Dear Editor,

Statements reportedly expressed by Commissioner Hyacinth Richardson and Frans Richardson that there will be no more separation between church and state in the new country St. Maarten are causing major concern within our community.
No one will dispute the fact that, like most countries within the Caribbean region, our island too, traditionally, has been developed on a very strong and unwavering belief in Christianity.
However, that common traditional belief in God has always been exercised via various Christian religions such as Catholicism, Methodism, Anglicanism and Adventism, just to name a few.
The beauty and the strength of this Christian diversity was that it never was an issue, and that even within one family, these various religions were found.
Now, as a consequence of the explosive economic development of the island and massive immigration, we are also faced with the existence of other non-Christian belief systems. There is an increasing number of practising Muslims, Hindus, Voodooists, and even Satanists and Atheists as well, on the "Friendly Island."
That, now, is the price the island is paying for indiscriminately opening up its doors for the entire world. So we must not be surprised that we get the good, the bad, the ugly, the indifferent, and all combinations thereof in our midst.
In most, if not all democracies, there exists freedom of religious expression, which is guaranteed by virtue of the state itself being secular. This is as opposed to theocracies, where clerics, such as the Ayatollahs and Taliban, rule and determine how people organise their personal lives in detail. We all know what that means, for instance, for the "rights" of women.
The separation of church and state is the legal and constitutional guarantee that no one particular religion can impose its will on the people by using, controlling or cooperating with Government.
Whenever that principle of checks and balances is sacrificed, the road to possible religious warfare is wide open, and is very difficult to ever close again. We will not even give examples here, but cannot imagine that we want to see the "Friendly Island" governed by a Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Hindu or Muslim "Taliban," oppressing the rights of others.
How hypocritical would we be, when we agree with military force being used to kill thousands in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere to "liberate" the people from their religious fundamental leaders?
So, when our own Government officials make statements that there is no, or will be no more separation of church and state, all alarm bells should go off.
Worse yet, when public funds are used by Government, to actually build a church for one particular denomination, then without any discussion, a crucial line has been crossed, because it has opened a "Pandora's box." In fact, a very serious legal precedent might have been created, which could backfire in too many ways to imagine.
For instance: who says that now not every religious group cannot legally demand and succeed in forcing Government to do the same for them? Clearly, Government, perhaps completely unintentionally, has put itself in this very dangerous bind. The question now is, apart from hoping that the "storm will blow over," how to resolve this situation.
Who knows, perhaps Government can come up with a very creative solution by deciding that the building will have to serve all religions, thereby forcing them all to work together and set an example of unity for the entire community – who knows?
Nevertheless, it is becoming very obvious that the deeper and more fundamental meaning of what a constitution really is has not dawned on all politicians.
After the Bible and other religious documents, the constitution in fact is supposed to reflect the highest ideals and intentions of our Maker!
With the clear and possibly deliberate omission of the very existence of native-indigenous St. Maarten people, their emancipation, their norms and values, and their rights in the draft constitution, this controversy about separation of church and state is yet another example showing that there are more outstanding issues to be dealt with before it can be implemented. So, why the rush?
Since Island Councilwoman Sarah Wescot-Williams has become very vocal on both matters, and with good reason, we look forward to her, or any other Island Council member for that matter, calling for an Island Council meeting to debate these and other outstanding issues.
If that does not happen, then perhaps the people on the island should follow the examples in the US of the "tea party" and other grass roots movements that are now taking their concerns to the streets to force their legislators to actually listen to them, and realise that the people are the ones who politicians should give account to.
After all, we are talking about the future of many, many generations of St. Maarteners, and other residents to come, and constitutions are only written once in the existence of a people. After that has happened, it can only be amended. Food for thought.

Leopold James

President SNBF and L'Esprit de Concordia