Pastor to tackle election issue
(CNS): The chair of the newly appointed Constitution Committee has said that he and his colleagues will be looking at how the new Cayman Islands Constitution relates to the election law in order to avoid future ambiguities. Pastor Al Ebanks said that one of the first jobs the committee is likely to undertake is to examine why there was so much uncertainty about who should have been responsible for raising a challenge to the May 2009 election following questions over two candidates who missed one of the declaration deadlines under the constitution.
Speaking at the Constitutional Commission’s first press conference on Monday morning, Pastor Ebanks revealed the various responsibilities of the new commission and one, he said, would be to address such conflicts as that thrown up by this year’s election.
“We are aware of the conflict that existed over what happened in Bodden Town during the election,” he said, adding that no one seemed sure who was responsible for addressing it. “Was it the attorney general, was it the governor?” he asked. “In the end it seemed it was the people … Based on the public debate surrounding this issue, this needs to be addressed, so it will be clearly defined in the Constitution.”
The pastor stated that this section of the new Constitution was the same as the country’s old document so it needs to be re-written.
Joined by his colleagues Julene Banks, Wil Pineau and Deborah Bodden (the manager of all four new constitutional commissions) on Monday, the chair said that having had two previous meetings, the commission had also discussed the issue that occurred during polling day with candidates “stretching the law in handing out cards,” he said. The commission needed to ensure that these or other similar things could not happen because of loopholes and flaws in the Constitution.
Although the police had said last year they were continuing to investigate those allegations, when asked by CNS recently about the current state of the investigation, we were told the RCIPS had no comment.
Pastor Ebanks went on to say that it was not the commission’s direct responsibility to ensure the laws of the land were constitutional as that was the remit of the Legislative Assembly, but it was still of concern to them if there were conflicts that were thrown up and they would be paying attention to them and campaigning for change if they believed laws needed to be revised.
The chair noted the two primary objectives of the commission in the coming weeks would be to begin an awareness campaign to help everyone in the Cayman Islands understand the Constitution and what it meant for them. Pastor Ebanks also spoke about producing a cartoon and a plain English version of the document to make it accessible to young and old.
Pastor Ebanks said that while there was an argument during the negotiations to get a document that was more simplified, the Constitution is, after all, a complex legal document which the UK had argued hasto be that way to prevent too much being left to interpretation by lawyers. As a result the chair said the commission could still produce an easy to understand version for the man in the street and leave the original for the courtroom.
“We see our roll as interpreting the document,” he explained. “We can’t make a new Constitution but we can take this document and making it readable so that regular folks can understand it while lawyers can rely on the official document. We want our school children, elderly, everyone to understand the Constitution and the bill of rights.”
The chair also explained that the role of the Constitutional Commission was to advise the government on questions concerning constitutional status and development, to analyse, debate and discuss how the document affected the country, to promote understanding and awareness of the Constitution and its values, as well as produce documents and reports.
“The Commission has been described as combining the functions of an advisory body with those of a think tank on constitutional matters,” the pastor added.
Above all, he noted that the development of the Constitution must have input from the electorate and the commission would maintain clear and open governance as, he said, non-partisan debate is an integral part of its process. He announced that town hall meetings would begin shortly and hoped that the public would join in the discussion of the development on what was the highest law of the land.
Category: Headline News
"Well Mr. 23.00, from the above post it looks like your prediction was wrong and your argument built on very poor foundations".
Really? I must have missed the post that exposed the poor foundations of my argument. I’ll keep looking. For now, my prediction is right on target.
Well stated! It is about time we had a reasoned rebuttal.
The phrase division or separation of church and state seems to be bandied around by many who do not fully understand its meaning or proper context.
1. The phrase derives from the U.S. constitutional context. It has no proper place in our constitutional context which we have inherited from the United Kingdom where no such doctrine exists. This is evident from the fact that (a) the Queen, the Head of State, is the Head of the Church of England and bears as one of her titles ‘Defender of the Faith’, and (b) the House of Lords, the second House of Parliament, is in part populated by the Bishops of the Church of England.
2. Even in the U.S. context the phrase does not mean that religious persons are barred from participating in government. After all that would amount to discrimination on the grounds of religion. What it does mean is that the government should not establish any official religion, nor should it interfere with the free exercise of religion. Pastor Al was not placed in this role on the basis that he is a pastor and there is nothing in Pastor Al’s appointment which would offend either of these principles.
It is argued that a pastor’s religious beliefs and values will influence his decision-making on the Constitutional Commission with the implication that this would be a very bad thing. This is flawed reasoning. First, there is no apparent connection between religious belief and the matters which will be considered by the Commission. Second, there is no reason to believe that only pastors (as opposed ordinary believers) will be influenced by their beliefs and values. Are you proposing to ban all religious persons from serving in any public position? Third, generally speaking everyone is influenced in their decision-making by their values and beliefs whether consciously or unconsciously. Apparently the thinking is that it would be preferable for public offices to be held by persons who are amoral and who would therefore be influenced by their amorality. This is the sort of thinking that has set us on a path of destruction.
The truth of the matter is that it greatly served the progress of civil rights of black people in the U.S. that a pastor, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. involved himself in issues that others dismissed as mere "politics". He too was criticised in his time by those who did not share his vision and understanding. Indeed, the work and ministry of Jesus Christ himself was interpreted by some of his contemporaries as political.
I believe that if we had had godly men and women of wisdom and integrity leading these Islands we would not be in the desparate position we are today.
Yes, I know there will be lots of thumbs down, but it really doesn’t matter. On the other hand, it is almost certain that none of these points will be properly addressed by reasoned argument.
This post represents the "text-book" or "Wikipedia" comment on the separation doctrine. Alas it does not reflect the modern reality in either the US or the UK.
In the UK the links between church and state are now largely formalistic and historic – for example the Queen is the titular head of the church but wields no personal power over either the church or government. It is true that the Lords Pastoral exert some influence, but this is waning particularly when compared to the power of the heavily secular Commons or the executive. In truth in the UK there is considerable separation between church and state.
In the US the converse is true. The role of religion in fashioning government policy at a national or state level is increasing, or certainly was during the Bush years, for example the funding issues relating to abortion and stem cell research and the US policies towards Israel are heavily driven by Mid-west Christian fundamentalist beliefs.
One needs to looked beyond constitutional formalism when considering the role of the church in influencing the acts of government.
So to Cayman, where it is clear that the church has massive influence on the government, particularly at the constitutional level. We have Rev. Nicholas "Bible first, rights second" Sykes on the HRC and now Pastor Al "force the prisoners into Bible study" Ebanks on the Constitution Committee. As a matter of legal realism it is clear that these men have been appointed to ensure the influence of the church on the functioning of the state. They may not be ex officio appointees, but that is a matter of form not substance.
The remainder of the post was essentially encouraging "good people" to sit on these committees over "bad people" with the central assumption that fundamentalist Christians (which both Sykes and Ebanks clearly are) are by definition "good people". This is assumption would be questioned by many who consider themselves moderate Christians and certainly by those who care for the proper functioning of international human rights norms within the jurisdiction.
To equate non-fundamentalist Christians with "ammorality" is a massive and flawed leap in logic. Ted Haggard springs to mind. To compare Al Ebanks and Nicholas Sykes to Martin Luther King is ludicrous (and, to me at least, insulting to the memory of Dr. King).
This post is a call to support the de facto integration of the extremist wing of the church and state. I have no objections to Christians sitting on these committees, indeed there is nothing in our human rights obligations which are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. I do object to extremists of any type wielding power, be that extremists of nationalist, religious or any other variety.
Just so you are aware, my comments were not derived from "Wikipedia" but from years of study and involvement in constitutional issues. Whether or not you think the power of the House of Lords is waning is irrelevant to my point that there is comingling of the secular with the religious in the UK constitution and in those cases have an influence BECAUSE of their religious office.
I am afraid that you have not understood much of my post. I did not of course "equate non-fundamentalist Christians with ‘ammorality’". The point which you are missing is that we are all influenced by our values and beliefs. Why are Christian beliefs and values to be denigrated apparently with preference to all others. I used amorality as an example to bring the point home.
