comments3

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Displaying the 30 latest comments.

Submitted
first-name
support
concern
top-concern
message
2026-07-15 18:52:53 +02:00
San-Mari
No I do not
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-15 18:47:59 +02:00
Arinda
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 18:47:09 +02:00
Bethany
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 18:42:04 +02:00
Marenique
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 18:39:37 +02:00
Michael
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 18:36:36 +02:00
Sharné
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
I'm concerned that state interference in religion is one step closer to socialism/communism or a new form of nationalism. Not only Christian churches will be impacted. All religious organisations and individual rights to choose and practice religion will be impacted. It's not the place of the government to control our spiritual lives. The government is there to protect our rights and freedoms.
2026-07-15 18:34:21 +02:00
Mia
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 18:28:44 +02:00
Tanita
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 18:28:13 +02:00
John
Yes I do
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-15 18:27:52 +02:00
Robert
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 18:27:30 +02:00
Sharon
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 18:15:53 +02:00
Ulrich
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 18:02:37 +02:00
Michael
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 17:55:23 +02:00
Stephan
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 17:54:56 +02:00
Malubekho
No I do not
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-15 17:33:20 +02:00
Andre
No I do not
Dangerous Precedent for All Civil Society (The Wildcard)
2026-07-15 17:32:22 +02:00
Bradley
No I do not
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-15 17:28:21 +02:00
Adrian
No I do not
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
This is not the area for Governments control. We have other criminal laws in place that convict criminals should they break the law.
2026-07-15 17:25:48 +02:00
Rene
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 17:24:32 +02:00
Francionette
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 17:21:11 +02:00
Michele
Yes I do
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 17:09:58 +02:00
Wendy
No I do not
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-15 17:08:11 +02:00
Genevieve
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 16:55:17 +02:00
Amelia
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 16:51:44 +02:00
Kate
No I do not
All of the above
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-15 16:51:21 +02:00
Michele
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 16:51:05 +02:00
Kate
No I do not
All of the above
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-15 16:47:46 +02:00
John
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 16:47:12 +02:00
Canja
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-15 16:45:26 +02:00
Dawie
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
    • 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.
    • 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.