A peaceful Faith, perhaps wishful thinking!

A peaceful Faith, perhaps wishful thinking!


It was Albert Einstein the man that gave us mathematical formulas and scientific solutions that equally attempted a definition of peace when he articulated “peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice of law of order – in short of government”.


Our world is a conflicted mosaic in proverbial claim of cloth perhaps tearing at the seams. Amidst the carnage and mayhem rained in diverse pockets of our collective globe at the hand of those who have earned a right to inflict violence and death on others, one is compelled to pause and ask where is this located, what is its cause.


Naturally if this question is posed to a thousand people we likely to receive a thousand different answers. I have been mulling over the critical aspect of religion or faith and its role in this our denigrating society. I wish I could not write these my thoughts, yet the contemplation compels me to ask some tough questions.


We all regardless of Faith persuasions uncritically claim a natural peacefulness of our faiths. We must desist the temptation to conveniently and narrowly define faith / religion as that which is formalized by way of organized set of doctrine, faith creeds etc. We must accept that even those who reject what is considered a formalized faith practice their own interpretation of faith described as a form of atheism portends a Faith nevertheless. Hence when I talk of Faith I include all whom consciously, subconsciously and inadvertently subscribes to a belief system, which they live by. We are all therefore believers for not believing another’s is to believe your own.


Whilst we all will resist any form of challenge to our Faith articulated as violent. Yet, I must ask at what point does a Faith claim to being peaceful or is to own up to being violent?


We are also told “Peace is an occurrence of harmony characterized by the lack of violence, conflict behaviors and the freedom from fear of violence”.


Is the claim of a peaceful Faith a natural truth or a make belief reality, where our innate desire for peace compels us to make this claim stand though often on crutches of questionability?


I ask again what makes for a peaceful Faith persuasion, what could be the benchmark for a peaceful and or alternatively a violent faith?


 Exactly what informs this peace in the peacefulness, we espouse? Yes, Einstein reminded us peace is the presence of justice of law of order – in short of government, meaning the measurability of peace for Einstein is a recognition an cognizance of presence of justice which finds an efficacy in law and order as framed in governance. Yet the questions are many, whose justice, what law and how is order actualized. Lastly what government, does this imply a democracy, but the world is not a democracy in its totality. So before we can embrace the oft-quoted Einstein we will necessarily need to first arrive at a common epistemology on the basics of what such justice, law, order and government constitute.



When we talk of peace it must compel us to ask do we share a common epistemology on the existence of such peace, perhaps the bigger question is have we afforded ourselves the space and time to develop a common teleology of this assumed peace.


Peace is also “commonly understood as the absence of hostility and retribution, peace also suggests sincere attempts at reconciliation, the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or international relationships, prosperity in matters of social or economic welfare, the establishment of equality, and a working political order that serves the true interests of all.”


In recent times the pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church Pope Francis has been at pains to preach a message of tolerance one for the other therefore enabling a coexistence of believers of diverse persuasions of Faith expressions. Yet as necessary and noble as this call from arguably the biggest Christian Church expression in modern society may portend, it does not help us to engage what is tolerance in a context where our individual Faiths contest a space no different to any other expression of our society for example economic life in a capitalist society. And we know how violent that economic contestation presents.


How does this tolerance engage the axis of our collective aim to win others over as wayward and in need of being saved?


It would appear to me that though we claim and advocate peace, the fundamentality of our persuasion dictate that we exist to convince others who different to us must needs become like us.


The Christian Faith obligates me as a believer to advance the cause and intention of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That in a nutshell suggests I must work tirelessly to spread through prognostication and modeling the message of the Cross of Jesus evidenced in love with Christ as the ONLY Redeemer who died once and for all exemplified in a common humanity.


As noble as this conviction and persuasion may portend, it imbibes unintended and inadvertent assumptions.


Key to this assumption is the belief that others are wrong. If I therefore seek to advance the cause of the Gospel I will increasingly be finding myself engaged in proclaiming Christ as the only way, for rightfully so. This firm conviction on my part necessitates a plausibility if not probability that others are completely wrong and my core task in life is to bring them to the understanding of what I subscribe to regardless of experience of theological persuasion. This calls for praxis in bringing them to an awareness of Christ.


History is replete with examples of this need to persuade others, which resulted in force and ultimately violence. We know it is the same zest and verve that gave rise to a very sad era in the Christendom where the Crusaders in pursuit and persuasion of their Faith compelled others to either accept their advocated faith or face the inevitability of death. According to those who led this Crusade the aim was to advance the Gospel, yet it warranted a sense of grave violence. Let us not forget


Adolf Hitler’s claim of being a Christian opposed to Jews and Judaism was anchored on his conviction that it was the Jews killed Jesus Christ. As crazy as this may sound in our after the fact reasoning, it is not far off if we follow the events of that Paschal in around 32/33AD.


Though Jesus Christ died at the hand of a Roman government who could execute in the Holiest week of the Jewish Faith calendar, the time of Passover and a remembrance to be forgiving, he Jesus a Jew by birth became the subject of a cooked up trial of drummed-up charges. His rights were compromised and all sensible reason discarded for the sake of some who in defense of their faith of Judaism considered him a threat therefore worthy of punishment answerable and only understood in the death of the Cross of Golgotha.


When the gospel as advanced by the Christian Faith came to Africa it came contaminated with a civilization and identity of superiority as advocated and lived through its primary evangelists the missionaries.


The violence of a Faith is made self-evident when see this from a citation in which Sparks (2003:281) remarks on “the difference in colour” described by DF Malan in 1954 to a group of Reformed Church clergymen in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who had asked him to explain the harsh apartheid laws then being enacted: “it is merely the physical manifestation of the contrast between two irreconcilable ways of life, between barbarism and civilization, between heathendom and Christianity, and finally between an overwhelming numerical odds on the one hand and significant numbers on the other”. To survive in such a situation, to avoid being submerged in the black heathendom of Africa, Malan said, the white minority had to “throw impenetrable armour of racial purity and self preservation”.


When we therefore understand Hitler which may sound like an oxymoron, the point is we see a convoluted defense of what we as Christians whether we want to admit to it or not must collectively accept as actioned by someone whom we cannot deny or dispute his claim of being a Christian, at least seen from his vantage point. He amongst others claimed to be “ acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator”. In a 1922 speech he asserts “ my feelings as Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter […] who […] recognized these Jews for what they were ad summoned men to fight against them”. He goes on and says, “ We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity…. In fact our movement is Christian, and to have been chosen by providence.” I guess I am trying to argue the plausibility of the aspect of violence embedded in our faith as actualized by those who call themselves believers.


When we see the actions of ISIS, Boko Haram and all other Islamic groupings we are not confronted with a new reality as we easily and conveniently claim. We are dealing with the same fundamental conviction of a faith stream and persuasion that fundamentally and undeniably associate with Islam as its premise and doctrine. ISIS as quoted in Shoebat asserts “we say to the defenders of he cross, the US, that future attacks are going to be harsher and worse… The Islamic state soldiers will inflict harm on you with the grace of Allah. The future is around the corner”


As in the case of the Christian Crusaders and a Hitler, we dare not deny their claim to their faith from our collective false embarrassment, we dare not claim a right to excommunicate those who profess a common faith with us. When these faith practitioners or as we call them fundamentalists kill the other it is because fundamentally the other represents the ‘infidel’ the ‘kafir’. The same whose food you cant eat, who is defiled regardless whether your immediate neighbor or not. The other is not willing to accept their identity of being Muslim and therefore the doctrines and didache of such Islam lifestyle.


Perhaps our biggest sophism in this season as in all others is to contend, Christianity, Judaism or Islam or any other faith as peaceful. Is it not here that we deceive ourselves? When the lifeless bodies of those infants in Palestine are found on the beach or those who got maimed and scarred for life at the hand of Israeli Army it is in defense of a faith tradition and value system. It is not out of this advocated peacefulness of a faith that Israel shoots but out of a firm persuasion that those on the receiving end are impure and not worthy of a common humanity. When MOSSAD one of the worlds most advanced armies deploy technology to reach people on the other side its not in awareness of their faith as co equals but in denigration of the other whose humanity and faith has long not deserved a right to a common existence.


Equally when the families of Jews are killed by mortar bombs, scud missiles and rocket launched armory from the side of Hamas, it is not with a peaceful intent but to sow carnage and destruction against infidels, the same whose common humanity is questionable and whose faith is irrelevant not deserving any place.


In all the above cases cited the common denominator is not what we see as peace but a faith conviction that has predetermined others not worthy and thus a mission field.


Our season and times necessitates the further question on our claimed faiths can a peaceful faith transition and become violent faith and why? Would such a faith have betrayed itself in praxis?


I am about to conclude that perhaps all our faith share an inherent plausibility for becoming violent, when we are persuaded the cause of our faith assumes a natural preeminence over all and others whom we have determined constitutes a mission-dei.


Perhaps if we honest enough to engage this historical as shown and present truth as experienced in many places in our 2015 world, we arrive somewhere in assisting our appreciation or dismay for what is unfolding today!


It is simply not anymore acceptable to claim any faith as peaceful- for it appears at the epicenter of this gregarious claim lays the impending need to argue what we mean with peaceful when we have not yet engaged that peacefulness as a common obligatory responsibility. It is therefore not far-fetched to ask of us all who share a faith conviction as to what we really mean when we say our faiths are peaceful?


Perhaps we in this season are compelled to have this discourse devoid of the usual emotion and obsession to defend ourselves, which often confirms our misplaced thinking in refusal of hearing others, therefore seeing others easily as enemies!


I admittedly do not purport to have the answers; I equally admit my exploration leaves me personally unsettled since the awareness of the probability that my work to fulfill the Great Commission hold the plausibility of a violent act on my part.


Yes this a musing, and yes I do not know where it will end; yet it is perhaps a socio-critical analysis of Faith as practiced reality.


Let me then close again with Einstein, “The most important endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity for life”

I pray this night, that we all at individual and collective sense find the moral compass to that common morality in which the totality of humanity is respected and celebrated in an equality where my choices for my Faith does not  become the weapons against others.






Stellenbosch: Ter Respons aan Breyten Breytenbach se gesanik !

– nee, Breyten, jy praat nie namens ‘n oorgrote bruin meerderheid in die Weskaap nie –

Daar is vandag konsternasie in die gange en doolhowe van Afrikaans verdediging groeperinge na die owerheids bestuur van Stellenbosch se November 13,2015 lewensgroot aankondiging rondom ‘n besluit om Engels die offisiele taal vir kommunikasie, administrasie en onderrig te maak met ingang 2016.   Die besluit moet nog deur die Raad bekragtig word maar die gewedywer duur voort. Vandag in Beeld gee ook Breyten Breytenbach sy opinie, en ek poog om hom te beantwoord met die skrywe.

Hierdie belangrike besluit wat wesenlik ‘n nuwe era aankondig, waarin die belaaide moedertaal aanname verskuif word na ‘n nosie van ‘n primere taal (Engels) is by uitstek ‘n belangrike oomblik in ons vorentoe beweeg van nasie bou.

Hierdie besluit word vandag deur verskillende kenners asook bekendes uitgekruit as onomwonde ‘n spreekwoordelike “swart–dag” of soos Breytenbach dit noem, “hierdie vrydag die dertiende sal onthou word as die dag waarop die onverantwoordelikheid, gemaksugtigheid, domheid en ruggraatloosheid van die universiteitsowerhede vir n oomblik in die geskiedenis duidelik was vir almal om te sien, insluitende die wat nou hul ‘oorwinning’ vier. Dis ‘n skande wat onthou sal word”

Ek wil dan juis Breytenbach beantwoord. Breytenbach, maak ‘n interressante stelling “Die besluit is geneem deur n aantal opportuniste wat geen sin of begrip het van wat ‘n taal beteken en dra en verteenwoordig en ontsluit en waar dit vandaan kom nie”.

Hierdie emosionele retoriek geklee in vir volk-en-vaderland ideologie word vandag ruiterlik deur een van ons mees bekende digters Breytenbach gespuug. Breyten, waarom sou jy kwansuis dink, die besluit as komende van oningeligte, waarom is die besluit nie juis as gevolg van diepe nabetraging, van ‘n geskiedenis wat die massas noodwendig gekniehalter het ter bevoordeling van ‘n groepie? Waarom dit as opportunisties afmaak?

