New Zealand atheist teacher punched for not praying

September 8, 2013 • 1:01 pm

Apparently not every rabid anti-atheist loon in the U.S. A report from New Zealand’s stuff.co.nz says that Alfred Ngaro, a member of Parliament, for crying out loud, punched an atheist for not showing proper respect for religion.  This all took place at Tamaki College in Glen Innes (a suburb of Auckland), which appears to be a government school.

National Party MP Alfred Ngaro allegedly punched an atheist teacher at his son’s school for not bowing his head during a prayer.

Ngaro, a list MP and former chairman of the Tamaki College Board of Trustees, was last week dragged into the Employment Relations Authority dispute between Tamaki College and former art teacher Christopher Scott Roy.

Roy claims he was constructively dismissed because he is an atheist and Tamaki College saw Christianity as “a core responsibility to which he was indifferent”.

Roy added a new allegation to his employment claim, telling ERA member Tania Tetitaha that in 2009 he was assaulted by Ngaro as he was leaving a First XV rugby after-match function at Kings College.

. . . Kings College officials had asked if anyone objected to a prayer or karakia being said before they ate.

Roy said he did not take part due to his atheism but rather looked around the room as everyone else bowed their head.

Ngaro, whose son was in the Tamaki First XV, came up to him and got “right in my face” after the prayer, Roy told the ERA hearing, eyeballing him just a few centimetres from his face.

Representatives from Kings College saw the behaviour and asked after his well-being, and if he wanted security guards present, Roy said. As he went to leave he was confronted outside by Ngaro, who lashed out at him, punching him on the back of his head.

One of the then-Tamaki First XV members, Unaloto Pita, confirmed to the Sunday Star-Times that a scuffle had taken place involving Roy as he left the Kings College function. Pita said he did not see who assaulted the teacher.

Ngaro, appearing in person at the ERA hearing, categorically denied the assault.

Roy said not going to the police was “the worst mistake of my life” but at the time he thought he would jeopardise any future employment opportunities.

Roy claims he was dismissed for his job because in 2010 he failed again to show the proper grovelling before God:

The Human Rights Commission complaint arose after Roy chose not to attend a powhiri ceremony [definition here] held at the beginning of the 2010 school year. He asked at a staff meeting where staff who did not wish to attend the powhiri should congregate.

Another staff member told him: “You’re just a f…ing dick” and “keep your f …ing bullshit to yourself”.

Roy said he was later emailed by Principal Soana Pamaka saying attendance at the powhiri was compulsory and “no staff member had any right to be absent”.

Pamaka told him the powhiri was cultural rather than religious, though Roy maintained the ceremony had “numerous references to Christianity”.

I expect this kind of behavior in Mississippi, Alabama, or Texas, but really—New Zealand? And an MP?

I hope the guy gets charged with assault.

4127587
Ngaro, Christian thug

h/t: Gayle Ferguson

49 thoughts on “New Zealand atheist teacher punched for not praying”

  1. If Ngaro had his head bowed in sincere prayer, presumably with his eyes closed, how would he know if anyone else wasn’t bowing their heads? hmmmm?

      1. Ha ha! Those are the witty retorts that always end up just getting you punched harder (I speak from experience). 😀

      1. It says that you should not pray in public. Roy did not pray in public. It is the “christian thug” who wants to insist on public praying, contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

  4. From Bob Altemeyer’s “The Authoritarians”:

    How good, how moral are you, compared to other people? (You get to say what is “good” and “moral.”) As I mentioned in chapter 1, if you’re an average human being, you’ll think you’re a better than average human being. Almost everybody thinks she’s more moral than most. But high RWAs [Right-Wing Authoritarians — “right” meaning “proper”, not necessarily the political “right”] typically think they’re way, way better. They are the Holy Ones. They are the Chosen. They are the Righteous. They somehow got a three-for-one special on self-righteousness. And self-righteousness appears to release authoritarian aggression more than anything else.

