One man’s religion…
Drew Forrest’s article “Was Jesus the first socialist?” (April 5) misrepresents and undermines Christianity and the Bible in a manner that lays bare his scepticism of the religion. He consistently veers from the central subject of investigating “where Jesus might stand on today’s political spectrum” to criticise statements made by Paul, as well as various views held by present-day Christians.
Forrest contrasts the influence of Jesus’s teachings on the political left’s ideology with that of right-wingers, ostensibly to produce a well-rounded article. A good intention, but in so doing, he resorts to exaggerated language and irrelevant assertions to convey the thrust of his argument — that the “pathological” Paul is at the heart of conservatism and American fundamentalism.
Forrest also makes a number of mistakes, such as the claim that modern Christians understand Christ’s crucifixion as “an archetypal tragedy of persecuted innocence”. This simplistic statement ignores the fact that Christ was indeed a “blood sacrifice”. He was innocent of the accusations made against him, but for humanity to be redeemed of sin in order that God’s grace be made open to every person, Jesus had to be given up as God’s own sacrifice, just as in the Old Testament a lamb had to be killed to cleanse a man of his sins.
Furthermore, Jesus did not predict that the apostles would see the coming of Christ’s Kingdom in their lifetimes. Theologians have interpreted this verse (Mt 16:28) as referring either to Christ’s later transfiguration or the growth of the Church after Jesus’s ascension.
Forrest argues that far-right politicians have appropriated the Bible to promote their own agenda. He, however, does nothing less when he looks at verses from the Bible and Paul’s statements, interprets them out of context, and presents them to the reader as truth. — Duncan Scott, Cape Town
Instead of a well-reasoned discussion of Hugo Chà vez’s hijacking of Jesus as “the greatest socialist in history”, Forrest gets on his hobby-horse and vents invective against “right-wing Christian fundamentalists” and especially the apostle Paul.
Forrest conveniently rejects bits of the Bible with which he doesn’t agree, and punts what few bits he can agree with, albeit with a complete deviation from accepted Christian doctrine.
Forrest is apparently ignorant of how the Passover foreshadowed the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God. Jesus said that he gave up his life as a ransom, that is to redeem us from slavery to sin and death, and that his blood would be shed for the forgiveness of sins. So much for an “archetypal tragedy of persecuted innocence”.
Jesus Christ never condoned sin, but offers forgiveness, healing and deliverance from bondage to it — that is the grace of the Living God. Grace does not mean carte blanche to carry on doing whatever we want and get off scot-free. — Eleanor Poulter, Durban
The article “The Sufis whirl into the world of politics” (April 5) gives a misleading impression of Sufism.
It is true that Sufism is a path of submission and that there are many variations of this path. There are few Sufis who withdraw into asceticism and very few who practice flagellation or whirling.
Just as with any spiritual path, there are many self-declared adherents of Sufism who, rather than practising submission to Allah, submit to their own “nafs ammarah” (small ego or commanding self). A true sheikh is a guide who points the way so a mureed can find his or her own mystical path toward the One. Loyalty to an authoritarian sheikh and blind tribalism are antithetical to the ideals of Sufism.
Another of the ideals of Sufism is to learn to be in this world but not of it. Each of us, as a representative of the Divine, needs to discern his or her path. There is no one correct lifestyle path. Recognition of this diversity is yet another ideal of Sufism. The ideal of Unity in Allah does not mean there needs to be uniformity in life. Yet we need to learn to constantly be aware of our Unity in Allah so all of our thoughts, feelings and actions can be informed through that awareness. — Carl Karasti
It’s not about the money
The government’s suggested revision of salary structures is not the solution to the problem of retaining scarce (engineering) skills (“Tossing the grey shoes”, March 30).
Policymakers must realise it is not the pull of the private sector that makes engineers leave government, but the push of transformation policies and ill-conceived restructurings.
The government department I work for underwent a restructuring two years ago. Due to the disgruntlement about transfers and general mismanagement, many experienced professionals left. The situation wasn’t helped by the fact that the head of department was unhappy with the racial composition of the scarce skills holders (primarily whites and Indians) and did little to retain their skills.
Of the 14 engineers and technicians who worked in our section, eight have left — five to the private sector, two to other state departments and one retired. Only one left because she was offered a better package. Those who chose the private sector did so out of frustration, because they did not feel welcome.
The lesson for policymakers is this: if you want to retain scarce skills, restructure responsibly and don’t look at the colour of the skin. You would be surprised how many whites and Indians will happily accept those perceived “uncompetitive” packages as long as they feel appreciated. — Robert de Neef, Howick
Wie sal ons nou lei? Nie Antjie nie
The fact that Antjie Krog once purported to be an Afrikaans poet but has now become a kind of anti-Afrikaner propagandist does not qualify her to speak on our behalf, nor can her extremist views be taken seriously (“De la Rey: Afrikaner absolution”, March 30). To see the De la Rey song as a sign of the quest for a new identity by “the children of Nazis” is ludicrous.
The notion that racial segregation can be assimilated to Nazism or genocide is absurd. Afrikaners would compare the English to Nazis on account of their concentration camp policies a hundred years ago, rather than themselves.
Again, their present experience of farm murders, discrimination, name changes and so on have persuaded them that the ANC regime is far closer to the tradition of 20th-century totalitarianism as exemplified by Hitler or Stalin than they ever were.
Krog should get it into her head that Verwoerd built schools and houses for black people when he was still minister of bantu affairs in the 1950s; he did not gas them, send them to camps in Siberia or have them massacred and buried in mass graves.
The popularity of De la Rey points to a strengthening of the Afrikaner identity and resolve to resist what has become tantamount to the second ethnic cleansing of the Afrikaner from South Africa. The interesting question is what form that resistance will ultimately take and whether South Africa as en entity will survive the Afrikaner struggle against this current domination that must rank as one of the most blatant and extreme in the world today. — Dan Roodt
Dear John …
John Matshikiza’s “Latin” is no better than his attempts at “Chinese”. In “An artful life is lost, Lindelani” (March 30), he ruins the classical quotation “ars longa, vita brevis” by tacking on to it a superfluous “est”. His earlier stab at Mandarin ran: “Gong qi fa chai” (Happy Year of the Pig). Not quite: Gongxi facai means “Happiness and fortune to all”. Perhaps Matshikiza should just stick with English. — A Leong, Pretoria
Matshikiza’s article “Sleaze: strictly for ‘Chinese'” (February 23) was not bitter and resentful. It was clearly put and I love his practical hint: that black people go visit the massage parlour and, yes, confront racism in a non-violent way. — Irene Friedland
Matshikiza’s experience at the massage parlour relates to similar racist experiences my friends had at a Cape Town night club. I want to take Matshikiza’s advice and do the silent protest, with crowds of black people arriving one evening to jam there. Cape Town is very backward, but this could bring us forward. Thanks for the inspiration. — Fiona Milanese
I cannot believe the international flavours of flak Matshikiza is picking up for a hypothetical backlash leading from the story about the bigoted brothel!
Being a member of a minority ethnic group in the smarties bag of South African racial politik myself, I feel strongly about the often distrusted social standing of minorities and the ease with which a pigeon hole is assigned to them.
Conversely, I see the dry irony of the universal equaliser having no weight in a massage parlour combining well with the sardonic sidelining of a continent’s indigenous population by immigrants, as ingredients for an article that I’d most definitely want to read.
I understand the Chinese community to be rather insular, and it’s not something I begrudge them, but let’s not shift goalposts in dealing with this brothel’s actual standing versus the indignation, of a patron having his “right of admission” soundly reserved for no reason other than his skin colour. It wasn’t fair. It was a prejudice.
He just happened to have a weekly column at his disposal and not a seething chain mail to friends. Build a wall around something and in no time people will peek over to see why.
The linguistically, culturally and, apparently, recreationally exclusive immigrant Chinese community should dig deeper and find another clothes peg. — Kiran Reddy, Illovo
As much as I have appreciated Matshikiza’s comments in the past, this time round (“Die Bokke: another broken record”, March 23) they are socially immature.
Only a man of racially impaired vision would place the De la Rey song at the centre of the proverbial “racial divide”. The only thing fostered by the song is a sense of belonging and bemoaned longing for a time of visible leadership among the Afrikaner people. A call for war, doubtable; a call for leadership, obviously. It has nothing to do with empowerment, my African brother, it has to do with identity.
Bringing the Boeremag into the equation is not only offensive but narrow-minded, for the same reason that the word “African” in ANC and PAC does not automatically dictate representation of all who call themselves Africans.
How presumptuous to believe an Afrikaans-speaking mercenary’s arrest equates to a Boer-led coup d’état.
This would speak of a Boer afraid of nothing. When intact, we are afraid. Afraid of the landslide of moral degeneration of our nation as evident in the lawlessness that plagues us in every sphere of society.
How open-minded of you to agree with not banning the song! Open-minded, that is, until one reads the “but” that follows. There is no “but” after freedom of speech, or any other freedom. As a previously disadvantaged South African, you should know that better than us Boers. — Marius Oosthuizen
In brief
Butana Komphela’s ignorance could take our sports teams back to the bad old days of isolation (“We will take Springboks’ passports!”, April 5). Our apartheid-era teams were banned because the International Olympic Committee insisted that there be no government interference in sport and that national teams be selected on merit. This, and not the apartheid policy as such, was the only criterion. They said on numerous occasions that they could not interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state. If they are consistent and principled, given the interference and insistence on quotas from the ANC government, they should expel our teams from international competition. — Ian Jayes, Vereeniging
I refer to the letter signed by 18 Jews rejecting Israel’s violations of international law (March 30). Well intended as it may be, the letter contains inaccuracies that cannot be adequately addressed in the space of a letter to the editor. I have therefore replied in detail on my website (http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/id119.html). I trust that, in the interests of journalistic integrity, you will publish this letter for the benefit of your readers interested in critical evaluation of what they read. — Maurice Ostroff, Israel
You make sure Madam & Eve stays in the Mail & Guardian or I cancel my subscription (maybe, well perhaps not, but I’m thinking about it!). Remember I know where you live! — Paul Hardingham