"In an increasingly globalized and interdependent world, no one community – whether nationalist or religious – can claim exclusive or superior values."

Love the article - really, it's great! Problem is, the above hypothesis doesn't find universal application in our troubled world. I'm not one of "the chosen", or "a true believer" or one of the "God is with us" group - hence I am to be disregarded, despised, converted or eliminated. Truly, sanity must eventually prevail over all forms of fundamentalism if the expressed ideals are to be realised. Hence, wherefore comes universal sanity? Brute force? Coercion? Bribery?

Can it be that, as in the past, "enlightenment" and the adoption of "universal truths" may only be achieved through brute force? Hope not.

Afghanistan - surely saving the masses from repressive Taliban ideology was part of the reasoning for "invasion", as part of the fight against fundamentalism - and therefore against terrorism - for are these two terms not virtually interchangeable in their effect in so many quarters? (Iraq, though different, also had a repressive regime, as unfortunately also exists in many parts - Libya, Tibet?.....)

Boat People - we have compassion, but we also love our country and the lifestyle it affords us. We also have compassion for those left in turmoil who have not made it to our shores. But, we are not about to throw open the gates. Why? Or, why should we? So much unrest in the world, so much deprivation, we, the Samaritan, with our inexhaustible resources, should just take them into our fold, chuck away the key and let the chips fall where they may?

Temporary Protection - what's wrong with this as a stop-gap until turmoil at home can be rectified? No long legal process, no choice. We retain control, not the lawyers. Reunion rather than split detention, why not?

We can not play God and make it all right by decree, but The West needs to give salve to our ailing brothers, and to make restitution for past ill- and opportunistic misdeeds - but with conditions.

My point, obviously poorly expressed, is that mateship and compassion, important as they are for personal relationships and social cohesion, are not values on which domestic and international policy can be built. For us in Australia, democracy is not an end in itself but a means for achieving individual liberty within the framework of a system of government based on the values outlined in my earlier post.

Individual liberty within an agreed framework of law is, in our view, a universal human right, indeed the main universal human right. While we might argue among ourselves from time to time about whether particular laws or specific government actions are consistent with this ideal, it is this commitment to liberty that sustains and defines us.

Formersnag.....Thats a great collection of what your opposed to.....and I understand the teachings which is now questionable with the mind-sets of pass doctrine. Basically we are seeing two human tribes of thought battling for the same vacant space that evolution gives to all species.

But which one is right?

1...Is man to be ruled over by one train of thought?

2...Is man an indescribable force by his own hand?

3... Is there only room for those we can not beat?

Human-nature and belief is the most dangerous times in our development and history has proven this with-out doubt. All I ask, is for all peoples to have an open mind. We as humankind kind..."unfortunately" know very little when it comes to the words of why.

Question!

IF God put man on all different continents with different religions....why did he do so and what was the point, when we know fighting will be produced?

What type of GOD is this, that would do such a thing?

Iam sorry formersnag, but its seems our elders may not be quite on the ball, once analized. Did Christianity play all-important role in human development, yes it did and I would be telling a lie if it hadn't. But as you add corruption to the equation, the true sound of Jesus has now turned over, and now anyone for money can form a religion.

LEAP

Formersnag that is very nice of you but you will be happy to know I am not a socialist at all, and my preference for Greens is more my Major/secondary-preferred as opposed to specifically ideological.

My biggest priorities are censorship, government corruption, lobbying by religious groups, privatization and undemocratic development policy- and as the Greens have been reasonably consistently against all the above they get my vote. Their emphasis on infrastructure and improving public transport access is also desirable for me.

Immigration is a concern for me- but just not as much as the other things- and too many parties that are (or might) take a strict stance are doing it on the wrong grounds (when all it takes is to simply gauge criminality, mental stability, morals and values to see if they are in any way compatible to what we expect from ourselves- instead of some generalized, blanket form of discrimination).

I'd vote foremost for the "Save our Suburbs/State" party, if they were in my electorate- but they currently are not (but I vote for them in the Senate and urge everyone to do the same each election if the above is also important to them).

So I must either pick Greens, rather authoritarian wowser Christian parties, parties that focus too much on immigration (One Nation), or ones that actually support all the above actions (Liberal, Labor, Nationals and Democrats); and round off to the ones with the most to offer.

Formersnag that is very nice of you but you will be happy to know I am not a socialist at all, and my preference for Greens is more my Major/secondary-preferred as opposed to specifically ideological.

Yes I just love that fair go for all:) Can you ever see a world were if your not smart enough, you loose:) I just cant think of such a system:)

KINGS AND QUEENS!

LEAP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atTSwau9fwM&feature=related

Love the world, and love you.........peace:)

LEAP