BACK TO THE DARK AGES
THE Bahamas Christian Council has declared itself opposed to government's efforts to protect women from being raped by their husbands, arguing that the proposed amendment to the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act could threaten the institution of marriage. The council paints a picture of a society beset on all sides by forces seeking to destroy the foundations upon which it rests. In reality, the government's proposed marital rape law is a vital component of the enlightened society we should be aspiring to become, and it is the Christian Council that is attempting to drag us back into the dense gloom of darker ages.
By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor
MY immediate reaction to the Christian Council's rejection of the proposed marital rape law was utter disgust. Disgust, but not surprise.
It was, after all, in keeping with the council's tendency to ward off perceived challenges to its own position by branding them threats to public morality.
The Catholic Archdiocese, the Bahamas Conference of the Methodist Church and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church have all given their approval to government's proposed law. The Christian Council alone claims that while it respects the rights of individuals, an abiding concern for God's plan for "families and nations" prohibits its members from lending their support.
Anyone who doubts that this stance is self-serving should pause to ask how the Council can be so concerned about families and nations, when it has so little to say about the rampant crime, violence, sexual abuse and corruption that plagues this nation.
Indeed, it is only a select few issues that tend to frighten Christian Council members into action: homosexuality, the showcasing of "immoral" films and performers, gambling, and now the right of a man to rape his wife.
This is because in a changing world, the Council's main concern has become maintaining a stranglehold on the conscience on a large portion of this society.
The public statements of Council members over the past several years have made it clear they feel social progress - defined by most of the western world as having to do with rights and democracy - threatens much of what they hold dear. After all many of them have become exceedingly comfortable in their roles as the self-appointed moral arbiters of the nation.
This is why violent crime is never high on the Council's agenda -- it is opposed universally in modern societies and is therefore not perceived as a threat.
Homosexuality, gambling and "unchristian" films, on the other hand, all enjoy wide acceptance in the western world. What's more, they are symbolic of an outlook that values independence of mind and does not tolerate self-appointed father figures.
This also explains why the Council -- alone among the religious entities that responded to the proposal - decided to suggest specific changes to the amendment, recommending that a man should only be prosecuted for forcing sex on his wife if there is violence involved - and even then should not be incarcerated for the first offence, but rather subjected to "rehabilitative steps."
The Council also objected to the words "who is not his spouse" being deleted from the definition of rape, "thereby leaving it as is and allowing rape to only be possible between two persons who are not married to each other."
While government made no mention of religion in its proposal, the Council's response suggested that "the government and the church" should work together to create "rehabilitative centres" for husbands who force themselves on their wives.
The laws of the Bahamas are enacted by parliament without deference to any other entity, but it seems the Council will not miss a chance to insinuate itself into the debate and remind the public how important it is.
THE LETTER FROM BIRMINGHAM JAIL
In announcing the Christian Council's opposition to the amendment, Council president Rev Patrick Paul went to great lengths to defend the reasoning behind the decision. As is perhaps inevitable considering the reasonableness of government's proposition, this defence was anything but airtight.
He opened with an unattributed and slightly misquoted statement by Martin Luther King Jr: "A just law is a man's code that squares itself with the moral law or the law of God."
He obviously intended this to suggest that laws are not just if they do not conform to Scriptural dictates, but a look at the context of the statement does more to contradict Rev Paul's argument than support it.
Dr King was writing from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama, where he had been arrested for leading non-violent action against segregation. He was working to break a system that inflicted violence and injustice upon one group of people, because of a quality over which they had no control -- their race.
As it turns out, Rev Paul is attempting to support a system that does the very same thing; discriminate against another group - women - leaving them open to physical and psychological trauma at the hands of their spouses as a consequence of their gender.
Dr King was responding to a group of white clergymen who opposed his non-violent direct action protests and called instead for negotiations. The reverend rejected this position, because "lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily."
He was referring to southern whites, but could just as well have been talking about the Bahamian male, who in addition to a host of unspoken social advantages, has the exclusive legal right to transfer citizenship to his spouse and can force sex upon his wife without censure.
Then again, Dr King's comments could be seen as applying to the Christian Council and its members, for whom the host of social ills which plague this country seem to mean little compared to the handful of fringe issues that threaten their long established fiefdom.
Rev Paul goes on to claim society will "experience utter chaos" if laws contrary to "moral law" are passed, but he conveniently fails to mention the many countries where gambling and homosexuality are legal, where adults can watch whatever films they wish and marital rape is illegal, but they do not have anywhere near the levels of violence, child abuse, rape and murder suffered by Bahamians.
Rev Paul's choice of this particular quote is interesting for another reason. When Dr King wrote those words, he admitted that he was relying on the work of two of Christianity's most celebrated thinkers: St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. If the Christian Council intends to rely on this as a justification for its stance, must it not explain how this squares with the fact that the Catholic church - to which these two scholars devoted their lives, energy and intellect - has embraced the government's efforts to protect a wife from rape by her husband?
Dr King, following Aquinas, wrote, "Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority... relegating persons to the status of things."
Could the same not be said of a law that treats women as sex-objects; instruments of gratification for their husbands? Are we to ignore the wealth of evidence that states that spousal rape inflicts serious trauma on a woman, damaging her personality and relegating her to the status of a thing?
THE CONSTITUTION
Rev Paul quotes the preamble to the Bahamian constitution, a favourite strategy of clergymen making claims of authority outside the purview of their congregation.
The document states that Bahamian citizens recognise "that the preservation of their freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to self-discipline, industry, loyalty, unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the rule of law."
Rev Paul presumably quotes this to add the weight of constitutional authority to his argument. However when examined closely the language of the preamble does not support, and could actually be seen as damaging his case.
It speaks of a "commitment" to several personal virtues, but only a "respect" for Christian values. An individual can respect any faith, as well as the views of those who decline faith; this does not mean that one is bound, or "committed" to all or any of these views.
The distinction may seem trivial, but the words of the constitution were carefully chosen by its framers, as Rev Paul should know. Calling for two singers to be banned from performing in the Bahamas last year, Rev Paul had said the Christian Council intends to turn the country into the Christian nation it was always intended to be. He added: "The founding fathers that coined those things in the Bahamas believed that the Christian church would be the underpin to see fit that those virtues continue from generation to generation and be the moral watchdog of society to deal with the many issues now plaguing our society."
In response, two of the original framers of the constitution rejected the idea that the Christian church has a mandate to act as the country's moral watchdog. Former parliamentarians George Smith and Sir Arthur Foulkes - both delegates to the 1972 constitutional conference in London - said no religious body should consider itself special, or empowered to make moral decisions on behalf of the nation.
"The church itself has no constitutional power. No church has the right to perform a government function," Sir Arthur said.
Mr Smith said that for the country's founders to have promoted one body of faith, or "surrendered" the making of moral decisions to one religion, would have been "unwise".
MARITAL RAPE: THE UNFORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES
Rev Paul contends that the heads of many churches feel a marital rape law "can have far reaching consequences" and quotes one local pastor as saying: "Marital rape is very intricate, and a multi-dimensional subject that has the potential of levelling far-reaching and cross-generational affects on any western society built on Judaic-Christian principles. The impact and implications of such a law would be incalculable."
Aside from its vagueness, this statement seems to be in complete contradiction to the available evidence. For more than 50 years, husbands who rape their wives have been subject to prosecution somewhere in the world. The practice of marital rape is now illegal in 104 countries. If the Christian Council wishes to calculate the implications of such a law, a few minutes research would suffice.
As it turns out, there seems to be no record of huge changes in a society, the collapse of the family unit, or an eruption of widespread false claims as a result of the passing of such a law.
A CONVENIENT DEFINITION
Before stating its specific reservations to the government's proposal, Rev Paul makes this curious statement: "The council denounces all acts of rape. Rape is cruel, brutal, heartless, atrocious, appalling and callous. Rape is absolutely unacceptable and should not be tolerated or allowed amongst members of the Bahamian or any other civil society inside or outside the marriage bonds or any other relationship."
An admirable sentiment, which is also highly convenient considering the fact that the council reserves the right to define rape as it sees fit, as demonstrated by the suggestion that marital rape be classified as "spousal abuse." You can reject any practice without consequence once you decide to define it in a way that suits your purposes.
Furthermore, if rape should not be tolerated "inside or outside the marriage bonds" why does the Council recommend "rehabilitation" of an offender, rather than punishment?
THE OBJECTIONS
Rev Paul goes on to list the concerns that his members have expressed. These include:
* Will the institution of marriage be preserved?
They are worried, it seems, that the right to withhold sex will lead men to cheat and eventually become disillusioned with marriage.
With the rate at which this already occurs in Bahamian society, it is unlikely that a law protecting wives from sexual violation will make it any worse. In addition, it must be asked how these pastors came to feel it is their place to stop would-be sinners from actually committing sin.
For the believer of whatever persuasion, is salvation not a question between oneself and God? For the Christian, did not the Sermon on the Mount make it clear that in addition to action, desire and intention matter in terms of sin? For the sake of consistency, should the Council not call for legislation that allows a man to be punished for desiring to cheat on his wife, or wishing to gamble or watch an "immoral" film?
* Will the amendment not be used as a means of spite or the excuse to end marital relationship differences?
This could be said about any law. Any unmarried woman can cry rape against her boyfriend out of spite if she so chooses. For the Christian Council though, fake claims matter more in terms of marital rape. This is because their concern is not protecting innocent men, but preserving the institution of marriage. Divorce is of course perfectly legal in this country, and whether or not its incidence grows as a result of a new law is of no legal relevance whatsoever; no divorce proceeding is affected by how many others have occurred in that particular year. But the Council identifies respect for the institution of marriage with a Bahamas run according to their programme.
In any case, there seems little to worry about. Studies estimate that in Australia, 10 per cent of rape victims were attacked by their husbands, and that in the United States more than 10 per cent of married women had been raped by their spouses. Yet in these societies, where marital rape is illegal, there has been no corresponding explosion of false claims.
* Will the proper checks and balances be put in place to ensure that unfounded claims are not made?
This is a technical question applicable to any law, and the Attorney General's office has already stated that all false claimants will be prosecuted.
* Will those investigating these matters be given clear written protocols and would they be mature, confidential persons?
This applies to investigators in any rape case, or any other matter of a sensitive nature.
* How far should the government be going with things that are sacred and intimate?
Here Rev Paul gets to the crux of the matter. "How far should government be allowed to impinge upon matters which belong to us?" he effectively asks.
Of course, this is utter nonsense, as in the Bahamas, marriage is an explicitly legal and secular institution.
RELIGION, RIGHTS AND JUSTICE
Rev Paul writes: "The council fully agrees that we must protect the rights of all in our society. But we cannot be too careful to protect persons whose rights may have been violated by implementing laws that have the potential and provide opportunity for the malignant, the evil, the whoremongers and the spiteful persons who are looking for ways to get back at someone, because of some unfortunate circumstance."
Rev Paul is saying the rights of individuals are not absolute, and should be protected only up to a point. Where this may involve passing laws that create opportunities for false claims and adultery, rights become secondary.
This suggestion is ridiculous in terms of feasibility -- we would have to abolish every criminal law, as a spiteful person can make a false claim in connection with any crime. It also betrays a worrying obsession with regulating the behaviour of others beyond the proper place of the law. Adultery is not against the law in the Bahamas, and therefore should not factor into the lawmaking process, despite what the Council may think.
