In response to Gareth Cliff’s piece (see link above): “Beware of divine judgement”, it is important to emphasise that I have no particular predilection to Justice Mogoeng. What I want to discuss here has therefore nothing to do with the merits of his appointment as the Chief Justice of the country. In fact it’s worth mentioning that had the choice been mine to make, it is very likely that it would have differed to that of President Zuma, which was nevertheless unanimously ratified by the JSC. What I have a fundamental problem with is the affront to Chief Justice Mogoeng’s constitutionally enshrined right of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion, that Mr Cliff’s polemic amounts to.
Immediately following his assertion that his piece was not “another attack on general organised religion” and “strongly-held beliefs”, what I find surprising is that Mr Cliff hastens to do the exactly that. His first attack is to make an unsubstantiated but very common allegation that a negligible number among those who operate in arenas of “intellect, reason, analysis and discovery” are people of faith.
I should remind Mr Cliff that the scientific method that he supposedly holds in high regard requires rigorous testing of evidence before conclusions are arrived at. I wonder whether he has any sample data to show us to substantiate so bold a claim. Particularly if his own statement is be believed that many people of faith, some of whom must fulfil a multiplicity of important functions in society, simply keep their faith a “private matter”.
Further, I wonder whether Mr Cliff realises the extent to which modern science is indebted to those who are supposedly inimical to “rational thought”. Incidentally, this list, that is far from exhaustive, includes men of such stature in the scientific community as: Copernicus; Kepler; Galileo; Brahe; Descartes; Boyle; Newton; Leibniz; Gassendi; Pascal; Mersenne; Cuvier; Harvey; Dalton; Faraday; Herschel; Joule; Lyell; Lavoisier; Priestly; Kelvin; Ohm; Ampere; Steno; Pasteur; Maxwell; Planck; and Mendel, many of whom were not only believers but clergymen!
Among other statements, Mr Cliff then proceeds to speculate that religion upholds the “supposition that faith is more meritorious than rational thought”, suggesting that faith is necessarily in conflict with rationality. Perhaps it might help for Mr Cliff to be enlightened that Christianity is founded on a soundly rational basis that is supported by the simple mathematical logic that "nothing" cannot produce "something". Zero times anything always produces zero! It is therefore only logically consistent to assume something or Someone rather than nothing is the originator of space, time and matter.
The constitution, rather than defining morality, is a social contract burdened with the impossible task of synthesising and codifying with the compromises necessitated by the plurality of our culture, the diverse ways that our rainbow nation understands morality. It cannot be the source but merely an approximation of the complex web of underlying societal moral values. Nevertheless holders of public office, in their capacity as public officials, are compelled to subjugate their personal views to those of the social contract that gave rise to their office. A principle that Justice Mogoeng has expressed on many occasions a clear appreciation of.
Any lingering doubt regarding Mr Cliff’s scarcely concealed contempt for Justice Mogoeng’s personal beliefs is betrayed by his assertion:
“Judges would never admit evidence on hearsay, or speculate about unscientific things like a virgin birth or miracle, unless they wished to be laughed out of court, and the profession. Yet all of this is what Mogoeng Mogoeng admits as one of his basic tenets”
It might be of profound benefit for Mr Cliff and others who share his views to revisit Chapter 2, section 15 and subsection (2) of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa. There they would learn that a public observance of religious conviction is a right that is protected by the constitution even for public officials. Furthermore, it is unclear why any judge, in their capacity as a judge, would venture to pronounce on the “virgin birth or miracle” unless it was directly pertinent to the case at hand.
While it must be accepted that our opinions on such contentious issues as the selection of the Chief Justice will always differ, a distinction must be drawn between our assessment of the competence of candidates and their constitutionally protected right of conscience. While the former is to be expected, the latter goes against the very spirit and letter of our constitution. A failure to appreciate and respect this distinction is a slippery slope that leads us to the dreaded Orwellian society where the disturbing notion of `thought crime` reigns supreme.
All South Africans, including Mr Cliff, understand the world through a conscious or unconscious set of presuppositions. To be denied the right to choose these presuppositions is to be robbed of what ultimately makes us human. Justice Mogoeng has chosen his to be the Biblical Christian worldview that presupposes a created universe and a Creator from whom all life, truth and morality flows. His freedom to hold and express such convictions, as should be for everyone else, must be protected.
No comments:
Post a Comment