I was struck again today by how difficult it is for all South Africans to come to grips with the implications of our world class Constitution. Individuals in institutions tend to continue to act in ways that reflect their own view of the world, without taking cognizance of the need to change assumptions and transform practices in line with the requirements of our Bill of Rights.
We tend to see the world from our own vantage point and if we are members of the dominant group we often fail to notice the often hidden assumptions on which we choose to base our decisions and practices. The Constitution is supposed to help change this, but change comes slowly and will often be resisted on grounds that might seem reasonable but might hide a kind of majoritarian world view that inevitably leads to the marginalisation of minorities.
This is especially evident when the right to freedom of religion and conscience is at stake. So, I was not surprised when I discovered that the supplementary exam for one of my courses was scheduled for a Friday afternoon between twelve thirty to two thirty. This meant that Muslim students who wanted to attend Friday Prayers could not write the exam and had to apply for a special examination to be written in the new year.
When questioning this, I was provided with a seemingly reasonable explanation, namely that it would not have been possible to reschedule exams for this time slot because there simply were not enough time slots in the supplementary examination week to accommodate all the courses to be written on Friday afternoon.
The Constitutional Court has dealt with this question in the so called nose stud case where it provided a nuanced understanding of the role of culture and religion in our society and the ways in which minority cultural and religious groups are marginalised and discriminated against.
In that case Chief Justice Langa pointed out that a Code of Conduct like the one adopted by Durban Girls High School was not a neutral document. The norms of such a code actually enforced mainstream and historically privileged practices and excluded marginalised practices. What was required in such cases was for a school or other institution to make a reasonable accommodation of all the different cultural and religious practices of its members. This required more than mere tolerance of what is perceived as weird or alien beliefs and practices and required a celebration of the diversity of cultures and religions in South Africa.
The case should be compulsory reading for all managers in South Africa as it has profound consequences for our debate about religious diversity. It placed a heavy burden on any institution to accommodate those who do not form part of the majority and whose beliefs and practices are not embedded in the institutional culture of that institution through its codes, rules and practices.
So often those who form part of the majority do not notice that the rules and codes they have adopted reflects their own cultural beliefs and practices – often seeing the rules and codes as natural and normal expressions of what is required for the institution. This judgment instructs institutions to move away from culturally specific rules and codes and requires them to engage with diversity and difference.
If we had not lived in Zilleville, but in Islamabad, a University would have planned ahead to ensure that no exams would have to be written during the Friday Prayer. But because the vast majority of South Africans (and the University management) are Christian, this was never considered. It would have been easy to extend the examination period with one session to accommodate everyone, yet this was not done – not out of malice but because of a lack of knowledge and appreciation of minority religious practices.
This thoughtlessness sends a signal to the minority religious group that their religion is not equally respected in our society. It fails to celebrate the diversity of our society in the way advocated by the Constitutional Court.
Atheists or people who are sceptical about the existence of any higher being also face this problem as it is often assumed that one is religious and belongs to a specific religious community. This is why I was disappointed by the remarks made by Mr Jacob Zuma (ha, you thought I would get through an entire post without mentioning the Dear Leader!) that “we need to teach our people to fear God”.
No Mr Zuma, in line with the Constitution we need to teach our people to respect each other and each others beliefs – whether we believe in Allah, in Jesus Christ or merely believe that it is a good thing to have a glass of wine every day. Respect for difference is the key. But if one has a narrow world view and is not aware of one’s own hidden alienating assumptions about how the world works or ought to work, one cannot respect the full diversity of beliefs in South Africa.
Well, Prof, I think we must say that when a muslim expresses how to advance their unigue religious inclinations, such an act does not undermine other religions or our Constitution. It merely demostrates where they stand in the complex religious forest.
You will be one of the shocked people if a student may arrive for your supplementary examinations naked, not because is attacked by thugs, but expressing his cultural beliefs, nudity.
I genuinely agree with you that we must cultivate and embrace cultural and religious diversity. This includes appreciating that Zuma is christian and believes this must be nurtured. This is, in fact , permitted by the Constitution.
I did not hear Zuma saying atheist like myself must be eliminated or taken to a camp for forced religious indoctrination. I would have objected by heckling and howling and addressing written views against such an onslaught. I do know that you mentioned Zuma, your role model, to illustrate how entreched our own religious idiocycracies shape our thought process and actions.
As South Africa, we are just occupying a special spot in the area of asserting rights in the Constitution. The stark reality is that we have not achieved the vision of the Constitution, it still served as the guiding light. It a path we will traverse for perhaps more than a century.
Playing Devil’s advocate perhaps, but I was always told that I’ll never please all the people all the time…in a majority “Christian” nation, where do we draw the line?
Please understand that this is not me being racist/religist/facist/communist/right wing/left wing or counter-revolutionary – I agree with the Prof that we need to respect difference and diversity, even in seemingly minor things like scheduling exams. I just ask – should there be a point where we stop trying to make everybody happy, and if so where?
I am not a theological scholar, but I am pretty convinced that “religion(s)” has forever been used to “control” and “manipulate”. I am also very sure in most religions there is continuously change and drifting to suit the “manipulators” and “controllers”.
I often wonder why The Bible (the WORD of God) stopped 2000 years ago, did God stop speaking to us? (or do we just not hear Him anymore?) and for that matter also the other writings as the Quran, Torah and many more.
I do not believe it is the responsibility of politicians to educate religion (force-feeding at schools). There are too many religions (which one is the right one ?) Let the parents educate their children as far as the existence of The Higher Being goes, after all, children are a gift from a Higher Being to the parents to take care of until they can think for themselves and make up their own minds.
In this country Ive seen leaders use religion to score browny points. Two jump to mind quickly, Tutu and Zuma. The human mind (most of them) wants to believe in a Higher Power, that is why religion is such a convenient powerful and manipulating political tool.
Its about FAITH, NOT about religion and therefore I’d like to quote from Desiderata:
“…Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be ….… keep peace in your soul…”
And the award for missing the point completely goes to…
Simple solution: Let Muslims get Thursdays and Fridays off (like they do in the middle east, I believe), while the rest get Saturdays and Sundays off. In this manner, you effectively have 6 working days instead of 7. Atheists can then make arrangements with their employers on which 2 days they want off.
Of course they could’ve re-scheduled the few Muslim students for the immediate Saturday, especially since there is more than one exam available…
Compulsory Zuma bashing: I don’t believe in God, because if God was perfect, how the hell did She end up making Jacob Zuma?
Ishmael, your view of religious freedom is narrower than the view taken by the CC who said religious freedom meant freedom to hold religious beliefs, freedom the tell others about those beliefs and freedom to practice once religion. What is required is an absence of coercion. Muslim students who are not accommodated to go to Prayer are curtailed in this practice. Zuma saying we must teach people to fear God is an infringement of the first aspect. The state cannot and should not teach us to fear any deity as this would imply coercing us to believe something. It would be unconstitutional. The fact that my “role model” does not know this or does not care about it, is cause for concern…. What would happen if I said the state should teach people to hate God? Would you defend me then as well?
Eish Prof! You are fast becoming a Zuma thought police! Surely Zuma was not dictacting his religious views to anyone.
When Obama proclaimed “God Bless America!” did you complain? I thought I had you waxing lyrical about his victory speach! Seeing that you are now into hair-splitting, how could you have missed Obama’s “God Bless the United States” at the end of his speech? Is it only Zuma who’s not allowed to mention God?
Since when are you the defender of atheists? Surely, you should be consistent and call for the abolition of prayer from all public functions and institutions! Why don’t you criticise the CHIEF JUSTICE for asking MP’s during their swearing in to state..”SO HELP ME GOD”?
Pierre please be consistent, don’t just pick on Zuma. Thankfully, most fairminded people understood the point Zuma was trying to raise.
Anyhow, Prof, do you care telling us what our “world class Constitution” has to say about our National Anthem “Nkosi Sikelela iAfrica” or “God Bless Africa”?
Many of our communist leaders and comrades are atheist and yet I never heard a single one of them complaining that our anthem requires them to ask God to bless our country and continent! On the contrary, the legendary Joe Slovo (a blue blooded atheist) sang Nkosi Sikelela with such patriotic vigour, and yet he did not believe in God. Such was the measure of tolerance!
Lastly, Prof, I must concede though that you are making a generally good point about religious and cultural tolerance for our diversity. I am still curious to know the Constitutional implications for what appears at face value to be a religious inspired National Anthem. Can an atheist refuse to sing the words “God bless..”or …heed “our prayers..”.
Ah! the United States currency even has the inscription “in God we trust”. Now that’s a diverse society, and an older constitutional democracy! This is a very controversial debate that we’ll have to grapple with for many years to come.
Zuma certaintly did not advocate obliteration of other religions, cultures and beliefs. He is alive for the complex south african reality.
His simple point is that christian values must be nourished in elemetary schooling. This will be an arrangement for the majority christians and other religions. My children if they follow my path will be studying business law in the meantime or some area of interest. I do not think he said anything unconstitutional. Is it unconstitutional for the South African Government to incorporate religious education in the carrriculum for those inresrested? I think not.
Prof. I will concur with you in the event we are forced to learn a particular religion against our own conscience. This is not Zuma advocates.
If your viewpoint prevails, you will have to assist me launch a constitutiional challenge to my local school where classes are conducted in english and afrikaans to exclusively indigenous african students. These students truly want their vernicular to be the medium of instruction to assert their language and cultural rights.
I accept that you are to a constitutional law class, what Zuma is to a political audience. You do not engage in social discourse from the plane. The paradigms are far detached.
KZN MEC v Pillay. The case demostrates how interesting a debate judges and experts could have. I will say that the scheduling for you exams has to look at the balancing of the competing religous interests.
For example if we have 50 students being christians and two being muslim, we could ask them to skip prayers unless obligatory for purporses of live changing professional entreprise or s special office exam organised for the students.
I wholesale party for all will proof dificult to manage. As for the Zuma christian classes, my potentially atheist children will have to be exempted at their own will not my insistence.
I have done biblical studies and read the bible every night before sleeping. I was an active church-goer(a baptised catholic) but took an ideological offramp. We do not always need the constitutional court to shape our natural growth and choices.
Those gentlemen and ladies at the CC can get it wrong like in the case of determining indecent assault rape when it come to females !
There’s a world of a difference between wishing a religious blessing upon someone (saying god bless you, or god bless Africa) and saying that someone should conform to your religious views (saying ‘We need to teach our people to fear God’).
The former implies abiding by your constitutional right to practice your own religion. The latter implies you are forcing others to accept your religious views as their own.
What is the implication of what Zuma said for atheists? That there’s no place in South Africa for us? Perhaps that we shouldn’t take the fear of Zuma’s god seriously because he’s just sloganeering against the constitution but in secret he supports it?
Now there’s a little thing called the separation of the church and state which is conveniently ignored by Zuma when he says that ‘we need to teach our people to fear God’. It’s not the role of government to instil the fear of god into its citizenry. It is however an entirely different manner to wish the blessings of your god onto someone.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
I stand corrected: apparently we don’t have a strict separation of the church and state.
This is really funny:
Zuma decried what he described as the “erosion of morality and values in our modern society”
Erosion of morality and values? What does he mean by that? The decline into polygamy, which is strictly forbidden by most religions? But wait, Zuma has several wives. Can’t be that. The extra-marital sex? But wait, if she dresses in a certain way and if you are a Zulu, you have to oblige. Can’t be that. Taking bribes? But wait.. Being accountable for your actions instead of looking for political solutions to your legal problems? But wait…
Actually I don’t think Jacob Zuma has enough character to preach morality and he doesn’t seem like he fears anything – neither the judgement of heaven nor our judiciary here on earth.
I seldom agree with uMsholozi, but in this case I agree with his message (maybe not with his proposed methods of doing so) that we need to teach our people to fear God.
It is an indisputable fact that if everybody can learn to fear God and respect His creation, this could be a better world. I am not proselytizing either.
In an open democratic society the rights of the minority must be protected and advanced with as much vigour as those of the masses. An injustice to one is an injustice to all . anyone thats believes in the ideals and principles of our great constitution will not find this difficut to understand.
