Quote of the week

An ‘important purpose of section 34 [of the Constitution] is to guarantee the protection of the judicial process to persons who have disputes that can be resolved by law’ and that the right of access to court is ‘foundational to the stability of an orderly society. It ensures the peaceful, regulated and institutionalised mechanisms to resolve disputes, without resorting to self-help. The right of access to court is a bulwark against vigilantism, and the chaos and anarchy which it causes. Construed in this context of the rule of law and the principle against self-help in particular, access to court is indeed of cardinal importance’.The right guaranteed s34 would be rendered meaningless if court orders could be ignored with impunity:the underlying purposes of the right — and particularly that of avoidance of self-help — would be undermined if litigants could decide which orders they wished to obey and which they wished to ignore.

Plasket AJ
Victoria Park Ratepayers' Association v Greyvenouw CC and others (511/03) [2003] ZAECHC 19 (11 April 2003)
19 May 2007

How to insult a man of the cloth

Christopher Hitchens, the man who has just published the book God is Not Great, and who has been slagging off the now dead Jerry Falwell, seems to be a very brave man. He is obviously prepared to take on even the most pious men of the cloth in the most extreme but entertaining manner.

He is after all the guy who wrote a book aimed at exposing the hypocrisy of Mother Theresa which he called The Missionary Position, but whose original title, Holy Cow, was thought to be too offensive by his publishers. As The New Republic Blog reports, Hitchens appeared on a US radio programme last week, and really let rip.

At one point Hitchens was joined on-air by Stephan Munsey, an evangelical pastor from Indiana. After making some pretty weak arguments on behalf of his faith, Munsey got to the crux of things. He explained how his 11-year-old daughter developed a grave case of Hodgkins’ Disease a few years ago. “She’s dying in front of me,” the minister recalled. “I kneel down, and I put my hand on her hand, and I ask God, ‘Would you heal my baby?'” The girl recovered. “You’ve come too late to me, Christopher Hitchens, to tell me that that was not an act of a real God,” Munsey declared.

Here I thought even Hitchens would put on kid gloves and grant the man his beliefs. “Are you going to call this father, Christopher Hitchens, a charlatan, a fool?” asked the host, Tom Ashbrook. Of course, that’s precisely what Hitch proceeded to do:

Well, it’s flat-out unbelievable testimony. And it’s been the basis of religious charlatanry all along… I’m very sorry if I sound callous, but I do know of a lot of children who have died horribly despite being prayed over with exreme fervency. And I think it’s disgusting to suppose that those prayers were infererior to other people’s…. There are such things as unexpected recoveries… [T]o claim that you have a personal line to God and that he’ll intervene for your convenience is a disgracefeul thing to say, mind you. And an insult to those whose children continue to suffer despite agonies of prayer on their behalf. This is a conscious attempt to defraud people. It’s the basis of a great deal of religious hucksterism. And besides being immoral, it’s highly unattractive.

You can listen to the whole program here.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest