I don't like John Stone, or any current politician for that matter and I can't stand the religious. So where does that leave me. Like some others I believe it is the whole of religion that is the problem and will continue to be until if is finally outed for what it is.

But to start with I have to agree with Stones comments regarding the muslim cultural mind set, it does not fit here.

We have successfully integrated many from different cultures, as well as virtually destroying the one that was here first. But when it comes to those that have but one desire, to change our way of life to reflect theirs, it is time to draw the line.

Multi culturalism it a total failure and all it has done is split us into groups that don't understand each other. If this trend continues, we will all be bowing to the east under armed zealots.

I would doubt that there would be many of the PC ilk posting this thread, that have experienced insurgent violence, or warfare, but with your attitude, you soon will, that will change your comfort zone.

You will note that the religious, post to these threads then try to defend themselves with the same old lines, over and over, thats a big worry. Check out the definition of insanity and psychological aberrations and you will see what we are up against.

There are people that have been in this country for many years, and they still can't speak or read english, this is wrong and should be stopped. All people who can't speak or write this language, should not be citizens or allowed to stay here for more than 2 years.

"Before I am accused of stirring up race hatred, the multiculturalism industry's invariable response when it lacks reasoned arguments, consider some figures."
Yes lets, because when you can't defend your position against claims of racism/xenophobia/ethnocentrism/intolerance/religious supremacy/stupidity through reasoned arguments, it's much easier to launch a counter-attack and bend some statistics.

The survey: http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL050101030_1.pdf Remember that this is an online poll, which would skew the results.

Stone says that 6% found the attacks fully justified-- which is false, 6% found them justified "on balance". Next up: "A further 24 per cent, while not condoning the bombings, expressed sympathy with the feelings and motives of their perpetrators." Unless YouGov doesn't have the correct questions on their website, then this is also false, it is not a further 24%, it is an entirely different question and is not limited to exclude those who condoned the attacks. On this point it should also be noted that there were two levels of sympathy (13% a lot, 11% a little) and that having sympathy with the feelings and motives of someone does not have mean that they sympathise with their overall views or conduct.

Finally is Stone's 32% claim, the question is one where you pick the option you most agree with, so it is incorrect for Stone to say that 32% *believe* that. 31 of 32 desire change through non-violent means only, 56% say Muslims should live with it and the rest were "I don't know". There were no options for "some aspects need to change", and there would be a significant amount of people here who would also say that much of modern society is "decadent and immoral" and should be stopped.

So upon reading the actual questions and results it is quite apparent that Stone is misrepresenting the results. This question of his is quite telling: "Don't they have children, or grandchildren, who will live in an increasingly Muslim-influenced Australia?" It isn't about terrorism, or multiculturalism being bad, or even about avoiding particular Islamic values; these things are just a pretext for broad cultural protectionism.

What difference is implied between "Muslim-influenced" and "Islam-influenced"?

John Stone begs us to consider some figures before accusing him of stirring up race hatred. Deuc has nicely exposed the degree to which Stone has massaged the figures. But it's worth pointing out that even on Stone's own account of the figures, they sink like a, well, stone. He reports that 60 Muslims in Australia have had training in terrorist activities. That's 0.018 per cent of the 330,000 self-declared Muslims in Australia, which Stone acknowledges greatly underestimates the number of Muslims here. In other words, at least 99.98 per cent of Muslims in Australia have had no such involvement. He claims the YouGov poll found that 6 per cent of Britain's Muslims believe the July 7 bombings justified. A former Treasury secretary should know that's 94 per cent of British Muslims who refused to condone the bombings. The same poll, he reports, found that 32 per cent of British Muslims believe "Western society is decadent and immoral." But he offers no data on what percentage of Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and the other religiously committed believe the same thing. One doesn't have to be a defender of multiculturalism to see that Stone's figures fail to support his case. Of course, that somebody should be so eager to target a large and diverse religious community, the overwhelming majority of whom are innocent of the actions we all deplore, is indeed rather suggestive of racial hatred. Mr Stone does not want to share Australia with Muslims. So it might be interesting to see the results of another survey question: what percentage of Australians wishes to share this country with John Stone?

I'll keep asking and asking and so here it is again-- what the hell is this so called "Australian culture"?

++
Hey Justin86, please don't (deliberately? ) confuse criticism of right wing views as censoring free speech. John Stone has been given more air play and print space in Australian media than any Leftist commentators over the last 10 years. Unless you think inciting racial hate against all Muslims is ok? And if you do that’s your right, but don't call criticism censorship.

++
Boaz David, some of your ideas have merit but I think you assume all native Australians practice a civil democratic and mono-value culture. I know many immigrants who already practice a much more civilized culture than native born Australians.
I'll post you back soon, I'm busy as

The movement in time with our culture and maturing society have emphasised a same and desired future in moral and religious undertones.

As stated by our "Good friends" the Americans, according to Mr Howard, we are a western society with christian roots.

The ignorant Australians I am speaking about are those who will vilify their own culture and damn those with the right for freedom of speech to protect what is theirs.

Throughout history the wars of the world have not been won with both hands tied behind our backs and our mouths gagged all in the name of being multicultural.

The assimilation process will not take place if we continue to damn those who bring to the attention of public for debate, that the system supposed, is breaking down and is broken

A MAN WITH A HISTORY
Geoffrey “Abraham” Levi........ what an incredibly rich name. Including the patriarch of the Israelites, and the Temple attendants from the Tribe of Levi. One of the 3 most common names among Jews, preserved from the days of Levi down to this, signifying (unless some strange thing happened in your family) that you stand as a living testimony of, and giving a direct biological connection to the reality of the Biblical record, the tribe of Levi and the covenant promises to
G-Ds people.

WHEN CULTURES MEET ( II kings 20)
12 At that time Merodach-Baladan son of Baladan king of Babylon sent Hezekiah letters and a gift, because he had heard of Hezekiah's illness.

13 Hezekiah received the messengers and showed them all that was in his storehouses—the silver, the gold, the spices and the fine oil—his armory and everything found among his treasures.

There was nothing in his palace or in all his kingdom that Hezekiah did not show them.

WHEN CULTURES COLLIDE

Geoffrey, what happened after this ? You know it of course... The Babylonian envoys went back and told of the treasure, and the weakness of Hezekiah, and in due course the Babylonians came and took it all, slaughtering the Israelites in the process.

Just as Isaiah rebuked King Hezekiah, is it possible that a word of rebuke to yourself is in order ?
You seem to be making the same mistake Hezekiah was, ‘attibuting only good’ to those of a hostile or incompatable religious/cultural persuasion. Be true to your name and heritage, listen to the voice of the prophets. Most of all, be true to G-D.