A long way to go to get past the bigotry: 'NO GAYS!' headline in Barbados newspaper highlights disturbing attitude

NO GAYS!

That was the blaring headline of the Nation Publications 'Saturday Sun' of yesterday, March 30th, 2013. I cringed when I saw it. It's a headline that makes all of us that live in, or have roots in Barbados seem backward and bigoted. It is ironic that it came at the end of a week where many in the world made their support for marriage equality known through changing facebook profile pics and making various statements to emphasise that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. All the while the Supreme Court in the US was hearing oral arguments in the Proposition 8 Case dealing with these same issues.

When I saw the headline, I and most other readers I suspect, had no idea of the context of the statement. No Gays? No Gays in what? Where do we want to bar them from now? Who is making the statement? The sub heading gave a clue by revealing that it was all about the Chief Scout and his organization.

It may seem a bit odd to say, but for me that didn't really matter. The headline was in my view distasteful in the way it lashed out at a minority group. The message to them was ' We don't want you!'

Newspaper headlines are things you glance at quickly. The words hit you out of the corner of your eye when driving as you see the vendor at the side of the road, or catch your attention in the front of a bookstore in an airport terminal as you hustle to catch your next flight. Most people who see the headlines are never going to read the fine print below, but the impact of the words can be devastating.

We can recognise this by inserting another group for 'Gays' in that headline. The one that comes to mind first is 'Blacks.' What would the reaction have been if the front page headline had read 'NO BLACKS!' ? Would Barbadians have accepted that? What if we went to a country in Europe or Africa? How would we react to walking through the airport with our luggage and someone handing us a paper with 'NO BLACKS!" screaming as the headline? To say I would feel uncomfortable would be the understatement of the year. It wouldn't matter the context, it wouldn't matter what the article was saying that I shouldn't be a part of, I know I would feel tempted to just haul my suitcase up and book the next flight out and I am sure they are many that would feel the same way even if they didn't act on impulse.

What about other 'NO!' possibilities? 

NO WOMEN!

NO CHRISTIANS!

NO JEWS!

NO BAJANS!

NO TRINIS!

NO YANKEES!

I think you get the point. Any of these headlines would have been greeted with outrage. Calls would have been made for a retraction or apology.

Today after getting over some of the original disappointment over  yesterday's front page, I sat to read the actual article that had prompted the ' NO GAYS' headline. I purchased and downloaded the entire newspaper to make sure I got the full story. To read the whole thing yourself you'll have to purchase the paper, but there is a summary of the story on their webpage here. After reading the story, I was once again in shock. There was absolutely nothing said by the Scout Leader in the article that could prompt a headline of ' NO GAYS!'

It's not as if he went off on a rant against homosexuals and said never do we want anyone of 'those people' coming near our organization. What I read was nothing like that at all. There was a statement made that the Scouting movement in Barbados maintained its closed door policy against open homosexuals, but that the local organization was monitoring what was happening in the United States as petitions were being made there to change things. The discriminatory policies of the Scout movement are well known and as a member of that organisation all the leader can do is give its position whatever his personal convictions might be. I saw nothing in what I read that could be interpreted as  'Chief Scout rules out letting them join the organization.'

Recognising this inaccuracy just made the whole thing more horrible. I know that my friends in journalism will tell me that you have to editorialize. That's the way you sell newspapers, but this is going too far. The Scout leader was just stating facts, explaining the current Scouts' policy which are set internationally and have a history behind them that promotes prejudice. Thankfully people are now trying to change that. However, the Scout master can only speak to what is currently in place. In fact it sounds to me that given he is 'monitoring' what is going on in the wider world, he would acknowledge that there is a possibility that changes will have to be made in the local movement based on these developments. The Scout Leader went on to recognise that under the current regulations, atheists are also unable to join the Scouts. So indeed the headline could just have easily been 'NO ATHEISTS!'

In a way, I wish they had printed that. That would have been a great can of worms to open up and I would love to get that 'belief' debate out there in the open in Barbados. But I guess at the moment the 'Gays' are more sexy. What is happening here is that the Nation  that Published the ' Saturday Sun' is taking advantage of a prejudice that they know is present, prevalent and widespread in Barbadian and  Caribbean society. They know that many of their readers will have a positive rather than disgusted reaction to a headline like that. Many will be thinking something along the lines of the following.

'Hooray! Thank God we're keeping those gays at bay. It's a relief to know that we are not  following those North Americans who have no benchmark for morality and where absolutely anything goes.'

Just like me, these readers will see the headline without knowing what it is gays are being barred from, but they'll be happy to know that at least someone in the country has enough courage to stand up against this wayward lifestyle.

For many of us in the Caribbean, maintaining the stance against the homosexual position is a matter of national pride. It is as if we expect to be congratulated for choosing to continue to discriminate and be praised for standing in opposition to a progressive social world movement that is seeking to extend basic human rights to a marginalized group. Of course, I criticize the Nation for misrepresenting in the headline and for sensationalising at the expense of demeaning a group in Barbados and the wider world that deserves better. But the fact is that a headline like this would never appear if the national attitude was different. It wouldn't be published if the masses on the whole  decided to stand up and say we won't stand for this kind of discrimination. It wouldn't happen if the Nation thought that they would be backlash and loss of sales for being so insensitive. What is needed is for people to recognise that gay rights are human rights and treat the needs of this group with as much sensitivity as they do any of the other minority groups in Barbados. Alas, this is unlikely to happen, because in our country, the right for a person to be anti-gay appears to outstrip the right of the gay or gay advocate to push for equality.

So, life in Barbados will go on, with the homophobes cheering for a nation sticking to its anti-gay guns and a few dissenters saying that this type of treatment for people with a different sexual orientation shouldn't be. Then we'll all march forward, with the majority thinking that being anti-gay is a reasonable stance that should be respected as part of being patriotic and holding oneself to a higher standard.

Who sets that higher standard? Well, for most in Barbados and the Caribbean, that standard setter is God, the God of the bible. The one whose abominations include shell fish eating, wearing a mixture of clothing textures and trimming beards. It is the belief in that God, cherry picked as his teachings may be, who ultimately keeps a section of society from enjoying basic rights. It's not the first time that our 'Holy Book' of choice has helped us to justify denial of a human right and we can be sure that it will not be the last. If this doesn't tell us that this bronze-age book's expiry date has long past, I don't know what will.

By now, most of you know that it frustrates me no end to see our country continue to look towards Christianity to lift us up, when it so clearly continues to provide the basis for holding social development  back. But sadly we in the Caribbean continue to choose faith, prayer and religious rites over thought, reason and human rights. 

Principals and Principalities: Lessons in principle we can learn from Barbados

www.nationnews.com

So, finally we're back to school. It may seem a routine statement, but there was nothing routine about what transpired at the Alexandra School in Barbados during the first three weeks of the new term. If you look at the front page of local papers since the beginning of the year, there was virtually no other story. Thirty teachers from the school went on a strike led by the Barbados Secondary Teachers' Union (BSTU), as a result of a dispute with the principal of the school, Jeff Broomes. It seems the fracas was between Broomes and a teacher in the science department, where clearly there was a lack of chemistry. Nonetheless, given what had transpired behind the scenes and over the years it seemed reactions were bound to get out of hand sooner or later.

What was the most worrying thing to me, was that from the beginning, the court of public opinion painted the striking teachers as the villains in the piece. There were some who stood behind the teachers but they appeared to be relatively few. All this without a great deal of facts to go on in the public domain. This type of thing is not atypical for Barbados in such situations. Facts tend not to matter that much, it's all about personalities.You jump on the bandwagon of the one you like and paint those on the other side as devils incarnate. Your guy can do no wrong and theirs can do no right. You forget your own principles and just support the principal in your corner. And I don't mean only the principals that wield the authority in the school compound. By principals, I mean the 'main players' in society, those that hold leadership positions and tend to be the face of the organisations or groups they represent. The principals in governments,  businesses, social groups, churches, media, sports, music or culture. These are the principals that we are often eager to blindly follow.

