There is nothing quite like a politician feigning insult for
another person’s apparent sake. The politician who has purported to raise alarm
in this instance: is the same one which every year sends out these ridiculous
press releases about what a good Catholic he is and how he attends Fatima and
wants other individual people to join him in this experience. He also prides
himself in representing the cancer organisation of South Africa. For all his
faithfulness to Fatima, or rather to trips to there: he does not hold too much
faithfulness to his Catholic faith. Recently, when South Africa was blighted by
terrible xenophobic attacks: he almost comically took the opportunity to argue
that more cosmetic surgeries on homosexual people ought to be conducted, on their
private parts. He went on and on about the great grandeur of altering a man to
look like a woman and how this certainly in his view was good for human rights.
He sent me three press releases that day. None of them condemned xenophobia in
any way or form. His unfortunate lack of conscience, was fortunate for me in
highlighting it, my article of his impolite behaviour was quite the popular
critique. There is nothing like a politician feigning insult for another
person’s apparent sake. Nothing quite distracts from the real issues.
Recently his Excellency President Jacob Zuma made strong remarks
against rape, stated that politics needed to be more cordial and civil and
asked for prayers both for his own party and others, that they may cease to
insult those elected positions of leadership in South Africa through
name-calling. Jacob Zuma also made reference to his religion, Protestant
Christianity. It is perhaps apt that he made such reference. Jacob Zuma was
speaking to Protestant bishops. Zuma also acknowledged that we are all in it
together in South Africa: he said that as such, it was the duty of churches to
pray for the leadership of South Africa. This is how I interpret statements
Zuma made several weeks ago, granted with some hyperbolic language, the type of
hard to take serious self-importance which is the forte of the current
president of the Republic of South Africa. This is not however how a certain
shadow minister of the Democratic Alliance official opposition party, under the
leadership of Ms Helen Zille:
perceived this speech
of the President of the Republic of South Africa.
I recently received an email which I verified as from the ‘famed’
politician above, the shadow minister of home affairs, who loves to act at feigning
insult for another person’s apparent sake.
‘Closing the gap between Church and government is dangerous’
harked that unangelic howl. The contents of the gentleman’s unfortunate email
press release were all the more alarmist and reactionary.
‘About a month ago Jacob (not the son of Isaac and grandson
of Abraham in the Old Testament) Zuma addressed the Presbyterian Synod in
Giyani. (Why a political leader would be
invited to address a religious synod is beyond me.)’ Stated Mister Manny De
Freitas, in his shadowy role as Shadow Minister of Home Affairs for the
Democratic Alliance.
No doubt Mister De Freitas took out some or other Bible from
his regular trips to Fatima, looked at the index and searched enthralled, for
that name Jacob. Somehow he found the genealogy of said Jacob, one assumes
without us of course actually bothering at attempting checking it. Why a politician
would periodically make consistent pilgrimages to Fatima is not beyond me, why
he would trumpet such trips loudly to the press is not beyond me. Why Helen
Zille would be invited to address the Catholic Women’s League (CWL) is also not
beyond me. Politicians like to address anyone of any religion, even people they
don’t like very much: it is certainly a way to gain votes. Assuming however
that Jacob Zuma did not request to be invited to the synod of Protestant
bishops or whatnot: why on earth would anyone at all attempt to invite a president
to address their gathering? Why would the Catholic Women’s League (CWL) invite
Premier of the Western Cape Ms Helen Zille to address their meeting? Perhaps it
has something to do with prestige, the honour associated with government
officials, or the draw of a well-known speaker?
Mister Manny De Freitas could not stop there. Zuma had the
audacity to say that the church was not entirely separated from the state, but
that God required churches to pray for the leaders of the country, and that
this showed that even the church and the state are connected in their humanity.
Mister Manny De Freitas would have none of that.
‘Increasingly Zuma has been bringing Church and State closer
and closer.’ Manny De Freitas made his unsubstantiated claim in hopes of being
glorified before the sons of man or whatnot, ‘This is not even my analysis’
Manny De Freitas smugly attempted to convince whatever media he thinks in his
pocket. Instead according to Manny De Freitas who considers his own word to be
God Almighty from the highest heaven : ‘Zuma at that same Synod said that God
had made a connection between government and the Church.’
Such is what He loudly squealed. He being Manny not God, but
speaking with the sureness of his own ‘divine’ consciousness.
‘The President’s irresponsible statements continue to
flabbergast me.’ Manny said of the President of the Republic of South Africa’s
asking Protestant church rulers to pray for those in secular power, for the
politicians of South Africa, because, as Mister Jacob Zuma made known to the
bishops of a Protestant church: the church is not entirely separated from the
world or from the state as though it lived in some bubble, unaffected by
political corruption.
‘A few years ago he arrogantly stated that the ANC would rule
until Jesus comes.’ Manny De Freitas continued his tirade, again purposely
misunderstanding the concept that when Jesus comes it is the end of the world
according to the religion Jacob Zuma follows, Manny quickly adds ‘If this is
true lets pray that it’s really soon’.
‘I would wager a bet that Zuma has never read the
Constitution – not even once.’ Manny De Freitas quickly quips, but what follows
suggest that he also has not read the constitution, if we are to assume Jacob
Zuma has not.
‘The Constitution is clear that it does not recognize any
connection between the Government and the Church’ Manny further solicits media
with his uninformed sound bite, although I have not seen such clarity, in fact
the constitution makes direct links between the government and religion when
reference is made to marriage ceremonies. There is not even separation between
the judiciary, the executive, and Parliament in the sense that Manny De Freitas
will demand it. The South African national anthem is God bless Africa.
Christian holy days are respected government holidays in South Africa. We ask
witnesses to make a religious oath in court although they are allowed to make
an affirmation instead.
‘The Constitution is clear that it does not recognize any
connection between the Government and the Church and guarantees the freedom of
religion, belief and opinion.’ Manny De Freitas says as he continues to enforce
the impression that he has never read the constitution, which does not
guarantee freedom of religion, belief and opinion. The case of Prince versus
the Law Society is just one example of how religion is validly limited in South
Africa. Belief is also not guaranteed, and opinion is limited in the Bill of
Rights itself. Perhaps Manny De Freitas should spend less time at Fatima wooing
voters under the naughty guise of being a Catholic politician, and more time researching
his own false claims.
Manny De Freitas then purports to read minds, he smirks, no
doubt as it is he who now pronounces an ultimate judgement upon Jacob Zuma: ‘In
Zuma’s world, he doesn’t understand that there are even people that don’t
believe or even care if Jesus comes.’
Manny De Freitas then attempts to get a bit nasty, or rather
a bit more nasty than he had been in his quick judgements against anyone who
professes a Christian faith ‘Someone should provide him the breaking news that
there are even people who don’t believe in, or even know, Jesus’ Manny De
Freitas is quick to mock Jacob Zuma. Perhaps it is people like Manny De Freitas
that caused Jacob Zuma to feel the need to pray that politicians act in a civil
manner in the treatment of one another.
As someone who breaks news, I find Manny De Freitas wanting
in his use of English: this is not breaking news, nor should anyone presume to
abuse language in such a manner to mock the religion of another person. In fact
one of those limits on freedom of speech which Manny De Freitas forgot to read
in the Bill of Rights forbids hate speech against religions.
Manny elaborates, yes he elaborates, shockingly as he has
herein: ‘Someone should provide him the breaking news that there are even
people who don’t believe in, or even know, Jesus and that it’s acceptable as we
all have the freedom to believe, or not believe, in whatever we like.’
Perhaps Manny should read State versus Blom. We do not have
the right to believe whatever we want in South Africa. Yes, we have the freedom
to choose what religion we follow, as does Jacob Zuma who was practising his
Christian faith by speaking. Manny De Freitas is perhaps not speaking from the
law then, but his own belief system. Perhaps cults are something, something
which Manny De Freitas desires to be deeply accepting of. Perhaps Manny De
Freitas should launch a campaign to repeal the Witchcraft Suppression Act,
which imprisons people for up to 25 years for their belief in witchcraft, and
making accusations that a person is a witch or wizard or sorcerer of some type.
Perhaps he should repeal the provisions which make practices such as selling
psychic services of a sort unlawful and punishable by jail or a fine.
‘History has shown us over and over again the danger of
mixing religion, any religion with government.’ Manny De Freitas claims without
so much as a footnote, a broad and very inappropriate and universal claim. Is he speaking of the
Pharaohs? Is he speaking of the Queen of England? Is he speaking of the
emperors of Rome? Is he speaking of the Roman Dutch basis of our law which we
have thanks to the Roman Catholic Church? Does he hate the Knights of Malta?
Does he hate and despise the Vatican City state? Does he think Andorra should
not exist?
But Manny De Freitas will not stop there. He clearly
believes that any person who might think that religion might have a positive
impact upon the government, people like the Pope, the leader of his own claimed
religion: can have no knowledge whatsoever of history.
Albania used to be a
Christian nation, but the Ottoman Empire wanted to conquer it fully: so it
taxed Albanian Christians until a large majority converted to Islam. When Rome
split from Constantinople in Albania also, the Eastern Roman Empire demanded
conversion to Greek Orthodoxy. The North of Albania refused to convert. The
North remained Catholic, to this day it has a large Catholic population. Much
of the rest of the country who did later under the Ottomans convert to the
Muslim faith in the process lost their patriotism, and submitted to foreign
rule, because their former faith had been eradicated by taxes, and their
rebellious spirit with it. ‘Albanianism is the religion of Albania’ this is the
phrase which reunited Albania into one nation once again. Targeting the
majority religion of the country is a sure way to destroy its defiance against
human rights abuses. This is what Things Fall Apart is all about: the use of
Protestant Christianity to subdue the people of Africa, in concert with the
persecution of the majority religion. Forbidding religion from entering the
public sphere, was a method used in Angola in an attempt to control the
population. Similar tactics were used in other Marxist regimes at the time. The
Nazis saw a similar need to muzzle free religious expression if they were to
conduct the genocide successfully.
‘It never turns out well,’ Manny boasts of what he thinks is
knowledge or at least thinks sounds like knowledge: in criticising Zuma for
associating himself with a religious faith. But this is not enough for Manny,
anyone who contradicts the ‘man God’ Manny De-Freitas must be publicly
humiliated and he thus says, ‘ but then I doubt that Zuma’s ever read any book,
let alone a history book.’
Clearly Manny De Freitas expects a weak and foolish press,
he ends with that phrase of phrases ‘kind regards’, a phrase usually used for
friends and close acquaintances.
Though perhaps Manny De Freitas should be educated a bit
about history and South Africa:
The concept that the church and the state are not one, but
separate entities which can be at war with one another: is a Christian concept
according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The Encyclopaedia Britannica details
that this comes from the words of the founder of Christianity, who is known by
the Latinised name of Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of Mark chapter 12 verse 17,
Jesus states that Christians must render unto Caesar that which is the property
of Caesar’s and not give unto Caesar that which belongs to God.
The word secular was developed by the Roman Catholic Church
to refer to the laity in comparison to the religious such as priests and nuns
and monks. The laity lived a secular or worldly life with secular vocations
such as law. Unlike Egypt or Rome, the spiritual world and the physical world
are differentiated so far as which powerbase governs what.
‘During the 1st century AD the Apostles, living under a
pagan empire, taught respect for and obedience to the governing powers so long
as such obedience did not violate the higher, or divine, law, which superseded
political jurisdiction. Among the Church Fathers, who lived in a period when
Christianity had become the religion of the empire, the emphasis on the primacy
of the spiritual was even stronger. They insisted upon the independence of the
church and the right of the church to judge the actions of the secular ruler.’
(Encyclopaedia Britannica ‘church and state’ (2012) Deluxe
Edition)
Concepts such as natural law have currency for the simple
fact that Christians are believed to have a moral duty to obey those placed in
secular authority above them. The exception is where these rules would be
against the will of God or natural law. Despite this distinction Christianity
itself has created many theocratic states. Flavius Valerius Constantinus, the
first Roman emperor to openly profess Christianity, a gentleman of Albanian
origin: also declared himself priest and Emperor and claimed to take power over
certain functions of the church without ever being ordained (Encyclopaedia
Britannica ‘Constantine I’, ‘Albania’, ‘Christianity’ (2012) Deluxe Edition).
In more recent history there are the papal states and Calvin’s Geneva. Nations
which in some way Mix church and state include every member of Britain’s
Commonwealth who’s secular and religious head is a King or Queen of England.
This is a good portion of the nations of the earth. Malta is run by the Knights
of Malta, and most famously the Vatican City state is both head of the world’s
largest religious organisation, and itself a secular state with secular laws
and powers. In large swathes of Protestantism and other forms of Christian
thinking a belief in a divine right of a ruler to rule has certainly hold sway
until recent times. The Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Czar’s held such
opinions.
In the old Testament of the Bible: right after Noah and his
sons got off of the arc, his one son saw Noah naked and drunk. The son in
question called the other sons and told them of it. The other sons avoided
looking at the undignified form of the seeming ruler of humanity at that
moment. They did however cover him with a cloak, walking backwards to avoid
seeing the naked form of the ruler. The son who violated the dignity of Noah,
was cursed to slavery.
The president of the Republic of South Africa adheres to a
Protestant Christian belief system, with some emphasis on the Old Testament of
the Bible, the church Jacob Zuma adheres to also views polygamy in a permissive
manner. President Jacob Zuma is known to strongly hold to the traditions of his
ancestors, and to a most Africanist Christian viewpoint. I do not agree with
the president on many things, that does not however mean that I could be
morally permitted to unthinkingly mock him simply for his differing beliefs,
merely because they are different than mine.
When Jacob Zuma made this speech I wondered how it related
to the Witchcraft Suppression Act, although I did not look further into it.
This is the speech which Mister Manny De Freitas above so wantonly mocked and
so fully misinterpreted:
‘“If you don’t respect those in leadership, if you don’t
respect authority then you are bordering on a curse,” said Zuma, who once said
the ANC would rule until Jesus returned.
‘“Whether we like it or not, God has made a connection
between the government and the church. That’s why he says you, as a church,
should pray for it.”
‘He likened people who lack “values” by raping children and
the aged to animals. “If you don’t have that, (values), then you are not
different from animals.”
‘Zuma urged the church to pray for politicians who insult
leaders. Without mentioning names, he said their language was rough and
disrespectful.
‘“Because if you allow them to insult those in authority, you
are creating a society that is angry with itself,” said Zuma.
‘However, the ANC leader said his fellow comrades were also
guilty of this “careless” language. “I am not saying the ANC is innocent of the
careless language.”
‘ANC MP John Jeffrey recently apologised for calling
Mazibuko, the DA’s parliamentary leader, “a person of substantial weight”.’
(Independent Newspapers South Africa ’Zuma invokes wrath of
God’ 7 October 2013 at 7:55 AM)
Jacob Zuma’s words are certainly not pleasant words, nor are
their words which I strongly agree with. Certainly you should respect
leadership, even where there is lack of leadership: so far as you are required
to do so. That does not mean that one cannot be critical of leadership or speak
of leadership in its true place: bad leadership should be treated as bad
leadership. Insulting the human dignity of leaders in an unbecoming manner
however is perhaps uncivilised. As for any curse connected to this, I might be
quite in danger of such a curse for I am often critical of public figures in an
appropriate manner in order to hold them accountable and to ensure that they do
the job in a proper manner. Certainly the government and morals are connected.
The separation of church and state tends to be to enable one to criticise the
other, generally the church of the state. His strong words against rape of the
elderly and children certainly reflect recent headlines and some public opinion
among sectors of the population. He should not however only condemn rape of the
children and of the elderly. Any and every rape is immoral and wrong and
illegal. The rape case brought against the president was not as strong as media
would have portrayed it as. That does not however preclude him from at the time
being morally obligated to strongly condemn all rape in South Africa. The fact
that I’m not the government allows me to criticise the government. This is
important. The church also is separate from the state in order to criticise the
state. His wording might be quite strong, the polite and cordial political
discussion based on the issues and not name-calling: is certainly preferable,
however.
Should Jacob Zuma had been permitted to attend a synod of
religion?
Is that not up to the religion in question? South Africa
does not have separation of powers but cooperative governance so far as the
judiciary, executive and Parliament are concerned. The government periodically
cooperate with various churches, and seek the advice of civil society in
accordance with the demands of the constitution for inclusive and cooperative
government, in governing the state. Jacob Zuma however has every right to
associate with his own religion or a gathering of people in accordance with the
Constitution of the Republic. He is an ordinary citizen of South Africa so far
as this is concerned. Premier of the Western Cape and head of the Democratic
Alliance opposition party, Helen Zille has in the past made public address to
the Catholic Women’s League (CWL) at a meeting of the league. She too is a head
of a part of the government. It was up to the Catholic Women’s League (CWL)
whether or not they wanted the Premier of the Western Cape to address a
meeting. It was up to this Presbyterian church whether or not they wanted to
have the president of the Republic, a natural human being: to address their
meeting. There was no abuse of the constitution in that sense.
Do I approve of the decision of this church to have the
president speak to them? No, not particularly. I also do not particularly
approve of Helen Zille speaking to the Catholic Women’s League (CWL). There is
however no closing gap between religion and the state. Certainly there is no
gap in the first place in South Africa, but rather cooperative government which
seeks the assistance of civil society in leading South Africa. The church and
the state are not one institution, nor do they have one head. In fact there are
many churches in South Africa. None of these churches are part of the
government, although they are given special status by the government, and are
able to perform marriages in certain cases.
Disclaimer: Nothing I’ve said in this article should be
considered to be legal advice in any way or form. For legal advice please
approach your own legal practitioner with the appropriate skills to deal with
your specific issue, appropriately set forth your issue to them and act as you
deem appropriate with the legal advice. Legal information is merely provided
for journalistic purposes and entertainment in this article, not for the
purposes of taking legal action. I have mentioned laws and South African court
cases which I have studied at the tertiary level at law school, my mention is
made from memory, to inform in a journalistic manner but not in any way as
legal advice. Nothing in this article should be construed as legal advice.
