National lawmakers have waded into the row in Palmerston North, a city of 75,000 north of Wellington, and there are threats to take the matter to a complaints body under human rights legislation.
Founded in 1866, the university town has a historic, 17-acre center, dominated by a distinctive clock tower. For almost 40 years, a large cross -- illuminated at night -- has stood atop the tower.
With the area now being refurbished, some local officials have suggested the cross be removed, triggering strong reactions among Christians.
City councilor Anne Podd, who put the issue onto the public agenda, said by phone Monday Palmerston North had changed considerably in the years since the cross was erected, and was now "a very diverse and multi-cultural society."
"Are we still wanting to be represented by a cross that shines out to the whole world and tells it that we're a Christian community, or do we want to say, 'no, we've got other things we want to be telling the world we're about'?"
Podd insisted she was "not anti-Christian," but merely wanted the community to tell the council what kind of "look" it wanted the city to portray.
She was "absolutely amazed," and not particularly happy, at the way the issue had mushroomed. It had become "emotive" and "a little irrational," she said.
As such, Podd is not pleased that members of parliament have become involved.
"I was hoping as a community we could solve this ourselves," she said.
Mayor Mark Bell-Booth, a Christian, is determined to see the cross stay.
In a phone interview Monday, he expressed the debate in terms of a broader conflict in modern society.
"Communities today are being challenged in their values. What you believe in, what's sacred, all those things are being challenged."
Bell-Booth said he believed the majority opinion was in favor of retaining the cross, a symbol which he said the city was known for nationally.
He noted that church attendance in Palmerston North was twice the national average.
"There is also a very strong interaction among churches, Catholic and Protestant, and they all have a reverence for the cross. There is no symbol in the world as symbolic as the cross," he said.
"Yet people say to me, the cross isn't relevant today, we live in a post-Christian society. My response is, what's not relevant about compassion, sacrifice, humility and love?"
Calling for the cross to be replaced was like asking the council to remove the city's war memorial in favor of a peace symbol," Bell-Booth said.
Prayers
Several hundred Christians gathered near the cross on Sunday night to pray that it not be removed.
Ralph Sutherland, chairman of the city's Christian Leaders' Association (CLA), said Monday that it was not the cross itself but what it stood for, that was important to Christians.
"We believe God is much bigger than concrete and perspex. We don't have to defend God."
Removal of the cross would not affect any Christian's personal faith, he said.
That did not mean Christians in the city were unconcerned, however. "We believe it's a great symbol" and should stay.
Sutherland said he did not believe the cross or its message were outdated.
Christianity was "woven into the fabric of our society" and was a current reality, not merely something from the past.
'Not about race'
Those who are calling for the cross to be removed have argued that it is not inclusive enough, given the city's ethnic mix.
According to official statistics, Palmerston North's population is 76 percent European-origin, 13 percent indigenous Maori and five percent ethically Asian. The remainder are of Pacific Island or other foreign origin.
Mayor Bell-Booth said he wanted to avoid the issue being seen as one of "religious bigotry or race, because it's not."
The city had significant African and South American communities, which are Catholic, he said.
Maori representatives had also expressed support for the cross to remain, in part because the area was, historically, declared a place of peace for formerly-warring Maori groups, and the cross was considered significant and appropriate.
"They say they do not wish to see the cross removed because that is a symbol of peace," he said.
"There is widespread community support for its retention. If the council voted to remove it, there would be a massive outcry."
New Zealand's only Muslim lawmaker, Ashraf Choudhary of the ruling Labor Party, would like to see the cross go.
The South Asia-born Choudhary, a Palmerston North resident who has lived in New Zealand for 27 years, said the issue was not a religious one as much as it was one "about tolerance and respect and ... the kind of city we want."
"If we want Palmerston North to be a vibrant, progressive sort of place, then it needs to be open to other voices and to include all peoples in the decision-making," a local newspaper quoted him as saying.
Choudhary's involvement angered another politician, New Zealand First party leader Winston Peters, who said the Muslim lawmaker had "a cheek" joining the debate.
"Just imagine what would happen to a Christian in a Muslim country if they suggested getting rid of a symbol of Islam," he said in a statement. "They would be punished severely, possibly even executed in fundamentalist areas."
Peters, who is part-Maori, is a frequent critic of what he has called Labor's "social engineering agenda" and its immigration policies.
He said Choudhary's comments showed "that some newcomers to New Zealand want us to destroy our culture so that they may impose their own."
Complaint
A Palmerston North businessman is considering taking the matter to the country's Human Rights Commission (HRC), claiming the cross discriminates against atheists like himself.
Employment relations consultant Alan Millar claims the cross breaches the Human Rights Act, 1993 legislation that outlaws discrimination on the basis of religious belief, age, color, disability, ethnic background, political opinion, sexual orientation and other grounds.\b
He said New Zealand was a secular society, and the council was discriminating against people who were not religious by putting the cross on a public building.
University of Auckland law professor Paul Rishworth said Monday he knew of no similar case in New Zealand in the past, although the HRC had thrown out a complaint brought against another city council for having a prayer during a meeting.
Rishworth said there were two broad ways of looking at the issue - one could either argue that a state or city is entitled to display a symbol that gives expression to the beliefs of its citizens, and that not being able to embrace every citizen's beliefs, it is entitled to go with those held by the majority; or that authorities should remain avowedly neutral.
"Some would say that studious avoidance of anything religious in public life is itself a religious message - that is, secularism or anti-religion."
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
