comments

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Displaying the 5 latest comments.

view more ...
Submitted
first-name
support
concern
top-concern
message
2026-07-15 15:56:59 +02:00
Gwyneth
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 15:56:37 +02:00
Lee
No I do not
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
I will not be told by people who worship their ancestors on how I will worship my God. Tsek ANC
2026-07-15 15:56:33 +02:00
Schmiedeskamp
No I do not
All of the above
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-15 15:54:49 +02:00
Michael
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 15:53:57 +02:00
Shannon
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
I believe we should have the right to practice our religion freely.

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