If I may underline what I consider the most crucial point from Syed's article again....

* The simple FACT that children are 'asking' 'why not our holidays too' is indicative of what happens when people of non traditional Aussie background (Brit/Anglo etc) are accepted.*

This is not an indictment of those people because of their culture it is a simple basic fact of human nature. We are cultural-centric, ethno-centric and Religio-centric.. its the way we "are".

Hence, my continued advancement (some might say 'diatribe' :) of the argument for strictly controlled, and socially positive selection criteria, based on social/cultural/religious compatability and cohesian for Immigration Policy.

One major flaw in 'Multi' culturalism, is its lack of emphasis on the existing 'CULTURAL' flavor of Australia as a host country. The idea of 'multi' suggests 'all equal in status' which I absolutely reject.

In contrast, I suggest all minority cultures are equally valid and valuable to the communities concerned but- (and its an important 'but')UNDER the umbrella of the prevailing Anglo/Judao/Christian cultural traditions upon which this country was founded.

This is not in concflict with the idea of separation of Church and state, but it IS an affirmation that the State has a particular cultural basis.

A denial of this, opens the floodgates to cultural relativism and opportunism, and don't for a moment think that minority cultures will be backward about coming forward on many issues apart from public holidays which reflect their own 'take' on things.

Again..I remind the readers, that "Syed" means 'blood relation to the prophet, and coming from Pakistan (?) is also a reminder of the incredibly vast rivers of Hindu blood which flowed as Muslim forces over 900 yrs progressively took control of more and more of North India.

So, a simple thing like "why can't we have a holiday for Eid" means far more than a child asking an innocent question.

Quote:

"Also why Christinity (and not multiculturalism) is the bedrock of a liberal democratic form of government."

Interesting. Anyone care to ellaborate?

Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 4:18:47 PM

Unquote

I mentioned the New College Lecture by Mr John Anderson MP.

Here is an excerpt from that lecture.

It can be found at:

http://www.newcollege.unsw.edu.au/whatsnew.php

In a recent interview on Radio National’s ‘The Religion Report’, on the growth of Protestantism – Evangelicalism – within China, David Aikman (the former bureau chief for ‘Time’ magazine in Beijing’), stated:

Protestantism historically has been the source of dramatic political change. I mean you only have to look at the Puritan revolution in England and in the Netherlands and so forth to see that ultimately Protestantism spawns democracy … I mean, if you look at the history of the emergence of political participationand democracy in the Netherlands and then in England during the Puritanrevival, leading up to the English Civil War, and then of course in the United States itself, you find that religious sentiment based upon a conviction of the sovereignty of the individual conscience is a vital ingredient in the emergence of political consciousness at the political level.

Essentially, the Protestant view of the individual, Aikman argues, is the cornerstone of the development of democracy. Each individual, because of their created status (‘in the image of God’), has a conscience and dignity that must be valued and recognised.

A strong argument can be made for seeing this view of the individual emerging out of the Reformation – Luther’s understanding of the universal sin of humanity, the universal need for one grace from God and the consequent notion of the ‘priesthood of all believers’. Within the public sphere, the consequences are immediately recognizable.

First, the opinions of all must be recognised. The king must recognize the inherent worth of the most insignificant serf, and vice versa.

---

It is worthwhile listening to the enture lecture.

Steve Madden:

"The very use of the term bioethics makes me cringe."

bi·o·eth·ics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-thks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of the ethical and moral implications of new biological discoveries and biomedical advances, as in the fields of genetic engineering and drug research.

(www.dictionary.com).

What is it about the word that makes you cringe? The biological aspect or the ethical aspect? Do you argue that bioethics is not something worth investigating/arguing over? And does anyone have a non-Christian reason for the inherent dignity and worth of a human being as different to that of an animal, plant or the atmosphere?

Syed,
The definition given by Webster is obviously the definition used by the American compiler of the Dictionary.

To quote the definition you used:
"In the Webster's dictionary the word "secularism"; is defined as "a system of doctrines and practices that rejects any form of religious faith and worship" or "the belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state especially into public education".

The word "rejects" has improper conitatons, the idea should be it is "other than matters of religion". In Christianity the same person divides their life into "religious" and "secular". "Religious" is dealing with matters of the spirit and "secular" the matters of the body. This came from the Greeks view of the human as a triparte being, body, soul, and spirit. Animals only have body and soul in their view. The spirit of man reflects the nature of the god he believes he images.

The definition reflects the American court decision of Mary Ohare to have religion excluded from public education. Her son brought up as an atheist, in his mature years [whom I have met] has become a Christian Conference speaker and has endeavoured to have this decision reversed.

Since the New Testament used Greek language and idiom these terms of defining man appear in the Greek New Testament. The Hebrew OT only sees man as a whole being and there is no distinction or seperation of the spirit from the body. In Hebrew the living body is the spirit; that is why Semetic Tribal peoples equate divine laws upon the whole person. They do not see a difference between secular and religious

Cont:
Christianity is based in teaching the ideals of the character we worship, like: our love is to extend to all persons even an enemy, our forgivness is to extend to all persons even a murderer, etc etc. Why? Because these attitudes reflect the nature of the God we worship. An examination of the character, attitudes, behaviour and wisdom as taught by Jesus Christ amplify how Christians should view God and imitate these values we worship as God.

Christianity must teach the social graces of living together as a society, because Jesus Christ taught Jews to respect Romans, Samaritans, etc as brothers. Christianity should teach service to the oppressed, sick, weak and poor because Jesus Christ demonstrated these qualities.

Caring for the oppressed, sick, poor etc are secular values and the act of doing it reflects an attitude of the persons spirit. There is no seperation or what is religious and what is secular in Christianity. It is just that the Government of State should not be the Church and the Church should not be the Government of State. They are seperate entities caring for secular affairs, not seperate people. That is: the Government of the State should not even be defined as atheist, because that is an idiology even as Christianity or Islam is an idiology

YngNLuvnIt,
“And does anyone have a non-Christian reason for the inherent dignity and worth of a human being as different to that of an animal, plant or the atmosphere?”

That’s the question isn’t it? Does any human actually have inherent dignity greater than that of an animal, plant or ‘the atmosphere’ (are you alluding to all basic atomic structures with this part of your question?).

Perhaps the answer lies more with the Buddhists than the religions of Abraham? Seems they (not being a deifying belief system), have caused less grief and killed less then Abrahams children, wouldn’t you say? It could be argued that this is then a more perfect and true (i.e. harmonious) belief system than has been spawned from others...