Quote of the week
Mr Zuma is no ordinary litigant. He is the former President of the Republic, who remains a public figure and continues to wield significant political influence, while acting as an example to his supporters… He has a great deal of power to incite others to similarly defy court orders because his actions and any consequences, or lack thereof, are being closely observed by the public. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will do significant damage to the rule of law. As this Court noted in Mamabolo, “[n]o one familiar with our history can be unaware of the very special need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law”. Mr Zuma is subject to the laws of the Republic. No person enjoys exclusion or exemption from the sovereignty of our laws… It would be antithetical to the value of accountability if those who once held high office are not bound by the law.
Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 18
Churches cannot be forced to marry same sex couples
“The problem with freedom of religion,” said a friend the other day, “is that you are forced to allow churches to discriminate against women and gays. Can’t we just force these bastards to accept gay clergy and to marry gay couples?”
I was reminded of this outburst when I read in the Cape Times reports today (subscription required) that over 500 prominent Christians – including academics, theologians, members of parliament, artists and activists – have signed a letter to the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) asking the church to condemn discrimination against gays and for the full acceptance of homosexuals in the church “as members and human beings”.
Could we not take the Dutch Reformed Church (or the Catholic Church for that matter) to the
The simple answer is that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion and conscience allows religious denominations wide discretion to decide for themselves what they want to believe and how they want to arrange their religious affairs – especially if the religion is an established one with a sizable support in the community.
If the Afrikaner Prostetantse Kerk wants to believe that it is sinful for white and black people to sit in the same church, they have a right to believe that and to practice that belief. The same goes for churches who want to believe homosexuals are perverts whom God will smite one day.
The
The argument is that if you do not like the teachings of the church, you can leave and join another church or, even better, start your own church. I imagine one could have lots of fun devising the teachings for such a church: mine would go heavy on Holy Communion (lots of wine) and would not be too keen on the Ten Commandments or reading a Bible (too boring). But this would, of course, be of little use to the many people whose relationship with a specific religious denomination is deeply symbolic and profound, yet who does not agree with all the teachings of that religious group.
As Justice Albie Sachs said in the same-sex marriage judgment, the Constitution requires an accommodation in public life of the sacred and the secular. This accommodation can only be achieved with a “live and let live” approach. We cannot “force the bastards” to marry same sex couples or even to ordain women as Ministers. And they, in their turn, can’t force us to come to church or to believe in transubstantiation.
What we can do is to argue with the religious groups about their often hurtful and/or hateful teachings which some of their representatives may take for granted. This is why the initiative of the 500 Christians is, in my opinion, a good thing: if the Dutch Reformed Church had any sense of history and sense of shame, the statement would be deeply embarrassing – which is at least a start.
