Across schools, councils, universities, hospitals, courts, public workplaces, environmental law, research funding, museums, and national ceremonies, a single belief system has been given a status no other belief enjoys. Māori spiritual concepts—tikanga Māori (customary rules), wairuatanga (the spiritual dimension), mauri (life force), tapu (sacred restriction), and related ideas—are routinely embedded into public institutions. Participation is expected. Opt‑outs are rare or non‑existent. Questioning it is discouraged. Compliance is assumed.
The crucial detail most people miss is legal, not cultural. Māori spiritual beliefs are not treated in law as a religion. They are classified as culture, heritage, or partnership obligations. That classification acts like a legal bypass switch. It allows practices that would be prohibited if they came from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other recognised religion.
A Christian prayer in a state school requires consent. A Māori karakia does not. A religious ritual at a council meeting would raise immediate objections. A spiritual acknowledgement framed as tikanga proceeds as standard procedure. The distinction is not neutrality—it is preference, dressed up as culture.
Supporters insist these practices are harmless, symbolic, or merely respectful. But symbols stop being harmless when they are compulsory. When students are led in prayer-like rituals without parental consent, when staff are expected to stand silently for spiritual invocations at work, when courts and government agencies incorporate metaphysical concepts into decision‑making, the state is no longer neutral. It is endorsing a belief system.
And let us be honest about definitions. Any worldview that includes spirits, sacred forces, ancestral presence, and existence beyond death occupies religious territory. Calling it culture does not change its nature. Spirituality and religion are not opposites; they are overlapping categories. Pretending otherwise may be politically convenient, but it is intellectually dishonest.
This is where public frustration sets in. People are not objecting because they hate Māori culture. They are objecting because they are tired of being told participation is not optional while being assured it somehow isn’t religious. They are tired of a system where one set of beliefs enjoys automatic access to public power while all others are confined behind consent forms and opt‑in rules.
What we now have, whether intended or not, looks like a two‑tier framework. One belief system is permitted to permeate public life under the banner of culture. Others are restricted in the name of secularism. That is not equality. It is secularism by exception.
No democracy should operate like this. The state should not decide which metaphysical claims count as culture and which count as religion. It should not pressure citizens into rituals they did not choose. And it should not silence dissent by implying that objection equals hostility.
The solution is neither radical nor hostile. It is boring, legal, and fair.
First, acknowledge that Māori spiritual beliefs are beliefs. Treat them as such under the law. Second, apply the same rule to everyone: no compulsory participation in spiritual practices in public institutions. Third, restore a genuinely neutral public sphere where belief is private and consent is paramount.
This does not diminish heritage. It protects freedom. It does not erase culture. It draws a boundary the state was always meant to respect.
New Zealand does not need more symbolism. It needs consistency. It needs the courage to say that equality before the law means exactly that—no favoured beliefs, no quiet exemptions, and no spiritual coercion disguised as culture.
People are not confused. They are fed up. And the longer this loophole remains open, the louder that frustration will become.
Why Calling the Haka “Just Culture” Is a Legal and Intellectual Evasion
One of the most persistent evasions in this debate centres on the haka. Many New Zealanders have been conditioned to believe the haka is a neutral cultural performance, stripped of any spiritual content the moment it entered schools and public ceremonies. That belief does not survive even basic scrutiny.
The haka is not a gym warm‑up, nor a secular team‑building exercise. Its origins are explicitly spiritual. Traditional haka draw on atua (gods or supernatural beings), wairua (spirit), mana (spiritual authority or power), tapu (sacred restriction), and ancestral invocation. These are not poetic flourishes. They are core metaphysical concepts within Māori cosmology. Early haka were performed to summon spiritual strength, align performers with ancestral power, intimidate opponents through sacred force, and invoke protection from the unseen realm.
No amount of administrative relabelling changes that reality. A ritual does not cease to be spiritual because a ministry decides to call it “bicultural practice.” History, theology, and anthropology do not bend to policy documents.
The same applies to the hongi (nose-rubbing), often described as a friendly greeting. In Māori cosmology, the hongi represents the sharing of ha—the sacred breath of life—directly linked to the creation narrative in which Tāne breathes spiritual life into the first human. That is not metaphor. That is doctrine. It is mythology, spirituality, and religion rolled into one physical act.
Yet these practices are routinely introduced into state schools, councils, and public institutions without consent, without opt‑out mechanisms, and without the scrutiny applied to any other belief system. If a Christian prayer, Islamic supplication, Hindu mantra, or Buddhist chant were imposed under the same conditions, it would rightly provoke outrage. The only reason this does not happen here is because the belief system has been granted a cultural exemption.
This is the loophole at the heart of the problem. Māori spiritual beliefs are treated in law as something other than religion, allowing them to pass straight through the secular firewall that restrains all others. The result is a system where participation is expected, dissent is socially punished, and neutrality is quietly abandoned.
Pointing this out does not diminish Māori culture. It challenges state overreach. It asserts a simple principle: the government has no mandate to decide which spiritual beliefs count as culture and which count as religion, nor to compel citizens—especially children—to participate in rituals rooted in metaphysical belief.
If New Zealand is serious about secularism, the solution is straightforward. Acknowledge spiritual belief for what it is. Apply the same rules to everyone. Restore consent, neutrality, and equal treatment under the law.
