Religious leaders are misreading the draft

Beverline Ongaro

The Proposed Constitution has moved down the convoy belt from Parliament to referendum. The referendum presents litmus test on how we view critical issues in two fold. Firstly, how we view ourselves as individuals, secondly, the driving force of our value system. Most importantly, how we address factors that cause disagreements in society, power and resources.

The hard line position taken by a section of religious groups and some politicians reveal tendency to perceive things in monolith manner. It also exposes the proclivity to perceive a human being from a single prism, ignoring the multidimensionality of a human being — consisting of spirit, soul and body.

The Proposed Constitution has various provisions which will accrue and ameliorate the condition of individuals in respect of their age, gender, citizenship and enables individuals to benefit from envisaged elevated rule of law. For example, a young woman stands a good chance of participating in political affairs, enjoy equality with spouse during marriage and upon its dissolution and participate in governance.

Religious leaders ignore the fact it is not only spiritual matters which enable an individual to live a wholesome life but also other factors — economic, political and social. The Proposed Constitution seeks to put these three spheres into proper perspective.

Ostrich activism

An examination of Kenya’s socio-political and economic vista shows that there have been laws that are not against Christian teachings per see but poor governance and human rights violations. While the religious leaders have a right to make their views known, they should do a cost/ benefit analysis while calling for the rejection of the draft, so that their call is not ostrich activism.

The second point is that the calls by religious leaders is not only based on misinterpretation of Article 26(4) that allows for indiscriminate abortion but also exhibit the attrition between free will and choice, thereby bringing to fore the values system that informs our lives. The crux is that abortion is wrong based on Christian teachings. If abortion is wrong and Christians believe that God’s law is a higher law, is there a need for the same to be spelt out in the constitution in order to convince people that it is wrong hence deter them from engaging in it?

If indeed God’s law is higher, then a true test of commitment to God’s law would be the willingness to follow it even if circumstances and law permit it. To underscore this point, it would be important to draw from the experience of an early Christian in 7th Century, Origen, a disciple of Clement. After he converted to Christianity, he castrated himself to stifle sexual desires. One day he saw women taking bath and he was not sexually aroused, whereupon he pronounced ruefully, the classical words: Salvation from God is by grace not by law. In similar fashion, rather that push for adherence to biblical teachings through constitution, the religious leaders should push for the same through the values system and natural law that might reside in the hearts of their congregants.

Fig leaves fear

Most importantly, there is need to unveil the fears covered by the fig leaves on call for rejection of draft based on provision on Kadhi’s courts. There is need to pass the proposed law and realise Agenda 4 instead of choosing to sustain the status quo through a No vote. The downside of the No call by a section of religious leaders is that it will provide an opportunity for political nabobs to cloak Christianity in rejecting the draft.

The writer is an Advocate of High Court of Kenya.