In an open democratic society the rights of the minority must be protected and advanced with as much vigour as those of the masses. An injustice to one is an injustice to all . anyone thats believes in the ideals and principles of our great constitution will not find this difficult to understand. It would be a grave injustice to force muslim students to sit for an exam during their sabbath as would it to force christian beliefs on the general population.Historically most genocides, wars and atrocities have been conducted in the name of religion, have we not learnt our lesson.???Today it is a christian prayer at school, 1000 odd years ago it was a call to arms to invade the holy land or a licence to pillage and plunder heathen nations and tribes and murder in the name of religion. Religion remains the most powerfull tool, for HEAVENS SAKES keep it out of the hands of the most devious politicians.
Pierre
For Zuma to say “fear God” does not exclude any religious group and does not mean this is Christianity. God, Allah is just two names used by relidious groups the world over to acknowledge their believe in a superior being and or Creator.
Secondly I think YOU should take this university issue further as it is inherently wrong as you stated, and you are involved in the workings of this institution.
Thirdly I find it strange that we have such a unparraleled plethoria of Constitutional rights and our people are dying of hunger and Aids. Makes a mockery of Democracy in my view.
Polygamy and sex are not unreligious. Even wise study of christianity in the old testament you will realise that sex and multiple wives for certain chosen leaders of the religion was captured.
We must not hold a limited viewpoint of religion. religius believes are not static and ossified, the are influenced by the changing societal norms. Gays can even be Bishops these days. Churches even get devided by changes permeating the church.
Hanware will have to realise that reasoned pragmatism is necessary to achieve counterbalancing of the diverse religious interests. We do not have to surbodinate the majority to the minority but must only permit equal opportunity for the minority to practice their religion. This does not entail stoping exams at 01.00 PM for our population to wait for muslims to have their valued prayer. They may have to be allowed time for prayer and catch up through some permitted extra time slot.
Umzola you are off the mark and veered off the topic. AB, I agree with you the concept God is not reference to one specific sect of religion. The field of religion is a vast and extensive one.
Religious education does not have to be relegated to the one school, the church. it is possible to incorporate in the formal schooling system without forcing an atheist to subscribe to such learning.
One cannot throw a successful constitutional blow to that one. So long as you do not discriminate or subjugate other religions and cultural practices and believes, judge will fault you.
How do we know that we have been educated correctly as far as religion goes? How certain are we that what is written in the generally accepted “Holy” books has not been modified to suit the goals of the political leaders at the time?
Zuma says we must teach our children to FEAR God. That is just crazy in my view…FEAR God = Scared of God. (imagine the confusion for those who do not believe in God and now they are taught to be scared of God) That is not the way I understand God (Allah, or whatever name He is given by mankind). This Supreme Being (Creator) must be respected, not feared.
I have seen many people who think they are religiously mature, become spiritually arrogant. They think/believe they know more about The Creator//The Almighty//God than you or me. They actually start explaining to us how Gods mind works (isn’t that just arrogant?)
Some religious leaders even believe they have the authority to forgive our sins (just remember to PAY your penance)
What if the next South African leader comes and forces us to sacrifice babies at the altar or sacrifice young virgins wearing a Kanga?
Prof De Vos, I agree with you “Respect for difference is the key.” I also believe that it is a good thing to have a glass of wine every day, but what Paul Sauer once said is better: half a bottle of red wine a day is very healthy, especially the second half.
Linda,
You have raised interesting questions especially when it comes to our very own Constitution in the Preambe thereof and also about the National Anthem…
The only question I have an answer for is that about Chief Justice Langa swearing in MPs by saying ‘So Help Me God.’ This is called an oath and is specifically provided for in section 95, read with Schedule 2, of the Constitution.
The section is interestingly headed ‘Oath or affirmation’. This means that cognisance is taken of the people who do not believe in a Higher Being. These people are not required to take an oath by they can make a solemn affirmation. An oath uses the word ‘swear’ while a solemn affirmation uses ‘affirm’. Lastly, an oath ends with the words ‘So help me God’ while in the case of a solemn affirmation there is no such words.
Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that the MPs who take the oath and end with ‘So help me God’ are actually those who believe in God. From a pragmatic point of view, given the majority of South Africans being Christians, it would be prudent for any polititian to take an oath as opposed to a solemn affirmation and thereby indicate that he does not believe in God!
@Mohamedaly:
It would be a grave injustice to force muslim students to sit for an exam during their sabbath as would it to force christian beliefs on the general population.
Certainly, but the same goes for forcing Muslim beliefs, Hindu beliefs or any religious beliefs on the general population.
@Dumisani:
There was a time when the government did put the fear of God into the people. We had that during apartheid in South Africa, where the apartheid leaders proselytised their divine right to rule. Afrikaners were told that they were the chosen people, chosen like the Jews.
In Europe, this time is referred to as the dark ages. When religion gets entangled with government, it rarely has a good outcome.
So, fear of which god? Should we pick the majority god and forget about all the other forms of worship? Should we stick to our constitution and let people sort out their religious beliefs in the comfort of their own homes?
By the way, Umsholozi didn’t go to school all that much so he doesn’t really know whether they had prayers there or not during the time he was meant to go to school.
Garg Unzola,
I got ya.
My point is that if everybody can fear God (there is but one God, regardless of what one calls God) , respect his creation, and (especially) accept that everyone is created equal and deserves respect regardless of colour, creed or sexual orientation; then this could be a better world.
Those who respect God do not use religion to indoctrinate and subjugate. Unfortunately, God did not create a perfect world, so Zuma’s proposal will never ever work.
@Sne,
Thanks for an enlightning, clinical and illuminating response. In my estimation you are now one of the TOP BLOGGERS who are well read and are for ever informative. The other sharpest minds who tick are Bongs, Mouse, Michael Osbourne and Ishmael Malale, and Mdu. Of course Prof is the captain of the ship! So, it’s thanks to these gentlemen that I am enjoying my learning!
Pierre – I can’t see how this is a constitutional matter. Or if it is, we’re in trouble. It implies that any action taken that involves third parties runs the risk of a constitutional violation.
As an example: How am I to know that scheduling a school play at 7pm on a Wednesday evening doesn’t violate the rights of a ….. (insert religion/belief/cultural myth here) parent who will be ….. (insert practise here) at the time and will thus miss his darling’s performance? Who’s rights are being violated here?
When Sunday cricket games were introduced in the 80′s, a number of Afrikaans players refused to partake. Somehow they’ve come to terms with it since then. Is Sunday cricket unconstitutional?
No – it’s purely a practical matter. If you know that a significant number of your students will not write their exams because of their cultural/religious views then yes, it makes complete sense to schedule them at a more appropriate time. It just takes a little common sense – not the might of the constitution.
@AB
And what of those who do not believe in any gods?
“No Mr Zuma, in line with the Constitution we need to teach our people to respect each other and each others beliefs – whether we believe in Allah, in Jesus Christ or merely believe that it is a good thing to have a glass of wine every day. Respect for difference is the key.”
Is this true: are we obliged to respect each others beliefs? I tolerate others’ relgious practices (as long as they don’t try to impose them on me) but lack any respect at all for that grand hodge-podge of delusions.
There’s a big difference between tolerance and respect.
Linda,
Thanks ma’am… I am merely doing my best and I am also a proud student of the ‘Big Guns’ here. I sometimes have problems formulating my opinions due to the sophisticated nature of some of the discussions here especially those relating to law despite me practising law! But, I am growing by the day and will continue to glean from these distinguished ladies and gentlemen!
Interesting posts everyone. We do not have a complete separation of religion and state in South Africa and the Constitution allows for religious observance in state aided institutions as long as this is done in an equitable manner and as long as it is voluntary. But the Constitution also prohibits unfair discrimination based on religion, which means even “neutral” rules that have an effect only on one religious group, would be constitutionally suspect. If exams were written seven days a week (or cricket played seven days a week), it would be difficult to make an argument that this was constitutionally suspect. But if one religion was favoured and others were not REASONABLY accommodated, it would be problematic (so if cricket was played on Friday afternoon and Hashim Amla could not play, but it was not played on Sundays, this would be problematic). What is required is for the institution to go beyond merely imposing “neutral” rules that merely reflected the religious and cultural views of the dominant group – such an institution must show that it has tried to accommodate everyone. Where this is impossible or will be at such great expense or so impractical as not being feasible, it might be acceptable not to accommodate some religions all the time, but attempts must be made to accommodate beyond assuming that everyone is a Christian and drafting rules and making arrangements according to this assumption. While individuals only need to tolerate the religious views of others, more is however required from the state or other public institutions who needs to show respect for different religious beliefs as well as for the beliefs of non-believers.
About the national anthem: I suspect the CC will argue – much like the US Supreme Court did about Christmas holiday and the “In God we Trust” on banknotes – that these things have acquired a broader cultural meaning and do not send a signal that some religious beliefs or non-belief are frowned upon by the state or not fairly regarded by the state and will say it is ok. But at school Assembly or University graduation people must be given a choice not to take part in religious activities or prayers – or they must be allowed a moment of silence in which each one can do his or her own thing: pray to God; think about a glass of wine or a beautiful man; whatever.
Section 9 (equality), section 15 (freedom of religion, belief & opinion) and section 31 (cultural, religious and linguistic communities) are all in issue here.
Balancing of different and often conflicting rights is damn hard in the most evolved of societies, even more so in a State where an embedded assumption exists that the Christian way is the only way.
Of course when a right has to be limited, section 36 specifies what has to be taken into consideration. Of relevance in this case with the students would be the nature and extent of the limitation as well as less restrictive means to achieve the purpose of the limitation.
It is unfair and unreasonable to expect them to take the exam next year when a simple shift or extension (as you propose) of the session would have solved the problem. They are being punished for having a belief that hinders them from writing at that time and with just a little foresight the university could have accommodated them.
Respect requires at least a basic understanding of e.g. someone else’s beliefs, and that in turn requires a willingness to see matters from the other person’s viewpoint and an open mind. And sadly these are skills (if that is the right word) sorely lacking in most of our leaders and our society as a whole.
I’d like to refer you all to http://realanctoday.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/the-anc-and-religion-part-4/ where the author analyses Zuma’s world view. It makes for interesting reading.
Also see http://01universe.blogspot.com/2008/11/zumas-country-of-god.html which highlights some of the issues around Zuma’s religious utterances in the context of him as future president.
@ TIM
The reason we refer to our great constitution cause more often than not common sense does not prevail. I am one of the students that did not write the Constitutional law exam last friday and arent I thankfull that I can depend on the constitution for upholding my rights when campus authorities refused to apply common sense.
Can Anyone care to tell me how they qualify the statement that all/most communists are now christians! I know that, if anything, the whole Bible is all about a “shift to the left”. True Christianity is indeed Communism, I mean just read John Chapter 10. Lets stop these baseless asumptions-no matter how many believe in them, shall we? thanks
I must first say how much I’m not in support of the nose stud girl. If you agree to go to a school and you agree to the rules then you should stick to them. You don’t sign for your drivers licence then simply adhere to those rules that suit you. Those rules are uniform and we should all abide by them. With school discipline being what it is the schools should have a firm grip on the rules. In this regard I must also say that pupils who go to
‘Christian Schools” should either be christian or willing to do what is expected except participate in prayers.
Ordinary schools should avoid religious education if it’ll be one sided. If such education is simply giving an introduction to the various religions and adds to one’s general knowledge and understanding of other religions then that is a very welcome move.
In terms of UWC’s lack of constideration that was wrong. The majority impsoe their views without thinking of the majority. In such cases alternative arrangements should always be considered. The main element of consideration should what is reasonable under the circumstances. Isolating that group of students could have been easily avoided had it been considered.
The fact that this blog hasn’t had a large contribution by Islamic persons didn’t help the debate. Those in the majority, or presumed to be, have voiced an opinion of “that’s how the cookie crumbles”. In our rainbow nation that’s disheartening. You have all made good points but how do we then protect the rights of the minority? Would it not be better to say that the majority will try to minimally encroach on the rights of the minority?
About the national anthem: you could, if you’re really that opposed to the religious elements, just sing the last two verses. I doubt black people would go that far. and JZ has been making a number os silly remarks throughout the past 5 years. I think he should fear God first before suggesting others do so. His suggestion is really laughable. One can’t impose one religion on the country to such a great extent. One cannot dictate the relationship people must have with whatever higher power they believe in. If he were to promote values such as mutual respect, honesty, integrity, self-discipline, committment and education and other much-needed values in SA then he may have my support.
