More On Religious Intolerance

Simon Borchardt’s derisive piece on Jaco van der Westhuyzen’s (pictured) antics after the Super14 final offers a suitable case study on a trend of religious intolerance in the media.

It seems that Borchardt had two main problems with the said scenario. Firstly, the white T-shirt with “Jesus is King” scrawled on it, was politically incorrect by virtue of it being a religious text shown at a public sporting-spectacle. Secondly, there seem to be ‘theological’ problems with the context. I’ll focus on the former.

Borchardt cuts to the quick in his lambasting, but gives little substance as to the reason for his outrage. Near the end, he breathlessly rasps, “…South Africa is a secular state and Van der Westhuyzen’s actions were grossly inappropriate”. Sadly, this shows an unmitigated distortion of the concept of a secular state. It seems the only part Borchardt correctly grasped is that South Africa happens to be one.

A secular state is officially neutral on matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious belief, practice or expression. Hence there is no state religion or equivalent. All citizens are treated equally, irrespective of their religious persuasion, with none gaining preferential status due to their faith (or absence of it). Was Jaco – playing for the “Blue Bulls” franchise – representing government? Did Jaco’s action result in a religion gaining government preference? Was there a law altered giving the “Jesus-group” special privileges? No. Then for the life of me, I can’t see how this has diddly-squat to do with South Africa being a secular state.

The outrageous aspect is that ‘secular state’ is brazenly extrapolated to infer a relegation of religion from all public arenas to the private. Not only does this beg the question of the validity of such a bold public/private distinction, it assumes government interference and opposition to all public expressions of religion – a tenet incompatible with secularism. This is a two-edged sword: it protects the state from religion, but equally protects religion from state meddling. It seems that Borchardt had interpreted freedom of religion to mean freedom from religion.

Borchardt further implies that the tender egos of non-funky-Christians were shattered at the exhibition. I’ve just about had it with the Politically Correct crowd. To demonstrate, let’s say Jaco wore a bright pink T-shirt saying “Pronutro is King” – or perhaps one saying, “Aliens Exist”, or “They arrested me for being the ugliest man alive – could your dad come to the local jail to prove them wrong”. The first is a statement of preference. We all know Pronutro… but I might personally prefer iphalishi. Big deal. The second is an unproven statement which could be either right or wrong. The last, is an insult to every humourless cretin that reads it. Jaco’s T shirt lies somewhere between the first and second and is agonizingly innocuous as far as T shirts go nowadays. If he had scrawled a four-letter verb followed by “…you, sharks!” it would probably have been converted into a lucrative clothing brand.

Borchardt’s offense at some bloke expressing his religious belief is just an indication of his bald-faced intolerance and prejudice against religion. However, as much as I will defend Jaco’s right to show off his shoddy handwriting, I’ll defend Borchards gold-plated drivel. He’s as much entitled to his opinion as the next person – only he shouldn’t pass it off as unbiased ‘sport’ reporting.

Kicking the Super14 Away

All credit to the Bulls for pulling off a remarkable last-minute victory in the Shark Tank – well, almost. I think the Sharks played a none-too-small hand in their own demise. Holding a 6 point lead with a minute on the clock, James got clean ball on his 10-metre line – and, good heavens, opted to kick the ball downfield! The Bulls counterattacked with a powerful surge only to have Botha hoof a lackluster grubber into the hands of the waiting Steyn. What the…?! Steyn also puts in an aimless kick in the general direction of the Bulls try line. The resulting counter produced the match-winning try by flyer Habana; the kick in front a mere formality.

Being a bit of an armchair sports critic, I realise the triteness of 20/20 hindsight; but consider what could have happened: with a minute to play, the Sharks had the ball. Instead of holding on to it, and thus negating virtually any possibility of the Bulls scoring, they kicked it away pointlessly. Instead of keeping it tight and taking it through three or four phases before booting it into the delirious crowd, they played right into their opponents hands by opening up the game.

For all purposes, having had it in their hands, the Sharks might as well have kicked the Super14 trophy away. The only consolation is that South African rugby looks ominous in a World Cup year. Who knows?

It's just too close to call

With the Super 14 Final exploding in the Shark Tank on Saturday, I have to join a host of others saying this game is too close to call. The Sharks have won more games, finished top of the log, and enjoy home-ground advantage, but the Bulls have been murderous in their last few outings. I've seen few teams playing with such clinical self-confidence. These teams are evenly matched -- the Bulls might have the extra beef in their forwards, while the Sharks have the bite in their backs.

Being a banana-boy, I'll have to root for the local team, thankful though, that whichever way it goes, the trophy has finally returned to RSA. I've already bid my fingernails farewell.