Constitutional Hill

Rapport

On freedom of religion

Nov 21st, 2007
by Pierre De Vos.
2 comments

My somewhat tongue in cheek post about the firing of the Rapport columnist, Deon Maas, earlier this week and a subsequent post on the Thought Leader page have elicited strong comment from several quarters berating me for my intollerance and lack of respect for the freedom of religion of others. Others have said that the successful campaign to get Maas fired from Rapport was merely an expression of freedom of expression and religion and that I am just a hateful person for calling such people bigots.

As a guy called Attie du Plessis memorably summed it up on Thought Leader:

We live in the real world where some people have chosen to keep their faith. Just because you are to[o] small minded to understand that choice is the basic foundation of our society, does not give you the right to critisize.

It seems to me this criticism emanating from people who support the axing of Deon Maas, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of freedom of religion (and freedom of speech) in a democracy.

What they are saying is that they see their religious beliefs as so sacred and untouchable that they have the right to silence anyone who in any way challenges those beliefs. Rapport, they seem to say, is our newspaper, and if anyone is going to be allowed to write anything in that paper that does not square with what we believe already, we have a right to get rid of that person. This is the freedom we have to use our commercial muscle to shut up things or ideas we do not wish to be confronted with or know or think about.

They talk the language of “choice” and “freedom” but their actions reflect a profound distrust of choice because they wish to prevent the exercise of any meaningful choice and thus the exercise of any meaningful freedom.

In my opinion, at the heart of the South African Bill of Rights is the notion of dignity in freedom, the idea that one can only truly live a life in which one’s dignity is respected if one has the choices to decide who one is, what one believes in and how one wants to live. This requires food to eat and a roof over your head, yes, but also the education and the exposure to different ideas that would make one’s life choices meaningful.

Of course, one must be free to choose one’s religious beliefs or whether one wants to believe in anything at all (I like the Australian bumper sticker that says: “Everyone has to believe in something – I believe I will have another beer), but that belief must be a genuine one based not on habit or tradition, but on an active choice made after some exposure to opinions that are not shared by the majority of people in one’s community or the country.

If I was born into a Christian or Muslim family and I was never exposed to ideas about other religions or belief systems, then my choice to remain a Christian or a Muslim would not really be a religious choice respecting my dignity at all – it would merely be a choice not to upset my parents or not to face up to other powerful societal forces, a choice to conform and to do what is expected of me. That is not religious belief but religion as culture. But I would make an even stronger and somewhat controversial claim: I believe that in the absence of such a choice I would not be living a life of dignity in freedom, but a life of un-freedom and (internalised) oppression.

I always think it strange that many people who believe that their god is the one true god – and believe this passionately and with much conviction – do not seem to revel in the opportunity to test their beliefs against the beliefs or non-beliefs of others. Such people seem to express a severe insecurity about their beliefs – as if any mention of other beliefs or non-believing will threaten the very core of their existence.

The people who had the columnist at Raport fired for presenting a view that differed from their own, therefore seem to me to be rather defensive about their beliefs and do not at all seem sure that these beliefs would stand up to scrutiny. Either that, or they are just plain intolerant, narrow-minded and hateful and think: we are the majority and we do not like this so we will stop this person from having a say in our newspaper.

The problem is of course that many adherents to almost every religion believes that theirs is the one and true religion and that their god is extra special and thus demands obedience and respect from all – even non-believers. The very nature of strong religious beliefs therefore often seems to make religious tolerance difficult if not impossible. If I believe only my god can save the world from eternal damnation and if I believe only my god is the Truth, why would I want to listen to what others have to say: I would be certain and would really have a duty not to be led astray by sex or drugs or rock and roll  or philosophy.

This kind of religious certainty has, of course, caused much conflict and death in the world and will continue to do so. Like all absolute certainty, it seems deeply illiberal (to use a favourite Ronald Suresh Roberts phrase) and perpetuates hatred and fear in the world. It is that certainty that is at its heart intolerant and, I have to say, bigoted, because it condemns all other views and all others who hold such views (“turn on burn” says the Christians for instance) and demands uncritical obedience.

Our Constitution tries to steer a middle course by saying all religions and all religious beliefs must be respected and protected along with other beliefs and opinions. The problem is that many religious groups find it shocking to have their religion relegated to just one more belief system that can be discussed and debated and criticised alongside others. How dare you compare Satanism with the Holy NG Kerk?! That shock stems from an unfortunate intolerance and hatred of Others that comes with the absolute certainty of one’s own beliefs.

In the end the Constitutional Court’s demand for respect for diversity and respect for the dignity in freedom of every person is not easily squared with the kind of religious intolerance and hatred of Others that so many believers still cling to. I suspect no matter what the Constitutional Court or anyone else say, this kind of certainty is not to be dislodged, so we will continue to live in a society in which intolerance of other views and hatred of “the Other” will thrive.

Finally, I would contend that by putting forward this argument I am not displaying intolerance, as alleged by my detractors, because I am not saying believers should not be allowed to write articles in Rapport where they can denounce my views or even me. I am saying, let us express our views frankly and openly and let us talk about it and let us see who wins the argument. If that is intolerant, then thank god for intolerance.

Satanism the downfall of Rapport columnist, but why?

Nov 16th, 2007
by Pierre De Vos.
8 comments

The Afrikaans Sunday newspaper, Rapport, is not on my list of must-read publications. Ever since it paid Wit Wolf Barend Strydom R25 000 for a post-prison interview in the early nineties and then treated the mass murderer as if he was a hero of the Volk, I have struggled to regain any respect for the paper. It is not the stories of dominees caught with their pants down that turn me away but the terribly parochial attention to Rugby and all matters Afrikaans. Every time I read it I want to scream: Red nou ‘n Volk!

However, the editor’s decision this week to fire columnist, Deon Maas, because of a column he wrote on Sanatism have lowered my even low estimation of the paper. Don’t these people have any backbone? And who are these readers who still get upset about mild schoolboy statements aiming to shock? Don’t these people have better things to do?

Maas, who used to write a mildly amusing column for the Saturday supplement to Die Burger and Beeld before moving to Rapport two weeks ago, apparently offended some serious religious nuts by writing that Satanism was a religion like any other and was therefore constitutionally entitled to the same kind of protection as any other religion. In tongue in cheek style he wrote that he was not a big fan of Satanism because it was rather a lot of effort.

Die slag van vreedsame huisdiere, die skeur van Bybels, die algemene beswaardheid waarmee jy moet saamleef, swart geverfde vingernaels en die feit dat jy gewoonlik ná middernag moet wakker wees om jou geloof te beoefen, is alles faktore wat Anton LaVey se filosofie effe onaanvaarbaar vir my maak. (The slaughtering of peaceful pers, the tearing up of Bibles, the general moodiness you have to keep up, painted blck nails and the fact that one usually had to practice one’s religion after midnight, are all factors that makes Anton LaVey’s phlosophy somewhat unacceptable to me.)

Probably anticipating some of the histrionic reactions of some Rapport readers, some of them who seem to be caught in a time warp and still seem to believe that dancing on Sunday is a mortal sins and that having sex with one’s wife is only barely torelable in the eyes of God, Maas tries to cover his back by writing:

Propageer hierdie rubriek Satanisme? Nee. Maar as ons wil hê ander mense moet ons punt insien en ons idees respekteer, moet ons hul punt insien en hul idees respekteer. Om iemand anders se idee te verstaan, beteken nie dat jy daarmee hoef saam te stem nie. (Do I propagate Satanism in this column. No. But if we want others to see our point of view or respect our ideas, we have to also try and see their point of view and respect their ideas. To understand anothers idea does not necessarily mean to agree with it.)

Eight days after this column appeared, an sms campaign was launched by faceless readers to boycott the paper. According to its editor Tim Du Plessis, the campaign which also targeted the distributors of the paper, started affecting the commercial interest of the paper. Freedom of expression is one thing, but the bottom line is clearly another, hence Maas was dismissed unceremoniously.

The saga is depressing on several levels. It suggests that a sizable chunk of Rapport readers and therefore South Africans have not yet internalized the values of tolerance and respect for diversity enshrined in our Constitution and, in fact, may be actively opposed to such a value system. Maas was of course perfectly correct: the Constitution protects our freedom of religion and conscience, which includes the right to practices one’s religion as long as one does not break the law. If I want to open a Satanist Church in Putsonderwater next to the NG Kerk (or the massage parlour for that matter) I am constitutionally entitled to do so. Religious fanatics do not have a constitutional right to stop me form practicing my beliefs – no matter how peculiar or boring they may appear. In fact, Priests in the Catholic Church are allowed to prance around in their dresses and wave around smoke while making funny noises while the sinister Afrikaner Protestantse Kerk can conduct sermons where black people are not allowed. This is called freedom of religion.

Now this is Rapport we are talking about, so one must assume their readers are not all the brightest and that many of them do not rejoice and praise the Lord every Sunday for delivering us from the evil apartheid system and allowing us to live in a free country now. But there seems to be a difference between people who has a silent, simmering, hatred and distrust for the values of the “new South Africa” and people who are actively prepared to fight against these values.

It is quite disturbing that there are enough such people to launch a successful boycott campaign against a newspaper merely because someone published an article in it pleading for tolerance of Satanism and extolling the virtues of freedom of religion. It suggests these people are very, very cross: they probably believe that Satanism is up there with eating baby livers for dinner or catching a black man having sex with your blond daughter in the marital bed (I am not equating these things, of course, but mocking the values of those who started this campaign).

To me these views are absurd and ridiculous and I can hardly imagine that there are still people who get upset about Satanism. But then again I do not believe in Satanism or baby Jesus, so maybe I am not the right person to get to grips with this. But looking around me I wonder: if they are so concerned with evil, should they not rather campaign against the Catholic Church for condoning child molestation or start a campaign against child hunger? Is it really worse that Deon Maas writes about Satanism than that people still die of hunger in the world?

Of course, the fact that these views are out there, suggest that no matter what the Constitutional Court says about respect for diversity, many South Africans have hatred in their blood and will not be deterred by mooipraatjies about respect for the views of others.

It is also sad and a bit frightening that the newspaper caved in so easily while piously claiming it supported the notion of freedom of speech. (Strangely it did not endorse the equally important protected freedom of religion, belief and conscience – maybe because its readers do not endorse it either?) Can freedom of the press be undermined so easily by citizen activism?

Whatwould happen if ANC activists started a similar campaign against Mondli Makanya from the Sunday Times? Will they have the same clout to convince its owners to fire him for “commercial reasons”? Or will the proprietors of the Sunday Times have a bit more of a backbone than those at Rapport? Troubling thought indeed.