LW
Die beskikbare inligting oor politieke debat word sonder kommentaar ter inligting hier beskikbaar gemaak.
CVO en COF is NIE geassosieer met enige politieke party NIE.
INHOUD:
Uit min Asmal se begrotingstoespraak
ANDER INLIGTING OOR VOORGESTELDE GODSDIENSBELEID
Regsmening oor 'gewysigde' voorgestelde godsdiensbeleid
ACDP standpunt volg:
* * * * *
20 May 2003
I wish to use the little time at my disposal to respond to the Minister and the Department of Education's new proposed policy on Religion Education.
The ACDP believes that school governing bodies reserve the right to choose (based on a majority decision), the type of religious ethos at that particular school. The choices may include: a single faith, a multi-faith, similar to that proposed by the policy document on Religion Education, a secular faith as promoted by secular governments or no Religion Education classes at all.
We agree with the idea that religion can help address the "decline in moral standards in our country, the high rates of crime, and the apparent lack of respect for human life."
We believe the notion that religious instruction is necessary if schools are to develop "the whole person", including their spirituality is correct and we agree with the notion that religion goes beyond the confines of a church building and impacts on every area of life, acting as a philosophical or theological foundation for all of reality.
The ACDP fundamentally disagrees with the present government's notion that schools are an "extension of the state". This presupposition is very dangerous, as it opens all children who happen to also be the country's future voters, to exploitation and indoctrination into a secularism that is consistent with that adopted by a self-proclaimed "secular state". Schools are NOT an extension of the state; schools are an extension of the family.
Parents have and raise children, not the state, and the responsibility rests on parents to send their children to schools. Schools are to be an extension of the values taught in the home and should not contradict them. To do otherwise, the state would be forcing a wedge between the family and the child through the agency of the "public school".
Any attempt by the state to limit this freedom would be an undue interference on the part of the state. It would be discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional on the part of the state to disallow parents (and the religious community) to have access and input to their children during school and school hours. To ask parents to send their children to school to be indoctrinated into another religion (such as secular humanism) and then remove their right and power to intervene is unacceptable.
Presently, our government allows ministers of religion to visit prisons (which are state institutions) to minister to prisoners. Not only are they allowed to preach and teach in prisons, but they are also allowed to proselytise. Similarly, in our Defence Force, ministers of Religion are allowed to preach and teach from the Bible.
However, it is now the intention of the Minister of Education to ban prayer, religious singing, and devotional scripture reading from school assemblies in the name of freedom of religion.
The Minister preaches tolerance, but practises bigotry. If the School Governing Body has accepted a particular religious culture for a particular school, why is the Minister adopting a top down approach to force all schools to accept his format of a weekly assembly, and uniformity in terms of multi-faith prayer and teaching?
The ACDP will never accept these restrictions placed on school assemblies and we call on all parents and teachers to stand by their convictions on this issue.
The department's recent statement to prevent school governing bodies from employing subject specialists at their schools spells disaster for education in this country. The socialist mentality that is displayed through this type of reasoning seeks to control the flow of ideas from a central source.
The Budget must be spent on improving school buildings, providing textbooks and to keep our schools safe from crime and violence. We need to spend time in evaluating our teachers to improve their performance levels. Absenteeism of learners and teachers must be contained. We need to clearout our schools of teachers and pupils who rape our children and violate their rights.
These are the issues about which government should have moral outrage. Yet these problems escalate while the 'Minister of Religion' goes about his business, targeting religion at schools, and preventing schools from their economic and social responsibility to provide the best education possible.
The ACDP will vote against the Education Budget I thank you
Louis Green
PARLEMENT ONDERWYSDEBAT VAN MIN ASMAL/ EDUCATION DEBATE/ 20/5/2003
DR PIETER MULDER, VRYHEIDSFRONT/FREEDOM FRONT.
Die ANC en min Asmal is baie krities op dr Verwoerd en die instelling van Bantoe-onderwys. Hulle hoofrede vir die kritiek is dat skole deur die staat gebruik is as instrumente om die staat se agenda op die swart bevolking af te forseer sonder dat hulle seggenskap of beheer daaroor gehad het. "Social engineering" was die kritiek. Dit was presies die kritiek van Afrikaners na die Anglo-Boere-oorlog teen Lord Milner. Hy wou die skoolstelsel gebruik om Afrikaanse kinders vir sy nasiebou oefening voor te berei. As die Minister dieselfde beoog met die skoolstelsel, is hy ook besig met social engineering en kan sy kritici met reg hom 'n Milner noem. Dit hang van hom af.
Milner wou ook Afrikaans en moedertaalonderrig vernietig. "Milner wished to ensure the dominance of the British element, politically and culturally after 1902. Therefore instruction through the Dutch language was not to be allowed in the government schools. "Dutch should only be used to teach English, and English to teach everything else." volgens Milner.
Min Asmal is op rekord waar hy hom sterk ten gunste van moedertaalonderwys uitgespreek het. Solank hy moedertaalonderrig bevorder sal die VF hom nie 'n Milner noem nie. Die feit is egter dat onderwys deur medium van Afrikaans geleidelik al dieper in die moeilikheid raak. In 1994 was daar 2 700 skole wat Afrikaans as enigste onderrigtaal gebruik het. Volgens 'n onlangse artikel in die media is daar tans slegs 310 skole, dit is 180 laer- en 130 hoërskole, wat as Afrikaanse enkelmediumskole beskryf kan word. Van 2 700 skole in 1994 het dit in 9 jaar verminder tot 310 skole. Dit beteken dat minder as die helfte van die huidige ongeveer 700 000 Afrikaanssprekende skoliere dus nog hulle onderrig in enkelmediumskole ontvang. Dit beteken nie dat die meerderheid skole in Suid-Afrika nou dubbel-medium is nie. Dit beteken dat meer as 90% van die 27 000 skole in Suid-Afrika enkelmedium Engels is. Wat 'n swak rekord vir moedertaalonderrig in 'n land met elf amptelike tale. Maar dit is ook 'n aanklag teen die ouers en verskillende taalgemeenskappe.
Die Afrikaansprekende gemeenskap het daarom ook 'n verantwoordelikheid. Daar is tans reeds 'n groot tekort aan Afrikaanssprekende onderwysers. 'n Tekort nie net in vakke soos wiskunde en natuur-en-skeikunde nie, maar ook in tale en ander vakke. Prof. Johan Beckmann, hoof van die Universiteit van Pretoria se departement onderwysbestuur, sê dat in 2010 daar 'n verwagte tekort van tot 10 000 Afrikaanse onderwysers kan wees. Dit gaan Afrikaanse skole geen ander keuse laat as om sekere vakke slegs in Engels aan te bied nie wat tot 'n verdere verswakking van Afrikaans sal lei.
How do we see the relationship between the community and the state? Where does education and a school as an institution fit in? I think this is one of the main differences between the Freedom Front and the Department of Education.
Religious people do not see their lives as being compartmentalized. You are not a Muslim only on Fridays or only at the Mosque. You are not a Christian only on Sundays. They believe that you cannot separate the two. From that perspective school and education is an extension of the parent's responsibility in raising their children. The governing body at a school thus becomes very important to make the right decisions representing the parents. Because the parents pay taxes, they see it as their money that the government makes available to the school and their right to make decisions on the ethos of the school.
From the Minister and the departments' perspective school is a government institution paid for by the state. Therefore the government may prescribe and decide how schools will be used for achieving whatever goals the government may decide on for the children.
The government's present proposals on religion are largely based on this perspective and upon Western models differentiating between state and private schools. In state schools no religion is then allowed. From this perspective parents must send their children to a private school if it is important to them that their children must attend a school with a religious ethos.
The present proposals of the Department of Education will therefore force parents, who prefer a specific religious approach, to send their children to private schools. This will be discriminating and unfair because these parents will then have to pay twice. They will have to pay taxes for government's education, which they will not make use of, as well as school funds for private schools. Most cannot afford this.
The Freedom Front proposes that the government could solve the problem of religion in schools by having a complete new approach towards education. Why don't we look at some other models in an effort to solve the problem to everybody's satisfaction? Be less prescriptive. Give more choices, not less.
The Dutch or Indian models, as examples, may prove to have better solutions for the problem. For peace and harmony in a diverse society you need accommodation - not forced assimilation or prescribed solutions. Wasn't that part of the problem with Bantu education?
The present indignant reaction of religious groups in South Africa was to be expected. If you compare South Africa to countries like Ireland or the Middle East, we have very little religious conflict and strife. As far as religion goes, South Africans can be described as tolerant. Against this background the question - do we really at this moment need new models for religion in schools? In Afrikaans there is the saying: "Moet nie krap waar dit nie juk nie" Do not scratch where it does not itch. The Ministers proposals already lead to emotional student marches and communities planning to go to court over this issue. Surely there are many other important priorities in South Africa that need our attention and energy at this moment.
Although the Dutch model is complicated it can be simplified to the following: The government calculates how much of the government's budget for education is spend on each pupil. The child and his parents may choose the school that the child would prefer to attend. The relevant amount is then paid over to the particular school. In this way Muslim, Greek, Jewish or Christian schools, each with its own ethos, are maintained without any problems. But parents may also choose a school with no religious ethos or the minister's present proposal of and inter-faith ethos.
In India their constitution (Section 30) makes it possible for every religious and linguistic group to have its own school. The heading of Section 30 reads: Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.-
"(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
"(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language"
BUDGET VOTE EDUCATION: 20.5.2003
Cassie Aucamp (National Action)
Madam speaker, hon minister,
The whole educational scene in South Africa has recently been dominated by one major issue: religion in education. And one could clearly see: this massive reaction made the hon minister look and feel like a punch-drunk boxer receiving the one blow after another from a source he never expected.
Let it be no surprise: South Africans are serious about two things: their children and their religion. And to bother with both of them on the same time, then, as we say in Afrikaans: dan speel jy op AVBOB se stoep.
I want to take as point of departure for my contribution to this debate something that happened yesterday: the start of the Boeremag trial. What is the connection? you may ask. Sir: the actions of those people are the result of but one thing: extreme and fanatic religious radicalism and intolerance. And you know what? They are a marginalized little group on the outskirts of society. Standing alone. May be with a lot of pity, but no support.
Why? Hon minister, because South Africans, throughout the religious spectrum, are not religious fanatics. SA has a proud history of religious tolerance. During all the years of conflict and struggle, we did not even have a glimpse of religious uproar or struggle against religious oppression whatsoever.
Yes, you may argue: white churches supported apartheid. But I know and you know that this was more of a back dated attempt to justify it, than any initiating stimulus to apartheid at all.
Hon minister: the National Action appeals to you: don't come and disturb the tranquil waters of the religious ocean of South Africa. Don't allow education to become an instrument through which the peaceful way in which different denominations and even different faiths have co-existed in SA, become stirred up and messed up.
Hon minister, the NA have some serious questions regarding the Department's policy on religion in schools:
1. Consultation:
You met with various religious leaders, but the most important stakeholders, viz governing bodies, have not been included. In terms of SASA, it is the governing bodies who must develop policies on religious observances and mission statements for schools, not religious leaders. A structure, the Consultative Forum, was established in 1999 to deal specifically with issues affecting governing bodies. Despite the existence of this forum, the issue of a policy for religion in education has never been raised there.
How is it possible that the very ones affected are not consulted?
2. Your basic assumption:
A vital question arises: can any panel beating be usefully done to a policy and a document of which the basic assumption is wrong? The basic assumption that the school is an instrument of state.
State support to non-state collectivities - such as public schools - does not convert such non-political entities into state-organs or internal parts of the state, as it is incorrectly affirmed in the published policy on Religion in Education.
Here we have a vital difference in point of departure: hon minister: is a public school an organ of state or an organ of civil society, supported by the state? If it is an organ of state, how on earth can it be a separate judicial person as it lawfully is?
3. You come with the argument: religion and religious education is the task of the home and the church. We agree to a certain extent. But, hon. minister: isn't that the case with basic feeding and clothing of children: surely it's the responsibility of the home. But what do you do when you see the reality of thousands of hungry children at school? Do you say sorry son, dis jou pa se werk om vir jou kos te gee? No: you hon minister, have started a national feeding scheme of millions of Rands.
But sir, when it comes to little children starving for the bread of life because of disrupted families, absent parents, you give the order: hands off! Don't feed this child. Dis sy pa se werk.! And dominee; this school ground belongs to the state, it is out of bounds for you. If you don't see this child on Sunday, well: hard lines for you and for him. What inconsistency!
4.The NA acknowledges the fact that there must be order and authority. But why take away this authority from the instruments created by the very community, statutory bodies, the SGB's. We are in favor of order, stability and authority: but: not centralized state authority. Rather decentralized community authority. A few guidelines, based on the Constitution, would be sufficient.
5.Die futile distinction between religious education and religion education is the Achilles heel of the new plan. Die verskillende godsdienste van die wêreld moet op 'n ry uitgepak word. Tussen die spyskaart van verskillende godsdienste sal daar ook iewers "Christendom" staan. Reeds in die junior-primêre fase moet leerlinge "die meer tasbare vorme van godsdiens eksploreer soos gevind in kerke, moskees,sinagoges en tempels". In die primêre fase moet "stories, liedere, heilige plekke, rituele en feeste van verskillende godsdienste" bestudeer word.
Die basies-humanistiese dwaling is dat "God" uit "godsdiens" gehaal kan word, en laasgenoemde dan soos 'n kadawer oopgesny en gedissekteer kan word.
U basiese fout in die uitgangspunt is die waan dat daar iets soos godsdienstige neutraliteit bestaan. Meneer: neutraliteit is reeds 'n vertrekpunt, net nie so eerlik soos die ander wat nie skaam is om sy vaandel te wys nie.
Meneer, jy saal 'n perd op wat jy nie gery gaan kry nie.
Ek voorspel 'n golf van lydelike verset. Ouers, onderwysers, kinders, are not going to march like in 1976, to be shot down. No, it will be more like the defiance campaign. And it would not even be organized. It will be a matter of personal conviction.
Are you going to fire the grade 1 teacher who refuses to expose little children to rituals of other religions? Or the grade 4 teacher who shows them Table Mountain and says: How wonderful are the works of Thy creation!?
Are you going to fail the thousands of excellent pupils whose parents say: my child is not going to write this syncretistic subject? Are you going discipline the headmaster just because he said: Seuns en dogters, ons verwelkom vanoggend vir dominee so en so……..
Hon minister, please: if something is not broken, don't try to fix it.
Quote from Asmal's budget speech:
"We can rejoice in the wonderful diversity of our nation while at the same time also celebrating our unity and pursuit for nation-building. Our draft policy on religion in education is such a case, where people have confused an attempt to promote nation building in the school context with an attack on religious freedom and diversity. It is not the case that we are expelling or banning religion from schools - in fact we are advocating the strengthening and recognition of the role of religion in education.
"In so doing we are providing proper policy and guidelines on the three aspects involved, education about religions of the world particularly those practised in South Africa, religious instruction in a particular religious denomination and religious observance in schools. On Monday I will be meeting the National Forum of Religious leaders to discuss the draft policy with them and to seek their views on how we best fulfil our Constitutional obligations."
The complete speech is at:
http://education.pwv.gov.za/Media/speeches%202003/may2003/Budget.htm
*********
ANDER INLIGTING OOR VOORGESTELDE GODSDIENSBELEID:
"Die jongste weergawe van die onderwysminister se beoogde godsdiensbeleid word geheim gehou, en net versprei aan lede van die presidensiële adviesraad van godsdiensleiers.
Volgens aanvanklike mediaberigte is hierdie geheime weergawe 'n groot verbetering op die vorige een.
Hieronder volg egter 'n regsmening oor die dokument deur Prof Rassie Malherbe van die Regsfakulteit van RAU.
Daaruit blyk dit dat ook hierdie geheime weergawe eintlik geen verbetering is op die vorige bepalings nie, maar dat dit net probeer om godsdiensleiers heuning om die mond te smeer.
Mens kan verstaan waarom die onderwysminister dit nie aan openbare kritiek wil blootstel nie, en sy uiterste bes probeer om dit deur die beleidsprosesse te smokkel sonder dat die publiek die kans kry om dit te bestudeer."
Regsmening: DIE REGERING SE BELEID OOR GODSDIENS IN DIE SKOLE
RASSIE MALHERBE
15 MEI 2003
A. UITGANGSPUNTE
1. Daar is 'n wanopvatting dat die Grondwet mense se regte nie effektief beskerm nie. In der waarheid bevat die Grondwet afdwingbare regsreëls.
2. Die Grondwet is trouens die hoogste reg van die Republiek. Die implikasies is: (i) Almal, ook die Regering, is ondergeskik aan die Grondwet. (ii) Elke wet, beleid en optrede wat strydig is met die Grondwet is ongeldig. (iii) Die howe het die gesag om sulke wette en optrede ongeldig te verklaar.
3. Daar is egter 'n nuwe demokratiese kultuur nodig: elke burger moet self verantwoordelikheid neem om toe te sien dat die Grondwet nagekom word.
4. Daar is verskillende wettige, ordelike en demokratiese aksies moontlik om iets wat die Regering doen, teen te staan - by die stembus, deur middel van die vrye pers, deur mobilisering en vertoë deur drukgroepe en vrywillige organisasies, maar ook uiteindelik deur 'n hofaansoek.
5. Godsdiensvryheid word in die Grondwet gewaarborg as 'n basiese reg van elke mens (a 15(1)).
6. Godsdiensvryheid sluit die uitlewing van godsdiens op enige plek in. A 15(2) bevestig dit uitdruklik deur te bepaal dat godsdiens in staats- of staatsondersteunde instellings, soos openbare skole, beoefen mag word.
7. Enige aantasting van hierdie reg is ongeldig, tensy dit voldoen aan a 36 van die Grondwet, wat die vereistes stel vir wettige beperkings op regte.
8. Die beperking moet dus redelik en regverdigbaar wees in 'n oop en demokratiese samelewing gebaseer op menswaardigheid, gelykheid en vryheid. Die beperking wat deur die Regering se godsdiensbeleid op hierdie reg
geplaas word, kan nie ingevolge a 36 geregverdig word nie.
B. ARTIKEL 15(2)
1. Artikel 15(2) bepaal dat godsdiensbeoefening mag plaasvind in staats- en staatsondersteunde instellings, mits (i) dit geskied volgens reëls neergelê deur die tersake gesag (volgens die SA Skolewet is dit die beheerliggaam), (ii) dit op 'n billike grondslag geskied, en (iii) die bywoning daarvan vry en vrywillig is.
2. A 15(2) bevestig daardie element van godsdiensvryheid in a 15(1) wat op die uitlewing daarvan betrekking het.
3. Die doel van a 15(2) is om die status quo in verband met die uitlewing van godsdiens in skole en elders te beskerm, maar om onbillike diskriminasie teenoor minderhede te voorkom - daarom moet die godsdiensbeoefening billik, vry en vrywillig wees.
4. Saamgelees met a 15(1), mag daar voortgegaan word met godsdiensonderrig in skole en mag skole 'n bepaalde godsdienstige etos hê, solank daar nie teen minderhede in die skool gediskrimineer word nie.
5. Die Konstitusionele Hof het in twee uitsprake bevestig dat daar in Suid-Afrika nie soos in die VSA 'n "strict wall of separation" tussen staat en kerk is wat in daardie land daartoe gelei het dat godsdiens heeltemal uit skole verban is nie. A 15(2) bevestig dit.
6. Die staat het 'n plig om die regte in die Grondwet te eerbiedig, te beskerm, te bevorder en te verwesenlik (a 7(2)). Die staat moet dus eerder ruimte vir godsdiensbeoefening skep en nie die geleentheid daartoe verder beperk nie.
7. A 15(2) sê eintlik dat al mag dit in bepaalde gevalle moeilik wees, moet sinvolle, praktiese maniere gevind word om a 15(2) toe te pas. A 15(2) laat nie toe dat alle godsdiens dan maar by die venster uitgegooi word omdat dit moeilik is om aan die voorwaardes van a 15(2) te voldoen nie.
8. A 15(2) daag ons uit om in ons multi-godsdienstige samelewing verdraagsaam te wees en om ruimte vir mekaar te maak.
9. A 15(2) is duidelik genoeg: die toepassing daarvan behoort daarom aan skole oorgelaat te word en die Regering behoort net toe te sien dat hulle nie in die proses diskrimineer nie.
C. REGERINGSBELEID
1. Hier is hoofsaaklik twee sake ter sprake: "religion education" en "religious observances".
2. "Religion education" is 'n saak waaroor geestelikes en opvoedkundiges standpunt behoort in te neem, maar uit 'n regsoogpunt kan enkele opmerkings gemaak word.
3. Die inhoud en aanbieding van "religion education" mag nie strydig wees met die reg op godsdiensvryheid nie.
4. Dit mag godsdiens, of spesifieke mense se godsdiensgevoelens, dus nie aanstoot gee, verkleineer, bevoor- of benadeel nie, of neutraliteit teenoor of vermenging van godsdiens aanmoedig nie.
5. Dit moet vrywillig wees en leerders mag vrygestel word op grond van gewetensbesware.
6. "Religion education" mag nie vanuit 'n spesifieke staatsbepaalde perspektief aangebied word nie.
7. Daar mag nie gekeer word dat die individu "religion education" vanuit sy/haar eie perspektief bestudeer of beoordeel nie, tensy dit haat of vooroordeel bevorder.
8. Wat "religious observances" betref, probeer die beleid klaarblyklik om dit uit skole te verban. Dit begin daarby om eerstens te verklaar dat skole 'n verlengstuk van die staat is (wat ignoreer dat skole eweseer 'n verlengstuk van die samelewing is). Tweedens word dan verklaar dat godsdiens 'n saak vir ouers en kerke is en nie vir skole nie. Daarvandaan is dit maklik om aan te voer dat daar derdens nie in skole ruimte vir godsdiensbeoefening is nie.
9. Die beleid skep die indruk dat godsdiensbeoefening in die weg staan van die waardes wat die beleid wil bevorder, naamlik billikheid, verdraagsaamheid, verskeidenheid, openheid, aanspreeklikheid, en wedersydse respek.
10. 'n Mens kan vra wat is so inherent boos aan godsdiensbeoefening dat dit hierdie waardes ondermyn, of dat dit nie saam met "religion education" kan bestaan nie? Of is die vraag eerder andersom: wat word werklik beoog met "religion education" dat leerders nie daarnaas hulle godsdiens mag beoefen nie?
11. Die eerste beleidsdokument, Manifesto on Values, Education and Democracy, het verklaar dat godsdiensbeoefening net buite skoolure toegelaat mag word en dat dit net handel oor die beskikbaarstelling van fasiliteite.
Daarmee word godsdiens in 'n kompartement geplaas asof dit nie 'n invloed op die hele lewe het nie.
12. Die uitskuif van godsdiens tot buite skoolure berus op 'n totale wanvertolking van a 15(2) en is dus ongrondwetlik. Dit is volledig behandel in my artikel "The constitutionality of government policy relating to the conduct of religious observances in public schools" 2002 Tydskrif vir Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 391-418, waarin onder andere aangetoon is dat a 15(2), insoverre dit bepaal dat godsdiens-beoefening billik moet plaasvind, en dat die bywoning vry en vrywillig moet wees, op die beoefening self betrekking het en nie net op die beskikbaarstelling van fasiliteite nie.
13. In die volgende beleidsdokument, Policy: Religion in Education, is die uitdruklike verwysing na "buite skoolure" weggelaat omdat dit so blatant verkeerd is. Maar die res van die dokument is steeds onomwonde daarop gerig om godsdiensbeoefening uit skole te verban. Let op die volgende stellings in hierdie verband:
(a) "outside of the formal school curriculum" (p 11);
(b) "outside the formal activities of the school" (p 25);
(c) "not part of formal teaching or official activities of the school" (p 25);
(d) not structurally part of the official business of the public school" (p 25).
14. As hierdie stellings saamgelees word met die volgende stellings wat steeds net werk met die beskikbaarstelling van skoolfasiliteite, is dit duidelik dat daar net op een manier gevolg gegee kan word aan die beleid se oogmerke met godsdiensbeoefening en dit is dat die beoefening buite skoolure moet plaasvind:
(a) "schools can make space available" (p 10);
(b) "schools may make facilities available" (p 25);
(c) "facilities may be made available on an equitable basis to all who apply" (p 25).
15. Wat saalbyeenkomste betref, is die beleid uitgesproke daarteen dat dit 'n geleentheid vir godsdiensbeoefening mag wees. Die antwoord is egter dat as aan a 15(2) se voorwaardes voldoen word, daar geen beswaar teen godsdiensbeoefening tydens saal kan wees nie.
16. Die hele benadering wat uit die beleid straal, beteken dus net een ding: godsdiensbeoefening mag net buite skoolure plaasvind.
17. Dit is direk strydig met a 15(2) en ongrondwetlik
18. Die jongste, vertroulike, dokument stel nie hierdie saak reg nie.
19. Die wysigings wyk geensins af van die beginsels, uitgangspunte en beleid wat in die vorige weergawe daarvan gestel is nie. In sommige opsigte het die wysigings selfs die uitwerking dat die beleid nou sterker geformuleer is.
Die dokument akkommodeer dus in geen wesenlike opsig die skerp reaksie wat sover teen die godsdiensbeleid ingebring is nie.
20. Byv: Die invoeging in paragraaf 2 verskaf bloot verdere verduidelikliking van die begrip "religion education".
21. Die invoeging van "sectarian/particular" in paragraaf 28 stel dit eintlik nou duideliker dat 'n bepaalde godsdiens nie beoefen mag word nie.
[Die skrapping van "religious instruction, indoctrination, propaganda, catechism, conversion, or confession" en die invoeging in die plek daarvan van "religious discrimination and coercion" is onnodig, want diskriminasie en dwang word in elk geval deur a 15(2) verbied.]
22. Die invoeging van paragraaf 30 verduidelik eweneens maar net verder wat met "religion education" beoog word.
23. Die weglating uit die betrokke paragrawe op pp 16 en 17 van die direkte redes waarom "religion education" nie deur kerklikes aangebied behoort te word nie, beteken niks, want die nuwe paragraaf 49 verskaf nog beter motivering waarom opvoeders beter as kerklikes toegerus is om "religion education" aan te bied. (Sien ook paragraaf 104 van die samevatting wat dit ewe duidelik stel.)
24. Paragraaf 76 bevat 'n verbetering deur te verklaar dat "religious organisations" ten volle betrokke sal wees by die goedkeuring van studiemateriaal vir "religion education".
25. Wat godsdiensbeoefening betref (paragrawe 87-93) bly alles net soos dit is en is daar net een afleiding moontlik: godsdiensbeoefening is net buite skoolure toelaatbaar.
26. Paragraaf 88 smeer net sout in die wonde deur te verklaar dat saalbyeenkomste wel 'n geleentheid vir "religious expression" mag wees, maar dan moet dit die multi-godsdienstige aard van die Suid-Afrikaanse samelewing weerspieël! (Sien paragraaf 117 van die samevatting, wat hierdie verandering bevat, maar nie aandui nie.)
27. Dat die nuwe paragraaf 88 nie ruimte skep vir partikuliere godsdiensbeoefening nie, word bevestig deur paragraaf 89 (wat onveranderd gebly het), waarin onder meer verklaar word: "Like the rest of the school's learning programmes, the assembly should be an occasion for affirming and celebrating unity in diversity. Accordingly, if religious materials are used in assembly, they should be presented in the framework outlined for Religion Education as an educational exercise rather than as a religious ceremony."
28. Paragraaf 120 ("Conclusion") bied 'n mate van beweegruimte, maar 'n mens sal die paragraaf nie in isolasie van die res van die dokument kan beskou of toepas nie.
29. Alles in ag genome gee die gewysigde dokument geen duim toe nie en die beleid is nog net so onaanvaarbaar en ongrondwetlik.
D. SLOT
1. Die Regering se godsdiensbeleid is teen-produktief, omdat dit verdraagsaamheid predik, maar die teenoorgestelde doen.
2. A 15(2) stel ons juis voor die uitdaging om mekaar te erken en ruimte te gun om ons godsdiens uit te leef.
3. Dalk het die Regering se godsdiensbeleid een goeie resultaat en dit is om Christene 'n slag te laat saamstaan om helder, duidelik en beslis hulle stem te laat hoor.
4. Onthou dus dat die Grondwet 'n afdwingbare regsnorm daarstel.
5. Indien die staat nie die Grondwet nakom nie, het ons die volste demokratiese, ordelike en wettige reg om hom deur 'n hofbevel daartoe te dwing. "