The Beginning of the 'National Debate' on Morality: Is God Invited?

Should God have a role in public morality? The Jesuit Institute and the University of Johannesburg (UJ) co-hosted a panel discussion in the grand setting of the Council Chamber at UJ on 26th May 2010.  Four distinguished panellists discussed the role that religion should play in the national debate on morality recently proposed by President Jacob Zuma.

As chair, Raymond Perrier, Director of the Jesuit Institute, explained that the event was not intended to be a debate but rather the start of a conversation. He hoped that this would complement the various official conversations taking place through Parliament or the President’s Office. In addition, through the support of Radio Veritas, Talk 702 and SAFM, others would be enabled to engage with this important subject. “We are a multi-faith society not a no-faith society – the challenge therefore is to find a way in which people’s religious perspective on morality can be listened to in the context of our secular and inclusive Constitution.”

Professor Adam Habib, Deputy Vice Chancellor of UJ, started by noting that religion has been a force for good and evil in the world. Fundamentalism in almost every religious tradition was on the rise, including hard-line anti-religious secularism. This posed the problem: what forms of different religions should be admitted to the discussion if a fruitful common morality was to be found: “Which disciples of God should be allowed,” he asked, “and who should not be?” Fundamentalists with exclusivist agendas would not help such a process. Noting the diversity of belief within religions, he also felt that the debate could not be limited to just the leaders of each religious tradition.

Nomboniso Gasa – a writer, Anglican lay minister and sangoma – voiced her unease with the notion of ‘national morality’. “I would like to speak up for the non-religious minority of South Africans” she said, pointing out that all too often ‘codes’ of morality represented the domination of a majority over a minority. There was often a deliberate manipulation of culture and tradition by the powerful to suit their interests, she added. This was particularly problematic when religions have a ‘crusade mentality’ and ‘thin skins’ with regards to tolerating difference. For her, foundational national morality already existed in the South African Constitution: it needed to be defended and interpreted to “protect the most marginalised” members of society.

Rabbi Robert Ash, of Beit Emmanuel Synagogue, welcomed the search for a faith-informed national morality as a move beyond cultural and moral relativism. But he feared fundamentalists hijacking the process and hoped that dialogue with secular thinkers would reduce the risk. “Thank God for secularists,” he said, “they have saved religious people from many horrors!”

One should draw on the religious traditions of the country (and the varied traditions within each religion) as well as social context to develop a conversation. He affirmed what Habib had earlier noted: that often differences in theology and conduct within a tradition made it easier to have common ground with persons of similar views but of other faiths than with people within one’s own tradition. He echoed Habib’s and Gasa’s concern that any debate over morality should not be made the exclusive preserve of religious leaders or politicians.

Anglican Bishop Peter Lee took a historical view. There had been a long tradition of religious engagement with the South African state, particularly after 1948; but since 1994 the shape of this has changed, if not become muted. “Do religious leaders now have a clear target they are all aiming for?”

Religious conscience, he continued, had to be heard in public, particularly in a society characterised by violence and indifference. Central to any moral debate was the need for religion to speak up for the poor and the promotion of social and economic justice. He and the other speakers agreed that this, and not the private lives of politicians, was the most important aspect of public morality. He was also wary of any kind of artificially ‘manufactured’ moral consensus.

Discussion from the floor added extra dimensions to the debate. The role of the family in public morality needed to be recognised and extended to include the broader local community. Family cohesion was damaged by the situation of widespread poverty, unemployment and social inequality. The personal behaviour of some politicians and misuse of office for financial gain, while certainly offering bad role models, was not the sole source of concern: public morality had to extend to business and the religious sector.

The evening ended with the Chair thanking the panellists for their eloquence and passion but cautioning all with the words of Samuel Johnson: “Be not too hasty to trust or admire the teachers of morality; they discourse like angels but they live like men.”

The second Jesuit Institute/ UJ debate will take place at Holy Trinity, Braamfontein, on 9th June at 7pm. Panelists will include Archbishop Buti Tlhagale, Rev Frank Chikane and Prof Steven Friedman plus 1 or 2 others yet to confirm. All are welcome.

If you've enjoyed this article, the second in the series, National Debate II: The Discussion Continues, is at:
http://www.jesuitinstitute.org.za/en/node/224