christian, Hindu or Muslim. Nor would they care about the race of the “offenders.” The only thing that would matter to those with badges is that both people involved were men.

This type of despicable incident could take place in Guyana today, since laws against sodomy are still in the law books. In fact, unless the standing laws of the country change to be more tolerant of sexual preference, it seems the logical outcome could one day see paranoid heterosexuals narking on their homosexual neighbours to “clean up the neighbourhood.”

I bet doomsday will not come on May 21

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 11 May 2011)

I have often wondered with amusement about how many times in my short lifetime of 42 years that someone has prophesied that the end of the world would come on a specific date. It has happened many times – and each time the specified day comes and goes and nothing happens.

I remember when Ronald Reagan was elected president of the United States and there were some who preached that he was the anti-christ because his first, middle and last name all contained six letters – 666! Egads! I was 12 years old at the time and the whole fiasco was more than a bit scary.

There have been several judgment-day close calls for us humans in our past, yet we have somehow found the ability to remain unscathed by all of the doomsdays that have come and gone. I am not sure if it is our doomsday prowess that has saved us thus far, but we have obviously escaped the end of the world to this point.

The latest prophecy, which maintains that the end of the world will come on May 21 at exactly 6pm (sunset in Jerusalem) has preachers going all over the world to save us from judgment. I even saw some billboards on the Texas highway during a 15-hour drive last Saturday. Will the human race be able to escape this doomsday as well?

A Kaieteur News article on May 6 entitled, “Group preaches May 21 doomsday to Berbicians,” detailed the warnings of this group telling those in Berbice of the impending doom. The article said, “…the May 21 Judgment Day message they preach, originated from careful analysis and study of the Bible by General Manager and President of Family Radio, Harold Camping.” 

I will not sing John Paul’s praises

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 01 May 2011)

Although it was suggested that I should write on a significant global event that occurred this weekend and entitle it, “Royal Love, What women really want, fantasy and reality all at once,” I had already decided to write on the other significant global event to happen this weekend, the beatification of Pope John Paul II.

Today, John Paul will be the first Pope to be beatified by his immediate successor, which is Pope Benedict XVI, and it will be the quickest ascension on the path to sainthood in history.
One would expect such a person to be the epitome of goodness and justice.

While no one, not even this heathen, will deny the good that John Paul did in his life, it would be unbalanced and dishonest of us not to look at the other side of the coin as well.

On this day while many will praise John Paul for the things he did while alive, there are also some who will condemn him for what he did not do.

While I cannot stomach political corruption, it is corruption in the church that at once boggles my mind and boils my blood. 

Peace on earth and goodwill to Women

 (Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 25 December 2010)

What would the world be like today if it were three wise women who travelled with gifts to the see the king of the Jews in the Christmas story? What if the shepherds keeping watch over their flock by night were women and they were the ones who got to hear the angels announce the birth? What if it were a little drummer girl who played for the baby Jesus? What if a woman ruled the Roman world instead of Caesar Augustus?

At Christmas, why does everyone only make gingerbread men? If it were Grandpa who got ran over by a reindeer, would the song still be so funny? Why not build a Frosty the snow-woman? What if it were daddy who the kids saw kissing Santa Claus? And speaking of Santa, imagine how much more fun Christmas would be for little girls if there were a female version of Santa, too.

The good news is that, although traditional thought does not recognise it, all of Santa’s reindeer – Rudolf, Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen – are female. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, “While both male and female reindeer grow antlers in the summer each year, male reindeer drop their antlers at the beginning of winter, usually late November to mid December. Female reindeer retain their antlers till after they give birth in the spring.” Therefore, according to every historical rendition depicting Santa’s reindeer, every single one of them, from Rudolf to Blitzen … had to be a female.

Finally! We get to hear about some females during the holiday season (although I think many would still assume Santa’s reindeer are males). I think you get my point, though. Women are left out of all the traditional stories surrounding this celebration time of the year. This is just one celebration connected to one religion in our very big world, but it is a good example of how women have long been omitted from most historical accounts and traditional folklore.

The sole woman in the biblical account of the Christmas story is Mary, the mother of the baby Jesus. I am pretty sure the only reason Mary was included is because a woman was needed to give birth. However, think of how much better the miracle would have been if a man had given birth instead of a virgin. Just saying.

Moreover, if a woman was queen of Judea, instead of Herod being the king, I would bet my bottom dollar there would have been no order to kill all the little boys who were two years and younger so no baby king could rise to take the throne. My reasoning on this matter is similar to the reason I believe that if a woman were president of the US when George Bush went to war, there would have been no war – women seem to value the life of children more.

Therefore, I have decided to write my own holiday story that is all about women. Now don’t be mad, guys! You have plenty of stories, songs and prose about you. It is time for the women have some fun this Christmas. When you are reading my poem, please think of the classic poem by Clemens Moore, “Twas the night before Christmas.”

Twas the week before the New Year and all through the nation
Women were contemplating and pondering their station
What one does with one’s life is, after all, a great matter
So, best friends were consulted and thus began the chatter

One bright Girlfriend made it clear, girl don’t you marry for money
Yep, said another, as we all know, easy come easy go, honey
You gotta make your own way and be your own lady
‘Cause what happens if Mr. Right turns out to be Mr. Shady?

Don’t chase rude boys, said Bestie, they are nothing but trouble
If you think they are cute, you’d best change your mind on the double
Girlfriend said, hey, don’t forget to get yourself an education
That’s right said Sis, we know life ain’t no free vacation

Headaches and heartaches can be avoided when a girl thinks right
Don’t ditch girlfriends for a passing guy, keep your girls tight
A question is posed, but what if I find a guy who seems to care
Great answer Sis, you found someone with whom life you can share

But, said Bestie, you don’t give up your life to please someone else
If he truly loves you for you, he will want you to be yourself
He won’t ask you to give up your family, your career or your friends
He would never scare you, beat you and leave you to mend

Girlfriend said, my Christmas wish is that in the New Year
No women are physically or mentally tormented and living in fear
All the girlfriends piped in, yep, that is my Christmas wish too
As they gazed at the fairy lights, the feeling of love was strong and true

In her red dress, Santa stopped by to see the girls and drop off their gifts
Sis picked up a snow globe of Frostie the snow-woman – it gave her a lift
As did the smell of baking gingerbread women that wafted through air
The girlfriends gave a group hug; grateful for the friendship they shared

These were three very wise women; of that there was no doubt
These ladies know just who they are and what life is all about
The table was set, the candles aglow, food aplenty with all the trimmings
The girls joined hands and declared, peace on earth and goodwill toward women.

Domestic violence disgraces marriage vow to “love, honour and keep”

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 13 October 2010)

“Do you (Groom’s name) take (Bride’s name) to be your wife – to live together after God’s ordinance – in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love her, comfort her, honour and keep her, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon her your heart’s deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her as long as you both shall live?”

According to the traditional words spoken at a Christian wedding, “Marriage is the union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind. It is intended for their mutual joy – and for the help and comfort given on another in prosperity and adversity. But more importantly – it is a means through which a stable and loving environment may be attained.”

During the second step of the seven pheras, the Hindu bride and the groom promise that they would develop their physical, mental and spiritual powers in order to lead a lifestyle that would be healthy and while taking the fourth vow, the married couple pledges to acquire knowledge, happiness and harmony by mutual love, respect, understanding and faith.

For a Muslim, what is more important than marriage? “It is the spirit of marriage, the intention which underlies it, the treasures which it contains hidden within it, but which must be brought out and realized by the married couple themselves. So the male and female complete each other – together they make a single self and this is how they must strive to make their lives together – as if they are one being, one person, one spirit.”

