Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 5 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-06-04 20:22:14 +02:00 | Louise | No I do not | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | ||
2026-06-04 19:02:47 +02:00 | Carol | No I do not | All of the above | Duplication of Existing Laws (Unnecessary Regulation) | At this stage, the priority should be meaningful consultation, constitutional sensitivity, and a clear demonstration that any proposed intervention is both necessary and in the public interest. South Africans deserve governance that is focused on solving urgent national problems rather than introducing measures that may create further tension, bureaucracy, and uncertainty. |
2026-06-04 18:57:06 +02:00 | George | No I do not | All of the above | Duplication of Existing Laws (Unnecessary Regulation) | The CRL Rights Commission’s proposal to increase regulation of the religious sector raises important constitutional and practical concerns. While accountability is important, any move toward greater state involvement in matters of faith must be carefully justified, narrowly framed, and subject to meaningful public consultation. At a time when South Africa is facing urgent governance and service delivery challenges, the focus should remain on addressing those priorities without compromising fundamental freedoms. |
2026-06-04 18:07:45 +02:00 | Carol | No I do not | All of the above | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | Freedom of religion is our constitutional right. The state should not get involved when it involves our right to worship. |
2026-06-04 18:05:36 +02:00 | Jeanne | No I do not | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights |
-
- 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.
- Standardising Accountability:
-
- 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.
- The Legislative “Mask”: