MP endorses leadership criteria
published: Saturday | November 29, 2008
The Editor, Sir:
I wish to support the points made in a published letter, by Mr Roy Notice, in your paper dated November 28. We do need to have these kinds of discussions regarding public policy making and the responsibilities of leaders.
It brings into focus the question of the basis on which leaders are elected and what is expected of them in shaping our nation and its future. I do believe that debate and discussion should serve to inform and shape opinions, which ought to be the basis on which decisions are made.
I also believe that political leaders have a duty and obligation to let the public know their position on all matters on which they will take a position that affects the public. It is argued that the judgement and reasoning of our political leaders ought to be major criteria that earn public confidence in those that lead.
Poignant reason
For this reason, Mr Notice's question is so poignant: "Do they (political leaders) nurture and build their conscience in order that they can be relied upon to make ethically sound decisions, even if they are not popular?"
No doubt, his belief that a major part of the nation's problems today has to do with conscience, should not be taken lightly.
I am, etc.,
FITZ JACKSON, M.P.
South St. Catherine
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE?
The Jamaican Parliament has voted overwhelmingly to retain the death penalty legislation on the books. This was done through a "conscience vote". What is a conscience vote and whose conscience is being referred to? It would seem that what is meant by conscience vote is that all the members of the house were given the opportunity to express what is his or her conviction despite what the party may hold to.
It would seem though that some of the parliamentarians were unsure or afraid to do just that. Many of them referred to what their constituents dictated to them to do. They claimed they voted the conscience of those who sent them to parliament in the first place. Is this a cop out on the part of politicians? Are our politicians saying that on matters of nationally morality they would rather go with the popular view? What if the popular view is the less noble path to take?
Shouldn’t we commend those leaders who declare that even if they are voted out they have to follow their conscience? Whenever we see leaders going against the popular view it is more often than not a sign of courage and higher reason.
Many will ask whether or not we can trust our present political leaders to vote their conscience. What kind of worldview informs their conscience? Do they nurture and build their conscience in order that they can be relied upon to make ethically sound decisions even if they are not popular?
What is the role of conscience in making legislation or in public life? Should this be individual or collective conscience? Lets continue talking.
It would seem though that some of the parliamentarians were unsure or afraid to do just that. Many of them referred to what their constituents dictated to them to do. They claimed they voted the conscience of those who sent them to parliament in the first place. Is this a cop out on the part of politicians? Are our politicians saying that on matters of nationally morality they would rather go with the popular view? What if the popular view is the less noble path to take?
Shouldn’t we commend those leaders who declare that even if they are voted out they have to follow their conscience? Whenever we see leaders going against the popular view it is more often than not a sign of courage and higher reason.
Many will ask whether or not we can trust our present political leaders to vote their conscience. What kind of worldview informs their conscience? Do they nurture and build their conscience in order that they can be relied upon to make ethically sound decisions even if they are not popular?
What is the role of conscience in making legislation or in public life? Should this be individual or collective conscience? Lets continue talking.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Church's Agenda
Who sets the church's agenda? The mission of the Christian community of faith is not in doubt. As a community we are called to embrace and share the saving grace of Jesus Christ with the world. St. Matthew 28:19ff calls and sends us to the world. The charge is for us to go. It is the going that proves difficult to many of us. Very often our agendas as a church reflect our reluctance, unpreparedness or unwillingness to go. Our agenda is often a staying instead of a going agenda. We are an internally driven church that lives in but not with the community.
The only way our agendas will change is if we develop a love for the people of the world. When we see the image of God in each human being threatened by the dehumanizing forces of our time then our agendas will become different. The loving and caring attitude of a church will be reflected in its priorities, its preaching, its programmes and its policies. Broken hearts, wayward and neglected lives, hurting families, hopeless men and women, entrapped in a world of injustice, chicanery and godlessness must push us as a church to pray and act. This is what sets our agenda.
The mission we are on as a church is the mission of Jesus Christ and it is a mission to the world. It is an incarnational posture that we assume as we go into the world. We go in the midst of darkness and death to bring light and life.
When last have you checked your agenda? Are we simply seeking to enrich ourselves, preserve our traditions and expand our denominational borders? Or are we genuinely concerned about others? Love for God and the people of the world will keep us away from adapting the principles and practices of the world. To allow the world to set our agenda is to say that reaching and transforming the world in the name of Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit is why we exist. That is when the fusion between our hearts and the heart of Christ would have truly taken place.
The only way our agendas will change is if we develop a love for the people of the world. When we see the image of God in each human being threatened by the dehumanizing forces of our time then our agendas will become different. The loving and caring attitude of a church will be reflected in its priorities, its preaching, its programmes and its policies. Broken hearts, wayward and neglected lives, hurting families, hopeless men and women, entrapped in a world of injustice, chicanery and godlessness must push us as a church to pray and act. This is what sets our agenda.
The mission we are on as a church is the mission of Jesus Christ and it is a mission to the world. It is an incarnational posture that we assume as we go into the world. We go in the midst of darkness and death to bring light and life.
When last have you checked your agenda? Are we simply seeking to enrich ourselves, preserve our traditions and expand our denominational borders? Or are we genuinely concerned about others? Love for God and the people of the world will keep us away from adapting the principles and practices of the world. To allow the world to set our agenda is to say that reaching and transforming the world in the name of Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit is why we exist. That is when the fusion between our hearts and the heart of Christ would have truly taken place.
Monday, November 10, 2008
STILL CAMPAIGNING
Last evening I watched a news clip on TVJ showing the prime minister of Jamaica and the minister of finance on the campaign trail lambasting the PNP for wrecking the country and marveling at the demands that others are placing on them to fix it back so quickly. A few moments later I listened to the leader of the opposition as she in her usual passionate way warned those involved in the purchasing of the Hydel lands not to touch the transaction papers because when she gets to power the truth will be revealed.
Then it dawned on me! Something hit me hard! Our two leaders are still campaigning either to keep power or to get back into power while Rome burns. I am convinced that the current political leadership in this country is more concerned with holding on to power rather than serving the people of this country. At least one would expect that if our politicians had genuine love and vision for this country then they would unite in some way or form to tackle the crime wave and the economic winds that are threatening our stability and growth. Everybody is fighting for power.
My word to our leaders is that the campaign is over, almost eighteen months ago. The only campaigning that should be going on is the government should allow the country to see its forward thinking, its creativity, courage and fortitude as it tackles that which faces us. If the government was doing that then there would be no deed for the divisive rhetoric that has been coming from its top leaders. The opposition on the other hand should be opposing that which threatens national development or anything that is not in the best interest of the nation while at the same time giving their support to policies and plans that will help the country to achieve its dreams.
Then it dawned on me! Something hit me hard! Our two leaders are still campaigning either to keep power or to get back into power while Rome burns. I am convinced that the current political leadership in this country is more concerned with holding on to power rather than serving the people of this country. At least one would expect that if our politicians had genuine love and vision for this country then they would unite in some way or form to tackle the crime wave and the economic winds that are threatening our stability and growth. Everybody is fighting for power.
My word to our leaders is that the campaign is over, almost eighteen months ago. The only campaigning that should be going on is the government should allow the country to see its forward thinking, its creativity, courage and fortitude as it tackles that which faces us. If the government was doing that then there would be no deed for the divisive rhetoric that has been coming from its top leaders. The opposition on the other hand should be opposing that which threatens national development or anything that is not in the best interest of the nation while at the same time giving their support to policies and plans that will help the country to achieve its dreams.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Is the Death Penalty the Answer? - (Kadene Porter)
Today I received some responses to a piece I wrote for my blog which was published in the daily observer. I copy one of the responses that was sent to me by Kadene Porter writing for Abeng News. What are your thoughts?
