Promotion of One Religion in Schools Not Allowed Rebuttal

THIS blog post will consist of two newspaper articles, a rebuttal of judge Willem van der Linde’s South Gauteng High Court ruling and a conclusion by writer from the only True standard being the Holy Word of GOD. The School Governing Bodies (SGBs) will not be legally bound by this decision until such time as this judgment has been appealed to and until such time the appeals are concluded and therefore the SGBs can continue as before with their chosen religious ethos.

ChristianView Network condemns this mornings judgment of Wednesday 28 June 2017, by the South Gauteng High Court that school governing bodies may not adopt a particular single faith religious ethos is legally flawed for multiple reasons and hopefully will be overturned on appeal. The ruling undermines the authority of parents through the school governing body. It is unfair to people of faith who have to contribute taxes towards education, but cannot then benefit by having those taxes used towards single faith ethos. The national consultation by Education Minister Bengu in 1999 found that almost all parents and religious groups wanted single faith ethos in schools. . . .

The matter will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal and then to the Constitutional Court and thus School governing bodies will not be legally bound by this decision until such time as such appeals are concluded. In the interim, they will be able to continue as before. – Philip Rosenthal of ChristianView Network (Source)

_______________________________________________

The first newspaper article

Single religion schools unlawful

News / 29 June 2017, 07:57am / Kamcilla Pillay and Zimasa Matiwane (Source)

Judge's gavel

KwaZulu-Natal religious bodies have welcomed the South Gauteng High Court ruling against the promotion of one denomination over another at public schools.

Judge Willem van der Linde said in his ruling on Monday: “Neither a school governing body nor a public school may lawfully hold out that it subscribes to only a single particular religion to the exclusion of others.”

In May, the Organisation for Religious Education and Democracy brought an application to the high court asking it to rule against having one dominant religion observed at public schools.

The organisation, reported the African News Agency, brought the application against six schools: Laerskool Randhart, Laerskool Baanbreker, Laerskool Garsfontein, Hoërskool Linden, Hoërskool Oudtshoorn and Oudtshoorn Gimnasium, arguing that religious practices at these schools resulted in the suppression of scientific teachings of evolution, and a religious ethos that was a form of coercion and an abuse of pupils’ rights.

Van der Linde said public spaces were not “rarefied spaces” but public ones which needed to help to achieve “universal and non-discriminatory access to education”.

The judge also said the constitution demanded that provision for religious policies and observances needed to be conducted on a “free and voluntary, and equitable” basis.

“In this country, our diversity is celebrated, not tolerated.”

Van der Linde questioned if it would be acceptable if a public school, through rules laid down by the school governing body, held out that it was “exclusively a Jewish, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or an atheist, school”.

“Accepting a notional feeder community of 100% single religion parents, could it ever pass muster of the need for a national democratic respect for our country’s diverse cultural and religious traditions for that school to brand itself as adhering to that particular single faith to the exclusion of others?”

The national department of education said the ruling was consistent with its own policy, informed by the South African Schools Act and the constitution, that no one religion should be promoted above another.

“The aim is not to ban religious practices in schools but about protecting children and emphasising that schools should engage in religion education rather than religious instruction and not promote one religion over another,” said a spokesperson for the department.

Chairperson of the National Association of School Governing Bodies, Motsamai Lekata, said the organisation welcomed the “progressive” judgment.

He said today’s pupils would interact with a far “more pluralistic society” and that schools were the one place where different religions met.

“South Africa is one nation but its people believe in many gods. This, if implemented correctly, will teach our pupils tolerance, diversity, equality and justice,” Lekata said.

South African Muslim Network chairperson Dr Faisal Suliman said fostering a culture of inclusion should be a “natural, human inclination”.

“We are trying to build social cohesion. How do we do that? We try to understand each other: it starts here, at our schools. This will go a long way in eradicating extremism too.”

He praised the judgment for its values of mutual tolerance and acceptance.

Ashwin Trikamjee, president of the Hindu Maha Sabha, said that – especially 23 years after the advent of democracy – this kind of case should not be coming before the courts.

“We very often hear complaints from disgruntled parents about this exclusion. It should not be happening in this day and age.”

It was not the responsibility of schools to teach children about their faith, said chairperson for the Diakonia Council of Churches, the Reverend Ian Booth.

“This is for places of worship to do. We would support this judgment as it is in keeping with our constitution.”

The ChristianView Network did not approve of the ruling and said it confused the “constitutional affirmation of unity in diversity with the positive requirement of celebrating diversity”.

“In other words, tolerance of other religions does not imply a need to ‘celebrate’ multi-faith observances, with which most people of faith have a strong objection.”

The Mercury

__________________________________________________________

the second newspaper article

Judge Willem van der Linde hands down the ruling at the High Court in Johannesburg. (Wikus De Wet-Netwerk24)‘Schools should not adopt one religion to the exclusion of others’ – judge

2017-06-28 10:35 – News24 (Source)

Johannesburg – The High Court in Johannesburg has handed down a ruling on religion in public schools, saying that schools can’t promote one religion.

The case was brought by the Organisation for Religious Education and Democracy (OGOD) against six schools.

"Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that:
(a) Those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities;
(b) They are conducted on an equitable basis; and
(c) Attendance at them is free and voluntary," Judge Willem van der Linde said while handing down the judgment, quoting from Section 15 of the Constitution which deals with freedom of religion, belief and opinion.

"…we have however also found at the level of principle that neither a school governing body nor a public school may lawfully hold out that it subscribes to only a single particular religion to the exclusion of others," said Van der Linde.

OGOD wanted the court to declare unconstitutional the religion policy of six schools: Randhart Primary School in Alberton, Baanbreker Primary School in Boksburg, Garsfontein Primary School in Pretoria, Linden High School in Johannesburg, Oudtshoorn High School and Langenhoven Gymnasium in Oudtshoorn, Netwerk24 previously reported.

The six schools, the ministers of basic education and justice, and the National Society for School Governing Bodies were respondents.

The court found that it was against the Education Act to "promote one faith or one religion primarily at the expense of others or allow school staff to do it", Netwerk24 reported.

"In the circumstances, we issue the following order:
(a). It is declared that it offends Section 7 of the Schools Act, 84 of 1996 for a public school –
(i). To promote or allow its staff to promote that it as a public school adheres to only one, or predominantly only one, religion to the exclusion of others; and
(ii). To hold out that it promotes the interests of any one religion in favour of others."

The remainder of the relief claimed was refused and there was no order as to costs.

Advocate Hendrik van Nieuwenhuizen, for OGOD, said it is in the interests of South African democracy that public schools are not allowed to promote a particular religion, but that the choice of religion lies with pupils.

Advocate Adrian d’Oliveira, the school’s legal representative, said every school community was unique and should therefore be allowed to choose a religious policy that serves the community. They wanted the court to recognise the "governing authority" of the school governing bodies.

Advocate Matthew Chaskalson, for the minister of basic education, said the national policy on religion and education prohibited public schools from offering religious education in a single faith or in favour of a particular religious ethos.

___________________________________________________________

rebuttal by philip rosenthal

Thought Leaders June 29, 2017 (Source)

Religion in public schools judgment is ‘flawed’ – Philip Rosenthal

JOHANNESBURG — Religious freedom is one of the cornerstones of South Africa’s Constitutional democracy. The state is secular and people have the right to choose their beliefs. But in a multi-faceted society as complex as South Africa, huge differences in opinion are set to emerge. Subsequently, a landmark judgment delivered this week regarding religion in public schools is already causing heated debate. The South Gauteng High Court ruled this week that public schools should not favour any one religion over others. The landmark ruling came about amid the Organisation for Religious Education and Democracy having brought the case against six schools with a Christian ethos. News organisation Enca reported that “the organisation argued that the schools’ decision to stop the scientific teaching of the theory of evolution is an abuse of pupils’ rights”. The organisation reportedly further “opposed the teaching of creationism and what it described as coercing pupils to follow Christianity and hymn singing”. Of course, creationism should not get in the way of scientific teaching, especially in a South Africa that sorely needs a skilled populace. But some experts are arguing that schools should at least still have the right to choose their religious ethos. In this article, Philip Rosenthal puts once such viewpoint forward. – Gareth van Zyl

By Philip Rosenthal*

Why Judge VD Linde was wrong on religion in schools judgment

The judgment of Wednesday 28 June 2017, given by Willem van der Linde in the South Gauteng High Court that school governing bodies may not promote themselves as having a particular single faith religious ethos is flawed for multiple reasons and hopefully will be overturned on appeal.

Philip RosenthalThe judge was however correct firstly in dismissing the detailed list of 71 demands of the atheistic lobby group O.G.O.D. based on the principle of subsidiarity, where the challenge must first appeal to the lowest level of law in its hierarchy (i.e. first School Governing Body (SGB) policy, second provincial legislation, third national legislation and lastly the constitution).

Secondly he was correct in dismissing challenge based on the National Religion Policy, which is not enforceable the by the court. The judge made the wrong assumptions that public schools are ‘organs of state’, rather than a parent-teacher-state partnership; confused the constitutional affirmation of ‘unity in diversity’ with a requirement of ‘celebrating diversity’.

He wrongly assumed that the SGB rules must accommodate both past and possible future demographics and accommodate any possible religion equally in direct contradiction to the interpretation of the same clause by the Constitutional Court in 1996.

Despite having found the applicant’s case procedurally flawed, the court invoked an overly broad and not adequately substantiated interpretation of their discretionary powers to issue an order in their favour, that would, if accepted, leave every person on every right vulnerable to judicial activist social engineering policy making.

The matter will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal and then to the Constitutional Court and thus School governing bodies will not be legally bound by this decision until such time as such appeals are concluded. In the interim, they will be able to continue as before.

Education must be aligned with human rights, everyone has a right to choose their own religion. Schools must respect that #SchoolsReligion

— IG : Khangwi_Ino (@Khangwi_ino) June 28, 2017

Why the decision had the wrong reasoning

The judge gave the following key reasons. We explain why each is flawed:

The judge stated his assumptions before his reasons:

Judges assumption #1: “Public schools are organs of state” We argue that public schools should not be viewed as “organs of state”, but rather as independent institutions which are extensions of the family where teachers operate ‘in loco parentis’, under the authority of parents represented by the School Governing Body (SGB) in partnership with the state. The state takes parents tax money and redistributes it to public schools and regulates certain issues such as educational standards. Public schools should thus be viewed as ‘state-aided institutions’ rather than ‘state institutions’. The implications of this assumption influences whether the centre of authority should be parents or the state.

Judges assumption #2: The judge quoted the preamble of the Constitution as ‘united in our diversity‘, but then interpreted from this ‘the need to celebrate our diversity’. Nevertheless, there is a big difference in the context of sharply differing views between ‘united’ and ‘celebration’ in the context of religion and belief. ‘United’ means that we tolerate, accommodate and respect differences and find ways to work together. It does not mean that we must ‘celebrate’ another’s religion or belief. For example, a Christian may respect a Muslim’s right to “celebrate” Eid, but does not wish to “celebrate” the festival by participating. Likewise a Muslim may respect a Christian’s right to celebrate Easter but not wish to participate. “Celebration” is part of religious observance. “Unity” and “equity” requires “reasonable accommodation”, but not joint “celebration”. ‘Tolerance’ and ‘respect’ are passive, while ‘celebration’ is active. The judge did not see this subtle but key logical difference.

Based on these assumptions, the judges gave the following reasons:

1) Communities evolve, were influenced by past racial demographic policies and must be encouraged to evolve. Answer: As a community changes, they have the opportunity to change the School Governing Body policies on religion and this is happening all the time. Often different schools in the same area adopt different policies, or a particular school may stream religious observances. Minorities have the opportunity to opt-out, to stream parallel observances for their religion or choose the school in the area with the most favourable policy to them. The ruling prohibiting single faith ethos is not needed to facilitate such flexible change and it is not the responsibility of the court to force a mixed uniform religious policy.

2) (a). A member of a minority religion may due to economic circumstance have no choice of alternatives. Answer: There are non-public school alternatives of home schooling, private schooling and the rising trend of the growth of ‘cottage schools’ i.e. very small private schools held in a home or community building, often making use of distance education resources – which are affordable and also occur in economically disadvantaged areas. Minorities do have the right to “reasonable accommodation” implied by the “equitable” in Section 15(2)(b) of the Constitution, which would allow them to opt-out or have their own streamed observances within a public school if they wish.

Court says it’s concerned by single faith branding in schools, and endorsing one religion to the exclusion of others #ReligionInSchools

— Michelle Craig (@MichelleL_Craig) June 28, 2017

2) (b). Being in a religious minority in a school of a particular faith, may inculcate a sense of ‘inferior differentness’. Answer: Firstly, the school has a responsibility to encourage a culture of tolerance of individuals who are different for various reasons, not only religious. Secondly, every individual is likely during their school career to feel ‘different’ for reasons that may or may not relate to religion. Even within the majority religion, there will be subdivisions of belief or practice which are ‘different’. Thirdly, forcing multi-faith observances onto a school can then may those of the majority faith who wish to opt-out of such observances also feel ‘inferior differentness’. The problem is not entirely avoidable as a possibility under any system except ‘homeschooling’ and is not solved by the proposed ruling against particular ethos.

3) Judge vd Linde comes to his conclusion” “accepting as one must, that the SGB rules must provide equitably for all faiths (given present and evolving future demographics), would the adoption of a single faith brand that excludes others not misrepresent the legally required position? That learners of all faiths are (should be) welcome? We think it would.”

Answer: Judge van der Linde builds on the flawed assumption that the SGB rules must accommodate evolving demographics already answered. Nevertheless, at this critical point of conclusion he paraphrases the Constitution incorrectly and misinterprets it, contradicting a previous ruling of the higher Constitutional Court. Clause 15(2) of the Constitution says “Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that a. those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities; b. they are conducted on an equitable basis…”

In the class room

In the judgment, S v Lawrence , S v Negal ; S v Solberg,1996, a case that took place during the interim constitution and in the year the final constitution became law, then Chief justice Chaskalson interpreted the same clause “It is in this context that it requires the regulation of school prayers to be carried out on an equitable basis. I doubt whether this means that a school must make provision for prayers for as many denominations as there may be within the pupil body; rather it seems to me to require education authorities to allow schools to offer the prayers that may be most appropriate for a particular school, to have that decision taken in an equitable manner applicable to all schools, and to oblige them to do so in a way which does not give rise to indirect coercion of the “non-believers”.

In other words, Chief Justice Chaskalson differed from Judge vd Linde’s interpretation of this clause in that ‘equitable’ does not mean that every individual school governing bodies religion policy rules must equally accommodate every religion equally, but that the national framework of laws regulating school religion must allow the different policies of each SGB to be made on an ‘equitable basis’. In other words the national system must allow one school to decide to have a Christian ethos and another to have a Muslim ethos or another to have a Secular or New Age (multi-faith) ethos.

For all the above reasons, Van der Linde’s ruling was wrong and hopefully will be overturned on appeal.

Did the court really have the power to issue this order?

