News24

Protector and churches to co-operate

2011-05-27 19:06

Johannesburg - The Office of the Public Protector and the SA Council of Churches (SACC) intend signing an agreement on possible areas of co-operation, it was announced on Friday.

"We see the SACC as an important stakeholder with a vital role to play on outreach and helping people lodge complaints," Public Protector advocate Thuli Madonsela said in a statement.

Faith-based organisations could help her office's efforts through moral suasion and ensuring its work was supported, she said.

Madonsela met SACC general secretary Reverend Mauntji Pataki in Pretoria on Thursday and discussed the roles of their offices and possible areas of co-operation.

She said they had agreed to sign a memorandum of understanding which would stipulate the framework for interaction between the two institutions.

Comments
  • Thabo - 2011-05-27 20:31

    Oook, and this is interesting because......?

      Spoedvark - 2011-05-28 09:03

      ... the Public Protector is making a HUGE mistake in thinking that churches have any moral authority at all. The RCC's track record speaks for itself. They have just told the world that the kiddy diddling was a "temporary problem." Their "report" is available here: http://usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf Make sure you have a barf bag ready before you start reading. Note how they unilaterally change the definition of paedophilia to suit their required results (ONE example of the dishonesty oozing from this report). The Anglicans are in a spot of bother on the paedophelia front as well. A known paedophiles (at least 10 victims) WITH a criminal conviction can be ordained, you know. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-13560976 Are the others any better? No. Remember the church that fired the gay music teacher? What about the churches that still teach that women have to be "in submission" to their husbands? Shall I go on? Whose moral compass will be used here? That of the Constitution or that of the churches?

  • zaatheist - 2011-05-27 20:35

    Well the Public Protector can start by arresting and charging all the church leaders with fraud. They are after all all con artists. Keep religion loons away from government.

      Valis - 2011-05-27 21:49

      Hear hear! A group of delusional people who believe there's an invisible man in the sky who can do magic should have no say in our society.

  • zaatheist - 2011-05-28 04:42

    "Faith-based organisations could help her office's efforts through moral suasion". Like the catholic Chuch pedopriests can teach then a lot about morals. There is no substantive evidence for an omnipotent father-figure deity as postulated by the Christian/Jewish/Islamic tradition. So without religion can there be morality? Certainly, because true moral behavior is based upon simple self-interest. The guiding ethic is to truly act in your own best interest. That would mean treating all people fairly, honestly and, as it says in the Hippocratic Oath, "Cause no harm." Religions invent all other "sins" to increase their control over people.

      Spoedvark - 2011-05-28 08:46

      I wonder if they will be "required" to protect the rghts of gays and women (to have an abortion as one example). Moral (per)suasion in these cases? The morality of the Constitution or the "morality" of the churches? The Public Protector will require a very long spoon indeed.

  • pages:
  • 1