I have to announce that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, consisting of the senior members of all parties, this morning considered a request by the SABC to telecast the debate on the Third Reading of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill. The Committee unanimously resolved not to accede to the request.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, as follows—

J. C. HEUNIS, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

19 August 1983.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”)

Mr. Chairman, I move as amendments—

1. 1. On page 4, in line 1, to omit “people” and to substitute “peoples”.
2. On page 4, in line 2, to omit “Almighty God” and to substitute “the Holy Trinity”.

In my opinion this clause deals with a very sensitive and serious matter, and for that reason I am convinced that it must be approached and debated with circumspection and responsibility.

In its wording, formulation and contents, this clause is in essence a confession of faith. This is not merely a matter of recognizing God as a being and recognizing His existence; it also involved the recognition of His sovereignty and in particular His guidance. For that reason I am convinced that these words in this clause incorporate a confession of faith.

Almighty God to whom reference is made here, is the God of the Bible, the God who reveals himself in the Bible and who is acknowledged and taught in the Bible. If this had not been so, then the goal stated in the preamble to the Bill, viz. that of upholding Christian values, would have no meaning or significance. One cannot uphold Christian values if one does not interpret “Almighty God” in accordance with the Bible. Therefore we are dealing here with a biblical conception of God and a biblical view of God and therefore with a Christian conception of God and a Christian idea of God. To me this poses a problem. In the Afrikaans text the clause in question reads as follows—

In other words, the “bevolking” of the Republic of South Africa adheres to this creed.

It is true that the Constitution Bill makes provision for a dispensation involving the Whites, Coloureds and Asians. At this stage I do not want to argue in respect of specific Blacks who are also involved. I want to confine myself solely to the three population groups I have mentioned. The word “people” is a comprehensive concept that refers to a totality, the total number of Whites, Coloureds and Asians involved here. It therefore refers to the total of all these people. It is my contention that there is an error inherent in this very wording with regard to “Almighty God”. It relates to at least a million of the people concerned who do not recognize and acknowledge Almighty God as revealed in the Scriptures, as against 7 million people who do so. This is not an insignificant number. It is not a number that is so small and insignificant that one is able to overlook it.

In the first place, approximately 68% of the Indian population are adherents of the Hindu faith. According to all theologians and theological works this is a very old religion, but in essence it involves polytheism and idolatry. It leaves no scope for the conception and understanding of “Almighty God”.

Secondly, approximately 22% of the Indian population and a part of the Coloured population are adherents of the Islam faith. In all fairness, I contend that the Allah of Islam, and the God of the Bible, to which this clause refers, are not identical. The Allah of Islam and the Almighty God of the Bible are not identical. There is a significant difference between the conception and understanding of the God of Islam as against the conception and understanding of the God as taught by the Bible. Allah is Mohammed’s extra-biblical God as reflected in his Koran. He does not recognize the Bible, he does not recognize the Scriptures, and therefore he does not recognize God as revealed by the Scriptures. It is not based on the Scriptures, it is not revealed by the Scriptures and it is not a revelation of God. The Scriptures ascribe to Almighty God a diversity of specific attributes, for example that He is omnipresent, all-knowing, all-seeing, eternal etc. I could mention a long list of attributes. It is absolutely clear and certain, and there is nothing vague about it. A study of the Islam religion from a theological point of view ascribes to Allah attributes that are vague and ambiguous. I just want to refer in particular to the difference between “God the Creator” as reflected in the Koran, and God the Creator as reflected in the Bible.

Therefore I say that to declare in this clause that “die bevolking” as a whole “recognizes the guidance of Almighty God” is not a correct and precise description and that on that basis, consideration must be given to the reformulation of this clause. It is not primarily the task of the State to spell out a confession of faith in detail. That is the task of the Church. However, when the state or the Government of the state incorporates in its constitution a confession of faith as formulated here, then it is the task of the State in the first place to bear testimony to its approach. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that this particular clause is a very serious and far-reaching one, and I will seek to imbue my own comments on it on behalf of my party with that kind of seriousness which I believe it deserves. Let me say in the first place that as far as the view of the CP is concerned in asking for an amplification of this clause, we will not be supporting their amendments. It will come as no surprise to the House that we believe that we ought to talk about “the people of the Republic of South Africa”. We all recognize that there are different groupings in South Africa. Nevertheless, we believe that the words “the people of the Republic of South Africa” should stand.

It is also acknowledged that the people of South Africa belong to many different faiths. I do not think, however, that any of those groups would not acknowledge the sovereignty and guidance of Almighty God. Clearly, the understanding and interpretation of “Almighty God” of one group will be very different to that of others, but to narrow this in any way to what is essentially a Christian concept and understanding would by definition exclude not only Moslems and Hindus, but also people of the Jewish faith. It is recognized that without that faith there would be no Christian faith, for indeed the Jewish faith is the very cradle of the Christian faith. I would remind the hon. member that Jesus himself was a Jew and was steeped and versed in the great faith of the Old Testament. You cannot sunder those two; you cannot see the one without the other.

I suggest that to narrow this definition in any way would be quite tragic and divisive. Indeed. I would go so far as to suggest that it would be presumptuous and arrogant. I have no doubt therefore that the clause should stand as it is so that people of different faiths, who yet have a commitment, through their own light, to Almighty God, should be allowed to fall within the context of this particular clause.

It is significant that this clause is not merely part of the preamble, but part of the proposed constitution itself. It will, therefore, become law if this Bill is passed by the House. It is not a call to the people of South Africa; it is an affirmation that the people of South Africa acknowledge the sovereignty and guidance of Almighty God. If we start tampering now with this clause, should we then not also take into account the agnostic and the atheist, for, surely, their views are in many instances very sincerely held?

I believe that this is a serious and far-reaching and even awesome clause as regards the responsibility which is inherent in the affirmation. It is a clear acknowledgement, and it will be well for this House to recognize that before we pass it, that the power and influence of man is derived from God. Therefore it is also a clear acceptance by this House that man has a responsibility before God as to how he wields and demonstrates that power. In other words, there is a clear appreciation that man is accountable to God. He is essentially a steward who has been given responsibility in the world and must one day give account of that stewardship. Because it is contained in the constitution, it clearly has wide implications for Parliament as a whole, the Government in particular and the people of South Africa. It is no bad thing that there is this solemn reminder, because power is wide open to abuse and hopefully this reminder will concentrate the minds of all of us when we seek to exercise that power. If this clause is to be more than a mere platitude, then clearly you must have some understanding of what it means to be obedient to God and to be open to his guidance. In essence then the question we have to face is what does it mean to be accountable to God, what are God’s standards which must become ours? I would like to quote one of the great prophets of the Jewish faith (Micah, Chapter 6, verse 8)—

Clearly, Sir, to acknowledge this clause is to accept that justice and mercy should be central in our decision-making. This is a very hard saying, because there is no such thing as justice except in doing justice; there is no such thing as love, except in loving someone. If we as legislators accept this clause, we should not be surprised if religious leaders in particular call us to account in the manner in which we demonstrate the power entrusted to us. It is expected of us that we will aim and strive to provide honest, just and merciful government for all. After all, if God is sovereign, then we are affirming that he is Creator, and he is the Creator of all men and not only of some. It follows therefore that it is the duty of religious leaders to hold the State accountable for its actions and to point out where government falls short of the standards which it has set for itself in the affirmation of this clause. Who amongst us would dare to suggest that we meet any of these standards? Who would claim to do justly, to love mercy and walk humbly with his God? It would be very presumptuous indeed.

And I believe that the Church would say exactly the same thing about itself as well.

Yes, of course. I accept that without any doubt, and I am including myself in this. However, it is part of our responsibility in this House to call one another to account, and were it not for God’s mercy, we could never dare to support this clause. That is the point I make.

I want to conclude with the promise He makes again in the Old Testament, in Chronicles 2, Chapter 7, verse 14, which states—

Above all else, South Africa needs to be healed from its divisions, hatreds, injustices and lack of compassion. If this is what it meant under clause 2, we support it most strongly.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Pine-lands that clause 2 imposes a very considerable obligation on the people of the Republic of South Africa. If, perhaps, his speech contains even a hint of an insinuation that the recognition of the sovereignty and guidance of God is also simply a green light as regards inciting rebellion against the authority of the State in the name of Christian justice, I wish to state clearly in this House that is not the intention.

Do not be small-minded.

Basically, the amendment of the hon. member for Koedoespoort proposes two changes: One, that the concept “people” (“bevolking”) be replaced by “peoples” (“volkere”), and the other, that “Almighty God” be replaced by “Holy Trinity”. To begin with, I just wish to deal very briefly with the word “volkere” which is to replace “bevolking”.

In terms of the principle that has already been accepted, Whites, Coloureds and Asians are being included in the new constitutional dispensation. Let us consider Whites, Coloureds and Asians in terms of the definition of “volk” in the Verklarende Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal. The definition reads as follows—

When one considers these three groups in terms of this definition, it becomes very clear that in fact there is only one people that complies with that definition and that is the Afrikaner people. The rest are population groups or communities. Therefore I think that by definition, “volkere” is not appropriate in this instance and “bevolking” is a far better word.

Mr. Chairman, since the existing constitution refers only to “people”, is the hon. member implying that it was only the Afrikaner that made the constitution of 1961?

The fact of the matter is that “peoples” (“volkere”), if one sees it in terms of a wide connotation such as the League of Nations (“die Volkerebond”), does refer to people living in their own country with their own form of government and their own structure, and that is not so in the present case. Here, surely, there is only one government authority. The fact is, therefore, that for the purposes of definition, “people” (“bevolking”) is a far better concept.

As far as the second aspect of the argument of the hon. member for Koedoespoort is concerned, viz. that “people” is inappropriate because “people” supposedly includes people from other religions, his argument does not hold water. Even if one only spoke about the Whites, as he wishes to do, and only wanted to involve the White population, surely there are many people in that group, too, that are not adherents of the Christian faith. After all, there are several Whites who are Hindus. In 1973 there were already 603. By this time there are probably as much as a thousand. However, it is not only Hindus that are involved here. There are also atheists and others; a wide variety of people. Therefore, the hon. member’s argument simply does not hold water.

As far as the second argument is concerned, viz. “Almighty God should be substituted by “The Holy Trinity”, I personally regard it as a great pity that we should differ with one another here about the formulation of what we could refer to as the avowal of God in the constitution, after having agreed about it for 22 years. The debate that must necessarily follow could result in our bandying the name of our Lord across the floor of this House—and I myself could be guilty of doing so—for the sake of political gain.

Now you are being very insulting. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am not being insulting at all. I included myself in this regard. That is what this debate can result in. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, please allow me just to debate this matter briefly. I should just like to motivate why I believe we ought to let the term “Almighty God” suffice. Before doing so, however, I first wish to point out that the proposed change reminds me a great deal of something that happened in Israel many years ago. It was during the civil war between Gilead and Ephraim. The Gileadites stopped the fleeing Ephraimites at the passages of Jordan and ordered them to pronounce the word “Shibboleth”, and, because they pronounced the word wrongly as “Sibboleth” they were killed. I am gaining the impression that we are being confronted here, metaphorically speaking, with this amendment in order to make us say Shibboleth as regards the formulation of the avowal of God. If—to continue the metaphor—we were to express it wrongly, in other words, formulate it differently and say “sibboleth”—then we would by implication be suspected of all kinds of unholy ulterior motives.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the use of the term “Almighty God”, as it appears in the clause at present, is quite adequate. I shall state why I am of this opinion. There is a very clear difference between a church’s creed and a State’s constitution, and because there is such a clear distinction it is possible that the formulation of the idea of God in the creed of a church can differ from the formulation of the idea of God in the constitution of a State. It can also differ because the objectives aimed at are different. When one formulates the idea of God in a church’s creed, the aim is completely different to when it has to be formulated in a constitution. What is the purpose of formulating an idea of God in the creed of a church? One wants to establish a very clear, rounded-off formulation of the idea of God, a formulation that relates to the essential being of God, in contrast to other theological standpoints in this regard.

In the case of a constitution the aim is surely entirely different. What is the purpose of this avowal of God in the constitution? The purpose is that the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa want to state unambiguously that they do not wish to stand on their own two feet; that politically speaking, they do not wish to be of age politically, but wish to recognize in their constitution the sovereignty and guidance of God. Which God? The God against whom nothing and no one can stand, not even the godless powers that seek the downfall of the Republic; that God for whom nothing is impossible; the God who, in His Word, reveals himself as the Almighty God. In Revelation 1, verse 8 he says: “I am … the Almighty”.

In his book Dogmatiek Prof. Johan Heyns also points out that this particular attribute, the “Almighty”, also determines the other attributes of God. Therefore the statement I want to make is that in view of the purpose this is a meaningful formulation because it is fully in accordance with the Scriptures.

However, there is another reason as well. After all, this formulation has a history. We quoted it verbatim from the existing constitution of the Republic of South Africa which was passed in 1961. It is precisely the same, word for word. Indeed, I am not aware of any representations made by the Church at the time to alter this wording. Indeed, when it was approved in 1961 the general synod sent the Government a telegram to thank them because this avowal of God was recognized in the preamble but also in the constitution. Nor am I aware that existing churches made any representations in this regard. I also just wish to say that it is not a question of making the idea of God more vague in order to involve more people, because then we could have come up with a better formulation. We could have come up with the formulation “Supreme Being”, which would have been acceptable to all groups. I also wish to say that in my opinion clause 2 is the most important clause in the legislation. However, the survival of everyone in this country is not going to depend on how carefully we formulate the idea of God in the constitution, but whether we are going to acknowledge the sovereignty of God in practice and follow his guidance. If we do that, then a fine future awaits all of us in this country.

Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely emotional subject to all of us who are believers and I hope that in dealing with it we will avoid the sort of political outbursts that can only bring dishonour to a subject of this nature. I want to express the hope that in our approach to this clause and the amendment to it we will not say things that will be unworthy of a Christian and believing nation in its highest forum of government.

I rise simply to say that this party supports this clause in this Bill with its provision as it has existed prior to and since our becoming a republic. We are not in favour of any amendment which intentionally or otherwise may give offence to any section of the people of this country who are to be governed under this constitution.

We shall therefore vote for the clause and against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Randfontein said that clause 2 was a very important clause. We agree with him in that regard. He added that its success would depend on the attitude towards it and on the way it was implemented. I want to cross swords with the hon. member, not about the question of “Almighty God” but rather in regard to the concept of “people” (“bevolking”) because the hon. member said that he supported it as it was worded here. I understand why the hon. member is satisfied with the concept of “bevolking” as stated here, because that includes everyone living in this country. The year before last the hon. the Prime Minister said that the Coloureds were not a people or a nation in the making. [Interjections.] Looking at the development of clause 2, I see it as the best example of the total change in course that the governing party has undergone over the years with regard to constitutional development. I want us to investigate this matter, because the hon. the Minister said that the CP accepted certain things in 1977 and rejects them now. He said that the CP had said certain things in 1977 which its members had signed and which they now reject.

Order! I fear that the hon. member …

Mr. Chairman, I should like you to listen to my argument before ruling it out of order.

Very well, but the hon. member really must not digress too far in doing so.

As a result reproaches are being hurled across the floor of this House, and if there were no such arguments that could improve our debating considerably. Bitter personal attacks are being launched on the basis of these things. That is why I should like to point this out.

We must consider the use of the Afrikaans terms “volk” and “bevolking” or “volkere” since 1977, because I should like to indicate thereby what change has taken place. In the constitution of the Republic of South Africa we say—

In the 1979 draft Bill the following is stated—

In the first draft of the Bill at present before the Committee, the following is stated—

In the Bill as it stands before the Committee at this point, the same words appear.

The CP is unable to agree with that, because in 1979 our point of departure was that these were three “volkere”. I should like to submit evidence of this. In “Bangmaakpraatjies No. 5” the following is stated—

That was the point of departure in 1977. At the Transvaal Congress of the NP in 1981 the Prime Minister said—

In another NP information document dated 1977 the following is stated—

I want to quote further from that document—

That was the point of departure in 1977. I should like to quote what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said—

That he said on Wednesday, 23 June 1976, in the House of Assembly. He went on to say—

That was the point of departure of the NP. That is why we used the term “volk” in the draft constitution of 1979 and in the present constitution.

It was not only the hon. the Deputy Minister who said that. I should also like to quote the hon. the Minister of National Education—

Since the CP still stands by the standpoint that we are dealing here with three “volkere”, since we have not joined the governing party in turning a somersault and throwing aside the term “volk” and are not joining the Prime Minister in stating now that they form part of the South African nation, the CP cannot support the clause as it stands at the moment and I should like to support wholeheartedly the amendment of the hon. member for Koedoespoort, because we are dealing here with three “volkere”.

Mr. Chairman, two separate facets are at issue in this amendment, and I should like to deal with both.

The first is the concept “volk” or “bevolking”. I contend that this entire debate about the concepts of “volk”, “nasie” and “bevolking” is inappropriate in this particular clause. To begin with, let me just state the standpoint that we must take cognizance of the fact that in the past, the word “volk” as well as the word “nasie” have been used very loosely due to the history of the matter.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I have very little time. However, as the sciences progressed, it became clear that the word “volk” had acquired a far more specific meaning. Having said that, I wish to make the following statement: When we in this House discuss the relationship between man and God, which is the subject of this clause, it is primarily a relationship between the human being as an individual and his Creator. Therefore I do not think we should insert contentious terms such as “volk” here that could include certain people and exclude others. We, viz. all the people in South Africa, must be able to associate ourselves with this prayer that is expressed in the clause. Therefore I wish to repeat that in my opinion we must conduct the debate on “volk”, “bevolking” and “nasie”, but not during the discussion of this particular clause, because that would make the clause contentious, which it ought not to be.

This brings me to my second point. I find it tragic that we should have to debate this clause in this House tonight. In fact, we should have accepted this clause unanimously and with acclamation, without any debate whatsoever. Now, however, we have this unfortunate situation that an amendment has been proposed to this clause, and specifically to the most important part of it, which has been taken over unchanged from the past. If we were only discussing “volk” and “bevolking”, I should have objected less strongly. However, that we should also have to discuss the other part of this clause is something I find tragic. Let us not mince our words. It is being said that the NP, the Government, prefers this formulation because it introduces a generalized, vague idea of God with which other people could easily associate themselves, and that by doing so we are departing from the sound practices of our fathers. This is being said, whether within or outside this House. I wish to state here and now that I deplore the fact that this is being said and that God is being used as an election agent in this way. Furthermore. I wish to say that this formulation, as it stands at present, was formulated in that way by people about whose Christian principles there could be no doubt. Today, too, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind as to what is meant by this. We mean by this the God of the New Testament. Nor was this formulation sucked out of anyone’s thumb. If we look at the Bible itself we see in Exodus 3, verses 13 and 14, where Moses asked God whom he should say had sent him, the Lord told him that he had to say: “I AM hath sent me unto you.” In the last book of the Bible, at the beginning of the fine book of Revelation, the Lord addresses the apostle who wrote the book and reveals Himself. This was after the fulfilment, but with the vision of the future with which He would announce all the revelations. Then, in accordance with the description in Exodus, he reveals himself as follows—

There we find that description. I find the special context in which this description occurs in the constitution Bill as well, particularly appropriate, in the sense that it appears at the beginning; from which point we wish to expound how we are going to carry out God’s command and what mechanisms we are going to create for that purpose. Since we must exercise our own power, it is of special importance to us to state the relationship between ourselves as small and insignificant people and the Almighty, with whom no one can compete in our exercise of power, and before Whom we must be humble. In that regard I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Pinelands. Accordingly I make an earnest appeal that we make the controversy about this particular clause as brief and painless and as unshameful as possible, and ask that it be taken no further after being disposed of here. I wish to make an urgent appeal in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to enter the debate at this stage. I wanted to give all hon. members who wanted to participate in the debate an opportunity to do so. Whilst listening to the debate, I was of the opinion—this is in line with the appeal the hon. member for Helderkruin has just made—that in the discussion of the relevant clause we should rather try to minimize the differences between us. Let me say at once that it is with very great hesitation that I am taking part in this debate. I am also doing so with a tremendous sense of humility, because it is not within my capacity to comprehend or plumb the greatness or omnipotence of God and because it is not possible for me to conduct theoretical debates about the concept of God. I can only take part in this debate in all humility, as an ordinary man who, being fallible, cannot hope to realize fully the sublime values embodied in Christian precepts. I really do want to ask all hon. members in the House to accept the earnestness of this confession of fallibility, since it will also be proved repeatedly by my participation in this debate. If I had been able to exercise my personal choice today, I would rather have preferred not to have had this debate take place, because apart from the seriousness of the occasion, I think it a tragedy that we have to conduct a debate in this House about a clause confirming our acknowledgment of the sovereignty of Almighty God in the destinies of all people. I therefore find it regrettable that we should have to discuss this. I find it regrettable in view of the fact that if we were to go back to our country’s constitution and determine for how long this confirmation of man’s dependence on Almighty God in his omnipotence, God of the Hosts, has been embodied in our constitution, we would find the wording in this clause to be the same as that contained in the 1925 Constitution. As far back as 1925, if my memory serves me correctly—I am open to correction—Dr. Malan was responsible for the insertion of the specific provision confirming our dependence. I do not think there is anyone here, or any member of the general public, who would want to call into question the confession of faith of this theologian and man of culture. I do not think there could be anyone who would want to argue that he would have wanted to introduce a misrepresentation of the concept of God into the constitution of his country.

So in arguing about this clause, which has made it possible for us, in this House, to experience these Christian values for 55 years now, I must ask why we must now change it? Sir, any reason for changing it must be a terribly important one.

Yes, it is.

Sir, I am not asking for your protection against the remarks made by the hon. member for Jeppe …

I have only made one.

Order! The hon. member the Minister must please resume his seat for a moment. I just want to tell hon. members that we all regard this as a very serious matter. Therefore I am not going to allow any political flippancy. This applies to all hon. members. I now ask hon. members to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to discuss this matter further. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, in Act No. 9 of 1925 this avowal, in the wording of the clause, was inserted in the constitution of this country for the first time. Linking up with the argument of the hon. member for Randfontein, let me say that no one has ever sought an opportunity to change this. In his discussion of the term “peoples”—I do not want to discuss this any further now, because I should like to round the discussion of this issue off if I can—the hon. member for Kuruman referred, amongst other things, to the 1979 draft legislation, quoting it in support of his argument. If he uses this in support of his argument about the amendment of “population” and “peoples”, why do hon. members of that party neglect to state that in that same legislation in 1979 there was also confirmation of the sovereignty of Almighty God, in fact in exactly the same terms as those contained in the legislation of 1925 and 1961 and that being proposed today? The question that arises is what happened then. I think there is an explanation for that, and I shall try to find it.

In reaction to the hon. member for Pine-lands, whose speech I appreciated—my appreciation does not necessarily mean that I agree with everything that he said, nor do I think the hon. member expects that—I do not now want to focus on the points of difference, but rather see whether I cannot, for the same of the atmosphere surrounding the clause, highlight those aspects about which we can agree. The hon. the Prime Minister has clearly stated the Government’s standpoint in regard to the State and the Church, but I think that this historic occasion requires us to do so again. We must do so within the context of this declaration of faith in the clause. Let me therefore ask my hon. colleague to be patient. Like other hon. members, we believe that the State and the Church are both institutions of God. I think that we believe, like all other hon. members, that the State and the Church have individual, distinct roles to play. We believe that because they are institutions of God, each of them also has a task to perform. That being so, the State does not want to interfere in the sphere of the Church and its activities. It is also the Government’s standpoint that it cannot be expected to interfere in the affairs of the Church. According to its standpoint, the converse is also true.

Not quite.

That is our standpoint. I think that when I have finished explaining, the hon. member will agree with me. It is also true that the Government of the country tries to live according to its professed Christian principles. My use of the word “tries” is not without reason. I do not think that we succeed in doing so. In fact, I do not think there is any Government anywhere in the world that does succeed in doing so. There can perhaps merely be a difference in the degree of justice. No one, however, can claim to have ever achieved it. Because the Government would like to live in accordance with its professed Christian principles, it is prepared to listen to what the Church has to say in order to find out what mistakes it has made. I think the hon. member for Pine-lands would agree with me here. This does not imply that the Church must solve the political issues of the country.

It depends on what you mean by “political issues”.

I really do not want to enter into an argument with the hon. member. I should like to quote the hon. the Prime Minister—

He is speaking for himself as the head of a Christian Government—

I now want to put the following question: What has now happened to have made the hon. member for Koedoespoort’s argument relevant in the light of his argument? What has happened to justify his moving an amendment—after more than 55 years, or 58 years if I remember rightly—to the wording of this clause? I think we should try to identify the motive behind the hon. member’s feeling that there should now be a change in the situation which has existed up to now, which has given us all, including the Government, an opportunity to keep to our Christian values and to help protect and propagate them. Nor do I think the hon. member would hold it against me if I said that it was in his motivation of his motion that his motives came to light—and here I am referring to his reference to 1 million people as against millions of others, if I have interpreted this correctly. I do not think he would hold it against me either—and I shall apologize if I have reached the wrong conclusion—if I were to say that the 1 million people to whom he was referring are 1 million people of colour, in fact the Indian population.

You began so nicely.

Was that not what the hon. member meant?

Finish what you have to say.

The hon. member was referring to those of the Muslim faith and to those of the Hindu faith. I think my conclusion is a reasonable one, but if I am wrong, he may correct me. The fact remains, however, that we are here dealing with an argument other than that seemingly embodied in the amendment. His reference to “the population” reveals the motive.

It seems to me that it is of some importance that I should, on the strength of the available statistics, make a few references to the question of the religious convictions of the respective population groups in the country. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to one specific group. Amongst the Black population of the country there are—and now I must be careful—12 million people who accept the Christian doctrine—12,5 million Black people. Amongst them there are—and now I must just make quite sure that I am right about this—8 000 embracing the Muslim faith, with 93 000 having other unspecified religious convictions. According to these census figures there are more members of the Christian churches amongst the Black people than there are Whites in the country who belong to the Christian churches.

That is a very good point.

I therefore hope that we shall not, Mr. Chairman, allow ourselves to fall into the habit of trying to measure the quality of our Christianity and our Christian life on a quantum basis. I for one would not like to subject myself to such an assessment.

Amongst the Brown community in South Africa there are 2,274 million people who have made the Christian creed their own and who have found a home of their religious observance within the Christian churches. Amongst the Whites there are 4,153 million people who indicate that they belong to various denominations of the Christian church. There are, however, 2 180 Whites who are at adherents of the Muslim faith. There are 119 220 who have chosen the Jewish faith. In fact, the fact that our constitution contain words identical to those in the present clause under discussion, has made it possible for the Jewish members of our population to take their place here in Parliament. I think the hon. member for Houghton would agree with me in this regard.

Yes, of course.

Now, however, we come to the Asian population. There are 102 500 Asians belonging to the Christian churches, whilst 154 000 of them belong to the Muslim faith and 524 000 to the Hindu faith.

What am I trying to say, Mr. Chairman? Amongst all peoples and population groups in the country there are professing Christians. In terms of the draft constitution of 1979, to which the hon. member for Kuruman referred, it was also true that people of colour—Brown people and Asians—would be included in the executive authority of the country, in fact would be included in the legislative authority; would be included in that institution which, in terms of that very legislation, would elect the highest office-bearer in the country—the President. No one argued, at that stage, that because people of colour would be included, their presence in the executive and legislative council chambers would necessitate our changing clause 2. I want to issue a warning: Owing to the fact that the society in this country is such an intensely and emotionally loaded one, owing to the presence here of various races and groups, we who identify ourselves here with the Almighty, emphasizing that fact each morning in our prayers before we begin, must not cause any further divisions or any further dislocation in our ranks in the existing dispensation. If we were to do so, not only would it be possible to accuse us of racism, but the accusation of theological racism would also be confirmed in this Council Chamber. I am not blaming anyone. I am merely asking for an opportunity to see whether we cannot succeed in bringing about reconciliation, not a heathen form of reconciliation, but a reconciliation between groups for which the State has a responsibility.

What is our goal in this country? Surely our goal is that of upholding Christian values. A part of the Christian values we want to uphold is for those of us who are Christians, our concept of God which finds expression in our articles of faith, for example the Apostolic Creed that most of us profess. We have never, not even in this House, ever asked for or implemented a neutrality principle in regard to religion, and hon. members in this House have never asked this of one another. Is that not true?

Since the advent of Union several Acts have confirmed the standpoint I have repeatedly confirmed here. There was the 1925 Act that amended the constitution, the 1961 Act, our present constitution, the Public Holidays Act, our Opening Prayer here in the House of Assembly, and also section 1 of the Publications Act. No one has ever taken the inclusion of that amiss.

Which one are you referring to?

The Publications Act.

Yes, I lodged my objection to that in the Senate.

The hon. member says he objected to that. I accept the fact that he did indeed object to it. Then the hon. member is the one who objected to it.

I was not the only one.

I really do not want to argue with the hon. member about that now. [Interjections.] Then let me say that no one who is now objecting, objected at that stage, and let me then exclude the hon. member for Groote Schuur.

Since the advent of Union it has, for a long while now, been the custom to uphold Christian values, and specific reference is made to this in the Preamble. This is what I want to emphasize: The fact that we state in the Preamble that we want to uphold Christian values does not mean that any non-Christians must be pushed in any specific direction as far as religion is concerned, because we also acknowledge people’s freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. The Preamble is not part of the legislation. It is for very specific reasons that is so. It underlines and reconfirms aims and objectives which—let me say it now—we can never fully realize, but whose boundaries of achievability we can bring closer within our reach. That is what we, as political representatives, are also responsible for.

It is our faith and conviction that we must again incorporate this, in unamended form, in our constitution. I am reminded of what Prof. Verhoef of the University of Stellenbosch said in this connection. He said it was a tremendous confession of faith that Parliament took upon itself by incorporating this in its constitution, because in doing so we ourselves, as a Parliament, create the criteria against which we must be measured. That is why it is such a tremendous thing to do. I am no theologian, but he also pointed out, in line with what I have said, that historically speaking there is no theologically based objection, from a Christian Reform point of view to that wording in the constitution. This is confirmed by the theologians present here.

It also remains a fact that the words or concept “Almighty God” in the constitution is an acknowledged theological expression that no one can describe as unchristian or non-Christian. It is confirmed, and I want to repeat: It is an acknowledged theological expression that no one can describe or characterize as being unchristian or non-Christian. Within the context of this description, this commitment, members who have never been adherents of the Christian faith, and are today not adherents of the Christian faith, have found the necessary lebensraum in which to play their public role as representatives. I am therefore asking, if we all agree with that—hon. members have never argued that White non-Christians may not become members of the House—on what basis other than that of colour are we arguing with each other? My answer is: Not one.

There is a distinction between a constitution as a judicially formulated document intended for a specific country, and for all the inhabitants of that country, and an ecclesiastical article of faith intended solely for the members of a particular church. Today I want to warn against a second danger, and that is the theologizing of the constitution. We shall not thereby be promoting Christian values. Quite the contrary.

In conclusion, I want to advocate—I want to ask all my colleagues—that we do not make politics out of this. We must not use this for political ends. The Bible is not a political pamphlet; it is the Word of God.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister addressed us for quite some time, covering a very wide spectrum in the course of his argument. Let me tell him that I greatly appreciate the way in which he put his case and the information he conveyed to us. I want to remind the hon. the Minister, who was the chairman of the Select Committee on the Constitution, that when this clause was discussed in the Select Committee my colleague, the hon. member for Brakpan, and I, made our contribution there, and in the spirit in which discussions took place in the committee we put our standpoint and argued the case. Subsequently the Select Committee took a specific decision, and on that occasion the hon. the Minister said that there would be an opportunity here in the House, within the rules of debate, for each of the parties to put its standpoint and indicate how it felt about matters. I therefore want to say that the CP, in the spirit in which we participated in the discussions and proceedings of the Select Committee, came to this House in order to amend the clause and discuss the issue. By that time the hon. member for Koedoespoort had already moved an amendment on behalf of the CP, and I think we can all attest to the fact that he did so in a manner befitting the particular subject under discussion. He discussed this specific clause on the basis of the standpoint and attitude of the CP, and I think that he raised the matter, not only as a theologian, but also as a professing Christian. He did so in such a way as not to discredit the scientific background of theology as a field of study.

The hon. the Minister made quite a few appeals to the House. I shall be dealing with them in the course of my speech. Firstly, the hon. the Minister said that we should not theologize this debate. We should not bring politics into religion. In all fairness, however, let me now say that since the Government has come along with legislation which contains a clause such as this, I do not think we are the ones who have politicized religion, the Government being the one to have introduced a clause with a specific religious connotation. I would naturally not say that the fact that the Government has embodied this in a clause, and that for many years now this has been a part of the constitution, means that the Parliaments that have preceded this Parliament, or specific political parties which supported this provision, have wanted to draw politics into religion. The fact that it is being discussed, and the fact that the Constitution Bill will be presented to the electorate of South Africa later this year as a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa, means that it is obviously quite logical and quite normal for the electorate and also the respective parties putting their standpoints in regard to the Constitution Bill—those who agree with it and those who disagree with it—to discuss this specific clause. We in the CP will certainly be discussing these matters. We have a particular view of this issue. I think it could be unreasonable to say that any clauses of a constitution to be tested in a referendum should not be discussed and, if indeed discussed, that religion is being dragged into politics or that religion is being politicized. On that question I therefore cannot agree with the hon. the Minister. I say this can indeed be discussed, depending on the way in which, and the attitude in which, it is done. This specific clause, like any other clause, can be denigrated, degraded or discredited. That would, however, depend on the specific politician or person conducting the discussion.

The hon. the Minister also said that he was discussing these matters as one who is fallible. I appreciate that fact. In discussing these matters I also do so as one who is fallible. I want to go further and say that in terms of my creed I believe that I was conceived and born in sin and that my conduct in life is to be seen within that context, together with Christ’s redeeming mercy granted me as a sinner. So when I speak of these matters, I do not do so as someone who is infallible and devoid of sin.

The majority of the clauses in this Bill are, by their very nature, delicate matters.

Would the hon. member concede that the other clauses in the Bill are delicate by virtue of the fact that they deal with relationships between people and between groups, whilst the sensitivity of this clause is of another nature?

