Pheko leaves a bad taste in the mouth

Mohau Pheko (see the full article below) commits a serious flaw in her eagerness to accuse the South African government and, more generally, South African society, of giving Muslims ‘preferential treatment’. That flaw results in an argument that is unsustainable and based on a patent lack of knowledge.

The flaw is in Pheko’s first sentence: ‘South Africa is considered a secular state that is officially neutral in matters of religion.’ Firstly, ‘officially neutral in matters of religion’ is but one understanding of what a secular state is. The hinge is how one understands the word ‘neutral’. In the South African context, our secular state is one that positively engages with religion, while not favouring any particular religion over another. Can we truly say that the South African state is one ‘that prevents religion from interfering with state affairs’ when the President has a Religious Leaders’ Forum that he consults with or when numerous state functions open with multi-faith prayers?

Pheko also contradicts her fundamental thesis by later claiming that ‘Christianity is the de facto official religion of this country’. That statement certainly does not engender confidence among adherents of all other religions – in particular, adherents of religions that that were deliberately marginalised under Apartheid (a Calvinist Christian ideology), especially followers of African traditional religions. So which is it, Mohau? Is South Africa a secular state ‘neutral in matters of religion’ or is it a ‘de facto Christian country’?

But Pheko’s problem is not just with her imagined preferential treatment of Islam by the state; she fantasises that the entire South African society has this attitude towards Muslims. Hence her objection to supermarkets having ‘halaal’ biscuits among other biscuits that might not be ‘halaal’. Such labelling is a private sector concern, not a state one. Or is Pheko is suggesting that the secular state should outlaw this practice?

Pheko’s accusation is that this ‘preferential treatment’ discriminates against citizens that are not Muslim. How? Because they are forced to look at biscuit boxes on which are printed tiny symbols that say halaal (or kosher, for her argument applies equally to kosher foods). Packages marked with halaal or kosher symbols do not imply any kind of preferential treatment (by the state or anyone else). They simply satisfy the peculiar needs of a section of the consumer public. If a Muslim wants to be sure that pork products, for example, are not contained in the chocolate bar she wants to purchase, she will be confident of this if she sees the halaal label. It really means nothing to those who don’t believe in the halaal idea and is in no way an imposition on them. To suggest that halaal and kosher foods should be ghettoised in labelled sections of a supermarket is ridiculous.

‘Should,’ Pheko asks, ‘some religions have more rights than others to impose their practices on the unsuspecting public?’ Absolutely not. That would not only be inconsistent with the notion of our secular state; it is, quite simply, unjust. Besides, that’s where we come from as a society; it is not where we would like to see ourselves again.

If Christians feel that they want a cross on foods to indicate suitability, then there certainly should be no barrier to them being able to do so. Neither Muslims nor anyone else should object. And if atheists want a symbol on foods to indicate that no religious ritual was performed in its production, they have the right to ask for that too. Why should anyone be offended by any such requests?

Her second issue about the state’s preferential treatment towards Muslims (the first had nothing to with the state, as I have shown) is the issue of Radio Pulpit’s losing its licence. This example is even weaker than the previous one. Clearly Pheko doesn’t follow Icasa developments closely. She probably has not heard of the Johannesburg Muslim radio station which wasn’t given a four-year licence after having been on air for seven years. Or the Cape Town Muslim station which was found guilty by Icasa of hate speech. Or the Lenasia Muslim station that was forced to allow women on air (and correctly so). Where’s the preferential treatment, Ms Pheko? Oh, and by the way, the government does not renew broadcasting licences, Icasa does; it’s an independent structure from government.

Her ignorance extends to the issue of land. A large number of mosques are built on privately-acquired land. Secondly, Muslims in African townships face an uphill battle having religious sites allocated for mosques because, quite simply, too many councillors are as blinkered and ignorant as Pheko is.

It is patent that Ms Pheko has done no research for her article and has been influenced, rather, by her box of shortbread biscuits.

Religion must be a matter of individual taste

by Mohau Pheko

Sunday Times, 14 January 2007

Its role is neither to support nor to oppose any religious beliefs or practices. It can not give unfair preferential treatment to any faith.

Theoretically, a secular state has a dual role: it protects freedom of religion and freedom from religion. It is described as a state that prevents religion from interfering with state affairs, controlling the government or exercising political power. Laws protect each individual, including those from religious minorities, from discrimination on the basis of religion.

I had no idea that a simple biscuit would force me to question whose religious rights and freedoms are more important in a secular state such as South Africa.

In a grocery store there are designated areas for various foods. This enables the consumer

to make choices about which brands to buy and so forth. Diabetic or low- to no-sugar-

content items are clearly marked, there may be a kosher section to fulfil the needs of the

Jewish community and one will probably find a section that contains sauces, noodles, rice

and spiced items from Asia. Increasingly, some restaurants distinguish themselves as halaal by putting up a visible sign for their Muslim diners.

A well-known store that used green shopping bags over the festive season fulfilled my requirement of a perfect shortbread biscuit. I happened to turn the packet over, only to discover a halaal symbol. Unless I missed it, there was no notice in the biscuit section of the store that informed me that I was buying halaal biscuits.

Why should citizens of diverse faiths be subjected to halaal food without their knowledge? I have no problem with those who eat halaal food. However, those who choose not to should be given a choice with clearly designated sections for such food items in all grocery stores. I was informed by one of the store managers that a number of food items in stores are halaal.

Most people do not take time to read labels and stores do not go out of their way to clearly mark food sections accordingly.

Should some religions have more rights than others to impose their practices on the unsuspecting public? I thought religious freedom was about the right to choose. Should Christians insist on having a cross on food items to signify that it has been appropriately sanctified for Christian consumption?

Perhaps the debate the nation should have is whether labelling food along religious preference is dogma rather than religion.

In this Islamophobic era, some may argue that I have no religious tolerance.

Some will argue that the challenge in a country like South Africa, where the Christian faith has dominated, is gradually to take away positive discrimination in that direction with the view to equal treatment of other religions and beliefs. In so doing, proponents of this idea believe, a new generation of Muslims and Christians may become the vanguard of the next decade, offering their co-religiosity as a new vision of faith.

A second issue that made me wonder whether freedom of speech is a universal human right was over the renewal of Radio Pulpit's broadcasting licence. Apparently after many years of broadcasting to the Christian community, it has been struggling to get its licence renewed by the government.

The separation of church and state is a key component of South African democracy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we live in secular state. Freedom of religion means that the government tolerates the fact that citizens practice the faith of their choice and, while there is no official religion here, Christianity is the de facto official religion of this country. Coupled with this, a number of churches are having difficulty securing state land on which to build churches. Yet there is a proliferation of mosques and radio stations for the Muslim community.

What does religious freedom mean in a secular state? Should minority religions have the same rights as majority religions? How does the state avoid promoting one religion or faith group over another?

What criteria can be used in practice to promote a religiously based life over a secular life? Should religion retreat from the public sphere or can it find a place in the public sphere in a purely secular state?

It is said that the South African state should be neutral between the religious and secular parts of society. When the discussion turns to policy making, however, it seems that this neutrality disappears.

I would argue that no policy should be supported without adequate secular justification since these are the only types of arguments that are acceptable to all. What has happened to neutrality in South Africa?

South Africa is a politically alert society, aware of the role that religious rights play in public life. It is clear that if the state provides more concessions to one religion, members of other faiths will feel alienated since such values would be imposed upon them. They may be prohibited from practising the rituals of their religion. In this respect, I am not in favour of the values of any one religion being imposed on members of different religions that are present in our country.