Post by philiprosenthal on Apr 26, 2006 10:01:12 GMT
Please find below the submission of His People Ministries (which accounts for about half the membership of EveryNation). As far as I am aware EveryNation is officially in agreement with these positions. I post the position statements here to show that the organisation takes an officially strongly pro-moral Biblical stance. I feel however that certain ministers in EveryNation have compromised this strongly pro-moral position in favour of a pragmatic approach to ethics. I left His People because I could tolerate the double standard of ethics followed by certain leaders.
They need to repent of their duplicity. I also post this to remind newer EveryNation members of the hardline position of the organisation on moral issues and ask that you support a return to this hardline position.
Philip Rosenthal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS ON THE
BILL OF RIGHTS FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
Updated July 1996
A submission to the
South African Constitutional Assembly
by His People Christian Ministries
COMMENTS ON THE
BILL OF RIGHTS FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
Updated July 1996
Reformatted December 2000
A submission to the
South African Constitutional Assembly
by His People Christian Ministries
CONTACT
His People Christian Ministries
mail@cpt.hispeople.org
Telephone: (021) 6854500
Facsimile: (021) 6869017
www.hispeople.org
COPYRIGHT
This document is copyrighted by His People Christian Ministries. You are encouraged to copy and distribute the document for non-profit purposes, provided that it is reproduced in full and there is no
change to the contents of the document.
THE SOUTH AFRICAN BILL OF RIGHTS
(AS ADOPTED 8 MAY 1996)
FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
Summary
This document examines the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa as adopted by the Constitutional Assembly on 8 May 1996 from a Christian perspective, taking into account the way that similar rights have been interpreted in other countries. It is not comprehensive and seeks primarily to address moral issues in the Bill of Rights on subjects where there is clear biblical teaching. This is the fourth edition of this document, which was submitted to the Constitutional Assembly by His People Ministries, and has been updated at various stages to address changes in the text of the Bill of Rights during the negotiating process. His People is a large an rapidly expanding non-racial Christian movement operating on university campuses in South Africa and in some other countries in Africa and Europe. The ministry seeks to be relevant on social issues and was host to the 'God and Government: International Symposium for the Biblical Reconstruction of South Africa' in 1992 and 1993.
Misinterpretation of the meaning of certain rights by overseas courts has resulted in the removal of important rights and freedoms in these countries. Careful examination of possible undesirable interpretations of the Bill of Rights is thus necessary. Although the Bible does not specifically refer to constitutional rights, the Mosaic laws and other teachings in scripture lay a moral foundation and an understanding of the role of government, which are important bases for fundamental rights. These rights can be derived from their corresponding duties, which are given in the Bible.
There are many positive aspects of the Bill of Rights, but in the interests of brevity this report focuses primarily on its failings. A brief summary of the findings of this report is given below in the order in which clauses occur in the Bill of Rights.
The inclusion of the statements asking for God's blessing and protection in the Preamble is welcomed, but the present wording fails to recognise God's sovereignty over South Africa. This could be rectified by introducing it with the words 'In humble submission to Almighty God' as in the 1993 Interim Constitution.
Whilst the general purpose of the Equality clause (9(3)) is supported, we have strong objections to the inclusion of the words 'sexual orientation'. Homosexual rights create serious social and political problems that can be seen from overseas experience. Political leaders would be unlikely to have included it had they been aware of these. They should be deleted.
The right to Life (clause 11) fails to address the critical issues of abortion, euthanasia, infanticide and the death penalty. These could be rectified by the addition of the words: 'Everyone has the right to life from conception to natural death, except by execution of a court sentence following conviction for a crime for which the death penalty has been prescribed by an Act of Parliament. It is unacceptable that such major decisions of national policy should be made by the Constitutional Court.
Since the Constitutional Assembly has been unable to agree on a wording reflecting the teaching of the Word of God, which strongly condemns the killing of innocent people whether by abortion, infanticide or euthanasia, and which upholds the death penalty as a necessary punishment for murderers and other serious criminals, we suggest that a referendum should be held to decide these issues.
Opinion polls have shown strong support for the Biblical view on these subjects.
The right to Freedom and security of the person (clause 12) includes some phrases apparently attempting to constitutionalise the right to abortion. These may inadvertently also be interpreted to legitimise other controversial issues such as prostitution and euthanasia. Clauses 12(2)(a)&(b) should thus be deleted.
The right to Freedom of religion, belief and opinion (clause 15(2)) seems positive at face, value, but could cause serious problems for religious freedom in schools when interpreted in the context of foreign and particularly American case law. A suggested remedy for these problems is discussed in the main text of this document.
The right to Freedom of expression (clause 16) is welcomed as a means of supporting political and religious freedom, but the qualifying sub-clauses fail to protect against pornography. A remedy in the form of the addition of a sub-clause along the lines of that used in the European Convention on Human Rights is suggested.
The Freedom of occupation (clause 22) is at present too broad and could be misinterpreted by a future court to legitimise morally unacceptable occupations such as prostitution. This could be remedied simply by the addition of a qualifying sub-clause.
The right to Property (clause 25) fails to define 'land reform' and is weakened by what appears to be a redundant sub-clause which could be used to circumvent the protection given in the rest of the clause. This should be deleted.
The right to Health, food, water and social security (clause 27(1)(a)) includes an unnecessary reference to 'reproductive health', which could be interpreted to support abortion. These words should be deleted.
There is a danger that Children's Rights (clause 28) could be misinterpreted together with other clauses to motivate the banning of corporal punishment. This could be remedied by the addition of a qualifying sub-clause recognising the right of parents and those delegated by them to use moderate physical discipline which is reasonable in the eyes of parents.
Education (clause 29) is important in that it entrenches the right to establish independent Christian schools, but could be improved.
Interpretation (clause 39(1)) allows the Constitutional Court to make use of foreign case law. This is unacceptable, since most countries with comparable constitutions have interpreted them within the framework of the secular-humanist worldview, which is strongly opposed to the teachings of the Bible.
Although there are many positive aspects to the new Constitution, the Bill of Rights as it stands fails to protect many God given human rights. We urge that the constitution be amended to correct the problems outlined above.
Table of Contents
SUMMARY I
TABLE OF CONTENTS III
INTRODUCTION 1
THE NATURE OF THIS REPORT 1
INFORMATION ON HIS PEOPLE CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES 1
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 1
THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 2
THE SOURCE OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS 3
THE SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 3
PREAMBLE 5
REFERENCE TO GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION 5
CLAUSE 9(3 TO 5): EQUALITY 7
EQUALITY AND THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA 7
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON HOMOSEXUALITY 9
CLAUSE 10: HUMAN DIGNITY 10
CLAUSE 11: LIFE 11
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD 12
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON THE DEATH PENALTY 13
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON EUTHANASIA 13
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON INFANTICIDE 13
CLAUSE 12(1): FREEDOM AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON 15
DEATH PENALTY 15
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 15
CLAUSE 12(2): FREEDOM AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON 16
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON PROSTITUTION 17
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON DRUG ABUSE 17
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON ABORTION AND EUTHANASIA 18
CLAUSE 14: PRIVACY 19
CLAUSE 15(2): RELIGION, BELIEF AND OPINION 20
THE CONTEXT OF BANNING OF CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICAN STATE SCHOOLS 20
POTENTIAL FOR STATE INTERFERENCE IN RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES IN SOUTH AFRICA 21
CLAUSE 16: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 24
FREEDOM POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH 24
PORNOGRAPHY 24
'ARTISTIC CREATIVITY' 26
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON PORNOGRAPHY 26
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 27
CLAUSE 22: FREEDOM OF OCCUPATION 29
CLAUSE 25: PROPERTY 30
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON PROPERTY RIGHTS 31
CLAUSE 27(1)(A): HEALTH, FOOD, WATER, AND SOCIAL SECURITY 33
CLAUSE 28: CHILDREN 34
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 34
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 35
CLAUSE 29: EDUCATION 36
CLAUSE 39(1): INTERPRETATION 38
THE MISTAKE OF A MIDDLE EASTERN POLITICAL LEADER 39
CONCLUSIONS 40
Introduction
THE NATURE OF THIS REPORT
This report has been written from a Christian viewpoint, taking into account the way that laws similar to those in the Bill of Rights have been interpreted in other countries. Political leaders may be surprised to see how the original intent of rights written into law has been ignored in some cases and the meaning distorted in favour of certain special interest groups. Misinterpretation of the meaning of certain rights by overseas courts has resulted in the removal of important rights and freedoms in these countries. This is especially true in the United States. We believe that careful consideration of the Bible in assessing the validity of constitutional rights will greatly benefit our nation. This report is not a comprehensive examination of the Bill of Rights, but seeks primarily to highlight the moral issues in the Bill of Rights. Omission of comment on a specific issue in the Bill of Rights does not necessarily indicate approval of the present wording of a specific clause.
An earlier version of this report entitled 'Comments on the Interim Bill of Rights from a Christian Perspective' was submitted in March 1995. A revised version was submitted in February 1996 to address the wording of the 'Working Draft of the New Constitution' published on 18 December 1995. A third version addressed the wording of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Bill, 1996 published on 23 April 1996. This fourth version addresses the wording as adopted by the Constitutional Assembly on 8 May 1996.
INFORMATION ON HIS PEOPLE CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
His People Christian Ministries is a large and rapidly expanding non-racial Christian movement working on and around the campuses and surrounding communities in South Africa, and in some other countries in Africa and Europe. The movement is operating on seven campuses in South Africa and has currently over one and a half thousand people enrolled at its part-time Bible Schools. The churches that have grown out of this ministry, initially consisted of university students, but now include people from all social backgrounds. The ministry seeks to be relevant on social issues, and was host to the 'God and Government: International Symposium for the Biblical Reconstruction of South Africa' in 1992 and 1993.
The positions put forward here are based on the teaching of the Bible and can therefore be seen as representative of the views of the much larger constituency of Christians in South Africa.
Postal Address: His People Ministries, Head Office, PO Box 275, Rondebosch, 7700.
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Although the Bible does not specifically refer to constitutional rights, the Mosaic laws and other teachings in Scripture lay a moral foundation and an understanding of the role of government, which are important bases for fundamental rights.
The Bible has specific teaching on a range of moral issues, which relate to a Bill of Rights. These are examined briefly, where relevant, in the following sections of this report.
It is recognised amongst constitutional lawyers that all constitutions are based on the mistrust of future political rulers: 'All constitutions are based on mistrust. If we could trust our rulers, our parties, ourselves, we would not need constitutions.' . This observation is in accordance with the Bible's teaching that all people are fallible (Rom 3:23). Thus there is a need for checks and balances to protect people from the abuse of political power. While the specific checks and balances may differ from constitution to constitution, the biblically based motivation remains the same. In most democratic constitutions, this has led for example to the division of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary (These three separate aspects of government are all mentioned as being subject to God in Isaiah 33:22). A Bill of Rights is intended to prevent the legislature from passing laws contrary to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, which we understand to originate in the Bible.
The Bible teaches that political rulers in government are servants of God (Romans 13:4), and that like everyone else, they must be subject to His law (Deuteronomy 17:18-20). The idea of a law governing rulers as well as individuals comes from the Bible.
The fact that God intended his moral laws to be obeyed by all nations and that the destiny of nations is determined by their response to his law is shown by his statement in Jeremiah 18:7-10 ' If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.' This last statement is a serious warning to South Africans not to take God's blessing for granted. Peace and prosperity in our country is dependent on God's merciful blessing and a morally unacceptable constitution will result in his judgement.
THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In 1791, the writers of the American Constitution included in their constitution the statement 'CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF... ' . 'Religion', in the language of the time meant 'denomination' in today's language. Thus the law was intended to prevent the government from showing favouritism to a particular form of Christianity, such as the Anglican Church in England or the Lutheran church in Germany. The amendment aimed to prevent the state from interfering in Church affairs.
The above-mentioned clause was never in any way intended to limit the advancement of Christianity in state institutions or by state employees. The same people who wrote this clause also actively supported Christian education and proclaimed public holidays for the explicit purpose of prayer and fasting. The inaccurate interpretation of this clause by the American Supreme Court has promoted the idea that the state may promote the religion of secular humanism , but not Christianity.
Any clause relating to religion must be worded carefully to avoid such a misinterpretation. We believe that the state should be based on Christian principles rather than secular philosophies and ideologies. The Church as an institution is and should remain structurally separate from the state, but the state (including state controlled media, education departments and the Constitutional Court) should recognise and submit to the rule of Almighty God. The Bible is politically relevant, in that it addresses moral issues, which must be considered in law making.
The idea that it is possible to have a religiously neutral state is erroneous. All law is based on moral values, which must in turn be derived from a standard. Since different religions and secular belief systems have conflicting ideas, a religiously neutral state is impossible. Christianity, with which the overwhelming majority of South Africans align themselves, is tolerant of other religions and thus there is no need to adopt a policy of secularism in order to guarantee the rights of people to worship as they choose to do so. By contrast, explicitly secular (such as China and the USA) or Islamic (such as Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Iran) states are intolerant of Christian religious rights and freedoms.
The intended meaning of the American first amendment (1791): to protect the Church from interference in its internal affairs, is however relevant to South Africa. In 1862, the Dutch Reformed Church suspended one of its ministers for teaching things contrary to the Scriptures. The suspended minister appealed to the civil courts and was reinstated on the basis of the Church ordinance of 1843. The church's appeal to the Privy Council in England was rejected and it thus lost the power to exercise discipline over its own members. It is submitted that no laws should be made which allow the civil courts to judge such internal affairs of the church.
THE SOURCE OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
To be enforced, every human right must have a corresponding duty. The Bible usually refers to fundamental rights in terms of their corresponding duties. For example, the sixth commandment 'You shall not murder' (Exodus 20:13) is another way of stating 'Everyone has the right to life'. Such rights, although not always explicitly stated in legal language in the form of human rights, may be derived from commands given by God in the Bible. The corresponding duty of the State is to refrain from acting or passing laws, which violate these rights.
Rights which are granted by the state, and which require the state to actively provide something for the people, are of a different nature and should be distinguished from the fundamental God-given rights entrenched in the Constitution. Such rights weaken the Constitution, because the situation may arise when the state is unable to financially guarantee such rights. In the same way, if the state takes away these rights, then the impression may be created that the state has the right to also take away fundamental rights God has given. These 'state granted rights', commonly referred to as 'red rights', should not be included in the Constitution, which is for the protection of the people.
THE SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
For a government to function effectively and protect citizens of a country, the rights entrenched in the Constitution, ought to reflect the teaching of the Bible. We believe that the God of the Bible is inherently good (1 John 1:5) and obedience to his commands will result in prosperity and blessing on the country (Deuteronomy 30:16). An equally important point is that those interpreting the Constitution must do so according to the original intentions of its writers. Certain foreign courts have ignored this principle and brought in changes, which would not have resulted from either democratic decision-making or objective interpretation of existing laws. These changes are strongly opposed to Christian faith and morality.
In the sections of this report, mention is made of the 'subjective' decision making of foreign Constitutional Courts and the danger of judges making similar decisions in South Africa. In these cases, judges discussed cases in great detail and had hearings from many different parties. The word 'subjective' does not mean that the decisions were random or taken in haste. It means that the judges were able not only to judge the case, but also form the criteria on which the judgement was made. These criteria bore no relation to words in the Constitution as understood by the writers of the Constitution. The criteria were subjective and thus the judicial decisions made were also subjective (see for example the Roe v. Wade under the Right to Life, p11).
In speaking of the American Supreme Court constitutional lawyer, William Stanmeyer, states: 'The reality, even most law professors now grudgingly concede, is that the courts often have more will than judgement, are dangerous to democratic policy making, and are quite willing not only to read the Constitution but also, when it suits them, to read into it their own notions of wise policy' . Straying from the wording in interpreting the American Constitution has been well documented by Judge Robert Bork in the book 'The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law' .
The American experience demonstrates the need to define in very specific terms the rights to be protected and to ensure that these rights are in accordance with the teaching of the Bible. If a 'liberal' interpretation policy were less of a danger today a shorter and more succinct Bill of Rights would be acceptable. The statements in this document regarding the dangers of possible misinterpretation of the Bill of Rights should not in any way be understood to be an assessment of the integrity of the judges chosen to sit on the South African Constitutional Court. The Bill must be written taking into account problems that may only arise in the generations to come.
Since the concept of a Bill of Rights is consistent with a Christian view of government and the nature of human beings, in general we support the approach being taken in the constitution. We do not however agree with all aspects of the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution as adopted on 8 May 1996. To aid clarity, the evaluation of certain clauses below are divided into three parts: a discussion of the meaning and possible interpretations of the clause; an assessment of the clause from a Christian perspective; and a rating of the significance of the moral issues relating to the clause. Certain clauses of the Bill of Rights are examined below in the order they appear in the bill.
They need to repent of their duplicity. I also post this to remind newer EveryNation members of the hardline position of the organisation on moral issues and ask that you support a return to this hardline position.
Philip Rosenthal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS ON THE
BILL OF RIGHTS FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
Updated July 1996
A submission to the
South African Constitutional Assembly
by His People Christian Ministries
COMMENTS ON THE
BILL OF RIGHTS FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
Updated July 1996
Reformatted December 2000
A submission to the
South African Constitutional Assembly
by His People Christian Ministries
CONTACT
His People Christian Ministries
mail@cpt.hispeople.org
Telephone: (021) 6854500
Facsimile: (021) 6869017
www.hispeople.org
COPYRIGHT
This document is copyrighted by His People Christian Ministries. You are encouraged to copy and distribute the document for non-profit purposes, provided that it is reproduced in full and there is no
change to the contents of the document.
THE SOUTH AFRICAN BILL OF RIGHTS
(AS ADOPTED 8 MAY 1996)
FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
Summary
This document examines the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa as adopted by the Constitutional Assembly on 8 May 1996 from a Christian perspective, taking into account the way that similar rights have been interpreted in other countries. It is not comprehensive and seeks primarily to address moral issues in the Bill of Rights on subjects where there is clear biblical teaching. This is the fourth edition of this document, which was submitted to the Constitutional Assembly by His People Ministries, and has been updated at various stages to address changes in the text of the Bill of Rights during the negotiating process. His People is a large an rapidly expanding non-racial Christian movement operating on university campuses in South Africa and in some other countries in Africa and Europe. The ministry seeks to be relevant on social issues and was host to the 'God and Government: International Symposium for the Biblical Reconstruction of South Africa' in 1992 and 1993.
Misinterpretation of the meaning of certain rights by overseas courts has resulted in the removal of important rights and freedoms in these countries. Careful examination of possible undesirable interpretations of the Bill of Rights is thus necessary. Although the Bible does not specifically refer to constitutional rights, the Mosaic laws and other teachings in scripture lay a moral foundation and an understanding of the role of government, which are important bases for fundamental rights. These rights can be derived from their corresponding duties, which are given in the Bible.
There are many positive aspects of the Bill of Rights, but in the interests of brevity this report focuses primarily on its failings. A brief summary of the findings of this report is given below in the order in which clauses occur in the Bill of Rights.
The inclusion of the statements asking for God's blessing and protection in the Preamble is welcomed, but the present wording fails to recognise God's sovereignty over South Africa. This could be rectified by introducing it with the words 'In humble submission to Almighty God' as in the 1993 Interim Constitution.
Whilst the general purpose of the Equality clause (9(3)) is supported, we have strong objections to the inclusion of the words 'sexual orientation'. Homosexual rights create serious social and political problems that can be seen from overseas experience. Political leaders would be unlikely to have included it had they been aware of these. They should be deleted.
The right to Life (clause 11) fails to address the critical issues of abortion, euthanasia, infanticide and the death penalty. These could be rectified by the addition of the words: 'Everyone has the right to life from conception to natural death, except by execution of a court sentence following conviction for a crime for which the death penalty has been prescribed by an Act of Parliament. It is unacceptable that such major decisions of national policy should be made by the Constitutional Court.
Since the Constitutional Assembly has been unable to agree on a wording reflecting the teaching of the Word of God, which strongly condemns the killing of innocent people whether by abortion, infanticide or euthanasia, and which upholds the death penalty as a necessary punishment for murderers and other serious criminals, we suggest that a referendum should be held to decide these issues.
Opinion polls have shown strong support for the Biblical view on these subjects.
The right to Freedom and security of the person (clause 12) includes some phrases apparently attempting to constitutionalise the right to abortion. These may inadvertently also be interpreted to legitimise other controversial issues such as prostitution and euthanasia. Clauses 12(2)(a)&(b) should thus be deleted.
The right to Freedom of religion, belief and opinion (clause 15(2)) seems positive at face, value, but could cause serious problems for religious freedom in schools when interpreted in the context of foreign and particularly American case law. A suggested remedy for these problems is discussed in the main text of this document.
The right to Freedom of expression (clause 16) is welcomed as a means of supporting political and religious freedom, but the qualifying sub-clauses fail to protect against pornography. A remedy in the form of the addition of a sub-clause along the lines of that used in the European Convention on Human Rights is suggested.
The Freedom of occupation (clause 22) is at present too broad and could be misinterpreted by a future court to legitimise morally unacceptable occupations such as prostitution. This could be remedied simply by the addition of a qualifying sub-clause.
The right to Property (clause 25) fails to define 'land reform' and is weakened by what appears to be a redundant sub-clause which could be used to circumvent the protection given in the rest of the clause. This should be deleted.
The right to Health, food, water and social security (clause 27(1)(a)) includes an unnecessary reference to 'reproductive health', which could be interpreted to support abortion. These words should be deleted.
There is a danger that Children's Rights (clause 28) could be misinterpreted together with other clauses to motivate the banning of corporal punishment. This could be remedied by the addition of a qualifying sub-clause recognising the right of parents and those delegated by them to use moderate physical discipline which is reasonable in the eyes of parents.
Education (clause 29) is important in that it entrenches the right to establish independent Christian schools, but could be improved.
Interpretation (clause 39(1)) allows the Constitutional Court to make use of foreign case law. This is unacceptable, since most countries with comparable constitutions have interpreted them within the framework of the secular-humanist worldview, which is strongly opposed to the teachings of the Bible.
Although there are many positive aspects to the new Constitution, the Bill of Rights as it stands fails to protect many God given human rights. We urge that the constitution be amended to correct the problems outlined above.
Table of Contents
SUMMARY I
TABLE OF CONTENTS III
INTRODUCTION 1
THE NATURE OF THIS REPORT 1
INFORMATION ON HIS PEOPLE CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES 1
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 1
THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 2
THE SOURCE OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS 3
THE SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 3
PREAMBLE 5
REFERENCE TO GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION 5
CLAUSE 9(3 TO 5): EQUALITY 7
EQUALITY AND THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA 7
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON HOMOSEXUALITY 9
CLAUSE 10: HUMAN DIGNITY 10
CLAUSE 11: LIFE 11
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD 12
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON THE DEATH PENALTY 13
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON EUTHANASIA 13
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON INFANTICIDE 13
CLAUSE 12(1): FREEDOM AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON 15
DEATH PENALTY 15
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 15
CLAUSE 12(2): FREEDOM AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON 16
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON PROSTITUTION 17
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON DRUG ABUSE 17
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON ABORTION AND EUTHANASIA 18
CLAUSE 14: PRIVACY 19
CLAUSE 15(2): RELIGION, BELIEF AND OPINION 20
THE CONTEXT OF BANNING OF CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICAN STATE SCHOOLS 20
POTENTIAL FOR STATE INTERFERENCE IN RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES IN SOUTH AFRICA 21
CLAUSE 16: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 24
FREEDOM POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH 24
PORNOGRAPHY 24
'ARTISTIC CREATIVITY' 26
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON PORNOGRAPHY 26
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 27
CLAUSE 22: FREEDOM OF OCCUPATION 29
CLAUSE 25: PROPERTY 30
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON PROPERTY RIGHTS 31
CLAUSE 27(1)(A): HEALTH, FOOD, WATER, AND SOCIAL SECURITY 33
CLAUSE 28: CHILDREN 34
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 34
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 35
CLAUSE 29: EDUCATION 36
CLAUSE 39(1): INTERPRETATION 38
THE MISTAKE OF A MIDDLE EASTERN POLITICAL LEADER 39
CONCLUSIONS 40
Introduction
THE NATURE OF THIS REPORT
This report has been written from a Christian viewpoint, taking into account the way that laws similar to those in the Bill of Rights have been interpreted in other countries. Political leaders may be surprised to see how the original intent of rights written into law has been ignored in some cases and the meaning distorted in favour of certain special interest groups. Misinterpretation of the meaning of certain rights by overseas courts has resulted in the removal of important rights and freedoms in these countries. This is especially true in the United States. We believe that careful consideration of the Bible in assessing the validity of constitutional rights will greatly benefit our nation. This report is not a comprehensive examination of the Bill of Rights, but seeks primarily to highlight the moral issues in the Bill of Rights. Omission of comment on a specific issue in the Bill of Rights does not necessarily indicate approval of the present wording of a specific clause.
An earlier version of this report entitled 'Comments on the Interim Bill of Rights from a Christian Perspective' was submitted in March 1995. A revised version was submitted in February 1996 to address the wording of the 'Working Draft of the New Constitution' published on 18 December 1995. A third version addressed the wording of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Bill, 1996 published on 23 April 1996. This fourth version addresses the wording as adopted by the Constitutional Assembly on 8 May 1996.
INFORMATION ON HIS PEOPLE CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
His People Christian Ministries is a large and rapidly expanding non-racial Christian movement working on and around the campuses and surrounding communities in South Africa, and in some other countries in Africa and Europe. The movement is operating on seven campuses in South Africa and has currently over one and a half thousand people enrolled at its part-time Bible Schools. The churches that have grown out of this ministry, initially consisted of university students, but now include people from all social backgrounds. The ministry seeks to be relevant on social issues, and was host to the 'God and Government: International Symposium for the Biblical Reconstruction of South Africa' in 1992 and 1993.
The positions put forward here are based on the teaching of the Bible and can therefore be seen as representative of the views of the much larger constituency of Christians in South Africa.
Postal Address: His People Ministries, Head Office, PO Box 275, Rondebosch, 7700.
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Although the Bible does not specifically refer to constitutional rights, the Mosaic laws and other teachings in Scripture lay a moral foundation and an understanding of the role of government, which are important bases for fundamental rights.
The Bible has specific teaching on a range of moral issues, which relate to a Bill of Rights. These are examined briefly, where relevant, in the following sections of this report.
It is recognised amongst constitutional lawyers that all constitutions are based on the mistrust of future political rulers: 'All constitutions are based on mistrust. If we could trust our rulers, our parties, ourselves, we would not need constitutions.' . This observation is in accordance with the Bible's teaching that all people are fallible (Rom 3:23). Thus there is a need for checks and balances to protect people from the abuse of political power. While the specific checks and balances may differ from constitution to constitution, the biblically based motivation remains the same. In most democratic constitutions, this has led for example to the division of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary (These three separate aspects of government are all mentioned as being subject to God in Isaiah 33:22). A Bill of Rights is intended to prevent the legislature from passing laws contrary to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, which we understand to originate in the Bible.
The Bible teaches that political rulers in government are servants of God (Romans 13:4), and that like everyone else, they must be subject to His law (Deuteronomy 17:18-20). The idea of a law governing rulers as well as individuals comes from the Bible.
The fact that God intended his moral laws to be obeyed by all nations and that the destiny of nations is determined by their response to his law is shown by his statement in Jeremiah 18:7-10 ' If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.' This last statement is a serious warning to South Africans not to take God's blessing for granted. Peace and prosperity in our country is dependent on God's merciful blessing and a morally unacceptable constitution will result in his judgement.
THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In 1791, the writers of the American Constitution included in their constitution the statement 'CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF... ' . 'Religion', in the language of the time meant 'denomination' in today's language. Thus the law was intended to prevent the government from showing favouritism to a particular form of Christianity, such as the Anglican Church in England or the Lutheran church in Germany. The amendment aimed to prevent the state from interfering in Church affairs.
The above-mentioned clause was never in any way intended to limit the advancement of Christianity in state institutions or by state employees. The same people who wrote this clause also actively supported Christian education and proclaimed public holidays for the explicit purpose of prayer and fasting. The inaccurate interpretation of this clause by the American Supreme Court has promoted the idea that the state may promote the religion of secular humanism , but not Christianity.
Any clause relating to religion must be worded carefully to avoid such a misinterpretation. We believe that the state should be based on Christian principles rather than secular philosophies and ideologies. The Church as an institution is and should remain structurally separate from the state, but the state (including state controlled media, education departments and the Constitutional Court) should recognise and submit to the rule of Almighty God. The Bible is politically relevant, in that it addresses moral issues, which must be considered in law making.
The idea that it is possible to have a religiously neutral state is erroneous. All law is based on moral values, which must in turn be derived from a standard. Since different religions and secular belief systems have conflicting ideas, a religiously neutral state is impossible. Christianity, with which the overwhelming majority of South Africans align themselves, is tolerant of other religions and thus there is no need to adopt a policy of secularism in order to guarantee the rights of people to worship as they choose to do so. By contrast, explicitly secular (such as China and the USA) or Islamic (such as Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Iran) states are intolerant of Christian religious rights and freedoms.
The intended meaning of the American first amendment (1791): to protect the Church from interference in its internal affairs, is however relevant to South Africa. In 1862, the Dutch Reformed Church suspended one of its ministers for teaching things contrary to the Scriptures. The suspended minister appealed to the civil courts and was reinstated on the basis of the Church ordinance of 1843. The church's appeal to the Privy Council in England was rejected and it thus lost the power to exercise discipline over its own members. It is submitted that no laws should be made which allow the civil courts to judge such internal affairs of the church.
THE SOURCE OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
To be enforced, every human right must have a corresponding duty. The Bible usually refers to fundamental rights in terms of their corresponding duties. For example, the sixth commandment 'You shall not murder' (Exodus 20:13) is another way of stating 'Everyone has the right to life'. Such rights, although not always explicitly stated in legal language in the form of human rights, may be derived from commands given by God in the Bible. The corresponding duty of the State is to refrain from acting or passing laws, which violate these rights.
Rights which are granted by the state, and which require the state to actively provide something for the people, are of a different nature and should be distinguished from the fundamental God-given rights entrenched in the Constitution. Such rights weaken the Constitution, because the situation may arise when the state is unable to financially guarantee such rights. In the same way, if the state takes away these rights, then the impression may be created that the state has the right to also take away fundamental rights God has given. These 'state granted rights', commonly referred to as 'red rights', should not be included in the Constitution, which is for the protection of the people.
THE SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
For a government to function effectively and protect citizens of a country, the rights entrenched in the Constitution, ought to reflect the teaching of the Bible. We believe that the God of the Bible is inherently good (1 John 1:5) and obedience to his commands will result in prosperity and blessing on the country (Deuteronomy 30:16). An equally important point is that those interpreting the Constitution must do so according to the original intentions of its writers. Certain foreign courts have ignored this principle and brought in changes, which would not have resulted from either democratic decision-making or objective interpretation of existing laws. These changes are strongly opposed to Christian faith and morality.
In the sections of this report, mention is made of the 'subjective' decision making of foreign Constitutional Courts and the danger of judges making similar decisions in South Africa. In these cases, judges discussed cases in great detail and had hearings from many different parties. The word 'subjective' does not mean that the decisions were random or taken in haste. It means that the judges were able not only to judge the case, but also form the criteria on which the judgement was made. These criteria bore no relation to words in the Constitution as understood by the writers of the Constitution. The criteria were subjective and thus the judicial decisions made were also subjective (see for example the Roe v. Wade under the Right to Life, p11).
In speaking of the American Supreme Court constitutional lawyer, William Stanmeyer, states: 'The reality, even most law professors now grudgingly concede, is that the courts often have more will than judgement, are dangerous to democratic policy making, and are quite willing not only to read the Constitution but also, when it suits them, to read into it their own notions of wise policy' . Straying from the wording in interpreting the American Constitution has been well documented by Judge Robert Bork in the book 'The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law' .
The American experience demonstrates the need to define in very specific terms the rights to be protected and to ensure that these rights are in accordance with the teaching of the Bible. If a 'liberal' interpretation policy were less of a danger today a shorter and more succinct Bill of Rights would be acceptable. The statements in this document regarding the dangers of possible misinterpretation of the Bill of Rights should not in any way be understood to be an assessment of the integrity of the judges chosen to sit on the South African Constitutional Court. The Bill must be written taking into account problems that may only arise in the generations to come.
Since the concept of a Bill of Rights is consistent with a Christian view of government and the nature of human beings, in general we support the approach being taken in the constitution. We do not however agree with all aspects of the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution as adopted on 8 May 1996. To aid clarity, the evaluation of certain clauses below are divided into three parts: a discussion of the meaning and possible interpretations of the clause; an assessment of the clause from a Christian perspective; and a rating of the significance of the moral issues relating to the clause. Certain clauses of the Bill of Rights are examined below in the order they appear in the bill.