comments3

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Displaying the 30 latest comments.

have your say
Submitted
first-name
support
concern
top-concern
message
2026-07-10 22:39:01 +02:00
Marie-Louise
No I do not
All of the above
Practical Impossibility of Standardisation (Unworkable)
2026-07-10 20:24:21 +02:00
Trudie
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-10 18:44:31 +02:00
Erin
No I do not
Duplication of Existing Laws (Unnecessary Regulation)
2026-07-10 14:46:57 +02:00
Kellan
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-10 11:54:00 +02:00
Theuns
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-10 10:50:17 +02:00
Louise
No I do not
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-09 20:00:53 +02:00
Shami
No I do not
All of the above
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-09 19:34:52 +02:00
Coralee
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 19:33:48 +02:00
Amy
No I do not
All of the above
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-09 19:18:54 +02:00
Marius
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 19:05:52 +02:00
Carla
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 17:31:10 +02:00
Hugo
No I do not
All of the above
Duplication of Existing Laws (Unnecessary Regulation)
2026-07-09 17:21:12 +02:00
Callie
No I do not
All of the above
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-09 15:24:50 +02:00
Graham
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 14:59:59 +02:00
Corne
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 14:37:59 +02:00
Heidi
No I do not
Duplication of Existing Laws (Unnecessary Regulation)
2026-07-09 14:18:56 +02:00
Mike
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 12:52:49 +02:00
Martinus
No I do not
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-09 12:38:49 +02:00
Jean
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 12:21:36 +02:00
Tamsyn
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 12:19:14 +02:00
Taigan
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 12:16:19 +02:00
Andre
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 11:14:33 +02:00
Elizna
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 09:38:04 +02:00
Ursula
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
I have always believed politics and religion should not cross boundaries. Please resepect and allow people to practice their religion without interference barring no laws are broken
2026-07-09 09:27:51 +02:00
Jessica
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
2026-07-09 09:25:39 +02:00
Steve
No I do not
All of the above
Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights
2026-07-09 09:25:22 +02:00
Wayne
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
The Government DO NOT belong in the CHURCH.
They have elected themselves Above God, & THEREFORE no longer have they been elected by God over the nation, AND THAT IS WHY GOD IN HIS SOVEREIGNTY EILL REMOVE THEM FROM OFFICE.
2026-07-09 09:13:09 +02:00
Charleé
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
.
2026-07-09 09:13:07 +02:00
Archbishop Dr Wesley
No I do not
All of the above
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine
When it comes to religion it is my choice. As a Christian it's my choice how l pray, teach and advocate what l feel is right. As a leader of the gospel of Jesus Christ l belong to his kingdom not the kingdom of this world. I listen to what the Spirit of God tells me. No government or or any powers of authority will made me do anything outside of the church of Jesus Christ. I am mandated to preach teach and promote the Kingdom of God to all who would hear the truth and obey that.

Thank you
ARCHBISHOP DR WESLEY ANTHONY PUCKREE
2026-07-09 09:12:31 +02:00
Vanessa
No I do not
State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine

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.