Posted on August 28, 2008 - by Stephen Murray
Right to Equality vs. Religious Freedom
Well it was going happen at some stage…It appears that the South African law court has decided that the constitutional right to equality trumps the constitutional right to religious freedom. What do you think about this issue?
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm and is filed under Constitution, Equality, Homosexuality, Law, South Africa. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
14 Comments
We'd love to hear yours!
Leave a Reply
Here's your chance to speak.
Stephen Murray
Christian, husband to my beautiful Robin, missional dreamer, pastor, church planter, Arsenal, Sharks and Springbok supporter, surfer (in the real sea), patriotic South African, Capetonian. 
Visit My Website
August 28, 2008
Permalink
Sam Groves said:
Shucks!
Visit My Website
August 28, 2008
Permalink
Sam Groves said:
Some clever dude wrote this recently (I can’t remember his name, but I do remember thinking he’s clever!): “Today the Christian is often regarded as the big, bad bully who has been humbled and must be punished for past misdeeds. One must accept as a fact that university life is now immersed in an irrational, but historically powerful swing against Christianity. Nothing can be done about this in the short run except recognize it and prepare to stand in the midst of it.” Dis hoekom ek se net: Shucks!
Visit My Website
August 28, 2008
Permalink
Jeff said:
Some excerpts from SA’s Bill of Rights:
9.3 The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
10. Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.
15.1 Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.
15.2 Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that
those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities;
they are conducted on an equitable basis; and
attendance at them is free and voluntary.
The man in question was discriminated against in terms of his dignity and sexual orientation according to our constitution.
The NG. Kerk is still able to hold its belief that homosexuality is wrong. They are just unable to fire a person in their employment for that reason. Perhaps they should only employ people who share the same ethos as themselves?
So either the NG Kerk needs to change the law to suit its beliefs or move to a country where it’s beliefs and the country’s ones are congruent.
Visit My Website
August 28, 2008
Permalink
Mary said:
Yes, the man was discriminated against. The question is rather whether it was “unfair” discrimination (as per the extract from the Bill of Rights quoted above). I would argue that it is fair discrimination, since it is based on the values of the Bible, which is where all values for the church should come from. Would there have been the same fuss if he’d been fired for any other behaviour which is listed as sin in the Bible? What about someone who is in an adulterous relationship? The church fires people for that, although people have the legal right to practise adultery. The thing is, when he’s employed by the church he should realize that he will be held accountable to Biblical values. Apparently, when he was taken on as an employee, he was asked whether he was a committed Christian. That implies being committed to Christian values. I’d have no problem with Muslims firing someone working for the Muslim Judicial Council who they found out was drinking alcohol. I don’t believe that alcohol consumption is wrong (in moderation) but if they do believe that and if the guy is working for them and therefore representing them and he does that and refuses to change his ways, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for them to fire him.
Visit My Website
August 28, 2008
Permalink
Stephen said:
I wonder what the initial terms of employment were? I wonder if this whole thing could have been avoided if the church had covered itself properly from the beginning. Although that still doesn’t answer how one should deal with an issue when it does flair up if you haven’t covered yourself from day one. I fail to see how the church can allow the man to continue in his capacity if he is practicing unrepentant sin (although I confess I don’t know all the details of this particular situation – I’m guessing here) – if we say the church can’t fire him are we then saying that the church cannot discipline its members if that discipline infringes upon the constitution?
This is not necessarily a homosexual issue this exact case could flare up over an adultry issue, divorce(which I think some journalists picked up on and accused the church of hypocrisy on this one since they employed unrepentant divorcees), as well as numerous cultural issues. The reality is that article 9.3 doesn’t take into account that the acting out of those various freedoms can, at times, be diametrically opposed to each other and at that point who decides who’s right and should be favoured?
Visit My Website
August 29, 2008
Permalink
Sam Groves said:
Precisely Steve, we have a contradiction here with regard to the Bill of Rights. How can the State insist on religous freedom and then overule that freedom when it contradicts their secularistic constitution? We must not be duped into believing there is such a thing as religous neutrality. What the State is saying is that you can have religous freedom until it clashes with our Religion- if you do you’ll come off second best. The only solution to this problem, as I see it, is the form of governance known as ‘Sphere Sovereignty’. The State has been given far too much control for it’s own good- and ours.
Visit My Website
August 29, 2008
Permalink
Worsbeursie said:
Freedom of religion is not absolute. What would happen if you wanted to sell or buy a slave claiming your religious right to do so?
Exodus 21:1-4 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.”
Or maybe just plain old plundering and kidnapping:
Deuteronomy 20:14 “But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself”
Visit My Website
August 29, 2008
Permalink
Stephen said:
Well what if my sexual orientation is for little children? Constitution says you can’t discriminate against me for that. Works both ways.
Visit My Website
August 29, 2008
Permalink
Stephen said:
Worsbeursie – before you start quote texts please read this post that I wrote a while back:
http://stephenmurray.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/why-i-dont-stone-people/
Visit My Website
August 29, 2008
Permalink
Worsbeursie said:
The Law says Paedophilia is a crime, the law has no problem with homosexuality. That really isn’t the point. Even the right to life isn’t absolute, to protect my own life from a real and imminent threat, I’m allowed to take the life of another person. My right to privacy may be suspended if I’m suspected of carrying drugs and so on and so forth.
It’s not an easy question, rights have to be weighed against each other. Not all religions are as peace-loving and fair as Christianity and we have to be protected against some of the more ‘exotic’ practises (like slavery and public executions).
Visit My Website
August 29, 2008
Permalink
Stephen said:
Exactly my point – this whole issue is complex.
Visit My Website
August 29, 2008
Permalink
Worsbeursie said:
I read that post (Why I don’t stone people) and I agree with it 100%. That is actually very close to my own interpretation. It is funny how some of the old Mosaic laws are followed to the letter and others completely ignored. That is exactly what I try to get across.
If only every Christian felt like this: 5. That same passage in 1 Corinthians 5 tells us not to judge those outside the church – and so I won’t stone people outside for idolatry.
(PS: Would you stone those inside the Church?
)
Visit My Website
August 29, 2008
Permalink
Stephen said:
Well sometimes I feel like it
Visit My Website
September 4, 2008
Permalink
Pierre & Donné said:
I’m speaking as an outsider who doesn’t have the full picture, but it seems that the church concerned didn’t handle this matter wisely or fairly.
Yes, they were right in relieving the music leader of his duties and calling him to repentance, but I think they should have continued to pay his salary and to help him find another job. This would have only been fair and would have probably not resulted in legal action.
What I’m suggesting is that we should separate employment-related issues from membership/discipline-related issues where possible, and that it seems that the church came unstuck in the former issue. This experience should at least make us extra careful when entering into and terminating employment-related contracts.
Pierre