Dear Editor,
Former President, Mr. Donald Ramotar, penned a letter to the newspaper proclaiming that “we should cease having prayers of any kind in schools.” Mr. Ramotar was referring to public schools, as private schools, under current legal parameters, are free to organize and recite institutionally whatever religious prayer(s) they wish. In this letter, I want to clarify and expand on a few points raised in Mr. Ramotar’s letter.
I begin by acknowledging that, in my view, Mr. Ramotar is correct to assert that “the purpose of schools is not to propagate religion but to educate our people.” He acknowledges that religion is a “private matter”, and that “nothing should be done to offend a person’s religious beliefs.” However, there is a problem with the latter suggestion. There are many instances in public discourse that seem to offend someone’s religious belief. For example, on the issue of whether to accept homosexuality as part of Guyanese society, many religious people feel that to do so would be a sinful stain on the country’s moral fabric. We have seen numerous public demonstrations over the years by religious leaders in the country rejecting the human rights status of people who happen to have homosexual relationships, reasoning they say are backed by Biblical principles. Another example is the issue of corporal punishment in public schools. Parents were allowed to comment on the issue at several public gatherings organized by the Ministry of Education. A large extent supported retaining corporal punishment as a means of discipline in schools, citing Bible verses in defense. Both examples illustrate cases in which matters of public interest are guided by religious belief. Arguably, to disagree with these convictions would amount to offending someone’s religious belief, and many have claimed such.
On the point of universal prayers in public institutions, Mr. Ramotar is correct to characterize this attempt to encapsulate religious belief in Guyana as a “mission impossible” project. To add further to this point, for state institutions such as public schools to endorse and adopt a universal prayer (perhaps devised by an agency of the state) would promote segregation among religious believers and non-religious people. The former would likely promote favouritism of religious belief over non-religious belief, and as we know Guyanese society has a plurality of religious and non-religious beliefs. Addition-ally, it would be worrysome to have state agencies mandate religious prayers on behalf of every citizen who attends a public function. (See my letter dated October 22nd). Furthermore, Mr. Ramotar asserts that “freedom of conscience also means the right not to believe.” While the implication is there, the freedom of conscience clause in the constitution discourages religious practices enforced against one’s will. What needs to be more in focus is not that there is a problem with fundamental rights of the religious or non-religious, but rather it is more about state institutions endorsing a religious prayer as part of or integral to commencing on matters of public policy, or public schools scripting prayers demanding children line-up to recite.
Prayers in our political institutions are a relic of Guyana’s colonial past. The kind of prayer often utilized resembles Christian and monotheistic sentiments, which is no accident since Christianity was brought to Guyanese shores due to colonialism, furthering religious proselytism. During the transition from colonial control to an independent nation, Guyana merely adopted pre-existing Christian customs into its politics, customs that were derived from the political and religious ideologies of the former British Empire. This historical context must be referenced and understood if we want to know where we got our political practices and ideas from. In concluding his letter, Mr. Ramotar demanded, “the state as a whole should stop these practices at all government functions”, action is yet to be seen. There are many challenges for Guyana to become a secular nation, despite the Constitutional declaration that it is secular. Recall that the Constitution also proclaims Guyana as transitioning from capitalism (the colonial economic engine) to socialism, a motive likely enshrined by the nations’ early leaders who lived during the era of the brutal Cold War, and were aligned with a socialist cause. Yet, Guyana does seem to be far out-of-touch from such an ideal. The point here is that though there are constitutional declarations about what political philosophies Guyana aligns with, it is evident that there is work to be done about ironing out the ideals impressed upon the nation that everyone is prescribed to value as a citizen, whether it be secularism, capitalism or socialism.
Lastly, Mr. Ramotar suggested that removing prayers (universal or religious) entirely from public institutions would be the “only true democratic way” in respecting people’s religious or non-religious convictions. If this means by having government institutions remain neutral to religion in a public setting, then by all means this adds merit to the secular cause. What Guyanese need to realize is that the secular cause is to ensure public institutions do not discriminate against anyone based on religion or belief and that a democratically elected government’s best way of ensuring this is by remaining publicly neutral. After all, electors are comprised of both religious and non-religious people.
Sincerely,
Ferlin F. Pedro