You have also missed the point that I was in no way suggesting that merely BECAUSE someone is a Christian pastor they should be eligible, but rather that if they are by other means eligible this ought not to be an impediment since to bar them would amount to religious discrimination.
I don’t think that Ted Haggard held any public office so I am not sure what the point of the reference is other than to be insulting to Pastor Al. Should we also conclude that, if, for example, any doctor has been found guilty of malpractice then all doctors should be barred from public office?
The point (which is apparently lost on you) about the Rev. Martin Luther King is that here was a pastor who engaged in what others dismissed as politics to the common benefit, demonstrating once again the unwisdom of barring pastors from ‘politics’.
"This post is a call to support the de facto integration of the extremist wing of the church and state".
My post does no such thing. Pastor Al’s appointment has nothing to do with integrating church and state since he is not in that position BECAUSE he is a pastor as I have already shown. Fluff about "form over substance" cannot evade this point as it goes to the heart of the matter. Clearly, what you are proposing is discrimination against conservative Christians. Apparently "extremist" simply means one whose values are significantly different from your own. What do propose exactly – that public officers should have to undergo a secular inquisition before taking any public office? Are we only to accept those Christians to serve who (mostly out of a misguided sense of political correctness) have no views on anything?
Finally, our Constitution – the same Constitution under which he is serving -expressly recites that our values as a country are based on our Christian heritage.
There may have been some scope for you argue this before but the time for that is past.
"The people of the Cayman Islands, recalling the events that have shaped their history and made them what they are, and acknowledging their distinct history, culture and Christian heritage and its enduring influence and contribution in shaping the spiritual, moral and social values that have guided their development and brought peace, prosperity and stability to those islands, through the vision, forbearance, and leadership of their people, who are loyal to Her Majesty the Queen…Affirm their intention to be a God-fearing country based on traditional Christian values, tolerant of other religions".
"Pastor Al’s appointment has nothing to do with integrating church and state since he is not in that position BECAUSE he is a pastor as I have already shown."
And this one sentence shows what a load of nonsense you are talking.
His appointment is practically an ex officio post – we have de facto integration of church and state. Your narrow de jure apporach lacks any comprehension of the true constitutional position in Cayman. There is far far more to constitutional law than reading constitutions . . . . .
Pit Bull, I see why you have chosen your handle but a constitutional lawyer you are not. One minute you are acknowledging that it is not an ex officio appointment and the next you are claiming that it is "practically" an ex officio post. There is no basis for such a statement, particularly in light of Pastor Al’s long experience and involvement in constitututional matters. Please identify the religious office which Pastor Al holds which "practically" requires or entitles him to be appointed as Chairman of the Consitution Commission. Will he hold that position for so long as he is the Pastor of Agape Church? Are the only persons who will be appointed to that office pastors?
All your argument amounts to is that you do not wish for religious people to hold public offices because you disagree with their views. All of this fluff about "de facto integration" and "practically ex officio" is simply to cover your proposed discrimination on the basis of religion.
"Yes, I know there will be lots of thumbs down, but it really doesn’t matter. On the other hand, it is almost certain that none of these points will be properly addressed by reasoned argument" Well Mr. 23.00, from the above post it looks like your prediction was wrong and your argument built on very poor foundations. Take care next time, CNS posters can sniff out a Wiki-based post in a millisecond.
Actually, my point has been borne out. Sorry to disappoint you but no wiki-based post here! Why would anyone need to? These are well-known facts.
"First, there is no apparent connection between religious belief and the matters which will be considered by the Commission." – His entire thought process is based off his religious beliefs. Did you think this through ?
"Second, there is no reason to believe that only pastors (as opposed ordinary believers) will be influenced by their beliefs and values." – Yes and we have all seen the problem with ‘praying’ to solve our problems. It does not work!
"Third, generally speaking everyone is influenced in their decision-making by their values and beliefs whether consciously or unconsciously." – EXACTLY that is the problem with having a pastor making government policy decisions.
FAIL.
