Encouraging free thought
A million thanks to the Mail & Guardian for “The God rush” edition (April 13). What a great contribution you’re making in encouraging free thought and open debate as the hallmark of a mature and modern South Africa.
You hold out the vision of a diverse society in which religious practice and experience encourage the extending of horizons and the pushing back of the boundaries that divide us. That is most admirable.
We look forward to the time when the right to experience individual liberty and private judgement in spiritual matters is fully acknowledged, where respect for integrity replaces the pressure to conform to outworn teachings that hold no relevance in the 21st century.
Let us soon be able to practise a style of religious life and worship that encourages self-discovery, free of the burden of guilt imposed by a remote deity. May our religion be more concerned for the integrity of the relationships we have with others, the environment and the universe, and in which morality contributes to a greater reverence for life.
May there no longer be external pressure from creeds, doctrines and dogmas, scripture or institutionalised authority. Let there be an emphasis on being true to oneself. May we learn to admire and strive to emulate those who show us how to be true to ourselves, such as Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha and Gandhi, but may the relevance of their lives and teachings always be a matter of personal decision.
In our multi-faith society, may we be united by a common concern for the quality of life in which growing understanding, tolerance and respect form the basis of our individual quest for truth and meaning in life. — Rev Gordon Oliver, Unitarian Church, Cape Town
If the Christian Church considered Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code (a mild soporific) threatening, it should be even more fearful of the Gospel of Judas, which highlights a contradiction in the Bible the clergy conveniently ignore.
The reading of the gospels by the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg, Brian Germond, is that “all four gospels depict Judas as committing suicide … Why would Judas have done so if he had voluntarily played a key role as the chosen agent of his master, Jesus?”
However, the Acts of the Apostles reads: “Now Judas, falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out” [1:18]. Why, then, Holmes, it cannot be suicide! Elementary (or should I say, “alimentary”), my dear Watson!
This contradiction resembles the Warren report into the assassination of John F Kennedy and suggests, like Lee Harvey Oswald, that Judas is the patsy.
Given such internal inconsistencies, all claims of the Bible’s “inerrancy” burst open, and its bowels gush out. — Laurence Berman, Pretoria
If creationism is to be accorded equal status to evolution in school curricula, it must be subjected to the same standards of evidence used to test scientific theories.
The suggestion that “design” amounts to evidence is false, because the notion supposes a “designer”, which, by definition, is beyond the reach of evidence.
And “faith” is not a special kind of knowledge equal in validity to scientific knowledge. It is at best the result of mental fatigue, at worst mental laziness and self-delusion, often cloaked in the euphemism “childlike”. Children are, in fact, born questioners.
When adults lead children to believe in doctrines such as creationism or the Resurrection, for which there is no reputable evidence, this could amount to psychological abuse through indoctrination — an attempt to destroy the child’s openness to all truth. — Oliver Price, Cape Town
I could scarcely contain my joy when I read Ferial Haffajee’s resolution to cease publishing blasphemous cartoons. At last, I thought, I will be able to enjoy my Friday treat of honest, hard-hitting journalism, incisive commentary and biting wit — without being assailed by spiteful mockery of what people of faith hold sacred.
Imagine my disappointment, then, at the depiction of an apostate wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a cartoon-like depiction of Jesus Christ above the legend: Jesus is my Homeboy. Is Haffajee not aware of how gut-wrenchingly offensive this is to conservative Christians?
I demand that the M&G appoint a committee of representatives of all respectable religions to screen the paper for provocative content before it goes to print. — Michael Osborne, Cape Town
Reading “Embrace the secular state” I gained the distinct impression that I was reading two articles — one extolling the benefits of a secular state, and another revisiting the embarrassment of the decision to publish an offending cartoon, followed by a less-than-heartfelt apology.
Living in a secular state implies responsibilities of tolerance and respect. If the average citizen is expected to live up to those, so should journalists with a much broader audience.
Instead of exhibiting this responsibility, the article casts the criticism levelled at the newspaper and its editor as a patriarchal attack on the rights of women. Had the editor been male, he would have received the same calls from the same individuals.
Publishing the cartoon was a mistake and an offence to thousands of Muslims, male and female, who “live” their faith without apology. Implying that much of the furore was a gender issue simply insults them further. — Paul Mathias, Johannesburg
The archbishop of the Anglican Church (April 13) suggests one of the foundational tenets of the Christian faith, the physical resurrection of Jesus, is irrelevant, saying it is “neither here nor there”.
If so, the church may as well shut up shop for, if so, generations have been led astray by a lie.
If the archbishop has suddenly found a new “truth”, why then, in his pastoral responsibilities, is he not ensuring that all the faithful learn of this, for surely in his eyes they are deceived?
And where is the voice of the rest of the church leadership, right down the hierarchical ladder? What is their response when their leaders cast aspersions on the cornerstone of their faith?
Perhaps questioning by the grassroots will spur their leaders to relearn some of the assertiveness Christ calls them to. Perhaps the maxim of Theodore Rubin will prevail: “There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking.” — Bruce Hewitson, Claremont
Authentic Christianity has more to say to government and culture than Cedric Mayson’s “Never say die” synonym for Easter (April 13). There may indeed be some cause for self-congratulation. But we look for moral regeneration, God-encounter and a critical review of his secularised contentment. — TJ Ruthenberg, Cape Town
As a “secular fundamentalist” I was surprised by Fikile-Ntsikelelo Moya’s comparison of secular and religious fundamentalism (April 13). There is a clear difference.
Secular fundamentalism is based on secular humanism, an evolving moral philosophy. Religion, by its very nature, cannot evolve and adheres to sacred texts.
A religious moderate is someone who doesn’t take his/her religion seriously, who tries to retain certain aspects of it as important.
Such a person is selective in religious practice. A genuine religious person is what we would today call a fundamentalist. Precisely because of their uncompromising beliefs, such people are dangerous.
Doubly annoying is Moya’s condemnation of recent French and Swedish legislation. One of religion’s many evils is that it is forced on children by their elders. To interfere in this indoctrination process is not an infringement of group rights, it is completely ethical. — Alex Myers, Cape Town
When private is public
Your March 24 editorial on KwaZulu-Natal’s former tourism minister, Narend Singh, makes a simplistic distinction between “public” and “private” morality, as if they are entirely separate . The fact that Singh cheated on his wife is regarded as purely the concern of the man and his wife. “It is, after all,” says the editorial, “an issue entirely in the private sphere.”
What kind of moral integrity do we reasonably look for in those who hold public office? Just because we are all morally flawed does not mean that we should take cheating lightly. We would rightly prefer to have in public office people who have personal moral integrity. It is a quality that includes the whole of life, public and private.
It is true that we as a society are hypocritical, in so far as we allow (as the editorial eloquently puts it) “those who rob the public purse, who take bribes … to get away scot-free or with a slap on the wrist”, and yet pressurise out of office a person who has cheated on his wife. Clearly such hypocrisy is unacceptable.
It may be that much of “Western society” has come to make a relaxed and convenient distinction between “public” and “private” morality. That does not make it right.
The editorial refers mockingly to our puritanical traditions borrowed from British and American politics. To dismiss the insistence of the “religious perspective” that moral integrity includes the whole person in all aspects of their life reveals a shallow understanding.
You dismiss the “religious moral perspective” as conservative — implying that it is “out of date”. How wrong! Let us rather conserve the wisdom that recognises the oneness of moral integrity and trust, public and private. This will make for a far healthier society. How sad to contrast this healthy conservatism with our “liberal Constitution”. Surely the deepest values of our Constitution point to the truth that a truly humane and healthy society will be characterised by moral integrity in every sphere. — Bishop David Russell
Dams: poverty not an option
I am delighted to have flushed out the objectors to the Steelpoort dam because they highlight the limits of the current environmental impact assessment (EIA) process.
Any development project must consider alternatives and choose the best option — even if it is to do nothing.
So Melissa Ferguson (Letters, April 13) asks why boreholes are not used to supply water to people on the arid Nebo plateau. The answer is that not enough water was found for the main settlements. That is why the dam option was chosen, a choice supported by the EIA.
But what happens when individuals disagree with the conclusions of a properly conducted EIA? While the process is valuable, if it is misused to obstruct high-priority social projects, the obvious option will be to revert to administrative mechanisms.
Streamlining the process may open it to administrative abuse. However, if we have to choose between the danger of abuse by democratically elected officials or by well-resourced individuals who don’t want development in their backyards, give me democracy any day.
Climate change is threatening the reliability of rainfall and river flows, particularly in Africa. This is why the United Nations and Africans agree the continent must build the infrastructure it needs to cope. Dams — with water conservation and efficiency measures — will be part of this. Keeping people poor and vulnerable is not a sustainable option. — Mike Muller, Wits University
Potent myths
Jeff Guy (Letters, April 13) shows how the purportedly “deep rural” isiZulu and “authentic” cultural idioms used by Jacob Zuma in his testimony borrowed from Afrikaans. Contrary to popular ideas premised on timeless and primordial conceptions of “Zulu culture”, Zuma revealed the hybrid and dynamic character of culture and language.
Zuma’s supporters, and probably most South Africans, are less likely to reach the same conclusions. Instead, timeless and primordialist conceptions of Zulu culture “work” because they resonate with popular desires and understandings.
It is insufficient to simply deconstruct these ahistorical myths. We need to understand why they are so powerful, persuasive and pervasive. — Steven Robins