I think we are digressing badly here.. 'relative hygiene merrits'.... a bit off topic I reckon.

We should stick to the issues of cultural compatability, social cohesian and political stability.

Giaman, I don't think this is the place to observe specific measurable 'help' from our posts. Unless we see suddenly that Trinity or yourself for example declares a new found alleigance to Christ.

I hope that people who read this forum are those with some political insight and clout, and are open to persuasion of well founded argument.

The rather small minded 'Your a racist' attacks and counter attacks are quite time wasting.

Outlining specific impacts on our nation in terms of the 3 main points I mentioned above, should help inform observers that people are concerned about them. If this translates into further enquiry and action I would applaude.

Another benefit of venting one's spleen here, is probably the cathartic aspect. Better to vent here than rage against some happless individual who 'looks different'.

In spite of the variety and intensity of opinion here, it is indeed a valuable opportunity for all of us to be exposed to different viewpoints, and I'm sure that we all actually reflect on such encounters.

So, to all those who attack my views..(and me in some cases) I re-itterate my welcome of such things, and pray we will all reach greater degree of mutual understanding, and if possible respect.

Boaz_David - it is not ALL about you. I was responding to the absurdly racist post by Benjamin with some facetiousness of my own.

However, answer me this (I acknowledge this is completely off topic) but how would a sudden "alleigance to Christ" change the timbre of our posts? No on second thought - don't answer. I am still a vital valid human being regardless of my religious beliefs.

Anyway back to the topic - kind of. If I base some of the arguments of why multiculturalism doesn't work as posited by many on this thread, I find that men and women should be segregated too. This would eliminate rapes, domestic violence, insults based on appearance - poor behaviour that both men and women engage in to the detriment of the other. And look how different we are - women wearing clothes very different to men (most of the time). Different physiologies, different ways of viewing the world, different priorities - even wars have started because of male/female conflict. Clearly this male female thing just isn't working and men should go back to Mars and women should return to Venus.

To the Food Critics,

Culteral eating practices are different, Last year SA, Victoria, legislated against the consumption of cat and dog meat. This is a horrendus practice.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/28/1077677005837.html?oneclick=true

Also we are deeply concerned for the sheep transported by sea to the middle east, a large aspect of the worry is the complete lack of Animal Welfare Laws in other some non western cultures, let alone the obcenity of unmonitered Halal slaugher (slow bleed). (It is hoped we will eventully slaughter the sheep here in Australia where there are much higher standerds, we can at least stun the poor animals unconcioness before their throat is slit and the are beld slowly to death Halal style)

As we did drift on the the subject of multiculteral cuisine, we have to accept other cultures for what they are, these practices are cruel. We must lobby against anything below our standerds here in the West.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
- Gandhi 1869-1948

Meredith, you make a good point.

>>"Last year SA, Victoria, legislated against the consumption of cat and dog meat. This is a horrendus practice."<<

Absolutely. The practice of legislating against perfectly nutritious foodstuffs is clearly "horrendus", and should be stamped out forthwith.

This is "spare the fluffy seal cub" argument. Either we as a society condone the eating of animals or we don't. Being selective about which creatures we murder for food and which we don't seems just a trifle inconsistent.

Ghandi was of course a vegetarian - by conscious choice, not through religious or cultural obligation. So choosing the quote...

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

...was probably not a great idea, since his judgement on the issue undoubtedly includes nations whose population kills animals for food.

That's us, by the way.

hi P

im a vego myself, for moral reasons... the reason to criminialize the eating of cats and dogs is that they will loose their good legal status as companion animals and become reclassified as live stock, once that happens they will have the legal rights of cows n sheep which is basically nil.

good food well western meat eaters basically eat vegetarian animals, cats n dogs are carnivores..

i am fully aware we cant turn the world let alont the country vego,
i got the chance to bring up the animal cruelty as the string turned to food debates, culteral difference is an issue in Animal area. I agree with u tho its a bit off topic.
more my point was there is reason to legislate /fight against practices we find wrong,

Europe is 25 yrs ahead of us with MC, there are stonings there now, surely would you lobby against that?

TRINITY...... Its not all about me ?...huh ? I'm an only child you know :)

Use the name of the person ur post is aimed at next time pls.

I will answer your question. Actually it was more rhetorical than anything. I mean, I'd rejoice of course, but I just used that as an example of 'change' in response to yours saying 'How are we helping, contributing to better relations and a safer situation'. I wasn't suggesting your views are of less value because of any rightly or wrongly perceived spiritual status.

Interestingly, one of my former lecturers has come down quite firmly on positions pretty much like yours and Xena's. (The assylum seeker/gay areas) and I wrote to him about his understanding of Romans 1, criticizing his interpretation. (He's a Phd by the way)
He replied, with appreciation that my letter was not a 'hate' mail.
There is not much to be gained by hate, and disagreement does not mean hate.

The intense emotiveness of some posters is indicative of the need to seriously address things in the bud, with firm policy, before they lead to outright street confrontations.

We can't stop people feeling hostility to perceived threats, but we should do all within our means to create a framework which minimizes those feelings, by reducing the source.

The media is as much to blame as anything. We've covered the ABC and bias, but in another thread, the 'Stoning the Aussi Mossie' "Today Tonight" is shown to be exacerbating by selection/omission/emphasis.

Irfan makes a lot of sense in much of what he says, but having searched him I found he is an adherant of a Sufi group, which explains A LOT about why he seems more benign and friendly than some of the radicals. Sufi's are more interested in the love of God, and the mystical relationship, than the legal/sharia side of things.

Keep up the interaction.
Cheers