Is the death penalty the answer?
I was not at all surprised to read in the Jamaican media of the Rev. Al Miller's most recent claim regarding divine justice and the death penalty. The mounting fear of being the next random victim as well as frustration levelled at the governing authorities for their impotence and lack of urgency in finding workable solutions is pushing the patience of citizens far beyond their limit.
Addressing his congregation at Fellowship Tabernacle in Jamaica's capital, Rev. Miller sought to clarify his earlier use of the epithet 'dunce' to describe those opposing the death penalty. He explained that it was in light of divine wisdom that the word was used, to convey man's folly in seeking to override God's directive of the death penalty for the capital offence of murder -- not to be confused, stressed the reverend, with the same act committed by the state.
The reverend joins a very august group of clergymen who have recently called for the enforcement of the death penalty, notably Bishop Ronald Blair and the Rev. Terrence Brown, who has generously offered himself as the chief executioner. And in January of last year, Pastor Glen Samuels, President of the West Jamaica Conference of Seventh Day Adventists also made the call for the resumption of death penalty enforcement, stating, "We have people who are continuing without fear and conscience to murder at will. I am saying that the matter of capital punishment must be put on the table. Locking them away is not a deterrent. We are producing a generation of murderers."
At least Pastor Samuels is correct in one aspect of his statement: We are producing a generation of murderers. But the clergymen seem to have neither the time nor inclination to look beyond the revulsion and rage felt by most Jamaicans regarding the brutality and murder, statistics which have attained unnerving levels. They seem to have conveniently forgotten that the constabulary responsible for apprehending murderers is riddled with corruption, or that like mosquitoes breed under certain favorable conditions, the conditions in the society are perpetuating the breeding of savage killers. These Christian leaders tend to view the endless murder-loop as 'demonic' manifestation rather than the effects of poor parenting, absence of social engineering and uncaring, unscrupulous politicians.
But let us agree with what is viewed as God's justice. The clergymen constantly use the Bible as reference for their radical pronouncements, as Rev. Miller states that "Governments represent the authority of God to dispense justice in the land, and so capital punishment would not be considered murder when dispensed for justice." But if the reverend is sincere about upholding the principles of the bible, he seems to have studiously omitted other reasons for the forfeiture of one’s life, found on the same pages.
The Bible provides a lavish array of crimes for which death is the ultimate punishment, murder being most prolific. When one looks at biblical justice, it is no wonder why the island is awash in a bloodbath. It seems that ordinary citizens, unable to receive any justice from the state, have taken matters into their own hands and are exacting biblical justice from the least of the evildoers.
They must be reading the same bible as Rev. Miller, where the death sentence is preferred punishment for myriad offences from striking or cursing a parent to the taking of a life (e.g. Deut. 22:13-30; Lev. 24:21). The Old Testament is so engorged with blood and gore that one is tempted to question the origin of the idea that human life is sacred, and since these pro-life advocates are miraculously transformed into harbingers of death, after life struggles through the birth canal, takes it first gasp and becomes tainted by its environment.
The public's fury resulting from the escalated levels of violence is quite understandable, but those who profess moral leadership have the responsibility of steering the nation away from knee-jerk reactions and bellicose rants to thoughtful reflection and measured solutions. As the pro-life videos educate the public on the heartlessness of abortion, here is a video that depicts biblical punishment: a young Kurdish girl being stoned to death, ostensibly for the sin of fornication. It was the duty of the male members of her family to throw the first stones. A later exhumation of the interred remains and an autopsy revealed that the mob was mistaken on their verdict.
Consider this when you watch the video: Are there any aspects of this barbaric act that bears any resemblance to "jungle justice" in Jamaica? In referring to biblical justice and Old Testament principles, are Miller and his cohorts cherry-picking as usual, or would they like to go for the full hog?
I must warn you however, that the visual effects are unsettling.
Is the death penalty the answer?
I was not at all surprised to read in the Jamaican media of the Rev. Al Miller's most recent claim regarding divine justice and the death penalty. The mounting fear of being the next random victim as well as frustration levelled at the governing authorities for their impotence and lack of urgency in finding workable solutions is pushing the patience of citizens far beyond their limit.
Addressing his congregation at Fellowship Tabernacle in Jamaica's capital, Rev. Miller sought to clarify his earlier use of the epithet 'dunce' to describe those opposing the death penalty. He explained that it was in light of divine wisdom that the word was used, to convey man's folly in seeking to override God's directive of the death penalty for the capital offence of murder -- not to be confused, stressed the reverend, with the same act committed by the state.
The reverend joins a very august group of clergymen who have recently called for the enforcement of the death penalty, notably Bishop Ronald Blair and the Rev. Terrence Brown, who has generously offered himself as the chief executioner. And in January of last year, Pastor Glen Samuels, President of the West Jamaica Conference of Seventh Day Adventists also made the call for the resumption of death penalty enforcement, stating, "We have people who are continuing without fear and conscience to murder at will. I am saying that the matter of capital punishment must be put on the table. Locking them away is not a deterrent. We are producing a generation of murderers."
At least Pastor Samuels is correct in one aspect of his statement: We are producing a generation of murderers. But the clergymen seem to have neither the time nor inclination to look beyond the revulsion and rage felt by most Jamaicans regarding the brutality and murder, statistics which have attained unnerving levels. They seem to have conveniently forgotten that the constabulary responsible for apprehending murderers is riddled with corruption, or that like mosquitoes breed under certain favorable conditions, the conditions in the society are perpetuating the breeding of savage killers. These Christian leaders tend to view the endless murder-loop as 'demonic' manifestation rather than the effects of poor parenting, absence of social engineering and uncaring, unscrupulous politicians.
But let us agree with what is viewed as God's justice. The clergymen constantly use the Bible as reference for their radical pronouncements, as Rev. Miller states that "Governments represent the authority of God to dispense justice in the land, and so capital punishment would not be considered murder when dispensed for justice." But if the reverend is sincere about upholding the principles of the bible, he seems to have studiously omitted other reasons for the forfeiture of one’s life, found on the same pages.
The Bible provides a lavish array of crimes for which death is the ultimate punishment, murder being most prolific. When one looks at biblical justice, it is no wonder why the island is awash in a bloodbath. It seems that ordinary citizens, unable to receive any justice from the state, have taken matters into their own hands and are exacting biblical justice from the least of the evildoers.
They must be reading the same bible as Rev. Miller, where the death sentence is preferred punishment for myriad offences from striking or cursing a parent to the taking of a life (e.g. Deut. 22:13-30; Lev. 24:21). The Old Testament is so engorged with blood and gore that one is tempted to question the origin of the idea that human life is sacred, and since these pro-life advocates are miraculously transformed into harbingers of death, after life struggles through the birth canal, takes it first gasp and becomes tainted by its environment.
The public's fury resulting from the escalated levels of violence is quite understandable, but those who profess moral leadership have the responsibility of steering the nation away from knee-jerk reactions and bellicose rants to thoughtful reflection and measured solutions. As the pro-life videos educate the public on the heartlessness of abortion, here is a video that depicts biblical punishment: a young Kurdish girl being stoned to death, ostensibly for the sin of fornication. It was the duty of the male members of her family to throw the first stones. A later exhumation of the interred remains and an autopsy revealed that the mob was mistaken on their verdict.
Consider this when you watch the video: Are there any aspects of this barbaric act that bears any resemblance to "jungle justice" in Jamaica? In referring to biblical justice and Old Testament principles, are Miller and his cohorts cherry-picking as usual, or would they like to go for the full hog?
I must warn you however, that the visual effects are unsettling.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)