Rev Paul then goes on to call the Bible the "airbag" of humanity; the only book "that seeks men and women's highest good and protection."
His argument is that because this book emphasises righteousness, this is the key to "stability and safety" for man, but because the Bible teaches that no man is righteous on his own all those who renounce their sins are forgiven. It therefore follows that husband and wife should be willing to forgive each other after unpleasant incidents - even rape, it seems.
The problem here is that this is all a matter of opinion. Not only are there many interpretations of the road to salvation within Christianity - be it through grace or works - there are also a great many people who live in this country who do not share Rev Paul's faith. What would our Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic and atheistic brothers say about this attempt to make laws in accordance to Rev Paul's faith?
Rev Paul goes on to say that "righteousness equals justice" and that "justice is an expression for reconciliation." It may be so to him, but it is not in the eyes of the law. As far as the law is concerned, justice is the punishment or rehabilitation of an individual through fines, incarceration or other penalties, as a consequence of his having been proven guilty of breaking one or more of the clearly defined codes or regulations enshrined by the nation's legislative body.
The law deals with concrete evidence, and calls for guilt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no room for "the remorseful, regretful and apologetic heart" that Rev Paul says is the condition upon which a husband who has raped his wife should be forgiven -- unless this peculiar heart condition can be proven by means of a chest x-ray.
Furthermore, this idea that justice is " an expression of reconciliation" is quite something coming from an organisation whose members have supported capital punishment. Why does the Council not think murderers should be "reconciled"? What about armed robbers and child molesters? If they feel this way, why are they not protesting the very existence of Her Majesty's Prison?
Of course, when it suits our nation's more vocal pastors, the definition of justice becomes "an eye for an eye." It seems they would take us back to the days of the witch hunts and the inquisition, where the definition of justice shifts to suit clergymen, who can condemn a man by looking into the "heart" and finding out his secrets.
MARRIAGE
On the subject of marriage, Rev Paul is better prepared, arriving at the battle armed with various scriptural references, many of which affirm the "conjugal rights" of both spouses.
He uses these to explain why a rape law should apply to unmarried couples, but not to those who have taken sacred vows.
The problem with this is that legally speaking, marriage is a contractual arrangement which has nothing to do with religion at all.
Had Rev Paul taken a moment to peruse the Marriage Act, he would have perhaps noticed that a cabinet minister has the final say in all matters surrounding marriage. He or she can appoint any public officer or religious minister as a marriage officer, and can reject a religious minister if he sees fit.
Article 15 insists that no clergyman who has not been authorised by the minister can publish the banns of marriage.
Article 24 is worth quoting in full: "If the parties so desire they may, after certificate or licence duly granted, contract and solemnize marriage at any place and in the presence of a registrar and in the presence of two witnesses, with open doors, and between the hours of six o'clock in the morning and eight o'clock in the evening, making the declaration and using the form of words provided in section 23 of this Act; but in such case no religious service shall be used."
AN IMPORTANT DEBATE
The debate on marital rape is an important one. It may also offer members of the public the opportunity to consider where they stand on an even more significant question.
If this nation is to progress, each one of us will eventually have to decide how he or she regards the doom-mongering of the Christian Council on issues of human rights and individual responsibility.
A federation of predominantly Baptist churches, the largest organisation of its kind in the Bahamas, the Council has enjoyed the unchallenged status of primary moral voice of the nation for decades.
Many of its members portray themselves as latter-day Davids, standing against the Goliath of degenerate modernism. In reality, they have become more like the New Testament Pharisees, who declare they are defending righteousness while putting the letter of the Law above its spirit.
I for one believe they are fighting not for justice, but against change, because change is the barometer of their fading influence on society. The powerful will not give up the advantages of their position willingly, as Dr King, in his letter from a Birmingham jail, so eloquently pointed out.
What do you think?
email: pnunez@tribunemedia.net
Published On:Monday, September 07, 2009