kommentaar

2026-06-08 20:18:46 +02:00

Ingrid

Nee ek doen nie

Al bogenoemde

Gevaarlike presedent vir die hele burgerlike samelewing (die Wildcard)

2026-06-08 20:03:08 +02:00

Riaad

Nee ek doen nie

Staatsinmenging in godsdienstige etiek en leerstellings

2026-06-08 16:33:13 +02:00

Sholto

Nee ek doen nie

Al bogenoemde

Staatsinmenging in godsdienstige etiek en leerstellings

2026-06-08 15:49:48 +02:00

Frank

Nee ek doen nie

Staatsinmenging in godsdienstige etiek en leerstellings

The State is infringing on the freedom of Religion rights reserved in the RSA Constitution.
For a healthy co-existence between the State and the Religious beliefs the state should respect the Freedom of Religion and not infringe on the People of South Africa to Worship freely.

2026-06-08 13:50:04 +02:00

Ester

Nee ek doen nie

Al bogenoemde

Staatsinmenging in godsdienstige etiek en leerstellings

Religious freedom in South Africa is protected by sections 15, 18, and 31 of the Constitution, and given content by the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms, to which the CRL is itself a signatory. Religious freedom is a right, NOT a privilege the State may grant, suspend, or withdraw. Religious organisations must comply with laws of general application, such as tax, criminal law, child safeguarding, labour, and NPO law, but no State body has spiritual jurisdiction over doctrine, ordination, calling, worship, leadership, or internal religious governance, directly or indirectly.
The proposal is unconstitutional, failing the section 36 limitations test; unnecessary, given that existing law already addresses every category of harm raised. I oppose any controlling or compulsory regulation of religion beyond general law, including any statutory or State-enabled regulatory council; (The CRL Chair’s own public statements that the proposed council would be “created and empowered by an Act of Parliament”); mandatory registration of churches, ministries, or leaders; State-imposed codes of conduct; licensing, accreditation, vetting, or approval of religious actors; any “seal of good standing”; forced participation in umbrella bodies or peer-review structures; and any register capable of indirect control.

Sadly, after also listening to the reasons why Reverend Professor Musa Xulu resigned, it confirms my mistrust of the present CRL's shifting mandate: Rev Prof Xulu claimed he was initially appointed to research self-regulation, but later realized the committee was being used to impose state control on the Christian sector. Rev Prof Xulu stated he was unaware of how the Section 22 Committee was originally constituted and never chaired a formal meeting before resigning. So that is a confirmation to me that he was simply used as a "figurehead" to placate us Christians and lull us into a false sense of security, while they try in the background, (and behind closed doors) to take away our freedom. May God have mercy on their souls!