Breyten hang sy oortuiging aan ‘n geleende oud modiese en lomp kapstok van ‘n bruin meerderheid aanwesig in die Weskaap. Dit is die tipe lui analise en wederegtelike misbruiking, wanneer dit pas van ‘n bruin oorgrote meerderheid wat juis die pad tot ware versoening so ondraaglik gemaak het, selfs die dood van een van ons eie Visie- Kansellier Russel Botman veroorsaak het. Hierdie holrug-geryde gerieflike misbruik van bruinmense is ‘n blatante skande en ‘n vlek op ons menswees soos deur ‘n ‘wit’ bevooregtigheid bepaal.

As Stellenbosch vandag in 2015 by die besluit kom is dit besonders laat want die misbruik van ‘n gepaste ‘oorgrote bruin meerderheid’ was die sagte haakpunt vir hulle wie ‘wit’ groeps-bevordering en belange van Afrikaners wou voorhou ten koste van ‘n globaliseerde werklikheid wat geleenthede skep vir meer om deel te neem aan die reg en geleentheid van opvoeding.

Breyten ek wil dit vir jou en jou soort onomwonde stel, jy praat nie namens die oorgrote bruin meerderheid nie en jy sal ook nie langer met die lui leuen weg kom nie. Tweedens jy kan beswaarlik vandag wil voorgee dat die Universitiet van Stellenbosch in sy ontstaan en oorgrote jare van bestaan ooit werklik in bewus of inagneming van die oorgrote bruin meerderheid gefunksioneer het.

Wanneer was bruinmense vir Stellenbosch belangrik, gee tog ’n tyd ’n plek ’n datum, want sover ek weet was Stellenbosch nogaltyd ‘n Afrikaanse universiteit vir ‘wit’ mense in sy oorsprong en bestaan. Die instituut wie geboorte aan apartheid gegee het, het nog nooit bestaan om bruinmense te bemagtig nie. Om juis dan dit te wil voorgee is sinies en ’n versinning indien nie ’n rugbare misdrywing van ’n ruimlik bekende geskiedenis.

Wat my dronk slaan is dat ek met jou moet deel in die konteks van ’n verarmde intellek, ’n intellek wat juis die proses moes verwelkom het as ons jou bydrae in die taal en bevrydingstryd enige krediet wil toereken. Dit is miskien skokkend dat juis jy vandag die aspek van transformasie as ‘n noodsaaklikheid wil afmaak as gemaksugtigheid, domheid en ruggraatloosheid. Dis asof jy ‘n oorlog voer teen dit wat eg en reg is vir die tyd waarin Suid Afrika haar bevind. Vanwaar die neid, hoekom die beswaarde dwarsboming van dit wat belangrik is?

Die verdediging van Afrikaans as vertolkte bedreigde taal is gebasseerd op die tipiese ou swart gevaar retoriek, wat geen behoudbare wetenskaplike navorsing bestaansreg het nie.

Afrikaans as taal is lewend, wordend en word in 2015 op verskillende vlakke bedryf deur ’n aansienlike groot groep van Suid Afrikaners wat nie velkleur as grens in ag neem nie.

Afrikaans as ’n uiters bevoordeelde taal wat geen gelyke op ’n akademiese vlak in die konteks van Suid Afrika het bevestig die feit dat hulle wie vandag sanik oor die taal nie eerlik is nie. Die taal is baie meer as persoonlik, dit is uiters polities.

Afrikaans as taal is nerens onder bedreiging en kan nie aanhou om uniek bevoordeel te word ten koste van anders volksmonde nie. Afrikaans my taal, waarin ek skryf en dig het geen meer belangrike bestaansreg as enige ander van die Suid Afrikaanse tale nie en dit moet weerklank vind in al ons institusies van beide laer en hoer onderwys.

Om vandag steen-en-been te kla oor hoe swak die besluit is om te bewys jy het gaan stilstaan iewers ‘n delikate siniese werklikheid van baie sogenaamde “wit” Afrikaans spreukende akademici. Die besluit van die Stellenbosch owerheid moet verwelkom word as ’n stap in die regte rigting. Dit sou juis die werk van transformasie by die instansie aan help en ’n gelykheid van menswees meebring. Dit sou verder ook geleenthede skep vir egte interaksie, ware kontak en noodsaaklike menseverhoudinge waarby ons nasate net kan baat vind.

Breyten hierdie keer lees ek jou “Hand vol vere” met trane, want jy die uitgesproke, jy die wereldsbekende skrywer het onbewustelik ook gaan stilstaan op ’n plek in ons gemeenskaplike geskiedenis wat nie gesond is nie. Jy het miskien gemak gaan vind op ’n doringdraad tussen ’n turksvy boom, net duskant ‘n honger adder. Breyten jy sal weet dat groot veranderinge in oomblikke plaasvind. Dit was ’n oomblik toe jy jou pen op tel en ons jou “Hand vol vere” en vele andere gegee het.

Dit is juis dan ‘n oomblik van waarheid, nugterheid, leierskap n diepe nabetraging oor ons verantwoordelikheid om gelykheid ‘n stem en voete te gee. Die besluit is verteenwoordigend van die gewaarwording in ons hudige met die hoop om ons toekoms wenslik te maak.

Die enigste skande is hulle wie na 21 jaar nie wil aanvaar dat Suid Afrika nie meer onder ’n ongoddelike apartheid’s sisteem is nie. Lank leef Afrikaans, nie in ‘n engheid van vrees as bedreigde taal maar as ‘n taal van die volk bedryf met volle bewustheid van ons heretiese apartheids-geskiedenis.

Los nou jou gesanik, hou op ‘n gebluste vuur spoeg want dai vuurtjie is histories. Diep in jou hart weet jy dat Stellenbosch kan beswaarlik aanhou met sy historiese apartheids-wanpraktyke van onreg verdoeseling in eis van outentieke geskiedenis of taalreg.

Biskop Clyde N. S. Ramalaine

‘n Afrikaans Eerste Taal bedrywer en ‘n sosiale kommentator

The CRL investigation errs in narrow target and approach!

The CRL investigation errs in narrow target and approach!

– an open contestation for access to claim a right to political and economic power fuels this debate –

Recent media coverage on the work of the Commission for Rights of Cultural, Religious & Linguistics Communities (CRL) has not left the Commission as a mandated entity in honour. We have read of ‘cases’ lodged and subpoenas served on individuals even threats of non compliance resulting in one year prison sentence. We have heard counter claims of confused administrative bungling in which the wrong plaintiff or litigants have been attached to the wrong so-called cases and perpetrators. We have seen this play out in a comedy of administrative and personal politicking that is now part of our discourse. What is indisputable is the targeted constituency in particular the broad Christian Independent Churches.

The mandate of the CRL constitutes it a necessary structure for our democratic society designed to give life to the reality of an informed society that is guarded against forms of human rights abuse that manifests in spaces of religion, language and cultural practices. Particularly where freedom of association and the right to belong is enshrined in the bill of the rights as inalienable. The work of the CRL is therefore to assist the regularizing of the space of religious and cultural environment to ensure a balance of rights and their concomitant set of responsibilities. Faulting the CRL in its mandatory role would prove difficult.

However, what is and remains in this evolving context questionable is perhaps the methodology and approach the CRL has chosen to follow to conduct what it calls research in attaining a body of information to give meaning to perhaps vacuous claims of gross human rights abuse and a commercialization of religion as leveled against some.

Perhaps we must also say the CRL narrowly anchored its work inspired by the most recent unorthodox, unsavory and not akin to traditional practices of the Christian faith. Congregants for some churches were subjected to eating grass, drinking petrol and were made to strip down to their underwear in full view of those in attendance to be either trampled on by the pastor or church leader in a demeaning manner. South Africa was shocked to hear about these practices as uncommon among us whilst we have not yet test the claim of its high prevalence.

It was therefore natural and welcomed that an investigation is undertaken to ascertain the prevalence of these acts, so as to find a means to respond to these in a comprehensive sense. Again the CRL’s attempt to ascertain information remains laudable for it is necessary.

What is a cause for grave concern is not the research-project per se, but the methodology and approach it has sought to adopt to reach its end goal. When the CRL leadership is quoted they are keen to explain their actions as aimed at attaining information and not a court case approach, yet the contrary is true when we see their approach as not imbibing a voluntary participation but the frame of a legal case. This legal frame sees a case being lodged by a plaintiff or litigant against a potential perpetrator or violator. The case is lodged and the CRL serves the perpetrator with papers to answer a case. This approach is therefore an accusatory and intrusive one. It furthermore opens itself for abuse in which anyone for any frivolous if not vexatious ill intend and purposes may lodge a case against someone they simply do not appreciate or like. The CRL therefore may plausibly be used to settle scores.

The second problem of this approach as adopted by the CRL vacillates in it perhaps not understanding the current contested terrain of religious space where such contestation imbibes a proximity to political and economic power. The contested space of South Africa’s religious world in particular Christian is somewhat derived in essence from the historical role the SACC played during apartheid as a surrogate mother to our liberation juxtaposed to the ever dwindling role it has in the last 21 years assumed.

The SACC that once powerful voice that pointed its finger in apartheid’s eye, is an emaciated shadow of its former self, teetering in irrelevance in the back deserts of forgetfulness haunted by a claim of superlative relevance in another epoch, when the Christian religious world in South Africa has moved on.

Yes, the SACC for whom the racist Apartheid government had to find a counter-match in establishment of the Independent Federation of Christian Churches (IFCC), with State money. It’s leader originally was going to be the late Ed Roebert but he was muscled out and by-default face of the IFCC became Pastor Ray McCauley, who apparently had a conversion and today holds one of many self-claimed positions as a voice of religion. The politics of contestation between these dead organisations (SACC and IFCC) is playing out in the RCL investigation, because this contestation is about whom legitimately has access to political and economic power in this dispensation.

We shall not forget that in the uprun to the launch of the IFCC how McCauley made it clear he will never serve under a ‘Black’, ‘Colored’ and ‘Indian’ leaders for they have no history of having led anything effectively. McCauley till today refuses to be a vice – chairperson of anything he always claims chairpersonship or co-chairpersonship.

It is amazing that the IFCC is as dead as the SACC yet their former leaders have become the self-claimed voices of reason speaking on behalf of the church in South Africa. It is time these leaders like McCauley tell South Africa he speaks on behalf of Rhema North and not the general Christian Church who never mandated him or a Makgoba or anyone to speak on our behalf.

It is no secret that the current administration has shown a truculence to trust the SACC, whom today appears a cohort of individuals.

What the CRL in its information searching exercises cannot afford to do is to feed this notion that its primary target is the Christian Faith.

The CRL dare be seen to naturally assume a claim human rights abuse or a commercialization of religion is not occurring in for example the Muslim and Jewish Faiths. Particularly when prosperity the economic welfare of the believers in the brotherhood is a didache of these faiths and where women is made to assume a certain role, no different to the Christian Faith.

The CRL cannot allow itself to become an unintended tool or weapon in hand for those who are engaging a contested space of religious relevance, where such contestation is really about access to political and economic power.

The CRL can least afford to be seen to be this intrusive and act as a court of law when the intention was the gaining of information, which still needs to be tested in veracity and truthfulness of claims of prevalence.

The CRL is perhaps today tainted for not having understood the dynamic context of South Africa in democracy as a society of contested terrains in which there is an open vying for power and religious leaders in political sense contest for this vacuum. You see this emerging groups and certain leaders claiming they represent the proverbial gates to political power and thus warrants being taken more serious than others.

The CRL cannot summon church leadership regardless to following to show up and prove their credentials, and make known their church bank account information when it has not ask the same from, for example Islamic and Jewish Faith leadership? By what sense of right is this demand made of a certain group of Christian leadership defined as independent?

Should the CRL not also ask for the credentials and church financial status of the so-called mainline churches such as the Catholics, Anglicans, Dutch Reformed, Methodists, Lutheran or even the mainline Pentecostal Churches such as the AFM-SA, Assemblies of God and Full Gospel church denominations? What exonerates these if they are exonerated?

The CRL runs the risk of being misconstrued as a commission hell-bent on a targeted audience for it perhaps already has concluded those it subpoenaed as guilty in public courts.

The CRL cannot be seen intoxicated to regulate the Christian religion in clamp down of a certain targeted section of our religious populace.

South Africa cannot afford a CRL that is unconscious of it being alive to religious and cultural practices, where people consciously profess and make their choices to associate on the pretext of a constitutional diaphragm that celebrates these civil liberties as progressive of the society we both seek to become and remain.

Bishop Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

Is an Activist, Author, Writer and Political commentator