Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-05-15 15:41:42 +02:00 | Liz | No I do not | All of the above | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | |
2026-05-15 15:41:33 +02:00 | Helen | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | The state cannot interfere with the spiritual beliefs of its citizens. The knock-on effect of being able to control society's choice of associations is also of great concern. |
2026-05-15 15:41:20 +02:00 | Garth | No I do not | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | ||
2026-05-15 15:41:01 +02:00 | Walter | No I do not | All of the above | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | |
2026-05-15 15:40:28 +02:00 | Gideon | No I do not | All of the above | Dangerous Precedent for All Civil Society (The Wildcard) | Dit is totaal onaanvaarbaar vír ons Christelike mense om vry te wees om die woord van God te verkondig en uit te leef |
2026-05-15 15:40:23 +02:00 | Rick | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | I am an atheist and have never been convinced by religious claims. At the same time, I fully support every person’s right to believe and practise their faith freely, provided it does not result in harm, coercion or the use of religion to incite division or abuse. My concern with the CRL Commission’s proposed framework is not about faith itself, but about the principle of state involvement in regulating it. While described as voluntary and cooperative, the proposal appears to move toward a statutory structure with powers to license, oversee, and potentially deregister religious organisations. That marks a shift from protecting freedom of belief to making aspects of it conditional on state approval. A particularly troubling aspect is the move beyond regulating illegal conduct toward assessing so-called “unethical conduct”. Criminal behaviour is already addressed by existing law, but “ethics” is inherently subjective and shaped by cultural, political and ideological perspectives. Once the State or a statutory body is empowered to judge what is ethically acceptable in matters of conscience, the boundary between lawful oversight and control of belief becomes blurred. What is labelled “unethical” today may simply be dissenting opinion tomorrow. History shows the risks of this trajectory. In countries such as China and the former Soviet Union, state-approved religious structures and licensing systems were used to bring faith communities under political control. South Africa already has sufficient laws to deal with fraud, harm and abuse. The question is whether we strengthen enforcement of those laws, or introduce new mechanisms that risk expanding state influence into matters of conscience. |
2026-05-15 15:40:04 +02:00 | Neil | No I do not | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | I am concerned that South Africa is aiming to implement a law that will violate citizen’s constitutional rights, and futher authoritarian ambitions. | |
2026-05-15 15:40:01 +02:00 | Katlego Monkga | No I do not | All of the above | Dangerous Precedent for All Civil Society (The Wildcard) | Sufficient Protection: South Africa already possesses a comprehensive legal framework capable of addressing criminal abuse within any sector, including religious spaces. Applicable Laws: Existing criminal law (fraud, assault, coercion), the Children’s Act, and domestic violence legislation already provide strong protections . The Real Issue: The problem identified is not a lack of law, but rather a lack of consistent enforcement, reporting, and public awareness . Inefficiency: Creating a new regulatory system duplicates existing frameworks and shifts focus away from the effective enforcement of the laws we already have. |
2026-05-15 15:39:54 +02:00 | G | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | This is what you get when the country is in communist control. |
2026-05-15 15:39:46 +02:00 | Ben | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | The Government Little by little is trying to engage as a communist society. They can then control Religion or lack of. All to be controlled by state. We become puppets of the ruling party. |
2026-05-15 15:38:24 +02:00 | Dimitrios | No I do not | All of the above | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | My objections are based on the following concerns: Infringement on Religious Freedom The proposed framework appears to introduce forms of oversight and control that may interfere with the constitutional right to freedom of religion, belief, and association. Religious institutions should remain free to govern their doctrine, leadership structures, worship practices, and internal affairs without undue external interference. Excessive Regulatory Burden The framework may impose administrative and compliance obligations that many churches, particularly smaller congregations and independent ministries, may not have the resources to meet. This could unfairly disadvantage grassroots faith communities. Risk of Government Overreach Although presented as “self-regulation,” the framework may create pathways for indirect state influence over religious bodies. Any mechanism that allows external authorities to determine legitimacy, leadership standards, or operational requirements for churches could undermine the independence of the Christian sector. Lack of Adequate Consultation There appears to have been insufficient broad-based consultation with churches across different denominations, independent ministries, and Christian communities. A framework affecting the entire Christian sector should only proceed after meaningful and inclusive engagement. One-Size-Fits-All Approach The Christian sector is diverse in doctrine, governance, tradition, and practice. A single regulatory framework may not adequately respect these differences and may unintentionally impose standards unsuitable for certain churches or ministries. Existing Legal Protections Already Apply Churches and religious organisations are already subject to the laws of the Republic concerning fraud, abuse, financial misconduct, and criminal activity. Additional sector-specific regulation may therefore be unnecessary and duplicative. I respectfully request that the proposed framework be withdrawn pending broader consultation with constitutional experts. I support accountability and ethical leadership within the Christian sector; however, such measures must not compromise religious liberty, institutional independence, or constitutional protections. |
2026-05-15 15:38:19 +02:00 | Charles | No I do not | All of the above | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | |
2026-05-15 15:38:11 +02:00 | Coral | No I do not | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | God is the Creator of everything and everyone and inspired the Scriptures to be written to show us the way to Salvation. He gave us Free Will to choose whether or not to follow him. No one is allowed to regulate if or how we do so! | |
2026-05-15 15:37:45 +02:00 | Andre | No I do not | Dangerous Precedent for All Civil Society (The Wildcard) | Please use our hard earned money which we had to pay over as tax - TO BUILD UP AND RESTORE OUR BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY, NOT TO THINK UP UNNECESSARY AND INTRUSIVE LEGISLATION!! | |
2026-05-15 15:37:40 +02:00 | Karin | 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”: