Why we need better religious understanding
Senior lecturer at Massey University Centre for Defence and Security Studies
On Friday night, Prime Minister Jacinda Arden argued that the very reason our nation was targeted for a terrorist event was because of its diversity. She noted that New Zealand has ‘‘200 ethnicities, 160 languages, and amongst that diversity we share common values’’.
Her language focused solely on ethnic diversity and did not mention religion, or religious diversity. This follows a general trend occurring across the country, where religious diversity has been collapsed into broader discussions of biculturalism, ethnic diversity and superdiversity.
Across New Zealand universities, the study of religion has rapidly fallen into decline. The result has been that we lack the expertise to talk to the state and citizenry about the contemporary challenges occurring around religious diversity. My argument is that this lack of emphasis on religion is highly problematic for understanding social cohesion and healing after Christchurch.
The critical study of the historical, cultural and philosophical dimensions of religions – in schools and universities – counters ignorance and helps to foster tolerance and understanding.
My research has demonstrated that, over the past 50 years, while traditional Christian belief has generally been in decline, a diversity of religious belief has multiplied here. In particular Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities have enriched our religious landscape.
New Zealand’s most recent national statement on religious diversity, issued in 2009, offers a commitment to New Zealanders, of whatever faith or ethical belief, to feel free to practise their beliefs in peace and within the law, and to respect the right of others to do the same.
Crucially, it does not set out to manage religious diversity, which is what we see occurring across Europe. It assumes that our communities will live in relative harmony, and any minor incidents of disharmony will be addressed through a negotiation of human rights, religious law and cultural tradition. This leads me to ask the questions, have we become complacent about our diversity, and should we reconsider the notion that the academic study of religion was a 19th and 20th-century phenomenon?
In the Christchurch attack, the unifying target was religion rather than ethnicity. Islamic belief is practised across ethnic groups, and it was this belief of a broad Muslim community that was attacked. This was a far-Right terror attack against a religious community, which was also tied into broader issues of immigration and racism.
Last weekend, I spent two funerary days in the Cambodian Theravada Buddhist monastery in Wellington. Across New Zealand, there are religious communities who are very similar to those in Christchurch, and they are very concerned about the consequences for them. They will be looking to the state for reassurance and protection of their safety and participation in civil society.
Vital for healing after Christchurch will be a careful engagement with experience of managing religious diversity. It will be necessary to think about social mechanisms of reconciling religious communities to the broader society. Goodwill will need to be fostered in our streets and suburbs.
All of our nation’s vibrant population needs to feel safe. Our Government will need to be sensitive and nuanced in this religious space, particularly our security agencies, who will inevitably be tasked with increased prevention and surveillance responsibilities.
A key question will be, after the decline of the study of religion, how will we develop a sensitive and informed discussion and language of religious diversity where increased state management and community cohesion can function together to renew our nation as a safe and harmonious place that accepts all people, no matter what they believe?