Saeed Khan, while I'm comfortable with a diverse Australia, I think your article is just fuel for the fire.
It would be very easy to draw a white hating thread from this, the usual only white people are racist, all problems are caused by white people.

Embracing diversity does not mean embracing behaviors that are un-Australian, the hijab for many is a symbol of oppression of women.

Does the author believe that all cultural practices should be embraced in Australia in the name of multiculturalism?

Anyone who disagrees with this bloke is a 'racist' or 'xenophobic thug'. He really has nothing say that is of the the remotest interest. He lobbed here 20 years ago, and still hasn't sorted himself out.

The seeds of antagonism, as the author states, were sown 1300 years ago in the writings of Islam. Where Muslims go they take the hate, violence and discrimination their religion teaches with them. Does Mr Khan ever watch TV or read newspapers? Perhaps he has noticed in recent months (years) that certain people have a propensity to kill others, with guns, bombs and even vehicles. They do this in the name of a religion. Does Mr Khan ever ask why this happens? Of course not; it is all a big misunderstanding and if there is anything wrong, it is those vile infidels that don’t understand Islam's wonderfulness.

No, one does not have to look, dress or speak in a certain way to be a “true” Australian. The only requirements are accepting Australian values such as equality, free speech, separation of religion and state, and rule of Australian law. Muslims, by definition and actions, do not and cannot accept these. To them, murder, plunder, rape and slavery are not really wrong, it just depends on who is doing these (Mohammed did all these and no Muslim condemns him), Muslims believe they are the “best of peoples” and nonmuslims are “lower than animals” (Quran) so scratch equality. Blasphemy laws and sharia mean that freedom of speech and separation of religion from state are out, too. If theology is too difficult for Mr. Khan, then perhaps he should take a look at Islamic societies. Oh no, anything but having to think and consider simple facts!

Notice the previous articles written by this man, about “moderate Islam”. How has that turned out? Have things gotten better? Are Muslims better integrated or more respectful of others? Does Mr. Khan ever mention past events worldwide that may make Australians skeptical of his puerile claims.

So Mr Khan writes a silly article, puts a flag on his car and denounces “hateful” infidels (hateful because they criticize Islam and Muslims) – and thinks these make him a “real” Australian – even as he refuses to consider the animosity and violence he carries in his heart (with Islam).

Dear me, the author has been infected.

Research should focus on the question of cause and effect, or which comes first: is the lowered I.Q. a result of nationalism and flag-worship, or vice versa?

For all that, and all that, I think the author has put his finger on something: 'inclusive identity', a sense of (at least) similarity of people of many origins as Australians. This seems to be opposed to 'negative' or 'exclusive identity', which many Aboriginal people (perhaps not as many as one would expect) are now bingeing on.

In that second sense, 'identity' is defined as what one is NOT, and is built on an exclusivity which is dependent on myth-making: whites are all bastards, they have committed every crime known to humanity and still are secretly, and so have no redeeming features, therefore it's not possible to live with them [forget inter-marriage rates], while Aboriginal people were and are the most intelligent, advanced, etc. people on the planet - see, for example,

https://newmatilda.com/2017/01/22/busting-black-myths-the-truth-about-our-first-peoples/

Somebody defined negative identity as what unites people around a false belief. But if we thought about it, there is no future in this. The only future for all of us depends on an inclusive identity, a positive identity, which - warts and all - takes us for what we are and what we have done etc., and moves on.

And surely there is enough of 'Australianness', the easy combination of sharing and shi-acking, of taking people as they are, of acceptance. I was struck by something Don Aitken wrote, about an American town, their particular sense of community down their tree-lined streets - but also something else: after reading his article, I was driving through some tree-lined streets nearby and was struck by the suspicion that, while the trees down our streets were of all sorts, gums, grevilleas, bottle-brushes, mallee, all intermingled, my bet is that in America, those trees were all the same, cut to the same dimensions - giving a sort of false 'inclusive identity'.

Maybe I'm glorifying, but our sense of inclusive identity seems to be more tolerant of personal difference, choice, IF such choices don't really affect our sense of commonality. Am I wrong ? Am I getting all Pollyanna or turning into a chauvinist?

Joe

Hear,hear and well said Sir!
Alan B.