Constitutional Hill

Some religious beliefs are more equal than others

The South African Human Rights Commission and the Commission for Gender Equality have skirted the issue of whether a version of the Koran that allows men “lightly” to beat their wives propagates violence against women. But the news does not come as a surprise, as our courts have long struggled with the question of how to deal with issues of freedom of religion and conscience. 

According to one interpretation of the Koran, the relevant passage reads: “As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly)…” The question, I would think, is whether this passage should be banned because it encourages domestic violence against women and whether those who promote it should be charged with incitement to violence.

Quite frankly, it is not entirely clear to me how the Constitutional Court would deal with a request to expunge or suppress this sentence from the Koran or to charge those who disseminate it with incitement.

There are of course many religious beliefs and practices, and many passages in various religious texts that will appear inexplicable, demonstrably false, deeply hurtful, offensive or harmful to any reasonably sane person not blinded by their own cultural and religious commitments. Some passages in the Bible and the Koran may be interpreted as containing hate speech against women and gay men and lesbians in contravention of the Equality Act, while other passages may be interpreted as inciting violence, either directly or indirectly, against women and gay men and lesbians.

For example, how should a court react to Leviticus 18:22 of the Christian Bible which states that homosexuality is an abomination which cannot be condoned under any circumstances? What about Leviticus 25:44, which states that one may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations? What about Exodus 35:2, which states that people working on Sundays should be put to death? What about Rastafarians who insist that partaking in the holy herb of cannabis brought them closer to God? And should a court not ban the widespread practice among Muslims and Jews to cut off a part of a baby boy’s penis shortly after birth?

Section 15(1) of the Constitution guarantees for everyone the right to “freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion”. This means one has a right to believe what one wants to believe (no matter how bizarre, uninformed or harmful to others); to bring the good news of one’s beliefs to those around you by shouting it out from the rooftops; and by practicing the tenets of one’s religious beliefs.

However, several laws limit this seemingly expansive right to freedom of religion and conscience. For example, the South African Schools Act prohibits corporal punishment in schools – despite the fact that the Christian Bible says that if one spares the rod one spoils the child. The Drugs Act prohibits the possession and use of cannabis – even by practicing Rastafarians who believe they need to smoke dagga. The Domestic Violence Act prohibits domestic violence against women and children – despite the fact that some interpretations of the Koran permit light beatings of women by their husbands. The Equality Act prohibits anyone from discriminating against anyone on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation or marital status – despite the prohibition on the ordination of female priests by the Catholic Church and despite the widespread religiously sanctioned discrimination against women and gay men and lesbians.

When a court is called upon to make a decision on whether such limitations are reasonable and justifiable in terms of the limitation clause provided in section 36 of the Bill of Rights, it will have to balance the interests of the state and the community as a whole (including the interests of women and gay men and lesbians), on the one hand, against the interests of the religious community whose beliefs, teachings and practices are being limited, on the other. The more serious the harm being done by the religious beliefs, teachings or practices, in the court’s view, the quicker it will be to endorse the limitation of the religious freedom of those who engage in the harmful religious practices. The more important, believable or true the obnoxious beliefs, teachings or practices are, in the court’s view, the less likely it would be to endorse limitations on those beliefs, teachings or practices.

Courts have said that they will apply the principle of reasonable accommodation when balancing competing interests of the state and of religious communities. But the politics of religion invariably plays a role in making decisions about where to draw the line between accommodating obnoxious or harmful religious beliefs or practices, on the one hand, and endorsing a ban on those beliefs or practices, on the other.

The more powerful and influential a religion, the less likely it is that a court would dare to endorse fundamental restrictions on the major tenets of the religious beliefs, teachings and practices of its adherents. And if the majority of South Africans view the beliefs, teachings and practices of a small and unorganised religion as bizarre, fundamentally false and even dangerous, it is more likely that restrictions on such beliefs and practices would be endorsed by the courts.

Even if the religious beliefs, teachings, superstitions and practices of the majority of believers are sometimes also weird, bigoted and even dangerous, the widespread acceptance of these beliefs and practices by the majority of South Africans would make it difficult for a court to endorse the curtailment of these beliefs and practices – except in the most extreme cases.

As Justice Albie Sachs pointed out in a dissenting decision in Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope, in which the majority endorsed the complete ban on the possession and use of cannabis, even though it infringed on the right to freedom of religion of Rastafarians:

One cannot imagine in South Africa today any legislative authority passing or sustaining laws which suppressed central beliefs and practices of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. These are well-organised religions, capable of mounting strong lobbies and in a position materially to affect the outcome of elections. They are not driven to seek constitutional protection from the courts. A threat to the freedom of one would be seen as a threat to the freedom of all. The Rastafari, on the other hand, are not only in conflict with the public authorities, they are isolated from mainstream religious groups… Indeed, the Rastafari might receive more tolerance from non-believers to whom all religions are equally strange, than from members of well-established confessions, who might have difficulty in taking the Rastafari belief system seriously as a religion at all.

I would guess it is exactly the politics of religion which caused the Human Rights Commission and the Gender Commission to shy away from a finding that the specific interpretation of the Koran was in conflict with the Domestic Violence Act. If they had endorsed the complaint, large sections of the Christian Bible – as well as practices such as the ban on the ordination of women priests and the widespread religiously mandated discrimination against gay men and lesbians – would have been open to challenge on the basis that it contravenes the Equality Act.

This raises an important question which has recently enjoyed attention in legal journals: to what extent should our law accommodate the bigoted, hurtful or even physically threatening beliefs, teachings and practices of religious groups? Given our Constitution’s commitment to non-discrimination and the protection of human dignity, should the harmful and bigoted beliefs, teachings and practices of some religious groups not yield before the constitutional imperative to protect the dignity of those being humiliated and whose bodily integrity and lives are being endangered by these beliefs, teaching and practices?

As much as I would answer yes to this question, I suspect that our courts would lean in the opposite direction and would accommodate most forms of discrimination, the infringement of human dignity and the promotion of bigotry and sexism – as long as these beliefs and practices are endorsed by one of the powerful and influential religions in our society.

PS: I could have added another consideration our courts would take into account to determine whether the religious belief or practice would be accommodated or not: The further removed the practice or activity from the core business of the religious group, the more likely that our courts would sanction the limitation on that practice or activity. So, while courts in South Africa will almost certainly find that the practice of the Catholic Church to ordain only male priest should be accommodated, despite the ban on unfair discrimination against women, they would be far less likely to do so if the Catholic Church refused to employ a female administrator or organist. Similarly, in the recent case of a fast food owner who prohibited his employees from bringing non-halaal food on the work premises, the court found this practice should not be accommodated and that the employee could bring his non-halaal food from home.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    “What about Rastafarians who insist that partaking in the holy herb of cannabis brought them closer to God?”

    Well it will certainly help to expand you mind, Pierre.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou5pzKuKP8w

  • Andrew

    Let’s assume that Muslims (women) are well aware of the text referred to above. Exercising their right of association, they choose to practice the Muslim faith as set out in the Koran. One may then argue that the women in a Muslim marriage subscribe to these views.

    We may also ask what the legal requirement for assault is. If I was to give a fellow man a klap, did I assault him? Assuming the answer is no, it should mean on the basis of equality before the law that I should be able to give a woman a klap as well with little consequences.

    The law aside, I do not think that any person has the right to discipline another.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Pierre, with respect, one must understand that the injunctions of the Holy Koran are purely metaphorical. Just like Jesus’ command that those who wish to follow him must first give all their money and possessions to the poor. I have observed that very few Christians elect to take this literally.

  • ILLuminati

    Mikhail the Quran is infact a devine literal text, there are no metaphors to it & even within interpreting it… It is preferred to be read untranslated :)

    Oh & Pierre please create a seperate twitter acount 4 the site please

  • http://masibulelengothando.blogspot.com masibulele zonyana

    one of the fundemental challenges to these organised religion is the fact that those who believe in them fail to understand or choose to ignore the fact that most of the laws/principle and values written in their “holy” books were right at the times in which they were constructed, that the religions along with their laws/principles and values must and should grow with the people and circumstances of the world in which they operate in, and not treat the human race as being static.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    masibulele zonyana
    September 10, 2012 at 17:05 pm

    “one of the fundemental challenges to these organised religion is the fact that those who believe in them fail to understand or choose to ignore the fact that most of the laws/principle and values written in their “holy” books were right at the times in which they were constructed, that the religions along with their laws/principles and values must and should grow with the people and circumstances of the world in which they operate in, and not treat the human race as being static.”

    I know what you mean Masibulele. Same is even true of secular texts and moral principles, lets take for example the Freedom Charter and the old fashioned ideals of nonracialism and basic human rights.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    ILLuminati
    September 10, 2012 at 16:50 pm

    Hey ILL,

    “the Quran is infact a devine literal text, there are no metaphors to it & even within interpreting it”

    So I can smack someone if I don’t like her drinking at the breakfast table?

    If there was a god, this sounds sounds just like what it would have ordained!

    p.s. Can I also smack OzoneBoy (just for fun of course)?

    p.p.s. Literally or figuratively – advocating assaulting someone is retarded!

  • sirjay jonson

    I sincerely believe I am neither racist nor anti various religious cultures. However in raising my daughters I requested that they never marry a Moslem because of the Islamic male’s and family approach to women. For example when friends of mine visit their daughter in Joburg married to a Moslem, the daughter must eat supper in the kitchen with the women while her parents sup with the men.

    Well, one daughter decided to marry a Japanese man in Japan, a professional, chiropractor, very gentle and loving she told me (prior to the marriage). Once married she became ‘owned’ by the family whereupon they began to order her life according to their culture of female wifely obedience and subservience. She rebelled naturally. The result was that she was beaten almost to death. The pictures I have of her then I was reminded of recently with the pictures of the SAfrican woman who was so badly beaten published at Times Live.

    I had to secretly smuggle her out of Japan with the help of her college head (where she was teaching) who was equally aghast. Perhaps I should post a pic of her on twitter beaten, as in before and after. I know men anywhere can and do beat women, but when religions and cultures promote it, I find that hateful and unacceptable.

    I was raised to believe that any man who struck the ‘weaker sex’ (no offence intended) was cowardly to say the least, and a bastard at best. Those of us, individuals, cultures and religions who value and honor women reflect what is meant by the term ‘civilized’.

  • http://evidenceandreason.wordpress.com/ Jason Bosch

    The extent to which religious beliefs must be accommodated is easy. It can be accommodated to the point where it infringes on the rights of others and no further. You can believe homosexuals should be stoned or that woman should be beaten but the practice of such beliefs, which violate the rights of other beings, can not be tolerated. On the other hand smoking cannabis, which harms nobody else, should be tolerated and not just for the religious.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    September 10, 2012 at 16:37 pm

    Dworky,

    “Just like Jesus’ command that those who wish to follow him must first give all their money and possessions to the poor.”

    As you know, I’m not a follower of the fish multiplying guy.

    But I’d like to be charitable.

    Would it be all the same to “he who walked on water” if I donated all YOUR money and possessions to Smuts Ngonyama??

  • Brett Nortje

    Damn. It seems that being ‘progressive’ might be constitutionally protected conduct.

    No matter how destructive nor dangerous the (they say unintended)
    consequences of their silly ideas….

    “This means one has a right to believe what one wants to believe (no matter how bizarre, uninformed or harmful to others)…”

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Jason Bosch:

    It is impossible to define “harm” in a neutral way. One man’s notion of “harm” is another man’s notion of “right.” 150 years after John Stuart Mill first tried to resolve this problem, you’d think ppl would realise it is intractable.

    @PdV:

    “There are of course many religious beliefs and practices and many passages in various religious texts that will appear inexplicable, demonstrably false, deeply hurtful, offensive or harmful to any reasonably sane person not blinded by their own cultural and religious commitments.”

    Any plausible account of what constitutes “religion” would have to include the radical gay/feminist liberalism you subscribe to, which has its own “sacred” texts, ideology, anthropology, metaphysical beliefs regarding things like science, rights, ethics (and increasingly theories of causation), and fervently zealous believers (as this blog attests). And as any interlocutor of this brand of liberalism can confirm, it bears all the marks of the quote above.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    @ PdV,

    You say Section 15(1) of the Constitution guarantees for everyone the right to “freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion”

    It does not say that anyone has the right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

    A man, aka turd, smacking his wife (not sure why you emphasise “lightly” as though it mitigates the violence) or people mutilating their children genitals are imposing their religious views on others – surely that is where the line should be drawn.

    p.s. Shouting your prayers from your roof-top silently is ok. Loud hailing is not!

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    By the time I was 9, I discovered that my uncle and his partner would face long prison sentences if their homosexuality was revealed. It was clear that this legalized homophobia came mainly from Leviticus 20:13 because the verse was often quoted by both politicians and the clergy. It’s still quoted by many Christian sects and violence is only its most obvious consequence. I will leave for another time an account of the ways in which the lives of my two uncles, for that is how I think of them, were restricted and diminished by this church-state cruelty. Or you can read my Uncle Ben Duncan’s illuminating and moving book, The Same Language, which is about life as a gay man in England at that time.

    Moderate believers find excuses for Leviticus 20:13, but they can’t argue that the verse is “metaphorical” or “poetic.” It’s situated between specific and practical rules about how to kill and eat animals and when it’s appropriate to beat or stone your wife to death.

    Reading the Bible shocked me out of Christianity. I often wonder how many avowed Christians have actually read it, because it is one of the most brutal, repetitive, and contradictory books in existence.

    http://flyingteapot.haaan.com/2011/11/583

  • sirjay jonson

    Brett Nortje
    September 10, 2012 at 18:19 pm

    The key Brett is not to cause harm to others unless defending oneself, one’s family, one’s nation or culture, and even then to think of alternatives wherever and whenever possible.

    Obviously the world would be a far better place if we weren’t trying to donner others being certain of our various beliefs or mental disorders. One of my teachers once said to me, a Cdn Indian, ‘walk in peace towards others and Grandmother will walk with you; walk in hatred and Grandmother will destroy you’.

    Religions by and large are for immature souls. Some of these are better, some are worse, far too many carry out and direct their faith abhorrently. The mature soul has no need of religion and is at peace with all of it.

  • sirjay jonson

    Speaking of hatred, I’m beginning to wonder if the ANCYL will eventually suffer the night of the long knives. In my view, entirely possible.

  • https://twitter.com/JUSTsaySID Sidwell

    I believe that it is unlawful to assault anyone for whatever reason, and doing so is punishable by law. Now taking the constitution as the law of the land, it should be easy to judge that any Muslim husband practicing this religious right will be breaking the law? As for using the courts to amend or challenge what has been written for thousands of years – is not a good idea in my opinion. This will only serve to open up other issues in other major religions, as mentioned in the article. You raise a very interesting point ”The more powerful and influential a religion, the less likely it is that a court would dare to endorse fundamental restrictions on the major tenets of the religious beliefs, teachings and practices of its adherents. And if the majority of South Africans view the beliefs, teachings and practices of a small and unorganised religion as bizarre, fundamentally false and even dangerous, it is more likely that restrictions on such beliefs and practices would be endorsed by the courts” – if I understood this correctly, it means the decisions that the courts take will likely influence the politics of the country, on account of the fact that these major religious groups are very influential in number – in terms of votes may be?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Sidwell
    September 10, 2012 at 19:05 pm

    Sidwell,

    I’m not sure that PdV makes a valid point in ”The more powerful and influential a religion, the less likely it is that a court would dare to endorse fundamental restrictions on the major tenets of the religious beliefs, teachings and practices of its adherents …”.

    The majority, based on the major (and some minor) SA religion, are opposed to homosexuality and pro death-penalty.

    Yet …

  • sirjay jonson

    ILLuminati
    September 10, 2012 at 16:50 pm

    Interesting handle; a good suggestion to Prof to start CS twitter account. With IL before Luminati, what are you suggesting met dit naam. @solinus

  • sirjay jonson

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)
    September 10, 2012 at 19:18 pm

    “The majority, based on the major (and some minor) SA religion, are opposed to homosexuality and pro death-penalty.”

    Well there you have it Maggs: immature, ignorant, lacking all compassion or comprehensive understanding, anti-societal, hateful, fearful, and may I suggest, intellectually impotent, all of these most certainly being expressed in the life of their souls. Pity, for them and society.

  • https://twitter.com/JUSTsaySID Sidwell

    I honestly struggle to maintain a very informed comment on this matter. Religious issues are very difficult to handle with the context of the constitution. However, I fully understand what you’re saying Maggs. I believe we should advocate for all human rights, fully and equally – the problem is inherent within religion, i.e. what are the rights of persons and how are the explicitly defined? Do we only turn to the Koran or Bible to seek answers about such? Can’t religious institutions consult scholars perhaps? And mostly importantly, especially for myself; are outsiders welcome to suggest and criticise?

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    “Religions by and large are for immature souls. Some of these are better, some are worse, far too many carry out and direct their faith abhorrently. The mature soul has no need of religion and is at peace with all of it.”

    Well. If the mature soul is the itinerant, free-wheeling, polyamorous, irresponsibly propagating, effete, communing-with-nature-is-nirvana one, I’d rather emulate the rigoristic theism of those who built your vaunted Western culture– Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Blackstone, Grotius, Locke, Burke, Tocqueville, etc.

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Sirjay:

    “Well there you have it Maggs: immature, ignorant, lacking all compassion or comprehensive understanding, anti-societal, hateful, fearful, and may I suggest, intellectually impotent, all of these most certainly being expressed in the life of their souls. Pity, for them and society.”

    And may we add dangerously ignorant and intolerant of religious pluralism to the opposing side? It seems you’ve never read Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” or any of the ex post debate in the intervening 320+ years.

  • http://evidenceandreason.wordpress.com/ Jason Bosch

    @D. M. Mwangi.

    It’s not a problem at all because it doesn’t have to be same for everyone. You’re protected from people hurting you but you should be free to engage in consensual S&M activities. There what is harm is varied and it’s fine because it doesn’t violate consent.

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Jason Bosch:

    “It’s not a problem at all….”

    I know first-years are not know for humility but unilaterally declaring that you’ve resolved a philosophical problem that has resisted resolution by the best political philosophers for the last 150+ years borders on egomaniacal.

    “You’re protected from people hurting you but you should be free to engage in consensual S&M activities. There what is harm is varied and it’s fine because it doesn’t violate consent.”

    This is not a self-evident statement and requires quite a lot of defending. Why exactly should mutual consent be the litmus test for “self-regarding” conduct (assuming there is such a thing as non-externality inducing conduct)? Particularly given what we know regarding information asymmetries. On your account, you must be against virtually all forms of consumer protection regulation, confiscatory transfer taxes, minimum wage, and maximum work hours laws, etc. Should the law not proscribe people from consensually enslaving themselves? Your supposition is that we cannot make interpersonal judgements regarding utility– for those over 18. It is far from clear why this should be so (and why we arbitrary claim we can for all those under 18) and simply stating “it’s not a problem at all” is knavery.

