Freedom of Religion - The real questions for the Court

There is a rising legal challenge that will soon reach the courts in many western countries, if it has not already.

CNSMonitor.com summed it up nicely: “As more and more same-sex couples across the country legally celebrate their nuptials with traditional public pomp and ceremony, the cherished right of freedom of religion has run headlong into the principle of non-discrimination in the public sphere. As a result, a vexing national debate has begun to rage over the extent and legal limits of each side’s visions for the nation’s common life together.”

The ultimate question when this debate reaches its crescendo is going to be “Which right should trump which and when?”

When these cases begin to hit the courts, the courts are going to have to distinguish between two questions. These questions are often blurred by the liberal media (perhaps intentionally so) and this has in the past created a public outcry where the public has drawn its conclusions without being clear on what the questions are.

The two questions the courts are more than likely going to have to decide on in the future are as follows:

QUESTION 1:

Should a business be entitled to deny services to a group of people referred to in section 9 of the Constitution based solely on the fact that the people being denied service belong to that particular group - and use the right to freedom of religion as their justification?

QUESTION 2:

Should a business be compelled by the State to be a party to (or help facilitate) an event (or an action) that goes against the religious convictions and the right to freedom of conscience of the business owners?

When looking at any case, the courts are going to have to first work out on the facts whether they are considering Question 1 or Question 2, before they consider the outcome.

In order to work out which question they are looking at, they’re going to have to ask:

1) Is the business owner denying the supply of goods/services solely in relation to an event or action?

2) Would / Does the business owner serve members of the group in question during the ordinary course of business if their request was not in relation to that particular event or action?

3) Does the event or action, which the business owner would have to be complicit in by supplying the means, go against the religion or conscience of the business owner in question.

If the answer is "Yes" to all of those questions, then the courts will be considering Question 2. If the answer to all of those questions is "No", then the courts will be considering Question 1.

In other words, the courts are going to have to first determine if the business is saying no because of the PERSON or because of the EVENT or ACTION being catered for.

The definition of an “accomplice” is a person who knowingly helps another person commit a wrongdoing.  The law recognises that by helping someone commit a wrongdoing, you should also be held guilty even though you did not commit that wrongdoing yourself. Therefore, it is not a stretch of the imagination to acknowledge that many people believe that by helping or facilitating someone in their committing of what that person believes to be a sin, they are an accomplice to the committing of that sin and thereby sinning themselves.

The courts are going to have to decide whether there should be space in the law to allow people the freedom of conscience not to be a facilitator (or complicit) in an event or action which they deem to be wrong.

Here are a few examples of where the court will be dealing with Question 1:

1) Should the local grocer be allowed to say “We will sell our goods to anyone, but not black people?”

2) Should a restaurant be allowed to say “We will serve anyone, but not gay people?”

3) Should a florist be entitled to say “I don’t serve men. Only women.”

Here are a few examples of where the court will be dealing with Question 2:

1) Dog fights – “We would like to rent your venue for our annual dog fight competition where approximately 6 dogs are torn limb from limb every year” – should the venue owner be entitled to say “No, I know that dog fights are legal but in my opinion, they are morally wrong and therefore I do not want my venue to host that?”

2) KKK meeting – “We would like to hire your venue for our annual KKK meeting” - Should the venue owner be entitled to say “No, I know that you have the right to freedom of association and that your meeting is not illegal but I believe that what you stand for is morally wrong and therefore do not want my venue to host that?”

3) Celebration of Abortion cake: “We are having a party celebrating Roe vs Wade, the court case which made abortion legal, and we would like you to please make a cake with the words ‘Celebrating the right to abort.” To many, the killing of the unborn is tantamount to murdering a baby and therefore being forced to be a part of celebrating it would be unconscionable to them - Should the business owner be entitled to say “No, I know that you have the right to celebrate anything you like but I am against abortion and therefore cannot in good conscience supply a cake with that message written on it.”

4) A gay florist: “We are having an anti-gay-marriage gala and would like you to please supply the flowers.” Should the gay florist be entitled to say “No, I know that you have the right to freedom of expression but I am pro-gay-marriage and therefore cannot in good conscience supply the flowers for your event.”

Do you see that the difference between Question 1 and Question 2 is that Question 1 is based on the person being part of a particular group referred to in section 9 of the Constitution, and is not related to any event.

Question 2 is not about the person at all, but about the event or action.

Question 1 invokes (amongst other things) the application of section 9* of the Bill of Rights, but Question 2 invokes section 15.1* of the Bill of Rights (the right to freedom of religion and conscience) as the action is based solely on the business’s participation in a particular event or action.

If freedom of conscience is not the right to say “I do not want to take part in (or be complicit in) an event or action that I believe to be wrong” then what is left for the right to freedom of conscience?

Conscience is defined as “a person's moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one's behaviour.” Therefore by extension the right to freedom of conscience is the freedom to have one’s own sense of right and wrong, and the freedom to be guided by that sense.”

Section 9 protects people from being discriminated against by the State or by other people on grounds of inter alia their sexual orientation, religion, conscience, belief, etc. So section 9 is a very wide-reaching right for all groups not to be discriminated against. When more than one right in the Constitution is pitted against each other (as often happens), the courts must weigh them both within the context of the limitations clause and try their best to keep both rights in tact as far as possible.

The media has incorrectly fudged the two questions referred to in this article into one and thereby confused many people as to what the legal issues are.

The courts are not going to be entitled to (nor will they) fudge these two questions because there is a vast difference between saying “I won’t serve you because you are part of group X” and “I will serve you anytime, I just cannot be a party to that particular event or action because that event/action goes against my conscience.”

**************************************************************

*Section 9. “(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. (2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken. (3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. (4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. (5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.”

*Section 15.1 “Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.”

WHAT IS A BIGOT?

I recently saw an article in the Washington Post Online talking about that little pizza place in Indiana whose owners said (in a nutshell): “We will happily serve people of all different sexual orientations. The only event we cannot cater for is a gay wedding because it will go against our conscience to do so. Let us be clear that we will serve people of all sexual orientations anytime in our restaurant - we have got nothing against homosexuals at all. The only thing we can't do is cater for a wedding because of our religious convictions on the subject of marriage.”

The backlash against this Mom and Pop Restaurant for that statement was so huge that they had to close down.

So a Christian organisation set up a fund to support them following their forced closure. And within 48 hours of the fund being set up, over US$800000.00 had been raised.

The Washington Post reported on this fact, and out of interest, I looked at all the comments on the article:

“Seems Bigotry pays”

“Bigots paying Bigots”

“Congrats for being a Bigot. Here is a million US dollars”

“Lots of proudly Bigoted people out there”

The word “bigot” appeared so many times in the comment section, that I decided to look up the definition.

According to Google, the definition of bigot is “A PERSON WHO IS INTOLERANT TOWARDS THOSE HOLDING DIFFERENT OPINIONS.”

I found that interesting. So with that definition in mind, let’s look at two scenarios and decide which of these two is a bigot.

1. A restaurant owner that says “You are free to hold any beliefs you want and I respect your right to hold your own beliefs, but my belief is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. As such, I can’t in good conscience be a part of a wedding that is not between a man and a woman. But I will serve you any other time and for any other occasion because you are entitled to your beliefs as much as I am entitled to mine.”  Bigot?

2. Someone who says “Anyone who is of the opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman is not entitled to that opinion and should definitely not be allowed the freedom of expression to express that opinion.” Bigot?

I will leave that for you to decide.

Given the definition of "bigot" what would a "non-bigot" be? A non-bigot is a person who knows how to hold and express their own belief very strongly while still fully supporting someone else's right to hold and express a very different belief. Non-bigots don't let go of what they believe - they simply recognise that other people have the right to believe the exact opposite of what they believe and that right should not be taken away.

In a Constitutional Democracy there is freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of the press and freedom of speech. These precious freedoms allow us the right to disagree, to hold our own views, to EXPRESS our own views, and to believe whatever we want to believe, no matter how ridiculous.

Do I agree with everyone’s opinion on the internet? No! Do I know that people are sometimes going to be mean-spirited, irrational and full of hate when expressing their opinion? Yes, I know that well. BUT do I value the fact that people are free to believe whatever they want, and also to express what they believe (obviously provided it does not amount to an incitement to violence)? Yes! I will make space for what I believe are the most illogical of opinions because I value freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.... I accept that I am going to see people who are "intolerant of people with different opinions to themselves" calling other people “Bigots” without seeing the irony in their statements. I accept that those people that don’t want Group X to "stereotype or criticise the actions other groups" of people are the same people who "stereotype and criticise the actions of Group X". And I accept that those that preach “TOLERANCE” are usually the ones that are the least tolerant of a view that is not their own! The irony is blatant, but I accept it and embrace everybody's right to right to say what they believe whatever they want because it means that freedom of speech is alive and well, and people are still allowed to express their opinions and act in accordance with their conscience, no matter how irrational and “not-based-on-fact” those beliefs are.That is freedom, friends! It can be messy, but it's much better than the alternative of living under state-control.

The bottom line is that if you value the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution (like conscience, expression, speech and religion) you’re going to have to tolerate someone shouting absolute nonsense at the top of their voice and embrace their right to hold that view. You’ll have to tolerate people believing and saying things that you think are ludicrous. We ALL have to go through that - But it is worth the pain our ears suffer because the freedoms are preserved! So one day, when we need them, they will be there.

We mustn't be quick to wield an axe on any constitutional freedom. A Constitutional freedom should be able to take fire, and stand - it must ALWAYS be spared from the altar of public opinion because public opinion is a forever-shifting thing, and constitutional freedoms should not be.

So from now on, when you’re reading the hate comments on social media and the personal insults are flying (usually without any attachment to any real arguments), ask yourself - Is this person “intolerant towards those holding a different opinion?” And if the answer is yes, remember there is a word for that...... (although to be honest, it is not a word I like to use because it plays the person and not the ball. When I debate, I like to stick to the topic instead of name-calling.)

INDIANA'S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT - WHY ALL THE MAYHEM?

The state of Indiana recently enacted a Freedom of Religion Act that has come under severe liberal fire. The media has not exactly been forthcoming on the facts of Indiana’s new “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA) and this has triggered a knee-jerk reaction from portions of the public. So I've decided to just pen a few facts about the Act. I know this is an emotional subject for many, but facts are always king and I want to try and unpack it in a way that makes for easy reading.

HOW DID THE ACT COME ABOUT?

1) In 1993, the United States Congress enacted a Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“FEDERAL RFRA”), which gives Americans the right to practice their religion, free of government interference, except where necessary to serve a “compelling government interest”. That law was passed unanimously in the House with a 97-3 vote in the Senate. Bill Clinton was among those who praised it and signed it.

2) Four years later in 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States said that the FEDERAL RFRA could not constitutionally be applied to the states and if states want to protect religious practice subject to the “compelling government interest test”, they would have to do it themselves by enacting state legislation.

3) Following this, many states began enacting their own RFRAs with the same “compelling government interest test” being applied, including the state of Illinois which got its RFRA in place with the help of a young state senator called Barrack Obama.

4) Indiana is the 20th state to enact an RFRA.

5) The text of the FEDERAL RFRA says “The Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

6) The text of Indiana's RFRA is substantially the same as the FEDERAL RFRA and says “A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

7) There are now twenty states in the US that have got RFRAs, and eleven more that have interpreted their state constitution to provide the same level of protection. These 31 states include most of the big states of the US. So Indiana is definitely not alone and its RFRA is drafted in away that it is predominantly in line with the Federal one. 

8) Federal Law supersedes State Law in any event on this subject. A state RFRA cannot protect anyone against federal law. If the Supreme Court requires states to recognize same-sex marriage, no state RFRA will create exemptions from that.

Therefore, when we pull ourselves out of the media storm, we see that Indiana’s RFRA is simply an Act that provides for freedom of religion in substantially the same way that the Federal Act does and the Constitution does. It makes no mention of anything else. So the real question when discussing Indiana’s RFRA is: “Do you believe in freedom of religion?” There is no other issue the Act deals with.

SO WHY THE VIOLENT REACTION?

The media is partly to blame for creating the storm around Indiana’s RFRA by using short, misleading one-liners in their reporting. From what I have seen (in the liberal media at least), I don’t think they have even read the text of the Act, nor do they refer to the text at all. They also don’t make reference to the fact that the Act has substantially the same wording as the FEDERAL RFRA or that Indiana is the 20th state to enact legislation like this. The reporting has actually been very irresponsible and has created an emotional and misled response.

Thankfully there are many journalists and media skeptics though who have done their research themselves and are coming out in favour of the Act. One of those is John McCormack of the Weekly Standard and I have found him to be a good person to follow on this subject to get some real context and balance on the RFRA because he is:

1) pro same-sex marriage AND

2) pro freedom of religion.

He was in fact one of the people who filed a brief in the Supreme Court urging the Court to require same-sex marriage as a matter of constitutional law. And he asked the court to protect the religious liberty of dissenters. He says “I believe in “liberty and justice for all," with an emphasis on "ALL."

It is also important to note that the RFRA acts as a shield and not as a sword. No-one can use an RFRA Act to attack anyone. They can only use it to defend themselves against an attack, and even then their defence is not guaranteed as all rights will be weighed against each other.

SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?

I know there are many who have seen these skewed, short headlines and as a result, facebook is now full of “Nevermind religious freedom! Stuff freedom of religion” but it's important to look at actual cases that show how this debate unfolds in real life situations (not in a hypothetical or theoretical sense). If you haven’t followed the Baronelle Stutzman case, take seven minutes to watch her story at https://alliancedefendingfreedom.org/arlene-flowers?referral=I0215ARLF1 to get a peak at the other side (there are always two sides). The answer is not as simple as the Left would have us believe.

The Constitution is full of competing rights. The reason for competing rights is because all cases are different and must be decided on the facts. There is no way that law-makers can think of every potential scenario when legislating so they put the rights in place and let the courts decide each case on the facts. The fact that there are competing rights in place ensures that it is not an “automatic win” for anyone! In each case, you pull out your “right card” and the other person pulls out their “right card” and the judge weighs it up and makes his/her decision based on the particular facts of that situation.

When looking at any particular case where rights are pitted against each other, we can stand on either side of the fence in the matter and say “I think the right to equality should trump the right to freedom of religion in this particular case” or “I think the right to freedom of religion should trump the right to equality in this particular case” or “I think the right to freedom of expression should trump that person’s right to privacy in this particular case.” We all have different opinions when a case arises and we’re discussing the facts, BUT the building blocks of our debate, the foundation on which a free society stands - THE RIGHTS THEMSELVES - should never be in question. For any meaningful debate to take place, we have to start on the premise that both rights are important and then go from there. If we’re going to start saying “This right must trump that right in every conceivable situation” we’re going to hit dangerous ground because we cannot think of every conceivable situation, can we?

The goal of this blog is simply to get people thinking. We all know that the media is well capable of pushing an agenda and creating panic where there shouldn’t be. Be aware of that and investigate all the facts for yourself before deciding where you stand. A knee-jerk reaction is often not one that is founded on all the facts. 

If all the doors are closed, look for the window

"You can blame circumstances, but backsliding always begins in the heart (AW Tozer)"

We were driving back from Kommetjie yesterday and I had 2 hours of quiet time in the car to think. There was no talking and I knew that Nick was thinking too. We’d had a fun weekend but as soon as there are quiet moments, our thoughts usually revert to the question of “What now? How do we move forward? How long before the break through?”

I am usually an optimist of note, but my faith took a knock at the end of last year (which I will tell you about sometime) and I am ashamed to say I didn't fight for it like I should have. So increasingly I have noticed out-of-character pessimistic sentences dropping out of my mouth over the last few months. Nick even said to me the other day “Oh no, no, no, no, NO! There is only room for one pessimist in this family. It has never been you, it doesn’t suit you, and it will never be you. That place is taken!”

I think I can sum it up by saying that my usual prayer to God over the years of “I know it is coming!” recently turned into “Is it coming?” and then subconsciously into a quiet “It’s not coming, is it?”

Unbelief! In a God who has only ever been good to me. In a God who sent His only son to save me. Tears fill in my eyes as I confess that because I can't believe I opened the door to it and allowed it in. Unbelief is a very dangerous sin to toy with. I listened to two David Wilkerson preaches today and in the one, he spoke about unbelief. 

What is unbelief for a Christian? It’s not the denial of Christ. It’s not going so far as to say “God doesn’t answer prayers.” No, we would never say that.... It is the quiet nagging thought in the back of your mind that says “God does answer prayers. Just not mine.” That is the sin of unbelief in a Christian, and it is not to be toyed with or fed or justified… not even for a second. It is rooted in self and ultimately leads to the death of your faith, your joy and your peace. When you allow unbelief in, first of all it grieves the heart of God. And second of all, you turn to your own answers, your own plans and fear becomes the rudder for your life.

If we were to write down every miracle we have seen in our lives, most of us who have walked a road with Christ could write a book of testimonies. There have been miraculous moments of provision, moments of breakthrough, moments of freedom, answers to prayers, healings, and lives turned around… And yet, when the crisis comes, we sometimes forget about all the Lord has said and done and we panic… “The hardest part of faith is the last half hour.”

As we neared home yesterday, I turned to Nick and spoke my thoughts out loud:

“I choose to hope. For the sake of my body, for the sake of my soul, for the sake of my spirit. I choose to hope. Even if there is no earthly reason to do so. Even if all the natural evidence points to the situation being hopeless - I CHOOSE TO WAKE UP EVERY MORNING WITH HOPE. If my hope is sick, I am not going to kill it. I’m going to give it medicine and make it well again! I need it. I’m going to treat it like the precious gift it is and feed it and nurture it.”

Hope stems from the belief that everything that happens to me has been sifted through the hand of a God who is loving, good and sovereign. Hope says no matter what it looks like - God is in control, He loves you and He knows what He is doing. He is busy fulfilling His plan for your life. He is the author and the finisher of your faith. Do not let go of the promises He has given you. 

There is a thread that runs through the Bible when it comes to the promises of God…. Every time God makes a promise to someone, the first thing He does is sentence that promise to death... We hear the promise, we know it’s God, it settles in the sand of our heart like an anchor – and then God rolls in death upon achievement of that promise. The promise doesn’t die – but all human means of achieving the promise dies... And as death rolls over every human possibility of fulfilling the promise, we have what David Wilkerson calls a “window or faith” …. a precious moment in the Lord when we come to the end of all of our human efforts and nothing has worked. At that moment, we can choose to doubt God, or we can choose to say “I don’t understand anymore, Lord. I don’t know why I am going through this. As people look at my life, they may doubt you Lord. But I WILL NOT! And if I live like this until I get to glory one day, so be it!”

People speak about “windows of opportunity”to get things done, but God works with “windows of faith”. A window of faith appears when there is no possible human plan. If you can figure it out, there is no place for a window of faith… But when you can’t figure it out, THAT is where your window of faith appears. As every bit of human hope dies in the promise, there appears a glorious window of faith for you to believe God when circumstances seem to show there is no hope.

We think that we need all of our ducks in a row for the promises of God to be fulfilled, but God does not operate out of human wisdom. When there aren’t even any ducks in sight and we have cried and prayed and fasted and come to the point where we say “Not my will, but yours” – THAT is when He moves.

If you’re in an impossible situation, don’t waste your window of faith. When you find yourself in a situation you don’t understand at all, think to yourself “God, you’ve given me an opportunity to have faith in an impossible situation. Just like Abraham. Just like Joseph. Just like Noah. Just like David. I am not going to waste this opportunity that I have to stand in the ruins of my situation and declare GOD IS GOOD! As for me, I trust in you. And I will trust in you until my last breath. Even when the people around me doubt your goodness, Lord, let it be known that I will not.”

The Bible says we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses… here are some things that some of these witnesses said when all the doors of human possibility closed and their window of faith appeared:

“Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him.” – (JOB)

“If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty's hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we WILL NOT serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up." (SHADRACH, MESHACH AND ABEDNEGO)

"Look, I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (STEPHEN - RIGHT BEFORE HE WAS STONED TO DEATH FOR HIS FAITH)

“Be merciful to me, Lord, for I am in distress; my eyes grow weak with sorrow, my soul and body with grief. My life is consumed by anguish and my years by groaning; my strength fails because of my affliction, and my bones grow weak. Because of all my enemies, I am the utter contempt of my neighbours and an object of dread to my closest friends— those who see me on the street flee from me. I am forgotten as though I were dead; I have become like broken pottery.  For I hear many whispering, “Terror on every side!” They conspire against me and plot to take my life. But I trust in you, Lord; I say, “You are my God.” – (DAVID)

“"My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." (JESUS – RIGHT BEFORE HE WENT TO THE CROSS)

To become a legend of the faith, we need to embrace impossible situations and use them as an opportunity to trust in God against all the human odds. Like Will Marais says “When I am surrounded by the unknown, I go back to what is known! God is good. God is love. God is sovereign. And God is merciful. And that is all I need to know.”

#SONA - Sometimes a slap in the face is good

Last night was a nice cold wake up call for South Africa as we all sat watching our State of Nation Address degenerate into what looked like a big bar fight with half the room leaving before the President could continue his speech. Some of them were forcibly removed and others walked out of their own free will. It was a shocking moment in our history that left most of us stunned and silent.

Then when the president started speaking again, he didn’t even address the chaos or even attempt to lead us through it as a nation… he simply laughed and carried on with a mind-numbingly boring speech that brought us no hope or inspiration whatsoever. There was your moment, Commander-in-Chief. You missed it. You could’ve been human. You could’ve shown your heart for this country... But you didn’t. I could literally hear the sighs across the nation as we covered our eyes in front of the TV and shook our heads with sadness and embarassment.

But the country needed that wake up call… Let’s be thankful for it because the issues are there whether we are aware of them or not. My policy is to always find out sooner rather than later if I am in the pooh. My husband is a builder and I have had a few conversations over the years with subbies who have overspent and underperformed. Instead of sticking our heads in the sand and hoping it will sort itself out, we go to them and say “Ok, give it to us straight. How much pooh are we in here? I would rather know now than later.” I think every South African should be asking that question right now.  It’s a good question to ask because “Lala Land” always ends with an ice cold dose of reality sooner or later. Rather know what you're facing so you can try and be part of the solution. 

I don’t want to go on too much about Zuma because a lot has been said about him already…. To be honest with you, I have my hopes pegged on the other people in parliament – The ACDP, who even though they are a small party have done great things for this country and continue to do so… the DA, who even though I disagree with their policies on a few issues are at least providing great services in the Western Cape and are not shy to stand up to Zuma... and Cyril Ramaposa .…

Ah Cyril… you are positioned for greatness. You could well be taking over a nation in shambles, a nation that is desperate for hope, guidance, unity and the feeling that we are all equally respected and protected by our government. You are being handed a baton that is in shreds, BUT if you manage to pull it together and leave a united, inspired and hope-filled South Africa by the end of your term, what a legacy that will be! People of all colours are looking to you to reverse the damage done by our current government and put us back onto the road that Madiba started us on. There are many heartbroken #ProudlySouthAfrican people looking at their passports right now and doubting whether there will ever be true honesty and integrity in our government again. 

I am one of those that believe it is possible. We have overcome so much as a people. We are a nation of overcomers! We just need a good, strong, honest leader who cares. You are being lifted up in prayer, my friend. Please rise to the challenge. If you consider everyone in this rainbow nation whenever you make your decisions, and not just one group of people, it will not be long before the entire nation will give you their trust, their hearts and their gratitude - and your name will go down in history next to Madiba’s as another president who led this amazing country through stormy waters safely to the other side. We've seen it happen before. Let's see it again.

#PrayForOurNextPresident