Tim
Are other religions/ beliefs/ views not worthy of your respect? If that is what you’re saying then I think you understand humanity and the right to dignity and religion in a very different manner than I do. We sould respect others and their views in order to be respected ourselves.
@Dumisani:
I agree with you, but I feel that religious matters are private matters. There’s no sound religious or moral reason why a politician would get involved with religion, except in trying to score brownie points with those of that faith.
@ MOHAMEDALY
So I’m a Pastafarian who believes that I can only work on any day of the month with a 7 in it. And I’ve got a book that says so. Will schedulers of exams take me into account? Would I succeed at the CC?
When does it become impractical to make alternative arrangements? Less than 30%? Less than 10%? Actually any number less than 50% is descimination against a minority.
You must admit it comes down to numbers and not rights.
@ nkululeko
Why should I respect other people’s views – particularly ones I find abhorrent? The only thing I respect is your right to hold those views.
That doesn’t mean I don’t respect anybody’s views. I largely respect Pierre’s views, that’s why I’m here.
Returning to the particular situation at the UWC that gave rise to the thread, can somebody explain whether, and if so under what circumstances, it is obligatory for Muslims to attend at a mosque on a Friday? And if so, whether that obligation must be satisfied in the morning or the afternoon?
Might attention not also be given to the question whether it is not unfair (I put it no higher as yet) for exams to be held during the holy fasting month of Ramadan?
Furthermore, has anyone considered how examinations are scheduled in universities and higher places of learning in Muslim countries which do not observe Friday as a public holiday (most parts of Malaysia, for example)?
It seems rather venturesome to discuss the broader issues without having first secured some correct understanding of the basic facts.
@dontgetmestarted:
You are quite right. Also, the exam in question was a supplementary exam, for that it is worth.
As far back as I can remember Muslim students (or pupils) have been granted that hour off on a Friday to do their prayers. I would imagine that it is some sort of obligation that must be satisfied on a Friday at that time unless matters are beyond human control.
I am also under the impression that if one cannot handle fasting and added stress then they may be allowed not to fast for that period and fast the following year. And I think the fasting month was earlier this year, or was it simply my imagination?
I doubt we need to do a comparative analysis with foreign institutions. We have our own institutions, our own cultures and religions as well as our wonderful Constitution. We should work within that framework.
Garg’s point is noted. A supp exam has fewer people. And those of us who got through our University life without any supps would be quite to point out that its the students’ fault that they had to write a supp and they should take what they gat and be satisfied. There are those of us who wouldn’t readily support that view.
It was indeed a good and illuminating debate. We are all learning qualitatively.
@dont get me started:
No broader issues here, the friday prayer is a fixed time affair. Muslims are obliged to pray five times a day. at fixed times. If for some reason a prayer is missed it can be made up at a later stage. However the friday mid day prayer is the most important prayer of the week and can not be made up at a later stage nor can it be missed unless it is not humanely possible. The irony of the this is that the exam in question was the constitutional law exam and part of the curriculum was freedom of religion.
Han Ware good intervention. The varsities will learn!
This has reminded me so much of some of the CC judgements. The majority bullies the minority into a corner and ensures further subjection. This is rather pitiful but shows how the CC has made some of their bizzare judgements (my opinion of course).
And I guess the UWC admin should take the course and another on cultural and religious diversity.
@MOHAMEDALY
I am correct, am I not, in thinking the Friday prayer is not obligatory for females?
@dont get me started
will check and let you know
[...] Speaking comments on the “lack of knowledge and appreciation of minority religious practices” in South [...]
Hipocrasy, is a conumdrum! who follows their Faith or way of life the way they should.
Having 3 people doing 2 peoples work with different cultures aim for diversity…
Does it not make sense to easily understand that I, YOU can act in a moral way of concensus with a benefit of doubt that the situation at the time is ethical. This is to allow and incorporate a true reflection of any religion to be practised.
Diversity of Religious ignorance.