|
Social & Moral Issues |
|
Social & Moral Issues |
|
SHOULD EACH RELIGION HAVE ITS OWN PUBLIC HOLIDAYS?
CHRISTIAN
VIEW The National Association of School Governing Bodies has proposed allowing each religion the opportunity to have its own public holidays. The ACDP and DA have opposed this proposal. ACDP MP Steve Swart said that the party would resist any attempts to remove these holidays from the calendar. "Religion in schools is currently under attack," Swart said, "and now Christian holy days are being targeted. While we believe in freedom of religion, Christians, as the majority, deserve to have their rights respected. "We reject calls for these holy days to be dropped from the public holiday calendar, and in fact we would like to see Ascension Day returned to this calendar as well," Swart said. To quote the Argus 15 May 2003, "It does not make sense for more than 90% of the population to take a day off for a religous holiday that is observed by less than 10%. On the other hand, Christian holidays are observed as public holidays largely as a matter of economics and viability. It is impractical for most schools or businesses to remain open when 90% of their teachers and learners or employees and clients are on holiday. Therefore, the Democratic Alliance does not believe that other religions should be accomodated by expanding the number of public holidays, but rather, that employers and schools should allow the same amount of time off for the observance of all South Africa's religions'. It appears that with this issue, there has been a similar confusion to that Kader Asmal has been trying to create over religious observances in schools - namely confusion between 'religious freedom' and 'equality of religions'. The first, 'religious freedom' is an achievable and desirable goal. The second 'equality of religions' is an impossible goal and those who try to achieve it will simply create problems - as have marxists trying to create economic equality. 'Equality of religions' is impossible because: i. The teachings of different religions on various issues are in many cases in conflict and the state must chose through democratic process which to follow. For example, Rastafarians claim that smoking dagga is a religious good, while Christians regard it as damaging to health and society. Some Satanists and many historic religions believe in human sacrifice, but this clearly cannot be accommodated within 'religious freedom' in society where the majority oppose this practice. ii. Equally accommodating the interests of all religions is not always practically possible. As with the example above on religious holidays. Similarly all schools cannot practically accommodate all religions equally. 'Religious freedom' involves trying to accommodate religious minorities by allowing them for example conscientious objection or exemption from participation in activities with which they disagree or special arrangements for religious observances, teaching etc. It also involves giving them the opportunity to organise activities as groups with people of similar belief. Religious freedom includes protecting the equal rights of individuals of different religious belief, but not the rights of those religions themselves. Having 'religious freedom' without 'religious equality' is not unfairly discriminatory to individuals, because it applies equally to everyone. For example, a Christian attending a Muslim ethos school would have the same conscientious objection rights as a Muslim or attending a Christian ethos school. It seems that radical pluralists and secularlists are deliberately not wanting to understand the difference between 'religious freedom' and 'equality of religions' and thus they hope that once they have confused the debate - that they can offer secularism or pluralism as a solution. These two alternative solutions, will however hurt the rights of the majority who favour observance of one particular religion. The constitution protects the rights of individuals to freedom of conscience, belief and opinion. It protects individuals from unfair discrimination based on religion. It also protects the rights of cultural and religious communities. This does not however mean that the constitution mandates every social institution or group to observe every religious belief equally. That would amount to a violation of religious freedom. South Africa does not have a history of problems with religious friction and thus does not need new solutions to resolve non-existent conflict. The radical pluralists are simply trying to pretend there are problems and create problems in order to provide an excuse to impose their agenda.
Philip Rosenthal
ChristianView
Network _______________________________________________ Pleased read our disclaimer |
|
|
