Religious Freedom no longer exists in South Africa
Religious Freedom no longer exists in South Africa, Microsoft Word format
Religious Freedom no longer exists in South Africa, Rich Text format
A List of the Laws Which Make True Christianity Illegal; as well as
Statements by Prominent Leaders, etc., Showing the Attitude of
SA’s Marxist Government Towards Biblical Christianity
(2004)
by Shaun Willcock
The world is blissfully unaware that in 1994, a Communist government was installed in South Africa. This country is not a free republic or democracy. The Marxists who came to power in that year pulled off a massive publicity stunt (as Marxists have been doing all over the world since the lie of the supposed “death of Communism” in the late 1980s and early 1990s), convincing the vast majority everywhere that they were not Communists, but “democrats” in favour of “human rights” and “freedom”, and that “democracy” came to South Africa with the victory of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) in 1994. And now, ten years after the ANC/Communist Party victory, the evidence is staring the world in the face - but most are too blind to see it. Communism means State control over every aspect of life - including State control over religion! And the fact is that Christians are now forbidden by law to preach all the counsel of God, or to practice certain aspects of their faith, as the Lord commands them to do!
Today, instead of burning people at the stake as in past centuries, those in high places are implementing cleverly worded legislation, and using this legislation to persecute Christians. Laws are being passed to try to stamp out biblical Christianity - and yet couched in such politically-correct, nice-sounding phrases as “democracy”, “equal rights”, “equality”, “non-discrimination” and “tolerance”.
The vast majority of professing “Christians” in SA have nothing to fear. Most of the “churches” are in no danger, for the true Gospel is not proclaimed from their pulpits anyway, and their members for the most part are not regenerated. It is “business as usual” for them. The liberal, ecumenical, interfaith, Communist-supporting SA Council of Churches, the Roman Catholic institution in SA, and other liberal organisations that falsely claim to be Christian churches, are in no real danger. But the remnant of the Lord’s true people, who live godly lives, and seek to proclaim the Gospel in all its purity, are in great danger now. Biblical Christianity has in fact been outlawed.
Yes, it is true that the Constitution of South Africa states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion” (ch.2, section 15.1), and, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes - a) freedom of the press and other media; b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas” (ch.2, section 16.1). Yes, it is true that South Africans are not (yet!) forbidden to hold church services. Ministers are still able to preach. Many Christian books can still be distributed. It is not yet illegal to do these things. But let us see what is illegal in SA today, according to the legislation which has been put into place since the ANC came to power - including the Constitution itself, despite its “freedom of religion” and “freedom of expression” clauses!
As can be seen from the long list of laws given below, it is now illegal to preach that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father (Jn.14:6), if to preach this “hurts” someone of another religion!
It is also now illegal to distribute literature which criticises or condemns other religions as being false, or to preach in a way that does the same (Acts 19:23-29; Rev.17)!
It is also now illegal to call homosexuality sinful, or to oppose such abominations, or to “discriminate” against sodomites in the local church, forbidding them to be members or pastors (Rom.1:24-27; 1 Cor.6:9-11)!
It is also now illegal to (as they say) “discriminate against women” in the local church, forbidding them to be pastors (1 Tim.2:11-15; 1 Cor.14:34)!
And it is now illegal for Christian parents to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, preserving them from wicked influences or false religions (Eph.6:4)!
Here follows a list, and an analysis, of the relevant laws now in place in South Africa, as well as various statements by those in power. It is clear from these that the proclamation of the full, biblical Gospel, is now illegal, and that it is the government’s plan to totally control the churches, telling them what they may teach, how they are to behave, etc., etc. Let none be misled: Christians are in grave danger in SA! Be informed! Be aware! Do not be ignorant of the devil’s devices (2 Cor.2:11)!
1. In 1994, the government of South Africa’s Eastern Transvaal province, planning to establish a “Religious Desk”, sent out a questionnaire requesting religious groups to furnish detailed information, including the identity of “the leadership corps in each group (name, status and address)” (as reported in The Natal Witness, 2 November 1994).
This was clearly intended as a first step towards manipulation and eventual control of all churches in the province, just as Communist authorities have done all over the world. The provincial government was evidently seeking to build up a database of information on pastors, churches, etc., which could prove extremely dangerous to them at a future date. The State has no God-given jurisdiction over the Church, and the only way to avoid State interference and control is for local churches to remain unregistered in SA now, as is the case in various other Communist countries.
2. In January 1995, a treaty was signed between South Africa and India, and it was reported that this treaty “affirmed the shared principles of the two countries… their common resolve to fight against… religious fundamentalism” (Signposts, Vol.14, No.4, 1995).
This is thus the stated purpose of the ANC government. This would include combatting the proclamation of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and true churches, which increasingly worldwide are being branded as “fundamentalist extremists” for “daring” to say that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father, amongst other things (Jn.14:6; Acts 4:12).
3. “…it is the ANC’s intention that the Constitution should protect all people to practice their faith, with respect and sensitivity for the beliefs of others, in private, at home and in public” (Carl Niehaus, ANC MP, in a parliamentary speech, reported in Challenge, No.31, August/September 1995).
At first this may sound harmless enough; but Niehaus then went on to speak well of the radical World Council of Churches, SA Council of Churches, and the SA Catholic Bishops’ Conference - and labelled those who did not support these organisations as “intolerant”! Thus the only religious organisations which the ANC views as acceptable are those which are liberal, radical, ecumenical, interfaith, and supportive of the ANC/Communist position. All others are branded as “intolerant” and essentially unconstitutional (and therefore illegal). According to the ANC government, it is “disrespectful” and “insensitive” to other religions to preach the biblical truth that Christ alone is the way to the Father, and that all other religions are false! (Jn.14:6; Acts 4:12).
4. In September 1995, ANC Cabinet minister, Kader Asmal, challenged churches in South Africa to get involved in the ANC’s Socialist “Reconstruction and Development Programme”, and to align themselves critically with the government. He also challenged churches to avoid what he termed religious extremism, saying that fundamentalists often pick a few obscure texts to justify their racist or selfish position, and forget the overall tenets of their faith (The Southern Cross, October 8, 1995).
Here was a man, not even professing to be a “christian”, a member of a terrorist organisation, pontificating on what churches should, and should not, do and teach! Utterly ignorant of the divine truths of the Word of God as he must be, he nevertheless presumed to tell churches what their duty and their mission was. And in his judgement, the Marxist government was correct in what it was doing, and therefore churches had to align themselves with it! The arrogance of Marxists knows no bounds. They alone (in their exalted opinion of themselves) have the right to dictate how churches should behave, what they should do and what they should teach. No true Christian, or true Christian church, could ever take its orders from, or be told how to interpret the Bible by, such a man! But as the ANC government expects, yea demands, that churches do take their orders from it, what then will this mean for those who refuse to do so?
5. On August 10, 1996, an acting judge ruled that the Bible could not be considered to be a part of the law of a church denomination (and thus of an independent local church as well) (Signposts, Vol.19, No.2, 2000).
For Christians, the Bible is the supreme rule of faith and practice, because it is God’s unchanging Word. For a true Christian church, the Bible is not merely a part of its law; it is all of its law. Yet according to this decision, a church must be governed by the laws of men instead of by the Word of God! But if a church sets aside the Bible and allows the laws of man to take its place, it is no longer a church of Jesus Christ!
It is now impossible for believers, in a court of law, to appeal to the Bible when explaining their doctrines or behaviour! It can easily be imagined what the implications would be for any true believer on trial for his faith in Christ. He will refer to the Bible, the Word of God; but this will be rejected by the court! Yet no true church, or true Christian, could appeal to anything else!
6. “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled” (The SA Constitution, ch.1, section 2; adopted on 8 May 1996 and amended on 11 October 1996 by the Constitutional Assembly).
Thus, according to the Constitution of SA, if one’s Christian beliefs and practices conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution is supreme! Conduct which is consistent with God’s Word, but inconsistent with the Constitution, is invalid conduct! Christians are thus required to obey the Constitution, even if it is contrary to God’s Word! But this is impossible. Rom.13:1-7 teaches that the government must be obeyed; but Acts 4:18-20 and Acts 5:27-29 teach that Christians are to obey God rather than men, when to obey men means to disobey God! Certainly the government must be obeyed, but not when it commands something contrary to God’s Word. This clause in the Constitution could be used against Christians in SA.
7. “No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination” (The SA Constitution, ch.2, section 9.4).
Subsection (3): “race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.”
a) 1 Tim.2:11-14 and 1 Cor.14:34,35 declare that women are not to teach, nor to usurp authority over the men, in the local church, but to be in silence in the church, and to learn in silence with all subjection. Only men are to be pastors and deacons in the local church. But in the light of SA’s Constitution, this would be “unfair discrimination” on grounds of gender and sex.
b) Many passages of God’s Word teach that sodomy is a sin, and sodomites are not to be allowed into membership in a local church (e.g. Rom.1:26,27; Lev.20:13,15,16; 1 Cor.6:9-11). But under the SA Constitution, this would be “unfair discrimination” on grounds of “sexual orientation.”
c) The Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father; all the religions of the world are false; and all men, other than those truly converted to Christ, are on their way to hell (e.g. Jn.14:6; Acts 4:12). True Christians can have absolutely no spiritual fellowship with members of other religions. We cannot participate with them in their religious rites, in interfaith gatherings, in prayer or worship (2 Cor.6:14-18). But this could now be construed as illegal “discrimination” against people of other religions, according to the Constitution.
d) Scripture teaches that only those converted to Christ are to be members of the local church (e.g. Acts 2:41,42,47). But under the SA Constitution, this would be “unfair discrimination” on grounds of religion, conscience or belief.
According to this aspect of the SA Constitution, then, restricting membership in the local church to Christian believers only, and forbidding women to be pastors, and upholding Christ as the only way, truth, and life, is “discrimination” - and this is prohibited by the supreme law of the country!
8. “Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right - a)to make decisions concerning reproduction; b)to security in and control over their body” (The SA Constitution, ch.2, section 12.2).
This section takes away the God-given authority of husbands over wives, and of parents over children (e.g. Eph.5:22-6:3; Col.3:18-20). If a wife wants to have an abortion, she can now go ahead without the husband even knowing; and a daughter does not need parental consent to have an abortion either! This presents immense difficulties for Christian parents, and for Christian husbands whose wives are not believers. Essentially this is an attack on the family, as Communism has always sought to do, and it may be used against Christian husbands or parents seeking to obey the Holy Scriptures.
9. “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes - a)freedom of the press and other media; b)freedom to receive or impart information or ideas” (The SA Constitution, ch.2, section 16.1). So far so good. But it goes on:
“The right in subsection (1) does not extend to… advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm” (ch.2, section 16.2[c]).
In other words, if Christians proclaim, by word or the printed page, that sodomy is an abomination before God (Lev.18:22; Rom.1:24-32), this could be construed as “advocacy of hatred based on gender”; and if they proclaim, by word or the printed page, that all other religions are false and demonic (e.g. Psa.115:1-8; 1 Cor.10:14,19-21; Acts 19:23-29), this could be construed as “advocacy of hatred based on religion.” Christians do not advocate hatred, in the sense of advocating physical violence or harm, to sodomites or to members of other religions. We bear no malice towards those who are deceived and blinded by the devil. But we certainly hate the abomination of sodomy, and soul-damning false religion! It is not hatred to tell the truth about false religion and abominable sins, but this is how it will be understood by the State - especially when the adherents of false religions, or sodomites, scream that sermons or Christian materials which state such things are “hate speech” and “incitement to cause harm.”
Worldwide, Christians are increasingly being portrayed as hate-filled, narrow-minded bigots, wild-eyed fanatics, inciting men to harm others who differ with them on matters of religion. This is an utter lie of course, but it is the way they are being portrayed.
10. “Everyone has the right to have access to - a)health care services, including reproductive health care” (SA Constitution, ch.2, section 27.1).
Once again, this takes away the God-given authority of husbands over wives, and of parents over children (see point 8 above), by giving legal protection to a wife or daughter who has an abortion without the knowledge or consent of the husband or parents respectively, and also by giving legal protection to a child who uses contraceptives so that he or she may indulge in sexual intercourse outside of marriage, without parental consent. And this opens the door to State persecution of any Christian parents who refuse to allow their children such a “right.”
11. “Every child has the right - d)to be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation” (SA Constitution, ch.2, section 28.1).
This sounds wonderful at first glance, for child abuse is a great evil, and no Christian would ever want a child to be maltreated or abused. But: would biblical corporal punishment (spanking) be considered by the State as “maltreatment” and “abuse”? Most assuredly so! Worldwide, this is happening, as States are declaring that parental discipline with the rod is child abuse; and this utterly false interpretation is being used increasingly to persecute Christian parents.
As this is being written, the proposed Child Care Act is before Parliament. This bill includes outlawing parental corporal punishment! If passed, parents will no longer be permitted to spank their children! They will have to continue doing so, in order to obey God (Prov.13:24; 19:18; 22:6,15; 23:13,14; 29:15,17); but they will be acting illegally, and could face prosecution!
12. “Persons belonging to a… religious… community may not be denied the right, with other members of that community - a)to… practise their religion… and b)to form, join and maintain… religious… associations” (SA Constitution, ch.2, section 31.1).
Sounds great, doesn’t it? Ah, but not when one reads the very next subsection:
“The rights in subsection (1) may not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights” (ch.2, section 31.2)!
So: the right to practise one’s religion, or to form a church, is denied if, for example, one “discriminates” (according to their definition of the word) on grounds of gender, sex, sexual orientation, or religion; or if one “advocates hatred” (according to their definition) based on gender or religion. In reality, then, for a true Christian church, this section of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution gives them no rights at all.
13. “Anyone listed in this section has the right to approach a competent court, alleging that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened, and the court may grant appropriate relief” (SA Constitution, ch.2, section 38).
So: all it would take is for some disgruntled ex-member of a church, or some sodomite, for example, to complain to a court that his “rights” have been infringed or threatened by the church - and an inquisition will be set up!
14. “The primary objects of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities are… b)to promote and develop peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among cultural, religious and linguistic communities, on the basis of equality, non-discrimination and free association” (SA Constitution, ch.9, section 185.1).
“The Commission has the power… necessary to achieve its primary objects, including the power to monitor, investigate, research, educate, lobby, advise and report on issues concerning the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities” (section 185.2).
So now Christians in SA could be monitored by this powerful Commission, to make certain that they are conforming to what the Communist government has decreed. Although no true Christian will cause physical harm to any member of a false religion, we will never be involved in promoting “peace” and “friendship” with the devil’s religions, nor treat them as equal to biblical Christianity! The child of God views all false religion as satanic; devilish. Light and darkness cannot mix (2 Cor.6:14-18).
15. “The composition of the Commission [the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities] must - a)be broadly representative of the main cultural, religious and linguistic communities in South Africa” (SA Constitution, ch.9, section 186.2).
This means there will be Roman Catholics, liberal “Protestants”, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews on the Commission; but certainly no true Christians! They would not be invited, and even if they were, they would never accept. What an opportunity for these pontificating religious leaders, these wolves in sheep’s clothing, to conduct an inquisition against all who do not conform to their definition of what a “legitimate” religion or church should be!
16. “The Commission for Gender Equality must promote respect for gender equality…. has the power… necessary to perform its functions, including the power to monitor, investigate, research, educate, lobby, advise and report on issues concerning gender equality” (SA Constitution, ch.9, section 187.1,2).
What, then, will happen when a church refuses to ordain women to the ministry, and some disgruntled woman runs off to the Gender Commission and lays a complaint? That church will become the subject of an investigation by this Inquisition-Commission!
17. “You can say whatever you want, and the press too can say whatever they want. But Parliament may prevent people from spreading propaganda for war, or encouraging people to use violence. Hate speech may also be prohibited. Hate speech is spoken or written language (or sometimes actions) which hurts people or tries to get people to cause harm to other people because of their race, ethnicity, gender or religion” (You and the Constitution, pg.13, a booklet produced by the Constitutional Assembly in order to make the Constitution easy to understand).
This is chilling. Christians are no longer free to preach the Gospel in its entirety to members of other religions! Not only Gospel preaching, but Gospel literature that even so much as “hurts people” is now illegal!
But the truth is that sound, faithful Gospel preaching does hurt! Faithful preaching cuts men to the very heart (Acts 7:54). Yet if Christians in SA today preach as Paul did in Acts 13:10, calling a man a child of the devil, an enemy of all righteousness, they open themselves up to criminal prosecution. This is now “hate speech” (whether these things are said in a sermon, a conversation, or written down). And the booklet has a very significant cartoon illustrating this point: it depicts a man demonstrating with a picket which reads, “Legalise dagga [marijuana] now!” and a policeman is smiling at him. It also depicts another man demonstrating with a picket that reads, “Kill Catholic scum!” and the policeman is apprehending him.
Although no true Christian would ever carry such a sign, nor call for the killing of anyone on grounds of their religion, this reveals what the ANC government views as criminal, and what it does not. And certainly they could claim that preaching the Gospel to Roman Catholics, calling the pope the Antichrist, is equivalent to calling for the killing of Roman Catholics!
It is very interesting, too, that of all the things the cartoonist could have depicted the sign saying, what was depicted was something derogatory about Roman Catholics! Although the Roman Catholic institution only numbers about ten percent of the South African population, it wields an influence over the government out of all proportion to its numbers.
18. “The new Constitution gives children under the age of 18 special rights. These include the right…not to be abused or neglected.” And the accompanying cartoon depicts a child saying: “They do not need to be yelled at, beaten or sexually abused!” (You and the Constitution, pg.17).
Every true Christian knows that child abuse is utterly sinful. But the Bible commands parents to spank their children (Prov.13:24; 19:18; 22:6,15; 23:13,14; 29:15,17). Spanking is not child abuse! Nor is yelling at children, no matter how futile and usually silly it may be. This law turns loving, caring parents into criminals in the eyes of the State.
19. On May 2, 1997, the Constitutional Court - the highest court in the land - ruled that the Bible could not be recognised before the courts in matters revolving around the internal disputes within a church (Signposts,Vol.19, No.2, 2000).
The grave implications of this ruling need to be carefully pondered. According to such passages as Matt.18:15-17 and 1 Cor.6:1-8, if there is a dispute within a church, the members are to resolve it internally, in accordance with the teachings of Holy Scripture. It should not reach the secular courts at all. But if one side does happen (sinfully) to take it to the courts, the Constitutional Court has ruled that the Bible cannot be recognised in such matters. In this way the authorities are claiming the right to take such matters out of the hands of the members of a local church, and to solve them for the church, in accordance with their own worldly wisdom and the secular humanism of the Constitution.
20. “At every level ANC activists must be built as leaders, in places of residence, in schools, places of worship, in the workplace, on the sports-field, in government and legislatures” (President Nelson Mandela, addressing the ANC’s 85th anniversary celebrations, and quoted in Die, the Beloved Country? By Jim Peron, p.39).
Mandela’s words mean nothing less than that the Communist-controlled ANC must control all churches! In the Soviet Union, Communist agents infiltrated churches, and were appointed as pastors in the registered churches, and they controlled what was taught and what was done. And this is the goal of the Communist leaders of SA as well - voiced very clearly by none other than Nelson Mandela himself! The ANC wants total control.
How careful all true churches must be, both in receiving people into membership, and in ordaining them as pastors! Paul the apostle told the elders of Ephesus: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29,30). He also wrote of being “in perils among false brethren” (2 Cor.11:26). This happened in the early Church, and it happened in later times also: the Jesuits of Rome, for example, have been deeply involved in infiltrating Protestant churches, falsely pretending to be Christians and even becoming pastors. And in the USSR the same thing occurred. There is every reason to believe that in SA today, ANC agents will attempt to do the very same thing. Christian churches must be on their guard!
21. “The transformation of our country requires the greatest possible co-operation between religious and political bodies, critically and wisely serving our people together. Neither political nor religious objectives can be achieved in isolation. They are held in a creative tension with common commitments. We are partners in the building of society…
“We ought to be able to transform the spiritual life of our country. Within our own constituencies we seek to answer these problems but we need a more comprehensive answer. Can we devise a way for the leadership of all religions to come together to analyse the cause of this spiritual malaise, and to find ways of tackling it? And can this be done as a matter of urgency, say within the next two months?” (President Nelson Mandela, addressing the leaders of 26 religious groups in June 1997, reported in Challenge, No.45, Dec.97/Jan.98).
Sure enough, Mandela said “jump”, and the religious leaders quickly jumped to obey their master - six weeks later they formed the “National Religious Leaders Forum.” But consider what Mandela said here: 1) He called for co-operation between political and religious institutions to “transform” SA - this is Marxist terminology for the next stage in the ongoing Marxist revolution, and the ANC government expects (one could say demands) that churches, etc., get involved in this revolution. But of course this is not the task of the Christian Church, and it does not take its orders from any unregenerate person, or from the State. 2) He said that religious objectives cannot be achieved in isolation from political objectives, and spoke as if political and religious objectives are one and the same: namely, to “build society”. For the Communist leaders of SA, religion has only one purpose: to advance the Communist transformation of all aspects of society. But it has never been the role of biblical Christianity to “build society”! Thus, true Christian churches, who refuse to conform to Mandela’s view of what they should be doing, will find themselves viewed as “enemies of the revolution.” 3) Mandela’s words about “transforming the spiritual life” of SA show that these men believe they know how all religious institutions ought to function, and for what purpose, and they can dictate to them.
22. “State schools should not be seen as extensions of religious organisations”, and thus “The state has no intention of handing over religion in education to religious communities”; and, the government would use religious education as a means of creating “an atmosphere of respect and understanding in our religiously plural society”; and, “Our teachers (are) to become the fellow pilgrims, fellow searchers and fellow learners of our children” (Roman Catholic priest, leading “liberation theologian”, and Deputy Minister of Education, Smangaliso Mkhatshwa, in a speech at a major conference on Multi-Religious Education in Pretoria in July 1997, as reported in Signposts, Vol.17, No.2, 1998).
The ANC government has no intention of leaving religious education to religious institutions, but intends controlling religious education for its own purposes; namely, to use it to indoctrinate the youth according to its own ideology and objectives for SA society. This man’s words also reveal that the Communist leaders of SA intend to impress upon society that in religious matters there are no fixed certainties, no absolutes, that everything is relative and uncertain; everyone - even teachers - are merely “fellow searchers” for the truth, but no one ever actually finds it. All this is absolutely contrary to God’s Word (see for example, Jn.14:6; 1 Jn.5:12,13).
23. “There is going to be interference from the Government in every sphere of life and activity in South Africa…” (Steve Tshwete, Minister of Sport in the ANC/Communist Party government, speaking at the National Assembly in October 1997).
A classic Marxist statement! SA is a dictatorship thinly disguised as a “free democracy”. “Every sphere” obviously includes a sphere which the Lord has not placed under the control of the State: the local church.
24. In a landmark decision for religious freedom over the airwaves, the Broadcasting Monitoring and Complaints Committee (BMCC) in December 1997 ordered an Islamic radio station to appoint women presenters, and instructed that one-third of the membership on all its committees must include women. The station did not comply, and the Independent Broadcasting Authority revoked its licence (Sunday Times, December 14, 1997). Prior to this, in October 1997, the chairwoman of the Commission on Gender Equality stated (in reference to this matter) that the Commission was committed to ensuring that religion was not used to justify “discrimination” against women; and that, although the constitutional right of religious communities to freedom of expression was recognised, this freedom was subject to the constitutional clause dealing with gender equality (The Citizen, 16 October 1997).
All true Christians know that Islam is a false religion, and reject it completely. But this case shows that there is no true freedom of religion in SA, regardless of what is claimed. The Constitution claims to support freedom of religion and expression, but this is a fallacy. The message sent to the country by this action was crystal-clear: South Africans are only “free” to practice and express their religion in accordance with what the Communist government deems acceptable! And this is NOT true freedom of religion at all!
The Bible teaches categorically that women may not be pastors, nor teach nor speak in the church (1 Tim.2:11-15; 1 Cor.14:34,35). We are not to alter the truth of God’s Word to accommodate new trends in society! The day may come when the powerful Gender Commission, believing itself to be wiser than God, may decide to deal with Christian churches as it dealt with that Islamic radio station. It may oneday issue a directive to churches: permit the ordination of women to the ministry, or be closed down! After all, according to the Commission’s chairwoman, this is what the Commission is committed to doing! And she made it very clear that freedom of religion and expression is subject to the constitutional clause dealing with “gender equality”!
In the name of so-called “human rights”, SA’s new-style Communist authorities can now attempt to do what the old-style Communists attempted to do by sheer brutality: destroy Christian churches.
25. “For most South Africans, their values and attitudes were formed in the old, divided South Africa. Education is the key to changing many of the old commonly held values and beliefs. Critical thinking, rational thought and deeper understanding - central principles of the new education system - will soon begin to break down class, race and gender stereotypes” (Curriculum 2005: Lifelong Learning for the 21st Century, issued by the national Department of Education, 1997).
In other words, the central purpose of SA’s radical new education system is to promote the agenda of the Marxist rulers of the country! Its stated purpose is to change values and beliefs! This is nothing less than a plan to indoctrinate children according to the Marxist system! It is to brainwash children against the values or beliefs even of their own parents, if these are unacceptable to the Marxist rulers. For according to themselves, they, and they alone, are wise enough to know what is best for everyone. They arrogantly believe that they are wiser than parents, including Christian parents, and that they have the right to control the education of the country’s children. This is extremely dangerous for all Christians in SA.
26. “Education and training should be a joint responsibility of the State, the community and the private sector. In the case of schools, parents and guardians share the primary responsibility for the education of their children. A healthy partnership between the state authorities and parents is absolutely essential for the establishment of a culture of Lifelong Learning Development”; “[Parents] are required to share the responsibility of the education of their children with the State” (Curriculum 2005: Lifelong Learning for the 21st Century, issued by the national Department of Education, 1997).
What supreme arrogance! The Communist government of SA says that parents are merely to share the responsibility of the education of their children with the State! - as if children belong partly to their parents and partly to the State! This is true Marxism. According to Marxist belief, parents do not have sole rights over their children - the State “owns” all the children, and therefore State control of all the children through education is viewed as the State’s right. The State claims to itself the authority which God has placed in the hands of parents. Communists know that if they have control over children, they influence the next generation, indoctrinating it into their ideology. They have to destroy parental authority over children. And this is what is happening in SA now. For Christian parents this is a most ominous development.
27. President Nelson Mandela, speaking in a Roman Catholic church building in December 1997, said that churches and other religious bodies were now faced with the challenge of bringing about “social transformation” through the “reconstruction and development” of South Africa (The Southern Cross, December 21, 1997).
As far as the ANC/Communist government is concerned, this is the only real purpose for the existence of churches and religious institutions: to bring about a Marxist “social transformation” by “reconstructing” society. Very popular Marxist terminology, which essentially means to advance the next stage of the Marxist revolution by “transforming” society along Marxist lines. And churches are expected to play their part in achieving this; and if they do, they will be left alone, even supported, by the government. But what if they do not (and any true church of God knows that this is not the role of the church at all)? Well then, they are not, as far as the ANC/Communist government is concerned, fulfilling the only role which they are permitted (by the Marxist State) to have.
28. “The reconstruction and development of our country bring even greater challenges, and our nation is counting on the religious sector as a force that will help us succeed” (President Nelson Mandela, addressing the International Fellowship of Christian Churches in March 1998, reported in The Southern Cross, March 22, 1998). He went on to say that the moral fibre of society had been eroded by the years of “immoral and illegitimate rule and the decades of division and conflict” under apartheid, adding: “That is one of our greatest challenges, because our new society can only prosper if it is built on a sound moral foundation.”
How good this all sounds to the gullible! And yet: 1)Once again, Mandela speaks to a religious institution about the “reconstruction” of SA, as if this was the churches’ purpose. It is not, and never has been, the purpose of churches to “reconstruct” society, either along Marxist or any other lines; and any “church” that believes this is its purpose is not a church of Christ! 2) It was not “apartheid” that eroded the moral fibre of SA, but the ANC’s own policies, both before and after coming to power! SA had a far more moral foundation under the old government than under this one, which has systematically dismantled it, turning the country into an immoral cesspool of wickedness. Thus we see Mandela’s attempt at re-writing history. And again: the ANC expects all churches to work with it in “reconstructing” society along Marxist lines. Those which do not, will be viewed as “counter-revolutionary”. True Christians are in great danger in SA today!
29. A visitor’s visa to South Africa, issued at the end of November 1998, listed the following conditions: “For holiday purposes only. Not to partake in/or promote any religious activity. Employment prohibited” (Signposts, Vol.18, No.2, 1999).
Foreign visitors to SA were thus in effect forbidden from even attending a church service!
30. The following recommendation was made by South Africa’s “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (headed by leading “liberation theologian” and ANC supporter, the Anglican archbishop Desmond Tutu), in the section headed “Relationship with the State”: “the need to ensure that all theological and religious literature be the responsibility of faith communities, provided it passes scrutiny by an inter-faith body to ensure that it does not contain derogatory material about other faiths” (reported in The Natal Witness, January 29, 1999).
This chilling recommendation is nothing less than a recommendation for the creation of an inter-faith Inquisition: a statutory body with the power to censor religious literature! As an “inter-faith” body, it would be comprised of leaders of the main religions in the country - all of them, of course, hostile to biblical Christianity. Should this recommendation be accepted, no book would be permitted to be published, nor permitted to be imported into the country, if it was in any way derogatory about other religions!
Such an Inquisitorial institution would have immense and far-reaching power, a censorship body that would have the power to decide which Christian books may be printed and distributed, and which may not. Christians in European lands dominated by the Papal Inquisition, and Christians in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries, were forced to go into hiding and print and disseminate Christian literature secretly, because such literature was banned. If ever the SA government decides to implement the recommendation of its dearly-beloved “Tutu Commission” (and given what it has already legislated to restrict the preaching of the Gospel, it is very possible indeed), Christians in this country would find themselves in precisely the same position.
31. In March 1999, at a professedly Christian school in Pinetown, SA, a female teaching assistant spanked a thirteen-year-old girl twice on the buttocks. She was taken to court. The school defended her action, saying (correctly) that on biblical grounds it had the right to use corporal correction, and teachers were permitted to spank the children, based on the teachings of the book of Proverbs. In addition, this was perfectly acceptable to the parents, who had even signed a General Acceptance/Indemnity form permitting the school to discipline children “as it deems wise and expedient for the training of my child.” But the magistrate ruled that no religion’s freedom could supersede Constitutional principles. Thus the school’s code of correction was declared illegal because it violated the Constitution. He rejected the school’s indemnity form as invalid because (he said) parents could not sign their rights away! And he convicted the woman of assault (Roca Report, No.132, December 1999).
This set a precedent in law. No religion’s freedom may supersede the principles in the Constitution! As the Constitution itself states categorically, “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.” This extremely flawed, man-made document has been declared to be above the eternal and unchanging Word of the living God. For a professing Christian school to obey God’s Word in this matter of corporal punishment is to act illegally in SA today. And yet this is precisely what Christians have to do, in order to obey God first and foremost, even if it means persecution, or prosecution. The Constitution is not above the Bible (Acts 4:18-20; 5:29). The laws of men must be obeyed, but not when they are contrary to the laws of God.
32. On March 12, 1999, speaking at the ANC’s Commission for Religious Affairs’ workshop on Religion and Politics, Frank Chikane, the director-general in Deputy President Mbeki’s office, said: “the same collaborative strategies we [i.e. religious and political leaders] used to rid ourselves of the apartheid society should be put to use to achieve this radical reconstruction of our society and our people” (Challenge, No.54, June/July 1999).
Once again, a high government official calling on religious institutions to do the same work as the Marxist-led government, “transforming” SA society. Every true Christian church knows that it is not to “collaborate” with the State, and it is not to be involved in society’s “radical reconstruction”. But this is what the government expects religious institutions to do. And those who reject calls such as this are viewed as “counter-revolutionary” and, essentially, enemies of the State.
33. Thanks to the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, which became law in January 1999, “The State can now confiscate the proceeds of crime purely through a civil action against the property, without the need to obtain a criminal conviction of the owner first. The State can now also confiscate assets that have been used to commit a crime” (Willie Hofmeyer, President Mbeki’s parliamentary advisor and head of the Asset Forfeiture Unit, as reported in Roca Report, No.126, June 1999).
This violates the concept of the presumption of innocence. Property belonging to people can be seized, and their bank accounts frozen, before they have been found guilty of anything. And here is food for thought: “There is another problem. People who, until recently, were senior ANC members control the [Asset Forfeiture Unit]. Will it one day be used to confiscate the assets of people who are political opponents of the ANC or not politically correct?” (Roca Report, No.126, June 1999) - such as true Christians?
34. President Thabo Mbeki, criticising the African Christian Democratic Party during a speech in parliament, accused it of a “mean, angry, vengeful, soulless and retributive theology”; and then added: “At all times, the spokespersons of this party have appended a Christian label to everything they said…. Consistently they have argued - kill the murderers! Kill, kill, kill! They have argued that to be true to their theology, they must demand that young women must die in backstreet abortions … die! die! die! die! This seeming passion to see human blood flow has been expressed in a demand: cut their limbs! mutilate them! … cut! cut! cut! cut!” (The Natal Witness, July 1, 1999).
President Mbeki chose to ignore the fact that the ANC itself has a passion for seeing human blood flow, being responsible for the deaths of vast numbers of people; for before it came to power, it carried out a bloody terrorist revolution in which tens of thousands died; and after coming to power, it has released violent, convicted criminals back onto the streets, thereby enabling them to kill again; it has done nothing to stop the murders of vast numbers of innocent people every year; and of course it supports abortion - the murder of the unborn.
But for Christians in SA, the most chilling aspect of his speech was the revelation of his utter hatred for the Gospel of Christ. His words showed again just how precarious the position of Christians in South Africa really is. We do not hold any brief for the ACDP, which is an ecumenical party; nevertheless, it favours the reinstallation of the death penalty and is opposed to abortion, and in this it is certainly correct; and these are the very issues which Mbeki was so strongly criticising. It is clear that to him, biblical doctrines are mean, angry, vengeful, soulless and retributive. This is how he views the teaching of the Bible, and this is how he views Christians!
35. In August 1999, a judge in the Port Elizabeth High Court ruled against corporal punishment in professedly Christian schools with the following words: “After a few thousand years of development of civilization, the guidelines to parents found in certain biblical passages are no longer appropriate nor do they form part of Christian religious doctrine.” And he added: “to allow corporal punishment… at the applicant’s school, even if it is done in the exercise of the religious beliefs or cultures of those involved, would be to allow the applicant’s members to practice their religion or culture in a manner inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, contravening the Constitution” (The Southern Cross, August 29, 1999).
Thus once again it has been made crystal-clear: the Constitution is above the law of God! This judge decreed that what Scripture says is “no longer appropriate”. Who was this puny man to arrogantly claim such a thing? He may not have believed them to be appropriate; but he had absolutely no authority to judge or pontificate about what Christians are to accept as “appropriate” or not from the Bible! How tragic that this educated man did not know that everything that is good in the development of western civilization over the centuries has been brought about as a spin-off benefit of the influence of biblical Christianity in all spheres of life. And as for saying that such things no longer form part of Christian religious instruction, how did he know? It is true that corporal punishment may not form part of the instruction given in liberal, Christ-denying “churches”, and as these predominate in SA today he may have had them in mind; but how could he arrogantly claim that these institutions speak for all? Again, this shows the mindset: the liberal “churches” (such as those of the SA Council of Churches, etc.) are held to be the only legitimate churches in the whole country! They have rejected biblical principles, therefore we are all expected to reject them!
This was yet another indication of the utter hostility of those in high office towards Christians and Christianity. So much for “freedom of religion” - the Constitution is the supreme “religion”, and all others must be subservient to it!
36. According to Cadre Policy and Deployment Strategy, an ANC discussion document on deployment policy, produced in 1999: “…we must strengthen our leadership of all parastatals and statutory bodies” and “in all other sectors of social activity, including the economy, education, science and technology, sports, recreation, arts and culture, mass popular organisations and mass communications”. It also stated that the ANC needs to place “correct people” in all “key centres of power”; and that it would carry out an audit of all positions in such power centres and identify areas where it was not already dominant (as reported in the August 1999 issue of Focus, the magazine of the Helen Suzman Foundation, reprinted in The Natal Witness, August 26, 1999).
This document reveals the Communist-controlled ANC’s ruthless aim for absolute, total control over every aspect of life in SA. Read again the statements by Nelson Mandela and Steve Tshwete given above: this discussion document is simply in line with those statements, and with stated Marxist policy the world over.
This document is breathtaking in its totalitarianism and Stalinism. It is nothing less than the desire for a totalitarian State. R.W. Johnson, director of the Helen Suzman Foundation, wrote: “It [the ANC] wants control over education, sport, recreation, science, and technology in general…. Similarly, its control over “mass organisations” will presumably apply to NGOs, ratepayers’ bodies, welfare bodies such as the Red Cross, legal and business associations and perhaps churches too; nothing, at least, is ruled out” ( Focus, August 1999, reprinted in The Natal Witness, August 26, 1999).
This is the kind of absolute power the ANC wants in SA! Its own people must be placed in control of everything, even churches (”mass popular organisations”). As Johnson wrote: “What is envisaged is an exact replica of the Soviet nomenklatura… Stalin was able to place his handpicked cadres in every area of Soviet life. This provided him with his power base of loyal apparatchiks and guaranteed the totalitarianism and ideological uniformity that were the essence of Stalinism.”
It would not be difficult for the ANC to place its own people in control of the mainline religious denominations. They have been extremely supportive of the ANC for many years; and many, and perhaps in some cases most, of their leaders are already either outright ANC members or very sympathetic towards it. But then, once this has been achieved, it could seek to take control of other churches as well. It would start to dictate to churches how they should operate, who they should appoint to pastoral positions, what they should teach, etc., just as in the Soviet Union, Red China, and elsewhere (see Acts 20:29-31). And when true churches of Christ resist? Then persecution will follow, exactly as it did in other Communist lands.
37. The “Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act” (called the Equality Act for short), which was signed into law on February 2, 2000, prohibits the dissemination of “propaganda, ideas or theories… which promote inequality of persons in any manner, or which justify, promote or incite hatred or prejudice against other persons on account of race, ethnicity, gender or religion”. According to Section 10 of the Act, no one may say or print any words based on the prohibited grounds which would be construed as hurtful or harmful. Justice Minister Penuell Maduna said that this Act “commits every person and every social institution, both public and private, to the promotion of equality.” And Mohseen Moosa, ANC chairman of the committee which drew up the bill, said these chilling words at a news conference on January 25, 2000: “This bill does not exempt anybody. Whether you are part of one or another religion… or whether you believe in gender equality in one way or another, for whatever reasons, whatever philosophy you hold, if you live in the South African society, this bill does not exempt you.” And speaking on January 29, 2000, he also said: “We believe that those religions that uphold the values of human dignity and of equality will be satisfied with this bill. And those religious interpretations that do not uphold those values will be tested in court” (as reported in The Natal Witness, October 14 and 26, 1999; Roca Report, No.130, October 1999; and Signposts, Vol.19, No.2, 2000).
Religious freedom no longer exists in South Africa! According to this Act, books, sermons, or taped sermons, which teach that Christ is the only way to the Father and that all other religions are false, or that sodomy is an abomination, or that only men may be ordained as ministers of the Word, are all prohibited! It is illegal to preach or write in this way! In fact, it is not only members of other religions, or sodomites, or disgruntled professing “Christians”, who could scream that the proclamation of biblical truth is “hurtful” and “harmful” to them, and “hate speech”, but even if Christians simply call upon sinners in general to repent of their sins, they could claim that this is “hurtful” to them.
No true Christian preaches hatred or malice towards anyone that is expressed in causing harm to them (Eph.4:31; Col.3:8; 1 Pet.2:1), but rather is motivated by love for their eternal souls (Rom.10:1). Nevertheless, every true Christian loathes false religion, and abominable deeds; and the authorities will interpret what believers say and preach on these matters as being the “promotion of hatred”, or “inequality”.
The government praised this Act as an ambitious attempt to create a new society - which is just what it is, the desire to create a new, Communist society in line with the satanic New World Order. This Act is an attempt by the State to interfere in every sphere of South African society, in accordance with the statements of Nelson Mandela and Steve Tshwete quoted above. It destroys freedom of belief, religion, association, speech and conscience. It means that in the eyes of the State, even churches are not free to run their own affairs - they must submit to direct State control. It means that the State can order churches to change their doctrines and practices! As far as the ANC is concerned, it has the right to command churches to uphold its “values” as being the true ones! It knows best! As far as it is concerned, it is wiser than God Himself, and wiser than the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God! Mankind had to wait until now for the ANC, in its vast wisdom, to tell us which “values” to uphold, and which ones to reject!
But of course, true churches of Christ will refuse to alter their doctrines and practices! A true church of Christ receives its instruction from the Bible, not from the ANC! A true church of Christ is to conduct its affairs without State interference, and to preach solely what the Bible declares; and it is not to change its doctrines or practices just because the State now orders it to do so! (Acts 4:18-20; 5:27-29).
And furthermore, to make certain that this Act is implemented, “equality tribunals” are being established. The word “tribunal” is enough to make every Christian’s blood run cold. It conjures up images of the Inquisition. This is how far SA has fallen! And who are to serve as joint presiding officers on these tribunals? Commissioners from the Gender Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission!
38. In 2000, allegations of various kinds were made against a mission organisation in KwaZulu-Natal province; including an allegation that it worked with Military Intelligence prior to the ANC coming to power in 1994. The ANC called for a probe into the allegations that the mission had operated as an “anti-liberation agency” for Military Intelligence. An ANC spokesman also said that it raised questions about how supportive the mission now was regarding the new ANC-led dispensation (The Natal Witness, February 8, 2000).
We are not concerned here with whether or not any of the allegations were true, nor do we agree with this particular mission, doctrinally or practically; but that is not the point here. What is most important in this context is that the ANC again made it quite clear that it wanted to crack down on religious institutions which opposed it before it came to power, and on those which do not support its policies now that it is in power. It is opposed to churches or religious institutions which did not work for it prior to 1994, and which do not support its policies now.
39. In early 2000, the so-called “Independent Broadcasting Authority” informed three well-run professedly Christian radio stations that their broadcast licences would not be renewed, even though they had been operating for years. No reasons were given for the refusal (Signposts, Vol.19, No.3, 2000).
We certainly do not agree with the doctrinal or other content of many radio stations professing to be “Christian”; but that is not the point here. What is of concern to all Christians is the continual assault on religious freedom in SA. It is clear that the IBA favoured stations without a “Christian” content.
40. “The most thorough-going land dispossession, the transformation of the African majority into a proletariat, the destruction of traditional society, the suppression of African culture and the systematic diminution of indigenous languages and the sustained entrenchment of a foreign religion and other ideas - all these combined to produce a degree of social alienation and loss of identity perhaps with no equivalent anywhere, except among the slave population of the US” (President Thabo Mbeki in a speech on 11 August 2000, as reported in Roca Report, No.140/141, August-September 2000).
Although President Mbeki did not name the religion, many believe that the only religion he could possibly have been referring to was Christianity. If so, this was the strongest attack on Christianity to come from the most senior ANC official. In the president’s opinion, it is a foreign religion that should never have come to these shores, and that brought great misery to SA (contrary to all the evidence).
In the same speech, Mbeki referred to white South Africans as “the foreign ruling class” - the first time a senior ANC official ever did so, and an echo of the rhetoric used by Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe about white Zimbabweans as his justification for seizing white-owned farms.
41. On March 21, 2001 (so-called “Human Rights Day” in South Africa), Education Minister Kader Asmal attacked thousands of professing Christians for praying at the Newlands stadium instead of attending a rally at which he spoke (Signposts, Vol.21, No.1, 2002).
Although we certainly do not support such ecumenical prayer gatherings, that is not the point here. His attack reveals the sheer arrogance of the ruling ANC, which believes that when it speaks, the whole country must listen. As far as the ANC elite are concerned, they alone have the truth, and they alone should be listened to. This time, Asmal merely complained; but how long will it be before the ANC/Communist government insists that everyone attends its rallies, or bans religious meetings when they coincide with an ANC meeting? Does that sound far-fetched? Such things have happened before, in other Communist countries, and also in biblical times (Dan.3:1-7), and why should it seem too far-fetched to happen in SA?
42. According to Education Minister Asmal, even schools projecting a Christian ethos need to ensure that “parity is given to religious instruction” - i.e. that catechism or religious lessons should not be imposed (as reported in The Southern Cross, July 4 to July 10, 2001).
Thus, in effect, professedly Christian schools are no longer to function as Christian schools.
43. The State’s new school curriculum was released in July 2001, based on the discredited and dangerous “Outcomes-Based Education” model. It was called Curriculum 2005 (C2005). And Education Minister Asmal said that it introduced education about the diversity of religions and world views in South Africa (The Natal Witness, July 31, 2001).
However, it does not merely provide information about various religions: it seeks to put all religions on an equal footing, and to indoctrinate children in the “multifaith” agenda. “Inter-faith”, or “Multi-faith”, is the new, politically-correct religion of the South African State! According to it, all religions are equally valid, none is better than any other, for they all began in the imagination of man. But no true Christian accepts this! All religions are not equally valid, only Christ is the way to the Father (Jn.14:6), and thus biblical Christianity is the only true faith; the religions of the world are concerned with the worship of false gods, idols, behind which are demonic powers (1 Cor.8:5,6; 10:19-21), and thus cannot in any sense be placed on an equal footing with Christianity. The concept of “multifaith”, then, is utterly unacceptable to the Christian. Yet now the State intends to indoctrinate even the children of Christian parents in this demonic lie!
44. According to Education Minister Asmal, sex education and HIV/Aids education in “every class in every school from Grade R (Reception) to Grade 12″ would be enforced by the Education Department from now on. He was speaking at a conference on “sexuality education”. And in response to Asmal’s announcement, the CEO of “loveLife”, David Harrison, said that whether parents are comfortable or not with sexuality, HIV/Aids and life skills, their children - from as young as three - would need to be educated about them (Signposts, Vol.20 No.5, 2001).
It was thus made perfectly clear: how parents feel about sex education being given to their children by the State is irrelevant. It will be given to them, regardless of parental feelings or objections. And what will be taught? - that the sexual relationship is one that must be reserved for marriage? Oh no - the teaching will be that even children should be free to engage in sexual behaviour if they so desire, provided they use a condom to prevent a pregnancy and to supposedly prevent Aids; and should a pregnancy still occur, legally a teenage girl under 18 may now have an abortion without her parents’ consent or even their knowledge!
And this sex education will be given by teachers, most of whom themselves have a worldly outlook on sexual relations, many of whom are shacking up themselves, and many of whom are also using their authority as teachers to sexually abuse the children entrusted to their care (SA has an extremely high incidence of such abuse at the hands of teachers)!
The biblical truth is that children do not belong to the State, they belong to their parents (Gen.33:5; Psa.127:3-5), and their parents have the responsibility of raising and educating them; and Christian parents are to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph.6:4). It is their responsibility to educate their children about sexual matters, in the fear of God and in the light of His Word, when they believe the time is right. But the State cares nothing for parental authority, and is doing all it can to take this authority away from them.
45. Education Minister Asmal stated that he was opposed to independent examining bodies for schools, because they did not share the philosophical underpinnings of the national curriculum (Business Times, September 16, 2001, as reported in The Citizen, 19 August 2002).
The plan is for all children in SA to be indoctrinated in the Communist government’s own system of belief and behaviour. Parents are not to be allowed any freedom of choice in this matter: the education of their children is not to be their responsibility, but that of the State. The Schools Act of 1996 allows the Minister of Education the power to determine a national curriculum and process of assessment to be binding on all public and even independent schools. If assessments are controlled, then content is controlled, and this is precisely what the government wants (The Citizen, 19 August 2002).
46. On October 4, 2001, Education Minister Asmal slammed criticism of the new school curriculum by Christian homeschoolers as “loony, paranoid and perverse” (The Natal Witness, October 10, 2001; and Signposts,Vol.21, No.1, 2002).
This statement was made after the Pestalozzi Trust, the homeschool legal defence organisation, raised concerns that the Lifestyle Outcomes and Sciences sections of the new curriculum would impose belief systems on children contrary to the Constitution. It stated: “The Constitutional Court has ruled that the State may not impose orthodoxies of belief systems on the nation. This curriculum aims to do that.” The curriculum was described, not only by religious groups but also by educational institutions, as a “totalitarian, Marxist form of indoctrination”.
This criticism is absolutely true. The curriculum is a Marxist form of indoctrination of children, and it does impose belief systems on children. But in the response of the Education Minister, South African Christians were given an insight into how the ANC government views Christians who wish to educate and raise their children in the ways of the Lord: “loony, paranoid and perverse”. It certainly is true that as it presently stands, the Constitution, in this one matter at least, is on the side of homeschoolers; but with the two-thirds majority the ANC achieved (by fair means and foul) in the 2004 election, it now has the power to change the Constitution if it so desires. For how long, then, will the Constitution still favour homeschooling?
The hatred of the Marxist government for Christianity and Christian homeschoolers has been revealed.
47. In its definition of Science, the Education Department’s National Curriculum Statement (NCS) gave “no reference to the development of science in the West - while the contribution of the ancient Greeks, Chinese, Arabs and Africans are specifically noted (Natural Sciences, page 14).” In the Social Sciences section of the curriculum, there was “no reference to any Western leader, not even those who worked for the abolition of slavery, such as William Wilberforce, David Livingstone and Abraham Lincoln.” “While the contribution and expansion of Islam in Africa is faithfully recorded (Social Sciences, page 59), no mention is made of the vast contribution of Christian missions to all levels of education in African countries south of the Sahara. Nor is there any reference to the fact that many African languages were reduced to writing by Christians. In translating the Bible and other texts, they also laid the foundations of literature in these languages” (Gideon Thom, retired professor from the University of Fort Hare, in The Natal Witness, October 31, 2001).
There is thus clearly an anti-Western and (which is even worse) an anti-Christian bias in the National Curriculum Statement. The plain historical fact, which no amount of historical revisionism can cover up, is that those countries known as “Western” countries have contributed more to the world in general than any others in world history; and to overlook such contributions is to present a false, inaccurate view of history for one purpose only: to indoctrinate children against the achievements and the blessings that have come to the world through the Western countries. And worse yet, to attempt to undermine and hide the very real, tangible, and inestimable blessings that have come to Africa, and indeed the world, as a result of the spread of Christianity, is clearly a deliberate assault on Christianity by those in charge of pushing this Marxist indoctrination of children via the classroom. Wherever it has spread, in Africa and elsewhere, Islam has brought bloodshed, destruction, and slavery; and yet this religion’s “contribution” is recorded, whereas Christianity is ignored! What blatant deception and falsehood!
48. “Apparently, teachers must bring together a number of religious ideas and symbols for use in class - aided by guidelines from the NCS. Even pupils in Grade 1 will be confronted with an incomprehensible religious diversity” (Gideon Thom, retired professor from the University of Fort Hare, The Natal Witness, October 31, 2001).
From Grade 1, children will be indoctrinated in the demonic Interfaith Movement!
49. “The NCS [National Curriculum Statement] aspires to fulfil all the ideals of the new Constitution, namely, the transformation of society…. [Education Minister] Asmal is… opposed to a Christian influence in the schools, at least those schools that… reject the control of the state in matters of the human spirit. Apparently, Asmal even considers the very existence of private religious schools as contrary to the Constitution (Die Burger, October 6, 2001)” (Gideon Thom, retired professor from the University of Fort Hare, The Natal Witness, October 31, 2001).
Very true, and very ominous.
50. “Regrettably there are fundamentalists - mostly Christian fundamentalists - who object to tolerance and respect for others, in the belief that they alone are custodians of ‘the truth’. In this day and age such a view is a historical anachronism…. I plan to fight these rightwing conservative tendencies and will use the Constitution as a basis” (Education Minister Asmal on November 7, 2001, speaking of Christians who opposed his new curriculum; as reported in Signposts, Vol.21, No.1, 2002).
This statement revealed the hatred of Minister Asmal, a Muslim, toward Christianity, and his deep-seated antagonism towards Christian parents who desire to have their children educated as they see fit. But this was not merely his personal view: this was essentially the view of SA’s Communist-controlled government.
The following analysis of his statement is very true: “By labelling Christians who want to exercise their Constitutional right to impart to their children their religion and moral values as ‘fundamentalists’, he is attempting to discredit them by bracketing them with violent Muslims who fly passenger planes into buildings and specialise in suicide bombers. He accuses Christians of intolerance, but ignores the fact that the only countries with true freedom of religion and conscience are those with a strong Protestant heritage. He attacks their worldview as ‘a historical anachronism’ while his own religion insists its converts adopt the dress and language of 7th century Arabia!” (Signposts, Vol.21, No.1, 2002).
51. It was recommended, in the religious education courses of Curriculum 2005, that pupils in Grades 2 and 3 “discuss similarities and differences in at least three belief systems in South Africa”. And: “According to the curriculum, inter-faith instruction was to be compulsory and examinable up to Grade 7 and optional to Matric. There was no provision for Christian schools to omit the subject or for parents to have their children exempted from inter-faith classes” (Signposts, Vol.21, No.1, 2002).
By making such inter-faith instruction compulsory for pupils, the State is clearly seeking to indoctrinate children in the multi-faith religious agenda, and to steer them away from the religion of their parents. It destroys freedom of choice for parents when it comes to the education of their precious children. It dictates to parents what their children will be taught. It forces pupils to accept and confess the religious system advocated by the State if they want to pass, which is a New Age, multi-faith religious system. In this it is little different from the religious system which the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, established, when it was decreed that all the people were to worship the golden image which he set up (Dan.3:1-7). It is a State religion, and children are being forced to accept it, and to confess it as being the truth!
It is not the duty of the State to teach children about religion. This is the responsibility of parents. But the Marxist SA State desires to impose its own views about religion on the children of SA, undermining what parents teach at home, as part of its goal to “transform society” (i.e. to create a Marxist society).
52. “In ‘life orientation’ [in the new curriculum], grades 5, 6 and 7 pupils were to learn how to ‘prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV) in at least three situations (for example, casual dating, steady relationships and rape)”. Children as young as seven will be taught how to use condoms. Sex education for children as young as ten includes focussing on the genitals and the use of graphic descriptions of sexual practices, including oral sex (Signposts, Vol.21, No.1, 2002).
The new school curriculum does not teach that sexual relations outside of marriage are wrong! Instead, it takes the approach that children are going to indulge in sex anyway, and therefore they must be taught only how to avoid contracting a sexually transmitted disease! Such teaching will encourage promiscuity. It is not based on biblical morality, it is in fact not concerned with morality at all.
It is not the duty of the State to provide sex education for children. This is the responsibility of parents. But the Marxist SA State desires to impose its own, secular humanist, amoral views on the children of SA, undermining what parents teach at home, as part of its goal to “transform society” (i.e. to create a Marxist society).
53. On January 29, 2002, the Film and Publications Board announced that the sale of the book, The Pink Agenda - Sexual Revolution in South Africa and the Ruin of the Family, would be restricted to those over 18 years of age, on the grounds that it linked homosexuality to paedophilia. It was the first non-pornographic book to be banned in SA since 1994. The co-ordinator of the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project, Evert Knoessen, admitted in an interview on January 30, 2002 that he was on the board of the Film and Publications Board (Signposts, Vol.21, No.2, 2002).
The adults-only restriction was, however, overturned by a review board of the Film and Publications Board a few months later (The Natal Witness, May 6, 2002).
This book, written by a professing Christian and revealing the truth about homosexuality, was restricted to those over 18; and yet constantly on TV, children are being encouraged to watch programmes which claim to be “educational” and yet are violent and pornographic. In addition, the new school curriculum is very sexually explicit, encouraging children to experiment sexually and even promoting homosexuality to children as young as seven.
Once again this gives undeniable evidence of the State’s opposition to Christianity, and its assault on the morality taught in the Bible. And after all, what then is to stop the State from oneday banning or restricting the Bible itself, which calls sodomy an abomination? Could this happen oneday? Certainly it could!
The message being sent was that Christians are not to dare oppose, criticise, or in any way stand against the homosexual agenda, or against the State’s promotion of that agenda.
It is true that the age restriction was eventually lifted. But is this evidence that in fact there is full freedom of religion and freedom of expression in SA? Certainly not. Firstly, the book should not have been banned or restricted in any sense in the first place. Secondly, the age restriction was in place for a number of months, and only overturned very reluctantly by the Board. Thirdly, the reason why the restriction was lifted was because the publishers argued that through sex education children were being confronted with positive messages about sodomy, etc., and therefore they should not be denied access to different views on homosexuality. In other words, it was overturned only in the interests of “fairness”. But this means that a book that could not be shown to be presenting “the other side of the story” would not necessarily be permitted! And certainly, an argument along such lines for various other Christian books, on other topics, could not be made. The Board clearly wanted to ban or restrict this book, and only lifted the restriction because it felt it had to, in order to preserve the illusion of “fairness”. Without question it would readily ban or restrict other Christian books. The fact that this book was restricted for a time, even while the country is flooded with all kinds of filthy, immoral material, shows just how biassed and partial the Board really is, and how opposed to allowing anything of a “controversial” Christian nature if it possibly can prevent it. There is every reason to believe that other bannings will eventually follow.
54. In SA schools, HIV/Aids and “Lifeskills” courses included videos for schoolchildren on homosexual “cruising” and on prostitution, and instructions for Grade 6 pupils on how a female or a male can give a woman oral sex. In addition, a sex education campaign in schools, run by “loveLife”, encouraged masturbation and stimulated sexual responses in youth. It encouraged children to engage in sexual and homosexual behaviour, and even to have abortions without their parents’ consent or even knowledge, saying abortion is a “right”. Its descriptions of sexual acts were very graphic. It was organised in SA under the auspices of Zanele Mbeki, wife of President Thabo Mbeki, and other leading South Africans. It received R25 million from the SA government (The Natal Witness, March 16, 2002; and Signposts,Vol.21, No.2, 2002).
This is the sex education policy of the ANC government! An immoral cesspool of wickedness! This is how children are being indoctrinated in immorality, without their parents even knowing about it!
55. The “National Curriculum Statement”, the radical school curriculum, was promulgated on 31 May 2002. The objective is to phase it in between 2004 and 2008; and it is to be compulsory for all State schools, as well as private schools and home education! This curriculum specifies the knowledge, skills, and even attitudes and values that children must display, if they want to receive the qualifications they need. This is shown by the fact that the government is to bring in a “national assessment system and procedure” to assess children and determine whether they meet the specifications in the National Curriculum Statement. Only if children pass these assessments, will they be awarded their graduating certificates at the end of Grades 9 and 12! A “National Learner Database” is to be set up, to register the qualifications of everyone in SA, thus enabling the powers that be to ensure that everyone who has not received the Grade 9 Certificate can be prevented from acquiring the Grade 12 Certificate, which in turn will prevent them from receiving any further education! And furthermore, the law provides only for a State school or a private school to award the Grade 9 Certificate (Home Schooling News, Vol.9, No.1, 2003).
Thus as far as the State is concerned, parents who educate their children at home have to follow precisely the same curriculum as those in State and private schools. It is perfectly evident that there is no freedom of choice for parents. It is forcing children, even if homeschooled, to at least attend school for the Grade 9 year, and more likely for Grades 9 to 12. This curriculum was described, by the Pestalozzi Trust, the legal defence association for homeschooling families, as “An ideologically laden curriculum… designed to fulfil the requirements of the ‘National Democratic Revolution’[the Marxist revolution].” And it stated that it had received examples of questions, projects and assignments from experimental versions of these assessments, “that demonstrate that children will be required to associate themselves with explicit ideological positions if they wish to qualify in these assessments.”
In other words, children will have to imbibe the ideological position of the country’s Communist leadership in order to graduate from high school! This is Marxist social engineering on a vast scale. And unlike old-style Communism, the new-style version acts behind a facade of “democracy” and “human rights” and “freedom”! And in this way it remains hidden from the majority.
In addition, forcing all citizens to be registered with a national database, thereby controlling and restricting them from further education if what they have already attained is not to the satisfaction of the Marxist overlords, is breathtaking in its arrogance and its attempt at total people control. This database will be used to prevent homeschoolers from achieving further education, thus putting immense pressure on parents to give in and comply with the State’s version of “education”, rather than consign their children to being second-class citizens, educationally.
56. The acting chief executive of the Film and Publications Board, Ivayar Chetty, said that due to a “drafting error in the Act”, the Film and Publication Act is limited to material advocating hatred based on religion (The Natal Witness, July 3, 2002).
Thus, the Act is in existence specifically to deal with such material as is deemed, in the opinion of the members of this Board, to “advocate hatred based on religion”. What a grave danger for Christians in SA!
57. “Amendments have been passed to legislation… regulating the taxation of non-profit organisations. These amendments came into effect on 15 July 2001. In terms of this legislation, all entities, that were previously exempt from income tax, must re-apply to the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service… for exemption…. All N.G.O.’s and non-profit organisations whether or nor they were exempted from the payment of income tax are required to register for income tax purposes and apply for exemption. Prior to the introduction to these amendments exemption from taxation was provided for in respect of organisations such as religious… institutions…. To apply for exemption from income tax… organisations must complete an application form…. The completed form together with a copy of the founding document (constitution, trust deed or memorandum and articles of association) and latest financial statements must be submitted to the SARS Head Office” (SARS Media Release no.10 of 2002, Pretoria, SA).
This lengthy quotation must be read carefully. Note the words, “All N.G.O.’s and non-profit organisations whether or not they were exempted… are required to register”! Aside from income tax considerations, it is obvious that this legislation was designed to bring about yet further control, by the State, over churches; for if all churches are registered, then all will be known to the State and can be controlled by the State. In the Soviet Union, it was precisely for this reason that Christian churches refused to register with the State, and consequently suffered great persecution; but they knew that to register would mean State control, and they knew this was contrary to the will of God: Matt.22:21. The State cannot be allowed to control, or in any way interfere in, Christian churches. If churches in SA register, they will be required to compromise, and to allow increasing State interference in the life of the church, just as in the Soviet Union: submitting their constitution, financial records, etc., to the State.
58. In terms of the new taxation legislation, when applying for tax exempt status, churches are now required to provide the following information:
1) They have to provide a copy of the church’s memorandum and articles of association; a copy of the church’s latest constitution; and a copy of its trust deed and any subsequent deeds of amendment.
2) They have to provide the name, postal address, and registered address, of the church.
3) They have to provide the church’s bank particulars.
4) They have to provide the particulars of three office bearers accepting fiduciary responsibility for the church: names, positions held, addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers, dates of birth.
5) They have to provide “a detailed narrative description of all the activities of the organisation past, present, and planned. Do not merely refer to or repeat the language in the founding document. List each activity separately in the order of importance based on the relative time and other resources devoted to the activity. Indicate the percentage of time for each activity. Each description should include, as a minimum, the following: a detailed description of the day to day activities and how each activity furthers your sole object; when the activity was or will be initiated; and where and by whom will the activity be conducted.”
6) They have to “list the organisation’s present and future sources of financial support, listing the largest source first.”
7) Also: “[i]f appropriate, state criteria which must be met to qualify as a member of the organisation. State the classes of membership (with the present number of members in each class); and the voting rights and privileges attached to each.”
Also: “Does the organisation publish or distribute pamphlets, brochures, newsletters, journals, or similar printed material? If ‘Yes’, attach a recent copy of each.”
9) And: “Attach a copy of the latest financial statements (if available).”
(All the above taken from SARS Income Tax-Exempt Institutions Form E1: Application for Exemption from Income Tax, issued by the SA Revenue Service).
This legislation will enable the State to monitor and control churches! A true Christian church, providing such information to the State for purposes of income tax exemption, would very likely be refused such exemption anyway, for any sound local church would uphold God’s truth, and this is in clear violation of various aspects of the Constitution; but even though exemption were refused, the State would now have all the details it requires about that particular local church, on file. Thus, even if refused exemption, the church could not escape State interference. Registration meant control under the Soviet Union; and it would mean precisely the same thing under the Communist-controlled South African government. As just one example: the head of the non-profit sector at the SA Revenue Service told the press that the tax authorities aimed to prevent churches from abusing their tax-exempt status and paying their ministers excessively! (The Southern Cross, May 7 to 13, 2003). This statement was a blatant admission of State interference in churches! The State has assumed to itself the right to decide if a minister is being paid too much! And people, blind to reality, still naively think SA is a “free and democratic” country! What a church decides to pay its pastor is none of the State’s business! But this is just one example of how the State could, and would, interfere in a church’s life and activities, when that church is registered. In 1994, the Eastern Transvaal provincial government attempted to force all churches to register and to provide detailed information about their pastors, their membership, etc. (see point 1 above). Now they are seeking to achieve the very same thing countrywide, but in the name of “tax exemption”.
When applying for tax-exempt status, a church would be placing extensive information in the hands of this Marxist State: minute details about the doctrines of the church, its locality, finances, officers, activities, numerical size, membership, qualifications for membership, and literature. The church would, in effect, be asking the State for permission to exist; and, if the State granted it, the church would thereafter be under the control of the State, and at the mercy of the State - and all through such an “innocuous” means as exemption from taxation! The State would then know, for example, whether or not a church appointed women as officers, or even whether or not this was permitted according to the constitution of the church; and if a church was seeking to obey the Scriptures and only permit men to hold office, the State would then use this to deny the church tax-exempt status. Or worse: the State could then conceivably persecute the church, for it would have all relevant details and information at its disposal.
Likewise, if the church refused to accept sodomites as members; or if, in its Confession of Faith, it referred to the pope of Rome as the Antichrist; or if its literature stated that members of other religions were lost and hell-bound sinners!
The State could even go further: the ANC government, with its rabidly anti-white agenda and its crusade to apply racist “affirmative action” policies throughout South African society, has brought in legislation forcing organisations to apply racial quotas when hiring workers, etc. If (for example) a church’s pastor was white, or the majority of the deacons, say, were white, the State could then use its power over that church (which the church foolishly granted it when it applied for tax-exempt status) to force through changes.
Biblically, the State has no legitimate authority over the Church of Christ; and there is thus only one possible path for churches seeking to obey the Scriptures alone: they must remain unregistered. Registration with the government, when a government is so hostile to the Christian Church, means State interference in, and even control over, the internal affairs of the local church. All true churches in SA need to begin to emulate their brethren in other Communist countries, and take precautions to protect themselves.
59. On October 1, 2002, Education Minister Asmal spoke of fundamental changes proposed for the Grades 10 to 12 revised national school curriculum, saying that the provisional implementation date was 2004. According to this curriculum, a compulsory subject would be “Life Orientation”, which would cover matters such as “self-esteem”, sexuality education, and HIV/Aids (The Natal Witness, October 2, 2002).
So: in order to graduate from high school, pupils will now have to pass the compulsory subject of “Life Orientation.” This means they will have to satisfy their assessors that they have properly mastered the subject - a subject which includes the unbiblical, psychobabble concept of “self-esteem” (see Phil.2:3); as well as “sexuality education”, which will be education in all kinds of sexual perversion and immorality. In this way the Education Department is doing its best to remove parental influence and guidance from impressionable children, and to indoctrinate them with the State’s own version of sexual “morality”, which is no morality at all. And unless the child demonstrates a proper mastery of this compulsory subject, he or she will fail.
60. At the congress of the ruling ANC, held in December 2002, the ANC openly stated that it was involved in an ideological struggle for the minds of children, and intended to use the education system as an instrument in this struggle:
In a document for the ANC’s congress, Building the ANC as an Agent for Change, it declared: “The National Policy Conference in September 2002 noted that an important element of the NDR [National Democratic Revolution, the ANC's term for the next phase of its revolution] is the ideological struggle.” In another document, it was stated: “a critical element of social transformation requires emphasis: Fundamental change… demands the redefinition of the outlook, cultural values and moral attributes that characterise South African society. This is the realm of ideology - the battle of ideas”. And: “…the ideological struggle as a critical area of contestation, a centre of power in its own right. This relates to such matters as culture, media discourse, moral regeneration of society as well as the content of academic and civic education”. And: “As a national liberation movement and a governing party, the ANC remains a central force for social transformation. It therefore needs strategic capacity to provide leadership to its cadres in the State, Civil society, in the Economy, Arena for the battle of ideas (media, cultural and educational institutions) and in the International arena.”
And in another document from the congress, entitled Balance of Forces, the ANC stated: “Our transition to democracy and efforts to change people’s material conditions take place in a national context where the opposing forces in the NDR [i.e. the non-Communist forces] seek to assert their ideas and to win society over to their points of view. Both sides try to do this using the various instruments of ideological contest at our disposal as a society - including the media, culture and the arts, education and knowledge production/research and other socialising institutions such as the family, religion, tradition and so forth. It includes the battle for ideas about and within the various levers of power under control of the democratic forces [i.e. under ANC control]… Our programme to transform education is not only addressing access to and the quality of education, but also education as a socialisation institution for the transmission of new values… through initiatives such as values in education, civic education and the teaching of history projects” (Home Schooling News, Vol.8, No.1, May 2003).
There it is, straight from the horse’s mouth! The Communist-controlled ANC, the governing party in SA, is after the minds of SA’s children, to indoctrinate them in Marxist ideology. No Christian parents should be under any illusions about the ANC’s plans for their children. Their stated objective is nothing less than altering the very moral values and cultural outlooks of society, and the content of education! This is Gramscian Communism at its worst. They recognise that there are forces opposed to their revolution, and that they must take control of such things as religion, the family, the media, education, etc., in order to “transform” society into their image, by instilling “new values”.
Obviously, private schools and home education stand in the way of this objective. In 1996, home education was provided for in the SA Schools Act - but only because of strong international pressure at the time. From both public and private statements, it is abundantly clear that the government would prefer to outlaw home education entirely. The Education Minister is on record as having said that he would prefer it if all children were compelled to attend State schools, and that he tolerated all forms of private education only because he had to (at the time; but for how long?)(Home Schooling News, Vol.8, No.1, 2003).
For this reason, the government seeks to restrict home education as much as possible, via what the Education Minister called a “raft of laws and regulations”, making it increasingly difficult, and eventually impossible, for parents to educate their children at home.
61. In a press statement by the Minister of Education in February 2003, after a meeting of the Council of Education Ministers, the following announcements were made: “On the matter of home schooling, reports from provinces indicated that there were few systems in place to manage the provision of home education. Strict Norms and Standards are provided to govern the situation, and the Minister therefore appealed to provincial authorities to deal more rigorously with the provision of home schooling, so that these were registered and effectively monitored, to ensure compliance with the national curriculum and applicable regulations. Where necessary, parents could be prosecuted for failing to comply with the requirements”. And: “The Council approved a recommendation… that a national Task team be established. At the same time, it was agreed that tough disciplinary action should be taken against parents who willfully violate the laws on school attendance, and that all agencies and departments of government, together with representatives of civil society, should co-operate in this.”
It was also suggested that such children might be classified as “children at risk” in terms of the Child Care Act, thus making it easier for education and welfare officials to remove children from their parents (reported in Home Schooling News, Vol.8, No.1, May 2003).
Loving Christian parents who, in order to protect their children from the ideological indoctrination of State education, educate their children at home, may find themselves classified as negligent parents, who are a danger to their own children; and their children could be removed from them! This is the terrible situation which Christian parents now find themselves in, in South Africa.
62. “It is not the case that we are expelling or banning religion from schools. In fact we are advocating the strengthening and recognition of the role of religion in education” (Education Minister Asmal, speaking in the National Assembly, May 20, 2003; as reported in The Natal Witness, May 21, 2003).
Yes, but the religion being “strengthened” and “recognised” in education is the new “State religion”: Multifaith. He also said that people have confused an attempt to promote nation-building in the school context with an attack on religious freedom and diversity. Clever words, but the truth certainly is that the ANC government is attacking religious freedom. It is attempting to hijack “religion education” to promote “nation-building”.
63. According to the Draft Policy on Religion in Education, published in the Government Gazette on 23 June 2003, all children in State and private schools, and in home education, must be taught “religion” over ten years. And it may not be taught from the perspective of any particular faith, but only from the prescribed perspective; and only by specially trained teachers (Draft Policy on Religion in Education, March 2003, by the Pestalozzi Trust).
Beyond all question, it is the State’s aim to control the religious education of all South African children, and thereby to indoctrinate them in the religion of “multifaith”. It is the State’s desire to eliminate independent homeschooling in SA, by removing the prerogative of parents to teach their children according to their own religious convictions. The State believes that it alone has the wisdom necessary to educate children; that parents are not properly qualified to do so.
Very significantly, although it was claimed that the final draft of this policy was published for public comment for a period of one month, it was only published after half the schools had closed for the winter holidays! Furthermore, the closing date for comments was before the other half of the schools reconvened after the holidays! Thus, all communication structures in education were unavailable for the entire period that the public was supposed to “comment”! It was blatantly obvious that the Minister of Education wanted as little public comment as possible! (Draft Policy on Religion in Education, March 2003, by the Pestalozzi Trust).
What are the implications of this policy? According to the Pestalozzi Trust, SA’s homeschooling legal defence association, they are as follows:
Firstly: homeschooling families would almost certainly be compelled to teach their children the “multifaith” religion of the State as part of their home education. Only specially trained and accredited teachers would be permitted to provide this “religion education”; and homeschooled children would be assessed by these teachers, to determine whether or not they had mastered the subject! Secondly, it is certain that there would be attempts to enforce the prohibition on teaching the family’s religion as part of the officially-approved home education; which may include a prohibition on the use of textbooks, etc., written from the perspective of a particular religion, including Christian curricula. Thirdly, some homeschooling families would almost certainly have to go to court to attempt to have this policy set aside (Home Schooling News, Vol.8, No.1, May 2003).
Despite the SA government’s boasted claims about “democracy”, freedom of religion, and respect for diversity, this proposed education policy showed just how false such claims are! The State has one desire: to utterly and completely control all aspects of the lives of its citizens. “The policies are consistent with only one criterion: they further the ideological war unleashed on the children of South Africa by the governing party at its congress last December [2002], specifically designating children, religion and the family as targets”! (Home Schooling News, May 2003).
64. “What we are doing through the policy is to extend the concept of equity to the combination of religion and education, in a way which celebrates the religious diversity of our land. We do not impose any narrow prescriptions; the policy is a broad framework within which people of goodwill will work out their own approaches” (Introduction by the Education Minister to the Draft Policy on Religion and Education, published in Government Gazette No.25127, 23 June 2003).
This is patently untrue! The policy most certainly “imposes narrow prescriptions”! Parents and educators may not deviate from the policy. In addition, note how it was subtly suggested that this policy would be accepted by “people of goodwill”; the implication being that those who reject this education policy are not “people of goodwill”!
“The paragraph above [from the draft policy] suggests another propaganda manoeuvre to mislead readers. This policy, contrary to the loudly proclaimed protestations above… not only imposes “narrow prescriptions”. It also prescribes extensive proscriptions. It does indeed attempt to ‘take away or replace a person’s religion’ by compelling children, also in private and home education, to receive education from a prescribed ‘multi-tradition’ perspective and to be assessed to determine whether they have internalised the prescribed knowledge, skills and values of this perspective…. Compelling children to be taught to view religion from a prescribed perspective is nothing other than religious replacement, no matter how stridently the minister protests that it does not” (Comments [Incomplete] on the Final Draft Policy on Religion in Education, by Leendert van Oostrum, Pestalozzi Trust, 2003).
65. “Because of the significant interest in this policy, there has been an unparalleled process of consultation. We have spoken with religious leaders of all persuasions, through the Ministerial and Advisory Committees on Religion, as well as with the President’s National Religious Leaders Forum. We have consulted key constituencies in education, such as the unions, and school governing body associations. And we have spoken with the public, through many media debates” (Introduction by the Education Minister to the Draft Policy on Religion and Education, 23 June 2003).
Consulting with people is one thing; but actually paying heed to what people say is quite another! The government certainly did not do this; as evidenced by the fact that widely-divergent religious bodies had major reservations with the new “religion education” policy. For example, the Dutch Reformed institution threatened to go to the Constitutional Court; and the Islamic Judicial Council for Education accused Education Minister Asmal of creating a new religion (The Natal Witness, May 5, 2003). “The minister claims that there has been ‘an unparalleled process of consultation’. We assert that, as can be seen from the fact that these consultations have had no effect on the minister’s policies other than cosmetic changes, what we have seen is an unparalleled pretence at consultation” (Comments [Incomplete] on the Final Draft Policy on Religion in Education, Pestalozzi Trust , 2003).
Furthermore, it is simply untrue to state that they consulted with “religious leaders of all persuasions”; for in SA there are hundreds of different religions; and this statement gives the impression that the government only really recognises those religious leaders which it feels are legitimate or “key” religious leaders. For example, it would doubtless have consulted with the SA Council of Churches, and claimed that this abominable organisation was representative of all Protestant churches in SA; whereas the SACC is rejected by all true Christians in SA.
66. “I therefore invite comments from the public, all of which will be seriously considered. I ask that they be brief and to the point, and also that any arguments accept as a basis that we live in a democratic state, which has adopted a view of the world in its Constitution” (Introduction by the Education Minister to the Draft Policy on Religion and Education, 23 June 2003).
Note these words well! They reveal the limits of the ANC government’s willingness to listen to the public. Education Minister Asmal here made it clear that comments from the public would only be considered if they were in line with the worldview adopted by the government, and embodied in the Constitution! In other words, the government’s position was crystal-clear: comment as much as you wish, but understand that if your comments differ from the worldview of the country’s leadership, they will be rejected. So much for robust debate! So much for the accommodation of other convictions! So much, indeed, for the entire notion of a multi-cultural, multi-religious society! As far as the Marxist-led government is concerned, there is only one worldview that will be tolerated, despite all its talk about being “democratic”, and that is its own. For in true Marxist fashion, they believe that only they know what is best for everyone, and only their worldview must be permitted or promoted.
67. “…we work from the premise that the public school has an educational responsibility for teaching and learning about religion and religions, and for promoting these, but that it should do so in ways that are different from the religious instruction and religious nurture provided by the home, family, and religious community” (Introduction to the Draft Policy on Religion and Education, Government Gazette No.25127, 23 June 2003).
“The minister states explicitly that the policy operates from a premise that places the public school in conflict with ‘the home, family, and religious community’. We note, without further comment, that education, the family and religion are among the entities explicitly targeted at the most recent conference of the governing party as part of the ‘Arena of Battle’ in its declared ideological war” (Comments [Incomplete] on the Final Draft Policy on Religion in Education, Pestalozzi Trust, 2003).
68. “The policy is not prescriptive” (Introduction to the Draft Policy on Religion and Education, 23 June 2003).
“That is a strange statement to make about a policy that enforces explicit prohibitions on religious practices and burdens children with explicit duties to receive education about religion from a perspective and in a manner that is prescribed in detail, and to subject themselves to assessments designed to determine whether they have internalised the prescribed knowledge, skills and values. One can conclude only that the statement is included as a deliberate attempt to deceive” (Comments [Incomplete] on the Final Draft Policy on Religion in Education, Pestalozzi Trust, 2003).
“The most glaring manifestation of the ideological war is the manner in which the policy document persistently denies its own purpose and intended outcome even as it puts them into effect. It relies on our preference for seeing the good bits and ignoring the rest. The document is so blatant in this respect that it appears as a caricature of Sun Tsu and Machiavelli - who taught the strategy of pretending the opposite to what is happening in reality” (Policy for the Oppression of Religion in Education, media statement by the Pestalozzi Trust, 28th June 2003).
69. “Under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, the state, neither advancing nor inhibiting religion, must assume a position of fairness, informed by a parity of esteem for all substantial communities of faith. This positive neutrality carries a profound appreciation of spirituality and religion in its many manifestations” (Introduction to the Draft Policy on Religion and Education, 23 June 2003).
“The minister identifies the role of the state as one of ‘positive neutrality’ vis-a-vis religion. That position cannot be faulted…. what can be faulted is the notion that it is in the interest of a child to be compelled to be educated from a perspective of ‘positive neutrality’. Worst of all is the overbearing pressure in this policy, as well as in the curriculum as a whole, to teach children them