Loudmouth, you've sadly walked straight into my trap- instead of realizing you walked into a blunder trying to pretend my post (very clearly stating "request" to the posters to stop and consider their viewpoints), was instead a demand to censor- which you substantiated your entire point around- complete with a little remark snuck in that I "implicitly threaten"?

Again, could you and RPG actually address my Scotland point, because I'm convinced you're trying to avoid it (among my other examples).
Why is it, that the English today seem to have little trouble allowing the Scottish regional autonomy- to the point of being allowed to elect their OWN parliament to legislate on their own behalf- and the concept meets little opposition amongst the British people: yet somehow the idea of similar proposals by the Aboriginal community send you, Gobsmacked, Runner and RPG frothing at the mouth over?

Why is that?

I doubt you will of course answer this question and will instead avoid it in your next post though- so I'm not holding my breath you will be able to answer.

LOL Amanda

It’s nice that you got a seafood recipe from an Aborigine. As a keen amateur chef I’m always interested in new recipes. The recipe may or may not reflect one of the ways Aborigines prepared seafood prior to the arrival of Europeans.

But the point is, so what? If there are Aborigines who feel their culture, as they understand it, is worth preserving let them preserve it. If other Aborigines aren’t interested let them abandon it. Each to his own.

If you feel there is something wonderful in Aboriginal culture by all means immerse yourself in it.

But none of this requires a constitutional amendment.

PAT....just 'what' do you mean by..."reconciliation" ?

I read your article as code for some other agenda.

Reconciliation suggests that 2 disparate parties come together and agree on certain things which mutually bind them.

Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Hell will freeze over before Australians agree to have a 'government within a government' or.. '2 governments'.

We have already SEEN where 'that' pandora's box leads with Michael Mansell.

MICHAEL MANSELL ON NEWSREEL: I'm not advocating violence, but you can suppress and oppress people for so long that sooner or later someone will turn down that track. I'm something of a cynic of the words of Clyde Holding and his government because instead of responding to the needs of Aboriginal people, they've come out - since I've returned to Australia - in nothing but a personal attack. If they continue their political madness and racist approach of cutting the Aboriginal Affairs budget next year, then I can indicate now that I will return to Libya and I will specifically be seeking funds.

Now...you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know what that means.

FUNDS=STRINGS. Libya is a Muslim country, Gadaffi sees himself as a kind of Muslim Messiah (until the US bombed the bastard back into his box)

If Gadaffi cannot do it one way....he tries another...through gullible dupes like Mansell.

"SELF DETERMINATION" (for Indigenous people) implies way too many *dangerous* things for any thinking Aussie. They are FREE to 'be' and 'work' and 'thrive' in Australian society under the rule of law. ONE law.

If the interests of Indigenous people are in conflict with mainstream Australia's...then Houston...we have a problem!

We should really ask "who is pulling Pat's strings" ?

Ideologically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Dodson

//He was the first Indigenous Australian Roman Catholic priest, reasons for leaving the priesthood in the early 1980s included Dodson's understanding that traditional Aboriginal ceremonies and Christianity can be reconciled and his rejection of clergy celibacy.//

SOME...traditional ceremonies and Christian belief CAN be 'reconciled'.

We faced the same thing in Borneo with Tribal people. "They" themselves know which ceremonies and practices are not compatible with Christian values.

SOME INDIGENOUS PRACTICES.
-Medicinal herbs/leaves etc from the Jungle ? =No problem.
-Wailing and recounting the life of someone just dead... =no problem.
-Talking/praying "to" the dead.... nope...=problem!
-Not carrying out a harvest of ripe rice because of fear of spirit retribution due to a bad omen ? =Problem (starvation)
-Any ceremony which honours, bargains with or pleads with 'spirits' of either departed ancestors or demonic spirits....= "problem"
-Utilizing fetishes/spells etc to impose physical harm on another person.= "problem"
-Using black arts to acquire/seduce a woman = "problem"

Some things can be integrated into a Christian world view. Other things...emphatically, cannot.

THE BIBLE and RACIAL DIFFERENCE.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:26ff)

Ummm AGIR, I'm not sure what Dodson's retreat from the priesthood is supposed to prove, or why you think you're free to invent things that he might be in favour of.

There are a lot of men his generation who took Catholic holy orders who either didn't get through the seminary, or didn't survive long as ministers, or who have since left the priesthood. I find it hard to understand why this should be relevant to their positions on public issues.

You are completely speculating about what Pat may or may not believe, and appear to be making some of it up anyway. Why would harvesting crops be an issue? I'm not aware of any instances of aborigines farming, although I stand to be corrected.

So your post appears to me to be dangerously close to being off-topic. This is not a thread about lapsed priests or whether indigenous practices are acceptable to any particular brand of Christianity.

I also noted Hazza's comments about mental illness. It was a while after the comment was made that I saw it and commenters on the thread seemed to deal with it pretty well, but calling other posters mentally ill is flaming. I'll leave the comment there because it didn't disrupt the thread, and to remove all the comments that referred to it would.

But I'd appeal to everyone to keep it civil and assume that others are posting in good faith.

Very well Graham; I will behave myself in future.

AlGore Boaz
"Hell will freeze over before Australians agree to have a 'government within a government' or.. '2 governments'."
This would generally be something I would agree with, but again I would refer you to England and Scotland- where the English DO allow the Scots to effectively practice a 'second government within a government'- and only the Scots and other long-standing British nations, for that very reason.

The reason I (and they) would justify this is because regardless of 'who did what'- the English understand that the UK is, as of today, a primarily English union, with a few involuntary indigenous nations inside, that request more sovereignty on the basis that the country they were made part of simply doesn't govern them the way they need, or their wishes are too apart from those of mainsteam society for them to effectively be represented- and as a specifically pre-existing nation as part of a larger country, this is a reasonable point.
Similarly, as it stands today, Australia is a federation including many annexed Aboriginal nations, who each demand more autonomy and land-rights they used to have.
I'm feeling no guilt of my own about it but I would most definitely consider this fair. Similarly, I wouldn't really see much difference in this as opposed to giving Nauru more sovereignty and self-governance as we have already done.

I think certainly the claim for each individual Aboriginal nation for some more sovereignty enshrined in our laws is little different to those of the Scots.
And it would not be like a pro-shariah lobby demanding we surrender ground so they can build a nation on, because they never had one to claim- to them we'd just show them the door to where they can find their long-lost Shariah nation.