As an Ideal, as the author suggests,

'The Golden Rule is most familiar in the Western world as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, but it has reflections in every major world religion. Confucius provided the first written examples, but Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism all prescribe some form of “ethic of reciprocity”.'

But there have always been a couple of wrinkles in this smooth fabric:

* suggestions about meeting the intolerance of terrorism with tolerance may somewhat blur the boundaries between our consideration of terrorists' possible humanity, and the rights of their victims to our compassion and justified outrage at their treatment;

* tribal societies are also very strong on reciprocity, but just for 'their own'. Some religious practices are very strong on 'community', but again, just for 'their own'. Outsiders are regarded as perhaps not even human, but can be enslaved, killed and raped.

On the other hand, the story of the Good Samaritan, even if apocryphal, of someone helping another person in distress who is NOT from their own community, is inspirational even to an old atheist like me. The Samaritans were and still are, thank goodness, a small sect of Jews who follow slightly different precepts from the Jewish mainstream (and have probably copped more than their share of discrimination over three thousand years).

But now we are supposed to leap to the other extreme - tolerance and compassion not only for those who may be 'not us', but who have done us great harm as well. This actually breaches that Golden Rule, to which a corollary necessary follows:

“Do not do unto others as they do unto you, but direct your compassion to their victims.”

Their victims are, after all, 'us', and a damn sight more so than their persecutors, whoever those victims and persecutors may be and whatever their religion or lack of religion.

Joe

Soppy talk like this doesn't get a look in when people are seeing their countries over-run by people who don't want to go by the rules, golden or otherwise.

If this woman is a refugee as she appears to claim, I find it objectionable that she presumes to lecture us on how we should treat refugees.

Rather than telling us how to behave, all refugees & other migrants for that matter, should show their gratitude for being allowed to come here by asking, how can we best fit into your society. Perhaps asking, how should we change our ways & attitudes to be more acceptable to the culture that has taken us in.

This is perhaps the perfect example of the stupidity of multiculturalism, that these people think they have some right to tell us how we must adapt to their presence.

They're a Weird Mob by Nino Culotta, & it's prime quote, "Kings Bloody Cross" was a snapshot of earlier waves of migrants, making a real effort to become Australians, & doing so quite quickly. This piece tells us we must become something else to be more acceptable to today's blowins. Like hell.

Is it any wonder that so many want no net migration, & increasingly no migration at all.

This story is more than 8 months old & is the Subject of a Book by the Author in the Catholic University in Melbourne.

I would have answered in on "The Conversation" but I've been kicked off that site. Apparently you have to entirely agree with everything the Inteligencia say or get banned. No other opinions from the "Common Swill" are allowed to be aired.

I agree with the "Golden Rule, "Do unto outers as you would have them do unto you." Another version says, "Do unto others as they do unto you." Actually this version is about 350 years older.

I do unto moslems as I would like them to do unto me. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to get reciprocated. Well not in the long run anyway.

We are supposed to be tolerant of moslems while they are the minority. Once we become the minority we will be given three choices;

1. Convert to Islam
2. Pay the Jizya Tax but get barred from most employment.
3. Enjoy haveing you head chopped off.

Now that's what I call reciprocal Tolerance. Don't you?

How say you Steelie, Poirot, Diver Dan, etc,.

Hear, hear and well said Joe!

Yes it's surely an admirable sentiment and a golden rule to live by if we're allowed! And not something we can ever allow to be turned and used against us, that then allows a murderous miscreant to hide in plain sight among intended victims?

This very real possibility (already happened) behooves us to prevent that diabolically devious outcome, by using currently available superior technology that allows us to thoroughly and covertly, test the accuracy and veracity of those who would seek shelter among us.

Yes the golden rule matters and is a code we can all live by! Always providing it is extended and reciprocated by those who want to impose themselves on our generosity as integrated new neighbors, who genuinely desire to live among us?

Just not separate from us, with a hidden agenda, compounded, by a secret desire to take over as the dominant culture by any and all means, including misrepresenting their situation and intentions; and indeed turning our belief system into a psychological weapon to be deployed for nefarious purpose, against us!?
Alan B.

You stated that tolerance was revealed through thoughtfulness, empathy and perspective-taking where the students were able to “step into another person’s shoes”, and provided basic examples.

But what if a person can't easily step into another persons shoes?

We're living in a really screwed up age where some other minority group does "something" and then everyone else is considered "intolerant" and expected to change their behavior to accommodate the minority.

So in order to show empathy to gay people am I expected to go and have a gay experience?
If I object to multiculturalism should I be forced to go and have a meal with a Muslim family?

Whatever happened to this very simple phrase "Who owns the problem?"
Here's an example.

If I say that people need to assimilate into the country they are coming into and that we shouldn't have to assimilate into the country they are coming from, suddenly I'm the racist, and the bigot and being discriminatory.

This whole stupid line of thought seeks to shift the blame and responsibility from the people who cause the problems onto the people who did not cause the problems and its all backwards bs.

I believe in "Do unto others", and "Treat others the way you'd like to be treated" but there's a limit to my goodwill.
Don't think I'm so stupid that I'll go along peacefully with all this leftist goodwill crap if going along with it will ultimately lead to a complete destruction of my country, terrorism and a police state.
Because if that's the place where it leads then you can take it all and shove it, respectfully.

And its all bs, wars of 'bringing democracy' - lies.
All we've done is imported their crap into our countries...

Opportunities for the elites to carry out regime change or open border agendas, stripping nations of their wealth while people in their own western countries have to firstly pay for these wars and then live with the results.

Your pointing the finger at the wrong people.

Loudmouth,

The article didn't mention terrorism. Terrorists don't deserve tolerance; they deserve the full penalty of the law. The problem is a lot of people have started assuming that refugees might be terrorists and therefore don't deserve tolerance.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Jayb,

The situation you describe does not apply in most countries where the majority are muslims. And those who want to live in a theocracy would not migrate to Australia.

But it's safe to say muslims will never become the majority. Most of the world's population are not muslims. And contrary to popular belief, not everyone born a muslim stays one of the rest of their life.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen and Armchair,

We should tolerate everyone and expect likewise from them. But everyone should have a right to decide their own culture.

AC: If I say that people need to assimilate into the country they are coming into and that we shouldn't have to assimilate into the country they are coming from, suddenly I'm the racist, and the bigot and being discriminatory.

This whole stupid line of thought seeks to shift the blame and responsibility from the people who cause the problems onto the people who did not cause the problems and its all backwards bs.

Your Comment here would get you banned from "The Conversation" immediately.

"Now, the Golden Rule children, of OLO,"

is be nice to Bomb Belt Bambi!

Hey JayB,
Same with 'Independent Australia'.
I posted two comments on there the first time ever a few weeks back and they were both removed, then I was banned.
Independent alright.
'Independent' of anyone's thoughts and opinions that do not align with their own...
They may as well just drive around in a car with a loudspeaker on the roof for as much real discussion there actually is.
And then after complete censoring of the site they would go ahead and falsely claim (as an example) that it represents the true thoughts and opinions of the Australian people, in an attempt to further steer us in the direction they want us to go.

And they claim to represent the 'liberal' point of view.
They are so full of.. it.

Its such a sham.
They tell us what to think, and then claim its what we think.

It makes me so more appreciative of this website, at least I can have my say... for now.
I'm not sure how much longer websites like this will exist.
They will make some new rules and regulations that place the responsibility for content onto the site owner and he'll be forced out, so that we only use politically correct sites that automatically censor and remove unfavorable content.
Such a sad state of affairs the world is in.

Aidan: But everyone should have a right to decide their own culture.

Even if it's moving to a new Country, not accepting their Culture, demanding that the Host Country change their Culture to suit them or they'll Rape, Pillage & Murder anyone who doesn't agree.

Europe? Anyone?

Australia next? maybe, seeing we are the 3rd most likely to be blown to bits by a local, suddenly not so friendly tolerant moslem. As reported in todays papers.

Aaah! don't you just love Tolerance if it's just to appease some folk who aren't.

No Aidan everyone should not tolerate everyone. Only those who show a suitable respect for the culture of their adopted country should be tolerated, the rest should be chucked out.

"Everyone should have a right to decide their own culture", Aiden. Yes I agree, but only in their own country of birth. If they wish to leave that country of birth, then they have no longer any right to that countries culture. They most definitely do not have any right to import any of their old countries culture to any adopted country, or country of refuge.

This is exactly the problem with Muslim migration. The culture of their own country is totally dysfunctional, & not worthy of continued existence. Only idiots would let anyone import such trouble to their country.

Stop the US from attacking other countries, and refugee numbers are likely to significantly decline.

The majority of refugees are coming from countries that the US has attacked, and 50% of refugees in the world now come from Afghanistan, Syria and Somalia.

Both Turkey and the US justified their attack on Syria by saying that Assad was mistreating prisoners.

We now see what Erdogan is doing to prisoners in Turkey.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/how-erdogan-made-turkey-authoritarian-again/492374/

And we see what the US does to its prisoners in places such as Guantanamo Bay

http://www.smh.com.au/world/terror-torture-and-torpor-inside-guantanamo-bay-with-the-forever-prisoners-20141211-125m1z.html

The US is completely full of it, and considering the damage the US does to the world and the chaos it causes, Australians should be closely looking at our alliance with the US.

Dear Jay and Hasbeen,

Let's look at a scenario: Australia is becoming uninhabitable because the ozone-hole is growing and every day you remain in Australia rapidly increases your chances of cancer. It is also no longer safe for planes to fly into Australia and so you take a boat and reach Indonesia, now a fully-Muslim country.

Would you actually agree that you would be obliged to accept and assimilate into their Muslim culture (and religion)?

If not, then on what grounds do you expect others to assimilate into yours?

Self-defence is fine and discrimination is good, so why bundle all issues into one?

«Even if it's moving to a new Country»

No problem - YES!

«not accepting their Culture»

No problem - YES!

«demanding that the Host Country change their Culture to suit them or they'll Rape, Pillage & Murder anyone who doesn't agree»

NO WAY!
- That is a threat and has crossed all lines, so now self-defence kicks in.

For a further clarification, please check out "Another Last Wish" in http://www.haruth.com/jhumor/Jhumor13.html

Jayb,

"Even if it's moving to a new Country,"
Yes.

"not accepting their Culture,"
Depends what you mean by "accepting". They MUST tolerate the culture, but need not adopt it, as like the locals they should be free to determine their own culture.

"demanding that the Host Country change their Culture to suit them"
Depends on what you mean by "demanding".

"or they'll Rape, Pillage & Murder anyone who doesn't agree."
Absolutely not. Threatening to commit serious crimes is itself a serious crime, and all terrorist organisations should be crushed regardless of what they're fighting for.

Terrorists should not be allowed to come to Australia, and we generally shouldn't even let supporters of terrorist groups in. But we shouldn't use the existence of terrorists as an excuse to discriminate against innocent people.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,

It's people, not culture, that should be suitably respected.

Australia is a free country with a policy of multiculturalism, so immigrants have just as much right to determine their culture as everyone else, and they do.

It's the law, not the culture, that should be (and is) determined by the government.

BTW the culture in most Muslim countries is fully functional. Where countries are in chaos, the problem tends to be with the law (and its enforcement or lack of) not the culture. Although admittedly in countries such as Saudi Arabia, where laws are unnecessarily strict, a culture of law evasion has developed.

Aidan: Depends what you mean by "accepting". They MUST tolerate the culture,

Semantics, but OK. The problem is moslems don't tolerate our Culture. Unclean meat as an example & the Cronulla Riots as a result.

They don't even tolerate their own Culture if they are of a different Sect. Lakemba Riots as another example.

You are saying that Australians have to be tolerant of moslems but they don't have to be tolerant of us because of multiculturalism. Our Culture upsets them so we have to change our Culture. Good one son. Not bloody likely!

Hi Aidan,

When you write

"everyone should have a right to decide their own culture"

I'm sure you don't mean that they have an equivalent right to their own laws ? i.e. the men, since it is usually men who dictate in any culture, because they have the power, rather than the women ?

Everybody in Australia should equally enjoy the protection, and submit to the constraints, of the same laws. In most cultural systems, there may be inequality, even gross inequality and injustice, but there can't be inequality in a democratic system of law. Long may it remain so.

Joe

Dear Joe,

«I'm sure you don't mean that they have an equivalent right to their own laws?»

Why not - so long as their laws only apply to those who accept them and do not impinge on others who do not.

«i.e. the men, since it is usually men who dictate in any culture, because they have the power, rather than the women?»

Everyone who is legally in Australia - man, woman or child, should be able to take refuge in Australian law. However, it should not be automatic for those who are not interested.

«Everybody in Australia should equally enjoy the protection»

Everybody in Australia who so wishes...

(including those whom we can reasonably assume on the balance of probabilities that they would so wish if they could)

«and submit to the constraints, of the same laws»

To the extent that those laws protect others who did express (explicitly or implicitly) their wish to enjoy the above protection.

yuyutsu

nobody is above the law in this country, you are allowed by the laws
of this country to practice your religion. But where your religion is used to
practise injustice in the form of the marriage and subsequent rape, because rape it is
when the bride is a child, then the laws of this country cant tolerate that
because it is obviously a crime, When a religion crosses that line, then the law
of this country should take precedent over what is an exploitative human rights abuse,
bordering on human trafficing.

No just society should allow injustice in the name of any religion.
Thats where the freedom to put religious rules above the rule of law in this country end.

Where the religion is peaceful, and not hurting anyone then they are within the law and
have nothing to worry about.from the law of this country.

The emotive ideas this academic espouses are typical of the wrong thinking
they have on these issues.
We'll just promise to love each other and do unto others and suddenly we'll
have peace on earth.

Are they so stupid as to believe its that simple. It appears they are.

As the terror attacks have got worse, they have taken the physcological
stance of blaming the victim.

This allows them to believe they can control the situation.

If only we dont do this or that, we can stop it from happening.
If only we go out of our way to make muslims feel welcome, it wont happen.
If only we dont talk out too loud about radical islam, we'll be safe.

The idea that there are people who will attack and kill you because you are not
their bloodline takes the control of being able to peace talk your way out of it right
out of their hands. It also puts an end to the religious idea that love is the answer.

Cheerful...
Maybe your anxiety is a response to lack of perception with reality?
If you are unable to defeat the Russians, then make friends with them, (viz-a-viz The US rolling over to Russia in Syria now)!
This is example of how the West is losing the "War on Everything"...

The evidence abounds! An example of the defeat of morals in the West, is the acceptance of homosexuality as not only normal, but must now be encouraged as a lifestyle offered as an alternative to normal! The war Christian Ethics of this nation should have won, but didn't. It simply rolled over in the face of battle, and lost badly!

Prepare yourself to lose the war against Muslims...reality is, it's already lost! Be wise, accept and "get on board"!

Dear Cherful,

I differ regarding those slogans as if:

1. nobody is above the law in this country.
2. you are allowed by the laws of this country to practice your religion.
3. Where the religion is peaceful, and not hurting anyone then they are within the law and have nothing to worry about.

Nevertheless, each of the above would warrant a full discussion, so lets remain on the topic.

The word 'rape' implies the victim's helplessness and lack of consent.
While 'rape' is often used in a sexual connotation, this is not the sole meaning of the word, nor the only time when our feelings are similar to those of a person who has been forcibly sexually penetrated. Apart from depraved individuals, one of the most prominent rapists that abuses and leaves us in the condition of feeling helpless, is the state.

Even a dreadful choice between two rapists somewhat reduces the victim's level of helplessness. Thus, Muslim women are better-off and would be relatively empowered if able to choose themselves between the tyranny of their families/false-religions and the tyranny of the state.

This is not to say that if you make an intelligent and sincere evaluation of a woman's situation and deduce, after weighing all the evidence, that on the balance of probabilities she would have preferred the state to rescue her from her family and so-called-religion, then the state is entitled to go ahead and take her out.

Ideally, a woman or a child could always come forward and seek refuge with the state, which is usually just a 000-phone-call away, but there are situations where women and children are not aware of their options; do not understand them; or are unable to speak up openly to express their preferences. There are however other situations when they do understand and could speak up if they wanted, yet they still want the state out of their way. It is possible to mistake between those two situations - to err is human, but at least one should make an honest effort to study situations, then learn from their mistakes.

Cherful: If only we don't do this or that, we can stop it from happening.
If only we go out of our way to make muslims feel welcome, it wont happen.
If only we don't talk out too loud about radical islam, we'll be safe.

Apparently that's what the World Governments want us to think & feel. It makes the Socialists, PC & Latte Set happy.

Diverse Dan: Cheerful... Maybe your anxiety is a response to lack of perception with reality?

I don't think so. Cherfull is right.

Yutsie:

1. nobody is above the law in this country.
2. you are allowed by the laws of this country to practice your religion.
3. Where the religion is peaceful, and not hurting anyone then they are within the (Australian) law and have nothing to worry about.

Nevertheless, each of the above would warrant a full discussion, so lets remain on the topic.

I don't think it would need to be discussed. The Statements are correct as they are & rightly so.

Dear Jay,

«I don't think it would need to be discussed.»

I agree, but not because the said statements are correct, only because I cannot currently afford the time to discuss them.

Homosexuals, look like saints, compared to the moral crimes of the
barbaric Isis.

Burning some fellow alive in a cage, like they did. All the rapes they have committed
and you write on here about morality.

The muslim religion has very little morality.
Also, those crimes arent about religion, they are racial hate crimes.

Is racial hatred moral.

At least in the West the immorality is honest. In Islam they pretend their immorality
doesnt exist. Humans are humans wherever they are, or what they profess to believe.
The muslims just hide their immorality behind a dark cloak,which allows it to fester
out of sight and unpunished. Punishing the women(the victims of it)while the
males the real sinners go unstoned and unpunished.

The muslims havent won and they wont win.
At least those that believe the dark side of that religion.
Their days are numbered. The world needs intelligence and light not physco
idiots like we see leading Isis.
Who wants to live under a group of dills like them.
Who do they think they are,killing people because they dont dress a certain way
banning, music and joy.

One returned islamic fighter, who came back to Australia, said one day over
there, in a city controlled by Isis, he looked down the street and all he could see
was black. He realised there was no colour anywhere. That life under Isis
killed joy and happiness.

interactive,
"Both Turkey and the US justified their attack on Syria by saying that Assad was mistreating prisoners."

- Turkey and the US would've tried to justify an attack if it had been reported that Assad was back-chatting his mum... Or mistreating his cat, etc.