comments

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Displaying the 5 latest comments.

view more ...
Submitted
first-name
support
concern
top-concern
message
2026-05-15 15:47:03 +02:00
Theo
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
I want to maintain the freedom granted me by the Constitution to worship whom I want to worship in the way I want to worship the true God
2026-05-15 15:46:53 +02:00
Attie
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
No government has any business interfering in religious matters.

We have sufficient laws to close down institutions that violate rights of members.
2026-05-15 15:46:17 +02:00
Quentin
No I do not
All of the above
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
This proposal potentially violates Section 15 (freedom of religion and conscience), Section 18 (freedom of association), and Section 31 (the right of religious communities to govern themselves) of the Constitution .
The Limitation Test:
Under Section 36, any limitation of rights must be the least restrictive means available; opponents argue that where existing laws already address harm, this regulation is an unconstitutional overreach .
2026-05-15 15:46:04 +02:00
Frederik
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-05-15 15:45:51 +02:00
Brian
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine

Arguments in Favour of the Framework

    • Standardising Accountability:
      Proponents argue the framework is essential to establish clear standards for internal governance, financial transparency, and ethical leadership within religious organisations to restore public trust.
    • Protecting the Vulnerable:
      The initiative aims to safeguard marginalised communities, including the poor and those with disabilities, from exploitation and harmful “healing” practices.
    • Sector-Led Reform:
      The Committee describes the process as a voluntary, proactive initiative “by the Church, for the Church,” allowing the sector to govern itself rather than facing direct State intervention.
    • Independent Oversight:
      Supporters emphasise that the proposed Christian Practice Council for Ethics and Accountability (CPCEA) would be an independent body of respected religious leaders and experts, not a government department.

Arguments in Opposition to the Framework

    • The Legislative “Mask”:
      Critics contend that while the process is labeled “voluntary,” the intended outcome is a statutory council created by an Act of Parliament with the legal authority to deregister institutions.
    • The “Four Uns”:
      Opponents argue the proposal is Unconstitutional (violating freedom of religion), Unnecessary (existing laws already cover crimes like fraud and assault), Unworkable, and Unaffordable.
    • Regulation of “Ethics”:
      There is concern that moving beyond criminal law to regulate “unethical conduct” allows the State to intrude into subjective matters of belief, doctrine, and private conscience.
    • The “Wildcard” Precedent:
      Critics warn that establishing a State-enabled council for religion sets a legal precedent that could be used to justify similar government oversight of all civil society sectors, including the press and NGOs.
have your say