1. My point is that the subject matter of his remit does not relate to his religious beliefs. I think you need to think it through.
2. I am not sure what your point is. Is it to ban all religious people from public office?
3. Er…that would be the ‘problem’ with ANYONE making making govt. policy decisions regardless of religious belief or non-belief.
Where did Pastor Al get his law degree?
Doesn’t need one.
The word of the good book is all he needs. Leviticus is where it is at.
No, what he needs is the the relevant experience, knowledge of his subject, wisdom and good judgement all of which he has in spades.
Pastor Al has the biggest church in the nation right? Thats a lot of Votes for any political party. No wonder everybody wants him on their Board!
Pastor l we need you to be the Prison chaplain or one of the Prison ‘Chaplain, a chaplain is any clergy that preaches in a Prison. why don’t you go up there and try to change those criminals to stop crime every day?.
Why don’t this million dollar church buy a big tent, pitch it in the centre of George town and start a revival for these criminals to get saved and change the society. Why sit inside your stained glass windows, they’re not coming there ever! Jesus said go into the highways and byways.
Pastor Al its time to really abide in your true calling. Stop jumping on every government board offered to you. Souls need to be saved. We have enough constitutional experts. Stick to your job.
I’m waiting for you to announce the dates and time that you will have your BIG Tent revival on that vacant piece of land in the Middle of George town.
Then take the revival all over the nation and save souls.
Put your hand to the plough, I mean a real plough (not behind adesk) no one want to dig trenches, everybody want a white color job. The easy way out!
Pastor Al God is talking to you, Listen. He gave you that church and he can take it away if you don’t obey Him.
We have Ministers in government, we don’t need Ministers of religion in government. There should be a division of Church and State. Saving souls and running the country should be dealt with separately.
When we look back and see how the Churches have turned a blind eye on crime, we have to wonder, if they are christians or hypocrites. When are the preachers/ministers going to take an active part by reaching out to the lost, disgruntled, disenfranchised, maligned youth of our country ???? Are they only out there to make a lot of noise in the pulpits, frightening their congregations about earthquakes and predicting the end of the world?
Wake up ministers of religion, do your job and let the politicians do theirs.
Good thing the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t stay out of "politics". Uou demonstrate a very shallow understanding of what separation of church and state means.
People this is just another attempt by Big Mac to get votes. This is no more outlandish than his cries from church about Pirates Week. He is simply trying to pay his way in 2012/3.
Pastors should not be in positions within Government at any level. They have conflicts of interest.
The election law should have been enforced in the last election. No individual should be above the law. I fail to see what if anything this exercise will accomplish. The election law was violated and nothing was done, not even a slap on the wrist. This is the anguish we face in this country.
Anon 18:32, I know exactly how you feel. The election law was violated A LOT in the last elections (May 2009) & absolutely nothing was done. Not only was there the issue of the Bodden Town debacle which everyone knew about, but there were so many violations of the law on election day that were reported to officials & the RCIPS but nothing was done. Candidates were seen violating the law, pieces of paper were given out to voters with the candidates names on them, supporters of the UDP were seen hanging around the polling stations intimidating voters, & there was even many reports of money being handed out as voters were going in to vote. Most of these incidents were reported, statements even given, but guess what happened? Nothing!!!
I agree withyou Anon 1:32, it is very depressing. As they say "crime pays"! (not only during the elections, but big time since the elections also)! WOW! It sure does.
I thought we came out of the DARK AGES and separated religion and the state…
The issue has nothing to do with separating religion and state, you imbecile. Pastor Al is not proposing anything that has to do with religion.
How nice. You are standing behind a Pastor and calling people imbeciles. WOW Mr Ebanks should be so proud.
Fact is the person is right. No Pastor should hold any position in government be it directly or indirectly simple because his opinions are tainted. He has what SHOULD BE to him a HIGHER calling than that of the position he accepts.
Simply put he has something more important to him that any decision he is required to make and therefore he can not serve the position with any neutrality. Ironically enough its what he must look at with the BT situation because the whole reason the BT elections was tainted was because the two UDP representatives for BT failed to disclose in time connections they had with government which could cause them to be tainted in their decisions.
So before you jump down people throat and call them names make sure you are doing it for the right reasons. Even though I am not a Pastor Al supporter even he would agree with me that your comments were harsh and uncalled for.
Guaranteed what will be proposed in the future always has some "Christian" conotation to it though…
I don’t see how that would arise with this Commission, but if it did, so what? Would you prefer some atheistic connotation to it? The Constitution expressly recites that "the people of the Cayman Islands, recalling the events that have shaped their historyand made them what they are, and acknowledging their distinct history, culture and Christian heritage and its enduring influence and contribution in shaping the spiritual, moral and social values that have guided their development and brought peace, prosperity and stability to those islands, through the vision, forbearance, and leadership of their people, who are loyal to Her Majesty the Queen…Affirm their intention to be… A God-fearing country based on traditional Christian values, tolerant of other religions".
You are so right 08:59. We keep recycling the same old mules as you call them and expect different results. We have so many bright minds in this country and we seem to never give them a chance.
"is to examine why there was so much uncertainty about who should have been responsible for raising a challenge to the May 2009 election following questions over two candidates who missed one of the declaration deadlines under the constitution. "
How about because none of them can read the fricken law!
There are a lot of misguided and ignorant comments on here.
How is proposing to address important issues that no one seemed to be clear about playing politics? Isn’t it better to clarify them so that these situations never recur, or do you prefer the drama of law suits? The issue isn’t at this point about Dwayne and Mark but it is about the future. This is the proper role of the Commission.
Pastor Al’s role on the Commission in no way detracts from his role as a pastor or as a Christian. We shouldbe thankful that there is someone there with his acumen. Poster at Tue, 03/23/2010 – 09:07, you should be ashamed of yourself to claim that you are a christian brother and then publicly personally attack him with insinuations as to bad motives under the cover of anonymity in a public forum. That, my friend, is not the behaviour of a christian brother. You are the Accuser of the Brethren.
Then finally there are the silly comments from the anti-religious bigots who feel that no Christian should have any say in anything to do with the body politic.
Just a question, do any of these anonymous posters actually know Pastor Al and the heart that he has for his country?
I did not know him until recently and I can assure you that many of you would detract your detrimental remarks if you actually knew the man.
Judge not, lest you be judged. And the same judgement that you hand out will be returned, so put your brains in gear before you speak.
Politrix and religion never make a good mix!
God never intended that there be a separation between church and state.Man did that.
However, A Pastor or clergy should know how to appropriate their feelings and there is a time and place for everything. God does appoint leaders to watcher over the city as a watchman on the wall and cry out where there is wrong.
However if every time you turn around the face of a prominent Pastor is in the newspaper associated with Politics and politicians who are politricksters, it does chip away from the public trust in them as a true and effective Christian leader who maybe putting politics in front of his God called ministry.It calls them in to question.
These decisions and opinions are usually basedon the true issues of the day that should be of priority in the eyes of such leaders. Crime and murders among our youth is of paramount importance and it is a crying shame that the country’s pastors have not banded themselves together to take a stand against crime in our communities. The devil is having a field day because the churches are weak, and will not take authority and cancel the assignment of Satan over the Cayman Islands..
They are too busy counting money and standing in the bank line.
Oh good, I’m so glad we are going to be involving Jesus in the elections process.
Does this mean that the politicians are going to become preachers? Oh thats right I think one already does
What other issue to you think this former PPM crony would take on as his priority. I thought we had put that one to bed..Will they ever stop being sore losers??
Maybe until the law was obeyed.
I for one do not believe that either UDP candidate should be MLAs and come the next election they are gone. 1 and done.
What in the hell has this got to do with the PPM? I thought the udp won the elections last year! I suppose you are going to blame the PPM for this as well? GET A LIFE! You all are so childish & sick. Everything out your UDP mouths is PPM. It’s called envy! Get over it.
What does this mean if election laws are not enforced as occurred in the last election.
There were several examples of violations in the existing election laws yet nothing was done.
So the problem isn’t with the laws it is with the enforcement or lack thereof.
Why not just repeal the laws and forget about it.
The title of this article "Pastor to tackle election issue" gives no hint as to Pastor Al Ebanks’s longstanding involvement in constitutional issues which culminated in him being a part of the Cayman delegation for the constitutional discussions with the UK Govt. He is therefore bound to have a good understanding of the new Constitution. Yes, he is a pastor but no it is not on that basis that he tackling in these issues.
I have no doubt as to the intent of a Pastor to do good. I am equally sure that a PAstor will always make decisions and put forward arguments based on theirparticular set of beliefs and morals. I have nothing against Pastor Al at all, but would perhaps that the distractions of the secular world will, perhaps not immediately visibly detract from his ability to properly meet the needs of the path he has chosen as a Pastor.
A Pastor is a leader and does give direction, but, without wanting to become overly scriptural a review of the New Testament as a whole may provide insight as to what happens to those that think they are doing what is right for their congregation without reallising that they are perhaps doing what is actually only correct for them.
I appreciate Pastor al’s interest in the constitution.
However, HOWEVER, as a prominent Pastor, clergy and religious leader,k christian and fellow brother:
I am SURPRISED that Pastor Al shows less interest in the state of the country in the sense that crime is on the rampage, young people are being killed, and the youth need to be adopted by these local churches who have millions of dollars to implement programs that accommodate and can fund rehab initiatives for these troubled youth.
The constitution is no more important than the future of our young people and we should invest in them. Where is the vision of this Pastor?
Just where does his vision lie? iS he more interested in politics, I say yes he is and its a pity.
Pastor Al I respect and love you but i expect better out of you. You owe it to Cayman’s society to project more as a Pastor and a comunity leader that will lead the young people to Christ experiencing real change, it will make our country safe. It is because of people like Pastors and Religious leaders that have failed the country causing crime to get out of control
More emphasis seems to be put on collecting tithes and offerings, emptying their pocket books. While we appreciate the soup kitchens and the millions of deollars spent to help the poor, WHERE ARE THE PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONS THAT SHOULD HOUSE AND REHABILITATE THESE TROUBLED YOUTH?
WHERE ARE THEY PASTOR AL?
This article and the proposed activities are in relation to the CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, not to Al Ebanks’ role as a Pastor.
To be quite honest I’m not a fan of Pastor Al’s influence in certain matters, but he is right in this instance to focus on the Constitution in this role as Constitutional Commission Chairman and this criticism is completely unfounded in this context.
Pastors are supposed to be shepherds of their flock – the people. I don’t have a problem with pastors giving imput on committes ect but I do have a problem when everytime I hear about a particular pastor his is in the lime light regarding some political stance or the other. Pastors should dedicat their lives to leading people to god and not meddle with politics. This is exactly why our society is so corrupt, politics and religion do not mix.
Short sighted one, 12:34 Understand I am not personally attacking the pastor.
His timing is BAD. Whe womeone like Pastor Al pputs their BEST FOOT FORWARD in the public domain, those intelligent minds with a vision is here to critique just what is he doing and why is he moving in this direction when the train is headed somewhere else!
The last train took off to fight crime and save our young people from untimely death. You missed it. Sorry but you’re not qualified to criticize me on these matters, I’m a clergy myself!
THERE IS A TIME AND A SEASON FOR EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN!
09:07 I totally agree, and furter comment, that it is pastors of this nature why sinners wont come to repentance. Dont pastors realize this. People do not trust pastorial intervention in political manuvering The two do not mix.
Two hours in office and Pastor Al is already trying to play politics.
The UDP should have known better.
Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is. There so many young and intelligent young influential Caymanian that could be appointed instead we bringing back these same old political mules. Carry the same old baggage and ideas.
The personal interests of the politicians who are profiting from the destructive road Cayman is on make it exceedingly unlikely that our politicians will trade in the old "mules" who serve them well on the old road. Like the old saying goes, "If you keep on doing the same thing you are going to get the same result." Some of our politicians have become rich doing that same thing and they have no interest in change. That is why we need to encourage them to step aside in order to allow Cayman to go in a better direction.