Boaz: "It becomes clear that being 'Aussie' in a community where there are a significant number of Muslims, you would have a well founded fear of rape or persecution due to your race. In fact, you would probably be granted 'refugee status' based on this fear."

Even for Boaz, I think that's an appallingly racist statement.

Shame on you, Boaz. You really are no great advertisement for Christianity.

That would be the Annangrove Prayer Hall that BD is referring to: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/24/1088046217094.html?oneclick=true

I have to confess that I was being ironic when I suggested that BD had found one of the non-negotiable shared values. Even though it’s never been his thing, I never imagined that he’d take a stick to tolerance as brutally as he just did:

“no matter which way I vote, SOMEone is going to feel more marginalized or less tolerated as a result.”

I think it’s the lack of hope that disappoints me most, when someone finds it inevitable that he’s going to spend the rest of his life crapping on others. Even the most jaded, cynical souls find hope that things can get better, but BD resigns himself to a lifetime of bitter intolerance, and condemns us to a lifetime of dealing with it.

Can I add a qualification to the opening question? What are the non-negotiable values for all of us except BD?

Here are a few:

• greeting difference (including, unfortunately, intolerance) with civilised discourse
• submitting ourselves to the rule of law
• focussing on similarities we share with others, not the differences that divide us
• teaching our children to have a broad understanding of the world and its diversity

Steve Madden,
You do not go back far enough. The whitlam government introduced MC and it was Al Grassby's baby, as Immigration Minister. Governments do not neccessarily need to legislate to change policy. The Fraser government had to legislate to set up various committees, etc.

You may have to check cabinet/caucus records to verify this. If you are sufficiently interested.

However, when MC was introduced is not really revelant. The important thing is that it was simply implemented without us having a say on such an important issue. As it was a bipartisan decision, it was kept quite low key.

If you think culture is only about what football code is mainly played, you have a very shallow idea of culture. By the way, soccer was played at my school back in 1950.

The most apt discription of MC I have heard thus far is:- "A system introduced by politicians, whereby ethnic furhers are given taxpayers money and jobs in exchange for votes"

After wasting millions of dollars, the politicians are the only ones to have gained, by chasing the ethnic vote.

We are far too tolerant. Multiculturalism = divisiveness

Integration = togetherness

No Boaz, I'm not going to "pick and scrape at [your] facts and reasoning..pointing out inconsistencies".

You are pointing out your own inconsistencies perfectly well without my help.

But this business of "tolerance" is key.

>>You should realize by now that tolerance and what not exist within a moral framework. There are limits<<

Sure. But those limits are self-imposed, part of the individual. Being tolerant or intolerant is not of itself measurable against any moral framework, but against other people.

There are things that I can tolerate that you clearly can't. Like a prayer hall.

And vice versa. You tolerate beating children. I wouldn't contemplate it.

Let me try to be clearer.

In any given situation, we each place ourselves, of our own free will, on a point of our own choice in the tolerance spectrum. And when it comes to different religions I, I suspect, will always find myself seated towards the "more tolerant" end of the range, while you are constantly heading in the opposite direction, towards the "intolerant" end.

Would you not agree?

And here's the thing. The reason this is critical to the discussion is that dissonance between individuals, groups, societies, religions etc. is far more often caused by people along at your end of the range, than mine.

So, however you visualize yourself as the evangelist with the answer to all our "living together" issues, it is you, Boaz, who is far, far more likely to be the instigator and fermenter of strife between people than I am.

And unfortunately, that is how people will inevitably view your unique brand of Christianity, and - unless they are fortunate enough to meet a Christian more tolerant than you - how they will judge your entire religion.

Yes...I agree.

On your point about you more tolerant... you should consider the social ramifications. If you tolerate those things which will ultimately undermine your social standing, position, culture... freedom etc.. by all means do so, but there is a cost.

You are more on the 'conflict avoidance' side of things, but in avoiding the conflict, there will only be 2 possible outcomes.

1/ A bigger conflict later on.
or
2/ Your own identity will be subsumed by those you are tolerating.

Point 2 can be avoided only if you don't have any sense of identity which you hold dear, and can simply go with the flow of everything around you.

Yes ? no ?

Banjo and Steve Madden,

Have noted your posts in this thread. Banjo's quote defining multiculturalism as "A system introduced by politicians, whereby ethnic fuhrers are given taxpayers money and jobs in exchange for votes" is interesting. Interesting because it accepts the notion that so-called 'ethnic fuhrers' are capable of delivering some sort of bloc vote. First, to vote, members of that ethnic group have to become citizens. Significant numbers choose not to become so. For those that do, on the face of it, it is very believable, but when you really consider the secret ballot process and the preselection for independent mindedness that the act of migration demonstrates, it doesn't stand up so well. Independent mindedness translates to a thinking, perhaps swinging, voter. Maybe the real function of ethnic fuhrers is to keep us looking in the wrong direction, and focusing upon the wrong (non)issues?

Steve, interesting your pointing to the Frazer government's ongoing facilitation, if not conceptual introduction, of multiculturalism. I think it would have to be acknowledged that you are probably both right as to its legislative origins. This brings me to suggest that the 1975 Dismissal and subsequent electoral result was not so much a genuine, even if unexpected, change in political direction as it was an orchestrated charade whereby certain 'core policies' could continue without voter interference. I suspect that inconsistencies to the like of which Sir David Smith has drawn attention in his article http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5018 may be pointers or evidence supporting such a view.

Could the emphasis placed upon the multicultural composition of Australian society, to the total exclusion of recognition of the British heritage of the vast majority, have been necessary to provide an explanation for long-term voting trends that might, in the absence of identifiable ethnic groups, have been inexplicable to significant numbers of Australians? Has there been a bloc vote able to be delivered at elections and referenda that is real, but in reality has come from an entirely different and unsuspected source over the years?