Until that happens, claims of secularism will remain hollow. What we will have instead is a system where spirituality is enforced by exception, silence is mistaken for agreement, and frustration continues to grow—because people can see, plainly, that the rules are not being applied equally.
John Robertson is a patriotic New Zealander who frequently posts on Facebook.
A Christian prayer in a state school requires consent. A Māori karakia does not. A religious ritual at a council meeting would raise immediate objections. A spiritual acknowledgement framed as tikanga proceeds as standard procedure. The distinction is not neutrality—it is preference, dressed up as culture.
Supporters insist these practices are harmless, symbolic, or merely respectful. But symbols stop being harmless when they are compulsory. When students are led in prayer-like rituals without parental consent, when staff are expected to stand silently for spiritual invocations at work, when courts and government agencies incorporate metaphysical concepts into decision‑making, the state is no longer neutral. It is endorsing a belief system.
And let us be honest about definitions. Any worldview that includes spirits, sacred forces, ancestral presence, and existence beyond death occupies religious territory. Calling it culture does not change its nature. Spirituality and religion are not opposites; they are overlapping categories. Pretending otherwise may be politically convenient, but it is intellectually dishonest.
This is where public frustration sets in. People are not objecting because they hate Māori culture. They are objecting because they are tired of being told participation is not optional while being assured it somehow isn’t religious. They are tired of a system where one set of beliefs enjoys automatic access to public power while all others are confined behind consent forms and opt‑in rules.
What we now have, whether intended or not, looks like a two‑tier framework. One belief system is permitted to permeate public life under the banner of culture. Others are restricted in the name of secularism. That is not equality. It is secularism by exception.
No democracy should operate like this. The state should not decide which metaphysical claims count as culture and which count as religion. It should not pressure citizens into rituals they did not choose. And it should not silence dissent by implying that objection equals hostility.
The solution is neither radical nor hostile. It is boring, legal, and fair.
First, acknowledge that Māori spiritual beliefs are beliefs. Treat them as such under the law. Second, apply the same rule to everyone: no compulsory participation in spiritual practices in public institutions. Third, restore a genuinely neutral public sphere where belief is private and consent is paramount.
This does not diminish heritage. It protects freedom. It does not erase culture. It draws a boundary the state was always meant to respect.
New Zealand does not need more symbolism. It needs consistency. It needs the courage to say that equality before the law means exactly that—no favoured beliefs, no quiet exemptions, and no spiritual coercion disguised as culture.
People are not confused. They are fed up. And the longer this loophole remains open, the louder that frustration will become.
Why Calling the Haka “Just Culture” Is a Legal and Intellectual Evasion
One of the most persistent evasions in this debate centres on the haka. Many New Zealanders have been conditioned to believe the haka is a neutral cultural performance, stripped of any spiritual content the moment it entered schools and public ceremonies. That belief does not survive even basic scrutiny.
The haka is not a gym warm‑up, nor a secular team‑building exercise. Its origins are explicitly spiritual. Traditional haka draw on atua (gods or supernatural beings), wairua (spirit), mana (spiritual authority or power), tapu (sacred restriction), and ancestral invocation. These are not poetic flourishes. They are core metaphysical concepts within Māori cosmology. Early haka were performed to summon spiritual strength, align performers with ancestral power, intimidate opponents through sacred force, and invoke protection from the unseen realm.
No amount of administrative relabelling changes that reality. A ritual does not cease to be spiritual because a ministry decides to call it “bicultural practice.” History, theology, and anthropology do not bend to policy documents.
The same applies to the hongi (nose-rubbing), often described as a friendly greeting. In Māori cosmology, the hongi represents the sharing of ha—the sacred breath of life—directly linked to the creation narrative in which Tāne breathes spiritual life into the first human. That is not metaphor. That is doctrine. It is mythology, spirituality, and religion rolled into one physical act.
Yet these practices are routinely introduced into state schools, councils, and public institutions without consent, without opt‑out mechanisms, and without the scrutiny applied to any other belief system. If a Christian prayer, Islamic supplication, Hindu mantra, or Buddhist chant were imposed under the same conditions, it would rightly provoke outrage. The only reason this does not happen here is because the belief system has been granted a cultural exemption.
This is the loophole at the heart of the problem. Māori spiritual beliefs are treated in law as something other than religion, allowing them to pass straight through the secular firewall that restrains all others. The result is a system where participation is expected, dissent is socially punished, and neutrality is quietly abandoned.
Pointing this out does not diminish Māori culture. It challenges state overreach. It asserts a simple principle: the government has no mandate to decide which spiritual beliefs count as culture and which count as religion, nor to compel citizens—especially children—to participate in rituals rooted in metaphysical belief.
If New Zealand is serious about secularism, the solution is straightforward. Acknowledge spiritual belief for what it is. Apply the same rules to everyone. Restore consent, neutrality, and equal treatment under the law.
Until that happens, claims of secularism will remain hollow. What we will have instead is a system where spirituality is enforced by exception, silence is mistaken for agreement, and frustration continues to grow—because people can see, plainly, that the rules are not being applied equally.
John Robertson is a patriotic New Zealander who frequently posts on Facebook.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.