“Indonesian judges today sentenced three women to three years in prison for allowing Muslim children to attend a Christian Sunday school program." Compass, 1 September 2005.
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/newslongen.php?idelement=3949
This is not a fringe group but law of the land for our emerging 'democractic' neighbour. In my view this is where vilification legislation like that in Victoria is leading. Religious ideas need to be open for free discussion. Of course discussion needs courteous and respectful, as the two Dannys were doing in their seminar on Islam. But to be accused of villifying Islam by simply reading the Koran, as they were in court, is absurd. Some people want all cricticism of their beliefs shut down, and that is not on in a democratic society. It is in everyone's interest to know when they are holding wrong beliefs.

Its amazing, all this chatter about racial and religious vilification. Even the non believers have fallen into the trap of trying to justify the religious position.

Look at the Facts, not the illusions. Multiculturalism, is a benefit to all societies, multi religious culturalism is a death wish. If you follow an unsubstantiated illusion, then you become deluded, a psychological fact. Just look at the world at the moment, for that reality.

There is nothing of substance within any religion, other than throughout history they express themselves in violence, destruction and constant psychological conflict and suppression.

Is it that we have not understood the consequences of following such ludicrous illusional stupidities. Or is humanity so lacking in understanding that it continues to repeat its mistakes over and over until there will be nothing left on this planet that can sustain us.

Tell me all you great believers, how is your mighty god going to fix the rapid decline of his creation, perpetuated by it's followers. There is no perceivable love in this world from any religion, just conflict within and without

You all want to hope that your god has a good fuel supply, and can sustain you all during the collapse of our environment and the extinction of the natural life forms on this planet. How could anyone support a god that just sits there and watches as it's privileged follows go about killing themselves and destroying everything around them.

In every thread on every forum that involves the religious (blank), they repeat themselves over and over, nothing new, no answers, no evidence, just loopy repeat after repeat.

The facts, they can't answer reality questions, because they have no reality. They can't give any evidence to support the contention that they are good, because all the historical and current evidence is the opposite.

Conclusion from the facts, as long as we have religion, then we have chaos.

Then again, I have deluded myself in thinking that following these forums may shed some positive light on religion. How wrong can you be

Luckily I am a dimensionalist, an understandable reality.

DD

It's difficult to see how you can bear to continue living in Australia if it's 'an international disgrace' and 'breeding ground for the American religious right. Why the American religious right? All this makes you ashamed to be Australian.

Why not renounce your citizenship if Austalia is such a horrible place and find somewhere more to you liking? You could try some of the countries people are leaving to come to the Australia you are so ashamed of.

Alchemist,

Multiculturalism needs to be managed. Probably that explains it is not working in Australia while successful in other parts of the world such as the US for example.

The US approach defined the guidelines for the model American citizen in terms of behaviour, attitude towards the country and fellow citizens but left enough autonomy for cultures to define its touch points in terms of more tactical details. It enabled a melting pot where different cultures from all over the world can maintain certain privacy, identity while still are all Americans.

In Australia while we are in a much better position, we are not managing multiculturalism.

To manage multiculturalism mean to define a program where:
1. Clear definition of the Australian identity and guidelines.
2. Allow cultures to influence and be influenced by the mother land.
3. Manage and delegate enough autonomy for these sub cultures to:
a. Interact/ influence each other
b. Compete in a healthy manner on adding more value to the mother land.

Now, look at what is happening in Australia today. The following spectrum has many people on the 2 extremes:

1. On one extreme: New comers understanding of MC is they import their own land, habits, traditions, religions, problems.
2. On another extreme: local aussies whom their understanding of successful MC is when new comers turn into zombies and leave everything related to their identities, names, beliefs, etc.

A person’s perception of how successful MC is in Australia depends on where you are on the above spectrum. What is missing is a program to ensure that most Australians (by birth or choice) will be in the middle of the spectrum rather the current polarised position.

I think we talk MC but we try to implement universalism which never worked on humans to date.

Is MC working for Australia? Yes in my views.
Is it managed properly? It could be managed a lot better.

Food for thoughts,

strayan writes, "race is not a given. It is a social construct, just like religion. In terms of race and "choice", you are only limited by the socially conceived label affixed to you by wider society. Your choice is limited in the sense that the society chooses your race for you, whereas religion is widely conceived as being about individual choice."

So it doesn't matter that I have a white skin, am proud of my Anglo Scots ancestry, share my parents genes? Nonsense! Society didn't choose my race, I was born into a particular race with particular charcteristics, had no choice really. Religion different matter, went right against my parents, made a choice they didn't actually approve off.

Most people never read statutes. Their understanding of the law comes from reading commentaries such as Bill's, seeing expose style items on the commercial TV networks, and indeed what their mates tell them in bars.

The unfortunate result is that people end up thinking that they are constrained by the law much more than they really are.

The legislation cited by Bill proscribes certain conduct in these words:

"A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons."

Note that as regards contempt and ridicule, merely inciting them is not sufficient. It has to be serious contempt, or serious ridicule.

Even then, there are broad exemptions for conduct carried out in good faith.

In the widely reported Victorian case, it's clear from the judgement that the defendants went far beyond that. It wasn't a simple matter of their voicing their considered views. They really were trying to incite hatred, serious ridicule and serious contempt.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2004/2510.html

The media would serve the public better if they explained the effect of these laws properly.

As an aside, I cannot see how sexual preference can be considered to be a matter of choice. It is no more realistic to think that a homosexual man can choose to be attracted to women, then it would be to think that a heterosexual man could choose to be attracted to men.

Sylvia.