  • sirjay jonson

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 19:47 pm

    I tolerate all religions because I see them for what they are, comfort for their adhering masses, something to believe in while traversing a difficult life. However, I will never accept actions on their part which are cruel and inhuman, which unfortunately are both historically and presently active to harm and mislead people.

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    “…assuming there is such a thing as non-externality inducing conduct)” i.e. conduct that has no risk of externalities.

    Which also seems highly dubious given what we know about mimetic theory.

  • sirjay jonson

    The greatest challenge I face is grasping the utter cruelty of people towards each other as so easily witnessed by actiions of religion or nationalism. What I can’t understand is how one individual or group can willingly and deliberately create such pain, horror, fear and suffering on another.

    Witness Assad in #Syria who believe within his narrow immature mind that he can destroy his country, mutilate, destroy and decimate with heavy arms his people, men, women and many children because of his belief that he is right. Absurd.

    Its not just true Democracy the world seeks and needs. Its common decency towards each other which we all need to express.

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Sirjay:

    And I tolerate all dogmatically secularist ideologies because I see them for what they are: the rationalisations of voluntarists who desperately want to act on whatever whims and desires happen upon them. However, I will never accept actions on their part which are intolerant of religious freedom and inimical to community, which unfortunately are both historically and present active….

  • sirjay jonson

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 20:19 pm
    “…assuming there is such a thing as non-externality inducing conduct)” i.e. conduct that has no risk of externalities.”

    Every action of every single person affects the whole. Some believe that even every thought affects all others. There is no conduct without impact on ‘externalities’. Another teacher of mine gave the zen example. A stone thrown in a pond of calm water creates ripples and waves which flow outwards, all of which change the pond, altering its present nature, much like the wind on the seas, and their resultant impact on those transversing upon the water. Thus, he said, “life is generated.”

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Sirjay:

    It is sheer lunacy to claim that Assad is butchering his ppl due to religion. Moreover, everything you say here applies ten-fold to Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jong-Il and all our other favourite anti-religionists.

    “The greatest challenge I face is grasping the utter cruelty of people towards each other as so easily witnessed by actiions of religion or nationalism. What I can’t understand is how one individual or group can willingly and deliberately create such pain, horror, fear and suffering on another.”

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 20:13 pm

    Hey DM,

    “Should the law not proscribe people from consensually enslaving themselves?”

    Well spotted, DM. We knew you are smart.

    Maybe marriage should be outlawed – then a man will not be able to beat his wife (lightly that is).

    WDYSTT???

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Sirjay:

    “Every action of every single person affects the whole. Some believe that even every thought affects all others. There is no conduct without impact on ‘externalities’. Another teacher of mine gave the zen example. A stone thrown in a pond of calm water creates ripples and waves which flow outwards, all of which change the pond, altering its present nature, much like the wind on the seas, and their resultant impact on those transversing upon the water. Thus, he said, “life is generated.””

    I wholeheartedly agree. “No Man is an Island,” is precisely the point articulated. However, I would point out that this is contradictory to the tenets of modern liberalism and its radical individualism, and subjectivity, which you seem to endorse full bore.

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Maggs:

    “….consensually enslaving themselves?””

    Next time your relatives are telling you of their struggles with tik addiction, pay closer attention. Their sentiments will sound very close to voluntary enslavement.

  • sirjay jonson

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 20:31 pm

    I did not say Assad was butchering his people because of religion. He is butchering them because of his demented sense of self, that he is above his people, that his power to rule is foremost, rather than serving them as an enlightened leader. The self serving egotistic Big Man syndrome. But additionally, one can’t deny there is a religious component, two different sects of Islam faith. Surely you are aware of this.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 20:34 pm

    DM,

    “No Man is an Island,”

    Indeed. In fact that was the subject of a bet I took with Dworky which I won but am yet to receive the proceeds.

    The bet went like so : I bet Malema will . No wait – that was about another idiot. I bet DM will show withdrawal symptoms and sneak back in. Thanks for making me win!

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 20:36 pm

    DM,

    “Next time your relatives are telling you of their struggles with tik addiction, pay closer attention.”

    My relatives don’t have tik addiction. No wait – you tricked me. Again. I don’t have any relatives.

    p.s. Is it true that Kenya paid South Africa to keep you here just so that they can raise their national average IQ????

  • sirjay jonson

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 20:34 pm

    Re your comments about individualism. You are correct. I am one of those Liberals (dastardly as that might be perceived) who believes in individual freedom, and the individual’s right to life his/her life, and to influence and demand government govern all its citizens fairly, recognizing themselves as our employees. Its a balance, individuals with ethics who wish to harm no one, vrs individuals who collectively come together as gangs and criminals to rule and oppress others.

    Would you for a moment give up your individual freedom, or that of your family.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 20:36 pm

    DM – being the smart feller (no spoonerism intended) which you are, help me out with this hard Q.

    Is the death penalty the appropriate sanction for someone who attempted suicide?

  • sirjay jonson

    Hating or abusing someone for their sexual orientation, their religious or political beliefs, or their lifestyles short of violence, puts you in considerable conflict when you have many children who tend to choose any of these former for themselves.

    If it matters to you, if you cannot accept, then your love for them is endangered. Without tolerance and acceptance of the variety in life available to all, love is decreased, and thus we are damaged.

    Therefore I choose freedom under law.

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Sirjay:

    You need to define your terms, viz. FREEDOM.

    Is freedom being able to do anything you want? Say for example, a man (or woman) *wants* to have unprotected sex and produce a dozen children. He (she) also doesn’t *want* to take care of them because forcing him (her) to do so would limit his (her) “freedom” to spend his (her) time and money as he (she) wishes. Does this not attenuate the freedom of his (her) children, who let’s say hypothetically, have no else to take care of or provide for them?

    Liberalism has absolutely no rational account for how a man can be coerced– see, “against his consent”– to not father children he doesn’t want, or to care for the children he has against his will. Of course the state still requires him to pay “maintenance” but it merely appeals to the pragmatic fact that it cannot afford to care for these children otherwise, without addressing on what grounds, within the modern liberal worldview of individual rights based on subjectivism, it can force him to do so– thus, exposing one of the many internal contradictions of modern liberalism.

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Sirjay:

    “Therefore I choose freedom under law.”

    This is question-begging. Often times the law is at odds with freedom. One cannot count on positive law as the final arbiter and protector of freedom.

  • sirjay jonson

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 21:04 pm

    Perhaps then DM, I should have qualified it: freedom under law in South Africa and the West.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 20:31 pm

    “It is sheer lunacy to claim that Assad is butchering his ppl due to religion. Moreover, everything you say here applies ten-fold to Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jong-Il and all or other favourite anti-religionists.”

    In fact, in or brave new world, it is very fashionably to ascribe all of the evils perpetuated by humanity to religion.

  • sirjay jonson

    @DM: Enjoyed the discussion this evening. My sweetie’s calling and since its not apartheid law I endure here but rather our Constitution, I’m off now to enjoy her favors. Cheers.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 21:04 pm

    DM,

    “Often times the law is at odds with freedom.”

    Indeed it is.

    As nice as it would be if it did, I doubt if the law will allow you the freedom to shed 5 kgs of ugly unwanted fat by chopping off your head!

    WDYSTT?

  • Willem Wikkelspies

    You are South African first , thusly should a 786 beat his wife , he is subject to sanction under RSA constitution . debating this is akin to debating how many fairies can dance on a pin head . Why not debate the concept of Islamic “Taqiyya.”

    Pierre would know that under the aforementioned concept , this concept hold forth that it is in order to lie .

  • Willem Wikkelspies

    You are South African first , thusly should a 786 beat his wife , he is subject to sanction under RSA constitution . Debating this is akin to debating how many fairies can dance on a pin head . Why not debate the concept of Islamic “Taqiyya.”

    Pierre would know that under the aforementioned concept , this concept holds forth that it is in order to lie .

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    sirjay jonson
    September 10, 2012 at 20:39 pm

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 20:31 pm

    “I did not say Assad was butchering his people because of religion. He is butchering them because of his demented sense of self”

    In fact Assad has nothing to do with religion. Like Saddam Hussein he represents another impediment to a global capitalist agenda, both being prominent servants of the Ba’ath party with their socialist/Arab nationalist philosophy.

    “The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party (Arabic: حزب البعث العربي الاشتراكي‎ Ḥizb Al-Ba‘ath Al-‘Arabī Al-Ishtirākī) was a political party founded in Syria by Michel Aflaq, Salah al-Din al-Bitar and associates of Zaki al-Arsuzi. The party espoused Ba’athism, an ideology mixing Arab nationalist, pan-Arabism, Arab socialist and anti-imperialist interests. Ba’athism calls for the renaissance or resurrection and unification of the Arab world into a single state. Its motto, “Unity, Liberty, Socialism”, refers to Arab unity, and freedom from non-Arab control and interference.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party

  • Cicero Langa

    Yes they are: just look at Constitutionalism. The head cookoo is, as he should be, on the pulpit: Jesus of Constitutional Hill, Albie Sachs. He has disciples too – Pierre, Edwin, Sisi, Johan, Johann… There is even a Judas selling his soul for some silver – Mogoeng.

    The ten commandments you’ll find in their book, with its one law above all others: all law and actions shall be in accordance with the good book. And its most revered rule – all thy children are equal.

    And repent, repent yee sinners that betrayed the principles in the book.

    Just be careful, some truths shant be spoken – for the book forbids it.

    Sing the hymns in tune and though shalt forever

  • Willem Wikkelspies

    If only the feeble minded in Western Governments would take their heads out of their neither regions and read this…….there wouldn’t be any ‘partnership’ with the military in any Islamic country….hence the Blue on Green deaths in Afghanistan/Iraq. Truth and loyalty means nothing to these people.

    ________________________________________
    Rise of Islam
    The Truth of Taqiyya
    by Mary Gehl
    ________________________________________
    In direct opposition to the concept of Biblical truth is the concept of Islamic taqiyya, which, in Islam, is generally known as “lying for the faith.”
    On the eve of Jesus’ crucifixion, He and Pontius Pilate engaged in a conversation that begged the question still being asked today—What is truth? John 18:37-38 describes the scene:
    Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?…
    In direct opposition to the concept of Biblical truth is the concept of Islamic taqiyya.
    A March 2012 public relations campaign to teach America about Shari’a law ignited a new round of dialogue regarding the truth of Islamic taqiyya. The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a New York-based group, is planning to spend $3 million on its “Defending Religious Freedom” campaign. The effort includes billboards, TV, and radio ads in 25 major cities—including New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Additionally, Muslim academics and activists are holding town hall meetings and seminars on university campuses in an effort to slow the two-year progress of state legislation banning Shari’a law in the U.S.
    Taqiyya
    Taqiyya, in Islam, is generally known as “lying for the faith.” There are two basic uses of taqiyya: 1) disavowing one’s religious identity during fear of persecution (Shi’a Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims), and 2) active deceit during jihad against the realm of unbelief (Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb). This form of deceit is grounded in Islamic doctrine and is often depicted as being equal to, or superior to, other military virtues such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.
    Former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut, Sami Mukaram, wrote in his book, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam):
    Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.
    His book clearly reveals the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya within Islam. Within Shari’a—the body of legal rulings that defines the appropriate behavior of Muslims in all circumstances—deception is not only permitted in certain situations, it is often deemed obligatory. Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves because of verses in the Qur’an that forbid Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.
    The writings of Qur’anic scholars detail the history of the authorization and use of Taqiyya. Sura 3:28 is used most often as the verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims:
    Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.
    In his Qur’an commentary, Muhammad ibn jarir at-Tabari clarifies verse 3:28 as follows:
    If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them… [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.
    Some Qur’anic scholars extended taqiyya to cover deeds. Abu ‘Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi ‘d-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240) supported bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, and exposing the weaknesses of fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy. Anything short of actually killing a Muslim is deemed acceptable: “Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity, even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.”
    Taqiyya and Islamic Public Relations
    As this article is being written, two U.S. states have banned the practice of Shari’a law, twelve are in the process of drafting and approving legislation, and three have proposed legislation that failed to pass. For Islamic proponents of Shari’a in America, the battleground has been taken to a new level—the American billboard.
    The slogan created by the Defending Religious Freedom campaign: Shariah: Got Questions? Get Answers hopes to catch the attention of the American voter with hopes of educating us to stop the bans. For many analysts, the issue is not one of creating a backlash of Islamophobia, but the reality of the use of taqiyya in the education process and the reality of Shari’a in America.
    Shari’a literally means “the path to a watering hole.” Shari’a is the law of the Qur’an that is comprised of five main branches: adab (behavior, morals and manners), ibadah (ritual worship), I’tiqadat (beliefs), mu’amalat (transactions and contracts), and ‘uqubat (punishments).
    According to its proponents, these branches of Shari’a combine to create a society based on “justice, pluralism and equity for every member of society.” They would like for us to believe that Shari’a forbids that it be imposed on any unwilling person. In fact, they propose that the Prophet Muhammad himself demonstrated that Shari’a may only be applied if people willingly apply it to themselves—never through forced government implementation.
    Shari’a
    One of the primary reasons for the backlash against the practice of Shari’a in America is the growing public awareness of honor killings. Human Rights Watch defines honor killings:
    Honor killings are acts of vengeance, usually death, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by individuals within her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce—even from an abusive husband—or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that “dishonors” her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.
    In her 2009 Middle East Quarterly article, Phyllis Chesler argues that the U.S. is far behind Europe in acknowledging that honor killings are a special form of domestic violence—a form of violence in which the perpetrators are protected by Shari’a law. While the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” the Qur’an states:
    • Sura 5:38 – Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from Allah.
    • Sura 24:2 – A raped woman is punished with the man: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes.
    The complexities and the deceit of the Islamic Circle of North America’s Defending Religious Freedom campaign are meant to assuage fears of Islam and Shari’a. However, even the name of the campaign denies the truth. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion,” yet Mohammed said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57)
    In his book, What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an: A History of Islam & the United States, William J. Federer presents an exhaustive study of the truth of taqiyya in U.S.-Islam relations. In contrast to the First Amendment Federer states, “Islamic law (Shari’a) relegates non-Muslims to ‘dhimmi’ status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or Star of David.”
    Truth
    Sadly, in America, it does not matter if the “public relations campaign” is for the Islamic implementation of Shari’a law or the demoralizing implementation of humanism in every aspect of daily life, the result is the same—a life without the God-given freedoms and foundations established on our shores over two centuries ago.

  • Willem Wikkelspies

    sorry – four centuries

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Cicero Langa
    September 10, 2012 at 21:28 pm

    LOL CL,

    “The head cookoo …” :evil:

    “There is even a Judas selling his soul for some silver – Mogoeng”. Eish – careful what you say of Moegeng-squared.

    His church claims to have saved by converting by anointing oil all kinds of unsavoury people – murderers, rapists, drug addicts, prostitutes and MUSLIMS!

    Maybe he’ll cast an evil spell on you. Or worse still he may pray for your soul.

  • Brett Nortje

    People, people, people.

    De Vos is playing you like a fiddle. He went too far last 2 weeks. His Marikana analyses were unscholarly and unsustainable, last week the ‘strikers’ threatened to murder mine management, today they said they want revenge against the cops.

    So, he puts up smoke: Tossing the rabble twin blogs on AA and religion, guaranteed to get them steaming.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Brett Nortje
    September 10, 2012 at 21:40 pm

    Brett,

    “His Marikana analyses were unscholarly and unsustainable”

    You are so smart, Brett!!!!

    I lie – you are so stupid.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    fftt… the crackpots and the cazies have just arrived.

    PdV – I must assume you have posted this populist garbage so as to distract everybody from http://constitutionalcrossroads.blogspot.com/2012/09/open-letter-to-ndpp-jiba-politics-of_2595.html

    We have faith in God Almighty and are desperately praying that you would formulate a coherent and logically consistent response.

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Sirjay:

    “Perhaps then DM, I should have qualified it: freedom under law in South Africa and the West.”

    This is a lovely piece of incoherence. I like that you define freedom, in the objective sense, as whatever is currently on fashion in S. African and Western legal systems. What an incredibly fortuitous historical happenstance (and death knell for historicism) that we happen to live at the exact time that the laws Western countries have codified are completely congruent with freedom.

    Let’s just forget about the fact that their laws are widely divergent and in the case of S. Africa exist in parallel to African customary law. It’s all just freedom and utopia!

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    Brett Nortje
    September 10, 2012 at 21:40 pm

    “People, people, people.

    De Vos is playing you like a fiddle. He went too far last 2 weeks. His Marikana analyses were unscholarly and unsustainable, last week the ‘strikers’ threatened to murder mine management, today they said they want revenge against the cops.

    So, he puts up smoke: Tossing the rabble twin blogs on AA and religion, guaranteed to get them steaming.”

    LOL.

    You have nailed it Brett. See my previous post.

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Willem:

    “You are South African first….”

    Actually Willem, in W. political theory one’s first allegiance is not to the state but rather to conscience. “I was just following orders” did not do so well at the Nuremberg tribunals. I would have thought anyone with cursory knowledge of WWII would know that.

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Willem:

    May I also suggest reading: “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”

  • Brett Nortje

    OBS, why are you directing me at the despicable Ngobeni?

    Soek jy kopklappe?

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    @Willem:

    You may also want to check out Hannah Arendt’s essay on the “Adolph Eichmann problem.”

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    Brett Nortje
    September 10, 2012 at 22:01 pm

    Did you not read it you slobering moron. For whatever it may (or may not) lack in substance it makes up in VOLUME doubly, only to be out-volumed by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the chronicles of the Huisgenoot, Das Kapital and the Unholy Bible.

  • D. M. Mwangi.

    I am also deeply disturbed at how hostile PdV is to African culture. He paternalistically asserts that he will allow us to retain elements of our culture– so long as they don’t conflict with the precepts of his political and social ideals. In cases where he finds they do, he deems them “undemocratic,” “patriarchal,” “sexist,” “homophobic,”"superstitious,” etc. and says they simply must be jettisoned in light of *his* reading of the Constitution and the new South Africa. This is culturally chauvinistic at best, and downright racist at worst.

    I would like him to point to one traditional African practice that is contrary to a value that he holds, but that he finds must nevertheless be tolerated. Why is it that African values and customs must always yield to his notions of “equality,” “rights,” etc.? Why the intolerance of African culture? Where is the compromise on his side? Why must the laws of a country in which 80% of the people are indigenous Africans mimic those of Sweden or the Netherlands in order for them to be consistent with the Constitution and democracy? Should we not expect that those of Zulu or Xhosa descent wish to rule themselves under slightly different rules than those of Norman ancestry?

    So please, PdV, point to one practice Africans hold dear, that you find offensive, but which you believe must be allowed given the tolerance of pluralism demanded by the Constitution.

  • Brett Nortje

    Er, that should be ‘s-l-o-b-b-e-r-i-n-g’….

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 22:22 pm

    DM,

    “Why is it that African values and customs must always yield to his notions of “equality,” “rights,” etc.? Why the intolerance of African culture? Where is the compromise on his side? Why must the laws of a country in which 80% of the people are indigenous Africans mimic those of Sweden or the Netherlands in order for them to be consistent with the Constitution and democracy? Should we not expect that those of Zulu or Xhosa descent wish to rule themselves under slightly different rules than those of Norman ancestry?”

    Good questions DM.

    Africa for Africans as you always say.

    p.s. Why did you run away from your African country to become a non-person in South Africa?????

  • Brett Nortje

    Come now, Maggs.

    Even you must have an overwhelming sense of deja vu.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Brett Nortje
    September 10, 2012 at 22:28 pm

    Hey G,

    “Even you must have an overwhelming sense of deja vu.”

    Of course – DM is back.

    With a vengeance!!!!!

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    D. M. Wangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 22:22 pm

    “I am also deeply disturbed at how hostile PdV is to African culture. He paternalistically asserts that he will allow us to retain elements of our culture– so long as they don’t conflict with the precepts of his political and social ideals. In cases where he finds they do, he deems them “undemocratic,” “patriarchal,” “sexist,” “homophobic,””superstitious,” etc. and says they simply must be jettisoned in light of *his* reading of the Constitution and the new South Africa. This is culturally chauvinistic at best, and downright racist at worst.”

    Totally agreed. But the way I see it it old and the new must and can coexist, as long as there is *freedom of choice* and democracy, and not a dogmatic insistence on conformity.

  • Brett Nortje

    OBS, ek weet hiedie tyd van die aand begin die brannas-en-coke jou inhaal?

    Kan jy ‘n bietjie van jou aandag afknyp vir hierdie uitstekende pos van Mwangi?

    D. M. Mwangi. says:
    September 10, 2012 at 18:09 pm
    @ Professor Michael Osborne:

    “I know it’s all the rage these days to be an *absolute* relativist, but please humour my *absolute* absolutism for a moment:

    While I stipulate that R65k is more than 5x as much as R12k, on any *objective* standard of living measure, R65k is not a lot of money. (It’s probably below the poverty level in about half the countries around the world on a PPP basis.) Hence, the problem is not with white “over-earning (over-employment)”,” it’s with black “under-earning (under-employment).” Similarly, pointing out to black South Africans that on a *relative* basis their median income is roughly 10x that of their Kenyans counterparts, is unlikely to make them feel rich or ease their hunger pangs.

    While it makes sense to tax and redistribute when a person’s income rises to a level that their marginal propensity to consume drops below .9 (i.e. they save more than 10% of every additional rand earned), I find it highly unlikely this is the case with someone earning R65k.

    Your claim that whites are doing better “despite AA, and after nearly 20 years of ANC rule” is a red-herring. Here’s an assignment for you: open an Excel spreadsheet, plot years of education completed on the x-axis and income on the y-axis, then run a regression statistic. You should very quickly come to the conclusion that AA, BEE, the ANC, democratic rule, etc. have very little bearing on the dependent variable except to the extent they influence the independent one.”

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)
    September 10, 2012 at 22:27 pm

    “p.s. Why did you run away from your African country to become a non-person in South Africa?????”

    I’m just guessing but I assume he is here for the rugby and the mildly-spiced bunny chow.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    ozoneblue
    September 10, 2012 at 22:36 pm

    LOL OB,

    “I’m just guessing but I assume he is here for the rugby and the mildly-spiced bunny chow.”

    It would have been good if that were it.

    He put his tail between his legs like a little coward that he is and ran away!

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    Brett Nortje
    September 10, 2012 at 22:34 pm

    I cannot really comment. I don’t know how to run a “regression statistic”. What does it that mean?

    Does God think of human beings in terms of statistics and regressions? I hope not. Religion and human compassion is about the personal, about the human being in its existential condition or crises if you know what I mean.

  • Brett Nortje

    Hau, Batho!

    Michael Osborne says:
    September 10, 2012 at 13:47 pm
    @ Mwangi

    “Ok, let’s look at the median income. Wikipedia says R65,000 for whites v. R12,000 for blacks.

    Is a five fold difference enough to convince you that, despite AA, and after nearly 20 years of ANC rule, whites are doing much, much better than blacks?”

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    Brett Nortje
    September 10, 2012 at 23:05 pm

    I don’t know what to say to you Brett. Are you talking to me?

    IMO if we are all spiritual enough we can live of R 1,500 a month with government supplied solar panels, low-budget Internet access and growing our own vegetables.

  • Pierre De Vos

    D. M. Mwangi, the last time I checked, Christianity was a Western import and not indigenous to Africa.

  • D.M. Mwangi

    @PdV:

    Yep. Now feel free to address my question, which has nothing to do with Christianity.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    Pierre De Vos
    September 11, 2012 at 5:09 am

    “D. M. Mwangi, the last time I checked, Christianity was a Western import and not indigenous to Africa.”

    That is not entirely not true.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Ethiopia

  • Pierre De Vos

    I could have added another consideration our courts would take into account to determine whether the religious belief or practice would be accommodated or not: The further removed the practice or activity from the core business of the religious group, the more likely that our courts would sanction the limitation on that practice or activity. So, while courts in South Africa will almost certainly find that the practice of the Catholic Church to ordain only male priest should be accommodated, despite the ban on unfair discrimination against women, they would be far less likely to do so if the Catholic Church refused to employ a female administrator or organist. Similarly, in the recent case of a fast food owner who prohibited his employees from bringing non-halaal food on the work premises, the court found this practice should not be accommodated and that the employee could bring his non-halaal food from home.

  • Brett Nortje
  • sirjay jonson

    D. M. Mwangi.
    September 10, 2012 at 21:47 pm

    Jeesh man: I’m beginning to wonder if you understand what freedom is, possibly, since there are so many variables to true freedom. The freedom SA is attempting to achieve, and which actually may be possible (notwithstanding the 1994 Transitiion) and all considerations considered, is actually the first step on a long and torturous path.

  • Cicero Langa

    And another thing: the Koran was sure as hell not written in Africa. And the writer has sure as hell not been married to a strong African woman.

  • Brett Nortje

    Wasn’t the ‘writer’ married to a kid?

  • Brett Nortje

    Ahem!

    Another body found in Marikana. Makwanyane, anyone?

  • Mike Ambassador

    …. and if you don’t like a movie!!! burn down a embassy and kill two people!!

    Imagine that, killing someone over you imaginery friend!!

    Religion poisons everything!!!

    http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/US-missions-in-Egypt-Libya-attacked-20120912

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Brett

    “Seems that no-one else on this blog has heard of Davies’ J-Curve theory.”

    Brett, not only have I heard of the theory — I worked closely with Dennis Davies when he developed the precursor to the theory, while on a visiting fellowship at the University of the Adriatic in 1998. Coincidentally, Mwangi was our lab assistant!

    Thanks.

  • Brett Nortje

    Thank you for raising Davies’ J-Curve theory on this blog as well.

    It is our bloodiest month under this ‘modus vivendi’ – our old people murdered in Sandton, slaughtered like sheep in Trompsburg when they come home from Church full of the Holy Spirit.

    Dear God, when is ‘enough’ enough?

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    Brett Nortje
    September 12, 2012 at 8:28 am

    “It is our bloodiest month under this ‘modus vivendi’ – our old people murdered in Sandton, slaughtered like sheep in Trompsburg when they come home from Church full of the Holy Spirit.”

    That is because Mr. Malema (and others) keeps on adding moer fuel to the race fires while they remain at a loss to explain why Limpopo government who is almost 100% Employment Equity compliant is probably the worst provincial government of all. And it is certainly can not the fault of “white monopoly capital” or the boers.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    “Another farmer and his wife was murdered. Mr. Johan Fourie (71) and his wife, Cecile (72) on the farm Koppe in the district of Trompsburg, southern Free State , were brutally murdered. According to experienced detectives this was one of the most gruesome murder scenes they’ve ever seen.

    Once again the killers were drinking in the house while waiting for the farmer to return after church. Only a .22 revolver was missing, while other firearms in the safe, which was cut open, were left untouched.

    “We simply cannot accept that robbery is the motive for this murder,” said Mr Henry Geldenhuys, Vice-President of TAU SA and chairman of the safety committee. “If they only wanted to steal there was enough time to take what they wanted and to leave without torturing and eventually killing people,” said Mr Geldenhuys.”

    http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=325556&sn=Detail&pid=71616

    Two less religious boers to worry about then.

    As said South Africans are becoming “less religious” as they are butchered by the dozens like sheep.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    Something has got to give. I expect its gonna happen sooner than later.

    “The minister said any attempt to destabilise the military would be regarded as anti-South African and counter-revolutionary at the highest level.”

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Military-on-high-alert-20120912

  • Brett Nortje

    ozoneblue says:
    September 12, 2012 at 9:32 am

    It is also because the overprivileged like de Vos gave no return on investment. Gave nothing back. Did nothing to debunk the dangerous myths that are the base of the racial polarisation.

    Oh – I forget – there was an attempt to bully these golden oldies into handing in their guns.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ ozoneblue

    Brett Nortje
    September 12, 2012 at 10:59 am

    PdV and his fellow elitist UCT white liberals will be the first ones running business class to Perth after they helped stoke the flames of racial hatred. He knows Mr. Malema’s “indigenisation” program may not be so tolerant of “non-Africans” and unAfrican sexual behaviour.

    The rest of us (and I mean decent, peace-loving South Africans of all races and convictions) need to get better organised and come up with a contingency plan. soon.

  • Gadija Fakier

    Prof De Vos

    I am a Muslim female, I think your article is giving a negative impression of Islam.That it is a religion that encourages violence against women, which is totally untrue.I think you should speak to different Islamic Jurists(on how to interpret/translate the Quran,before jumping to conclusions.To be able to translate/interpret the Quran you must be able to understand Arabic.Do you understand or speak Arabic.?Some times people tend to take one word or sentence and not interpret/translate it in context of the whole Quran.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Gadija

    “Some times people tend to take one word or sentence and not interpret/translate it in context of the whole Quran.”

    Gadija is right. Just like the people who say that the Hebrew Bible advocates GENOCIDE of Cananites are not reading the text in its CONTEXT. And just like the people who say the Apostle Paul was a rampant misogynist and homophobe are failing to read the New Testament in its original GREEK, and are ignoring the whole CONTEXT.

    Thanks very much.

  • Mike Ambassador

    Hey Ozoneblue,

    Ceck this out, a march on the J-bay Mun amazing to see all the different colours standing together, could J-bay be the starting point of something?

    http://www.algoafm.co.za/article.aspx?id=3434

  • Mike Ambassador

    Another one for you OB,

    OK so it looks like Woolies has a “Over supply”of coloured and Indian works and actually needs some “Whitishnes” – maybe the blacks and whites need to boycott Woolies!!!

    http://english.solidariteitbeweging.co.za/2012/09/11/woolworths-too-many-coloured-and-indian-people-too-few-whites/

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    California – The California-based Israeli whose film attacking Islam’s prophet Mohammad triggered a deadly attack on U.S. diplomats in Libya has reportedly gone into hiding, the Associated Press reported.

    Writer and director Sam Bacile spoke by phone with the AP from a secret location on Tuesday as his movie “Innocence of Muslims” apparently fueled the rage that claimed the life of the U.S. ambassador and three others in Libya. The U.S. mission in Cairo also was the target of protesters, burned an American flag.

    Reuters was not able to locate Bacile for comment.

    Bacile, 56, is a California real estate developer who describes himself as an Israeli Jew, the AP said.

    “This is a political movie,” Bacile told the AP. “The U.S. lost a lot of money and a lot of people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but we’re fighting with ideas.”

    The film portrayed Mohammad as a fool, a philanderer and a religious fake. In one clip posted on YouTube, Mohammad was shown in an apparent sexual act with a woman. For many Muslims it is blasphemous even to show a depiction of the Prophet.

    Bacile said the film cost $5 million, some of which was paid by more than 100 Jewish donors, the AP said. – Reuters

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/maker-of-anti-islam-film-in-hiding-1.1381777#.UFDadK5OuCg

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs, do you support me in my demand that this so-called “Jewish Israeli” be lightly beaten until he apologises for the grievance to Our People?

    Thanks.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Well, well, well …

    The three wise snakes came bearing gifts.

    Now DNA analysis has shown that two wild bisexual species of pit vipers can reproduce asexually. This photo shows one of the species, a female copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix, with one of her parthenogenetic male offspring.

    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/09/who-needs-a-daddy.html