Clinging to old rugged cross

Instead of the full time-frame, or at least half of it, Mr Manning was made to crumble to Sat in less than a day, and it is certainly my feeling that the promptness in his decision would only serve to further exacerbate the issue of the taking away of the Cross from this significant cross-section of the nation’s population.

Some time ago, I relayed a question to the incumbent Prime Minister, which I am to assume he did not understand. It was simply what on earth can anyone take away from the Maha Sabha to give to another.

Morgan Job best articulated the serious implications of this denial to Christian followers, while Professor Cudjoe rightly reminded us that nowhere in his High Court judgment did Justice Jamadar express any concern for the inherent plight of the Christian religious sector that comprises at least half of the voter population.

And what about Michael Anthony’s concern for a likely later demand for a name change from “Trinidad”? Can this reality not lead to further High Court litigation?

I have always supported the same view as expressed by Anglican Bishop Bess as well as panelist/community activists Karen Bart-Alexander and others that a parallel award should be given to Hindus and Muslims instead of devaluing and desecrating this symbol so significant to Christian faithfuls. Why displease half the population in order to please the other half? And why the hypocritical aspiration to an award that will be declared common and of oneness to all when in truth and in fact we are not at all one because of religion? Can there justifiably be a simple designation that can be truly representative of all of us put together at the same time as rainbow?

Then there is the hurry to rid us of the religious and spiritual significance aligned to the award. The most touted “Order of Trinidad and Tobago” though blessed with the welcome inclusion of Tobago is too empty a terminology. It lacks the necessary ingredient that characterises the Trinity Cross. Can’t we include an invaluable adjectival preface as “distinguished”, “due”, “deserved”, “divine”, or “holy”?

Also, we continue to confuse religion with terrorists as opposed to religion with Christianity as a base for social, moral and spiritual uplifting. There is therefore no reason to boast of a secular state as though spirituality through religion does not apply. No wonder we are forever determined to depend on man instead of the Creator to solve the crime epidemic currently plaguing our once blessed lands.

I therefore now rest my case with the full conviction that the Committee selected to look into the new name should have been appointed instead to decide on whether there was any need for a name change in the first place, and why the sudden hullabaloo over the name after so many years of utter silence on the matter.

But, more than that, the Committee could have been commissioned to test the pulse beat of the population, since it can be dangerous to leave a decision of this magnitude in the mere hands of a handful of committee members or politicians, or more so, a single member of the judiciary. A nation referendum is therefore a viable option.

And where is the empirical evidence that all Hindus and Muslims are in favour of this name change? Is there not a possibility that the argument might just emerge as the view of Mr Sat Maharaj and a few of his faithfuls?

Nonetheless, Christians will continue to “cling to the old rugged cross” with the full knowledge and comfort that this most powerful symbol is indeed neither too old nor too rugged, and that the once Crucified One, the Omnipotent and Omnipresent Christ the King, is not dead but is actually alive and well, and is forever watching over all of us.