When we throw our weight behind our principals, we commit ourselves to opposing whoever our principals find themselves in conflict with.These become like Satans to our Gods. We can say that we see them as principalities fighting against our principals.  According to the bible, principalities are evil demonic forces within the spirit world that need to be fought against at all costs. This is how the book of Ephesians puts it in the King James Version

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12)

Trinity of Principals: BSTU, Ministry of Education. Principal of Alexandra

In newer versions of the bible these principalities are described as 'evil rulers'. Principals within their own satanic domains. So one man's principal is the other man's principality. That's just the way it goes. It seems in the Alexandra School dispute the striking teachers were deemed to be those on the dark side. Mary Anne Redman, Presient of the BSTU, became seen as the principal principality in a demonic realm. Lest my friends who are not familiar with Barbados consider that I am just speaking metaphorically, let me put you straight. Demons have been identified as being present in Barbadian schools. I kid you not, some children in Barbados have been classified as  'demon possessed.' The claim is on record as having been said by a person of no less authority than the Minister of Education, Ronald Jones, another one of the key principals in this whole affair. We hear from Christians all the time that as a building needs a builder, and a painting needs a painter, every creation needs a creator. So, I suppose a demon in a child needs a child demoniser. Yes, as far as Barbados is concerned these supernatural forces are very real and need to be taken seriously. Who knows? We may one day have a class exorcise replacing a class exercise on the teachers' timetable.

Things did get rather ugly in this principal versus principality fight. Even as punches and counter punches were being thrown, people were shouting from the sidelines asking for a referee to come and stop the bout." Stop it for the children's sake!" was the cry. "It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the teachers must get back to work immediately for the sake of the children!" This made me stop in my tracks. It didn't matter who is  right or wrong? Were these people implying that there is no circumstance in which industrial action is justified? If the idea is not to inconvenience those not involved, it would mean workers could never take action if they felt they were being unfairly treated. I mean, if the teachers were being beaten every morning before going to class, would it be right for them to grin, bear it and then go teach for the children's sake?

This is typical of how we deal with disputes in Barbados and perhaps even in the Caribbean on the whole. When controversy raises its head we want to quash it as quickly as possible. It's this type of attitude that makes  our cause as atheists such a challenge. Even those who identify with our position are quick to say, "Shhhh, you don't want to rock the boat!" But conflict need not be seen like that. It is not something that should be feared. In any social system, conflicts will come up from time to time. It doesn't mean that either of the persons involved is bad or even that the persons do not have the interest of all parties at heart. People have differences in management styles and personalities and may have objectives that will not always square with those around them. This means that there will be arguments and disputes from time to time. In fact, the disputes and differences are a sign that there is openness and freedom of expression and that people are at least not afraid to speak out. Recognising these differences and taking the time to thrash out the issues is worth it and will often lead to a far better scenario afterwards, but the thing to remember is that the process takes time. Sending children back to school in an environment filled with tension would be counterproductive to all. You just can't expect to coerce people into saying 'yes'.  .

It is also important to respect all of the parties, especially the party that considers that it has been hurt, whether you personally see that party as a principal or a principality. It was sad to see the teachers being looked at as demons. Telling them everyday in the press that they should be fired, or that they must come back to school immediately or else, is not the way to show a valued stakeholder respect. You are treating the teachers in a manner that you would not accept from those same people towards your own children. That is why I think the dispute was prolonged, the rhetoric just added fuel to the fire. Ironically, the attempt to wrap things up quickly, ultimately made the process much longer. The lack of respect has not ended yet either. The screaming headline,"Teachers Paid!"  in the Nation newspaper said a lot. The words appeared to be suggesting that this was some kind of national scandal, as if Allen Stanford  were coolly walking up to a commercial bank to collect his investment dividend cheque.

These educators were not on a beach somewhere, sipping martinis for the last two weeks. They were engaging in industrial action, to fight for what they consider was their right. I am not saying that their action was called for, maybe it was frivolous, but the important thing is that it was merited in their judgement. And in general, the judgement of teachers is something we consider to be reasonable. If we didn't feel that way we would not put our children in their hands for six hours a day, five days a week. So, we at least have to give some weight to the possibility that their judgement with respect to the evaluation of their own situation was also correct. In their opinion they were fighting for a principle, setting a precedent that could have long term implications. They did it through the channel of the BSTU which is an approved body set up to represent their interests. As far as I can tell, there were no laws broken here.Why the implication that they should now not get their due? It's as if paying the teachers what they are contractually due was like entering in to a pact with the devil. If we want our society to progress, we badly need to move away from the battles between principals and principalities and see ourselves as being a team. A team including parents, teachers, children and the wider society.Trying to slam your team mate is no way to get corporation.

No faith in negotiation

It is unfortunate that in times like these a society cannot turn to the faith on which it has built its foundation. Not that the parties involved were loathe to try to invoke it. At least twice pictures of groups in prayer circles were shown in the press. Parents or teachers holding hands aloft, asking God to lead them. But what does the Good Book have to tell us about negotiation? When it comes to dealing with conflict you either submit as Jesus advises in the New Testament and 'turn the other cheek,' 'or follow the Old Testament God's methods and look to subdue all that stand in your way. There really is not a lot in Christianity that prescribes a response that lies between the two testamental extremes. It would be great if we could go to the bible and read a passage that said something like this.

" Take heed of the teachings contained in thy holy texts but listen to thy brethren who may have ideas contrary to the revelation that thou believeth.  If the evidence and justification for thy neighbour's position is better than that of thine, adjust thy thinking, for logic and reason are of the Lord. It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for an irrational man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

But no, unfortunately that verse did not make it into the Canon. Yes, when you use faith as your guide you tend to simply dig your heels in. Meanwhile you worship the overriding principal, God himself, who by definition is always on your side. He is the one whose word is the law, whose very nature dictates good and evil. With such a foundational belief it is easy to go into the world and look towards authority figures, seeing everything as good versus evil, black versus white, principal versus principality. Through all this we forget the principles.The principle that everyone deserves a chance to work, live and play in reasonable conditions. The principle that everyone deserves to be treated fairly. The principle of " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yes, that last one is a great principle. I know that  many people believe in this principally because Jesus said it. For me, a great principle is a great principle regardless of the mouth it emanates from. It is sad that the principal people in society that we would expect to uphold these principles do not. That is the principal reason why we have huge disputes which, in principle, should not be that difficult to resolve.

So, where did the teacher resolution finally come? Of course it was through  a principal. None other than the Prime Minister of Barbados, Freundel Stuart, the principal principal in the land.  What principles did Stuart use to reach a resolution? We may never know. What we do know, is that when in comes to understanding the principles of negotiation, we in Barbados have much still to learn.

When is the right time to criticize?

It's been a really tough week for all Barbadians. Last Friday six young women perished in a fire set during a robbery attempt in Tudor Street in the capital city, Bridgetown. Make no mistake, for a country as small as Barbados, the loss of six young lives at one time is a tragedy of massive proportions. Everyone will at least know someone that knew one of the victims. I stand alongside the citizens of my country in condemning this heinous crime and my heart goes out to all the families who have lost loved ones. The outrage has led to people calling for the "gallows to swing" for the two young men that were thought to have been involved. Anger has also led to a 'blame game' that has extended to everybody from fire fighters and police to store owners and architects.

Of course there is one fellow who has as usual escaped blame all together. You guessed it, the one and only almighty God. Curiously, this is even though the words being uttered from so many lips after this tragedy was
"God is in control." Strange thing that, if it was the CEO, the prime minister, the headmaster in control and did nothing while subordinates in their organisations acted improperly , they would have to answer some serious questions.

Well, God's control in this case is just a reminder that he is there for us and will get us through the situation. We must remember him at these times and pray to him to give us comfort. This type of message is not unusual in times of tragedy and I daresay it does often help to soothe the fresh open wounds. I think this way of thinking at these times is also a way to keep faith strong at the time when it is facing its most severe of tests. It is a way of telling society that we are not going to tolerate any non religious views at this time. Effectively, if you can't say something to edify or glorify, ie something proclaiming God, keep your mouth shut. In other words, we don't want to hear from the atheists. Now is not the time for you to be criticizing our beliefs. If you do we will consider you to be unpatriotic, uncaring and selfish.

This is basically what came through to me as I saw the announcement, in the Barbados Advocate newspaper today, shown in the photo, where the government has determined that there will be three minutes of prayer by everybody at noon Friday. Everything will come to a halt, even speech it says and , "Barbados will pause and pray." Doesn't sound like a voluntary thing . So if, like me, you have no God to talk to, you have to find one quick. I hope the flying spaghetti monster is available at short notice.