I concede as much to the hon. the Minister. All the clauses are sensitive, but this one particularly so because it deals with religion. Anyone who has studied the history of the Church and the history of dogma will realize that the struggle in the profane world, if I may put it in those terms, is waged with the same relentlessness in the history of the Church and in the history of dogma. It is therefore of specific importance that adequate discussion of this matter be permitted and that the discussion be conducted in such a way that we do not transfer the relentlessness of conduct in the profane world onto the terrain of the Church. In politics there can be violent and heated differences in regard to political matters. In the annals of history, however, one finds that at times there can be more violent struggles in regard to religious differences than in regard to those on the political level. I think that the best example of this anywhere in the world is the struggle in Ireland. We are taking part in something like this specifically because we are here dealing with sensitive and delicate matters. At a later stage, in the further discussion of this matter, we shall be pointing out to the hon. the Minister that the political history of this country is also very closely tied up with the religious views of people. When one is seeking a solution to the racial and population issues of South Africa, one must realize that they are very closely bound up with the cultures of the respective groups involved.

What I want to say is: There are these differences. I listened to the hon. member for Pinelands, and I shall be coming back to him in a minute, but I do want to say that my political views and his political views are very closely bound up with our views of theology and the Church. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this is the most important provision involving the spiritual basis of the constitution, and I should prefer to link up with what the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said. Firstly I want to refer to the historicoreligious context that the new constitution is perpetuating. At the time of Jan van Riebeeck, who laid the foundations of the Republic of South Africa, there were also many people of colour present at the Cape, and this was his prayer: “O Barmhertige Goodertieren Godt ende Hemelsche Vader”. This was extended further in Sarel Cilliers’ Danskraal Covenant where he spoke simply of “Holy God”.

I also want to refer to the constitution of the old Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek. In section 8 mention is made of upholding religious faith, in section 11 of the inviolability of Church and State, in section 20 there is a quotation from the 1618-’19 Synod of Dordrecht, in section 21 mention is made of the faith according to the Heidelberg Catechism and in section 24 of the support, burgeoning and prosperity of the State and Church. It is interesting that in section 8 it is clearly stated—

There is it consequently stated very clearly.

In section 1 of the South Africa Act of 1909 it is stated—

There has never been any objection to that. So one also reads in Act No. 32 of 1961—

With the advent of Republic we made the basis of our religious known to the world. We told the whole world. How can we now do otherwise? Other States have a secular character and support socialism. In others the character of a specific church is formulated. Surely we are different in that respect. The general view in the Middle Ages was that the State owed its origin to God. There was a difference of opinion about who had received that authority. There is the view that the people are subject to the will of God. The Head of State is also subject to the law or the will of God.

In the present wording of the provision we acknowledge the sovereignty and guidance of Almighty God. Firstly this is true, secondly it is Christian, thirdly we acknowledge the omnipotence of God and, fourthly, we acknowledge the fact that when it comes to the fate of nations. He disposes. We thereby attest to the eternal nature of God. We acknowledge the fact that today, in this country, He not only comprehends our problems and our cares and desires, but also desires peace and justice. We ask Him to grant us wisdom and insight so that His will may also be done as far as the referendum is concerned—not our will, but His. That is why it is He who, through the bad days and the good days, will ensure the eventual prosperity of his country of ours.

One cannot embody the creed of a specific Church in a constitution. Theological concepts and ecumenical terms belong to specific confessions of faith. In this regard I can refer to the commission of inquiry into public holidays on which members of all parties served. People of colour gave evidence before that commission and acknowledged our religious holidays.

As far as I am concerned, this clause embodies what is stated, in Romans 13 about the relationship between a Christian and the State. Every man must obey the Government of the Country. It is God that gave us a Government to govern us. There could not be such a authority if God did not permit it. If anyone rebels against this, he is opposing an institution of God.

We must uphold authority and have respect for the authorities. We must speak less flippantly of our Prime Minister and Cabinet members. Calvin said that we should respect all people—fear God and respect the Emperor. He stated clearly that the civil dispensation also affected Christians. It is wrong to say that God is dead when it comes to the things of this world. The civilian Government does not stand in opposition to the inner or spiritual kingdom of God. The civilian Government has, as its calling, to uphold and protect religion in its public manifestations. It must also defend sound doctrine and the right of the Church to exist. It must attune our lives to the life of society, shape our morals according to civilian justice, bind us together and promote public peace and order. Calvin said to God: We thank You for the fact that the State is one of Your institutions for the combating of evil. Proverbs 2:6 says that God grants wisdom, and we ask God to grant us that wisdom and mercy. In 1 Timothy 2, verses 1 and 2, we find the following—

It is all these matters which are part of our whole existence. It is with great hesitation and absolute reserve that I enter upon this holiest of holy ground. I want to agree with the hon. the Minister that we must be careful because here we are not talking to people. We do not know what feelings there are in other people’s hearts. We do believe, however, that what we are saying is prompted by the wisdom that God has granted us.

Mr. Chairman, when speaking a while ago, I said that any party naturally wanted consensus to be achieved in accordance with its principles and standpoints. That is why we, as parties, play our part in a democracy.

The hon. the Minister used expressions such as “it would be a tragic day” or “it would be a sad day”. Let me just say that we in this House can discuss this matter as responsible people, without the necessity of having to conclude that the consequences will be tragic ones. As far as that is concerned, I cannot quite agree with the hon. the Minister. Each party, in debating this matter, will do so in the light of its principles and viewpoints.

The hon. the Minister referred, amongst other things, to theological racists, but I do not want to debate that issue with him now. We shall be debating it again at a later stage. The hon. the Minister asked on what basis other than that of colour we wanted to exclude people from the provisions of this clause. He gave us an analysis, based on percentages, of the various religious groups within the three relevant population groups in South Africa. There is now just one question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister in connection with a basis other than that of colour. If the governing party states that the Brown people speak our language, have the same creed as we do, work in our factories, fight on our borders and are not an emergent nation …

Order! That argument lies on the very fringes of what is at issue here.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address you on this point. In his reply the hon. the Minister ranged very widely in regard to this matter. This is a very important clause and you must therefore permit me to round off this point.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause and to the amendment that has been moved.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to do so, but I am replying to a specific argument which the hon. the Minister used against us. The question I want to put is the following: All those things being equal, on what grounds are the Brown people being placed in a separate Chamber? For what reason is it being done? I now leave the matter at that.

In his speech the hon. member for Randfontein said that the name of the Lord had been flung around in this House. Did I understand the hon. member correctly? On the basis of the speech made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, let me tell the hon. member for Randfontein that nowhere was there the faintest trace of any attempt, on the hon. member’s part, to bandy the name of the Lord across the floor of this House. If the hon. member wants to follow the hon. the Minister’s lead, let him take care not to ascribe things to the CP which are not true.

In his speech the hon. member for Helderkruin also said that he found it tragic and that people felt unhappy about it. He also said that here we were dealing with controversial terms and then quoted a whole lot of aspects that more or less fitted in with the hon. member for Randfontein’s argument. I should also like to give that hon. member the same answer I have just given the hon. member for Randfontein.

This brings me to the hon. member for Pinelands. I can understand the viewpoint the hon. member put forward. The hon. member referred to the fact that within the White community, and within the three population groups, there are agnostics and all the different kinds of people one finds within the framework of those living in South Africa. Would it therefore not be better to delete this clause? In view of the diversity of faiths and non-faiths, would it not be better not to include this specific clause, because the moment this clause is included, one cannot but say that here one is talking about those who believe, whilst those who do not believe are excluded? If one accepts the argument of the hon. member for Pine-lands, it is better for this clause to be deleted.

Did you request that?

No. I said if the hon. member chose that argument. I just want to add that side by side with our amendment to this clause, during the discussion of other clauses, we in the CP are going to adopt the standpoint that we very strongly support religious freedom. Nor have I encountered any Reform theologian who has expressed any objection to the amendment moved by the CP. In fact, I know of no Reform theologian who has any objection to this, and I should therefore like to know—particularly from the hon. member for Randfontein—if there is, in fact, any objection …

Or from the hon. member for Oudtshoorn.

Yes, or from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs; perhaps even from the hon. member for Geduld. I should like to know whether, in Reform terms, there is any heterodoxy in the CP advocating that the specific clause should be amended, as requested in the relevant amendment.

Now, however, I want to turn to the hon. the Minister. He asks why—after we have been in favour of the specific wording for so many years now—the CP now insists on having the so-called creed amended. Well, today the hon. the Minister explained his own creed here. He said that he was a professing Christian. I fully accept that, because I know that to be the case. What I want to know, however, is why we cannot incorporate that creed, as it stands, in a clause, in fact in such a way that there is no possibility whatsoever of any vagueness or uncertainty.

For what reason are we speaking in these terms about the specific clause today? Why was there a recommendation from the church synods and moderatures, in 1961, from which it was surely clearly discernible that they agreed with the wording in the 1961 legislation? Why, in the past, were there no problems in this regard? The reason for this, I believe, is also the reason for the difference between the CP and the governing party. The reason is that here the hon. the Minister is now trying to extend, to broaden, the scope of the South African nation. Here we have a broadening …

[Inaudible.]

No, let the hon. the Minister deal with his problems himself. [Interjections.] I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it is this very issue that has given rise to the difference of opinion in South Africa. Yesterday the hon. the Minister himself said that what is taking place here is a widening of the boundaries of democracy. That is exactly what this is all about.

[Inaudible.]

No, that is precisely what it has all been about. Since the hon. the Minister and I are on such a friendly footing at the moment—that is of course the spirit in which we ought to be discussing things here—I just want to remind hon. members that the hon. the Minister repeatedly referred to the 1979 proposals; the proposals embodied in the 1979 draft legislation. I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister, however, that the 1979 draft legislation was an effort, on the part of the Government, to convert the 1977 constitutional proposals into legislation.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, we have known the hon. the Minister for many years now. One must listen very carefully to what the hon. the Minister says, because … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, after having listened to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, and also the speeches of the hon. members for Randfontein and Helderkruin, and then that of the hon. the Minister too—and after the appeal he made here—I was really under the impression that the whole matter had been duly argued and settled, and I was therefore also hoping that this would be the end of the debate on this specific clause and the proposed amendment on the clause. The spirit and attitude evidenced in the reaction to the proposed amendment was, I believe, a positive and fair one. I also believe that the arguments advanced by the Government were conclusive ones.

Now, however, we find this debate still continuing; there is a continuation of the argument on the possible amendment of the relevant clause. I really believed any further debate about this to be unnecessary. Because it is still continuing, however, I think it would perhaps be worth our while to approach the matter from a slightly different angle. Let me put it in the following terms. I should like to view this from a narrower and more restricted angle.

All of us in this House are citizens of South Africa. If, on the other hand, we were to regard ourselves as smaller building blocks in a greater whole, as smaller elements of what we really are, we could see ourselves not only as South African citizens, but also as Afrikaners, as Christians and as Calvinists. I am therefore narrowing the angle quite considerably. In now making a few remarks about the possible amendment of the clause under discussion—I am now referring specifically to the proposed amendment embodying the substitution of the words “Almighty God” by “Holy Trinity”—I want to do so from a more restricted angle, that of the Afrikaner, of the Christian Calvinist. I am doing so because I am an Afrikaner Christian Calvinist, but I also have an idea—and I think the hon. members of the CP will concede as much—that the reason why they made this proposal was specifically because they also regard the matter from the Afrikaner-Christian-Calvinist angle. I accept it as such and do not think there would be any objection to that.

In speaking of Calvinism I do not think one can quote any better opinion that specifically that of Calvin himself. Here I am referring specifically to the concept of the Holy Trinity that it is proposed should replace the expression “Almighty God”. In his Institusie, of which I have an abbreviated copy of the translation by Rev. Schutte, Calvin deals very comprehensively with the concept of the Holy Trinity in Chapter 13. Calvin puts the case very strongly, and very strongly argues in favour of the existence of the Holy Trinity. He argues the fact that there is indeed a Holy Trinity. Hon. members will remember that in 1535, about 400 years before I was born, people in France were persecuted, amongst other things, because of the struggle being waged about this very question of the Holy Trinity. In Chapter 13 of his Institusie Calvin emphasizes strongly that there is a Holy Trinity. There were, however, people who said that expression could not be used. They said one should use the words that appear in the Bible. Calvin was adamant that one could indeed use the expression “Holy Trinity”. I shall be coming back to that in a moment. After quoting Augustine to prove the existence of the Holy Trinity, Calvin said the following—

Here I am quoting from page 75. I therefore do not think there can be any doubt, as far as Calvin was concerned, that when one spoke of God one meant that Holy Trinity. I am now speaking from my own viewpoint as a Christian Calvinist. When I therefore read here of Almighty God, without the expression “Holy Trinity” being used, there is not the slightest doubt, as far as I am concerned, about what is meant, and this is also confirmed by the Handboek van Calvinisme.

Calvin also goes further. It must be remembered that we are now dealing with this concept within the context of the State, and in regard to those who say that the concept “Holy Trinity” should not be used in the ecclesiastical context, Calvin says—

This quotation appears on page 69—

Calvin is therefore saying that one does, in fact, use the words “Holy Trinity”. Calvin goes on to say, and this is very interesting—

Here he is referring to those who say one may not use the expression “Holy Trinity”. He then makes this very interesting statement on page 69—

He is referring to these words—

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before business was suspended I was busy quoting from the translation of Calvin’s Institusie. Prof. Dr. Kuyper is regarded as the greatest authority on Calvin of the past century or more. Prof. Dr. Kuyper describes Calvin as a one-book man, and he then says that one book is the Institusie.

I pointed out that although Calvin was very adamant about there being a Holy Trinity, he did not absolutize the term, saying, however, that as long as we avowed it in our hearts we could, as far as he was concerned, even bury the words referring to the Holy Trinity. This means that as Afrikaner, Christian and Calvinist I identify myself completely with what is stated in clause 2, particularly the expression “Almighty God”, without any need to change it.

Let me point out that the hon. member for Koedoespoort said—and I wrote it down—

So if I say that it is unnecessary to change the wording of clause 2, that it is actually superfluous to amend it, I am saying it is conformity with what is contained in the constitution and not in accordance with what is contained in my confession of faith.

This brings me to a final quote from Calvin’s Institusie—

What he then says is very important—

I now want to issue a warning … [Interjections] … and in this I am not making any allegations against anyone or ascribing anything to anyone, because Calvin did not write this with a view to the debate that is now taking place in this Committee; he wrote this 450 years ago. We must not argue about words. I am also saying that the Calvinist’s task and calling is to convert others to his own standpoint. It is my duty to try to convert the hon. member for Yeoville to my faith.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Kimberley South say that I am scandalous?

Order! The hon. member for Kimberley South must withdraw that.

Sir, I did not say it.

Then it was said by one of his colleagues sitting near him over there. I appeal to their integrity. I still think it was that hon. member. Sir, I call upon you for protection.

Sir, he is scandalous, but I withdraw it.

But who said it in the first place?

Mr. Chairman, I made that remark and I withdraw it.

I think it is scandalous for the hon. Chief Whip to have said that and then to have remained silent, even when an appeal was made to his integrity.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Does your ruling in regard to me not apply equally to the hon. member for Jeppe?

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon. member for Jeppe said: “It is scandalous.” He did not say that the hon. member for Tygervallei was scandalous.

Order! I appeal to hon. members, particularly since we are concerned here with a discussion as serious as that on clause 2, not to start with this petty politicking. The hon. member Dr. Vilonel’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Dr. Vilonel read fairly long quotes from the Institution of Calvin with which we have no problem. As a matter of fact, it is what we all profess. To do this on the one hand and then to drag someone like Calvin into this as a witness to refute the CP on the other is, in my opinion, a little wide of the mark.

When the hon. member for Randfontein got to the first part of the clause in connection with the concept of people (volk) or peoples (volkere), as has already happened repeatedly in the NP, he suddenly resorted to the dictionary to try to determine what is a people (volk) and what a nation (nasie) is. There is a tremendous problem regarding this terminology. It has arisen gradually, coinciding with the advent of the new dispensation. If the Government wanted to be consistent in this clause as regards the coming new dispensation, the word people (bevolking) would have been replaced by the word nation (nasie) and the clause would have to read as follows—

This would have been far more in line with what is going to happen. In his contribution to this debate the hon. the Minister said that it was a great pity that a debate had to revolve around this delicate and sensitive concept, namely the concept of God. I want to agree with him. It is a pity, because this is a sensitive and delicate matter. However, it is necessary for us to discuss this. We cannot get away from this. The coming new dispensation in fact necessitates our stating impartially and unequivocally where we stand as regards the concept of God as well.

Why?

I shall tell you why. When Dr. Malan—the hon. the Minister referred to this—stated in 1925 that the term “Almighty God” would be used, there was no longer a problem because the State community governed by that constitution had not the slightest doubt what this meant.

What about the Blacks?

They were not part of that State community. [Interjections.] Now we have a new dispensation in which people are being given a share in that State community. As a matter of fact, they are getting an equal share with this House of Assembly, which is to become a House.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member prepared to reply to a question?

No. I only have 10 minutes at my disposal. I shall give the hon. the Minister an opportunity later on. This House of Assembly, which is to become a House of one Parliament, has in effect as many powers as a House—the hon. the Minister himself gave the numbers, as another House—with what is predominantly a radically different religious conviction. Under these circumstances it now becomes important for us to consider this situation, although it was never an argument or point at issue in the past.

I want to start by pointing out in the first place that in the Afrikaans text the term “volk” has been changed to “bevolking” in the new legislation. One is amazed by the extraordinary amount of chopping and changing of terms that has taken place as regards this term. I have here the “blue card”, the membership card of the Transvaal NP. I do not know whether this is still the valid membership card of the present NP of the Transvaal, but on the back of this card is printed …

Order! The membership of a party has nothing to do with this clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: We are discussing the concepts of peoples (volkere) and people (volk), which we proposed. This reasoning is linked to the history of the development of each of the parties. When we discuss these concepts, we do not treat them as separate concepts of today, but as concepts which have developed during the course of history. The two parties differ cardinally in this regard and we have to have an opportunity to put our standpoints on the matter.

The hon. member may proceed.

I want to illustrate the interpretation which the NP at present attaches to the term people (volk) in view of the fact that it is used in the first line of this clause. I believe the blue card is still applicable. In the third paragraph of the card it is stated—

What is wrong with that? You are defeating your own argument.

The other day the hon. member for Pretoria Central told us that there was no such thing as a White nation in South Africa.

You are being silly. You are completely off your rocker. I said exactly the opposite.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for the hon. member for Pretoria Central to tell the hon. member for Pietersburg that he is completely off his rocker? [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

It was not only the hon. member for Pretoria Central I shall now indicate that the hon. member for Johannesburg West made exactly the same statement.

I said exactly the opposite of what you say I said. [Interjections.]

I can prove by quoting what was said by members of the NP how in the course of this debate confusion has arisen concerning the terms people (volk), nation (nasie), population group (bevolkingsgroep) and peoples (volkere).

Deliberately.

I have here the new Year Book, the Year Book for 1983, and I assume that this Year Book, which is the latest edition, will reflect the NP’s concept of a people very faithfully. What do we read on page 169? As regards South African nationhood, this Year Book states—

It is used being incorrectly.

The hon. member says it is being used incorrectly. Then the hon. member must have a few words with the relevant department because this is a new edition of the Year Book of South Africa. In this Year Book one also reads—

Sir, it is the Afrikaner that is meant here, it is the White Afrikaner nation and no other that had that “common historical experience.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: may the hon. member for Kroonstad say that the hon. member for Langlaagte is a “mamparra” (nincompoop)? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Kroonstad say that?

Sir, I meant it well, but I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a friendly appeal to hon. members not to pass this sort of remark when we are discussing religion, as the hon. the Minister was. When one is dealing with the Word of God or an interpretation of it, one does so as a Christian. I just wish to say to the hon. member for Kroonstad that I shall deal with him outside this House and not inside it. I just want to say that I do not need any protection against that hon. member.

Today I want to appeal to the reasonableness of a person who believes in God and for whom the new dispensation indicates something different and in terms of which he may not see matters in the correct light, but in connection with which he is nevertheless entitled to an interpretation or an assumption until he is proved wrong. When one looks at clause 2 one realizes that it affects the most fundamental aspects of the Bill. This clause reads—

Everyone in this House will tell me that the wording in the Afrikaans text of the 1961 Constitution Act is exactly the same except for the word “bevolking”.

Order! This argument has already been raised several times, and unless the hon. member now raises new arguments, I shall have to order him to resume his seat. I want to make it quite clear that repetition is not permitted in terms of the Standing Orders.

What is the argument?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I should like you to indicate to us which argument the hon. member was repeating.

The argument about “bevolking” and “volk”.

My argument has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: I have in my hand copies of a number of pages from a dictionary on the basis of which I intended to enter the debate later. If you have already decided that we may no longer discuss the terms “bevolking” and “volk”, I shall have to discard them now. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to make it quite clear that the crux of this clause, and hon. members can read this in the margin, concerns the acknowledgment of the sovereignty and guidance of Almighty God. The amendment reads that the word “bevolking” be replaced by the word “volkere”. That argument may be advanced, but if the argument is raised repeatedly, it is an infringement of the Standing Orders. I am merely drawing the attention of hon. members to the fact that this repetition must now cease.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to point out that although the wording in this Bill and that of the 1961 Constitution Act correspond to a large extent, the word “volk” in the 1961 constitution referred to the White “volk” because only the White “volk” for a Republic. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: We cannot continue with a debate if the Government Chief Whip is constantly …

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member for Rissik may put his point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I shall do so if the hon. Chief Whip would just give me a chance to do so.

I am giving the hon. member the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad you are giving me this opportunity. We on this side cannot continue with the debate if the hon. Chief Whip of the NP and other Whips on his side persistently try to keep up a provocative dialogue with hon. members on this side of the House. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, while I am addressing you, the same thing is happening. I request your protection for the speakers of the CP.

The hon. member for Langlaagte may now proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Jeppe say a disgusting word to me, one which I have too much respect to repeat in this House? However, if you compel me to do so I shall.

Order! I now want to make another appeal to hon. members please to act in a dignified manner while this debate is being conducted. Hon. members cannot continue to behave in the Committee in this way. The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I cannot stand by and allow the hon. Chief Whip of the NP to insinuate that I uttered a disgusting word, because I did not. The words I formed at him with my lips were: Who are you? He started all this. I ask the hon. members seated around me to say whether I did use a disgusting word. The hon. member has disgustingness on the brain.

You lie.

Order! The hon. Chief Whip must withdraw the words “you lie”. They are unparliamentary.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw them, but I have placed the word which he mouthed at me at your disposal and now he is trying to mislead you totally. The hon. member knows that he is trying to mislead you.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. Chief Whip say that the hon. member is misleading you and that he knows he is misleading you?

Order! I appeal to hon. members please to put a stop to this now. The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I should just like to know whether the debate that is now taking place is an example of Christian and civilized norms.

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I ask you what your ruling is with regard to the hon. Chief Whip of the governing party who said that the hon. member for Jeppe was misleading you and that he knew he was misleading you. That is unparliamentary and I request to you to call him to order.

My ruling is that the hon. member for Langlaagte may now proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: We should like to know whether or not you are prepared to give a ruling in this connection.

The hon. Chief Whip of the NP has placed a word at my disposal which, if it is correct—I cannot judge whether it is correct or not, nor am I prepared to ask the hon. member for Jeppe whether he used that word—would offend the dignity of this House if I were to go into this matter. My appeal to hon. members is that we now continue with the debate.

Mr. Chairman, there are now two matters at issue. The one is the word which the hon. Chief Whip … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask your ruling as to whether we may raise points of order and whether we may speak at all.

The hon. member is welcome to raise points of order.

There are two matters at issue now. The first is the allegation which the hon. Chief Whip of the NP made and which is denied on this side of the House because it is not true. You must decide on that as you see fit. The second matter at issue is that the hon. Chief Whip of the NP said that the hon. member for Jeppe was misleading you and that he knew that he was misleading you. I ask whether that is parliamentary and whether you will give a ruling on it.

For the sake of parliamentary order I request the hon. Chief Whip to withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot withdraw that allegation. The word I placed at your disposal is the word which the hon. member for Jeppe mouthed at me and he must take my word for it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I have been given the word which the hon. Chief Whip placed at your disposal. I am not deaf and the hon. member for Jeppe is sitting far closer to me than to the hon. Chief Whip, and he did not use that word. [Interjections.]

Order! I now request the hon. Whip of the CP and the Chief Whip of the governing party to take this matter up with Mr. Speaker. They must take this matter up with Mr. Speaker either now or later. I am not prepared to play the arbitrator in this matter any longer.

Sir, on a further point of order: You have ruled that the Government Chief Whip must withdraw certain words, but he has stated that he refuses to do so. What is your ruling on that?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppe has intimated that he formed a word with his lips. How, then, can the Whip of the CP now claim that he did not hear the word which the hon. member for Jeppe uttered? I have placed the relevant word at your disposal, and a slur is being cast on my honour if the hon. member alleges that I am a liar. I have also placed the word at the disposal of the Whip of the CP, and he can take my word for it…

For the sake of maintaining order in Parliament I call upon the hon. Chief Whip of the Government to withdraw the allegation that an hon. member is misleading me in pretending that he said something else, and then to take up the matter with Mr. Speaker later, as I have suggested.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of maintaining order in Parliament, I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: it is not a rule of this House that when a member has to withdraw a remark, he has to do so unconditionally?

Order! The hon. Chief Whip of the Government has withdrawn it. The time for the speech of the hon. member for Langlaagte has expired and I therefore put the question.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know what your ruling is regarding the point I raised, namely that the hon. Chief Whip of the Government withdrew the word conditionally.

Mr. Chairman, may I point out that you asked the hon. Chief Whip of the Government from the Chair to withdraw the words for the sake of maintaining order in this House, and that the hon. Chief Whip of the Government accordingly did so on that basis.

I stand by my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, the last time I spoke the hon. member for Pretoria Central said that he had never said that no such thing as a White people existed …

Oh no. You spoke about a White nation. I said there was no such thing as a White people. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members can make this debate either pleasant or unpleasant for one another. The way they are carrying on now, they are going to make it very unpleasant for one another, and if hon. members do not henceforth obey calls from the Chair upon hon. members to maintain order, the Chair will have to take drastic action, and that applies to every hon. member of this House. This House has a dignity which must be upheld at all times and I intend ensuring that it is upheld. I am asking for the co-operation of all hon. members in this connection. The hon. member for Pietersburg may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Pretoria Central that if I used the words “White nation” I actually meant “White people”.

You said “nation”.

I want to proceed to illustrate what utter confusion is prevailing in the ranks of the NP over the terminology which is under discussion here. For example let us see what the hon. member for Johannesburg West said. In column 9226 of the Hansard of 13 June the hon. member for Kuruman put the following question to the hon. member for Johannesburg West—

The reply to that given by the hon. member for Johannesburg West reads as follows—

From the Year Book I have already indicated here how, in that publication, reference is made to the White nation (volk) of South Africa. This is in the 1983 edition. As a matter of fact, everyone who attended the hon. the Prime Minister’s meeting in Water-kloof, and who heard him talking about the South African nation (nasie), a nation consisting of Whites, Coloureds, Indians as well as Blacks born in South Africa, should have been able to deduce from the reaction of that audience what the general feeling among the public of South Africa was in regard to a common nationhood.

I now want to say a few words in connection with that portion of clause 2 dealing with the concept of God. Even though the hon. member for Pretoria Central refers to so many Whites who are Muslims, so many Whites who are members of the Jewish faith, so many atheists etcetera, and even though the hon. the Minister mentions umpteen figures relating to this matter, I nevertheless wish to state unequivocally that the CP insists that there should be no misunderstanding whatsoever in regard to this matter. There should be no misunderstanding about what we mean by the term “Almighty God”, even though religious freedom, as we would like to have it, exists for all minority groups in South Africa. Acknowledgment of the sovereignty and guidance of Almighty God is nevertheless essential, and that is why it must be clearly defined in the present legislation, as it does occur—and without any misunderstanding—in the preamble to the present Constitution Act. This is after all the God as we have learnt to know Him from the Confessio Belgica. If we take a brief note now of how it happened in history that we were required, at a certain stage, to state clearly what we meant by this, I believe it is appropriate that we should take note of a few things. Incidentally, the hon. member for Rosettenville also mentioned that when Jan van Riebeeck set foot on shore in South Africa on 6 April 1652, he was in reality the first to mention this subject by expressing the wish in his prayer that the reformed religion would become established and would grow in South Africa, and would in fact flourish here.

He referred to the “Holy God”.

That is correct, yes. That is indeed our intention. That is how we should also like to have it.

There were interesting developments in our history though. At one stage there was an interesting development in connection with missionary activities in South Africa. In 1837 our forebears saw fit to insert the following in the constitution of the first Voortrekker Government. In their resolution No. 1, they said inter alia the following—and I am translating from the Dutch—

They found it necessary to include this in what one could almost call that embryonic constitution of theirs.

Later in our history this phenomenon gradually disappeared, and if we take cognizance of the 1910 constitution it is apparent that in that year there was no reference to anything of this nature. Only later—in 1925—and then ultimately in the draft constitution proposed by the NP in 1943 as the proposed constitution of the Republic of South Africa, we again come across the following interesting sentence. In the preamble it is stated—

God and his Holy Word are therefore drawn into this matter in order to give a precise description of what is meant there.

It could be interpreted by Moslems as the Koran.

Sir, someone has just said “the Koran”. Does that hon. member now want to tell me that in our present constitution it could possibly mean in the Koran as well?

It was not what I am saying.

What does the hon. member say then?

That is why I say that in this new dispensation which we are now entering, in which we are dealing with communities—and the hon. the Minister gave us the figures—we see that the number of non-Christians in South Africa in respect of the three population groups concerned amounts to almost one million people. These are people who are members of non-Christian faiths. In fact, these are radical non-Christian religions.

Order! That argument has been used repeatedly. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member unnecessarily, but if he cannot advance new arguments I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I obey your ruling. I just wish to indicate further why I find it necessary that we should, in the constitution which we are now drawing up as a Christian nation, if we want to pride ourselves on being a Christian nation, indicate unequivocally and unashamedly what we mean by this term.

When we read the proceedings of the Select Committee, then we see that an organization such as the Rapportryers Corps for Wonderboom South, through the Federasie van Rapportryerskorpse, specifically stated—and this is their motivation—that they should like to see the expression “the Holy Trinity” substituted for the expression “Almighty God”. They take an extract from the Confessio Belgica, article 36, and they say it reads as follows—

But surely that is not the task of the South African Government.

I am not saying it is the task of the State to pronounce on and watch over this matter. I say on the contrary it should rather be true that the present State dispensation that we want in this country, should bear the true stamp of a Christian Government. It is also true that we do not want to make it enforceable and that we shall also allow the unhindered practice of the religions of minority groups. However, if we consider other peoples for a moment, non-Christian peoples, and we see how unashamedly and unambiguously they profess their religious convictions in their constitution, to such an extent that they even write it into their constitution that no Christian missionary work may be done in those countries, I say that with this situation we are incurring a risk in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when my time expired during my previous turn to speak, I was referring to the 1961 Constitution Act and the fact that the expression “people of South Africa” which appeared there was rather comprehensive because all the people who voted at the time were Whites. No other population group voted. No one can tell me that the God of the Old Testament whom the Jews in South Africa also refer to as Yahweh, Adonai and Elohim, is not also the God whom the Christians confess. The point I want to make is that we cannot simply accept that this should evoke precisely the same response as it did in 1961. I do not wish to speak lightly about this matter, because I discuss another nation or culture with great respect. As it is worded in the Constitution Bill today we are perhaps unknowingly trying to make the description which I do not really like to mention, namely “God”, divisible without a confession of faith. One may not and cannot call upon an Islamite and tell him his people profess a belief in God, in other words the God of the Old Testament. If one were to do this, one would be interpreting, one would be accepting that he also accepts this confession of faith.

If I as a Christian were to ask that it be stated in my constitution that I live in a Christian country and that I believe in a Holy Trinity, it is not politics. It is part of my confession of faith in a country of which the Government at present is at least 98% to 100% Christian.

I want to go back to the early years of the Verenigde Oos-Indiese Kompanjie. I want to quote what the kompanjie stipulated in its constitution. We must remember that we are dealing here with people who had to trade in the East and who also had to administer justice there. They also had to take contacts in the clerical sphere into consideration. In that respect they said cujus regio illias religio, which means preference shall be given to the religion of whoever the territory belongs to. This is a creed which did not prevent any person who was an adherent of the Muslim faith from practising that faith. Anyone who says today that the Jews are being confined by our motion, does not know what he is talking about.

The prayer which Mr. Speaker reads out every day—I take it that this has been the case since 1910—concludes as follows—

Has any hon. member who is not an adherent of the Christian faith objected to this and walked out, or not? No, that has not happened. The interpretation was that it was an expression of faith of Christians and that it could in no way be considered to be an expression of prosecution or mean that any other person was not able to profess a belief in his God. To eliminate any possible lack of clarity in this regard, we wish to insert a clause 3 in the Constitution Bill which places freedom of religion in this country beyond any doubt.

I come next to a very delicate matter. To me as a Christian it is indeed a delicate matter. I am not saing that I am a good and wonderful person, but I am a Christian. Jesus Christ gave an injunction which we find in Matthew 28, verse 19—

We wish to include only the last section in the Preamble to the Bill. To put it another way: Regulate your affairs in South Africa according to Christian values. “Christian values” has a very wide connotation, and I do not wish to go into it. I shall say only that Mekkes, one of the greatest theologians, said that in politics the first concern was the question what may, what must the State do according to God’s commandments. I shall read this again: Allereerst, wat magt, wat moet naar Gods ordening, de Staat doen? [Interjections.] I note that quite a number of hon. members wish to joke about this, but to me it is a very delicate matter. We are not all learned theologians, but each one of us has a right to stand up in this House and to say: I am a Christian.

How should a Christian State act in respect of legislation and its application? The Christian State cannot and may not be neutral. This should be clear and should emanate from its mode of action and legislation.

It is clear from the constitutions of Muslim countries that the Muslim gives priority to his religion. One cannot but have respect for the faith of the Muslim and for his aspirations as a religious person. In the preamble to the constitution of every Muslim country it is stated that country is a Muslim country and that it is governed according to the high laws of Islam. We must not therefore be ashamed to insert “Christian” or “Holy Trinity” in our constitution. No one will take offence at that. In the constitutions of Muslim countries it is clearly stated that all laws in those countries shall be based on the law of Islam. When I refer to the constitutions of Muslim countries, I am not attaching any negative connotation to them. I am not referring to them as inferior. I am referring to them as being different, as being the purposeful actions of people who pursue a task of conquest.

Let us consider the injunction given by Christ. The injunction given to every person is to proclaim His word to all people. In a Muslim country this may not be done.

Order! I think the hon. member is digressing too far now.

Sir, you must pardon me; I want to address you.

Order! The hon. member is digressing too far from the clause and the amendment now.

No, Sir, I am making out a case to indicate why “the Holy Trinity” should be inserted into this clause.

Order! The argument which the hon. member is raising now is that he has a task to preach the Gospel. The hon. member must come back to the point.

It is Christ’s injunction that every Christian should do this. Sir, you cannot ask me not to say this.

Order! I do not wish to argue about this with the hon. member. All I want to say is that the hon. member must come back to the provisions of the clause.

The amendment asks for the insertion of “the Holy Trinity”. Christ’s injunction to every Christian was to go out and teach the Word of God. As a Christian I may not do this in any Muslim country which is subject to Muslim laws. That is why I say that in this country of ours, where 95% or more of the population are Christians, the words “the Holy Trinity” should be inserted. This should not be considered ugly or in conflict with religion. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since the debate on this clause started this morning many words have been spoken which may not have complied with the appeal that I had made right at the start. This morning, right at the start of my speech I said that this was a very sensitive and serious matter. On that basis I adopted the standpoint that I wanted to debate the matter with care and responsibility. I looked again at what I had said this morning. I want to adopt the standpoint now that I believe wholeheartedly that I argued with care and responsibility this morning. I want to make a second statement. Nowhere in my speech did I drag in politics. I want to charge the hon. member for Randfontein in a very nice way with being the first hon. member who used the word “politics” in this debate. Furthermore, I want to state that in my speech this morning I never ever tried to draw any other distinction than one of religion or faith on the basis of a particular concept of God. I did not play off colour against colour. I did not exclude Coloured Christians or the 10% Indian Christians from the case that I stated with regard to the Trinity. I argued that as a result of the terminology that we are using and specifically the word “people” (bevolking), which is a concept of totality and indicates a totality, we are including people who do not interpret “God Almighty” as it is understood and consequently recognized here.

So what I actually did was to advocate that we consider those people who do not have a Christian creed. It seems to me as if I have been reproached in this debate for wanting to consider people who do not profess the Christian faith. I ask quite honestly that since this formulation contains an untruth and an incorrect statement, we should look for a formulation which would indeed meet two considerations: It must do justice to the majority of the people of this country who profess the Christian faith, and then also to the minority group who do not profess the Christian faith.

Order! I have appreciated the fact that the hon. member for Koedoespoort wants to keep the debate on a very high level. However. I must point out to him that he cannot repeat the speech he made this morning.

Sir, you are right.

I therefore ask for the hon. member’s co-operation.

I am merely stating facts in opposition to the facts which have been stated to prove me wrong without also acknowledging this truth which I wanted to bring home.

I shall permit the hon. member to state his case briefly to the Committee.

Sir, I do not want to circumvent your ruling and shall abide by it in every respect because I want this debate to remain on a high level. I advocate that. [Interjections.]

Order!

You see, Sir, when one shows respect to the Chair, that is the way in which the House reacts to one. I just wanted to make the point that I was trying to bring home a truth which was apparently not grasped this morning.

I want to go further by referring to the hon. member for Pinelands. In his rejection of our amendment he based his argument merely on texts from the Old Testament. I want to ask him first of all on what grounds he avoided the New Testament in his argument and only confined himself to texts from the Old Testament on the basis of which he tried to disprove my amendment. Secondly I want to state the viewpoint…

Why do you reject that God is love?

Order!

That is exactly what I did not do. I shall come back to that in a moment. I do not want the hon. member to distract me now. I also want to say that the texts in connection with the God of the Old Testament which the hon. member for Pinelands quoted are all texts which testify to a Holy Trinity for the God of the Old Testament reveals himself in the Old Testament as a Holy Trinity. In Genesis 1, verse 2 the spirit of God moves creatively upon the face of the waters. In Genesis 1, verse 26, God spoke to Himself and said “Let Us make man in our image, after our likeness …”. The word Elchim which is translated by “God” is in the plural in Hebrew. Each time when the Bible refers to the Angel of God which is spelt with a capital letter in our Bible, for example where the Angel of God appears to Abraham at the sacrifice of Isaac or in Zacharia, it concerns the second person in the Holy Trinity.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the amendment of the CP concerned with whether a Holy Trinity exists …

Order! No, the hon. member is not stating a point of order now. The hon. member for Koedoespoort may proceed.

I just want to point out that if the hon. member or Pinelands invokes Old Testament texts he invokes the fact that the Old Testament, too, preaches a Holy Trinity and that does not exclude the concept of Trinity.

The hon. member for Helderkruin stated very pertinently that it concerned the relationship of man to God and that the God referred to here was none other than the God of the New Testament. That confirms the very problem that I have. If Almighty God is interpreted or seen in a Christian New Testament or scriptural sense, then one has to take into account those people who do not profess that particular faith. On that basis we are looking for a formulation which will, first of all, meet both these requirements. I want to tell the hon. the Minister with great respect that I have come to the conclusion that he was looking for a motive in my actions. The motive which he found, to me sounded like a motive which did not uphold my bona fides in this regard. It sounded like mala fides to me. If I interpreted it wrongly, I am sorry. But if I interpreted it correctly, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that what I am doing, is not being done with mala fides but that I am doing it bona fide. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, allow me to refer to the arguments of two hon. members on the opposite side.

The hon. member for Randfontein said that in his opinion the term “Almighty God” included all the other attributes of the Lord as we know him. With respect, I want to differ with him.

The hon. member Dr. Vilonel quoted from Calvin’s Institution. However, I want to tell the two hon. members that they should go and take a look at the Confessio Belgica tonight. There they will find it far more clearly and tersely described. Not only is Omnipotence mentioned there, inter alia, but it is also mentioned that the Lord God is the cause, the origin, the beginning of all things, visible as well as invisible. Mention is also made of His supreme wisdom as well as of His eternal power and might. I argue that we want to stipulate that is the God Whom we worship, viz. the Holy Trinity whom we want to have written into the Constitution. Furthermore, mention is made of his goodness and mercy. For that reason we in the CP want no misunderstanding that the Almighty God referred to here cannot be the God of whom we read in the Koran. That must be very clear.

Where is Andries?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: While the hon. member has been dealing with a very serious matter, this is probably the sixth person to shout out: “Where is Andries?” I ask you whether this is relevant.

Order!

Where is the Prime Minister?

Order! It seems to me there are hon. members here who are really keen to leave the Chamber. I shall not hesitate to ask the next hon. member who disrupts the order to leave the Chamber. I am asking hon. members very courteously now for the last time. The hon. member for Pietersburg may proceed.

In conclusion I want to say that we in the CP believe that it would be far more correct to talk of “peoples” because there is a diversity of peoples within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. This will also express …

Order! That argument which the hon. member is using now, viz. that there are various peoples, has been advanced repeatedly and, therefore, I am not going to permit the hon. member to pursue it any further.

Mr. Chairman, I shall leave it at that. In the second place, I just want to say, finally, that we and the people for whom this constitution has been made, should not have the slightest doubt about this, and that we should say unequivocally and openly what we mean when we say “Almighty God”, and that should be the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit …

Order! I am sorry, but this argument has also been used repeatedly.

Mr. Chairman, I shall therefore leave it at that if that is your ruling.

Sit down, man!

Order!

Mr. Chairman, finally I just want to refer to the hon. member for Rosettenville who spoke about the commission of enquiry into public holidays. I want to point out a practical problem which is going to arise in the new dispensation. The hon. member said that there had been unanimity on public holidays. That is true, but there was no unanimity on Afrikaner national holidays, for example. There have in fact been differences on that commission. On a subsequent commission in a new constitutional dispensation there are going to be differences of opinion and conflict in respect of religious holidays, such as Christian holidays and the national holidays of other peoples. I ask therefore: Is this an own affair?

Order! The hon. member cannot pursue that argument.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you?

Yes, you may address me.

This is a practical consequence of the principle that we are accommodating two radical religions in a single State dispensation, and this will be the result.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to find out from hon. members on my right whether there is any difference in their minds between Almighty God and the Holy Trinity or whether it is one person.

There is no difference.

In other words, in their minds there is no difference. I want to ask them whether the Almighty to whom I pray is different to the Almighty to whom they pray or to whom the Moslem or the Jew prays? Let me put to them also this question: Am I less of a Christian because I go to church on a Sunday and play sports on a Sunday? In their opinion I am less of a Christian. The point arises that if they cannot tell me whether God Almighty and the Trinity are one and the same person, why do they press their point so hard? Is the hon. member who proposed this amendment and his party out to antagonize certain sections of our population, to the extent that they will refuse to accept the constitution? Or is it a sign of intolerance of the other person’s point of view, whether he be White, Moslem, Christian or Jew? I would have though that we were at a stage where we ought to be looking for consensus. If we are to embark on a new constitution we have to try to accommodate everybody. What the CP is trying to do here is to upset what has been our constitution since 1910. It has been there all this time. Why change it now? So let me ask the members of the CP once more: What is the reason for all this argument?

Sir, the hon. member for Koedoespoort intimated that he was acting in good faith in regard to this matter. For the moment I accept that as the basis of my argument. If I should perhaps misinterpret the hon. member for Koedoespoort, he must please correct me. I believe that the hon. member, by the substitution of the word “peoples” for the word “people”, wishes to protect some people, in this sense that he offers those people a way out of the undertaking which we give here. Do I understand this correctly or not? [Interjections.] There is no reaction from the hon. member. He need not think that I am trying to set a trap for him. I am acting with the same good intentions as he claimed to be. If those hon. members nou wish the clause to read “the peoples of the Republic … acknowledge the sovereignty and guidance of Almighty God” then they are including all the peoples. If we now accept that there are, in fact, various peoples in South Africa, then that wording includes each one of those peoples, in other words the “White people”, as they use the term, accept it, and so do the “Coloured people”, the Zulu people and the others. In that way one is then binding each one of those people, also those who are not represented here, to this more strongly than when we use a more amorphous and general term such as “people” (bevolking), for the very purpose of not applying it so stringently to the individual. We say that this general entity, as an entity, acknowledges the sovereignty of God. If the hon. members of the CP do not agree with me that this amorphism creates a better way out of the difficulty, does not constitute better protection for the individual, I ask them to consider whether the term “peoples” does so to an even lesser extent, and that they are consequently not achieving what they envisage with it.

Sir, there are two other observations I wish to make, and here you must allow me, Sir, to repeat an argument which I have already advanced as a basis for my argument. I said that the word people (volk) and the word nation (nasie) were used very widely, inconsistently, and as alternative forms. With the passage of time, however, a purer meaning of each of the concepts emerged. If one wilfully confuses these terms as I allege hon. members of the CP are in fact doing, I maintain that we are doing everyone a disservice. It is high time then that they tell us precisely—in scientific terms—what they understand each of those concepts to mean so that we can then construct a basis for a dialogue with one another.

The last statement I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, is the following. I want to address it specifically to the hon. member for Pietersburg. It seems to me that what their arguments amount to is that when one only spoke about a White nation (volk), one could speak about “the Almighty God” without causing confusion. That is the first statement I wish to make. Then I also wish to point out, in passing, that at the stage when these matters were broached, there were in fact non-Whites who had the franchise. There were not only Whites. Consequently that argument is not altogether accurate.

Another argument I wish to raise, Mr. Chairman, is the following. By arguing as hon. members of the CP argue, they are in fact giving recognition to the existence of all kinds of gods, while, as far as I am concerned, only one God exists. There is only one God, and therefore I need not concern myself about whether another person is going to abuse my concept of the Divinity by associating it with some invalid school of thought or other which he has seized upon. That does not worry me. In fact, the hon. member for Koedoespoort understood me quite correctly when I indicated earlier today how the NP understood the present formulation, and that concept was undoubtedly …

Order! The hon. member for Helderkruin may not repeat the speech he made this morning.

Mr. Chairman, all I wish to emphasize is that when one argues as the hon. member for Pietersburg did, one is in fact giving recognition to a multiplicity of gods among which we have to make our choices. I refuse to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member for Helderkruin that I accept his bona fides completely. I also agree with him when he says that the words “volk” and “nasie” were in the past used as alternate forms; that they were in other words interchangeable. In the past, when one used the word “volk” it was therefore quite possible—according to today’s dictionary definition—that one meant “nasie”, or vice versa. However, a problem arose, a grave problem, Mr. Chairman. The problem arose in that Mr. John Vorster, for example, said that the Coloureds were a nation in the making. The problem we are saddled with today is the question of what Mr. Vorster meant at the time.

When did he say that? [Interjections.]

At one stage he even said that the Coloureds were a nation in the making. [Interjections.]

Tell us when he said that. [Interjections.]

Order! I must point out to the hon. member for Jeppe that the statement which he is now making has nothing to do with this debate.

Mr. Chairman, I am simply reacting to what the hon. member …

Order! The hon. member is alleging that Mr. Vorster supposedly said certain things. However, this has nothing to do with the clause which is now under discussion. The hon. member must now confine himself to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion attempts are being made on the part of the NP to dispose of this debate as quickly as possible. I believe that they are attempting to dispose of the discussion of the Constitution Bill over-hastily.

Order! What the hon. member has just said has nothing to do with the clause either.

Mr. Chairman, I simply wished to record my objection to what is happening.

The hon. member must discuss the clause now, otherwise I shall have to order him to resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I realize you have a difficult problem, but I …

Order! I am asking for the hon. member’s co-operation now, please.

Very well. Sir. We are now discussing bona fides. I want to make it clear that I accept the bona fides of the hon. the Minister unconditionally.

Order! The bona fides of the hon. the Minister has nothing whatsoever to do with the clause under discussion. I request the hon. member once again to confine himself to the clause or to the amendment before the Committee. What he is now saying has nothing to do with the clause.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you?

The hon. member may address me.

Mr. Chairman, the term “bona fides” has been repeatedly used here. The hon. the Minister referred to the spirit of the matter and I …

Order! I ask the hon. member to address me now on the clause or the amendment we are dealing with, and nothing else.

The clause before the Committee is a very difficult one. [Interjections.] I fully comprehend your difficult position, Mr. Chairman. Your position is perhaps even more difficult than the problem. However, this problem has a variety of angles and approaches, and the approach I wish to sketch in connection with this clause, is the approach of my party. Because we are fallible people, it is possible that our approach is wrong, but it is possibly the right one. Many theologians have spoken in this connection. As I said before, I have no theological knowledge. I am speaking as a layman. My theological knowledge is confined to serving as a deacon for one week. However, I hope that as a layman and within the confines of my layman’s knowledge I can state my standpoint on the Godhead as contained in this clause.

Order! The hon. member is trifling with the Chair. I have requested the hon. member to come back to the provisions of the clause. For a minute and a half now the hon. member has been saying that he does have the right to discuss this matter. I am not going to tolerate it.

Mr. Chairman, my standpoint is this. I shall address you only in regard to the God to whom reference is being made here, the Almighty God. However, I say that I am speaking as a layman and that I may be wrong, because I do not have knowledge of these matters. My standpoint is that the Almighty God to Whom reference is being made in the clause, is the Christian God. I want to put this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the other clergymen in the Government Party: How do Christians describe their God?

As God.

It seems that the hon. member for Pretoria Central is also a theologian. I do not wish to take much notice of his opinion. I should like to know from the hon. member for Randfontein …

Order! The hon. member is again trying to circumvent my ruling. He must now discuss what is stated in the clause or in the amendment. I am now asking him for the last time to do so.

Mr. Chairman, the expression “Almighty God” is contained in this clause and I maintain that it is an incorrect designation. I maintain that another designation should be put in its place, namely “the Holy Trinity”, and I want to explain why I say this. The theologians who advised us—I do not know whether they are correct—told us that the correct designation was “the Holy Trinity”. I do not know whether this is rue, but in support of this suggestion I wish to advance the following argument. In the first place ours is a Christian Country.

Order! That argument has been used repeatedly.

Not the facet which I want to discuss.

Order! The argument that ours is a Christian country has been used repeatedly and the hon. member may not use it again.

Mr. Chairman, must I accept that Parliament also accepts that ours is a Christian Country?

Order! The hon. member must not put questions to me. I have given my ruling now and if the hon. member does not use a new argument, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Sir, I say the expression “Almighty God” is wrong and that it should be “the Holy Trinity”.

Order! The hon. member has also said that repeatedly. He must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we have now dealt with the subject in full.

Much more than that. It is spilling over.

In replying to the debate, I want to begin with the concluding remark made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. He said that in my reaction I had tried to discover a motive in what he had said and he wanted to assure me that the motive which I attributed to him did not exist.

I take it that the hon. member for Koedoespoort and his colleagues in the CP have the same standpoint and that he is not adopting a standpoint of his own in this particular case. The hon. member’s standpoint is therefore in agreement with that of the hon. member for Rissik. Let us examine the situation. The hon. member contended that we should amend the existing constitution in order to change the description of God which it contains.

The hon. member for Rissik reacted to the question which I had asked, i.e. why it had to be done at this stage. I told him that it had been introduced in 1925, reaffirmed in 1961 and affirmed yet again in the 1979 proposals. Why now? To this the hon. member gave a very important relevant reply by which the hon. member for Koedoespoort is bound unless he dissociates himself from it.

He said the reason why this had to be done was that I had enlarged the South African nation. I shall pass over the fact that I do not have the magical ability to enlarge the South African nation. When I was young I was able to enlarge it. [Interjections.]

What is the implication of the word “enlargement” used by the hon. member for Rissik? He and I are frank with each other. By the statement that the South African nation has been enlarged he means that the Coloured people are becoming a part of the South African nation.

And the Indians.

Yes, and the Indians. He says the reason why he said I had enlarged the South African nation was that I was including the Coloured people and the Asians in the South African nation. I am not discussing the merit of this statement at the moment; I am only discussing the statement that this is the reason why the concept of God should be changed. That is all I am discussing at the moment.

Now surely the hon. member for Koedoespoort cannot blame me for saying that it is the standpoint of the CP that they want to do this for reasons of colour. After all, the hon. member for Rissik expressly told me that the reason why we had to change the description of the concept of God was that I had enlarged the nation and that I had done so by including people of colour in the nation.

Why are there three Chambers?

Sir, as far as I can see, even that interjection is out of order, because we are not discussing Chambers at the moment. We are discussing the clause.

With all due respect, the hon. member must not try to hide the true reason for the amendment behind the smoke-screen of theological rethoric, because no one accepts that—not even his party. I shall leave it at that.

I do not quite understand that. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have said that I shall leave it at that. Other statements have been made which I must also deal with. The hon. member for Jeppe, who has left…

He had to leave because he had an appointment.

I accept that he had to leave. I shall not inquire into the reason, either. He seems to have left the Chamber for a good reason. [Interjections.] Just look at the argument which the hon. member uses. In his initial speech he indicated why he supported the amendment. He said that in 1961 it was sufficient to refer to the “people”, because only one people voted. Surely that is not true. The English-speaking sector of the population also voted, after all.

They form part of the White people.

No, there is no such thing. [Interjections.]

I made that statement, not the hon. member for Jeppe.

I did not attribute the statement to the hon. member for Langlaagte; I tried to understand him, but I could not. I acknowledge my inability to do that. The hon. member for Jeppe said that the reason why we now had to use a term other than “people” was because only one people had voted in 1961. I want to ask him in all humility whether the hon. member for Hill-brow belongs to the Afrikaner people.

He belongs to the White people.

With great respect, there is only one White people in this country. That is the Afrikaner people.

That will be the day.

However, there are many White minority groups with exactly the same rights as those of the White people.

That is nonsense. [Interjections.]

These are the facts. Let us not argue about them.

However, the hon. member for Pietersburg has advanced another consideration on the basis of which the word “people” should be replaced by the word “peoples”. He says the Government has altered the state community. Only the hon. member for Pietersburg will know what a state community is. However, I must try to infer from his terminology what the state community is to which he refers. If I have to draw an inference from his speech, it means that under the new dispensation, not only Whites will have the franchise. I believe my deduction is correct.

Yes.

Let us see whether it is true. When, in 1925, Dr. Malan introduced this particular concept of God into Act No. 9 of 1925, the Coloured people had the franchise on a common voters’ roll. In subsequent years, Blacks had the franchise and were represented by White representatives. How can I have altered the state community, therefore? If we have done anything, the state community, in terms of the hon. member’s definition, has rather been reduced, because the peoples of independent States no longer belong to the South African nation and no longer have South African citizenship. With all due respect, what arguments are being advanced now?

What are the facts? The facts are that we have all been using the terms “people” and “nation” without defining them. A great deal of the political confusion in this country can be blamed on the fact that we do not all understand the same word or to mean the same thing. These are the facts. This is not a problem which has only just cropped up. It has always existed. It would be greatly conducive to meaningful debate if we started using better-defined terms. Then we might make some progress in this connection. The hon. members went back and outlined the process of development which the NP had undergone. In order to reply to the debate, not as a new argument, you will allow me, Sir, to react to that. The fact is—and I make no apology for this—that when the NP was founded it was the personification of Afrikaner nationalism. However, it subscribed to important principles in its programme of principles. The first important principle in its constitution—and those hon. members lived under that—is that the party acknowledges the sovereignty of Almighty God, who controls the destinies of nations and of peoples. It was not necessary for the party to define it. I do not for a moment believe that when Sarel Cilliers made the solemn vow and addressed Almighty God, he was rejecting Christ.

That is why one finds that the constitution of the party refers to “people” and “population”. In the 1920 constitution, the following important principle is adopted—

This is the old one—

Now hon. members must listen carefully—

It goes on to say—

In other words, it has a responsibility towards the people. It goes on to say that—

There is a very clear distinction, therefore. Now one of the hon. members has referred to the opening prayer with a view to maintaining the definition of “people”. Now I want to ask: Are we as members of this House, because we are Whites and have been elected only by Whites, the custodians of the rights of the Whites only? Do we represent only Whites in this House? I thought that by virtue of our acceptance of trusteeship—once again, irrespective of whether it be right or wrong—we represented the people over whom we have accepted the trusteeship. How can we argue that we represent only one people and its interests? It is not possible to serve the interests of this country, as we solemnly pledge to do when we come to this House, by serving the interests of one people only, for in doing so, we would be denying the oath which we take here. With all due respect, we cannot argue in this way.

Let us go further. Hon. members opposite have strenuously argued that we should define the Holy Trinity as the Christian God. However, we tried to write a Preamble to this constitution in co-operation with other parties. The only people who were opposed to the principle of a Preamble were the hon. members of the CP. They were the only party that voted against it. That is not all. We had amendments to various parts of the Preamble. There was a proposal by the hon. member for Sea Point—I am not reproaching the hon. member, I am simply stating a historical fact—that we should delete that part which refers to Christian values.

I did it on behalf of my party.

Yes, on behalf of his party. I said I was not reproaching him. Who was in favour of the deletion of that wording? Hon. members of the CP. [Interjections.]

Order! I regret to interrupt the hon. the Minister, but I would be glad if he would postpone the debate on the Preamble until a later occasion.

Sir, I am not debating the Preamble; I am simply pointing out what happened on the Select Committee. What happened there pointed to a specific standpoint on the part of hon. members which is in conflict with the standpoint which they are adopting now. However, I shall leave the matter at that.

I do not intend to debate the concept of God any further. I want to conclude by saying a few words about the inclusion or exclusion of the word “bevolking”, or “people” in the English text.

These concepts of “volk” and “bevolking” occur throughout. Apart from the fact that there are various peoples in this country, there are also minority groups which do not belong to any particular people. I am not the only one who says so. Hon. members of the CP have accepted the concept of the diversity of peoples and minority groups. If we were to use only the word “volk”, it would mean that in terms of their definition and ours, we would be excluding minority groups, which might be Christian, from this definition. On what grounds would we be excluding them?

The reason why we are using the word “bevolking”, and the word “people” in the English text, is that there are various peoples and various minority groups in South Africa which cannot be defined as peoples. They are entitled to be included in our affirmation of our submission to the guidance of Almighty God.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how he would translate the word “people” into English in this context. At present, the Afrikaans wording is “bevolking”, while in the English text it is “people”. I should just like to know what the hon. the Minister’s views are in this connection.

From the nature of the case the words “nasie” and “volk” have been used in a variety of idioms. I accept that they have been used in various ways by various people. I do not think people have always had scientific ground for using one word or the other. I believe that the political debate today will in fact cause every party to consider what exactly it means by the respective terms. This is the one point I wanted to make and in that connection I agree with the hon. the Minister.

I want to come back now to our reason for insisting on the amendment of the term “Almighty God”. I have told the hon. the Minister that there has been an enlargement of the concept “nation” in the philosophy of the NP.

Order! I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he cannot repeat the speech which he has already made. The hon. member must advance a new argument, otherwise I shall not allow him to continue.

In the representation in this House, the concept of nation has been that of the Whites, because no solution had been found in South Africa to the problems of the entire population. That is why the members of this Parliament, as it has been constituted since 1910, have been Whites.

Order! May I ask the hon. member whether he does not think that this, too, has been said before?

It has been said before. You are quite right. However, I just want to make a few remarks in this connection.

Be quick about it.

I do not want to be quick about it. I am saying that the hon. the Minister’s concept of nationhood has been enlarged. The concept of nationhood has been enlarged, not only because a larger number of people have been included in the nation, but the representation in this Parliament has been by the White people or the White nation, whatever one’s view of the matter may be. Our argument is, therefore, that while that situation prevailed, we all understood exactly what was meant by “Almighty God”. However, the hon. the Minister’s constitutional proposals have introduced three Houses into this Parliament—two for different population groups, and one of those population groups, which is going to sit in a specific House, is a population group which, with regard to its origin, its cultural make-up and especially its religion, differs completely from the nation or people …

How do you know whom they are going to elect? They may be Christians.

Order!

In other words, the enlargement which is taking place here is a result of the fact that a specific House is being brought into Parliament. A population group is being brought in whose religion differs completely …

It does not differ completely.

Order!

A population group is to be represented in a House of this Parliament which differs completely, as far as its religion is concerned, from those people who used to be the representatives of the people in this Parliament in the preceding decades.

That is not true.

Order!

Does the hon. member wish to make a speech about that? Now we are saying that when one drafts a constitution and one introduces this particular clause, there are two things which one can do. Either one may delete it completely, so as to accommodate the hon. member for Pinelands, or one may define the clause because one is bringing in a new population group whose religion differs completely from the religion which has been maintained up to now. Then one defines it in order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding on the part of those who have to read the constitution and to interpret what one means by it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he believes that this constitution is intended primarily for the three Houses or for the Republic of South Africa?

It is intended for both. Of course it is intended for this Parliament. After all. Parliament is an integral part of this country and its population. Is that not true? I do not want to deal with the argument at any length, but I think it is obvious that in creating a constitution for this House, we are creating a constitution which is based on the proposals of the Government for the three respective population groups. In addition, of course, one is creating it for those Blacks who have not yet received their independence, because they form part of our society.

Order! The hon. member for Rissik has allowed himself to be led astray. However, I request him to confine himself to the clause from now on and to advance a new argument.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that this Parliament is now being changed in its essence and its composition. A new population group is now being brought in, with a totally different religion. Therefore I submit that there are two courses open to us. Either we should delete the clause entirely, so that no reference is made to this aspect at all, or we should define this term clearly enough so that there may be no doubt as to what we mean when we use the term “Almighty God”. For this very reason, I believe, we should rather use the term “the Holy Trinity”.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear once again that as a Christian. I have a specific reason for arguing that the term “the Holy Trinity” should be written into this clause. I want to point out that I have spent a good deal of time in the East and that I have therefore acquired an intimate knowledge of the Orientals. I also have a fairly wide knowledge of Eastern religions. In the light of this, I should like to tell hon. members why I advocate the use of the term “the Holy Trinity” in the clause. Other people are going to be included in our new constitutional dispensation, people whose religion may be affected by the provisions in clause 16, for example. It is also possible that the religious beliefs of the Christians may be jeopardized under the new dispensation. Furthermore, I wish to point out that there is not a single constitution of a single Moslem country which does not provide that the Koran …

Order! The hon. member has already advanced that argument. He is not allowed to repeat it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to …

Order! I have already heard that argument which the hon. member is advancing, and hon. members, too, have taken thorough cognizance of it. The hon. member must now advance a new argument, otherwise I shall order him to resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I am just indicating that what it says here … [Interjections.] I have not even read to you what it says here, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] I have not even said what is written here. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member has already advanced the argument relating to the Moslem countries and Oriental nations which he has visited, and so forth. He must now produce a new argument, otherwise I shall order him to resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Langlaagte allowed to have more than three turns to speak on this clause?

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte is at present availing himself of his third turn to speak on this clause.

Jurie Mentz cannot even count. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to circumvent your rulings in any way. However, I want to emphasize that this clause raises the question in my mind of whether it should be retained in its present form or whether the term “Holy Trinity” should be introduced into it. I do want to point out at this stage that we as Christians profess our faith in Christ, in Mr. Speaker’s prayer as well, which is read in this House every day. When the doctrines of Islam are recognized by any part of the population, we can no longer adhere to this creed, for in terms of clause 16 this would affect the rights of another group, which is not permitted in terms of the legislation.

Order! The argument concerning Mr. Speaker’s prayer has also been advanced before. I do not wish to argue with the hon. member for Langlaagte. I am just putting it to him that argument has already been advanced. Therefore he must now obey my ruling and put forward a new argument.

Mr. Chairman, in that case I shall now …

Why did you not stay in the East? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, surely I have to reply to this, don’t I?

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must not allow himself to be led astray.

Mr. Chairman, I came to this Parliament to uphold and protect my right as a Christian. That is why I did not stay in the East. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I shall raise this matter again when we come to the clause dealing with freedom of religion. This is all I want to say for the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention one matter. In the light of all that has been said about the concepts of “people” and “nation” and all that these include, I want to say with all due respect that in that case I do not know what that concept means in our present constitution. In section 2 there is a reference to “people” and in the oath taken by the State President he speaks of “my people”. If this refers only to the Afrikaner and does not include all the Whites, then I do not understand the concept of “people”. However, I do not want to say any more about this. I have a problem in this regard and I just wanted to draw attention to it.

The argument that I wish to conclude, however, is the one dealing with the matter which I raised this morning, which I was not able to conclude before my time expired. I do not want to repeat what I said this morning. If the State wishes to write a creed into its constitution, as it does in this case, then I say that it is not its task to write in a comprehensive creed, because that is the task of the Church. From the nature of the case, however, the creed which is written in by the State, if it wishes to write it in, should in the first place be as concise as possible. In the second place, it should be as accurate as possible, and in the third place, it should take account of the totality of the population for which it is being written in. If one’s State or Government professes its faith in the Christian religion and the majority of its people are Christians and believe in the Christian God, and if the State is governed in accordance with the norms and values of the Christian religion, the creed which it writes into the constitution will naturally have to comply with the religious views of the majority of the population. In this connection, then, this is the Christian religion. I am saying, therefore, that if the Government which has such a creed now wishes to write this creed into its constitution, it will have to write in the Christian creed, and then it will also have to use the words which most accurately convey its meaning. We could argue indefinitely about the most accurate way of expressing the idea of God, and in this connection. I want to state most seriously and with absolute conviction today, because I know it is theologically and scripturally correct, that there is only one absolutely accurate wording, and that is the Holy Trinity. That is why I have moved the amendment that this is the expression which should be written into the constitution, because that is the only way in which we shall arrive at the most accurate wording. As against this, however, it is written that we shall observe freedom of religion, and therefore the minority groups will not be restricted in any way in the practise of their religions …

Order! When the hon. member for Koedoespoort was addressing the Committee for the first time this morning, he used the argument concerning the inaccuracy which was built into the Constitution Bill. The hon. member also made the point that this was not a correct and accurate definition. The argument which the hon. member is advancing now is exactly the same. If the hon. member cannot advance a new argument, I cannot allow him to continue.

May I ask a question, please? The hon. member says that the most accurate term that can be used is the expression “the Holy Trinity”. He says there is no better and more accurate term. Does that exact expression, “the Holy Trinity”, occur in the Bible?

Mr. Chairman, may I reply to that now?

Order! The hon. member may not have a fourth turn to speak. The hon. member had already resumed his seat when the hon. member Dr. Vilonel put the question to him. However, the hon. member may reply to the question in the course of the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Rissik. He knows that the English word “people” may be the equivalent of various words in Afrikaans. It may refer to the people or “mense” of a country. It may be the equivalent of “volk”. It may also be the equivalent of “population”. The hon. member knows that. That is why one refers to the inhabitants of a country as “the people of that country”. However, “the people” may also be used to denote what in Afrikaans we call “volk”. Therefore there are a variety of Afrikaans equivalents for the English word “people”. I think the hon. member realizes that.

What I am trying to tell him is this: If we were to accept the amendment—in saying this, I am not arguing that the 1961 definition was correct, because I believe it was not, since it was based on a specific definition and interpretation of “people” which had not been scientifically defined at the time, and I have already referred to this—surely, with great respect, this would exclude the minorities, including the White minorities. After all, there are White minorities which do not belong to any particular White people. The Greeks do not belong to the Afrikaner people. The Portuguese who have become citizens of our country do not form part of the Afrikaner people. They do form part of the South African nation, though. I am coming to that.

Surely, the word “volk”, if we define it scientifically, is not the equivalent of “nasie”. In a heterogeneous society, which is what we call our society every day, a nation may consist of various peoples, of various minority groups.

This is a thought which they have lost along the line.

Yes, so it seems. Surely the hon. member knows that, because it is a fact.

I want to deal with the final point, and then I shall sit down. The hon. member for Koedoespoort cannot get away from the fact that 119 000 White South Africans who are represented in this House today do not subscribe to the Christian creed.

Did any of them object to the prayer of Jesus Christ in this House?

No, and that is precisely the point.

Of course they never objected.

And were they accommodated within those particular concepts? Of course!

We all read the same Old Testament.

2 180 Moslems are also represented in this House.

In this House?

Yes, in this House. They are White Moslems.

In whose constituency are they? [Interjections.]

Order!

There are approximately 25 000 people who do not belong to any of these religions, but to others. There are also agnostics, atheists and satanists, among Whites as well.

I suppose they are not represented in this House, are they?

They are represented here.

What nonsense is talked in this House!

Amendment 1 put,

Upon which the Committee divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Messrs. S. P. Barnard, F. J. le Roux, Dr. W. J. Snyman, Messrs. L. M. Theunissen, C. Uys, H. D. K. van der Merwe, J. H. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, Dr. F. A. H. van Staden, Messrs. J. J. B. van Zyl and J. H. Visagie) appeared on one side,

Amendment declared negatived.

Amendment 2 negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

New clause to follow clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 3. Freedom of faith and worship shall be recognized and protected.

Today in this House we have witnessed how important it is for the ordinary person to be able to exercise freedom of religion. [Interjections.] The point was duly illustrated by the fact that eleven people out of a total of more than 130 were able to put their standpoint in respect of freedom of religion.

Order!

I am dealing with freedom of religion.

The hon. member must now come to the amendment.

My amendment deals with freedom of religion.

The hon. member may proceed.

The point I want to make is that only two people in this House were able to use freedom of religion in order to demonstrate their inner faith, what they profess. The tragedy of the world is that the Christians and the Jews were annihilated by the Romans to such an extent that a far larger number of people died at their hands than the number who died in Hiroshima. It was a far more shocking event and the blood that was spilt at that time, was spilt for the cause of Christian survival, because it had to be recorded by people who had no authority in the State at the time but who had to operate in a State as a minority without freedom of religion. An encyclopaedia states with regard to religion that it is written into the constitution, i.e. in the constitution, i.e. in the constitution itself and not in the Preamble, which merely indicates an intention, of every country in the world, with the exception of Albania—Mongolia should be included as well—that the constitution ensures a person’s right to worship and freedom of religion. If this right appears in the Preamble it is not enforceable, and if it appears in the constitution itself it testifies to a stronger expression of will.

The proposed clause clearly indicates that in a country such as ours a clause of this nature must be included. In this country we have various creeds. There are various premises and ideas concerning the wording and administration of even the law to a certain extent, of what action is to be taken by the State authority, of how the Church is to manage itself, of how the Church feels it is to express itself and of how it is to realize itself. That freedom must be written into the constitution. Every person must have that right. Every individual, every group, every population group and everyone within the borders of the State must be covered by such freedom of religion.

I now come to a very important matter. If there is a religion or faith which is at variance with one own religion, then, more than ever, one must embody in one’s constitution the principle that all people must have freedom of religion. Now I come to a very delicate point. I said earlier on today that in respect of this clause I would have to quote examples. There is, for example, not a single constitution in the Muslim world in which it is not professed that it is subject to the law of Islam.

†I want to quote as an example the constitution of Malaysia of 23 August 1957. In that constitution the States of the Federation of Malaysia are enumerated and it is provided that Islam is the religion of the Federation.

*It is particularly important that one should ensure that no negative connotation is attached to or that no negative reference is made to a faith because it is a different faith. However, I want to emphasize the difference in faiths.

†Section 11(4) of the constitution of Malaysia reads as follows—

*In a free country such as ours, there is a contrast. If one were to ask a person of Moslem descent whether He had heard of Christ, one could be imprisoned in Malaysia for preaching the Gospel and for trying to spread one’s religion. One does in fact have the right to practise one’s own religion, but it is restricted to a certain extent.

In this beautiful country of ours many of us are the descendants of the Huguenots and the martyrs. A flag was designed for us, one championed by Gen. Hertzog. It was a red cross on a green background so as to symbolize in our flag the martyrs and the fighters for Christianity. It was turned down because at that stage the Royal Marine had a similar flag for their ordinary commercial ships. On that basis it was decided not to accept that flag.

I now come to freedom of religion, the freedom to worship. Today I tried to indicate that since 1910 the prayer read in this House has given every hon. member the freedom to attach his own interpretation to that prayer. Whatever the religious convictions of a member may be, he may profess his belief in Christ along with the majority group, or perhaps not do so along with the minority group. Consequently it cannot be said by an hon. member that he is unable to realize his faith in this House. The concluding words of the prayer are—

No one in our country has taken umbrage at that.

Order! I am allowing the hon. member to advance his arguments, but since the issue is freedom of religion the hon. member cannot use the argument of the Holy Trinity again.

Mr. Chairman, you must bear in mind the fact that when I speak of freedom of religion, I cannot but say that I profess my faith in Him.

I know that the hon. member is more of an authority in this field than I am, but I am nevertheless of the opinion that the hon. member should respond to my appeal and not use that argument again.

I follow the drift of what you are saying, but I just want to point out that if we do not incorporate freedom of religion into our constitution, it could be threatened. Islam, which should also enjoy freedom of religion in our country, does not allow the making of any law which is offensive to Islam. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any need for us to debate this point at length. I just want to make three points.

The first point is that the principle of freedom of religion is probably the legal principle in this country most firmly established in our tradition, in our entire history and in our legal system. This is the one principle which, as far as I know, has never been questioned in this country by either the authorities or from any other quarter. Now the hon. member for Langlaagte contends that this right of freedom of religion will not be safe unless it is written into the constitution. This country has been in existence for more than 300 years. It has never been written into the constitution, nor has it ever been threatened. There is no sign on the horizon of any threat to that freedom. Consequently I want to submit that it is unnecessary to embody it in an enforceable provision in the constitution. It is indeed true that in addition to freedom of faith and worship, there are other freedoms which people claim, for example, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and so forth. Actually all those rights belong in the Bill of Human Rights which we debated in this House, and I do not want to repeat the debate, but that is the proper place for a statement of this nature. Now, the position is that if we were to take this one element from that Bill of Human Rights and were to write it into the constitution, on what grounds are we going to take that one right, and not the other so-called human rights as well, from the Bill of Rights and write it into our constitution? Consequently I am of the opinion that it is not only unnecessary but also unwise to accept the proposed clause moved by the hon. member for Langlaagte.

Then I just want to make a third point. Actually I want to make four points altogether. The third point I want to make here is that when I say that there is no reason for singling out this particular right from the other rights which normally appear in a Bill of Human Rights, hon. members should not misunderstand me to mean, perhaps, that I put religion on the same level as, for example, thought. What is at issue here, however, is not religion but the freedom of man. It is the freedom of man which is being protected.

Next I want to come to my fourth and final point. There must be no misunderstanding as to the motive of the governing party when we say that we cannot accept this proposed clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Have you not given a previous ruling that we are not allowed to discuss the motivation behind the legislation?

Order! No, I shall give a ruling when the hon. member is out of order. The hon. member for Helderkruin may proceed.

I was making the point that there must be no misunderstanding as to the motive of the govern ing party when we reject this proposed clause. We do so on account of the reasons I have mentioned, viz. the extent to which this right has become established, the fact that it is unnecessary to write it into the constitution, and the undesirability of writing it into the constitution. Therefore it must please not be presented in any way as constituting disdain for religion or for anything connected therewith.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the statements made by the hon. member, viz. that there are no ulterior motives for inserting the provision concerning religion in the Preamble. There are no ulterior motives. I accept unconditionally that the Government is in favour of freedom of religion. This is a hard fact. I think freedom of religion implies that one must stand up and be counted. We have just agreed to a clause attaching a certain definition to the Deity. I disagree with that definition but before I was called to order I said that I was a layman and that I might be mistaken. However, I think that I must say today that I do not believe in Almighty God but in the Holy Trinity. This is freedom of religion, and I am allowed freedom of religion.

Is there a difference?

I am not in a position to say what the difference is since that clause has already been disposed of.

Order! Hon. members must not reopen that argument. The hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not allow myself to be led astray. The hon. member also said that it was unnecessary and unwise to remove the provision concerning freedom of religion from the Preamble and to include it in the legislation itself. I think it is necessary and wise to do so, and in due course I shall motivate why I am of this opinion. Freedom of religion does exist in South Africa, but in this religious setup probably 95% of the Whites are Christians. The question, then, is who the others are. There is a variety, and everyone may practise his own religion. Consequently every person has that right. He is free to believe in his ancestral spirits, or in anything else; whatever he feels like believing in. This is the existing situation in South Africa. The only question I want to put now, is why this is to be included in the Preamble only. Why cannot it be inserted by way of a separate clause into the Bill itself? Therefore, if we were …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I am really not going to allow anyone to lead me astray again.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Jeppe not prepared to concede that in our common law, as well as in a very recent judgment by Mr. Justice Van Wyk de Vries, the learned judge once again intimated that it, viz. freedom of faith, was one of the strongest rights in terms of our common law?

Mr. Chairman, I agree 100% with that. It is true.

I believe it is one of the strongest rights we have. There can be no doubt about that being so. It is in fact true. I want to develop my argument, however, by maintaining that the Preamble of the Bill has no force of law.

Surely that is not an argument.

The Preamble has no force of law. The hon. member should just pay some attention. I believe, however, that clause 2 has no force of law either. [Interjections.] In what way are we going to have the provisions of clause 2 enforced? We cannot enforce them in any way. For that reason I believe that clause 2, too, is merely of a symbolic nature; it contains nothing more than a symbolic expression. Seeing that clause 2 does, however, form part of the Bill, I consequently want to know why that provision cannot rather be put back into the Preamble. I believe these two go hand in hand.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss clause 2 again. He must confine himself now to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Langlaagte. Therefore, what the hon. member has to discuss, is the proposed new clause.

That is quite correct, Mr. Chairman. However, I am using clause 2 to indicate why the proposed new clause should in fact be inserted into the Bill. The clause which we discussed earlier on—viz. clause 2—serves to substantiate my submission that the proposed new clause does in fact belong in the Bill.

In my opinion both the Preamble and clause 2 merely fulfil the function of expressing a will. The contents of both are mere statements which we as representatives of the people—we who are the legislators—make, ones in which we utter profundities relating to what we believe in. Neither of them, however, is enforceable in law. Since the proposed new clause puts into words the most important expression of will, the expression of will relating to the Deity itself, we literally regard it as the most profound and most important expression of will in the entire Constitution Bill. We can regard the aforementioned two expressions of will as a pair of twins, so to speak. The twins are, to be more specific, our views that, in the first place, we believe in a God and, in the second place, that there must be freedom of religion. Now I ask why one of this pair of twins should be contained in the Preamble while the other is included in the Bill itself in the form of a clause. Let us take the decision here today—and I do not know what the hon. the Minister stands to lose by doing so—to embody both these expressions of will, both these serious expressions of will, in the Bill itself. Surely that will be a stronger indication of an indomitable intention, and will also serve more effectively as proof of the ratification of the existing situation, viz. that we do in fact believe in God—everyone according to his own choice—but that, above all, freedom of religion does exist in this country.

Finally, I re-emphasize my belief that it would be a stronger expression of will if we were to do it in the way proposed by means of our amendment. I believe that we ought to unite the so-called pair of twins so that both may find embodiment in the Bill itself. The only alternative to this, in my view, is that both ought to be included in the Preamble.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this week when we discussed the proposed instruction of the hon. member for Yeoville in this House, parts of this very same matter was very thoroughly argued. Consequently I want to content myself with a few relevant remarks in this regard.

I believe that freedom of religion is in fact declared a national goal in the Preamble. Consequently I want to associate myself in this regard with a remark made here by the hon. the Minister earlier on today. He said that we were in fact living in a broken reality, in consequence whereof we would never be able to realize fully those clearly stated ideals in the constitution. Although the right of freedom of religion is upheld in common law, as well as by convention, it is nevertheless also true that one cannot absolutely apply freedom of religion in all circumstances. There are, in fact, exceptions to the rule. Therefore—in my opinion—this aspect actually belongs among those things for which one strives, amongst those things which one sets one self as goals. For that reason, I believe, it is right that it be included in the Preamble, and thus clearly set out as a national goal. I do, however, want to make the statement that the freedom of religion upheld by convention in South Africa basically amounts to two things only, and we have a deep appreciation for them. Because they are the order of the day, it is unnecessary to have them entrenched in one’s constitution as well, not because one might perhaps not be able to entrench the two things. Section 124 of the Russian constitution is a fine section dealing with freedom of religion, but if there is one country in the world in which freedom of religion does not come into its own in any way whatsoever, that country is the Soviet Union, possibly for the very reason that there the reality is more broken than in any other place. The two elements of freedom of religion which are the order of the day in South Africa are that every person, irrespective of the religion of which that person is an adherent, has the right to practise that religion, and this holds good for our present society. It is unnecessary for us to uphold this right by mentioning it in the constitution. In the second place, anybody can participate in the decision-making processes, irrespective of his religious convictions. This, too, holds true for South Africa at present. In his Committee there are people of divergent religious convictions. That right, too, is upheld by convention in our society. An entry in the constitution will not strengthen it in any way whatsoever. The position is that South African law gives precedence to Christian values, and this is spelt out in our Preamble to the constitution. Despite this, one can, however, mention numerous aspects of our legislation giving effect to the principle that adherents of other religious needs are not discriminated against in law. I do not want to repeat the examples, because they are legion. They include the Publications Act and the shopping hours ordinance. We can mention numerous such examples.

In conclusion I should just like to say that because freedom of religion, and especially the two most important aspects thereof, are upheld by convention and in common law in South Africa, it is unnecessary to embody them in a section in the South African constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I want briefly to state the attitude of my party towards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Langlaagte.

The amendment seeks to give some form of legal backing to a phrase that is already present in the preamble to the Bill. This particular phrase—it is also a concept—“the freedom of faith and worship” formed part of the instruction moved by my colleague the hon. member for Yeoville. I would like to say that it is a pity that other aspects of that instruction did not make as great an impression upon hon. members of the CP as this one particular aspect has. Nevertheless, on its own, it is a phrase that is not without meaning. The concept of freedom of faith and worship is a concept which has over many centuries given rise to many wars between many countries and peoples and even within countries and peoples thereof themselves.

What the hon. member for Langlaagte is in effect proposing is a one clause Bill of Rights which he wishes to have included in the constitution. It is weak in that it does not take the matter to its final conclusion. It does not provide for any penalties if the provision is contravened in any way. It does not create an offence in respect of the breaking of the law in respect of this provision.

Then it is not religious freedom.

The hon. member for Langlaagte should appreciate that by proposing that this clause be included in the Bill, he is opening the door to the justiciability of the concept of religious freedom. In fact, if this clause is accepted, it is possible that interdicts could be obtained to prevent discriminationary practices based on religious grounds. That may not be the intention of the hon. members of the CP. Their intention may be only a restricted one, the intention of ensuring that everybody might exercise his own faith and belief in freedom. This, however, if it is included, will allow the courts to interfere when that concept is breached, and that is absolutely certain. For instance, any company refusing to employ a person on the grounds of his religion, or any university refusing to allow a person to enter that university or to lecture at that university on the grounds of his religion could well find itself the subject of an interdict to prevent it from exercising that discrimination based on religious reasons.

I therefore want to say that we agree with that concept. We believe that there should be legal force backing that freedom. Therefore, although we feel that this one-clause Bill of Rights is inadequate, we should like to see it in the constitution. We agree that it is a concept with which all of us can associate. We should like to see that where religious discrimination is practised by universities or companies refusing, for instance, to employ on the grounds of religion, that they should be brought before the courts. Accordingly we shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Langlaagte.

Mr. Chairman, the point has been made that our amendment is a so-called Bill of Rights. Of course it is a Bill of Rights as far as one’s freedom of faith is concerned. Of course a terrorist who is in prison can worship his God. No-one can say to him that he is not allowed to worship. Is that perhaps a mistake? However, in terms of our amendment that a terrorist does not have a Bill of Rights at his disposal in other respects because he had contravened certain laws of the country. I do not believe that if such a terrorist wishes to appeal to God, such a terrorist is denied the right to do so. Surely that is a universal right. Freedom of religion is man himself.

I should prefer to die if deprived of the right to worship according to my belief.

The PFP—I could put it like this—advanced a good legal argument.

We are voting with you.

Yes, I know, but the hon. members of the PFP should follow what I am doing.

It seems to me that you are now beginning to fear your friends. [Interjections.]

The PFP should remember one thing: The highest law is the Law of God.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. Leader must just wait a while; I shall be coming back before long. [Interjections.]

The point is that what is being proposed here should not be confused with the broad human faith and endeavours as set out in the Preamble to the Bill. What the country thinks its values are, is irrelevant here. We are not dealing here with the premise of a legislator who can decree punitive measures. We are dealing here only with the worship of God. There are approximately 130 acts in this country in terms of which one can be brought to book if one trespasses against the Law. On the other hand, I also do not want us merely to state in our constitution—as is the case in Russia and other countries, and as another hon. member has already pointed out—that we are in favour of freedom of religion.

Order! I am sorry, but that argument has already been used. Therefore the hon. member is not allowed to use it again. [Interjections.]

