Dear Editor,

My name is Darren Wilson. While you may or may not have heard of me, for the sake of context, I identify as a citizen of the Kingdom of God through faith in Jesus Christ and a servant of His Kingdom message. I believe in the authority of Scripture, and I have dedicated more than a decade to studying and teaching biblical principles and concepts with the goal of remaining faithful to their original meaning and cultural context. This experience, I believe, grants me some credibility in engaging discussions related to biblical and spiritual matters.

Having read the Catholic school board’s letter in its entirety, I conclude that this is an example of what occurs when biblically illiterate individuals govern institutions that claim to be founded on biblical principles. (Yes, I said that, and the Catholic school board can come for me if they want to. I'm easily found, and I don’t run from smoke). Nothing provokes my spiritual frustration more than when people misuse Scripture to justify preconceived notions that lack biblical foundation. With this in mind, I will respond to the board’s misuse of Scripture but before I do that, I want to address their appeal to human rights law.

Human rights and selective application

The school board’s letter dated August 18, 2025, cited Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which states:

“No person shall be denied a right to an education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

However, the school board’s policy indirectly denies access to Christian-based education by refusing admission to and/or targeting children on the basis of their hairstyle. Furthermore, the board omitted the provision that schools may apply admission policies if they are “objective and reasonable” (Council of Europe, 1950/2010). A policy that targets hairstyles while attempting to ground itself in “sacred Scripture” is neither objective nor reasonable. Comparing hijabs with so-called “biblical hairstyle requirements” is a false equivalence and a weak attempt to claim religious discrimination under Article 14 of the same convention.

Applying context: The 5w1h method

The most troubling aspect of the board’s letter is the egregious misuse of Scripture to defend hairstyle restrictions. The board’s statement that it seeks to provide education consistent with its “Catholic faith and biblical convictions” raises serious concerns when those convictions rest on misinterpreted or misapplied biblical texts. For example, the letter cites 1 Corinthians 11:14–15 (English Standard Version [ESV]):

“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”

Every biblical text is a “fossil” embedded in the rock of its own moment. This simply means that every biblical text must be understood in its historical, cultural, and social setting. Ignoring the cultural, political, and religious dynamics that shaped a passage results in misinterpretation. This is akin to performing archaeology with a sledgehammer, it destroys the very framework that gives the text meaning. So, for us to understand Paul’s words faithfully in context, we must consider the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the passage.

• Who? Paul wrote to members of the Corinthian church, a diverse community of Jewish, Greek, and Roman believers (1 Corinthians 1:2).
• What? He addressed specific issues regarding the church operations reported directly to him and also raised by the church (1 Corinthians 1:11; 5:1; 7:1).
• When? Paul wrote during the mid-first century (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.-a).
• Where? Corinth, a cosmopolitan port city influenced by Roman, Greek, and Jewish cultures (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.-b).
• Why? To correct disorder in church services and to emphasize that “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40, ESV).
• How does it apply today? In this section, Paul’s teaching emphasizes the principles of order and authority in church services, not permanent mandates about hairstyles.

If we read the entire section of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, it becomes clear that Paul’s instructions are not about fabric on heads or the physical length of hair. Rather, he used cultural symbols familiar to first-century Corinthians i.e. head coverings and hairstyles, to illustrate respect for authority within the context of church gatherings. When we consider the broader flow of 1 Corinthians chapters 7-14, we see that Paul’s primary concern was about maintaining order during church services.

In this particular passage, his emphasis is on the principle of order expressed through honoring authority during church services, using the cultural norms of Corinth as illustrative examples. His call was for the Corinthian church to represent authority properly under Jesus Christ in ways that resonated with their social setting. Importantly, Paul’s instruction was never intended to immortalize current cultural fashions as timeless law.

This is critical to understand because there were some societies such as other Greek cities like Athens where Paul visited or cities in Northern Africa where head coverings and hairstyles were not a part of cultural norms, but they had believers there, so this example would not have made sense to them. Thus, enforcing a “biblically mandated hairstyle policy” today is a misapplication of Scripture.

Contemporary application

Using Scripture to enforce hairstyle policies as “biblical” is a misrepresentation. There are hairstyles that are culturally expressive but yet neat and tidy, so that is way better than having hairstyles that conform to what you deem to be presentable but have no biblical foundation.

Contrary to your belief, there is no “biblically mandated hairstyle” standard set forth in Scripture. Scripture also emphasizes that character formation is shaped by the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22, ESV), not by hairstyles as hair has no inherent bearing on “disciplinary formation for Christian character development.”

Moreover, the board’s claim that permitting diverse hairstyles would turn schools into “multi-faith exhibition spaces” is misguided. In reality, such diversity reflects God’s creativity and multicultural reality, not theological compromise or a threat to the faith. Suggesting that natural hairstyles such as locs or bantu knots undermine “Catholic education” reveals an inherited, misplaced fear of culture rather than faith in the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.

God is not concerned about, afraid of, or repulsed by hairstyles or other external, cultural appearances. Rather, Jesus consistently criticized religious leaders who elevated human traditions above divine principles. He declared:

“...you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. ... You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matthew 23:23–24, ESV).

The “weightier matters” of education today are not hairstyles but the quality of learning, equity, and spiritual formation. The board’s preoccupation with hairstyles reflects this same pattern: straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel. Greater effort by the board should be directed toward addressing substantive educational challenges and championing comprehensive educational reform in collaboration with government rather than enforcing policies rooted in misinterpretations of Scripture.

Equally concerning is that the school board also claims it will continue to enforce its hairstyle policy despite government directives to the contrary. Ironically, while claiming biblical fidelity, this stance completely contradicts Romans 13:1 (ESV), which instructs believers to submit to governing authorities. So, now I have to ask what exactly are you going to teach your students about respect for authority? Such disobedience raises the question: are you really concerned about “biblical mandates” or are you more concerned about upholding a cultural tradition masquerading as divine law? If you’re going to use the Bible, make sure you use it when it relates to additional matters as well and not just the ones you want to cherry-pick.

Conclusion

While institutions are free to establish rules and standards, the misuse of Scripture to justify non-biblical policies is unacceptable. It is both intellectually dishonest and spiritually harmful. Hairstyle regulations are not matters of biblical command but of cultural preference. This issue is not about “religious discrimination” but about correcting centuries of distorted teaching and misinterpretation that weaponized the Bible to enforce Eurocentric interpretations of Christian cultural norms. Therefore, if institutions wish to maintain such policies, they must do so without falsely attributing them to Scripture. To misuse the Bible is to disrespect the very text you have claimed as authority.

As Jesus warned, human traditions that distort God’s Word disenfranchise people (Mark 7:13). Ripping verses from ancient letters and wielding them as timeless commands sans context is not biblical literacy, it is academic disingenuity.

I urge the Catholic school board: if you insist on maintaining hairstyle policies, then do so based on your institutional preferences, but keep the Bible out of it unless you are willing to interpret it responsibly.

I haven’t even gotten into the section titled “Problematic racial categorization” which is a problematic statement in itself. This is a ridiculously tone-deaf assertion that fails to consider the sociodemographic environment that your institutions find themselves in. That discussion, perhaps, is best reserved for another time.

While I hope I didn’t offend you, based on my experience, I probably have offended you. So, while I apologize in advance if what I said offended you, I do not apologize for what I said. My conviction remains that Scripture deserves to be handled with integrity, interpreted within its proper context, and never manipulated to uphold cultural traditions as divine law. Out of love and reverence for the biblical text, I will continue to defend it against misuse, ensuring that the faith it represents is honored faithfully.

Respectfully,

Darren Wilson, a proponent of the Kingdom of God

Dear Editor,

Driving up the Frontstreet I found myself obliged to stop in front of the Courthouse, because of the aggressive manner in which a male person with an American accent approached a couple in front of the Courthouse offering them timesharing. Even though this male person was in their face he still spoke hard enough so that I could hear that he was offering timesharing.

In order not to obstruct the traffic I made a spin around the Courthouse and came back towards the Frontstreet. This time he was what I considered harassing another couple. I could see by their reaction that the aggressive and loud way in which he spoke was the reason for them to hastily walk away from him.

When I reached my original destination, during the conversation I mentioned that fellow who was offering timesharing to the tourist. That person’s reaction was, “We were talking about him just before you reached here.” Supposedly there are more than one of them who are aggressively approaching the tourists to buy timeshare. And they are known to hang out in the area of the Courthouse between Front and Backstreet.

The possible use of narcotics was also mentioned, but I did not pursue that. But what is more disturbing to me is that the original Caribbean people who are accustomed to selling timeshare are being replaced. They are out there in the open. I have seen gradual take-over in the past. I hope it is not what I'm thinking?

I hope someone puts a copy of this letter on Minister of Justice Tackling’s desk so that the Minister can look into it and pass it on.

Russell A. Simmons

Nanny Nurssy, we salute you and your foundation for such hard work you and your team are doing.

And at your dwelling home. I don’t recall any other foundation doing charity jobs at their home.

As was mentioned on FB Nurssy, dedication is at a high level and without being paid.

Besides distributing clothes and foodstuff to the many homeless and the less-fortunates and seniors, Nurse Nanny also assists people who have medical issues and need their prescribed meds to be picked up, but Nurse Nanny takes it on her own and pays for their medication to avoid these individuals becoming worse. All beccause they are not insured.

Last Saturday, all that hurricane rainy weather, Nurse Nanny ans her volunteers distributed foodssstuff for many needy people.

We came by to collect some for people, some for ourself. We were very thankful. God bless her, she the onliest bathing the homeless.

To see on FB after all that hard work Nurse Nanny took her bush tea, sandwiches to many homeless people, also blankets, lots of fruits, etc., making sure the homeless, as Nurse calls them her boys and girls.

She received many blessings and praises for her unpaid work, what she does 24-7. No government help.

Did anyone hear the mention or went to see how the homeless, if they are safe. No, all we are seeing on FB is Nanny through the bad weather sharing out hot tea and snacks.

We, the people, are sure many more will like to ask or tell the Prime Minister, Minister of Health, to show their appreciation to Nurse Nanny by giving a street her name, or a building, to prove you all appreciate her service throughout lots of years.

Mercedes, Johan

Dear Editor,

The more I look at the deliberations in parliament, the more I am convinced that the aim is to keep this dysfunctional system intact – these structural inefficiencies that benefit the Members of Parliament who support this practice, but try to convince the population otherwise – this false narrative that keeps recycling time and time again.

Wednesday, August 13, 2025, illuminated this view, after Justice Minister Nathalie Tackling responded to pending questions that were posed, a few months prior. However, the presentation was of an elevated caliber – almost every question was answered in its entirety, including the clarification period. Unlike other ministers, who need time to research the answers to the questions, Minister Tackling responded immediately.

This demonstrates her knowledge and commitment to provide parliament and the public with a high-level representation. But I can allude that the atmosphere was already tense, before she got there. The first sign of objection came from MPs Darryl York and Ardwell Irion, who walked out of the meeting at the very beginning – parliamentarians who pride themselves to be that model representative for the youth and the people.

Then, the rest of the opposition seemed not to be interested in the information – the same data that they have requested and anxiously awaited. The confirmation came when MP Omar Ottley took the floor to express his views on the presentation. It was evident that he was furious with the minister. His tone, his body-language and choice of words, expressed his anger.

Wow! MP Omar Ottley, instead of getting blue vex with Justice Minister Nathalie Tackling, why don’t you tell the public the real reason why you are upset with her? MP Ottley, you see all that research that you did on human rights for inmates of various countries? That cannot help you. Every time you display that aggressive attitude towards the minister, it just exposes how disingenuous you are to the people, whom you declared that you are fighting for.

MP Ottley, is it not a fact that your family member asked to be released from prison, so he could take part in this year’s carnival with the aid of the ankle bracelet? And, that you are upset with the minister because she did not grant him the permission to do so? Be honest for once and tell the people the truth, MP Ottley. But I’m happy that the minister responded to you the way she did, not just in the first round, but more so, during the clarification period.

You thought that you had the minister hooked, but you forgot that you were dealing with a scholar and not street lawyer. Didn’t you noticed that there wasn’t any need for the minister to seek the answers to the questions? She already assessed the devious moves of certain MPs and has anticipated the questions, not just to stay one step ahead, but to indicate again that this is her domain, which further emphasized the thinking of a scholar and not that of a street lawyer.

If the population was paying keen attention, the people would have realized that the line of questioning from all opposition members was practically the same. The goal wasn’t about seeking the answers to the questions; it was more an attempt to trip up the minister. Even MP Roseburg joined in with you, because you said that you consulted her, but the population knows (no matter how much she says otherwise) that she is on the fence.

Minister Tackling, it’s your discretion to engage in direct conversations with MPs whose mission is to take you down that rabbit hole, but be very careful. Case in point: Isn’t this is the same MP Ottley who recently declared in parliament that he spoke to you in private about your objectives and when you enlightened him, he urged you to let the public know, so that the people can see what you are working on? Is this not so, Minister Tackling?

Now that the public is aware, this becomes a problem. He was quick to announce that you used some of his ideas. This juvenile behaviour is the downfall of parliament. Pay attention minister: The marijuana legislation was drafted under the NA and UP government – the same players who opposed your mode of competencies, now that you are in a different function. I never knew which firm was contracted for the task, until MP Darryl York revealed it in parliament, just the other day.

So, your knowledge is valuable when it benefits them, but becomes questionable when your standard does not meet their needs.

Minister Tackling, He who has directed you this far will guide you way beyond their expectations. Therefore, continue to measure your successes by your own standards, because you are the architect of your legacy.

Joslyn Morton