Ramaphosa declaration: Church and State separation over.

[jimgee1000]

'We have a responsibility to also take care of the spiritual, psychological and emotional well-being of all South Africans'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoLdX_sY1DE, 2:35

Anyone know who wrote that speech for him?

[Dewald Katzke]

Jim

How is this the end of the separation of church and state? He asked for prayers he hasn't established a state church has he?

From my perspective voluntary organisations have asked for easing in the lockdown and the government has done so.

[jimgee1000]

Hi Dewald,

Great questions, so thanks for that.

I'm referring to what he said.

Political speech-writers don't simply make this stuff up on the spot. Pay close attention to what is being said and bear in mind that the main battle, in human societies, is - and has always been - over individual liberty i.e. primacy of the individual... where the individual is free and responsible to mitigate risk. The state seeks at every opportunity to undermine individual responsibility. It is the take-down of individual liberty by the back-door. In every sector, where any success in undermining liberty has been achieved, this is how it is done (It may apply to differing degrees, from sector to sector, but where you see state-regulated industries, you see vulnerable, dependent, cowed individuals and groups of people.) They target individual responsibility, and are careful not bad mouth individual freedom. They even attack individual responsibility whilst at the same time paying lip service to individual liberty, although they try to keep it vague by referring to it as just 'liberty' or 'democracy'.

Re-read the quote, but before you do, here is what he said before he got to that point. I'll paraphrase:

This pandemic has taken a toll:
- many of us are anxious, fearful of both present and future ;
- as a nation we have a responsibility to respond to this aspect of the pandemic with as much effort and urgency as we have responded to the health crisis and as we have acted to relieve the economic and social effects on our people. 

'with as much effort and urgency'? What does he mean? He's talking about extra power to act. Legal power that was not present, before.

To me, this is, of course, a giant red flag. Possibly no more alarming than any time he said this in the past, but I certainly have not heard any SA president go this far. As I say nothing done in politics is done without careful forethought. He's channeling those who are preparing the masses for what is coming ... extra legal intervention affecting religious freedom.

He then goes on to state it explicitly.

Now, re-read the quote and answer this question: Is it the state's responsibility to take care of your spiritual well-being?

Jim
p.s. when you say voluntary organizations, I'd like to know which of those organizations do not rely for their operation on the state? I mean specific to their vocation.

[Dewald Katzke]

Jim

Religious freedoms basically went away the moment the state said they must close at lockdown, and there was no push back from the churches.

As for political speeches Zuma at one of his speeches said something to the effect that the color of heavan is the colors of the ANC. I.e. vote for us we are heavans choice.

As for government funding I don't know of any church or voluntary associations that receives government funding, maybe you can enlighten me?

[jimgee1000]

'Religious freedoms basically went away the moment the state said they must close at lockdown, and there was no push back from the churches.'

I too lament what religious groups - so called advocates of spiritual emancipation - have amounted to, in terms of fighting the good fight. But right now, the constitution and bill of rights remain unchanged. As far as I know, anyway.

So, I think the string-pullers realize they need explicit extra legal powers to do what they want to do. They can't allow individuals to look to a higher power than them. Spiritual autonomy means individuals could go on, indefinitely, acting as though they either owned themselves, or were owned by a spiritual power even higher than them.

If I was to speculate, I'd have to say - given the present context - that the extra legal power, I refer to, will come at the expense of bodily integrity, freedom of movement and freedom of association. And there will be no pretense as to the permanency of such laws.

My guess... and I hope it doesn't come to this, is mandatory confinement, testing, vaccination and tracking laws and technology.

The vast majority of South Africans, it seems to me, likely fit the traditional, conservative & religious demographic profile. And as such, with Separation of Church and State, for all practical reasons(given the demographic) remain outside the legal powers of Mental Health. All their attempts to blur the distinction between spiritual problems - like anxiety and fear - and medical problems, appear in this case to be insufficient, given long-held supra-national ideals, current  trajectories(given no further intervention), and current time constraints.

I hope I'm wrong about this, but I think the writing is on the wall.

'As for political speeches Zuma at one of his speeches said something to the effect that the color of heavan is the colors of the ANC. I.e. vote for us we are heavans choice.'

This is far easier to dismiss than CR's statements. That's the problem. Even in traditional African cultures, the concept of megalomania e.g. as a chief, is not unfamiliar. The percentage of non-black voters would appear to testify to that.

'As for government funding I don't know of any church or voluntary associations that receives government funding, maybe you can enlighten me?'

I wasn't referring specifically to funding. That would be the more obvious sign. The less-obvious sign is permission to operate i.e. licensure.

Jim

[jimgee1000]

Correction: 'non-black voters' should read 'black non-voters'.

Just to further emphasize my point, in answer to your Zuma reply: CR is channeling those with supra-national designs. So it's not really Zuma vs CR, we're talking, here. It's sophisticated string-pullers vs Zuma. The narrative of the latter was a gimme. It was legal to simply ignore it and carry on. The narrative of the former, on the other hand, is a different kettle if fish. A bit like Communist revolutionaries vs the Fabian Socialists. The revolutionary Communists were mouthy amateurs who couldn't pull it off, to the Fabian Socialists and their ilk.