I am making a very good point. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must not carry on a conversation with another hon. member while I am giving a ruling.

Sir, you can give him a turn to speak if you want to but I am not going to answer him. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to give him to turn to speak. It is for the hon. member himself to decide whether he wants to reply to a question. I have ruled that the hon. member must not repeat the same arguments. The argument the hon. member has just advanced in respect of what is stated in the Preamble is exactly the same argument as the one advanced by the hon. member for Jeppe. Therefore the hon. member must come up with new arguments or else resume his seat.

The hon. member for Randfontein and the hon. member for Helderkruin touched upon certain matters and, as a leader on our side I want to react to them. They discussed a Bill of Rights and an instruction, for example, matters which have already been dealt with. I just want to point out that one cannot be so superficial as to describe freedom of religion in a Bill of Rights and in a Preamble in the same words. One cannot compare an intention to a provision in a constitution.

Order! I am sorry, but that is exactly the same argument as the one used by the hon. member for Jeppe.

If we consider that we are descended from the French Huguenots we ought to be keen advocates of freedom of religion. Then we ought not to argue that we do not want such a clause, viz. freedom of religion, in the constitution. All nations in the world, except for two countries—Mongolia and Albania—have written into their constitutions that there is freedom of faith and worship. Except for these two countries, this provision is contained in the Preamble and in the provisions of the constitutions of all other countries. Are we so different, then, that we do not want to allow that freedom of religion?

Order! Did the hon. member not hear what the ruling was I have just given? The hon. member for Jeppe made the point that the intention in the Preamble should be given the force of law. The hon. member is using exactly the same argument. The hon. member must advance a different argument now, otherwise I shall ask him to resume his seat.

One cannot enforce either clause 2 or clause 1.

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe mentioned that as well.

Clause 3 involves the total substance of my proposal in respect of the constitution itself, viz. the progress of religion in our country. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not want to take the argument any further except to say that in this respect one can read the writings of authors such as Van Themaat, Mekkes, Goussard and others. These are people who for many years dedicated their entire lives to this cause. One need only look at the history of the French Revolution and the fact that people died at the stake. We must prevent this kind of thing by providing for it in the constitution. The first thing that immigrants to a country look at is the constitution of the relevant country. If one is not absolutely stupid, one first looks at what the country’s constitution provides, under what laws one can live ethically and under what laws one can lead one’s daily life. If one were to do so and not find the provision in the constitution that freedom of religion is guaranteed, one is not going to live in such a country permanently. The only exception is Britain where, for the last 300 years and more, religious freedom has been implied and exercized by means of convention. That country has an unwritten constitution, and because it has no written constitution it has been guided by convention. For that reason people have not argued about the matter. It should not be argued.

Do you understand that, Van Zyl? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must afford the hon. member the opportunity to put his case.

A comparison has been drawn with other religions. There is Shintoism, the Dynasties of Hinduism …

Shintoism?

Yes, Shintoism. I suppose the hon. member has never heard of it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to me today is really a memorable day, since the CP has seen fit to move such an amendment. I really had not thought that they were so open-minded about these matters that they felt that it should become part of this Bill.

They are a liberal party!

Is it liberal to propose freedom of religion?

Order!

I just want to get some clarity about whether there is perhaps common ground between the motivation of the hon. member for Sand-ton and that of the CP, and especially the hon. member for Langlaagte, concerning this particular amendment. If I understand it correctly, freedom of religion, freedom of faith, freedom of worship, if it were to be written into the Constitution Bill, means that there can in fact be no discrimination in favour of any particular religion or denomination in State institutions or State-supported institutions, because if that were the case it would mean that one religion or one denomination was favoured above another. In this respect it is true, if I am not mistaken, that it is the premise of the Government that Christian national education should be applied in schools. If I understood the hon. member correctly he is opposed to this and does not want us to have this situation in South Africa because it would run counter to freedom of worship, freedom of religion and freedom of faith. [Interjections.] If I understood the hon. member correctly it means that it would be discriminating to ask a prospectice immigrant what his religion is. It would then not be necessary for him to say whether he has a particular religion. He would have freedom of faith and freedom of worship and would be admitted whatever his convictions. Furthermore, if I understood the hon. member correctly, this means that he is in favour of the conscience clause at universities, i.e. that a particular lecturer or prospective lecturer cannot be required to subscribe to a particular creed in order to be appointed to that university. Therefore, to me this is really a surprising turn on the part of the CP and, if I understood them correctly, I find it a very interesting development in White politics.

Mr. Chairman, I want hon. members to listen very carefully now. [Interjections.] Nowhere does freedom of faith and freedom of worship, a man’s freedom to exercise his religion, mean that he can infringe or contravene the laws of a country. The Scriptures, as I know them, say, “render unto Caesar”, i.e. obey his laws, but serve God. That is why one has the freedom to worship. The law does not provide that a person will not be admitted into the country on account of some religious conviction. It says: We do not want you as a fellow countryman because your qualifications are not good enough. If this happens merely because you are a Spaniard or subscribe to a certain religious conviction, it is wrong. However, the State has the right to specify whom it wants as a citizen of the country. Conscience clauses serve a certain purpose. Something that is devised to evade a law is not religion, but politics. [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is having such a good laugh now, should just realize the difference between freedom of religion and true politics here, viz. that which makes you happy for the moment and that which is in fact best. It is my religious conviction that a person may worship his God. I stand by Daniel in the Bible who said that he did not bend his knee before Darius because he worshipped a living God.

What about Corlett Drive?

Everyone should have the right to worship the living God.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: An hon. member has just made a disgraceful remark. When the hon. member for Langlaagte spoke of the God he worshipped someone asked: “What about Corlett Drive”, with the clear implication that Corlett Drive was the hon. member’s God.

Order! Did someone ask this?

Yes, Sir.

It is a disgrace!

The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it, but it is a fact. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member says it is a fact.

Order! Who said that?

It was the same hon. member. He is deliberately ignoring your ruling. He is treating you with contempt.

I am not going to permit the hon. member to do that kind of thing. I shall afford the hon. member the opportunity to apologize.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize and I withdraw it unconditionally.

The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

If I had not been discussing freedom of religion I should perhaps have taken the matter up very seriously with the hon. member. If he worships other things …

Order! The hon. member has withdrawn that interjection and the hon. member for Langlaagte may not react to it any further.

I accept that, Mr. Chairman. I suppose that often when something upsets one very deeply one …

Order!

It upsets me, Mr. Chairman, that this man can say that money is my God.

Order! The hon. member has withdrawn it and that settles the matter. The hon. member for Langlaagte will not be allowed to make any further references to it.

Sir, I now come to a very important point. In this situation one should never hide behind a law or behind the pretext that there is no freedom of religion. There are countries where it is said that the Christian religion and communism are the same because up to a certain level they are alike, but that communism has to be stamped out because it is not pure. Freedom of religion should be written into the constitution. One’s laws should eliminate all transgressions and impurities but should not prejudice a person because he worships God or subscribes to some religious conviction. That is why I say that it is of the utmost urgency that this Committee and this Government should accept the inclusion of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am not quite with the hon. member, but it appears to me that he wants freedom of religion as long as it is the religion he would allow one to practise. I want to ask the hon. member a few questions.

Freedom of worship means that one can practise the Moonie religion or cult. There are also certain people who practice devil-worship. There is also Voodooism. The hon. member proposes as a new clause that “freedom of faith and worship shall be recognized and protected”. I want to ask the hon. member whether that includes devil-worship, voodooism and the Moonie cult.

Mr. Chairman, I am a young hon. member of this House who has not been here for a long time and as a scientist—it is not that I want to brag about it, but I think I am one—I experience terrible problems in this House when hon. members say something they do not define. What I mean is that when one hon. member speaks of freedom of religion and he means same thing totally different to what another hon. member means when he speaks of the something, then two hon. members whose beliefs are diametrically opposed can say that they are in favour of freedom of religion. I contend that is exactly what is happening here now. The hon. member for Langlaagte is arguing strongly in favour of freedom of religion, and I think he is in favour of freedom of religion. I do not think there is one hon. member in this House who is not in favour of freedom of religion. However, for the sake of the integrity of the matter and for the sake of freedom of religion, I do believe that we should define what we mean by freedom of religion.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member how he sees freedom of faith in relation to the questions asked by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

I shall come to that in the course of my argument. That is exactly what I mean. What the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mean by freedom of faith is not the same thing. The hon. member for Jeppe, who is a lawyer, will know that if this wording were removed from the Preamble and included in the Bill, one would not be able to argue in court that it appears in the Act. Then it is for the court to decide, is it not what the definition of freedom of religion is? Then it will not help the hon. member for Langlaagte to say that when he advocated freedom of faith he meant this or that. This reminds me of an article I read in Buurman in which the hon. member for Lichtenburg gave an explanation of what he meant by freedom of religion. In other words, if a Jew joins his party, must he be able to say at a public meeting that as a Jew he stands for freedom of religion, that he prays without saying “the Holy Trinity” and that there should not be Christian national education in schools? The same applies here. I do not think the concept hon. members of the CP are trying to advocate is the same concept as the one the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to advocate. My own personal concept is that one cannot absolutize freedom of religion. Therefore I am in favour of freedom of religion but I am not in favour of freedom of religion in the sense that it also includes satanism and freely opens doors to them. If an hon. member of the Jewish faith wants to rise in this House and say that when he prays he does not want to use the term “For the sake of Jesus Christ”, I can understand that. For the sake of debate, and also for the sake of what is still going to be said, I want the hon. members of the CP to tell us exactly what they mean by freedom of religion, and what if the court has to enforce it. If the judge should interpret it as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition interprets it, viz. that there may not be Christian national education in the schools, what would the hon. member for Langlaagte say to that?

Mr. Chairman, if I understood the hon. member for Langlaagte correctly, his objection to the insertion of such a statement into the Preamble in the first place amounts to the fact—and he says as much—that the Preamble is not part of the Bill itself, and secondly to the fact that the religious freedom that he wants, and the protection of that freedom, has to form part of the Constitution Bill itself so that it can have the force of law. No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Langlaagte must not sit there making all wild gestures with his hands and grimacing. I do not understand what those gestures of his mean.

What I was saying was that it should be given force of law.

Yes, the hon. member said that it should be given force of law. The hon. member for Jeppe also said that it should be given force of law. Hon. members are free to go and read his Hansard. [Interjections.] He said that. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Jeppe said he wanted it in the Bill itself so that it could be given force of law.

What difference does it make if it does appear in the Preamble?

What difference does it make if it does appear in the Preamble? [Interjections.] No, just wait a minute! These are not trifles we are dealing with here. We are not triflers, after all.

Is the religion provision legally enforceable? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman …

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister be prepared to answer a question now?

No, I am busy with my argument now. I shall answer questions later.

But I want to ask a question now.

Order! Surely the hon. member for Langlaagte knows the rules of the House. When the hon. member wants to ask a question, he rises in his bench and asks whether he may put a question to the hon. member who is speaking.

Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to answer a question.

No, I am not going to answer the hon. member’s question now. I should like to react now to what the hon. member said in his speech.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. the Minister says he does not want to answer questions now. The hon. member for Langlaagte must please resume his seat. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, it is extremely difficult to argue in this Committee, because as soon as those hon. members are called upon to speak, they advance all kinds of arguments to indicate why they want a particular clause inserted elsewhere in the Bill, and as soon as I react to that they deny the statements they have just made. What happens then is that the whole debate becomes an complete farce. [Interjections.] Those hon. members are making a farce of the whole debate. The reason why the hon. member for Langlaagte is now back-tracking in regard to what he said is because he now finds himself in a dilemma as a result of the interpretation given to his arguments by the hon. member for Sandton and by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I do not find myself in any dilemma at all.

The hon. member would not in any event, even be aware of being in a dilemma. That is the fact of the matter. [Interjections.] If this particular aspect were to be given force of law—and the hon. member argues that it should—then the insertion of the proposed clause would have certain consequences which would be different to those that would ensue if it appeared in the Preamble. That is the hon. member’s dilemma, as it is.

I have already said there is no dilemma. [Interjections.]

However, I want to take the matter further. The hon. member said that there should be protection in this respect. Who is to afford that protection, however? After all, it does not appear in the proposed new clause. So there is only one reasonable conclusion one could draw in this case, and that is that the State must afford such protection.

Are the courts not capable of doing so?

Mr. Chairman, please! I have really given the hon. member for Langlaagte every possible opportunity to have his say. [Interjections.]

Order! I am now making a final appeal to the hon. member for Langlaagte to stop his constant interjecting while the hon. the Minister is replying to what the hon. member said in his speech.

Mr. Chairman, what are the consequences involved. Since there is no constitutional court which can exercise a testing right with regard to the force of law, or otherwise, of the envisaged proposal, there is only one other institution that can fulfil this function, and that is the State itself.

The higher courts, of course.

I shall come to the question of the courts in a moment. In the first place it is, however, the State itself. In order to bestow this force of law it follows, of necessity, that the State which is the guardian of this freedom on which it wishes to bestow the force of law, with a view to protecting this freedom, would firstly have to formulate its laws in such a way that no one would be able to violate the religious freedom of any other person and, secondly, that the State itself would not be able to do so either. So it is true, in fact, that when this is done, and because it has force of law, the State could be subjected to a test by the courts in order to determine whether that protection is, in fact, being afforded or not.

That is exactly our point.

But the State cannot in terms of the hon. member’s argument, subject others to a test only, in—and I am merely following his argument precisely, Mr. Speaker. The State must allow itself to be subject to testing, too. It is actually quite correct to say that we now have a one-point Bill of Rights. When we conducted a debate here on this matter, and on the question of a constitutional court, those hon. members argued that they wanted the right of the courts to be confirmed in regard to the actions of the State. Surely we cannot adopt one argument on one particular day, and another on the next, when one and the same issue is involved.

Therefore those hon. members must now realize that if they are going to vote in favour of their own amendment, they are going to be voting in favour of the consequences that other hon. members and I have just pointed out. That is inevitable.

That is why we voted the way we did.

Quite correct. Hon. members of the CP argue that they do not want this aspect in the Preamble because they want to give it force of law. If it is to be given force of law—I notice their wording does not say that, but I am merely reacting directly to the arguments they use—it must be possible to test that. Then the hon. member must go even further. In respect of a contravention of the provisions of the clause he must propose a penalty at some later stage. He would have to do so because he would have no choice. So for the individual who contravened the provisions he would have to add another clause containing a penalty which could be enforced in order to give it force of law. As regards the responsibility of the State, which should, in his opinion, be the institution affording the necessary protection, he would have to give the courts the right to test whether the State meets that responsibility or not. This entails a lot of interesting consequences for the hon. member and his party, because a short while ago we had a debate on the reason why hon. members wanted to amend the previous clause. The reason was that we were extending the concept of “nation” to include people of colour. This had the same effect on the argument those hon. member used, because it seems to me as if that argument was presented because we were including people of colour here, whereas the argument was advanced under the guise of religion. It would be very interesting to know whether this motion does not have the same implications as the previous one.

There is not an hon. member in this Committee who does not have religious freedom himself, but there are people who object when other people are included on the basis of their religion. The fact remains that the common law situation in South Africa is no different to that in England. They are absolutely identical. What I cannot understand is the hon. member arguing, on the basis of the English situation, that they need not write it into their constitution, but that in spite of the fact that our common law situation is such that religious freedom is recognized and practised in the country, we still have to write it into our constitution. So there must be another reason for it, and perhaps the reason advanced by the hon. member for Sandton is the right one. The fact remains that if we wanted to do it, it would not only be freedom that we would have to write into the constitution, and not the only freedom on which we could have to bestow the force of law for its protection. Freedom of speech is related to freedom of religious worship.

And of association.

Of course. And the freedom of association is closely related to religious worship and religious freedom. The freedom of the individual is related to religious worship, as he wants it if one were to give it force of law. If the hon. member wants this written into the constitution and given force of law, he must include all the freedoms and give them force of law, or else religious freedom means nothing al all.

Mr. Chairman, we have been dealing here with the motion by the hon. member for Langlaagte. In discussing it we made our point of view very clear, viz. that the situation of freedom of religion as it exists and has existed in South Africa should be included in the constitution as a stronger expression of will. That was our point of view. We said that we agreed with the interpretation of, among others, the hon. member Dr. Vilonel. We agree with it. That is our philosophy. However, our policy is inherently different from that of the PFP. We are not in favour of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated. What we are saying, therefore, is that there should be an orderly manner in the country according to which one lives with this diversity of peoples and, of course, in field area of religion as well, but unfortunately we are now busy …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, it is too late now.

I gain the impression that the hon. members of the NP are now trying to evade the consequences of the fine intentions they express. They say they stand for freedom of religion; they stand or fall by freedom of religion. However, when we tell them that they must include it in the Bill, they shy away. They recoil. [Interjections.]

Hon. members must forgive me when I say that I note in the governing party a tendency to shy away, to hesitate as far as giving legal force and effect to their intention is concerned. It will now be known that the NP refused to embody freedom of religion in the constitution of the country, and that is a fact. We suggested that the question of freedom of religion should be removed from the Preamble and included in the Bill itself because we are prepared to accept the consequences thereof, although not on the basis on which the PFP wants to do it.

I shall let that suffice. That is our point of view and I still think that the proposed new clause should be inserted.