“The Prophet (s.a.) was once asked, ‘What is more important than prayer?’ He replied, ‘The spirit of prayer’ – the spirit that animates the prayer. He was asked what is more important than fasting – he replied, the spirit of fasting. For each question concerning an Islamic practice the answer was the same – because the spirit brings the action to life and unfolds its potentials.”

I remind the reader of these marriage customs because never once do these traditions give right to the man or the woman to inflict abuse on one another. Regardless of religious background, every person who is married has at one time or another entered into marriage vows similar to these just stated. These promises of love, respect, commitment and honour are “not to be entered into lightly.”

It might be that some people have grown up in homes where beating the women and children is normal and acceptable. Young boys watch the abuse and assume that is how they should act with their wife and children. Young girls watch and believe they too should be willing to take the physical, mental and emotional blows from their future husband. However, these assumptions and the abuse are contrary to the commitments made on the wedding day.

I want to make it clear that I believe physical, mental and emotional abuse on any level – whether inflicted by male or female – is immoral. Yet, when I speak on abuse, I advocate for women for two reasons: 1) The number of women being beaten and murdered is so staggering that it would be wrong of me to remain silent, and 2) I take issue with the way women are being treated, because I am a woman.

For those who think I am a man-hater, nothing could be further from the truth. Being an advocate for women does not make one a man-hater any more than being an advocate for children makes one an adult-hater. My passion to help those in domestic violence situations comes from growing up in a home where my mother physically, emotionally and mentally abused me daily until I married at a young age.

When a man and woman commit to love and honour each other on the day of their wedding, the Christian vows state that this commitment is for better or worse, richer or poorer and through sickness and health. None of the aforementioned marriage vows state that a woman’s husband can abuse her. Why do none of these long-held traditions state a commitment to abuse? Because even centuries ago, the men of these patriarchal religions knew it was wrong to abuse their wives.

For a very long time, there were people who used scripture to justify slavery. However, there is now no doubt whatsoever in anyone’s mind that slavery is evil. It is wrong to subjugate a human because of race. I feel the same about sexism. It is wrong to subjugate a human because of gender. We need to stop using our differences to harm each other and instead come together as humans – all races, nationalities and genders – to create the best world we can.

Marriage is the perfect example of how humans – men and women – can come together and make something beautiful together. In an abusive relationship, each strike of the hand, each degrading remark, each lie to cover an indiscretion tears pieces off of this beautiful fabric of devotion until what is left resembles nothing close to the loving relationship that marriage should be.

When a woman is beaten and abused, there is nothing but humiliation and fear. There is none of the honour, love and mutual respect promised on the wedding day. In fact, there is no honour whatsoever in domestic violence. There is only shame and terror, which is no functioning relationship at all.

I want to close this column with more from the traditional Christian marriage ceremony, “This is a beginning and a continuation of their growth as individuals. With mutual care, respect, responsibility and knowledge comes the affirmation of each one’s own life happiness, growth and freedom. With respect for individual boundaries comes the freedom to love unconditionally. Within the emotional safety of a loving relationship – the knowledge self-offered one another becomes the fertile soil for continued growth. With care and responsibility towards self and one another comes the potential for full and happy lives.”

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Don’t turn a blind eye to the wickedness of domestic violence. Speak up and save a woman’s life.

My Sunday sermon to religious leaders

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 03 October 2010)

Here is the scenario; women are being beaten and killed at alarming rates. Others suffer psychological abuse in the form of being disregarded for being female, being reduced to an inferior social status from men and having the immense emotional anguish of knowing the man they love and vowed to spend their life with is running around with other women.

So what is the role of the religious leaders in this very real scenario being played out in Guyana? Disrespect for women is so ingrained into the Guyanese society that men and women both have been socialised to believe men have the moral license to disrespect women, which then results in ongoing emotional, mental and physical abuse.

Do men have this moral license?

I was raised as a Christian and know very well that a man is to honour his wife. There is no honour in mentally, emotionally or physically abusing a woman. I could easily use scripture to prove without any doubt that men do not, in fact, have that moral license (something I may in fact do one day).

Frustratingly, religious leaders have been eerily silent on this issue. When there is a wrong in society, religious leaders have a responsibility – no, a higher calling – to identify it as a wrong deed, and to expect better from those in the congregation. Turning a blind eye to the disrespect afforded to women is the same as condoning sin.

I have said before that my husband and I were once ministers and even missionaries. As such, I know full well that by keeping my mouth shut when evil is being done, I am just as accountable as the one committing the act. If I watch a man slap a woman and do nothing, I have allowed that evil to transpire without taking a stand for what is right. As a layperson, that is wrong. As a minister, I would have failed in my role as an ambassador of God on earth.

This week, a group of religious leaders met to discuss domestic violence. According to a September 29 article in Stabroek News, “A forum was held…at the Office of the President (OP), where local religious leaders and a delegation of Faith-based leaders from the US met with representatives of the government to discuss domestic violence and the role of the religious community.”

How did the meeting go?

“The initial projected outcomes of [the] meeting were: to sign a joint communiqué by representatives of all religious groups, declaring a Zero Tolerance on Domestic Violence…Following the almost three-hour meeting, [PPP/C MP Pastor Kwame] Gilbert told Stabroek News…that the leaders did not sign on to the communiqué as had been hoped. It was agreed that they would go back to their constituencies first before signing the document.”

Did the religious leaders have to go back and ask their congregations if it was right to declare zero tolerance on domestic violence? What was there to discuss? If the religious leaders did not know if it was right to take a tough stance against domestic violence, I sure hope the congregations know.

There is just something very wrong about this situation. Either this meeting was just a political show put on for the country because violence toward women is at epidemic proportions, or the religious leaders are also so heavily socialised to the disrespect afforded to women that they have lost their sense of right and wrong. Either way, this response by the religious leaders was simply mind-boggling.

There are some who believe men have a right afforded to them by God to “rule” their homes. However, these very same religious beliefs practiced in Guyana are also practiced in many other countries where women are not subjected to such dreadful disrespect. In other words, men in Guyana are using religious scripture as a license to harm women. Will the religious leaders continue to allow this to happen?

I wonder if there are ministers who care enough about the plight of women – and have enough courage – to speak on this issue and explain that scripture does not give men the moral license to emotionally, mentally and physically harm women. The silence from religious leaders must end if women are to ever come to understand their men do not have the right to harm them.

The religious leaders who met in the Office of the President this past week are supposed to meet again soon. If the joint communiqué declaring a Zero Tolerance on Domestic Violence is not signed when they meet again, we will all know the mask is off and that Guyana’s religious leaders are not willing to stand up for the women, not willing to stand up for what is right, not willing to stand up for God.

However, if the communiqué is signed (and I hope it is), that is just the beginning of what needs to be done. There should be sermons on the evils of abusive behaviour, there should be counselling for those who both suffer from abuse and those who inflict it and there should be accountability when someone in the congregation is being abusive. I say “someone” because it is not always the man who is abusive.

Religious leaders play a prominent role in society and consequently have a spiritual responsibility to the females of their congregations. Unless the religious leaders want to see more women set themselves on fire to escape their domestic situation, like Rhondina Adams just did and which equates to suicide, an act frowned upon in most religions, the religious leaders need to show demonstrable action regarding domestic violence…and very soon.

I support the separation of church and hate

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 22 August 2010)

On July 28, famed author Anne Rice, who wrote “Interview With the Vampire” and “The Queen of the Damned,” posted the following on her Facebook page. “For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.”

