Road Safety Is Not An Attack On Christianity: Stop Using The Church To Score Cheap Political Points!

The growing controversy over restrictions on preaching in moving commercial vehicles in Ghana has once again exposed a disturbing tendency among certain religious and political commentators to turn legitimate public policy questions into emotionally charged political confrontations.

I find it especially disappointing when individuals entrusted with religious leadership seem more interested in challenging the political establishment than in carefully examining the facts, the law, and the fundamental principles of public safety.

The recent pronouncements attributed to Rev. Dr. Kwadwo Boateng Bempah, which suggest that restrictions on preaching inside moving commercial vehicles are an attempt to silence the Church, warrant serious scrutiny.

The suggestion that President John Dramani Mahama and his government are attempting to suppress Christianity through a road safety regulation is a serious allegation. It deserves examination against the law's actual provisions rather than acceptance simply because it comes from a prominent religious figure.

This controversy raises a fundamental question: Are we genuinely defending Christianity and religious freedom, or are some individuals exploiting religious sentiment to score cheap political points against the President and the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC)?

Before addressing the legal and political dimensions of this matter, I wish to outline the professional and religious perspectives that inform my approach to this debate.

My Experience as a Christian Teacher and Transportation Safety Professional

My position draws on biblical scholarship and decades of practical experience in transportation safety. I am a Christian, a Bible teacher, the host of the Christian Sunday Podcast, and the author of Christianity Lost in Translation and The Mighty Equalizer. Through my teaching and writing, I have devoted considerable attention to understanding Scripture, examining how Christians interpret it, and questioning how tradition, personal interests, and political considerations can distort religious beliefs.

I firmly believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and in every individual’s constitutional right to practice and proclaim their faith. However, I also believe that Christianity must never be used as an excuse for disorder, irresponsibility, hypocrisy, or conduct that endangers innocent lives.

Beyond my Christian background, I have spent decades in driver education, defensive driving, and road safety. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Starlinx Group LLC, which operates as Starlinx Driving School in Maryland, United States. More importantly, I previously worked as a public transit bus operator in Montgomery County, Maryland. I therefore understand firsthand what it means to operate a public passenger bus and to accept responsibility for the lives of people whose safety depends on the driver’s concentration, judgment, and professionalism.

As a professional bus operator, I would never have tolerated loud or disruptive preaching, singing, merchandise sales, or other activities that interfered with my concentration while the vehicle was moving. That was not because I opposed Christianity, the Gospel, or religious freedom. My primary responsibility as a professional driver was to transport my passengers safely to their destinations. That obligation was neither negotiable nor subordinate to anyone’s personal religious preferences.

What My Experience in the United States Taught Me

My experience as a former public transit bus operator in Montgomery County, Maryland, United States, taught me that passenger safety, discipline, and respect for established transportation regulations are fundamental responsibilities that must never be compromised. Public transportation systems operate under clearly defined rules of passenger conduct intended to maintain order, protect passengers, and allow drivers to perform their duties without unnecessary distractions.

In Montgomery County, these rules prohibit activities such as eating and drinking, unauthorized selling, obstructing or interfering with the driver, and engaging in disruptive conduct that could compromise the safe operation of a vehicle. Passengers are also expected to avoid unnecessary conversations with the operator while the bus is moving, particularly when such interactions could divert the driver's attention from the road. These restrictions are not directed against Christianity, Islam, traditional religions, or any other religious belief. They protect the traveling public, regardless of religious affiliation, social status, or personal convictions.

Having operated public transit buses carrying passengers whose lives depended on my concentration, judgment, and professionalism, I understand firsthand why such regulations are necessary. As a professional operator, I would never have allowed loud preaching, disruptive singing, unauthorized commercial activity, or any other conduct that could distract me from driving. My responsibility was not to accommodate every passenger's personal preferences at the expense of safety, but to ensure that everyone entrusted to my care arrived safely at their destination. The principle is simple: passenger safety must always take precedence over activities that could distract the driver or disrupt the orderly operation of a moving vehicle. This raises an important question: Why should Ghana be treated differently? Why should a commercial driver's legal and moral obligation to protect passengers take a back seat to a preacher's desire to deliver a sermon while the vehicle is in motion?

A passenger boards a commercial vehicle primarily to be transported safely from one destination to another, not to be subjected to an unsolicited religious service. That passenger may be a Christian, a Muslim, a traditional believer, a follower of another religion, or someone who does not profess any religious faith. Every passenger deserves equal respect, safe transportation, and the opportunity to travel without unnecessary disturbances.

Freedom of religion is a fundamental constitutional right, but it must be exercised with due regard for others' equally important rights, freedoms, and safety. No individual or religious group should assume that the freedom to practice or proclaim a particular faith automatically confers an unrestricted entitlement to impose religious activities on others, especially when public safety may be compromised.

Protecting passengers from avoidable distractions is not religious persecution; it is an essential responsibility of every professional driver and a legitimate objective of public transportation safety regulations.

The Law Existed Long Before the Current Controversy

One of the most troubling aspects of the current debate is some commentators’ apparent reluctance to examine the regulation’s history. President Mahama did not invent the restriction on preaching and hawking inside moving public and commercial vehicles. Regulation 116 of Ghana’s Road Traffic Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2180), already prohibited causing or permitting a nuisance, including preaching and hawking, inside a public or commercial vehicle while it was in motion. This provision has been in effect for about fourteen years.

Under Regulation 141 of the Road Traffic Regulations, 2026 (L.I. 2519), the restriction was retained, but the government imposed more severe penalties. That historical distinction is important. Portraying the underlying prohibition as a new government initiative intended to undermine Christianity is misleading. This naturally raises questions about the intensity and timing of the current outrage. Why is a longstanding transportation safety restriction suddenly being cited as evidence of religious persecution? What has changed so fundamentally in road safety? Why is the debate framed primarily as a confrontation between the Church and the current government, rather than as an examination of passenger safety and appropriate enforcement?

President Mahama has publicly clarified that the restriction does not generally prohibit preaching on buses. According to his explanation, preachers may address passengers when vehicles are stationary at terminals or loading points, but must stop once the vehicles start moving. Reports on October 9 also indicated that the government had suspended implementation of the disputed 2026 provision pending further consideration, though the full terms of the suspension had not been disclosed.

People may legitimately disagree about the severity of the proposed penalties, the definition of nuisance, enforcement procedures, and the risk of disproportionate punishment. These are suitable topics for public debate. However, disagreement over penalties or enforcement does not, in itself, establish that the government is attempting to suppress Christianity.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage
What I find especially troubling is the selective approach some religious commentators take to individual freedom. They passionately defend a preacher’s freedom to deliver a sermon in a moving commercial vehicle, yet pay far less attention to passengers’ freedom not to participate. What about the driver, who must maintain attention at all times? What about an elderly passenger who needs a quiet ride, a parent traveling with young children, or passengers whose religious beliefs differ from the preacher’s? Does religious liberty mean that one person’s religious expression must always take precedence over everyone else’s equally legitimate interests? Certainly not.

Some critics have asked why preaching should be restricted when commercial vehicles may also play loud music, advertise, or engage in other disruptive behavior. That is a reasonable question, but it points to a different conclusion than the one being advanced. If loud music, excessive noise, aggressive advertising, or other conduct distracts the driver, fair and consistent safety regulations should address those distractions. The solution to inconsistent enforcement is to correct the inconsistency, not to demand exemptions for additional activities that pose similar risks. A public safety law must apply fairly, whether the disturbance comes from a preacher, a musician, a trader, or any other passenger.

Christianity Teaches Responsibility, Not Disorder

As a Bible teacher, I find it especially disappointing when religious arguments are advanced without adequate consideration of the biblical responsibilities that accompany Christian freedom. The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:40 (KJV): “Let all things be done decently and in order.” This instruction emphasizes order in Christian worship. The underlying principle is also relevant to how Christians conduct themselves in society.

The Bible does not teach that proclaiming the Gospel gives believers license to disregard others’ safety, dignity, or well-being. In Mark 12:31, Jesus Christ commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves. How can we profess love for our neighbors while dismissing reasonable concerns for their safety?

Romans 13:1 also teaches us to respect governing authority. This does not imply that every government decision is automatically correct or beyond criticism. Rather, it reminds Christians that respect for legitimate authority and the maintenance of social order matter. A responsible Christian may challenge an unjust law, advocate reform, or question excessive punishment. However, such challenges should be grounded in truth, fairness, and sound reasoning.

There is nothing inherently unchristian about a regulation designed to protect passengers from avoidable distractions in a moving vehicle.

Who Takes Responsibility When Things Go Wrong?

I have an important question for those making the strongest public declarations against this restriction: If a commercial driver becomes distracted and causes a preventable collision that kills innocent passengers, including children, who will accept responsibility? Will those insisting that preaching must continue in moving vehicles accept responsibility for the consequences? Will their public declarations bring the victims back to life?

After decades of teaching defensive driving, I understand how quickly distraction can lead to tragedy. A driver does not need to lose concentration for minutes. A momentary lapse may be enough to miss a pedestrian, overlook a developing hazard, or react too late to avoid a collision.

That is why professional drivers must stay aware of their surroundings and avoid distractions. Defensive driving depends on constant observation, anticipation, sound judgment, and timely responses.

A vehicle carrying passengers is not an ordinary gathering place. It is a moving environment in which human lives depend on the driver’s attention to the road. No responsible society should dismiss that reality simply because an activity has religious significance.

Religious Leaders Have a Duty to Speak Responsibly

Let me be clear: I have no objection to religious leaders criticizing President Mahama, the NDC, or any government entity. Religious institutions have an important historical responsibility to speak out against injustice, corruption, abuse of power, and violations of fundamental human rights. However, they must exercise that moral authority responsibly.

A religious leader’s political criticism should be grounded in evidence, consistency, and fairness, and include a willingness to acknowledge facts that may challenge his position. A pastoral title does not automatically make every political statement biblical truth. Nor does criticizing a pastor amount to criticizing Christianity. One can respect a religious leader’s calling while firmly disagreeing with his interpretation of public policy.

As the author of Christianity Lost in Translation, I have long been concerned that personal interests, political loyalties, or institutional ambitions can obscure Christian teaching when they shape religious interpretation. Through the Christian Sunday Podcast, I have also sought to promote thoughtful engagement with Scripture and the practical responsibilities of Christian living. It is therefore particularly concerning when political disagreement is framed as a battle between Christianity and the government.

I cannot help but wonder whether the National Cathedral project led some religious leaders to expect a Christian president to support its completion. The project became a powerful symbol, and substantial resources were committed to it. But support for Christianity should not be measured by whether a president builds a cathedral. I urge President Mahama not to let pressure or accusations of hostility toward the Church push him into a decision he believes is not in the public interest. Christians can worship at home, in churches, and in other suitable places; preaching on a moving public bus is not the only way to express or practice faith.

We should also consider how Christians would feel if a Muslim preacher boarded a bus and urged passengers to abandon Christianity or African traditional religion and embrace Islam. Would they be comfortable with that? The same question applies to any faith. Public transportation, especially on an aircraft, is a shared space where passengers should not be compelled to participate in religious activity. Nations progress when people respect reasonable laws and debate them on their merits, rather than treating every regulation as an attack on their faith.

The Church should speak the truth and uphold moral responsibility, not manufacture political controversy. Ghana needs religious leaders who can distinguish legitimate opposition to government policy from unfounded claims of religious persecution. That distinction is essential to preserving both religious freedom and the credibility of Christian leadership.

A Call for Consistency, Truth, and Public Safety

The controversy over preaching in moving commercial vehicles offers Ghana an opportunity to reflect on the relationship between individual liberties and collective responsibility. Defending freedom of worship does not conflict with supporting reasonable measures to protect passengers; the two principles can and should coexist. If the penalties prescribed under the 2026 Road Traffic Regulations are excessive, authorities should review them fairly and objectively. If enforcement procedures are unclear, the appropriate authorities should clarify them. If other activities that create comparable distractions are unregulated or inconsistently enforced, authorities must apply the law fairly and consistently, with accountability.

However, legitimate concerns about penalties or enforcement should never be used to distort the purpose, history, or intent of a road safety regulation in an attempt to portray Christianity as under attack without credible evidence.

We can disagree with specific provisions of the law without accusing the President of waging war on the Church. We can vigorously defend religious freedom without disregarding passengers' fundamental rights, safety, and comfort. Above all, we can remain committed Christians, faithfully proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, while recognizing that public transportation must operate under reasonable safety standards that protect human life. Christian faith and public safety are not competing interests; respecting and protecting human life is itself an expression of Christian responsibility.

I particularly appeal to religious leaders to exercise restraint, intellectual honesty, fairness, and consistency when commenting on matters of national importance. Their influence in society carries a greater responsibility to ensure that their public pronouncements are guided by truth, sound judgment, and moral integrity rather than by personal interests or political considerations. Religious leadership should promote understanding, unity, and responsible public discourse, not deepen divisions through exaggerated claims or selective interpretations of government policies.

The Church's credibility and moral authority are strengthened when its leaders courageously defend the truth, acknowledge established facts, uphold justice, and demonstrate genuine concern for the welfare of all of society, regardless of political affiliation. Conversely, that credibility is undermined when ordinary policy disagreements are unnecessarily transformed into religious confrontations, creating the false impression that every government decision affecting religious activities constitutes an attack on Christianity. The Church must remain a moral compass for society, not a political weapon for those who seek to advance partisan interests under the guise of defending the Christian faith.

Conclusion: Human Life Must Come First

My position remains firm.
Preach the Gospel, but respect public safety.

Defend Christianity, but defend the truth.
Exercise religious freedom while respecting others' rights and freedoms.

Criticize the President when you have legitimate grounds, but don't misrepresent public policy or allege religious persecution without sufficient evidence.

As a committed Christian, Bible teacher, author, host of the Christian Sunday Podcast, former public transit bus operator in Montgomery County, Maryland, and professional driver educator with decades of experience, I will continue to stand firmly for both religious freedom and responsible road safety. I see no contradiction between them.

On the contrary, I believe they complement each other and reinforce our collective moral responsibility to uphold human dignity, protect innocent lives, and promote society's well-being. Christianity teaches us to love our neighbors, respect others, and value the sanctity of human life. We should never sacrifice these obligations to religious expression, personal influence, or political expediency.

No sermon, religious title, political ambition, or government policy should ever take precedence over the preservation of human life. The Church must remain society's moral compass, defending truth, justice, compassion, and responsible leadership, rather than serving as a convenient platform for partisan confrontation or for advancing personal and political interests.

Our national discourse must be guided by established facts, sound reasoning, fairness, and a genuine commitment to protecting the traveling public. Religious leaders, political actors, and ordinary citizens alike have a responsibility to promote understanding rather than create unnecessary divisions.

Ultimately, we must recognize that road safety is not an attack on Christianity; religious freedom is not a license to cause disorder; and defending the Gospel does not require us to disregard others' rights and safety. The Church must never allow its sacred mission to become a tool for cheap political point-scoring. True Christian leadership should inspire responsibility, uphold truth, promote peace, and, above all, recognize that protecting human life is not merely a civic obligation but also a sacred moral duty.

GOD BLESS OUR HOMELAND, GHANA!
By Charles Kpodzo
Bible Teacher, Author, Road Safety Educator and Former U.S. Public Transit Operator