    Chronically frightened authoritarian followers, looking for someone to attack because fighting is one of the things people do when they are afraid, are particularly likely to do so when they can find a moral justification for their hostility. Despite all the things in scriptures about loving others, forgiving others, leaving punishment to God, and so on, authoritarian followers feel empowered to isolate and segregate, to humiliate, to persecute, to beat, and to kill in the middle of the night, because in their heads they can almost hear the loudspeakers announcing, “Now batting for God’s team, his designated hitter, (their name).”

    Naturally, such a personality type (a bully, essentially) would gravitate to political power.

    1. From his Wiki page: “As per his grandmother’s wish, he then completed a theology degree and became a pastor at the Tamaki Community Church.” I wonder if he got his theology degree at the school of hard knocks?

  5. New Zealander here. Obviously there was no justification for Ngaro’s assault. I would hope that no-one is required to pray who doesn’t believe in someone to pray to. However, that Roy wanted to be excused from the powhiri suggests something much less respectable about Roy’s motives. Pamaka is quite correct: a powhiri is not a religious ceremony. A powhiri is a ceremony whereby one party says “You are welcome in our place” and the other says “I will respect you while I am in your place”. An equivalent would be if the school sent out a “Welcome” letter to new staff and students, and Roy asked to have a sentence inserted saying “except for Chris Roy, he thinks you’re a bunch of wankers”.

    1. This is what I found odd as well. Roy claimed there were Christian references at the powhiri but that just seems really odd to me.

    2. Then it still is a bit odd that people are FORCED to be welcomed ..

      [.. attendance at the powhiri was compulsory and “no staff member had any right to be absent”.]

      This looks more like “you do it OUR way, or .. the proverbial ‘highway’.

      2. No, as a school staff member Roy would have been one of the welcomers. His decision to be absent displays either an ignorance of, or a disrespect for, Maori cultural institutions which in either case is unconscionable in someone tasked with teaching Maori students. It is not a question of “force”, any more than one could speak of him being “forced” (I presume) to wear clothes to work. His absence would, whether he liked it or not, convey an insult to the Maori students coming to the school of the same order as turning up naked.

    3. There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that this is a religious ceremony doubling as cultural. Religions like to do that – become part of the culture. Like every US president inviting the public to pray at every opportunity. Like prayers at the opening of parliament here in Australia.

      I don’t mind welcoming ceremonies but I object to religion dressed up as a welcoming ceremony.

    4. Daniel, my experience of powhiris while teaching in multi-cultural South Auckland schools from 1977 to 2002 was that these rituals included prayers and, very often, Christian hymns in Maori. If they are not religious ceremonies, then leave out the religious elements.

      If your imputation that Chris Roy thinks the visitors are a bunch of wankers because he rejects religious imposition is reasonable, what thoughts about its non-Christian students and staff should we impute to a state school that thinks Christianity is a core responsibility? What thoughts about their visitors should we impute to powhiri organisers who include Christian elements in their welcome? Would an equivalent be a welcome letter which says “Welcome, except for non-Christians because we think you’re a bunch of wankers”?

      1. Most Maori are not atheists, and yes, both Christianity and Maori traditional beliefs are woven into their lives. However:
        1. There is no requirement for all participants to pray, as long as they do not openly mock others during the karakia (this is where Ngaro overstepped the mandate of his culture). Karakia traditionally open with “E te atua”, which addresses whichever god (atua) may happen to be listening at the time; it doesn’t have to be Christian. If you are an atheist all you need to do, and what I have done, is stay quiet during this part of the ceremony. If I were asked to perform a karakia myself (unlikely, since I’m not in any position of authority) I would remember Dawkins saying Latin grace at King’s College or whatever it was — there’s nothing hugely objectionable about repeating a meaningless phrase as part of a traditional ceremony.
        2. Any group participating in a powhiri, whether tangata whenua (hosts) or manuhiri (guests) will have prepared a waiata (song) to perform as an expression of goodwill. This can be and often is a Christian hymn if that’s what the group feels will best convey their feelings, but it doesn’t have to be. When I visited a marae near Dunedin as part of a group of Otago students we sang The Corries’ “O Flower of Scotland”, which we were told was an unusual choice but nobody got angry at us. The article doesn’t tell us whether Roy suggested a secular waiata; that he thought he could just bow out of the powhiri altogether and that would be OK, suggests not.

        1. “which addresses whichever god (atua) may happen to be listening at the time; it doesn’t have to be Christian”

          What difference does it make? The wikipedia description, as well as yours, of the pōwhiri, sure sound like ridiculous religious nonsense to me.

          1. Powhiri perhaps no longer have the urgent practical significance they did before New Zealand became a state with a police force and an Armed Offenders Squad and a military. Back then, participating in a powhiri was the way a group of travellers assured their hosts that they were not there with violent intentions. The custom has survived because, even though the risk of tribal warfare is now remote, it still carries the fundamental message about intentions. Since it seems to be unclear: the karakia is a minor point in the ceremony, and the two parties’ focus is on one another, not on any supposed spiritual being.
            I take the same approach with customs like this that I do with European superstitions such as toasting people’s health. We might compare it to a cat (or a chimpanzee) fluffing up its fur to appear larger. I used to wonder why that signal still worked — why the animals didn’t evolve the cognitive ability to see through the ruse, especially in the primate case. I think the answer is that although “I am big and muscular” is false, the same signal also conveys the message “I am on edge and want to intimidate you”, which the opponent would be wise to heed. Similarly with the human communications. “I can improve your health by calling your name and then drinking alcohol” is a superstition, but “I want you to know I wish you well” is a legitimate message. Likewise, with powhiri, “we need to move from the domain of the war-god to the domain of the peace-god” is predicated on a false worldview, but “we respect you and your connection to this place, we are willing to go to considerable effort to assure you of that, and we happily agree to do so on your terms” is a reasonable communication.

        2. I fully disagree with your position that Roy should be compelled to attend a ceremony that contains religious overtones. You write that an atheist can just stand there quietly while the religious ceremony is performed so as not to offend anyone. What about the offense to the atheist, you think that is too bad I guess.

          Same goes for Dawkins, he can do as he pleases of course but, it isn’t something that gains any respect from me. It would be different if the religious weren’t pushing their religion into public laws as the christians do but, as they are then it is somewhat hypocritical to speak out against religion and at the same time participate in the ceremony when it is convenient to do so.

          1. I repeat: if he does not, he is sending a message of disrespect to his Maori students equivalent in force to if he were to choose to turn up naked to school one day. I’m a convinced nudist, should I be required to wear clothes to work?

          2. I repeat: Imaginary gods should not be forced on anyone as reality.

            I can think of different ways to get to a solution that may be acceptable to all. One part of the solution could be, although this wouldn’t be my first choice, to compel everyone to attend a welcoming ceremony in which evidence is presented against the existence of any supernatural gods. Another way may be to incorporate a bit from each of the tens of thousands of gods plus a statement that their are no gods. There are other ideas as well but hopefully you get the general concept. It has been noted that the Maori ceremony contains some references to christian dogma, since they have seen fit to make that change to their ceremony they could as well make other changes. My first choice would be that they rework the ceremony to remove all references to deities and no deities, if attendance at the ceremony is going to be required.

            You may be happy to be marginalized for not believing imaginary thingies are real. I am an atheists and I expect to be respected equally with anyone else. And I also think that evidence against the supernatural should be given respect.

            Are your genitals imaginary?

          3. My genitals are not imaginary. The harm our society seems to believe will accrue from them being seen, is.
            Any given powhiri is quite likely to draw together people who believe in the Christian god only and have rejected the Maori gods; people who believe the Maori gods are the Christian god’s earthly subordinates; people who believe the Christian god is a tool of colonial oppression; people for whom both the Christian gods and the Maori gods are metaphors for vaguely-conceptualized forces of nature — hence the general, all-purpose address “E te atua” for the karakia. At most powhiri there is a time set aside for rigorous discussion, since powhiri are often held when Maori get together to discuss large-scale political or social problems. That happens after the formal welcomes. That would be the time to talk about the non-existence of gods.

          4. But perhaps a more easily-understood analogy. Both my siblings have had Christian weddings, and I have participated in both at their request. What should I have done? What would I have been saying about relations in our family if I had refused, or stayed away entirely?

          5. That is, to me, more of a personal problem that you need to work out within your family. The general public isn’t compelled to attend your siblings christian ceremonies.

            As I’ve noted above, if you like being marginalized that’s your personal business.

          6. Roy was not “the general public”, he was a member of the school staff. Bowing out of the powhiri the school was holding would have been saying “I do not consider myself to be part of this school”, just as skipping a wedding would be saying “I do not consider myself to be part of this family”.

        3. I think there is more to this story that we aren’t hearing. Roy didn’t deserve to be punched and Ngaro is a bully but not going to the powhiri suggests there were other bad feelings and I wonder if he did suggest a secular waiata and met opposition. There needs to be more reported on this one.

  7. It is not clear this dispute will ever get to be heard for procedural reasons as the teacher concerned apparently failed to raise his grievance within the 90 day statutory period.
    Tamaki College is indeed a state/government school and I suspect has a significant group of Polynesian students. The Polynesian population is a bastion of religion and a major source of opposition to advances such as gay marriages.

  9. Oh, c’mon now. The marriage equality bill in New Zealand was successfully sponsored and pushed by Louisa Wall, MP, who is at least partly Maori, as I understand it.

    Moreover, in one of the most heartwarming events so far in the 21st century, the gallery broke out in a Maori song of love as soon as the vote (77 ayes to 40-something nays) was announced. — pH

    1. Indeed this is all true but Pasifika people, or more accurately the christian element of that group, was significant in the opposition to the Bill as illustrated by this news report at the time:
      “Labour’s MP for Mangere Su’a William Sio says he will be voting against the bill because there is widespread opposition within his electorate which has the highest population of Pacific Islanders in New Zealand, making up 58.8 per cent of voters.”

    2. Indeed — thereby illustrating the function waiata (song) serves in Maori culture, as I mentioned above. The international media portrayed it as a spontaneous, one-of-a-kind outburst of joy, but in tikanga Maori, if a gathering of authority figures agrees to deliver what you have petitioned them for, you express your thanks with music.

  10. Another Kiwi here. There is a good guide for religion in schools by the HRC http://www.hrc.co.nz/hrc_new/hrc/cms/files/documents/20-Jan-2010_09-32-15_WebUpdatedJan2010_HRC_Rel_in_NZ_Schls.pdf Seems to me they are not conforming to best practice.

    “The line between tikanga Mäori and
    religious observance is not always clear.
    For example, observing tikanga Mäori may
    also include the expression of explicitly
    religious messages if karakia are said.
    The context is relevant.”

  11. The question of religion in schools got some publicity in New Zealand recently because of the activities of David Hines of the Secular Education Network who took advantage of the provisions of the Official Information Act to gather information on the situation in state primary and intermediate schools (up to about age 12 or 13 I think but long out of touch). These were:
    -over 800 state schools are believed to be running religious instruction classes.
    -578 schools responding to the survey confirmed the existence of lessons run outside of the New Zealand Curriculum, and inside school hours.
    -92 schools are not currently teaching any science subjects, despite being obligated to do so by the New Zealand Curriculum,
    -159 are not teaching evolution in their classes
    -62 schools have dropped religious instruction in the past two years.

  14. Tamaki College is indeed a large State school in Glen Innes, which is (mostly) a lower socio-economic area but borders, and has pockets of, high-rent areas. (Auckland is like that, very heterogeneous). Multi-culturalism is a big thing in NZ, so while the powhiri (a traditional Maori welcoming ceremony) probably incorporates introduced Xtian elements, it’s far from a simple religious issue. It’s equally possible the guy was offended by the apparent disrespect shown to the school’s (rubgy football) First XV, which ranks far higher in the religion stakes than Xtianity. (Yeah, I’m a total atheist about rugby too).

    Quite seriously, I think most New Zealanders would regard a punch-up over rubgy as quite commonplace, where they’d regard a bit of biffo over religion as quite bizarre and way out of line. Many times – maybe once a week – I get asked which rugby team I support, or what I thought of ‘the match’, but I’ve never ever been asked which church I go to.

    2. I LOL’d with tears (and I’m at work in the office today). Thankfully, most of my colleagues are not in today to hear me. That kid is so lucky to have such a hilarious parent and I loved the subtle reference to Highlander. You just know anything that references Highlander is going to be good!

Comments are closed.