David Saks
David Saks

I’m voting ACDP

Well, it wasn’t quite like blackballing Mother Teresa, but it came close. In the context of the free world, the Dalai Lama enjoys something approaching Gandhian status. He is a true icon of peace and of a people’s struggle to be free, with these two ideals, so unusually, being complementary, not contradictory. Perhaps the most astonishing feature of the whole wretched saga is that those responsible for refusing him a visa failed to realise the implications of what they had just done.

The baffling contradictions between South Africa’s foreign and domestic policies — democratic at home, supportive of a slew of oppressive dictatorships abroad — has already unearned us the unenviable soubriquet of “rogue democracy”. The free world’s scorn is further heightened by this country’s continuing to presume to be a leading voice on human-rights questions.

That presumption was quite in order in the heady aftermath of the 1994 transformation, not quite the “miracle” it was commonly dubbed at the time but unquestionably it was a stirring accomplishment given the fashionable doomsday predictions that preceded it. Today, it is looking so threadbare as to retrospectively almost make a mockery of the historical events on which it bases itself. The times have moved on, yet some of our leaders still behave as if the world at large regards South Africa as a foremost arbiter on questions of international justice and morality.

Disillusionment with post-1994 South Africa came into sharp focus over the course of the country’s disastrous two-year stint as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. Mike Trapido has thoroughly documented our bizarre voting record in a previous post, so there is no need to rehash the depressing details. Suffice it to say that South Africa persistently stymied initiatives to expose and/or call to book some of the planets most egregious human-rights violators, including Burma, Sudan and, of course, Zimbabwe.

“Clearly, loyalty to rulers and regimes which supported the ANC in the anti-apartheid struggle and a desire to tilt the world order in a direction more congenial to the developing world has directed our foreign policy in a direction diametrically opposite to Nelson Mandela’s commitment in 1994 that human rights would be ‘the light that guides our foreign affairs’.” That was the verdict of the DA spokesperson asked to comment on the issue for a forthcoming pre-election debate and, notwithstanding that the DA is by its nature hardly an unbiased voice, it seems to me to be spot on.

Many have expressed disappointment, disillusionment and similar sentiments over South Africa’s failure to fulfil its promise as a worthy player in the international human-rights arena. In reality, a little more familiarity with the history of the liberation movements might have prepared them for a future let-down. In exile, the ANC was distinctly closer to totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, Libya and Cuba than it was to the Western democracies.

When the US-led coalition invaded Iraq in 2003, there was a near-hysterical reaction from the ruling party. One will look in vain to find any ANC condemnation of the even less justifiable, and far more brutal, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the “struggle” years. Nor did the ANC and SACP have anything to say about the Soviet’s occupation of the various East and Central European countries prior to the fall of communism. One even finds examples of leading activists attempting to justify the crushing of populist revolts against Soviet domination, such as the 1956 Hungarian uprising and its counterpart in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Given this history, is it really surprising that the government should now have openly taken the side of the Chinese regime against the occupied people of Tibet?

South Africa’s foreign policy raises, for me, disturbing questions as to whether the ruling party, in its heart of hearts, really believes in democracy. Intellectually, it certainly does, but at the emotional level too many of its members seem to gravitate towards authoritarian, anti-Western regimes. This worries me, because in my understanding of human nature, the head will eventually follow the desires of the heart, not the other way round.

This is one of the main reasons why I have decided to cast my vote for the African Christian Democratic Party, after more than twenty years of more or less automatic support for the DA and all its previous incarnations. The ACDP has shown a commendable degree of consistency in its adherence to the core values it espouses, values unapologetically rooted in biblical tradition. The stands it has taken, including on foreign-policy issues, have often been extremely unfashionable and its leaders have been alternately mocked and threatened for this. I admire them for this, particularly when compared to how the ANC and certain other parties have continually compromised the ideals they supposedly espouse for reasons of short-term convenience.

The ACDP has shown modest but steady growth in its fifteen-year history. I am hoping that this trend will continue come April 22, and this time round I will be doing my little bit to help out.

  • Jean

    David, for the first time I find myself, on the whole, agreeing with you.

    I too doubt the ANC’s commitment to human rights. It certainly served their purpose when they were fighting the struggle; embedded in their rhetoric was the idea that they were resisting oppression and fighting for equality which got a large portion of the free world to take up their cause.

    Now that they are in government, given their track record, I would argue that the ANC’s struggle was – whether consciously or unconsciously – probably more about achieving power than it was about achieving freedom.

    South Africa, thanks to the ANC, can no longer make any legitimate claim to the moral high ground when it comes to human rights issues.

    As for who to vote for, some of the worst human rights violations occur under religion and religious regimes. I’ll be steering clear of the ACDP. They seem to be the only party where elected officials serve their country first, not themselves or their beliefs!

  • Jean


    The DA, in my mind, seems to be the only party where elected officials serve their country first, and not themselve or their beliefs.

  • Siobhan

    A vote for the opposition is a vote against the ANC and that is a good thing. One might argue that voting for such a small party is, however, a waste of a vote in view of the urgency of establishing a sizable opposition.

    I would like nothing better than to see the DA, ID, ACDP, and perhaps COPE form a coalition in Parliament but since that is not a ‘sure thing’ a vote for one of the two larger parties might have more effect on the outcome of the election.

    Just something to think about, David.

  • http://www.youtube.com/elections2009 Siphiwo Siphiwo

    wheeeuuuwww, another april fools’ day prank.

    if not, eish man, you’re about to spoil your ballot…


  • pasile

    Oh, we a ‘rougue democracy’ now? What western powers have characterized us as such? It wouldn’t happen to be the U.S. that routinely supports ‘friendly’ brutal dictators or expansionist states like Israel. The EU characterizes S.A as a leading democracy in the developing world. It is the tiny white minority in S.A. that calls us rougue democrats. The same people who were trying to stop the World Cup from coming to S.A. ACDP was created by security forces of the apartheid state to manipulate black people’s religious inclinations. But the Rev. with the Afro didn’t fool us.

  • http://webmail Sonwabile

    Bravoooo!!! you have just hit it on the right spot.I fell exactly as you feel. I am also voting the ever-consistent ACDP. At least this its have proven to be people with integrity. You are not alone, come the 22 April my family and myself are also voting the ACDP. I am fed up with lies and empty promices.

  • http://webmail Sonwabile

    True Dave! I thought I was the only one who has decided to stop being a blind loyal supporter of the unrepentent ANC. My vote goes for true moral – the ACDP alone can provide that. I am glad at least there are people in SA who are able to notice true leaders with integrity at the time when the country need them most. The ACDP is the only option.

  • http://letpeoplespeakamagama.com Lyndall Beddy


    Good try

  • Mike Atkins

    There has been a major misconception about the ACDP over the years that it is a Christian “special interest” party. People have viewed it a bit like a certain party that is for “Indians”, or possibly a religious equivalent of a Green party (i.e. single-issue, or single constituency).

    However, the ACDP is a “Christian Democratic” party, similar in some respects to the European Christian Democratic parties. This model seeks to apply biblical standards of justice, law and morality to society today in the sincere conviction that this provides the soudnest underpinning for public policy and public life.

    The ACDP does NOT impose its “religion” on others, believing that religious faith and observance is an entirely personal issue (as guaranteed by the Constitution).

    Sout Africa has tried godlessness as a philosophical underpinning to society – maybe there is room to base society on different assumptions.

  • Dave Harris

    Your analysis of SA’s unholy alliance with China does not make sense.
    It was apartheid propaganda that made “rooi gevaar” the bogeyman in a futile attempt to ingratiate themselves to the west. Africans didn’t give a shit about communism while they suffered under apartheid on a daily basis. Some communist countries did provide arms and training to the ANC-MK, but it was the west, mainly the US, that was the catalysts of change. Once Regans’s policy of “constructive engagement” was abandoned bu the US Congress the total isolation of SA began in the 80s. Influential African-Americans, Hollywood, educational institutions and the progressive media spearheaded the social and economic boycott which made SA the pariah of the world. This complete isolation of SA and the student unrest of the 80s provided the momentum that the liberation struggle needed to change the mindset of the apartheid government. Remember the mighty apartheid military machine was still intact and the country was ripe for civil war until Nelson Mandela’s release. HOW EASILY WE FORGET!

    Remember the Chinese were privileged and treated officially as “honorary whites” under apartheid system. Furthermore the Chinese government was strangely silent during apartheid. SA’s blind allegiance to China makes NO political or economic sense. Corruption within ANC is the only way to explain this disgusting behavior! Some in the ANC are becoming extremely rich from those dollars the Chinese need to spend quickly before it devalues!

  • Duncan

    “The baffling contradictions between South Africa’s foreign and domestic policies — democratic at home”

    – democratic at home? Undermining the courts, corruption, intimidation, one law for the elite – another for the rest of us. Hmmm, perhaps oppressors like the Chinese are the natural bedfellows of the ANC.

  • Duncan

    The ACDP has many commendable policies. The trouble is that we’re in such a pit of decay that what we need above all else is someone who can govern – and the ACDP have no experience there. We can’t take any more chances.

    The DA are the only ones governing properly and turning back the tide of crime, poverty, unemployment, bad service delivery etc.

  • Skabenga

    Politics, religion? Worshipping a plagiarism of the Sun God Horus, ok maybe I will vote Monty Pythons ACDP as well just because of consistency, one word, eish!

  • Robin Grant

    ACDP certainly has a good policy base. However, in today’s climate church/state separation should be of primary importance.

    The underlying biblical agenda of the Abrahmic religious traditions of the requirement for annihilation/armageddon to fulfill religious prophesy is even more concerning than the ANC’s warped ideologies.

  • Sipho

    Archbishop Tutu sounded a warning to the ruling party: “Let me tell this ANC government what I told the Afrikaner Nationalist government. They (the ANC) have power now, but you are not God. Remember that you are not God and one day you’ll get your comeuppance”

    On other news, South Africa has now emerged as a new kind of ICON. South Africans can be proudly known throughout the world as the country that sucked up to China. After SA’s lead, China is now encouraging pro China groups to ban HH all around the world.

    An umbrella group representing 28 local Chinese organisations in New Zealand wants the Government to follow South Africa’s lead in refusing to grant the Dalai Lama a visa to visit.

    The 73-year-old Tibetan exiled spiritual leader is scheduled to visit Auckland on December 6. He will speak at the Vector Arena and plans to meet Prime Minister John Key.

    Mr Key has said he will meet the Buddhist leader when he comes, calling the Dalai Lama a “significant visitor”.

    New Zealand’s prime minister is not backing down from China. The Chinese Communist Party cannot buy him.

    Laughable! Around the world, South Africa is now know as an obedient Communist lap dog! China is saying to countries “You should all follow the example set by South Africa!”

    To be fair, maybe SA citizens should demonstrate if the Chinese premier ever sets foot on SA soil.

  • http://acdpinsider.blogspot.com Eric Savage

    For 15 years the ACDP has been looked down on as just “the morals party”. By now I’d think the South African public are under no illusion as to the importance of morals. Every party plans to build houses, but who has the moral integrity to get the job done on a Monday morning?

    The real challenge with morality is what standard you hold yourself up against. The DA don’t have a standard – they play the game like all politicians. Yes they will be more efficient than the ANC, but when it comes to moral integrity, they just bank on their “free vote”, perfect evidence of what I’m trying to see.

    That the ACDP have been “consistent” is no accident, and this is exactly the point. The Bible hasn’t changed, and while you may question certain aspects, if you give it a moment’s thought, you’d realise that a government which at the very minimum honours principles like don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t covet, will be one hell of an improvement. Oh, and the DA don’t mention those Biblical principles in their manifesto.

  • Richard D

    The ANC is one thing, but a religious party with beliefs and doctrines is by definition incompatible with other faiths, or with humanism.

    Only a secular society gives people the best environment within which to ive according to their own beliefs and values.

    Theres a reason we work to keep church seperate from State.

    I’ll vote ANC before I vote ACDP.

  • Mike Atkins

    Jean, the ACDP would not be a “religious regime” – it would base policies on a worldview drawn from biblical principles (equality before the law, the inherent worth of every person, the rule of law, non-shifting morality, recognition of a “higher power” than man, etc, etc). A lot of people may disagree with some of the outcomes (like not allowing abortion-on-demand), but then look at the consequences of basing our society on a godless worldview.

    Siobhan, no other single party will gain over 50% for some time, leaving a coalition where even smaller parties play a role, as well as representing particular viewpoints. No wasted votes!

    Skabenga, in politics, the ACDP represents a philosophy of society, and not a religion.

    Robin Grant, the ACDP recognises church / state separation probably more than anyone else. As with freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience and belief.

    And how precisely do you link a particular theological interpretation to the policies of the ACDP?

    Lyndall, why not?

    Most ordinary people, even if not churchgoing, probably adhere to value-systems closer to biblical standards than to any other (even if we struggle to live up to those standards, we still prefer to have them).

  • Jean


    If you want to look at societies that base their policies on godless wordlviews one need only look to Denmark, Sweden, Norway or Switzerland to realise that secular society is not the cause of a dysfunctional one such as ours.

    If you want to look at a dysfunctional one I could point out at a few theocracies for you.

    Under biblical principles are homosexuals equal before the law? Under biblical principles are woman equal before the law? I could go on…

    Notwithstanding, you seem to assume that things like the rule of law, equality before the law, the inherent worth of every person, etc. are concepts based solely on biblical principles.

    One does not need the bible to see the inherent worth of these principles. Just like the Greeks who didn’t need the bible to see the inferent worth of democracy.

    Religion in politics is a slippery slope, I would vote for the ANC before the ACDP anyday. And thats saying a lot…

  • Rory Short

    @David this blog makes a lot of sense to me. I wish you had similar sense in more of your blogs.

  • Jeff

    Well David, guess someone overlooked the ACDP’s dismissive attitude to rights like those pertaining to women’s rights over their own bodies, gender preferences and the like. Nu anyway, you seem to have rallied a rah from the DA. We might as well vote ANC after all.

  • MFB

    What, no jokes about Jews for Jesus? Shame on you all!

  • Noko

    There is nothing wrong with our democrazy at all. All countries all over the world have strange policies depending on what is viewed as of National interest. The USA, UK et all do that all the time. It is sad that as far as people like you are concerned what ever that goverment does is wrong despite. Some of the issues raised have nothing to do with the refusal at all it only shows your deep seated hatred of the goverment.

    Most of those that are unhappy with the goverment is because they were privilleged and the ANC removed that superiority from them and showed them that they are just human. Every sane person knows that the ANC will be in power come the 23rd and life will go on. Anyone who thinks that any other party will win the election is SA in the coming fifty years is not very sane at all. We will defend the ANC at all costs.

  • http://webmail Sonwabile

    DA will never grow beyond where it is now as long as it still markets itself as the “Whites Only Party”. I do not foresee the DA being led by a non-white leader – their history and campaign slogans prove this beyond doubt. Privious DA slogans “Fight Back” in one of the previous elections prove that they are led by racists who did not want black-led goverment – so they are commanding their Apartheid pals to ‘fight back’. Black people who join and support DA are fooling themseves. Were it not for the fact that Blacks are the majority of voters the DA would never bother campaigning in the informal settlement populated by the Blacks. By the way – what was the lgical resoning behind Tony Leon and his fellow DA comrades whaen they hanged women underwears on the streets of a black-populated township a few years ago? The ACDP is the only party that has proven to be the future government of South Africa. It has never been contaminated by racial motives and it attracts leaders and membership from all races. I will vote for the ACDP. It is capable of governing with pure motives.

  • Mike Atkins


    This debate is worthwhile precisely because the ACDP is routinely misrepresented. The ACDP has NEVER advocated a theocracy (where church authority structures govern the country).

    Those stable European countries have a long history of a (mainly) Protestant culture (not getting at Catholics here). It is also interesting to note how Europe, having greatly abandoned its Christian consensus about society, is drifting into totalitarian rule under the EU.

    Women were given far more dignity in the Bible than any other cultures of that time. Sadly, many of us men have distorted the Bible to continue subjugation of women – we should be ashamed of this heritage.

    The ACDP’s position on homosexuality is simply that marriage should be recognised as a unique covenant between a man and a woman – as it has been by almost every society throught history.

    Greek democracy had value, but was deeply flawed, having massive, entrenched class divides. I agree that the rule of law is not unique to the Bible, but cultures that acted on biblical values are primarily responsible for our modern appreciation of these principles. And I challenge you to find any philosohpical system throughout history, other than that of the Bible, that provides a basis for treating every individual as having inherent worth.


    An unborn child is not part of the mother’s body. From conception, nothing more than nutrition and oxygen passes from mother to child. The biblical approach is to love both mother and child.

  • Winkie

    Thank you, Jean! I find it difficult to respect a party which follows principles like this:
    “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.” (Gee, thanks Timothy!)
    Yeah, it’s a great book, full of excellent principles, like giving your daughters to be raped by a crowd and lots of smiting of slaves and so on. Gimme the Scandinavian godless model any day!

  • Mike Atkins


    I realise that it is very easy to be hurt by Christianity, and by Christians (we can be an insufferable bunch, sometimes). We can get on righteous rants, but fail to show love.

    But, you know, the Bible describes this very well in 1 Corinthians 13 (“…if I have not love … I am nothing”).

    From our perspective there are some verses that seem difficult to digest, but there is a world of difference between looking for ways to pick holes, and making an honest evaluation of difficult passages.

    Although we may differ in the faith that we profess, I feel strongly that in the area of civil society, there are values and principles that we can find in common. It is in the underlying philosophy, and seeking to understand why the world is the way it is (and hence point to some remedies) that the ACDP can honestly best represent th aspirations of many, rather than few of us.

  • Keith Downs

    It is not sufficient to refer to “The Scandanvian godless model” without an in depth knowlege of the work of Scandanavian Christian Democratic parties in reversing negative social trends in the last few years. In those countries, the CD/KD is frequently the official opposition or the government, the leader of a coalition, or the government. The “Scandanavia godless model” is a concept that existed in the mid to late 20th Century.
    The unfettered legalisation of prostitution by a government elected on a labour ticket is a good example. Kristdemokraterna addressed the negative social fallout of this through an interpretation of passages concerning the woman in adultery brought before Jesus to be stoned. Current laws in Sweden now address the real cause of prostitution; aberrant males and it is now a crime to induce a person to moral decay through financial incentive. Government is then free to render compassionate social assistance to the victims, the prostitutes, so they can find a way out of this destructive lifestyle, delivering them from the clutches of pharisaic males and pimps and whatever.
    The stonings and aberrant behaviour cited in the Bible are a record of negative human behavioural patterns that passed away because Jesus came to show us a better way. They were not prescribed behaviour.
    Scandanavian Christian Democratic policies are used as a model to inform ACDP and general christian democratic development in SA. (Please note the semantic significance of non capitalisation of christian democratic in the last sentence)

  • Luke Akal

    Even if I wasn’t a Christian, my vote would still more than likely be for the ACDP because I realise just how desperately South Africa needs moral statesmen, not politicians. As a young supporter, I have come to understand that one can only have a sure and strong moral foundation if it is rooted in a religious belief, otherwise it can be twisted and contorted any way imaginable – resulting in a self-destructive society.

    Another strong reason why I vote ACDP is because it stands for limited government. I’m sick and tired of states trying to ‘provide’ for the people (today&in history), failing miserably and in some cases removing individuals’s God-given rights. Remember, what the state gives, it can take away (and tell you what to do with what it gave!).

    Lastly, the vast majority of South Africans refer to themselves as Christians. So, my question is, why should we let the minority rule the majority for the sake of ‘political correctness’ and ‘tolerance’? And as for separation of Church&State:the ACDP understands it best because we acknowledge that God gives us the right (NOT the state) to believe in Him or not.That’s a reason why we are for freedom of religion, and do not believe the state should impose the religion of Secular Humanism.

    Thanks so much for your support, Mr Atkins!
    השם יברך אותך — Elo’him yevareh otha.

  • Jean

    The basic, and incorrect, assumption seems to be that christianity, the bible and religion are the means of achieving a moral status.

    Its as if before the ten commandments, everybody of that time had no idea that it was wrong to steal and murder each other.


    Religion in politics has proved disastrous for society at evey juncture. From the Bush administration, to the middle east to North Korea.

    Whose to decide what constitutes a negative trend? The bible?! Christians on behalf of everybody else? The Qu’ran? Muslims on behalf of everybody else?

    The best road forward is a secular free society which creates the space for eveybody to live according to their own fath doctrines, and for people who aren’t superstitious not to live according to the ‘teachings’ of people who are.

    Religious societies are not free societies.

  • http://acdpinsider.blogspot.com Eric Savage

    Jean, I’m fascinated by your “freedoms”. Where do they end? Where does responsibility begin? Why does a baby die when a mother executes her “rights over her own body”? Why do we pay for the ANC’s freedom to pay their MP’s higher salaries? How much “freedom of religion” do you want to give to Satanists? And why does “freedom of religion” cause prayer to get banned in schools? Do you want to set all the serial murderers free?

    Certain freedoms promote a healthy society and others pull it down. Relaxing our dreadful labour legislation is a positive freedom that results in job creation, rather than protecting a limited unionised workforce that drives inflation, mechanisation and closures.

    The ACDP supports more freedoms than you will find with other parties. Rather than enslavement to a central social welfare economy, we choose to empower people through skills to master their own destinies. Rather than forcing consumers to pay for inefficient government bureaucracy, we believe in reduced taxation that lets consumers choose their own services in a competitive environment. That’s freedom, and you won’t get it in a socialist Nordic country.

    We simply believe that broken families can be healed, that kids can get a better education than they get now, that the poor can be fed, that politicians can be honest, that hard work gets rewarded, that the good people win. These are Christian values. And that’s the kind of government every South African wants, including you.

  • http://www.betsaida.co.za Melinda Maré

    I plan to vote this year and am currently deciding between three possible political parties. My main concern regarding the ACDP is that the leader seems to be divided between ministry and politics. How can one serve both state and churchboards, even though both certainly have merits, is that not the same as trying to serve two masters?


  • Jean

    Mr. Savage,

    Religion is only concerned with restricting the manner in which people live their lives to its own narrow and narrow-minded belief system. With freedom comes responsibility and restrictions are necessary in order to ensure basic fundmanetal rights, on this I think we agree. But to base these restritions on on a specific faith doctrine as opposed to reason undermines exactly the freedom we both claim to want. Responsibility begins where we decide for it to begin, and this is an ongoing discussion by all means participate in this public debate, but don’t stifle it with religious doctrine.

    You raise various wedge issues.

    We live in a secular society, schools are public institutions. Therefore religious practice falls outside their assigned role. This should be obvious. That said a child of religious parents can still pray at school should they so wish.

    An unborn foetus does not constitute life. If you don’t agree with that then use your right to choose, and don’t have an abortion. But don’t force what you would decide on someone else.

    If you have a problem with MPs behaviour, vote them out.

    Satanists have the same right to freedom of religion as any other person. But this religious fredom has responsibilities and their practices must fall within the law just like any other religion.

    You seem keen to restrict their religious freedom. This is why you shouldn’t be in government.

    Why would I want to set prisoner’s free?!

  • Jean


    Indeed certain freedoms promote a healthy society and others pull it down. The freeom to murder others would be a good eg. This seems obvious to me. Why would this entail a need for religion? Why would this entail a need for your specific religion? Although your eg. seem to be concerned more with economic policy, which has little to do with faith-based politics.

    With regards to lowering taxes, you sound like a republican! In some instances bigger government is necessary – take healthcare for example. Those scandanvian countries are doing far better than anywhere else. Government bureaucracy is not necessarily efficient. Although in Africa it is.
    Scandanavian countries have the highest rate of education; lowest rate of teenage pregnancies; lowest rate of abortion; lowest rate of STIs; lowest murder rate. Compare that to America of George bush’s faith based politics, and one could almost argue that it is the more secular and socialist countries which are the more Christian-like! How inconvenient for you.

    Healed broken families, better education, honest politicans and hard-work is indeed the government I want. But these are secualr values just as much as they are Christian. Who on earth told you otherwise?! Secularism, as we have seen, is just better at achieving them than any religion.

    Finally, it seems your religious fervour leads you to think you can tell me what I want. I’ll decide what SA I want, not you. Another reason why religion is best left out.

  • http://acdpinsider.blogspot.com Eric Savage

    Hi Jean, well done for an interesting reply. Clearly you have a massive distaste for Christianity, most of it probably founded on the error of sinners past and present. Bush can claim all the Christendom he likes, but that doesn’t make his policies or his government Christian.

    Woven through your arguments is a dismissal of principles born first in doctrine and not from a process of reasoning. Watch out for that one – if you’re going to dismiss something from a logical standpoint, be sure to dismiss its logic and not its origins.

    My standpoint is that Christian principles simply hold up better. That’s a powerful assertion and I’m not scared to defend it. This is the wonder of Christianity – the more I read the Bible, the more I am stunned by its truth and its relevance. In one moment my resolve is strengthened by the call to stand in the gap for the poor and the weak. In another moment I am melted by the urge for humility and integrity. And the more I am stunned, the more I realise that these are the kinds of principles that build a great, great country.

    This is not a matter of restriction, but of hope. I look at a Christian principle and I say to myself, “this is what could get the teenagers off addictive drugs” or “this could prevent nine year olds getting killed during armed robberies” or “this is how government officials can measure their integrity”.

  • Mustafa

    Why ACDP?

    A few months ago I came across an article whereby the Rev Kenneth Meshoe was quoted for his unequivocal support for the state of Israel and that he wants the ACDP to be Israel’s voice in parliament.

    If I am not mistaken, Rev Meshoe was under the impression that Barack Obama was a Muslim, when the whole world knew he is a Christian. So much for his ignorance of “real” politics.

  • Carl Muller

    I have wondered about the Jewish vote. Although we differ on Jesus, everything else is nearly the same.
    I believe even the Muslims that disagree with the ANC will vote for the ACDP. It is the only multiracial party.
    In any case, every South African is working for a better country for his children. So after the election, we can get together and change South Africa for the better. Just because of your children.