But seriously, in these situations atheists are forced to shrink away to the back of the room and let the men and women of the cloth have their way with the afflicted. For how could atheists be so insensitive to illustrate at this moment the paradox of an all powerful God who allows such suffering? How could we be so mean to point out the futility of prayer to a God who if he exists can't possibly be unaware of anything that we need? How could we be so daft to choose this moment to explain that "thy will be done " means asking God to do the things that he had always planned to do anyway? No, we are told, now is not the right time for engaging in these esoteric philosophical debates, not when people are suffering. The thing is by silencing us at these times they are defanging us at the moment where we can make the most telling incisions into their belief system. For when all is going well, the idea that God is indifferent to our needs is a very hard sell indeed. Just like the best time to illustrate the weakness in a security system is after a break in, it is when the earthquakes, tsunamis, murders and cancers come that the idea of a God that loves us appears to be blatantly absurd. But those are the times when non belief is strictly off the table.

This of course raises the question as to when therefore is the 'right' time to be critical of religious ideas. The truth is that it really is hard to find the right moment. I know that many have tried to bring in the rational response at the happier times where you can't be accused of kicking someone while they are down. For example, if the six ladies had somehow manged to be saved, God would have been credited with the 'miracle.' Atheists might have pointed to well trained firefighters, additional exists, non flammable building materials, or even just plain good fortune, but they would have been told to keep silent in that scenario too. The response would be, "Why are you trying to take people's thankfulness to God away, devaluing their experience and "bursting their bubble" by explaining things it in such unemotional terms?"

So religion really controls both extremes of the 'emotions market .' It holds sway at all the points where we feel life the most, those moments we will invariably never forget. The highs of the baptisms, marriages, graduations and sporting triumphs and the lows of the job losses, divorces illnesses and funerals. So it seems the only time it's ok to criticize religion is in those neutral moments. Yes, those times when things are not too good and not too bad. The days when essentially nothing is happening. The days that sort of just fade into the background at the end of life. Usually this means a few minutes after a philosophy class at university, when you're just hanging out with nothing much to do. It's no wonder that at the end of the day no one really hears the nonbeliever. On the other hand , when is the right time to criticise atheism? Well pretty much any time, 24 hours a day 365 days a year, it's always open season.

On that subject, it also seems to be always the right time to criticize Islam. However, I must admit that when I think of the horror of those six charred bodies lying in a store after last week's inceneration I cannot get worked up about the story of a man who is threatening to burn a few books on his premises.

Interview with Hitchens: The questions give you all the answers

It was a sad sight to see Christopher Hitchens a shadow of his former self on CNN a few nights ago. Yet, it was an inspiration to see a man leaning on reason rather than prayer to get him through his cancer. Ironically he seemed to be dealing with the issue of his mortality and possible death in the near future with indeed much grace and perhaps more peace than many who claim to be convinced that a world of eternal bliss lies before them. Maybe this is the advantage of living a life in reality, you can spend your life preparing for the moment that you will be no more. When your moment comes you have played the scenario in your mind many times and is not a time to paralyse you with fear. There is no feeling of, "Why me?" or "How does this fit into God's plan?" There is no deity to be angry at or disappointed in. You come to the conclusion that I am a part of nature and things in nature die, simple. I always find interviews like the one on AC 360 as fascinating for the questions asked as by the answers given. Many of the questions posed by Anderson Cooper spoke volumes. One or two really resonated with me.

"So you don't pray at all?" Anderson asked. I thought this was a truly remarkable question to ask a man that had dedicated his entire life to fiercely promoting reason and the elimination of the supernatural ideas. The author of " God is not Great." Did Cooper think that this was all a facade? It was as if he thought this was his great moment of investigative journalism. He could get Christopher to admit something at his darkest hour. Maybe an " Ok, ok you got me I do say an itsy bitsy prayer but only once or twice a month." I have played this question over and over in my head and the only conclusion I can come to is that Cooper thinks that Hitchens might be a closet theist. Well, if Hitchens is a theist, who among us can be atheist? There is of course the cliche that there are no atheists in foxholes. But Cooper's question suggests that he thinks there are no atheists. No atheists full-stop.

Yes, it must mean that he thinks everybody deep down knows there is a God there, it's just an attempt to deny. The books, the speeches, the debates, the blogs, all a cover, an atheist's attempt to convince himself by repetition. If you say "God is not Great" enough times maybe you'll start to believe it. This is all in spite of the fact that not only Hitchens, but several writers, bloggers and speakers are at pains in everything they say or publish to show step by step how they have reached their position by a rigorous process of logic. They don't just say we used reason and that's it. They always show the process, sometimes making it painstakingly simple. Even after that , the theist is inevitably invited to criticise the logic and point out any flaws that might have been overlooked. Invariably no logical objections are forthcoming. Yet, the theist continues to ask questions which clearly show that they don't think that the conclusion that the atheist says he came to is what his conclusion really was. But why would you go through the hard logic and reasoning process and then toss out the conclusion you come to? Unless of course, you really weren't interested in logic in the first place. That is the key, many persons of faith don't believe in using logic to reach such conclusions. They reason that if they don't atheists don't either. They think that atheists are just using logic to appear to bolster their preconceived beliefs, so they never bother to explore the atheists' arguments seriously. Talk about the man in the mirror.

This idea of emotional appeal came up also in the interview opening, when Cooper said. " Many are wondering if Hitchens' diagnosis would have changed his belief in God." Again a curious question, at least from an atheist's perspective. Why would an ailment that you are suffering from affect things you have discovered in the world through  reasoning ? It would be like someone asking you what was 2+2 when you were robust and healthy and getting the answer '4'. Then as you are on your death bed the same person comes up to you taunting you by saying , " So do you still think 2+2 = 4 now?"
Many theists really don't get the fact that for an atheist, you arrive at the conclusion 'there is no God' by the same process that you arrive at the conclusion that 2+2 =4. Emotion in no way factors into the decision. The only way you can expect illness to effect a person's belief in god is if you considered that emotion does or should play a part in making a judgement on reality. More and more the questions show that the general theist perspective is that questions about the reality of the universe cannot be studied without regard to emotional implications. That's the only conclusion I can come to. Of course in most debates believers never state that their beliefs are based on emotion even if they admit faith makes them happy. They always start out with the assertion that the belief is real. The other benefits come later and are a consequence of having faith, not the cause. When you analyse the questions Christian's ask and how they phrase them it's clear that they believe the opposite. I am now learning that the answers or the truth of what people think is really contained in the questions they ask. If you assess them you can really learn everything about what they think. You never actually need to ask them any questions. You just need to listen to how they question you.

Oh yes, believers, as amazing as it may seem atheists actually do sincerely believe what they profess. When I think about it that's a strange concept to grasp in a world where what you think and what you say rarely seem to coincide. One last comment on the interview.  The idea was presented  that surely at a time like this Hitch should be hedging his bet on whether there is a God or not. Yes, as much as I have heard all the many objections by atheists, Pascal's Wager does remain the apologetic of choice for many Christians. It is a weird thing that so many Christians say they would rather believe in a God and be wrong than not believe and be wrong. Surely that statement suggests they have some doubts. Are they saying they really don't KNOW that they redeemer liveth? Why would you have to bet on a horse that everybody already knows won the race? They really put themselves in Catch 22 situation with this type of reasoning or should I say Hitch 22.

Getting rid of the demons

It seems that these days I just don't have to look too far to find things to comment on happening back home in Barbados. Most recently I came across this story about demons in a community. This is a bizarre story even by Caribbean standards. What amused me was that in the story, it says the demon possession started when the lady went on the internet and "saw what she was not supposed to see." I wonder if she stumbled across this website. Could this blog have started it all? Hardly, although I know that what I write here is not what a christian is "supposed to see." I am sure that there are many people in Barbados who would think that God would strike them dead on the spot if they were to so much as to type the word "atheist"in their search engine.

Seeing this article made me reflect on one of the benefits of atheism that too infrequently seems to be brought to the fore. So often christians say that they can't imagine living without God who loves and protects them. However, that belief in God so often carries with it Satan and any number of malevolent spirits that can cause considerable havoc. I know that there are many that find a way to hold on to the Lord while rejecting the devil. I was one of them. I could never understand how a loving God could allow his children to suffer in the torment of hell, no matter how guilty we may have been. But I think I realised even then I wasn't being logically consistent. The fact that I didn't find the idea of a devil appealing in no way meant that he was less likely to be real. I believe deep down there was always at least a slight fear. I used to feel it as a teenager at the times when I had to wait alone in the cathedral cemetary after choir practice, especially if the wind was up and there was a hint of thunder in the distance. Wouldn't say that I was scared but there was a definite discomfort that looking back now I am sure related to the supernatural. Maybe I was wondering if I might see a real duppy.

I have had a few conversations with West Indians during the last year that showed me that fear of ghosts and spirits runs deep in our populations. When I was in Jamaica I was staying at a hotel close to the Great House of Rose Hall where according to legend the White Witch of Jamaica lives. A colleague of mine said that the tours were all during the day, telling me that of course nobody would want to tour the compound if it was not broad daylight. I was just about to ask him why not when my mind jumped back to the cemetary in Barbados. At that moment I realised that as an atheist I had really and truly shed the demons. I could listen to stories about any ghosts or spirits and treat them as the fiction they are, but it is so different for the person of faith. Once you believe in the supernatural you can never totally dismiss as fiction any ghost story. If ghosts exists it stands to reason that the sceptre that is being described is at least a possible manifestation of same. I think that atheists all over the world should look to rent or buy all the "haunted houses" that no one else wants to stay in. I am sure there are some good bargains to be had.

Supernatural belief can affect you in many ways. At my primary school there was a wall we dare not climb if we hit the ball over it playing cricket. Generations of students had sworn that a witch lived in a house there who used to cast spells on children. It didn't matter that no one at the school at the time had ever seen anyone on those premises, natural or supernatural. I can't tell you how many exciting games were ruined and balls forever lost as a result. I heard a story about a fellow in Grenada that no one dared owe money to since he kept a lot of strange looking potions and some exotic animals at his house, this meant he could do very bad things to you if you didn't pay him on time. In Barbados about 10 years ago some fisherman preferred to keep their nets on the shore because of reported sightings of a sea monster.

Perhaps nothing beats the story given by a taxi driver I had in Jamaica. After telling me that Usain Bolt's injuries this year are directly related to persons in the country working voodoo, he told me a story of a lady from St. Maarten. With the most serious demeanour you could imagine he told me how she was afflicted by a disease that made her want to have sex everyday at 6:00 pm. "If she found herself in the kitchen she want to have sex right there, if she was in the supermarket she want to have sex right there, if she was at church she want to have sex right there ! "Apparently she was only "cured" when she went to a "mother" in Jamaica who removed a snake that was in her vagina. "It's true, true!" he assured me, "The lady travelled in my taxi and sat right where you are sitting now!" I smiled and told him gently that I had never observed anything remotely like what he was describing. In my mind there is no doubt that he considered all this to be real.

Ghost accounts can be found all over the Caribbean and are a great part of our folklore. I would hope that we never lose that aspect of our culture. I always loved hearing the stories about the Steel Donkey in Barbados as a child. However , for too many the line between folklore and reality becomes blurred. I think many christians think that as atheists we are being dishonest when we say that we have no fear of the supernatural. They consider it just a bravado statement, believing that in weaker moments we shudder at the prospect of being on the wrong side of these spiritual forces. They don't realise that when we speak of what we would say if we meet a god at the end of our lives that we are talking very, very , very hypothetically.

The fact is that the application of reason is a powerful weapon against the supernatural. Once you recognise that the world is governed by the laws of physics rather than the laws of psychics the fear disappears completely. If supernatural entities are real the entire scientific paradigm is called into question if not rendered invalid; and not even the most raving fundamentalist will argue that there is sufficient grounds to re-examine the total scientific method. When you understand the structure of the atmosphere, troposphere and ionosphere there is no reason to fear that the sky will fall on your head no matter how many chicken lickens there are running around frantically trying to shake you from your complacency. I rigorously applied logic and reason to my belief system and now I can say all my demons have well and truly been exorcised.