This document contains a summary of the feedback given by Council members and Task Force leaders to the draft interfaith statement proposed in August 2006.

One item of feedback was too lengthy to include but very worthwhile reading, so the author has been asked if we can publish this separately on the site.

National Statement on Religious Diversity 21 August 2006  - Draft Principles of Religious Diversity

Feedback received (from 28 Council members 4 Task Force Leaders and 3 others)

General Comments

 important for evangelical Christians to be involved in this dialogue

 I have this evening heard an interview on National Radio at 5.45 with a rep of the Ministry of Education talking about new guidelines to be issued to primary schools to ensure they enforce the secular clause in the education act. They say they allow spiritual things for development but not religious., The example given was pathetic. Karakia is allowed but not prayers.  I am quite disturbed by this

 I have no problem with the statement – I just wonder if a statement along the lines of: “it is the role of Government to ensure that the public treatment of the various faiths by the media is fair and balanced”.  Whether we like it or not trial by media is common and deeply biased.

 it is vital that we are fully engaged

 Was anything shared about our nations historical/foundations regarding our Christian heritage?  One of the main things that I have observed with secularists/Islamic agenda's is that they want to ignore the foundation of Christianity and the reason for our present freedoms and to rewrite history.  It would be like ignoring the Treaty of Waitangi in NZ today and forging forward without recognising it - Maori would not allow us to do that.  Or ignoring the National Anthem & having a more 'relevant anthem' that takes God out of it.

If we don't we will lose yet more ground of our Christian faith after the sacrificial efforts of many of those who have gone before in pioneering this nation. Acceptance of other religions and people's right to choose to believe & religion to follow - yes - but no to further eroding of hard fought freedoms and reasons why NZ is really a Christian nation more than an Islamic/Buddhist etc one and we should not be ashamed to spell it out.

 rights of education to include the Christianising of our history and the beneficial place our nation is in due in part to the blessing and Judeo/Christian ethic required in our historic living standards.

 This interfaith report is such a vast contrast to the other article in the Australian scene you also sent and left me worried that the interfaith deal will leave us further down an alley that has little long term hope. This type of position has not worked in England and other nations from what I have witnessed as it appears the interfaith position and worldview behind it simply opens a door fully to ‘other’ faiths far more dogmatic and militant in some cases to propogate their ways. I appreciate that it comes from a secular view that we as a nation are not based upon christian values and heritage so a syncretistic approach initially will look good and appealing in order to keep the peace but long term further destroy the remaining ‘christian heritage’ in our nation that ultimately does have an exclusive view and commitment to its stance if we are to be true to it. I find dialogue at a further level on such agendas both frustrating and in my experience fruitless as an agenda for this sort of programme has been well and truly set into motion well ahead of time.

 These matters need careful consideration by Christians and should not be left just to those of a liberal persuasion. We also need to understand what it means to be a multi-faith society from a Christian perspective. I hear some Christians talking as though NZ is a sort of continuation of Israel of the OT, or if not, then it should be. NZ will never be God’s people in the sense that the nation of Israel was. So we need to understand what sort of government is appropriate for a nation in which people of different beliefs reside. However, we also need to remind our government that our values and background are strongly influenced by Christianity, and that ignoring this in our education system is inappropriate in understanding one of the most significant influences on this nation.

 the first 8 points seem reasonable. Its the final 2 that concern me as they move from 'dialogue' to 'prescription'. Given our political environment the very last thing we need is a declaration from Christian leaders encouraging the govt to get further involved in 'diversity education' and workplace edicts for employers. On the latter point we should be mindful of where such reqmts could lead. I can well imagine a few years from now boisterous muslim activists pushing for prayer rooms in every workplace they desire. Likewise in education the recent debate over christian prayers should signal to us the danger of diversity training.

I would recommed that the stmt becomes 8 points and deliberately ommit any policy suggestions or commitments. It should be a stmt of groundrules/principles but not a license for further state action.

 I don't really see what's the point of all this.  New Zealand already has (and has always had) religious diversity and religious freedom and freedom of speech, so in my opinion this whole thing is unnecessary.  Within New Zealand's laws and statutory obligations these things are already in place.

Also, I believe that the whole "inter-faith" concept is dangerous.  There is only "one Faith" - all other religions are demonic deceptions which Christians must pray against, wage spiritual warfare against and speak out against - warning people of their deception.  "Inter-faith" is a pantheistic concept which aims at making all religions equal and all religions one.  The only thing that is "inter-faith" (between the faiths) is the great gulf which is set between Heaven and Hell.
Of course we live with, and work with, and talk with people of other religions.  Of course we don't hate people or be violent towards them; but compromise with other religions?  Never!  It is our task to witness to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ - the Way, the Truth and the Life, through Whom (and Him alone) people can come to God the Father. ….

The only thing that will come out of this is for Christianity to make compromises to fit in as one of many religions.

 Overall, I am happy with the concept of mutual respect between religious, freedom of religious and accepting differences in beliefs without prejudice.
However, there seems to be a difficulty in accepting that Christianity should be regarded equally in NZ with all other religions. Some recognition of Christianity in our history and culture seems necessary, otherwise Christmas and Easter should not have any more significance than the holidays of any other religion.

 Why do we need such a statement? "Revisiting spiritual dimension of life," is not unusual.  And what precisely is the connection between the apparent "revisiting" and the "emergence of a multiplicity of different faiths" in New Zealand. Do we really need to find a new foundation for "respect, mutuality and dialogue?"

 [Diversity is] … a political doctrine in which some social categories (groups) are believed to deserve compensatory privileges because they have been treated badly in the past. This is based on the assumption that New Zealanders are not viewed as individual citizens, but first of all they are identified on the basis of race, sexuality or gender - certainly not just as male and female equal before the law. Diversity is about state-directed authentication of group identity, but there is no agreed or shared foundation of national identity. The concept of an individual citizen is secondary to the notion of group identity.

 be quite strong in standing up for:

1) the Christian heritage and values of our nation, and
2) our religious freedoms as a secular democracy.

Both of these aspects will be crucially important in defending the character of our country in the future, particularly against Islamic encroachment and its possible demand for an Islamic theocracy.  In England some parts of the Midlands and some city councils already have virtual shariah law, which is something we must guard against here.
Emphasising religious freedoms in a secular democracy also shows that Christians defend religious liberty against all varieties of authoritarianism - religious, ideological, political, or legal.

I would also try to get rid of the word 'inclusive'.  … 'Multi-ethnic' or 'multicultural' would be preferable, if something was needed at all.

 all should be free to practise their own religion without restriction and free to convert to another religion and to propagate their religion.

 We must be bolder in declaring the reality of God in the public square and that means Jesus Christ … The Bible tells us clearly that evil is the product of the human heart and such an insight is both realistic and responsible but it gets in the way of interfaith dialogue.  The doctrine of diversity cannot even begin to comprehend the possibility of evil.  It always has to blame it on the system and consequently diversity is impotently utopian.

 we are Christians regardless of our denomination, emphasis, or style of worship etc. That Christian faith must be respected, recognised, allowed, equally with other faiths and people coming to live in or visit New Zealand must recognise that the nation has a strong Christian heritage and if they are unwilling to respect that, be encouraged to live else where. There must certainly be no room for people to forcibly seek to impose their faith on others.

 [no-one] should be prevented from sharing their faith with a view to making converts.

 Renouncing conversion by violence or threat of physical harm might also be worth a go. Ditto speech inciting violence. The freedom to believe includes the freedom to criticise the beliefs of others.

 the aim of dialogue [needs to be] better understanding of different faiths, not arriving at some artificial and hypothetical amalgam of religions that is true to none.

 My overall impression is that this statement could have been worded by any group, not necessarily that of Christians i.e. it has not Christian distinctiveness.  Some would argue that is the whole point re the topic of diversity - that at least there is recognition and acceptance of religious worldviews in the reality of the NZ we live in.  But I feel that this either needs to be accompanied by or have included, some clear expression of the Judaic/Christian heritage upon which so much of NZ is founded.

 Not a bad statement though wrong in both it’s intent and basic premise that NZ is a secular nation. That notwithstanding, 9 and 10 are unacceptable as written.

 I do … agree with many of the points listed in the document (except see comments about being a Christian running a company under #10). I support any initiative to promote interfaith understanding and empathy at many levels. This is providing it does not interfere with effective communication of Christian faith and mission. Done the right way this sort of dialogue should complement a balanced approach to evangelism rather than hinder it.Taken to an extreme it will hinder it.  I am concerned that this document will make Christian evangelism more difficult as a whole.

 As we know NZ is not a Christian country. That being the case we need to ensure that there is legislation that protects our interests. I think this piece actually comes very close to that. The language, particularly toward the end gets a bit long-winded and PC, never the less in principle I remain supportive.

I think Christianity shines in adversity, competition and challenge, whereas in complacent environments tends to align with power and status quo ( as do most religions ) .
For what it is worth, I think contrary to popular thinking, Islam is not ascendant, in fact it is struggling and facing an internal crisis evident by fundamentalism. Christianity is going through an immense and positive change, particularly in terms of the meaning of Church, faith lived out, and  engagement with the wider world.

Specific Comments

1. New Zealand is a country of many faiths and our increasing religious diversity is a significant dimension of our public life. Forging our national identity amid diversity each of us should recognise our integral part in our inclusive and diverse society. We acknowledge the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi and Tangata Whenua for our nation and the role that Christianity has played, and plays, in our national life.

 stronger reference to Christian heritage and present importance – immigrants need to know we are essentially a Christian nation

 the first principle needs to state clearly that we have been built on Christian foundations and that Christians are still far and away the largest faith in New Zealand. Without these two thing being recognised the statement lacks any sort of integrity and should be published in the name of Goebels, or whomever is in charge of propaganda these days.

 OK but a bit light.  Something about our law and culture being rooted in Christian Principles might help?

 There is no affirmation of the Christian heritage in New Zealand that has been significant in framing its core values, and the redemption of Maori from cannibalism.  While the State must be even handed, it needs to continue to affirm these foundations.

 I have a preference for this being a little stronger in its acknowledgement of Christianity’s formational influence in the nation: Suggest that it conclude: ..and the role that Christianity has played in the formation of our nation and continues to play in our national life.

 Surely Christianity has played a ‘major’ role in our national life?

 “affirm” rather than “acknowledge”

 “We acknowledge the pre-eminence of Christianity as the professed religion of the majority of New Zealand's citizens and for its significance in shaping our society and nation”

2. Having no established or official religion, New Zealand is, in this sense, a secular state. The State is committed to dealing with all religions with equal recognition and respect.

 I think that it has to be acknowledge Christianity's predominant role in shaping NZ & not just a blanket statement that we are a secular nation without any reference to our history.

 State should NOT deal with all equally.  What if Muslims want Shariyah law?  Does this mean school imams as well as chaplains?  What does equal recognition mean?

 NO - this statement belittles the contribution of Christian faith to New Zealand becoming the society we are. In fact the concept of pluralism and inclusiveness exists only because of these Christian foundations exist and to remove that foundation is to jeopardise our freedom to enjoy diversity and pluralism in the future. Christian faith is entitled to a special place - "a heritage listing

 Reword - “Christianity has been a major influence in our history and continues to be an influence in our culture. However, New Zealand has not established an exclusive official religion and in that sense is a pluralistic state. The State is committed to dealing with all religions with equal recognition and respect.”

 My view is that we are a pluralistic society (not a secular society). The majority of people do not declare themselves to be secular. In the 2001 Census 55.7% of New Zealanders indicating they belonged to a Christian denomination. Even the others are not all secular with Maori traditional spiritual affiliations and other religions being significant. A minority is secular.
Christianity needs to be specifically recognized while other religions are respected.

 some religious beliefs could include faith in some self appointed guru like Jim Jones so not all religious beliefs are valid. This is very difficult to express. Any wording could be open to interpretation of a special interest or political group.  Perhaps the final sentence of paragraph 2 could be:  “The State recognizes the special significance of Christianity in New Zealand and is committed to dealing with all religions with respect.”

 to replace 2, 3 and 4 - In N.Z.there is separation between the church and the state. This does not create a secular society. It means that there is no established church as in the U.K. The State is committed to respecting and protecting all faiths from persecution or interference  within the framework of democratic processes, the rule of law, and human rights legislation. These relationships are indispensable for peace, stability, and resolution of conflicts and will allow for collaborative working together.

 Add to end of 1st sentence – “not in the sense that it is non-religious but in the sense that it is religiously neutral”.

3. All New Zealand religious communities have a right to safety and security.

 should just say “All New Zealand religious communities share the common right of New Zealand citizens to safety and security”

 right to live and practice their religious observances in safety and security.

4. Government and faith groups need to build and sustain good relationships with and between faith groups within the framework of democratic processes, the rule of law, and human rights legislation. These relationships are indispensable for peace, stability, and resolution of conflicts and will allow for collaborative working together.

 OK although I would have thought the government should just keep out.  Less government not more.

5. New Zealand is a signatory to international conventions that safeguard the freedom of religious belief and expression, at the individual and communal levels, and the rights of not being discriminated against on religious grounds. New Zealand legislation also affirms these rights. (UDHR, Article 18; The Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance 1995, New Zealand Human Rights Act, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act). The State is thus obliged to respect religious freedom and religious dissent.

 YES,  BUT - the state should not force Religious organisations to compromise their own internal standards by requiring them to take as employees those who do not share their own faith ethos

 How would the system we have in NZ ensure that all faiths comply;  and if there is true religious freedom within Aotearoa does that mean the great commission of Christ will still be permitted here and especially towards winning Islam for Christ.  I think maybe a code of conduct & practice might be needed here so that all religions must comply to a true spirit of religious freedom.

6. The State and the religious communities have the responsibility to extend this right the freedom of religion to all others, including the recognition of diversity within faiths, and to include the right not to subscribe to any religion. New Zealanders, secular and religious, united by the desire for a stable and peaceful future need to develop a shared a commitment to respect the faith and beliefs of their fellow citizens.

 YES BUT - provided the state etc does not require recognition symbolically or actually of equality between faiths where the internal faith statements describe themselves as the "only way"  Respect that others believe differently YES Having to acknowledge other faiths as equal alternatives to your own NO

 Add – “Right to freedom of religion in Western democratic societies such as New Zealand includes the freedom to express, to propagate and to change your religious beliefs or religion respectfully and within the protection of the law of our land”

 Whilst we might respect the right for an individual or group of individuals to hold to a faith or belief, we do not necessarily have to ‘respect the faith and beliefs’ themselves.

7. The reality of our religious diversity is that people differ, sometimes, dramatically, in their beliefs about the world and the values they hold dear. Debate and disagreement are inevitability. It is essential that such public debates and differences be conducted without violence, within the law and in an environment of mutual respect. This environment needs to be developed and fostered.

 and “in the interst of common/community good”

 Extend the middle sentence – “It is essential that such public debates and differences be respected as part of the right to free speech in New Zealand and that they be conducted without violence, within the law and in an environment of mutual respect.”

8. The differences branches of government (police, internal affairs, health, and so on) at national and local levels need to develop religious diversity policies. (Good examples underway Coroners Act, Police, Internal Affairs funerary rites and of course the Office of Ethnic Affairs).

 OK but see comment on 4 above.  Respect and allow but not get involved would be my plea.

 YES excepting that this cannot be an unqualified freedom. eg The Hill tribes of Vietnam used to sacrifice a child in the foundations of a family home. One imagines NZ would not support these religious rights

9. The principal avenue for successfully achieving these aims is education at the school and public levels. Diversity education will promote awareness and sensitivity, mutual reference, friendship and develop a sense of inclusive community and solidarity. Reasonable steps must be taken to accommodate students’ different beliefs and practices, dress codes and the wearing and use of religious symbols. The teaching about religion in schools must be non-denominational and conform to the current educational standards. Education and the dispelling of ignorance is a powerful antidote to litigation and contention.

 Up to a point only.  Students who choose to attend state institutions have a responsibility to temper any extreme dress and behaviour.

 Diversity education will promote awareness and sensitivity? - And yet this appears to apply to every religion except Christianity. Many (maybe most) schools are actively discriminating against Christianity by barring even Christmas decorations and the singing of carols (maybe a quick telephone survey of some primary and intermediate school principals should be conducted). They are using the argument of ‘secular’ but do not maintain similar restrictions on other religions or religious practices. With Christianity being by far the most claimed religion, surely it should not be discriminated against in the educational sphere as at present.

 dress codes - This may seem a small thing (and I’m sure you already know), but many western nations (even Australia) are actively changing their laws to deny the use of the burka, even in schools,  which these govts see as contributing to the non-integration into the culture of the host country.

 YES however each faith must be allowed to teach its own if it chooses to. It need not be reduced to secularist cynicism.

 This appears to create difficulties for “Bible in Schools”, Catholic and other Christian schools where all religions are not promoted in “diversity education”. The principle should include the right to teach Christianity as well as accommodating different belief and practices.

 After “develop a sense … ” change the rest to – “ … develop a sense of New Zealand identity,  inclusive community and solidarity. New Zealand has a heritage of fostering such New Zealand identity and inclusive educational communities through the common use of school uniforms and sports uniforms. New Zealanders accept this well established tradition and do not see it as subject to the religious preferences of its students. While upholding such traditions, reasonable steps should also be taken to respect students’ different beliefs and practices and the wearing and use of religious symbols. The secular nature of New Zealand society means New Zealanders do not see it as the Government’s responsibility to make special provision for the adherents of any particular religion in the programme, design or resource provision of its schools. The teaching about religion in schools must be non-denominational and conform to the current educational standards. Education and the dispelling of ignorance is a powerful antidote to litigation and contention.

 The proposed religious education process is fraught. Who gets to teach it? Vatrious exponents who each believe their religion to be true? Or someone who is actually a Christian, but is giving a biased slant on the others? Or a cynic who believes none of it? It seems to me that if equality and diversity become the highest values, and we celebrate diversity rather than truth, our children will come out of their religious 'education' believing that everything is “up for grabs” and there is no ultimate truth. When we believe everything we believe nothing, and I wonder if treating all religions as of equal worth isn't ultimately demeaning of all of them....

 Education is clearly a very controversial topic. I agree that education about different faiths is important - it depends a great deal on how it is done.

 [Must be non-denominational], “respectful of faith”

10. Religious diversity needs to be recognised in the workplace where the increasing diversity of workforce can be a challenge for New Zealand employers. For example, Muslims require a suitable place to pray up to five times daily. There are dietary issues and different festival calendars. ‘Religion in the workplace’, including meditation sessions, yoga, prayer, and discussion, must be conducted acknowledging religious diversity.  Both public and private employers must reasonably accommodate religious requests as part of being a ‘good employer’, and, of course, the right not to have a religion must equally be respected. There must also be non-discrimination in hiring, mission statements and policies need to acknowledge diversity, creating inclusive work environments, training for staff, and accommodation for prayers, clothing, alternatives to alcohol at functions, and so on.

 remove the “for examples”

 The non-discrimination in hiring is a major problem utilised in India to force Christian institutions into the control of Hindus.

 leave it general – don’t tie people down

 This goes way too far in my view.  Why do Moslems get special mention given our history?  If I as an employer choose not to provide a prayer room and thereby Moslems exclude themselves, that is my right surely and theirs.  See comment on 9 also.

 Muslims require a suitable place to pray up to five times daily?… Both public and private employers must reasonably accommodate religious requests as part of being a ‘good employer’?… accommodation for prayers…?  As I read this it appears that an employer has the responsibility to provide a suitable place for a Muslim employee to pray. There needs to be clarification that this can’t be used to force by law an employer to build special prayer facilities. There may also need to be some consideration as to whether these 5 prayer times are deemed paid breaks such as morning tea. This will depend on how long they take from the time they leave working to go to the ‘suitable place’ and return. Basically there may need to be some protection for employers built in to this statement.

 YES with strong qualifications needed, the burden of the responsibility to  fund prayer rooms and time for prayer, compromise on safety with religious clothing should not sit with the employer, nor should the employer be required to pay for religious festival attendance etc

 This principle creates difficulties for employers. If the Muslims have a right to a place to pray five times a day and meditation sessions, yoga, prayer and discussion sessions must be conducted, what about the provision of a chapel for Christians?
Employers should not have this burden placed on them. They have enough “compliance” issues now. Mutual respect is the key factor in the workplace.
This principle needs a complete re-think.

 Reword this to – “Both religious diversity and the egalitarian openness of New Zealand society need to be recognised in the workplace where the increasing diversity of workforce can be a challenge for New Zealand employers. For example, a Muslim expectation of  a suitable place to pray up to five times daily will need to be balanced against the expectation of others that employers should not make provisions for one sector of the workforce which cannot be equitably extended to all. There are dietary issues and different festival calendars. ‘Religion in the workplace’, including meditation sessions, yoga, prayer, and discussion, must be conducted acknowledging religious diversity, accepting the constraints this puts upon workers to respect those of other or of no faith within their workforce.. Both public and private employers must reasonably consider religious requests as part of being a ‘good employer’, and, of course, the right not to have a religion must equally be respected. There must also be a balance of  non-discrimination and equity for all employees in hiring, mission statements and policies where these need to acknowledge diversity, create inclusive work environments, provide training for staff, and make accommodation for prayers, clothing, alternatives to alcohol at functions, and so on.”

 Yes diversity needs to be recognised - but how far is the question. For example, I don't think any religious group could expect a place of prayer to be available in the workplace as of right.  It would be interesting to know what had been done in the UK with issues like this

 Add after <five times daily> .. “Christians and others, a place to meet, pray and fellowship. Both public and private employers may negotiate terms to reconcile the needs of both.”

 This is open to gross abuse. Churches, or chaplaincy organisations  may be litigated against when employing staff . Atheists and Muslims may not be refused when applying for advertised vacancies.  Alternatively, Mosques could not refuse to employ an atheist or a Christian. It could cause dissention in the workplace with accusations of favouritism to Muslims.

 We talk about a secular state, surely we have a secular workplace. To suggest th

Share this page.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Email this page to a friend.

Add Comment