Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 5 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-05-15 14:39:37 +02:00 | Cyndy | No I do not | All of the above | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | Cannot agree to anything that infringes the right to religious freedoms |
2026-05-15 14:39:01 +02:00 | Richard | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | One of the found tenants of thew South African constitution was to ensure freedom for all citizens Additionally, as per Section 15. - There is no official religion for South Africa, yet the majority are Christian - People may practice religion freely, alone or in groups - Religious activities in public institutions must be fair and voluntary - No discrimination is allowed based on religion - Religious practices must not violate other rights. I do not see how these tenets can be adhered to when the state is allowed to police people/institutions based on how their religion is run. We are trying to police something which is very subjective and varies substantively in the practice of the religion. Is the state going to have an expert on every religion and denomination? Furthermoe, the South African government is currently blatantly Marxist in its ideology, and we cannot assume that they are able to put up suitable guardrails, in this matter, to prevent misuse by an ideology that believes that religion is inherently evil. |
2026-05-15 14:38:38 +02:00 | Yulene | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | |
2026-05-15 14:38:29 +02:00 | Mrs L | No I do not | All of the above | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | This is pure desire to control the State's citizenry by whatever means. Surely the Government could find better and more meaningful things to do. Building more houses for a start. There is sufficient legislation to prevent the poor and uneducated. It just needs more and quicker action. Work in other words by those in power. |
2026-05-15 14:38:08 +02:00 | Peter | No I do not | Dangerous Precedent for All Civil Society (The Wildcard) |
-
- 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”: