A Voice for the Unlikely Merger

In 1987, a class action was brought against the Hawkins County Board of Education of Tennessee in the United States of America. This law suit gave a legal voice to the old debate in Political Philosophy, the debate of statehood and religion. In this particular legal action, a group of students and parents under Bob Mozert claimed that the teaching of alternative religion infringed their rights under the First Amendment of the United State Constitution which prohibits the enactment of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing of the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceable assemble, or the prohibiting the petitioning for governmental redress of grievances. Although the court of first instance was of the opinion that the rights of the children and parents were breached, on appeal the decision was reversed. The circuit court was of the view that, the required reading was only to make known the views of others which is necessary for effective citizenry. This article has been inspired in part by the immediate past Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana, Rev. Professor Emmanuel Martey and also some views from readers of my last post, http://theagleswingfoundation.blogspot.com/2016/08/sacrilege-president-rapes-our-spirit_23.html .

Thomas Jefferson established the concept of 'building a wall of separation between Church and State' in his Danbury Baptist letter, https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html, and the concept has evolved to used literally in jurisprudence to delimit the relationship between statehood and religion. Let me be quick to quote some disagreement with such position by notable jurist such as Justice Potter Stewart and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist as pointed by James Hutson in his Library of Congress article- "In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart complained that jurisprudence was not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." Addressing the issue in 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist lamented that "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years."

I do not seek to argue for or against why religion and as such religious leaders must stay away from politics or nation-building, but I intend to share my own conflicts and lessons as an ardent believer in Jesus Christ and yet one who considers as his life's purpose to be involved in matters of state. 

1. The actual conflict is the battle for minds and hearts. It is without doubt that both politicians and religious leaders aim to have influence sometimes to the point of domination. To effectively do that, the leader's ability to capture the minds and heart of his followers are critical. It is in the light to 'lead' that any strong voice of opposition is seen as a threat. It seems to me that, men of religion and politics thrive as authoritarians if people have less courage to disagree. The presumption of sanctity of both officers as either 'head of state' or 'man of god' is what gives the false confidence of being infallible or beyond the tentacles of an individual's exercise of reasonable conscience. My biggest challenge growing up is having a mind of my own, being bold to disagree with whoever and the ability to preserve the rigour of my own independent thinking. I hope and can only pray that as we draw closer to election, neither politicians or religious leaders shall usurp the will of people by manipulation, but that as individuals we will find our own minds to rationalize among the options and to effectively decide for the state and ourselves.
2. The price of silence is more expensive than we can pay. It is truism that, evil thrives because good people are silent. It is unbelievable the culture of silence and the price 'leaders' will pay to buy such silence. Fortunately for most of us, no one will seek to buy our silence, we sell it ourselves daily. We pay the price buy selling our reasoned opinions to fear of rejection, fear of being wrong and even sometimes a false sense of loyalty to 'party' or 'church' members. I hear in the news an alleged offer for silence and a claim of it haven been sold already. Whatever it maybe, I hope we will all reflect on the value placed on it. I dare say, we all have such value in our opinions. And if we all will be vocal enough and pursue what we believe to be right in reasonable dialogue the cost will be too expensive for anyone to offer to buy. I hope this inspires somebody to find their tongue, to defend what they know to be good.
3. Rationality and confidence does not rob tolerance. It is unfortunate how disagreeing with someone creates a hostile environment, even to the point of insult and fighting. I find it unbelievable that people will automatically attack you because you disagree with them. Maybe it is psychology at work, just maybe in our primary self we are defending our ego and 'value'. May I suggest that, the contest of ideas needn't be aggressive. I hope we can view such contest as scouts aiming to find truth rather than armed guard protecting our walls. John Locke's, A Letter Concerning Toleration, is relevant. He asserts that it is futile to attempt to coerce belief. We can all at best reason our sound judgment but if anyone disagrees so be it, only hope that in democracy majority agrees with you than disagreeing. And for matter of religion let it be between you and your god. I am convinced without a doubt that by cohesion is an effective state. I pray that together we may agree to disagree and by such collectively harness our diversity to nation building.

Let me end here by being as emphatic as I can, I do not belong to any political party. I am only a young man who is curious enough to question everything till I find answers and I advocate for such as I find, hoping that in sharing my reasoning in the honesty of my conscience I may liberate myself and others who are tied to the cloak of others.

Sacrilege: The President Rapes our Spirit

Youth still rages fierce in my blood, of course for a bubbly young man in my twenties it is to be expected. The energy of the youthful, if even at heart, is inspiring. It is for that reason, Mr. President, your election was undoubtedly a statement of hope for me. Your presidency was anticipated to be vibrant with drive towards national development and democracy. 

It breaks my heart to write this open letter, knowing that you may never read it. Hopeful as youth is, I yet write. I write of disappointment however not with you, I am disappointed in myself for hoping for too much. I am saddened that I believed in you and hoped you will be different, even better.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not political but a patriotic expression. If in doubt, the only public, close to political statement I have ever made was a eulogy of President Mills on my small blog, http://theagleswingfoundation.blogspot.com/2012/07/a-lesson-in-history.html. 

To what end do I rant without course? I write these few words because you just raped the spirit of the constitution for which you are supposed to be the chief custodian. I do not intend to speak of the legality or not of your action, because I am not a lawyer, and there are so many lawyers to analyze the inaccurateness or otherwise of your action. I do not even seek to speak to the political inaccuracy because your opponent will do a better job at cashing in on such, if any. I only write as a believer in leadership and a young man who believed Ghana could be better under your leadership. As a passionate advocate of the idea that we can build stronger institutions and be civilized in the best interest of posterity, your decision to remit the sentence of the contemnors is heart-breaking to say the least.

By all means, Mr. President, exercise your constitutional right in Article 72, I only hoped you averted your mind to the precedent you were setting. How different is this pardon from any of the political ones we have seen in this country? How innocuous is your action for which you must be worried for such? I only notice three things you may not have intended but posterity will hold you a failure at, these are my thoughts in my simple mind:

• First, you abused the very currency of democracy, Trust! The whole system runs on trust, trust that state institutions are authorized to act in good faith, to protect all of us. Such trust exist because, the Judiciary keeps that trust as the final arbiter. The seemingly impartiality and appearance of apolitical judiciary is the life-line for any democracy. It is obvious no one disagrees on such gross misstatements of the contemnors for which trust in its sanctity had to be restored. To purge themselves, they were ordered to 4months in prison. Your action directly says, ‘You cannot trust the final arbiter to be right’, the executive for whom we know thinks in circles of 4 years, for good reason, cannot be left with such sacred responsibility to guard ‘trust’. Mr. President, your breach is philosophical, you have made a clear statement of distrust of the judiciary, and your actions drives them right into the politics which is unfortunate. How did you do that perhaps? You did that exactly by remitting the sentence of persons who claimed they will rape and murder the custodians of our sacred trust, a side no one needn’t support but for political gains, it hurts that you undoubtedly supported such a side.

• Secondly, you failed the leadership test, Grit! I will not pretend to understand the political pressure you were faced with. We all however appreciate this is an election year with a lot at stake. Indeed you were caught between the devil and the deep blue sea and such battle to satisfy electorates cannot be underestimated. This is a trap no leader wants to be caught in, but in my humble opinion, this was your true leadership test. I hoped you will hold on and at least persuade your supporters to the end that, nationhood is bigger than the executive, and such an act will not only be scandalous but usurping the judicial powers thereby weakening such an institution no one will dare.  I hoped you will not interfere if even it proved to hurt politically, that you will not choose the part of least resistance, that will persevere for the sake of the state but clearly you deserted your sacred vow to defend mother Ghana when it needed you the most to protect it and insulate it’s lady justice from political invaders. 

• Finally, Mr. President, you just entrenched the already flourishing culture of impudence under your reign. One that says, find a shield in political party’s card and you are untouchable. Unfortunately, I tend to believe wielding a party card is more powerful than a national identity card. A reality your great grandson will wish you had not supported. It is unfortunate I rage about flourishing impudence when ‘Yentia Obia’ is still on the playlist.

Dear Sir, I have written this with great hesitation and in ultimate good faith, hoping that all the many financial scandals for which we have seen little action were your worse legacies but to have remitted this sentence, you consolidate an unfortunate memory for youth leadership.

Mr. President, let me end yet with tears, hoping that you can redeem this evil you have caused. I hope all Ghanaians will reflect on this, that all partisan and nonpartisan Ghanaians will ask ourselves, if the judges were our mothers, and such threat of rape and murder were made, will we not do anything? Of course we will, some of us may sue for threat of death, some even break the law to defend our blood. I dare say, the judiciary-in every sense is the mother of democracy for all progressive states, and in this particular instance our mother was not only threatened, she was abused. Heart-wrenching as the reality is, the father who swore to protect her, raped her for punishing the wayward child who abused her. Her spirit in whose light the letter of the constitution is construed just got violated by her very First Gentleman.