Search

Die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, 1996, is 'n godsdiens-vriendelike manifes omdat vryheid van godsdiens nie alleen in die lewe van die gelowige van belang is nie, maar ook vir die staat van groot waarde kan wees. Die Grondwet maak onder meer voorsiening vir die reg op selfbeskikking van godsdiensgroepe, wat beteken dat lede van godsdienstige gemeenskappe hulle godsdiens kan beoefen sonder ongegronde staatsinmenging. Die reg op selfbeskikking is egter nie ' n absolute reg nie en is onder meer aan die bepalings van die Handves van Regte ondergeskik. Daar word in dié verband verwys na regspraak wat op godsdiensonderrig in skole, en die toepassing van gedragskodes in die onderwys wat met godsdienstige gebruike in stryd mag wees, van toepassing is, asook na 'n verset teen die verbod op lyfstraf, omdat die verbod sogenaamd met godsdienstige leerstelling in stryd sou wees. Suid-Afrika onderhou ook die soewereiniteit in eie kring van godsdiensorganisasies, wat daarop neerkom dat die staat nie sal inmeng in interne besluite en praktyke van kerke en ander godsdiens-gerigte organisasies nie. Regspraak wat in dié verband ter sprake kom, het betrekking op tugmaatreëls wat teen 'n lid van die Ortodokse Joodse gemeenskap van Johannesburg ingestel is omdat hy 'n kerklike onderhoudsbevel verontagsaam het, en die afdanking van 'n vroulike predikant van die Metodiste Kerk in Rondebosch omdat sy met 'n ander vrou in die huwelik getree het. Die afdanking van 'n orrelonderwyser in die Kunsakademie van die Moreletaparkse gemeente van die NG Kerk as gevolg van sy selfdegeslagverhouding is egter nie deur die Gelykheidshof gehandhaaf nie, omdat die dienste van die orrelonderwyser as 'n onafhanklike kontrakteur nie met die geestellike roeping van die Kerk te make gehad het nie. Die beleid van die staat ten opsigte van die kerk en godsdienstige praktyke kan as 'n beleid van objektiwiteit beskryf word. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, is a religion-friendly manifesto, because freedom of religion is not only important in the lives of the faithful, but is also of great value to the state. The Constitution makes provision for the right to self-determination of religious communities, which means that members of such communities can exercise their religion without undue state interference. However, the right to self-determination is not an absolute right and is amongst other things subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Mention is made in this regard of litigation relating to education of religion in schools, and implementation of religious codes of conduct in education, that might contradict doctrinal practices, as well as opposition to the prohibition of corporeal punishment, which prohibition is allegedly in conflict with religious principles. South Africa also upholds the sphere sovereignty of religious organisations, which means that the state will not interfere with internal decisions and practices of churches and other religion-orientated institutions. Litigation of relevance in this regard includes disciplinary action against a member of the Orthodox Jewish community of Johannesburg who declined to comply with a maintenance order of the church authorities, as well as the dismissal of a Minister of the Methodist Church in Rondebosch because she entered into a same-sex marriage. The firing ofan organ teacher in the Arts Academy of the Moreleta Park Congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church because of his same-sex relations, on the other hand, was not upheld by the Equality Court because the services rendered by the organ teacher as an independent contractor did not relate to the spiritual calling of the Church. The policy of the state in regard to churches and religious practices can be described as a policy of objectivity. In specifying the above constitutional principles, this essay in the first place contains an analysis of the historical origin, development and prominence of the right to self-determination in international law and in the South African context. In the section on application of the right to self-determination in South Africa special mention is made of religious practices in education, noting with reference to a case involving the German School in Pretoria that religion classes are no longer based on a particular denominational basis and attendance of those classes is therefore mandatory; but in a case involving loyalty of certain schools to the Christian faith it was decided that this cannot be upheld in state-sponsored schools, since the state may not afford preference to a particular religion but must treat all religions equally. South African courts have also rejected the supposition that the Bible demands corporeal punishment of children, most recently also condemning corporeal chastisement within parent-child relations.

On 23 September 2010 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) handed down unanimous judgments in two similar cases, but reached completely opposite conclusions. Both cases dealt with dismissal of church employees based on aspects of their private lives. In Obst v Allemagne the ECHR ruled that the German Constitutional Court correctly upheld the dismissal of the Public Relations Director of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints due to adultery. On the other hand, the ECHR ruled that the German Constitutional Court violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it upheld the dismissal of an organist and choir master of a catholic congregation due to adultery, despite the constitutional guarantee of religious autonomy in the German Basic Law. In South Africa, the Equality Court held that dismissal of an organist due to a homosexual relationship constituted unfair discrimination. While all forms of unfair discrimination must be rejected, legal compulsion may not be the answer to change the prejudices of religious groups. Persuasion should rather be based on ethical arguments, which may hold better results in the long term.