No doubt, as put by prime minister Marape, "churches have assisted the country in terms of development".

Of course the PNG government also provides services to people by funding endeavours through the churches.

Be that as it may, and better that it is clearly made known and in full detail.

A step likely not within that ambit of service delivery, appears in report, 'PM pledges K200,000 for pastors conference'.

See: https://postcourier.com.pg/pm-pledges-k200000-for-pastors-conference/

Oh, maybe that pledge is to be cash from Mr Marape's own bank account?

The recent report from the Constitutional Law Reform Commission recommending that the constitution be changed to officially make Papua New Guinea a Christian country has many intriguing possibilities.

The most extreme is the possibility that it is the first step towards creating a theocracy such as exists in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia and now Afghanistan.

That seems pretty far-fetched but stranger things have happened.

After being abolished in 1970 the death penalty was revised in the Criminal Code in 1991 and then had its scope extended to include aggravated rape and robbery in 2013.

Just recently the Supreme Court opened the way for its practical application by overturning the national court’s temporary stay of executions for all people sentenced to death.

Apart from anything else this has decidedly biblical overtones. ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ from Leviticus (24:19-21) springs to mind.

You might say that Papua New Guinea is a parliamentary democracy and something like a theocracy, which works best in a one party state, could never happen.

But isn’t Papua New Guinea already a one party state?

Just think about the flux that occurs after each election with the myriad parties jockeying for a place in the government.

Some of these so-called parties only have one or two members and they are all very happy to chop and change depending upon which way the wind blows.

The way they behave is less like political parties vying for supremacy and more like individual members within a single party vying for position. That is, they behave like they are in a one party state.

People might look askance at Islamic theocracies in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia but Christian theocracies were once quite common. The present day Vatican is a theocracy.

Declaring Papua New Guinea a constitutional Christian country heavily suggests that its government will be subject to divine guidance as interpreted not only by the churches but by government members and officials.

While the Vatican, with its ruling elite of unelected cardinals, is a relatively benign theocracy somewhere like Saudi Arabia is far from benign.

In Saudi Arabia religious minorities cannot practice their religion. Non-Muslim propagation is banned, and conversion from Islam to another religion is regarded as apostasy and is punishable by death.

Papua New Guinea would never go that far but it is interesting to speculate how far it would go if the Constitutional Law Reform Commission’s report is accepted and the constitution is amended.

There are many countries with state religions. England is one of them with the queen being the head of the Church of England. The United Kingdom, however, does not have a state religion.

There are only a handful of countries that are constitutionally Christian. Most recently Samoa became one in 2017. Article 1 of the Samoan Constitution states that “Samoa is a Christian nation founded of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

That’s probably what the Constitutional Law Reform Commission is working towards.

Ironically though, and despite what are no doubt good intentions, the commission may have overlooked the geopolitical ramifications of its recommendations.

Overt Christian countries, just like overt Muslim countries, are generally regarded as politically retrograde or backward.

It is entirely possible, therefore, that making Papua New Guinea officially a Christian country will damage its reputation on the international stage.

Just look at the bad press it got when it accepted a 404-year-old King James Bible donated by an American missionary

Instead of defining the country as an exemplar of political and moral integrity it is more likely to define it as a naïve and gullible nation all set up for all sorts of exploitation by a whole new cabal of carpetbaggers.

And the last thing Papua New Guinea needs is more exploitation.

Good comment Chips.

Even by 1776 the USA was already host to Christians of many different persuasions, some of whom regarded the rest with undisguised fear and loathing.

No doubt the founders realised that if they built God or Christianity into the constitution there would inevitably be conflict over which particular version of Christianity represented the 'truth, the way and the light'.

They would have known all about the appalling history of religious wars in Europe too, so ensuring that Congress could not be used to try to advantage one belief system against another made perfect sense.

At best, they were only partially successful because one of the key sources of division in the USA is a person's religious affiliation (or lack of it).

Modern US Evangelicals and Episcopalians all too often harbour very reactionary and intolerant social views about the world and this frequently plays out in debates of everything from the finer points of theology through to things like sexuality and abortion.

Conservative politics in the US is profoundly influenced by the religious right, just as the so-called progressive side of US politics is increasingly dominated by the educated 'woke' elites.

The traditional left-right political divide seems to be morphing into dogmatic 'tribalism' which is something quite different to that you and I grew up with and religious beliefs are certainly playing a significant role in this process.

PNG is heading off down an unpredictable and potential divisive path by deciding to call itself a Christian nation. It has enough sources of division already without adding yet another one.