RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY

A recent forum to discuss the National Statement on Religious Diversity asked whether such a document was a threat to Christianity. The forum was well attended and judging from the array of questions asked of the six speakers was representative of most current Christian positions together with adherents of other religious faiths.

Though not stated it can be assumed that this document is an attempt to provide an inclusive environment reflecting a New Zealand society that is now both multicultural and pluralistic. Overseas experience where sectarian violence has increased is a valid spur for such an enterprise as we want New Zealand to remain peaceful and safe for all its inhabitants. Nonetheless given our origins and background it is reasonable to ask if defining the basis for our beliefs will limit the freedoms we currently enjoy.

Those most in favour of the Statement did not see it as any threat to Christianity, even arguing that it was advantageous, while those of a more conservative persuasion had varying degrees of disquiet. But it was the reasoning of those in favour that interested me most. They considered that this Statement and the prospective legislation that may follow could have no effect on their private belief and practice. My interest was piqued, and here I generalize, by the seeming paradox of those most in favour of inclusion and togetherness also being the greater proponents of an individual and private belief. The divide we most see in New Zealand pits those who advocate private and personal (individual responsibility, meritocracy etc) against those advocating inclusive community (wealth redistribution, caring for the disadvantaged etc). The paradox didn’t sit well. That is unless we consider that religious belief in this context may not be core belief.

Let me elaborate. Societies of whatever hue don’t spring out of nothingness. They are the result of many ingredients like geography and climate, history, context and neighbours. But more than that, those influences have been incorporated with metaphysical ideas (e.g. why are we here? Is there more?) to produce a belief which we have traditionally called a religion. (Many current beliefs could equally be considered religions but being inconsistent with a secular world view are not) From those primal religious beliefs and what they say about the value of people, work, the environment etc have emerged institutions of government, law and business practice. In other words societies (cultures) as we now see them are the direct result of beliefs. From this arise two thoughts pertinent to the debate.

If a society is the result of its underpinning belief (even if, as in most of the West, that underpinning is badly fractured) then embracing other beliefs will change that society. Is it coincidental that the countries most immigrated to are those with a Judeo – Christian heritage? Why do those seeking a better life want to leave the societies that are based on the same beliefs they wish to retain? Is it not ironic that they would eventually want to replicate that same society (the obvious result of retaining their beliefs and expecting the new society to include their religious tenets?)

The second thought is that if belief is the origin of practice is it not disingenuous to consider it merely private? I mentioned above that religious belief may not be core belief and it is in this context. These debates often presume that one side is for peace and inclusion while the other is fixated on a rigid stance regardless of implications. But this is simplistic. Ideally we all want to live in peace and harmony. The debate really hinges on how that aspiration can be achieved. One side thinks that incorporating all beliefs in society is the best way to achieve peace while the other, and I think more considered view, holds that this is not a long term possibility. (Remembering that this process extends through generations) What we believe eventually plays out in all aspects of life.

To misunderstand this is to presume that democracy, rule of law, private ownership and all the other defining features of western society sit separate from and above beliefs and ideas. They don’t. Eventually belief affects practice then institutions reflect that practice. There is no way to hold different and, when critically examined, opposing beliefs together. Because we in the West have inherited a tolerant and compassionate society, (relative to other societies) we may be able to contain increasingly divergent beliefs for a little longer, but not indefinitely.

The notion that belief (not just religious) can stay private and that the institutions that currently govern and guarantee our freedoms will continue regardless of societal practice is naive. To continue with this presumption is to doom our children to a very fractious future.

© Grant Finch 2007