SA's Morality debate....

(1/14) > >>

Faerie (February 26, 2010, 08:47:05 AM):

Rhema's McCauley, former bouncer with a criminal record, twice divorced, married to a former prositute and our esteemed leader, a polygamist with 20 children (a percentage of which is illigitimate) will now lead this country in a morality debate? How much weirder can this world become than this?

McCauley, ANC links to morality debate
2010-02-25 23:12
Cape Town - The debate about a moral code for South Africa which was initiated by President Jacob Zuma will probably be driven by an interfaith group with strong ties to the ANC, but in which none of the country's foremost religious forums are represented.

In church circles this development has been labelled a serious danger to relations between church and state.

Die Burger heard from a reliable source on Wednesday that the National Interfaith Leadership Council (NILC), which was convened last year by pastor Ray McCauley of the Rhema church, may be asked to co-ordinate Zuma's proposed discussions on morality.

The NILC was established in July last year as an organisation consisting of over 20 senior leaders from various religious groups, but upon closer inspection it appears as if none of the foremost religious forums - such as the South African Council of Churches (SACC), the Muslim Judicial Council (MJC) or the Jewish Board of Deputies - were approached to join the NILC,_ANC_links_to_morality_debate_

GCG (February 26, 2010, 09:13:31 AM):
StevoMuso (February 26, 2010, 13:33:15 PM):
Combining church and state has always been a huge problem. We are in serious shit if these idiots start trying to formulate a moral code for SA. My view is that religion removes one's ability to be truly moral. Morality should be a social skill rather than a religious duty. Religion has failed to produce a moral society and will continue to do so.

Mind you ... this so-called 'moral code' will most probably have zero effect on the average citizen, so we may not be in so much shit after all.

And another thing: it is only religious people who feel the need to formulate "codes of morality". Normal people (like us, hehe) are quite capable of making our own moral choices based on sound reasoning and skills necessary for survival as a social species. In fact, I think it is down-right insulting for these people to dare suggest they can make a moral code that no-one else is capable of making on their own. I cannot think of anything more arrogant and presumptuous.
Mefiante (March 01, 2010, 16:47:34 PM):
The underlying and unquestioned assumption, of course, is that religious figureheads are paragons of virtue and society’s moral guardians. If anyone prominently shows this to be a misguided notion then it is Ray McCauley. It will be a travesty of human goodness if he gets meaningfully to add his views to the debate, quite apart from the obviously great difficulty of reconciling assorted religious and cultural takes on morality. It seems almost certain that it will be impossible to generate a moral code that does not tread on at least some religious and/or cultural toes. More importantly, SA is supposed to be a secular state with a secular constitution that embraces a secular morality. This proposal looks suspiciously like an attempt to insert a religious wedge into the present arrangement. The Constitutional Court will very likely reject any attempt to enact such a code in legislation, which would be the only way to enforce it.

StevoMuso (March 01, 2010, 21:00:03 PM):
The Constitutional Court will very likely reject any attempt to enact such a code in legislation, which would be the only way to enforce it.

Let's hope so. I cannot believe the cheek and audacity of these arrogant idiots >:(


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page