Politics of polyvalence
Vusi Mona (”Pastor’ Zuma vs Rev Dandala”, March 20), like Pastor Ray McCauley, misses the point by making the debate about those Christians who, according to them, believe God is too dainty for the rough and tumble of politics. This charge is misguided. Mona knows that the majority of Christians cannot be characterised in this way, not in the past 20 years anyway.
The question, however, is different when coming to a church as an institution being ‘involved” in ‘politics”. By inviting Jacob Zuma, the president of a political party, to speak, which it has the right to do, Rhema Church has entered the political fray and must deal with the heat or get out of the proverbial kitchen.
There is a rich history of individuals belonging to different parties who, drawing on and being inspired by their Judeo-Christian background and heritage, involved themselves in politics. The ANC is not unique in this regard. If this is the basis for invitations, then in this election period Rhema should be inviting all political leaders to share its pulpit.
Second, with respect, Mona is naive. No amount of invitations to church services, teas, lunches or dinners with Zuma will make any difference to state positions on abortion, same-sex marriages, and so on. Some were excited when Zuma made noises about the death penalty. What has come of that? It is still just a soundbite. Zuma is an individual in a collective that decides on policy.
Third, Rhema can hardly be surprised if its actions are questioned. It would appear that the church did not take account of its context: the country is in the middle of getting ready for an election; Zuma and the ANC are dealing with a number of challenges both morally and legally.
Finally, the God who is not shy of getting his hands dirty politically is the same God who said: ‘Behold I send you out as sheep among wolves, be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” — Charles Dickson, Cape Town
Few Christians lift an eyebrow because Zuma attends and addresses a church gathering. Maybe Mona and Nixon Kariithi (‘Best guest”, March 20) are too young to realise that he is following in the illustrious footsteps of PW Botha and FW de Klerk. They were past masters of ‘the crafty politician at work” (Mona). They even went to the independent churches Mona correctly says are the real bearers of Christian influence, attending the huge Easter celebrations at Zion City Moria.
Kariithi says the real issue was forgiveness, not Zuma (the sub-editor even picked it up in the sub-heading). Mona, on the contrary, says that the main issue was Zuma the crafty politician (much more crafty than Mvume Dandala, Kenneth Meshoe and the rest) at work. The Rhema member and the Rhema spokesperson are at odds here — or is Mona’s slip showing?
Please let us debate the real issue: the complete breakdown of morality in South Africa and the subsequent need to settle moral issues via ‘political solutions”. No number of visits by Zuma, Dandala, Meshoe or Helen Zille to churches will change this. — Willem Saayman, Pretoria
Nowhere does Kariithi mention Zuma asking for forgiveness during his ‘guest slot” at Rhema. My understanding of Christianity is that you have to face up to your sins and part of forgiveness is acknowledging them. I’m not sure forgiveness can be proferred where none has been asked for. Also, Kariithi talks of Zuma ‘reading from a prepared statement”. Prepared by who? What Kariithi is getting all lyrical about isn’t reality, it’s a cynically projected illusion. — Jim Cathels
‘Pastors” McCauley and Zuma both have a taste for multiple wives. The difference is that while the latter keeps them, commits adultery and cheats on them, the former at least divorces his prior to taking another.
Both head organisations that result in their enjoying opulent lifestyles. One appears to derive his generous income from his flock. The other seems incapable of living on his salary, with shortfalls made good by generous gifts. — Patrick R Tidman, Durban
As a professor of journalism and a religious man, Kariithi should know the difference between ‘alter” and ‘altar”. — Christopher Buckle
I wonder if Rhema church leaders interpret Matthew 5:10 as ‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after power, position, riches, popularity — and cover up wrongdoing”? And do the ANC leaders who say God favours them ever read: ‘Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts” (Amos 5:15)? — Joan Kerchhoff, Pietermaritzburg
Vote to win — what?
Mathew Blatchford’s criticism of the DA’s election posters (Letters, March 20) was so weak that it should have been printed on a stretcher. It proves there are still a lot of greying old ANC armchair revolutionaries who have not yet moved into the modern realm of South African politics, where a party’s track record in service delivery is becoming the important issue for the voters.
‘Vote to win” is clearly an indication that the single largest opposition party in South Africa is ready to govern successfully in the interests of all the people, as they have demonstrated in Cape Town and several other municipalities in the Western Cape. This is in stark contrast with the ANC which, after 15 years in office, has only mastered the art of governing in the best interests of a closed group of well-connected people.
The DA has always believed South Africa is ‘one nation with one future” — one of the party’s slogans in the 1994 election campaign. To argue, as Blatchford does, that this is some new idea in the party is inaccurate.
South Africans will be faced with a stark choice on April 22: between the DA’s open-opportunity society and the closed-patronage society of the ANC. Spreading falsehoods about the DA’s election posters isn’t going to hide the fact that the ANC’s jobs-for-pals approach is the reason service delivery is failing and that the DA’s policy of rewarding excellence is the only way to create opportunities for all and to improve service delivery to the poorest of the poor. — Stuart Pringle, Somerset West
I must admit that the ‘Vote to Win” slogan probably doesn’t make sense until it’s properly explained, so allow me to enlighten Blatchford.
It isn’t saying ‘Vote for the DA so that it can win a majority in the national ballot”; that prospect is still some years away. The slogan is actually saying three things:
It’s freedom of movement at UKZN
The article published under inaccurate headline ‘Crush at UKZN’s exits” (March 13) refers to the ‘persona non grata” list as described in an internal University of KwaZulu-Natal communication. Persona non grata refers specifically to persons dismissed by the university or persons who resign in contemplation of dismissal either before or during disciplinary proceedings. It does not refer to staff members who resign in the normal course. With regard to the former, the university, like any other organisation, has no interest in entering into a further employment relationship with a person who has been dismissed, particularly for serious misconduct. Persons who resign in contemplation of dismissal or who enter into settlement agreements during disciplinary action are advised that they will not be re-employed by the university. In most cases settlement agreements contain specific clauses to this effect.
The article referred to perceived high turnover rates in particular faculties and a spurious attempt was made to link the two issues. The issue of re-employing persons previously dismissed or who resigned under a cloud has no bearing on retention of staff. The university has no policy precluding the re-employment of persons who have resigned in the normal course. In fact, every attempt is made to retain our highly skilled and productive staff.
During 2008 a total of 161 permanent staff members resigned, of which 73 were academic (M&G‘s figures are incorrect). This out of about 5 000 staff at UKZN.
The article also alluded to apparent retention problems in the faculty of humanities, development and social sciences. There have been no academic resignations in this faculty since the beginning of 2009. Staff now serving notice periods resigned in 2008. During 2008, there were 15 resignations by academic staff in the faculty. The reason most frequently cited by persons who resigned is personal, but others have left for other universities because of higher pay offers — not unusual in a competitive higher-education landscape where skills are scarce.
Globally and at UKZN academics continue to exercise their academic freedom, freedom of association and the right to choose how and where to advance their careers. Such freedom does not mean a ‘crush at the exits”. — Professor Dasarath Chetty, pro-vice-chancellor: corporate relations, University of KwaZulu-Natal
We’ve lost the moral high ground
The government has denied the Dalai Lama entry to the country on the grounds that his presence will detract attention away from the 2010 World Cup.
First, attention has been very effectively drawn away from the World Cup by the banning of the Dalai Lama.
Second, when the ANC was in exile it conducted the struggle to achieve independence for South Africa. The Dalai Lama is also struggling for independence for his country, yet the ANC government denies any support for his legitimate struggle. Remember the circumstances of the Chinese invasion of sovereign Tibet?
Third, the promises of Chinese investment in this country are the root cause of the banning. Even the Chinese admit that they requested such a banning. The ANC goes on about Western colonialism and the detrimental effects that it had. Yet now we have it aiding Chinese colonialism.
I do not think our government is up to the task of dealing with Chinese colonialism. Its thinking is too short term and blinkered by thoughts of wealth. Desmond Tutu is right. We need to support the archbishop in his attempts to get South Africa back on to the moral high ground, which we appear to have lost so comprehensively. — Richard R Hawkins, Pietermaritzburg
A wider choice
Nikiwe Bikitsha’s ‘The second wife’s wedding” (March 20) is a biased comment on polygamy and its effects. What is inherently wrong with polygamy? If consenting adults want to be part of a polygamous relationship, whose business is it to condemn them?
Some argue that polygamy has more benefits for those involved because it is premised on honesty: all the stakeholders know each other. This can hardly be said about extramarital affairs, which condemn those being cheated on to a false sense of security.
Thankfully, polygamy is legal, allowing citizens a wider choice when seeking longlasting commitments.
Bikitsha’s insular approach fails to bring out the necessary nuances material to a sound intellectual engagement. — Khulani Qoma, Centurion
In brief
I am so glad that the ANC is able finally to understand and empathise with the positions of Thatcher and Reagan. In exile we worked around the clock to get the UK and US governments to impose sanctions against the apartheid regime. We were under the illusion that ethical issues were universal. Now, thanks to our government, we realise that they aren’t, and that what was sauce for Mandela’s release from prison is not for Aung San Suu Kyii’s release in Burma or the entry of the Dalai Lama to a free South Africa. — Barbara Harmel
As a South African devoted to nation-building and peace, I wish to express my outrage at the fact that the South African government refused to grant a visa to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, to enable him to attend a conference on racism. — Denise Peters
I’d like to suggest that the Pope return to the matter of sexual abstinence for Africans after he has got his priests to abstain from sex with our children. — Gregory Greene
I would have nothing but contempt for a God who would expect a mother to be infected by her HIV-positive husband just because he disapproved of birth control. — Kevin Charleston, Kenilworth