It was in the last line of Anne Rice’s statement that I found camaraderie because my conscience will not allow me to belong to any religion either. In fact, it has been years since I walked away from Christianity. I read her Facebook status only minutes after she posted it and sent it to people immediately because I knew it was going to be big news.

After a Catholic upbringing, Rice became an atheist as a young adult and lived many years as such until a conversion experience restored her faith ten years ago and she became a devout Catholic. Anne Rice has long been one of my favourite authors and I have read all the books in her “Vampire Chronicles” and “Mayfair Witches” series. Coincidentally, when I read them, I was a believer and found her books to be searching and longing for something. She found that for which she had been searching.

After her conversion experience, Rice started writing books with a Christian theme and was very successful. Yet, try as she might, Rice has said she could not reconcile her conscience with the behaviour of her religion. Been there, done that. What is one to do when common sense and your conscience tell you something is wrong, but your religion insists it is right?

For thousands of years, religions have taught that women are to be subjugated to men and that it is moral to kill another person as long as it is done in the name of a God. We now know – many of us, anyhow – these hateful teachings to be evil. However, as long as religion continues to teach any type of evil in the name of their Gods, right thinking humans will continue to reject that evil in the name of their Gods – as Anne Rice has done.

Personally, I quit religion because of the hate it has incessantly dealt to women. In her own words, Anne Rice quit religion because, “In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life.”

Depending on each person’s interpretation of their holy scriptures, one can hold to a belief that is on either side of those issues as scriptures give equal weight to the message of love and the message of hate. Sadly, many religious people side on the side of hate versus love. They choose to judge because their scriptures encourage them to do so, while it is also admonishing them not to judge. They choose to discriminate because their scriptures teaches them to do so, while it is also teaching them that all humans are created by their creator, loved by their creator and cherished by their creator.

I believe that at some point in their lives, all religious people are faced with the decision to side with one aspect of these contradictory teachings or the other. Too often, they choose the path of judgment, hate and intolerance. Those who do not, either choose to walk away from their church while maintaining the “love” aspects of their belief or some, like me, choose to walk away from faith completely.

How can a woman believe there is a God who loves her and has a good plan for her life when scripture teaches that women are cursed (Genesis 3:16), are subjected to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1), that men should control women (1 Corinthians 11:3), that women are not permitted to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), or that we should not fix our hair, wear gold or pearls or costly clothing (1 Timothy 2:9)? Why should I be willing to sacrifice all for a God who permits a husband to scourge or beat his wife (Qur’an 4:34)?

As the group Black Eye Peas sings, “Where is the love?” Many may see their God as love, but it is difficult for countless in society to accept and believe this view. It is difficult for a gay person to see that professed love when they are told they are an “abomination.” It is difficult for women to feel the love when being labelled as second-class citizens disgraces them. It is difficult for certain races to feel the love when, according to scripture, God himself refers to them as “dogs.”

My hope is that more religious people will make a stand like Anne Rice to leave religion and embrace the love teachings of their faith. Perhaps then organized religion would be forced to rid itself of the hate teachings and embrace love, equality and tolerance. In the words of a bumper sticker I glimpsed a few days ago, “I support the separation of church and hate.”

It is a “grave offence” to ordain a woman?

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 21 July 2010)

I have tried to stop myself several times from writing this column, if for no other reason than because I have already written twice in as many weeks on the Catholic Church. However, anyone who knows my stance on women’s issues also knows I would be compelled by conscience to write about the Vatican’s most recent misogynistic tirade.

On Thursday of last week, the Vatican tried to make a move to show it has a small grip on the reality of the paedophile priest situation. According to the Washington Post, “The new rules extend the statute of limitations for handling of priestly abuse cases from 10 years to 20 years after the victim’s 18th birthday, and the statute of limitations can be extended beyond that on a case-by-case basis. Such extensions have been routine for years but now the waivers are codified.”

In other words, nothing has really changed. Why is it so difficult for the Vatican to just tell its priests “If you rape anyone you will be defrocked, kicked out of the church and turned over to the local authorities.” There, I said it. It wasn’t difficult at all to say. Yet the Vatican cannot seem to utter those same words. Moreover, there is still no mandate for Bishops to report all cases of clerical sexual abuse to the police.

Be that as it may, the subject of paedophile priests is not my theme for today’s column.

Instead, I want to highlight the rest of what was said last Thursday, which some maintain was the Vatican’s main business. It is now a “grave offence” to ordain a woman. In other words, a priest can be defrocked for ordaining a woman. (Sigh)

As I just typed that last line, a myriad of emotions and images flowed through me. A Catholic man recently accused me of having a vendetta against the Catholic Church. What is so ironic is that it is quite apparent to anyone with an open mind that it is the Catholic Church which has a vendetta against women.

Let us just look at the evidence and make a logical assessment of the situation. For decades, maybe longer, male priests throughout the world have been raping young boys and the Church has been protecting those priests from the legal ramifications of such an atrocious act.

Yet we hear nothing of nuns raping children. On the contrary, there is a recent story of a nun in Phoenix, Arizona, Sister Margaret McBride, who spent her entire life helping sick people get well, yet she was excommunicated for allowing a procedure that saved a woman’s life.

Here is how an Associated Press article told the story, “Sister Margaret McBride was on an ethics committee that included doctors that consulted with a young woman who was 11 weeks pregnant late last year.

The woman was suffering from a life-threatening condition that likely would have caused her death if she hadn’t had the abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center.”

The Sister had to choose between allowing both the mother and unborn fetus to die, or to save the mother’s life by removing the fetus.

Sister Margaret chose to save the life of the woman who is a mother of four. When Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, heard of this situation, he said Sister Margaret was “automatically excommunicated.”

In other words, a priest can savagely rape a boy for multiple years, as the recent Belgium case reveals, and he is still afforded the protection of the church. However, a nun saves the life of a young mother and she is not just removed from sisterhood, but removed from the church completely.

It has been said numerous times that Sister Margaret worked her entire career to help others. Yet she was excommunicated.

I do not have a vendetta against the Catholic Church, what I have is common sense. I ask all good people, who better represents God to the world – the good-hearted nun or the rapist priest?

I would follow someone like Sister Margaret to the ends of the earth, but I would never follow a rapist priest even if he does call himself a representative of God. Yet, the Vatican remains stubbornly sexist and last week proclaimed women to be unworthy of priesthood yet again.

If there is a gender unworthy of priesthood, I vehemently declare it is not female and history would be on my side.

It is a “grave offence” to ordain a woman? Allow me to give my own list of “grave offences.” It is a grave offence for a man to sexually abuse a little boy.
It is a grave offence to care more about the welfare of that wicked man than that of the little boy.

It is a grave offence to tell women it is a sin to take birth control and instead insist they should procreate where there is war, famine, rape, etc.

It is a grave offence to believe one gender of the human race is superior to the other and thereby subjugating the “lower” gender for millennia.

It is a grave offence to demean homosexuality while it is obviously practiced within the very walls of the Church – and with small boys not yet of the age of consent.

On second thought, maybe women should not want to be ordained in the Catholic Church.

I will continue to judge paedophile priests

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 14 July 2010)

I wrote a column that was published in the July 7, 2010 edition of Kaieteur News, captioned, “Power, Priests, Paedophilia and Corruption,” in which I called for justice for the victims of rapist priests from the Catholic Church.

Leon Jameson Suseran, a long-time letter writer whom I respect, responded in a letter to the editor published on July 12, entitled, “Don’t judge the entire organisation based on the actions of a few.” Leon took issue with my column and felt my rage against the rapist priests must be due to a vendetta I have against the Catholic Church.

Leon told me, “Do not judge people, Stella, you do not know what struggles priests go through.” With respect, such reasoning would translate that society at large should also restrain from judging rapists who are not Catholic priests because we do not know what struggles they have faced in life. That is just preposterous, Leon.

Regardless of what causes a priest to rape a child, a predator is a predator – dangerous – and should thus be removed from society and locked away where they cannot prey on anyone else. This is true in civilised society and it should be true regarding priests who rape as well.

It was magnanimous of Pope Benedict XVI to ask the forgiveness of the rape victims on behalf of the Church, but the victims rightly desire more than an acknowledgment of this wrong, they want justice. A more righteous gesture from the Pope, and one that should be instinctive, would be to turn the criminal priests all over to the authorities so the victims can be assured of justice.

Leon called my column on this issue a “hate essay.” He said my column “was full of anger, resentment and hatred for the Church.” On this one point we agree, that I hate rapists. However, my column was not targeted at the Catholic Church at large; it was only about the rapists in the Catholic Church. And yes, I do so hate those rapists. I know religion teaches us not to hate, but I believe there are certain things we should hate – even despise – and rape is one of those things.

Yes, I do know that, as Leon pointed out, “other churches within Christendom have numerous unreported cases of sex abuse scandals every single day.” I did not speak on these other atrocities for two reasons. One, it is the Catholic Church that has long been in the spotlight with its numerous scandals throughout the world and has yet to hand its priests over to be tried by courts of law.

The second reason is that the leaders of these “other churches” would be held accountable to the laws of the land if found culpable, not protected by their churches. To protect their children, most parishioners would gladly hand over a rapist pastor and give law enforcement every bit of evidence it needs to prosecute the criminal leader.

Leon, loyalty to the Church to the point of defending it in this very indefensible situation is like those who, attempting to remain loyal to a political party, defend governments who prey on its citizens. It is just illogical and masochistic. Seriously Leon, doesn’t protecting these priests from the authorities seem a bit like a political party who covers up its shady dealings so the world will think good of them?

Blind loyalty may seem a noble notion; at least that is what some spiritual and political leaders would have us believe. But such unrestrained devotion never – I repeat, never – ends well for the follower. Just ask those children whom the priests raped. If you want to have faith in God, fine. But be careful of how much faith you have in humans.

Leon, you may not be happy about my outrage over this predicament with the paedophile priests and the leaders who protect them, but I am not alone in my indignation – it is worldwide and it is a righteous anger that will only be quelled when the rapist priests are in jail. Those priests should serve God from behind bars so the rest of society is safe. I hope, and even pray, they are all caught and brought to justice.

Leon said, “I generally have enjoyed reading Ramsaroop’s columns over the years, but this time she has gone overboard.” It seems this is one issue on which we will not agree, so let’s agree to disagree on this point because I am sure there are others on which we will agree.

He also told me, “Don’t judge the entire organisation based on the actions of a few, Stella.” Thank you for your wise words and I will be careful to follow them. I do not judge you by the actions of your leaders and still respect you even though we disagree on this point.

I fully intend to continue judging this situation. To justify my judgmental stance, here are some scriptures for Leon to contemplate:

Leviticus 19:15, “In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.”

1 Corinthians 5:12-13, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you.’”

1 Corinthians 6:2-3, “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life?”

And finally Jesus admonished his followers in John 7:24 to “judge righteous judgment.”

Related Links:
July 13 Letter to KN - The church and sexual abuse

Power, Priests, Paedophilia and Corruption

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 07 July 2010)

Though I have never hit another person, if there is one thing above all else that maddens me to the point that I could react in a physical way, it is when I hear of someone hurting a child. It is for this reason, that I consider the ongoing scandal about paedophile priests to be one of the vilest portrayals of human depravity.

The truly ironic part is that this base depravity comes from those who are supposed to champion moral living. Children are innocent, helpless and trusting. How on earth can a “man of morals” crush that innocence just to feed an ache for sex? I know the answer to my own question, no man of morals could.

Regardless of what the Catholic Church says, the priests who rape and sodomise children are not representatives of God on earth. I am not a religious person anymore, but from my decades of religious background I know the church believes in God and Satan and I would say these priests represent the latter far better than the former.

On a Thursday morning two weeks ago, Belgian police raided two Church offices and the home of a former archbishop just as a conference was beginning with local bishops to discuss, among other things, what should be done with old files that proved Belgian priests had raped children.

I have followed this ongoing story that has spanned worldwide for two reasons. The first reason is that it boggles my mind that these supposed men of God could betray their consciences, congregants and God with such pure wickedness.

The second reason I have followed this saga so closely is because I want to see justice for those victims. The fact that most of these child rapists have walked away without so much as a slap on the wrist from a nun is simply unacceptable to me. Just because they wear pretty robes and make an oath to their God should not mean they are exempt from the laws of the land.

Pope Benedict XVI, who had recently vowed to do everything possible to prevent such abuse from occurring again, was quite peeved about the Belgian raid. He called the search, “surprising and regretful” and insisted on the church’s right to conduct internal investigations. As if those “investigations” have amounted to anything more than a bunch of hot air.

It is because these men feel they can commit such atrocities to, in the words of their Bible, “these little ones” and go unpunished that makes this whole situation completely untenable.

What would be a suitable punishment? Here is what Jesus said in Mark 9:42, “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” A bit drastic for my taste, but that is straight from the mouth of their God.

Here is the situation in a nutshell, there are priests all over the world who are raping young children and getting away with it. When the world finally says enough is enough, these “men of God” have the gall to say it is “surprising and regretful.” What is truly surprising and regretful is that these rapists are not behind bars.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This quotation was from a letter from John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (first Baron Acton) to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. Lord Acton then stated, “Great men are almost always bad men.” How appropriate.

This statement is true across the board. Consider those in power in Guyana right now and how that power has corrupted them. Remember the PNC when it was in power and how corruption was rampant. The only way to put a halt to the corruption is to take the power away.

Which is exactly what happened in Belgium. The Church no longer has the power to hide the rapists in Belgium – or in the US, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Vatican enjoys no immunity in cases of alleged molestation by priests. The ruling means that, in theory, even Pope Benedict could be taken to court.

Who knows how long this priestly paedophilia has been practiced in the Church. Decades? Centuries? It makes me sick just to think about it. It is about time these rapists are held accountable for their actions. They may seek forgiveness from their God and their victims, but when priests break the law, they should be punished in accordance to that law.

There is no God-given right for priests to rape children. It is my opinion that the moment that a paedophile priest touches a child in an inappropriate way, he is no longer a representative of God and should be punished just like any other person in society.

Or we could do as the Bible suggested and tie a millstone around his neck and toss him into the sea…that works for me, too.

Stella Says…Unless you are sinless, lay your stone down and walk away

by Stella Ramsaroop

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 04 November 2007)

I never cease to be amazed at the lengths to which humans will go to make one set of people somehow appear superior to another group. This is obvious once again in Guyana, as the debate about the homosexual lifestyle has reappeared on the letter pages.

This debate carries the weight of validation for an entire segment of people in Guyana. It is not as if they require the validation of society to exist, for they will exist regardless. However, if and when society finally accepts them, those who are homosexuals will finally be able to life their lives to the fullest without fear of reprisal for being who they are.

Let’s face it, society has at various points in recent history sought to restrain or rid itself of varying segments of the population that it feared would change the status quo. These offensive segments typically reflected factors such as race, gender, intellectual capability, financial status, physical health, mental health and political ideologies. This list could go on forever.

Sexual preference continues to be at the forefront of the “get rid of them because they are different” battle simply because there are so few who wish to accept the fact that a person’s sexuality is as ingrained as a person’s race or gender.

However, even if – for the sake of argument – homosexuals choose to have same sex relationships, society has no right to stand in their way. If society affords a person the right to choose what house to buy, what car to drive and what clothes to wear, then surely people should also have the right to choose the gender with whom they want to have sex.

Moreover, we all know very well that a heterosexual person can choose whom to have sex with. A heterosexual can choose to have sex with several separate people in one day if she/he so chooses and society will have nary a word to say in resistance so long as that person is being responsible by practicing safe sex.

So why must those who practice safe homosexual sex be constantly chided by society for their lifestyle? Do they not have the same right to have sex with whomever they want as the heterosexual? Oh, I know that many of those who fight against the homosexual lifestyle are religious and use their holy books to make this segment of humans feel like social outcasts.

For example, the Bible says in Leviticus 18:22 that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman. If a Christian wants to accept this as law, so be it, but give some thought to this. A few verses later Leviticus 19:19, the Bible also says “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” I need not say how many people wear clothes of varying material nowadays.

Likewise, in Exodus 35:2, the Bible says, “For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.”

Why do I not see the letter pages of the newspapers marking a movement against working on the Sabbath? Obviously, this is so offensive to God that death is mandated for anyone who does not observe the Sabbath.

In Exodus 21:7 a man can sell his daughter. Does that mean the Bible condones the trafficking of humans? In Deuteronomy 22:9 we are informed that a crop will be defiled if two different kids of seeds are planted in the same field. Defiled? Should we be eating defiled food?

I am not attempting to malign these Scriptures in any way. However, my desire is to point out that many of these ancient customs are no longer practiced. Even if a Christian wanted to insist that the New Testament is the guideline for contemporary living, this thinking gives luminosity to the hypocrisy used when singling out the homosexual lifestyle.

For example, the scripture used by Christians to treat homosexuals so badly in the 21st century is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. It says, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

It seems to me that if Christians are going to be so publicly adamant about the homosexual lifestyle being wrong, there should also be a public outcry against all who are sexually immoral (having sex outside of marriage), adulterers, male prostitution (I guess female prostitution is okay), thieves, the greedy, drunkards (no rum?), slanderers and swindlers.

I guess that just about covers us all.

Jesus said that the person without sin should cast the first stone (I carefully lay my stone down and walk away). Who among those letter writers does not fall into one of the categories listed with “homosexual offenders”? If you have been guilty of any of the sins listed, then put your stone down and walk away.

I have a great idea. Why don’t we focus on the adulterers for a while since adultery has a direct impact on families? Or we could focus on thievery since crime is a constant nuisance to us all.

In short, homosexuality is no worse a sin (according to the Bible, not to me) than adultery or stealing, so why the war against this segment of the population? Since Christians just let the adulterers live their lives without such direct interference, homosexuals should be allowed to choose their own lifestyle as well.

Don’t worry though, I’m sure as soon as the homosexuals want to know the Christian’s opinion on how they should live their lives, they will ask. (Not!)

Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com

Stella Says... Religion and politics aside, family values is about valuing the family

by Stella Ramsaroop

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 05 October 2007)

This week someone who reads my columns sent me an email suggesting, “Perhaps you may consider writing on family values as a change from your usual socio/political polemics.”

Obviously this reader hasn’t a clue as to how dicey a term like “family values” can become in my hands, but it sounded like so much fun to take this reader up on their suggestion that I just could not resist.

The term “family values” is actually very fluid in that it does not assign itself to simply one set of moral codes. In the U.S. the conservative religious right uses the term to define their own moral code while at the very same time very liberal groups also use it to describe their moral agenda. England, Australia and China all have their own definition as well.

The other day someone asked my husband if he had seen something I had written (it was as if they were trying to snitch on me for saying something that obviously offended this person’s conservative leaning). I suppose this person thought my husband would be just as offended, but instead his frank reply was, “Yes, I saw what she wrote. I was there when she wrote it.”

I am not sure if this person assumed my husband would somehow chastise me for writing something offensive, but that is not how things work in my marriage. I do not interfere in my husband’s decisions concerning his company and he does not interfere with my job as a columnist.

We may ask each other for advice about certain decisions, bounce ideas off of each other and encourage each other when needed – as it should be any healthy relationship – but we do not interfere in each other’s jobs. This is how I would define one of my own family values: being there to support other family members while allowing each person to reach their fullest potential uninhibited by superfluous critique.

My definition of family values would not include such trivial issues as sexual preference or abortion rights. Instead, my definition would centre on values that strengthen the family and bond the family unit together regardless of political, social or biological inclinations.

Likewise, my definition of a family does not need to include both a mother and a father either. Since there are millions of mothers around the world raising children on their own (and some fathers doing the same), it is obvious that both parents are not compulsory to facilitate a family. In my opinion, anywhere there is a group of people living together and sharing their lives with each other – that is a family.

I should point out that my ideas on family values are not mandated by any religious code. Although I understand there are some who feel there can be no family values if there is no religious code, I find that religion is oft times opposed to certain family values I hold dear – like the equality of women.

The same person who suggested I write about family values attached one of those cutesy email sermonettes in the correspondence. The latter part of the sermonette said, “Are you aware that if we died tomorrow, the company that we are working for could easily replace us in a matter of days. But the family we left behind will feel the loss for the rest of their lives?”

It continued, “And come to think of it, we pour ourselves more into work than into our own family, an unwise investment indeed, don't you think?” This brings me to one of my other family values – fathers who stick it out with their families no matter what.

I have seen so many fathers walk away from their families for any number of lesser prizes in life – a mistress, a job, a fleeting dream, etc. The only real prize worth anything in life is our children, the rest is just fluff.

One day that mistress will be gone, that job will be done and that dream may or may not be realised – but none of it will matter one iota. The only thing that will matter is whether those children had a father. Not a fly-by-night father who is here today and gone tomorrow, but a real daddy who is there everyday through thick and thin.

I bet my friend who suggested I write about family values had no idea what my definition would be. Putting religion and politics aside, family values is all about valuing the family.

Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com

Stella Says…Those noisy churches are not acting very Jesus-like

by Stella Ramsaroop

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 12 September 2007)

When the Ministry of Home Affairs has to check up on the volume coming from certain establishments so as to ensure the majority of citizens can live in peace, there is something seriously wrong.

Since when did it become vogue to be so rude? I have written on this subject before, but when it was reported that the Ministry of Home Affairs had to step in so this issue could be taken care of, it became evident very quickly that these noise offenders just do not care about others.

There were clubs and restaurants listed among the noise offenders in an article in Monday’s Kaieteur News. Honestly, if I had to get up for work at 6 am after listening to the pounding bass from a club’s speaker system until the wee hours of the morning, I do believe my patience would break.

To make matters worse, there are churches on the list of offenders too. So much for the Christian teaching of “Love your neighbour.” A few months ago, I received an email about such rude behaviour coming from a Hindu place of worship as well. Is it any wonder at all why people are turning from religion?

Normally, this noise situation would have taken care of itself. The residents surrounding these establishments would have brought the matter to the attention of these offenders and out of courtesy to possible patrons the establishment would have taken the necessary steps to curb the noise.

However, this rude and unseemly behaviour was not curtailed by the plea of the neighbours or even by demands of the local police. I just cannot begin to imagine the arrogance of these perpetrators to totally disregard the needs of others for selfish reasons.

Having spent so much of my life in the church, it is especially bothersome to me that there are religious organisations among those who just do not give a damn about their neighbours. If ever there was an indictment against those who claim to walk in the path of Jesus, this is it.

While it is vital for everyone to obey the laws of the land, the church believes it answers to a higher law. The Christian law requires a person to go the extra mile for even a stranger. The teachings of Jesus say that if a person wants to be great in God’s kingdom, he/she must be a servant of all.

Pardon me for being so blunt, but the actions of these rude churches do not come close to being an example of the Jesus. If anything, the people who live around these noisy churches are probably praying that some god – any god – will save them from the Christians.

Since these churches do not seem to be following the teachings of Jesus (for if they did, they would never treat their neighbours so badly), allow this heathen to preach a sermon for the edification of the brethren.

Proverbs 18:19 says. “An offended brother is more unyielding than a fortified city, and disputes are like the barred gates of a citadel.” In other words, by offending your neighbours with your loud noise and by showing such disrespect for the sanctity of their home, you are pushing them away from the church and making any hopes of proselytizing them dissipate.

Your rude actions are pushing people away from your God when you are suppose to be a beacon of hope in this world. Even a schoolchild knows that your offending noise is wrong and sets a bad example and so your insolence at the needs of your neighbours speaks volumes about your religious claims.

When those heathen clubs behave in such a discourteous manner, it is expected to some extent from drunken people who lose control of their common sense. But when Christians behave thus with no explanation other than sheer disrespect – you have told the entire community that your religion is worthless.

These churches that have behaved so badly have much repenting to do.

Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com

Stella Says…Humans can be moral outside of a religion

by Stella Ramsaroop

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 04 July 2007)

Can I be a good person without religion? Hamilton Green does not seem to think so. In a letter to the editor of this newspaper, which was published last Sunday, Mr. Green left us with a sense that apart from a religious revival, there is no cure for the moral ills in society.

Like Mr. Green, I once connected morality with religion, believing that apart from religion there was no way to define morality. However, the longer I live the more I realise there are bad people who claim to be religious and there good people who do not believe in the existence of a god.

To go one step further, some of the meanest and most depraved of mind that I have known in my life were religious. Moreover, I know a man who is one of the most honourable humans I have ever met – and he is an agnostic. This fact alone breaks down the argument that humans need religion to be moral.

Mr. Green presented the reader with these questions in his letter, “Are our leaders wedded to religious beliefs which will allow them to help secure a morally strong society? Or, is it to fool as many people as long as it is possible?”

If I had a preference, I would rather choose leaders without any religious affiliation. Just look at what George Bush has done to the world with his brand of Christianity. Look at what Osama bin Laden has done with his version of Islam.

Mr. Green seems to believe that a revival of religion could help rid Guyana of its moral ills. However, I cannot help but wonder if religion is not what helped to usher in these moral ills in the first place.

I grew up in a very conservative Christian home in Middle America. The church I attended was so strict that women were not allowed to wear pants, makeup or jewellery. Those in my church were not allowed to go to the movies, drink any type of alcohol or dance to music. As I said, it was a very strict church.

The fear of hell was preached from the pulpit should I stray from living “right.” Of course, anyone who rejected this very narrow way of thinking would never make it to paradise. This is quite a guilt trip to put on a young woman growing up in a big city.

As the years passed, I moved further and further away from that conservative stance and that framework of morality, which was near to impossible to maintain. I do not know that I ever truly believed this staunch dogma in the first place, but it was imposed on me from infancy so it was all I knew for decades.

Even as I came to the end of my religious journey, I feared whether my moral compass would fail because I was always taught that my religion defined my morality. I was so wrong. After stepping outside of religion, I took on far more responsibility for my actions.

Outside of the context of religion, I could not lie, cheat or steal and think that some god would forgive the deed, which would make my sin not really count. I could no longer wait for some unseen hand to supernaturally feed the poor or to help the weak.

Moreover, I could not sit idle when I see others do evil because I no longer believed they would get their due in the next life or burn in hell. If anything, my religious upbringing held me back from being a truly moral person.

I am a far more moral human today than at any point in my life when I practiced religion. As such, I do not see a decline in religious practice as the cause of a moral decline in society. Guyana is probably one of the most religious nations I have ever encountered, so I do not think it is short on dutiful teachings about morals.

However, as I have said before, even religious people do bad things. I have spent so much time around very religious people that I have seen them use their theology as a way to justify their evil deeds – much like how George Bush justifies his war on Iraq.

If not justification, then humans can use their religion to dismiss their immoral actions by simply asking for forgiveness or paying penance. Moreover, even apathy concerning universal issues like global warming, AIDS in Africa and genocide in Darfur can be excused by a religious person if she/he believes that an all-powerful god will one day intervene.

Although fear of hell or desire of paradise might turn an immoral person around for a short period of time, fear and desire are fleeting emotions and not proven to be a long-term remedy for morality. Therefore, I do not believe the religious state of the Guyanese people has anything whatsoever to do with the nation’s dilemmas.

Guyana’s dilemmas are human problems that can and should be handled through human intervention. I believe with everything inside me that if humans were not so distracted by things such as mythologies, racism, sexism, petty rivalries and power struggles that we would be capable of accomplishing miracles.

We could feed every mouth, cure every disease and rid the world of war. I believe we could end racism. I believe we could end sexism. I believe every child could receive an adequate education. I also believe we are capable of instituting a moral system outside of the framework of religion.

I still believe and I still have faith, but my trust is not in any religion – it is in humans. Mr. Green sees a revival of religion as the answer to Guyana’s woes. I see it as a distraction from the miracles Guyana could achieve if it were to ever to pool all of its human assets.


I believe that if the Guyanese people were capable of ridding themselves of its many distractions, they could do more good than any religion humans have ever created.

Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com

Stella Says…The Pope has issued Ten more Commandments (Watch out Moses!)

by Stella Ramsaroop

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 24 June 2007)

On Thursday this newspaper published an article about how the Police Traffic Department will be clamping down on motorists who use their horns indiscriminately. On Friday, Stabroek News published an editorial about steps being taken to improve road safety and to address excessive speeding.

This is all very good news and comes to us just as the Pope has decided to do what he can to improve the global driving experience. The Vatican has released a new set of Ten Commandments specifically designed for drivers. God help us all.

I do not begrudge the Catholic Church its place of leadership in the world. Nor do I think it is necessarily a bad thing for the Vatican to encourage good driving habits. It’s just that I hate to see yet one more set of dogma that must be followed if I do not wish to see the searing hot flames of hell.

Let’s face it - if I ever stood a chance of seeing paradise, I lost it the day I decided to stop being a submissive woman. Almost all the world religions nowadays require a woman to be docile and quick to obey her godlike man. Since I have evolved beyond the need for such teachings, I suppose I can give up on seeing those pearly gates.

But now there are yet more rules and regulations to catch me tripping up – and in the one place I thought I was safe – my car. Is there no place left untouched by religion? I suppose it is a good thing that I gave up trying or I just might be a tad worried about my immortal soul.

Here is a list of the Drivers Ten Commandments as listed by CNN World (and my commentary, of course):

1. You shall not kill. (I thought this one was already taken)

2. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm. (Does that mean I must detach the new fire-shooting gun from the roof of my car?)

3. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events. (So I shouldn’t get spitting angry when I run out of gas or when I get a damn flat tire?)

4. Be charitable and help your neighbour in need, especially victims of accidents. (I cannot help but wonder how many times the Pope-mobile has stopped to help roadside victims.)

5. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin. (Not even on days when I like to dress in all black and wear my patent leather power boots? Man, they just want to take away all of my fun.)

6. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so. (The “not so young”? Oh, they mean Freddie.)

7. Support the families of accident victims. (So they don’t hunt down that drunk driver with their own expressions of power and domination.)

8. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness. (I love the wording of this one – “at the appropriate time.” If this is done too early, there might be even more forgiveness required and more confessions to be made.)

9. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party. (Like the pedestrians!)

10. Feel responsible toward others. (Okay, so I am my brother’s keeper then. I wish they would make up their minds.)

In all seriousness, I do think the last time I prayed was on my way from the Cheddi Jagan Int. airport to Georgetown during a visit to Guyana. If I ever wanted a god to exist – it was then. It was even scarier than driving in circles up a mountain in the dark in Guatemala in a tiny car piled high with suitcases on top – in the rain with no windshield wipers or guardrails on the side of the road.

Here is a quote from the aforementioned Stabroek News editorial, “Speaking at the relaunching of the National Road Safety Council in May last year, Guyana Police Force Chief Traffic Officer Mr Roland Alleyne disclosed that there had been 1,883 deaths as a result of accidents on the roadways in the period 1995-2006, an average rate of more than three per week for over eleven years!”

Note the use of an exclamation point at the end of that quote. Journalists use this punctuation mark very, very seldom. It is reserved for only the rare occasions when the writer is attempting to make an extremely important point. Perhaps the reader would like to take the time to read that quote again.

I am not sure if the Driver’s Ten Commandments will help to reduce the number of deaths on the roadways of Guyana. The Vatican’s document also suggested citing the Rosary while driving since its rhythm will not distract the driver from the road. If it helps some people, I say go for it.

For this sinner, I have been driving for well over two decades without one accident. I am always courteous to other drivers and I am far too careful to allow car to run out of gas. I think I am doing just fine without the Vatican’s help. However, I do wonder if they could offer us some advice on how to overcome the sexism still so prevalent in the world?

Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com

Stella Says…Women should not obey men

by Stella Ramsaroop

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 13 June 2007)

It is good to see an ongoing discussion concerning the rights and protection of the women of Guyana. This discussion is long overdue, especially given fact that so many women suffer from beating at the hands of men who supposedly love them or those same “loving” men kill them.

Freddie Kissoon wrote about this very subject just last Friday in his column entitled “Wife-killing and wife-beating; so what?” Within the last few months there have also been a letters to the dailies crying out for justice and protection for women and editorials mulling the effect such a travesty has on society.

A statement made by Freddie in his column from last Friday gave me pause. He said, “I lived all my life in South Georgetown (I moved out last month to live next to the Atlantic; that is where I always wanted to be) and in South Georgetown there exists a sub-culture in which ghetto men are born into what informs them that women are to be roughed up if you are going make them obey you.”

It is the last eight words that made my hair stand on end. I simply despise the word obey when it is used about women in regards to men. I am not sure from the way it was phrased, whether Freddie believes that women should obey men and that this obedience should be wrought in other ways outside of physical violence – or if he is simply stating this as part of what certain men in his old community think and thus why they beat their women.

I am inclined to give Freddie the benefit of the doubt because firstly, although he has never said as much, Freddie’s track record does not seem to imply that he believes women should be required to obey men. And secondly, since he is not religious, he has no archaic dogma requiring him to force women into submission.

There is a third reason to give Freddie the benefit of the doubt on this subject. He has treated this female columnist with the same respect as the rest of his male colleagues even when we have not agreed. That says so much in and of itself.

In any case, it is this notion of obedience to which I wish to speak because it is not until women realise that they are not required to obey a man with whom they are in a relationship that they will respect themselves enough to leave an abusive man long before he inflicts his will on her to the degree that it requires her life.

I do not wish to change these types of men because they are of little consequence in the long run. Once women have opened their eyes to the fact that abusive men have absolutely no right to beat women – not even for the ridiculous notion of forcing a woman to submit to his will – that is when those men become insignificant.

Moreover, as Freddie pointed out in his aforementioned column, when the judicial system finally gets its act together and puts these abusive men and murderers away for good, the more these men will realise that it is not worth the time in jail to force a woman into “obedience.”

My oldest daughter recently got engaged to a wonderful young man she has known for years. The wedding will not be until late next year, but we were so caught up in the excitement that we were going over even the smallest details. This is when I wanted to now if she intended to include the word “obey” in her wedding vows.

Her emphatic answer was no. Her father and I have taught her well. Quite honestly, she is so full of personality and brains that I would hate to see any man try to control her for even one second. Luckily, she has found a man who loves her because of her personality and brains and would never want her to become anything else.

Not all women are so lucky because some men only want a slave to take care of him, his house, his food, his clothes – him, him, him. An eighteenth century English author named Mary Wollstonecraft once said, “…as blind obedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and sensualists are in the right when they endeavour to keep women in the dark, because the former only want slaves, and the latter a play-thing.”

This notion of female obedience to a male master is just pure rubbish. Nonsense. Gibberish. Babble. Drivel. Jabberwocky. Skimble-skamble. Balderdash. Baloney. Bilge. Blatherskite. Piffle. Pishposh. Poppycock. Tomfoolery. Flummadiddle. Horsefeathers. Hogwash. Fiddlesticks. Malarkey. Twaddle. Windbaggery. Hooey.

You get the point.

It is a non-issue as to whether the men (those who do not like giving up their female slaves) ever embrace the fact that women are not subject to them, women do not have to submit their wills to their husbands and women are no longer required to obey men. All that is important is that women know these truths and start acting on them.

Germaine de Staël, a French novelist and literary critic who lived in the early 1800s said, “Every time a new nation, America or Russia for instance, advances toward civilization, the human race perfects itself; every time an inferior class emerges from enslavement and degradation, the human race again perfects itself.”

This is what the judicial system must keep in mind as they advance toward human perfection by ridding society of wife-beaters and wife murderers. To close this column I am going to provide a short poem that speaks to the notion of coerced obedience that was first written in 1555.

Your brutal goal was to make me a slave
beneath the ruse of being served by you.
Pardon me, friend, and for once hear me through:
I am outraged with anger and I rave.

— Sonnet XXIII, Oeuvres (1555)
A Book of Women Poets, Aliki and Willis Barnstone, eds., 1980

Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com

Stella Says…Guyana does not produce religious fanatics

by Stella Ramsaroop

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 10 June 2007)

It pains me to know that Guyana will suffer from this alleged terrorist plot even as I try to grapple with the notion that a nation that is probably the most religiously tolerant in the world could ever produce religious fanatics to the degree required to attempt to bring such extreme harm on others.

My first reaction to this alleged plot was probably the same as everyone else – this is not good for Guyana. Then I thought of how it would affect my family, both in and out of New York. However, something just did not click in my mind about all of this.

I could not put my finger on it, but it came to me while reading an article in the New York Times about the Guyanese community in New York. In the article, a Guyanese Diaspora named Dolly Z. Hassan said this whole thing is “very bizarre – very, very bizarre.”

The article quoted Ms. Hassan who said, “Nine out of 10 Guyanese don’t understand the conflict in the Middle East and they are not concerned,” and in regards to religious terrorism, she added that it “is not in the Guyanese blood. I have never heard of it even existing in Guyana.”

Ms. Hassan is right, most people in Guyana are very tolerant of the religious beliefs of others. Which is why this whole thing is so hard to swallow. My heart really goes out to those Guyanese living in New York. As if the whole immigration issue wasn’t making the situation in America difficult enough.

The Guyanese and Trinidadian communities released a statement this past week in which they ask others not to judge them by the acts of those involved in the alleged terrorist plot. The press release said, “We are shocked by this revelation and are saddened to learn that these suspects are of Guyanese and Trinidadian heritage. As a community, we vehemently condemn any and all acts of terrorism and call for the highest punishment under the law, we must also ensure that the legal system run its course.”

The statement continued, “We therefore cannot pass judgment on these individuals, except to assure everyone that we will join hands with law enforcement to ensure that all of us can pursue life, liberty and happiness in our great country. We ask our neighbors and fellow New Yorkers not to rush to judgment, and more importantly, not to paint every Guyanese and Trinidadian here in the USA with a prejudiced brush.”

Leaders and organisations within the Guyanese and Trinidadian communities signed the statement.

I share President Jagdeo’s obvious frustration about this issue. Saying this whole debacle has soiled Guyana’s image at the opening of the conference at the Guyana International Conference Centre, according to an article in the Guyana Chronicle from June 7, Jagdeo also said the unveiling of the terror plot by Guyanese “is not good since Guyana’s future depends on the linkages with the United States.”

For those of us who love Guyana and live in other places, this situation makes it even more difficult to persuade others to see how beautiful this nation truly is. For example, at a business dinner in DC last week, my husband found a new business acquaintance very interested in his country of birth.

He went on and on about Guyana with pride during this conversation since – like most people in America – his business acquaintance was unfamiliar with his homeland. This very positive event took place on Thursday evening. On Saturday morning, Guyana is all over the news in a very negative light and my husband is wondering what that person will think about him now.

While some Americans will let this whole story play out without judging Guyana or its people, just like every other county there are also some very shallow-minded people who will now discriminate even more than before.

When I did a search on the Internet to find news stories related to this alleged terrorist plot, I found 74 stories on just how the Guyanese in New York were dealing with this situation. There were news articles from as far away as the United Kingdom and Austria.

One article produced by the Associate Press and subsequently reprinted over and over by other news agencies pointed out several negative incidents that have taken place in the New York Guyanese community recently.

The kicker is that no one outside of New York would have known about these incidents had it not been for this alleged terrorist plot. Now the world knows. Americans are a very fickle people. Like Peeping Tom pointed out in a column this past week, they are very jumpy about things lately.

It used to be that trust was the assumption in regards to anyone who did not “look American.” Now the assumption is mistrust. It does not help that when we go to the airport there are signs and verbal announcements over the intercom requiring people to report any unattended luggage to the nearest security officer.

Before 9/11, the security in the airports was very light and relatives could walk right up to the boarding gate to see a traveller off. Now if car is dropping off a person in front of the airport and stays in one place for longer than two minutes there is a security officer chasing the driver off.

Moreover, much like how the Guyanese government plays on the racial fears of its citizens, the Bush administration does the same thing to Americans regarding terrorist activity to justify its unprovoked war. This makes people even more distrusting and for the lesser informed of the nation, the Bush tactic is even more effective.

What I have said in this column and so much more comprises the new dynamics that will reform the interactions of Guyana with the US – and more specifically, the Guyanese Diaspora with their neighbours in America.

My one great frustration is that Guyana has been making huge strides in infrastructural development, technology, tourism and other such necessary areas to become more appealing to the outside world. It is my hope that these alleged terrorists activities will very little negative effect on the positive future that was just beginning to dawn in Guyana.

It would be a shame for the world to think for one second that Guyana is a religiously fanatical nation when in fact it is probably farther from such a state than any other nation in the world. If this was about racial issues, then it would easier to swallow. But it is about religious issue and Guyana does not fit the profile for producing religious fanatics.

Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com

Stella Says...The Great Jehovah must not want the PNC to govern Guyana

by Stella Ramsaroop

(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 06 May 2007)

The notion of the separation of Church and State is probably one of the most important political and legal doctrines available to modern democracies. This doctrine states that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent of one another.

The importance of this doctrine is even more apparent when one considers, for example, that the President of America invaded another country with the notion that God told him to do so. In retrospect, God must have been wrong or Bush needs to have his hearing checked.

In this same vein, PNC party leader, Robert Corbin, sounded just as ridiculous this past week when he said the fate of his political future rests in God’s hands. I could not help but snicker at the very thought since the PNC has been on a downhill roll for many years now.

This newspaper quoted Corbin in its April 29 issue as saying, “I am a believer in the great Jehovah, and in Him I have always placed my trust. He has never failed me, even when situations are not very clear to all men. I therefore place my political fate in His Hands and (those of) the membership of the PNCR.”

Let us apply logic to this statement. Firstly, Corbin stated that he is a believer in the great Jehovah. Secondly, Corbin stated that his Jehovah has never failed him. Lastly, Corbin places his political fate in his Jehovah’s hands.

It would therefore be quite easy to deduce that if Corbin has always believed in Jehovah and Jehovah has never failed in guiding his political fate, then it should be quite obvious to all that Jehovah does not want the PNC to govern Guyana.

This is what happens when humans drag their deities into politics. It is a strategy used frequently when a politician finds him/herself in an insecure position. When a politician would like the people to forego logic and sound judgement, it is time to reach for an endorsement from a higher power.

Given the PNC track record with Corbin at the helm, the members of this party should indeed find some fresh leadership – or a new God – because their current strategy has been failing for quite some time now.

Even if we put the PNC’s past performance behind us and focused on Corbin’s performance in the here and now, he just alienated at least half of Guyana’s voters – you know, the ones who do not serve Corbin’s great Jehovah.

Guyana is a nation known for its cultural, racial and religious diversity. Putting a person who wears his faith on his sleeve into the office of President of Guyana would be just as disastrous as it was for America – if not more.

A president is suppose to represent the whole nation, which means that personal issues, like religion, should be kept just that – personal (sound familiar?). Moreover, it is not wise for the PNC to draw yet one more distinction between themselves and those who do govern Guyana.

It is a very scary prospect to think a leader is more inclined to go to his deity for political direction than to the people who put him in power. If Bush had listened to the people of America and his international friends instead of his deity, the Iraqi war would have never happened and thousands of lives would have been spared.

Instead of calling on his great Jehovah for the opportunity to continue his leadership of the PNC, Corbin should present his constituents a better plan for the future of the party than the one being presented by those who are challenging his leadership. This is what the people expect of their political leaders.

When people want a spiritual leader, they go to their respective places of worship. This is where they expect to hear about issues of faith – not from a political leader. Perhaps this is exactly why the PNC has been on such a disastrous decline for so long - because Corbin has been sitting on his hands waiting for his Great Jehovah to do something and the people are looking to Corbin to do something. Meanwhile, no one is doing anything of consequence.

In my opinion, Corbin has proven his lack of leadership ability simply by showing himself to be so weak at this crucial juncture. I am not suggesting that it is weak to be spiritual. However, if the best answer a political leader can offer when asked about his political future is a diatribe about his spiritual state, it is obvious that a huge hole exists in the necessary political areas.

On the other hand, Corbin knows most of his constituents also serve his great Jehovah and was probably trying to make a political play on their deep spirituality. I certainly hope PNC members are smarter than that. Otherwise, they will end up just as embarrassed and disappointed in their political leader as the Americans are now.

The one safe doctrine in a nation of such great diversity as Guyana is the consistent insistence of the separation of Church and State. It is just too dangerous to inject spiritual matters in the political arena.

Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com