4 December 2006 - Destiny Churches New Zealand

TO: THE RACE RELATIONS COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. PO BOX 121411, THORNDON, WELLINGTON.

FROM:  DESTINY CHURCHES NEW ZEALAND, PO BOX 51 761, PAKURANGA, AUCKLAND. RICHARD LEWIS.

SUBMISSIONS

1. GENERAL BACKGROUND

1.1 This submission is made on behalf of Destiny Churches New Zealand (“Destiny Church”), which represents a membership of approximately seven thousand New Zealanders.

1.2 Destiny Church is a non-denominational Pentecostal movement that is representative of many cultures and nationalities that originate from New Zealand and abroad. We have a particularly strong membership of Maori and Pacific Peoples. To that end, virtually every Iwi is represented in our movement. 

1.3 We understand that the idea of a statement on religious diversity was raised by a New Zealand multi-faith delegation in 2004, in response to the challenges of increased religious diversity in New Zealand in the context of regional and global conflicts involving religion. It was seen as a way of promoting religious tolerance, affirming the right to freedom of religion, and providing a framework for the development and maintenance of harmonious relationships within communities.

1.4 A working group of faith community members and human rights representatives was convened by Professor Paul Morris and the Race Relations Commissioner at Victoria University on 10 October 2006 to discuss the proposal and further refine the initial draft. A Destiny Church representative was not invited to participate in this forum nor was the church consulted in the process leading up to this stage.

1.5 The Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity was revised and subsequently released by the Race Relations Commissioner in order to seek public feedback from various quarters including the faith community.

2. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

2.1 Destiny Church opposes the concept and content of the proposed Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity based on the following points:

(i) that the scope and extent of the application of the proposed statement is dangerously ambiguous

(ii) that a Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity is unnecessary

(iii) that the statement, ‘New Zealand has no state religion’ is flawed

(iv) that the statement, ‘New Zealand has no state religion’ is contrary to the position of many New Zealand Maori

(v) that principles 2 – 8 already exist in New Zealand legislation

(vi) that principle 6 pertaining to ‘education’ is dangerously ambiguous

(vii) That our national identity is in fact, ‘Christian’

3. SCOPE AND EXTENT OF APPLICATION OF THE STATEMENT IS AMBIGUOUS

3.1 The idea of a Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity cannot be fairly considered without a clear understanding of the scope and extent to which the statement will be applied in New Zealand’s political, social, educational and religious spheres.

3.2 A ‘background’ document with regards to this matter states that ‘the government will be asked to adopt, endorse, support, welcome or note the statement.’ What are the implications and ramifications of the New Zealand government ‘adopting’ this statement? Paragraph 8 of this submission, which pertains to education, outlines one example of the potential implications.

3.3 To that end, Destiny Church submits that the scope and application of this statement must be thoroughly considered and clearly understood and that this process is as important, if not more so, than the content of the statement itself.

4. A DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT ON RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY IS UNNECESSARY

4.1 An adequate statement that promotes, safeguards and affirms the premise of religious diversity already exists within current legislation, namely the New Zealand Bills of Rights Act 1990 - which states:

You have the right to:

Freedom of expression
Freedom of peaceful assembly
Freedom of association
Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.
You have the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, political opinion and family status, (amongst other things). If you belong to an ethnic or religious minority you must not be denied the right to enjoy culture or practise the religion or use the language of that minority.
4.2 To that end, Destiny Church submits that the stated purpose of the proposed Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity is already fulfilled within the context and on the basis of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Any additional statement would be superfluous to requirements and unnecessary. There is nothing within the proposed statement that adds value to the existing rights affirmed by the Bill of Rights Act.

4.3 It could also be fairly assumed that the proposed statement has overt political motivations and is another step in the present Labour-led government’s intention to redefine traditional Christian presumptions through law by minimising, marginalising and eliminating our Christian heritage. We have already experienced this through the Civil Union Act 2004, which has redefined the traditional Christian presumption of marriage between one man and one woman to that of same-sex marriage. In the lead up to the passing of the Civil Union Bill (in the face of overwhelming opposition), Labour MP Tim Barnett was quoted in the 28 July 2001 edition of The Press as saying, “it will be an opportunity to pioneer a new 21st century expression of commitment free from traditional or religious presumptions.” Legislation is one way of achieving this goal and equalising the place of Christianity through strong advocacy of others, is another.  (Paragraph 9.1 refers – a people without a heritage are easily persuaded)

4.4 Notwithstanding well-known international conflicts based on religious motives, there is no evidence (and certainly none presented by the advocates of the proposed Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity) within our own national community that suggests that there is sufficient inter-religious conflict or unrest to justify a Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity. Nor is there anything to suggest that such a statement would add value to addressing such issues if they did in fact exist.

5. THE STATEMENT ‘NEW ZEALAND HAS NO STATE RELIGION’ IS FLAWED

5.1 The Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity sets out a number of ‘guidelines that provide a framework for the recognition of New Zealand’s diverse faith communities and their harmonious interaction with each other, with government and other groups in society.’

5.2 The first principle is headed, ‘The State and Religion’ and states that ‘New Zealand has no state religion.’

5.3 Destiny Church contends that the statement, ‘New Zealand has no state religion’ is flawed and that our country does have a state religion, which is the religion of Christianity.

5.4 At Waitangi on the 6th of February 1840, a treaty covenant was made between the Crown and Maori, whereby the Queen of England was granted sovereignty in exchange for the protection of Maori land, life and resource by the covering of Crown law. This covenant became the founding point of New Zealand whereby two nations effectively became one.

5.5 It might be timely to remind the Commissioner that at the 1953 Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, who is the Head of State of the Commonwealth Realms, she was presented with the Bible and admonished with these words, ‘Our gracious Queen: to keep your majesty ever mindful of the law and the gospel of God as the rule for the whole of life and government of Christian princes, we present you with this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords…. Here is Wisdom; This is the royal law; These are the very oracles of God.’  This admonition was followed with Holy Communion.

5.6 To that end, the recorded religion of the Head of State is Christianity and as such, Jesus is the God of the Commonwealth Realms. The Head of State is reminded of ‘the law and the gospel of God as the rule of the whole of life and government of Christian Princes…’ The tenets of Christianity underpin the Crown’s constitutional arrangements and are the foundation base of Commonwealth Nations, of which New Zealand is one. This point is acknowledged in the Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity, which states, ‘Christianity has played a formative role in the development of New Zealand in terms of the nation’s identity, culture, beliefs, institutions and values. It continues to be an integral part of New Zealand’s culture and heritage.’ As such, notwithstanding an individual’s right to choose their own religion or belief system, based on the Head of State’s allegiance to the Christian religion and acknowledgement of governance by Christian ordinances, it is a birthright of those born into a Commonwealth Realm to ‘inherit’ Christianity as their religion.

5.7 Destiny Church affirms that the ‘functions’ of the church and state are indeed separate and that the freedom of choice with regards to one’s religion (or beliefs) is a fundamental right of all New Zealanders. However, Destiny Church contends that it is simply not possible to separate New Zealand’s founding Christian religion from our system of governance just as it is not possible for a politician to make decisions without invoking his or her personal belief system, Christian or otherwise. Our Justice system was founded on Christian concepts of right and wrong. Countless numbers of New Zealanders have laid their hand on the Bible as a testament of their oath to tell the truth. To deny Christianity is to deny our heritage, which is intricately connected to our national identity. To that end, Destiny Church contends that it is not necessary to deny our Christian heritage or identity in order to cohabitate and fully function alongside those of different religious persuasions. Nor should there be a sense of obligation on our part to appease those who hold different religious views by minimising our Christian heritage in order to create an environment of perceived acceptance or tolerance. To the contrary, people should find strength and security in the fact that our Christian heritage safeguards and advocates the very freedom of choice and the concept of ‘loving thy neighbour as thyself.’

5.8 According to Statistics New Zealand (Results of 2001 Census) 3,442,020 participated in answering the ‘religion’ portion of the census and more than half the population affiliate with a Christian religion (2,079,017). Buddhist numbered 41,106, Hindu 39,627 and Islam 23,202. These results provide clear evidence that Christianity is the religion of choice for the majority of New Zealanders.

5.9 To acknowledge that New Zealand’s state religion is ‘Christianity,’ is not to impose Christianity on people nor is it a threat to diversity. But rather, in the same way that we acknowledge God every time we sing our National Anthem, it forever serves as a reminder of who we are, where we come from, and the origin of fundamental unchanging values that have underpinned our country for generations.

6. ‘NEW ZEALAND HAS NO STATE RELIGION’ IS CONTRARY TO THE POSITION OF MANY NEW ZEALAND MAORI

6.1 The origins of the Maori King date back to 1855, when Maori were becoming favourable to the establishment of a monarchy based on what they had seen and experienced with the British. Such a system of governance was considered not only favourable in terms of creating a unified Maori identity but it was also seen as a way to quell tribal dissention and warring. A general consensus amongst consulted tribes pointed to the paramount Chief of the Tainui Tribes, Potatau Te Wherowhero, as being the most suitable for the role of the first Maori King.

6.2 Wiremu Tamehana Tarapipipi, the son of the great Te Waharoa, became an enthusiastic supporter of the Kingitanga concept, primarily out of his support for Potatau as the favoured king. He was also favourable to the idea of a king who could bring about unity amongst the tribes.  It is significant to note that besides being a chief and leader in his own right, Wiremu Tamehana Tarapipipi was also a Christian.

6.3 The proposition of Maori King was put to Potatau Te Wherowhero in the context of scripture according to Deuteronomy 17:15, which says, “Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: One from amongst thy brethren shalt thou set King over thee…” Potatau accepted the proposition to assume the role of the first Maori King, and there was great rejoicing amongst the tribes.

6.4 As a result four meetings were held, the third of which took place on the shores of Lake Taupo on the grounds of Ngati Tuwharetoa Chief Te Heuheu. On this occasion, nearly all of the tribes were present. Te Heuheu caused a high flagstaff to be erected on the village square. At the mast head he hoisted a national flag: the pattern was that of the flag given by King William IV of England to the northern tribes at the Bay of Islands some years before the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. Beneath this flag, at intervals, he had long ropes of plaited flax attached. The flagstaff symbolized Tongariro, the sacred mountain of Ngati Tuwharetoa. The people were assembled in divisions grouped around the foot.1 Te Heuheu arose and said, indicating a rope, “this is Ngongotaha (a mountain near Rotorua). Where is the chief of Ngongotaha who shall attach this mountain to Tongariro?” The leading chieftain of Te Arawa rose from his place in the assemblage, and taking the end of the rope, fastened it to a manuka peg, which he drove into the ground in front of his company. Each tribe giving adherence to the King had its rope allotted to it, representative of a mountain dear to its people. Each of the ropes representing these sacred mountains of the tribes was hauled taut and staked down. So in the middle stood Tongariro, the central mountain, supported and stayed by the tribal cords, which joined the soil of New Zealand to the central authority.  Above floated the flag, emblem of Maori nationality. Thus was the union of tribes demonstrated so that all might see, and then did Te Heuheu and his fellow chiefs transfer to Potatau all the sacred prestige of the soil and acclaim him as the King of the Maori tribes.2

6.5 The following year, 1858, the final meeting and ceremony took place at Ngaruawahia, and here Wiremu Tamehana Tarapipipi performed the Coronation ceremony, using a Bible, which has been used for every like ceremony to the present day. At this great meeting Te Heuheu as high Chief, in company with Tarapipipi, said: “Potatau, this day I create you King of the Maori people. You and Queen Victoria shall be bound together to be one. The religion of Christ shall be the mantle of your protection; the law shall be the mat of your feet, for ever and ever onward.” To this Potatau, turning to his people, and replied, “Yes, I agree, for ever and ever onward. After I am gone, hold fast to love, to the law and to the religion of Christ.”

6.6 This declaration was succeeded by the anointing after the Scriptural manner. Wiremu Tamehana Tarapipipi poured the oil on Potatau’s head, and all the people bowed their heads three times in obeisance to the call.

6.7 Clearly, the Christian religion is central to the foundation and identity of the Kingitanga movement and the tribes that pledged allegiance.  Therefore, the statement, ‘New Zealand has no state religion,’ is contrary to the position of many New Zealand Maori.

8. PRINCIPLES 2 – 8 ALREADY EXIST IN THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 & EXISTING LEGISLATION

7.1 The (a) right to religion (b) the right to safety (c) the right to freedom of expression, (d) religious differences, (e) cooperation and understanding are already specified in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The maintenance of public order and the rule of law with respect to religious matters are sufficiently covered in the Crimes and Summary Offences Acts.

8. PRINCIPLE SIX – EDUCATION

 8.1 The Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity states, ‘Schools shall teach an understanding of the diversity of religion and spiritual traditions in an impartial manner.’

8.2 ‘Schools shall teach…’ is a strong directive. Question - if the government were to adopt this statement, would it apply to private and special character schools? A Christian school can hardly be expected to be impartial when it comes to religious matters. What would be the wider implications of this statement in the field of education?

9. CONCLUDING

9.1 The following statement from Winston Churchill is entirely appropriate in this situation:

“… one of the signs of a great society is the diligence with which it passes culture from one generation to the next. This culture is the embodiment of everything the people of that society hold dear: its religious faith, its heroes…When one generation no longer esteems its own heritage and fails to pass the torch to its children, it is saying in essence that the very foundational principles and experiences that makes the society what it is are no longer valid. This leaves that generation without any sense of definition or direction, making them the fulfilment of Karl Marx’s dictum, ‘A people without a heritage are easily persuaded.”

(Never Give In, The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill Page 190)

9.2 In concluding, we would ask those advocating the Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity to consider the words of our National Anthem written by Thomas Bracken in 1876. This anthem should forever serve as a reminder that the Christian religion is the vanguard of our nation.

God of Nations! at Thy feet,
In the bonds of love we meet,
Hear our voices we entreat,
God defend our free land.
Guard Pacific's triple star
From the shafts of strife and war,
Make her praises heard afar,
God defend New Zealand.

Men of every creed and race,
Gather here before Thy face,
Asking Thee to bless this place,
God defend our free land
From dissension, envy, hate,
And corruption guard our State.
Make our country good and great,
God defend New Zealand.

Peace, not war, shall be our boast,
But, should foes assail our coast,
Make us then a mighty host,
God defend our free land
Lord of battles, in Thy might,
Put our enemies to flight,
Let our cause be just and right,
God defend New Zealand.

Let our love for thee increase,
May thy blessings never cease,
Give us plenty, give us peace,
God defend our free land.
From dishonour and from shame,
Guard our country's spotless name,
Crown her with immortal fame,
God defend New Zealand.

May our mountains ever be
Freedom's ramparts on the sea,
Make us faithful unto Thee,
God defend our free land.
Guide her in the nations' van,
Preaching love and truth to man,
Working out Thy glorious plan,
God defend New Zealand.          

9.3 Destiny Church opposes the concept and content of the proposed Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity based on the following points:

(i) that the scope and extent of the application of the proposed statement is dangerously ambiguous

(ii) that a Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity is unnecessary

(iii) that the statement, ‘New Zealand has no state religion’ is flawed

(iv) that the statement, ‘New Zealand has no state religion’ is contrary to the position of many New Zealand Maori

(v) that principles 2 – 8 already exist in New Zealand legislation

(vi) that principle 6 pertaining to ‘education’ is dangerously ambiguous

(vii) That our national identity is in fact, ‘Christian’

And that these matters collectively outweigh the necessity and validity of a Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity.

9.4 If the Commissioner is determined to pursue such a statement, then the religion of Christianity should be acknowledged and upheld as our state religion, thereby guaranteeing our diversity of peoples freedoms and protection that the proposed Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity sets out to promote.

Thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to make this submission.

References:

1. Leslie G. Kelly, Tainui, page 439

2. J Cowan’s N.Z. Wars, Col. 1, page 147

3. Leslie G. Kelly, Tainui, page 440-441