Extraordinarily, the Gauteng High Court did not declare any legislation or rule of the School Governing bodies invalid or issue any of the 71 requested interdicts against any specific party in the dispute. They explained they could not do so because of the procedurally misdirected way in which the case had been framed by the atheistic lobby group O.G.O.D with respect to subsidiarity (explained earlier). The vague application could be compared with aiming a sawn off shotgun in the general direction of the education system and hoping that somehow, something will hit some target. Normally, when the applicant’s case is procedurally flawed, it is simply dismissed – and they must try again following correct procedure and doing their legal homework properly.

Gauteng High Court

But in this case, the Court came to the rescue of the applicant’s procedurally disqualified case and invoked what it claimed were general discretionary powers of the Court that it found in Section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution and Section 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act. Now there are several problems with invoking these extraordinary discretionary powers in this case. The power granted in terms of section 172(1)(b) says ‘When deciding a constitutional matter within its power, a court may make any order that is just and equitable, including i. an order limiting the retrospective effect of the declaration of invalidity and ii. an order suspending the declaration of invalidity for any period and on any conditions, to allow the competent authority to correct the defect. “ But in this case, firstly the declaration of made by the Gauteng High Court was on inconsistency with section 7 of the Schools Act – not the Constitution. And the possible alleged infringement which they claim to find was in terms of Gauteng Provincial legislation, not the Constitution or the Schools Act. So their declaration is already acting outside the scope of this authority and unlinked to their logical reasoning. Further, since only four of the six schools were in Gauteng, even if accepted, such reasoning would then not apply to the two schools in the Western Cape or the tens of thousands of schools elsewhere.

Secondly, the context of this exceptional discretionary power of the court is in context in the two examples that follow is meant to allow the court to mitigate or narrow the effect of their order to limit social disruption – not to expand their powers to declare anything they wish. So, for example, if they declare a law invalid, it allows them to give time to the government to put alternative legislation in place. If this clause is interpreted broadly to allow the court to issue any declaration they wish at their sole discretion, without the need to justify it, then they have created a loophole in the constitution, and now incrementally stretching that loophole, which means we are no longer living in a limited Constitutional democracy, but that activist judges are our new kings.

#SchoolsReligion and a 30% pass mark is going to produce some interesting dogma. e.g. Moses and the Three Commandments.

— Tom Eaton (@TomEatonSA) June 28, 2017

Thirdly, any discretionary power exercised by anyone must be very carefully justified in that instance to avoid it being abused and causing social harm. For example, in an emergency a traffic officer can close a road, but he cannot abuse such emergency power to close any road he wishes if there is an alternative less harmful remedy available. In this instance, the court has issued an unusually thin 35 page judgment, with hardly any motivation for why this extraordinary discretionary power is invoked except that certain other courts have invoked it before. The merit of these other cases is debatable, but, in these precedent cases cited, very detailed motivation was given which this court did not.

To put the matter in context, the precedent cases cited, had judgements double to four times the length over issues of comparatively trivial social impact. Of this 35 page judgment, about half of it is verbatim quotation from other cases or laws, leaving only about 17 pages of original reasoning, most of this explaining why they were not granting the 71 interdicts demanded by the atheist lobby group. Only two paragraphs refer to why this extraordinary discretionary power is invoked and the reasons in that are not much more than that it has been done before.

The reasoning for the substantive declaration is limited to a few paragraphs. They do not even refer to or weigh up the thousands of pages of expert witness and legal research placed before the court, by nine respondents and five friends of the court much of which would contradict their findings. One has to question whether in the space of only six weeks to issue this decision (which surprised all parties), they actually applied their minds to all this evidence – and that itself may be grounds to overturn it.

Further, they did not find any evidence of harm from the practice of single faith ethos, but only that “…but we think it could” make others ‘feel inferior’. But just about anything ‘could’ happen. How would you like a court to rule against you, without finding you had done anything wrong, but only that you ‘could’ potentially harm someone’s feelings?

And even if such harm was proved, the court is required in terms of the limitations clause 36(1)(e) in the Constitution to consider alternative “less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.”, which they did not. For example, a school promoting tolerance and reasonable accommodation of minorities, as most do. So without any finding of evidence of actual harm or infringement of rights, and without considering less restrictive means, the judges decide to abuse their powers, and engage in an act of social engineering – and such judicial abuse of power threatens everyone’s rights. The case becomes then not just about school religion, but about whether the courts have discretionary social engineering policy powers?

Unresolved interpretation and future disputes

Even if Van der Linde’s ruling was upheld by the higher courts, it would leave open major unresolved questions on the interpretation of what it’s limitation on ‘single faith’ religious ethos and observances are – opening the door for many more legal disputes that schools do not want. In its current wording the declaration only limits the school from branding or marketing itself as a particular faith ethos. The court did not rule on what a school could actually do internally in practice. This leaves schools vulnerable to endless litigation and legal intimidation from such lobby groups.

For example, South African schools have historically accommodated religious differences via ‘streaming’, rather than ‘multi-faith religious observances’ to which many people of faith have a strong religious conscientious objection. ‘Streaming’ allows a significant group from a minority religious group to hold alternative religious education or observances at the same time as the majority are having theirs. If this matter is not clarified, it will inevitably result in another court case. Reasonable accommodation via streaming is a much more acceptable alternative than requiring public schools to secularise or have ‘multi-faith’ religious observances.

Nevertheless, streaming is only practical for ‘observances’ and ‘religious education’ and does not resolve the full spectrum of educational ethos which implicitly affects every subject and activity in education. Here neutrality is impossible and thus the South Gauteng High Court ruling tends to favour secularisation and multi-faith ethos, and discriminate against single-faith ethos.

The current legal framework is working well, with no need to change it.

What should schools do?

The ruling will firstly almost certainly be appealed and until that is exhausted (which may take another year or two), it is not legally binding. Secondly, even if upheld its wording limits only promotion of a school as single faith ethos and not its internal practice. Schools should not thus make hasty changes in response to this decision. The ruling does however need to be challenged, both for the sake of governing body rights and to restrict judicial abuse of power in general.

Philip Rosenthal is the director of the public advocacy group, ChristianView Network.

Gareth van ZylGareth van Zyl June 29, 2017| atheistic lobby, BNT5, ChristianView Network, diversity, education, Organisation for Religious Education and Democracy, Philip Rosenthal, public schools, Religion, South Africa, South Gauteng High Court, Supreme Court

___________________________________________________________________

conclusion

In conclusion, above are two newspaper reports surrounding a ruling handed down in the South Gauteng High Court pertaining to an application brought against six public schools in South Africa that have a Christian ethos and teach Christianity. This was followed by a rebuttal against the ruling by Philip Rosenthal and now we will conclude with the Word of GOD.

The real issue at hand is not about multi-religions, but the underlying issue is that the atheistic organization ‘ogod’ has an axe to grind with Christianity and against the Lord Jesus Christ. They do not want the Truth to be told in public schools, but want everyone to conform to the devilish teachings of Darwinian evolution and thereby place the onus upon the children to make misguided decisions of which religion to follow, if any. This is ogod’s attempt at promoting their atheistic-worldview of ecumenism which is Satan’s deception to lead those falling for his lie straight into Hell and the eternal lake that burns with fire and brimstone! Their religious equation looks like this:

atheistic-worldview [no GOD] + ecumenism [all gods] = No True GOD = Eternal Damnation!

The theory of evolution that is being taught in schools as ‘scientific’ is not observable in its ‘scientific macro evolution’ form – evolution from one form into another form for the missing links from one kind into another kind remain missing due to them having never existed and is therefore taught from artistic fanciful imaginations and impressions depicting what they think the science should look like. In essence it is a fairy-tale for grownups, if ever fairy-tales existed! It therefore remains exactly as it is described: ‘a theory.’ A theory is not fact as we can see from the following descriptions:

  • Factnoun. Something that is certainly true.
  • Theorynoun. (plural theories) 1. An idea or set of ideas put forward to explain something. 2. Ideas (contrasted with practice), different theories about how to bring up children. 3. The principles of a subject, music theory.
  • © The South African Oxford School Dictionary, compiled by Joyce M. Hawkins, Oxford University Press 1996

The theory (set of ideas) of evolution is a religion. It is the teachings and worship of the creation more than the Creator, for it is written,

18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 
20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 
21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 
22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 
23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 
24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 
25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. ~ Romans 1:18-25

The atheist wants everyone’s attention taken off of their Creator and placed on creation and to serve it. This is foolishness. If in the atheist’s interpretation that there is no GOD and everything evolved, then it does not take rocket science to understand that the various life forms have different flesh so how could all kinds (everything) evolve into different kinds from a single organism? The Word of GOD clearly explains the atheist’s quandary, for it is written,

38  But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39  All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. ~ I Corinthians 15:38,39ff

Now to turn to judge Willem van der Linde who handed down the ruling in favour of the atheists, he has a lot to answer to GOD come the Day of Judgment when he will appear before his Creator Who is the True Judge of the Universe and have to give an accounting to the sovereign Ancient of Days. Willem van der Linde must repent of his wicked deed and rescind this ruling and confess his wickedness to his Creator GOD YEHOVAH and receive GOD’s Son Jesus Christ as his redeemer! This is Willem van der Linde’s only hope of escaping GOD’s damnation of his soul in Hell. He has sided with the Satanic agenda of the atheist lobby group ‘ogod.’ His ruling promotes the ecumenical religions of the deceived atheists, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, et al, that they have man’s law on their side to reject GOD’s Holy Word and HIS Laws. The way of everlasting life which is to be disciplined as a follower of GOD’s Son the Lord Jesus Christ, can ONLY be received through Jesus Christ the saviour of the world! For it is written,

1  These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 
2  As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 
3  And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
~ John 17:1-3ff

GOD tells us that HE will not give HIS glory to any other and that before HIM there were no god formed, for it is written,

8  Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. 
9  They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. 
10  Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing? ~ Isaiah 44:8-10

The South Gauteng High Court ruling is encouraging all manner of gods to be encouraged in the education system when pupils are to be taught that which is true! As a result of this ruling it has put GOD on trial, HIS Word on trial and HIS Son Jesus Christ on trial. The schools who were brought before the court were Christian ethos schools – Christ following schools! GOD commands that, for it is written,

3  Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 
4  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 
5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 
6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. ~ Exodus 20:3-6

The school system is already forcing children to learn about all religions in a subject known as life skills! Already the indoctrination of young minds is in the education system and parents have the right to determine what their children are exposed to and what they learn. Children are not the property of the state. Parents have the GOD given responsibility to raise them as GOD fearing, GOD honouring and GOD worshipping children, in the Name of Jesus Christ – “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The Lord Jesus Christ exclusively stated that He is the way, the truth and the life, for it is written,

6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 
7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
~ John 14:6,7

With these words the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is GOD manifest in flesh (John 1:1,2,14), stated that He is the ONLY way, and the ONLY truth, and the ONLY life. He never said He is some way. The way is exclusive! For Jesus Christ said in Matthew 7, “13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” He never said He is some truth. The truth is exclusive! Truth is not subjective, one truth for one person and another truth for another person based on what they believe. Truth is not subjective but objective! To have truth is to have it 100%. If there is but 1% of untruth mixed in with what is perceived to be true, that 1% or smaller measure renders the other 99% untrue, for truth cannot be tainted with untruth for it will render the whole untrue! Jesus Christ said He is truth and in John 8 He said, “31 If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” And in verse 36, “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” And He never said He is some life. The life is exclusive! For it is written in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

The truth of the matter is that the god of this world Satan that wicked crooked devil is leading all deceived religious persons straight to Hell and one day they will find out that this place truly exists, then it will be too late! Today, while it is still today, throw yourself upon the mercy of GOD and have your “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). This is your ONLY hope!

Soli Deo Gloria

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: