By Kemol King
The killing of six-year-old Orlando Jaikarran in Berbice has shocked Guyana. The circumstances surrounding his death are deeply disturbing, particularly allegations that a religious figure had told the child’s father that Orlando was not his biological son.
Some social media commentary has sought to associate the killing with Hindu religious practices, raising questions about sacrifice and the beliefs of people who follow that way of life.
The Guyana Pandits Council has condemned the killing and rejected suggestions that it represented a religious sacrifice or sacred ritual. The council has also warned against individuals who exploit spiritual titles, fear and superstition to manipulate others.
Religious authority must not place anyone beyond accountability. But neither should the actions of an individual become grounds for condemning an entire religious community. Religious practices should not be immune from criticism, particularly when they conflict with the values and principles we have developed to protect human rights and advance society.
History is littered with examples of atrocities committed in the name of religion. These acts are not confined to any one faith, and most religious people would reject attempts to justify such violence through their beliefs.
What deserves greater examination is our propensity to respond to unfamiliar beliefs and practices with negative suspicion, particularly when something terrible happens.
It is easy to assume that people whose traditions we do not understand are somehow dangerous. It is even easier when an incident appears to confirm something we already think about them.
But is unfamiliarity evidence of wrongdoing? Should others who share aspects of a person’s identity or beliefs carry the burden of that person’s actions?
We must challenge ourselves to think beyond these immediate reactions.
Stereotypes offer convenient explanations for a complicated world. They allow us to make judgments about people without doing the difficult work of understanding them. And we end up replacing good judgment with convenience.
This brings us to something that deserves far more attention: consideration.
We often speak of consideration as a moral virtue. We associate it with kindness, politeness, compassion and the willingness to treat others with dignity.
But consideration is also an intellectual discipline.
To be considerate, we must recognise that our understanding of other people is limited. We must question our assumptions and acknowledge that our first impression may be wrong.
That requires a degree of intellectual humility.
It’s not just about being nice. It is about developing the capacity to navigate complexity without reducing other people to the easiest conclusions available to us.
Consideration, therefore, is a skill. Like other skills, it requires practice.
We exercise it when we resist the temptation to judge someone based on a stereotype. And when we seek knowledge rather than allowing ignorance to harden into prejudice.
This conversation transcends religion. As social beings, we constantly encounter people whose beliefs and experiences we do not fully understand. Our ability to live and work together depends, in part, on how responsibly we navigate those differences.
Consideration makes us better equipped to do so. Indeed, it is something we extend for the benefit of others. But it also improves our own judgment and our ability to function in a diverse society.
Orlando’s death demands justice. Everyone responsible must be held accountable, regardless of their religious standing or claims of spiritual authority.
But justice for one child should not become an excuse to stigmatise innocent people.
We cannot always control our first reaction to something unfamiliar. But we can challenge ourselves not to make that reaction our final judgment.
