I think some values we have do not need to be re-assessed. They are values we as a nation have arrived at after over 200 years of European settlement and over 100 years of stable Government. The lessons we have learned and enshrined in our Laws are indicative of our nature. The essence of who we are.

Here are the words that describe our basic nature. They are words enshrined in our legislation.

'The freedom of all Australians to express and share their cultural values is dependent on their abiding by mutual civic obligations. All Australians are expected to have an overriding loyalty to Australia and its people, and to respect the basic structures and principles underwriting our democratic society. These are: the Constitution, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, the rule of law, acceptance and equality.'

Now of course these basic structures and principles have derived not just from our own experiences but from the experiences of most Western Nations and have developed over many centries. (A single common language is central it need not be English). Our expansiveness in adopting the above allow for us to express ourselves in a myriad of ways. Many are different to the commonly accepted 'Australian way'. I think it self-evident we as a people tolerate those differences.

What we shouldn't accept is any tampering with the above underlying principles and structures.

They define us more that the clothes we wear, the food we eat, our accents, our religions, ouir skin colour or other superficial cultural attributes.

I think many of those participating in any discourse upon what makes us Australian tend to overlook and unintentionally call into question the basic structures and principles of our Australian way of life. Any discussion on Australian culture should automaticaly assume these structures are not questioned. They work.

Of course many on this forum reject the adherence to the above basic principles and structures. This they do when they decry our policy of Multi-culturalism...but that's simply not the view of the majority and is plainly merely bigoted and uninformed comment.

The Author said:

"what can possibly make our own worldview superior to anybody else’s?"

Can we puh-lease get OFFFF this idea that to be passionate about ones own identity or culture automatically means that we regard it as SUPERIOR ! YES.. I'm shouting, because I'm sick to death of being told I feel my culture is superior than others simply because I defend it. What a load of codswollop !

It is NOT a matter of 'superiority' its a matter of FAMILIARITY. Its "ours" as opposed to 'theirs'. Weaknesses in our culture will be chipped away by exposure to strengths in others.
We will be reminded of what we have LOST in the shameful post 60s decadence that other cultures find so abhorrent (permissiveness and moral relativism)

KEITH quoted

"The freedom of all Australians to express and share their cultural values is dependent on their abiding by mutual civic obligations."

Amen x 7 and it is those 'civic obligations' which we should be inculcating into all migrant groups along the following lines.

1/ The language here is ENGLISH and to turn your ghetto blaster on at full volume in a public place playing music which is culturally and linguistically foreign is a NO-NO. Its rude, insensitive and plain bad manners.

2/ Treatment of people at beaches... cannot kick sand in peoples faces, beat up life guards, spit in peoples food, nor hurl insults at girls in bikini's nor block off sections of a beach to enforce by thuggery our own little kingdom for 'our' women.

For existing Aussies, we have to educate/educate/educate about how to accept others differences within reason.

Our values are pretty much summed up in our laws.. as Keith said. Quite true. But most of those laws are based on the simple "Do unto others" guide. Unfortunately, that summary of the last 6 commandments, cannot exist enduringly apart from a strong degree of connection to the first 4 which when summarized are "Love God with all our hearts".

Perhaps reconnection is the first step in a better future ?

May I add that recent neurological finding suggest that early childhood enables the formation of a system of belief and behaviour by pruning the less used neurones and enhancing those used, a pathway. Nutritive deprivation in childhood imposes permanent limitation on the brain and thus behaviour. The brain is however plastic so that though harder, behaviour can be changed in later life and use aids continuing brain function into old age.

Sure where one is born and the cultural system imparted is paramount but not necessarily all embracing. Free inquiry and a good source of correct information is vital to change, thus propaganda, thus Herman Goering oft quoted saying.
A child from a home with much stimulation and books, discussion is generally better balanced to function co-operatively than one who resides in an impoverished home. There are exceptions but the generality seems to be mal social adjustment from poverty.
How then 9/11? Middle class from a privileged background perpetrateing a horror? But such is not isolated, Nicaragua contras imposition of the Shah, Vietnam, Iraq and many more.
Were the perpetrators brain washed (early training or a vision) or just outliers on the pattern of human behaviour?
But George Bush appears to believe along with a substantial number of Americans that America must provide the moral control of the world (or is it the American Century?).
Did he believe this when playing round in the oil fields business ventures and days of good time? Has power become so desirable or being wrong so personally cruelling as not to be admitted?
Is this why we have the Government we have? Token females in a hierarchy of males?
How then Condalizza Rice, Thatcher or Meir or Albright?

As a deeply thinking veteran, apart from TV documentaries, one takes newspaper reports with mixed feelings knowing that they are mostly edited by corporates whom unfortunately hold such a sway over our world today many people still wanting to keep their minds active, prefer to go back in history as regards the Middle East in particular, where one finds that the real miscreants in the ME since WW1 have been the US and the UK.

One finds even after WW1, when Britannia neatly double-crossed her favourite son, TE Lawrence, moving into Iraq and occupying oilfields, that even in those days the works had been set up by the Germans in cooperation with their allies the Ottoman Turks. Also the writer historian did remark that also even in those days, that when big companies are involved with governments, especially in regard to important units of colonial contraband such as oil, the governments usually play second fiddle.

The point is after nearly one hundred years, it could only have got worse, as proven by behind the news desk reports, in Iraq right now we have Chevron, Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, all there supposed to be fixing up and modernising the Iraqi oilfields, under undercover contract to the US Vice President Dick Cheney.

With George W’ Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard prattling so much about the coming democracy in Iraq, you can make a safe bet it will be a dyarky democracy, well known in colonial times, as a double-rule demo' - meaning each important Iraqi government position matched by a commissiarit even today as far away as the White House.

After a deep interest in history as well as the nature of the average conqueror, we can work such things out pretty well for ousurselves. And even if we finally convince local people, the answer usually is, oh well, the Muslims wouldn’t be able to run the oilfields, anyway - too much like our Abo’s. Nothing about the Iraqis deserving anything, though there’s probably enough oil there to make every citzen wealthy.

David

Our democracy is based on the ideas of the Greeks not the Hebrews.

The Hebrews were devoid of democratic practice.

I also mentioned acceptance and equality, those values were never Hebrew values, and on the evidence still they are not, unless of course you are a Hebrew male.
Very little of the underlying structures, which are our cultural structures, derive from the Hebrews.

Only a few of the commandments of the Hebrews and little of Christ's new testament are enshrined in our laws. You suggest and may think the bible and the Sermon on the Mount exclusively underlie our law but that is wrong for many of those values were and are universal values.

You need to read the Greeks to add some balance and perspective to your fundamentalist ideas David. For they too outlawed murder, theft and adultery but I'm not sure about bearing false witness, coverting their neighbours home, wife, goods, slaves, or animals, but it is likely they did. :-)

Dear Keith

All I'm saying is that the basic idea of 'Do unto others' is what underlies most law except in totalitarian countries. It is indeed the Greek idea of democracy which allows that idea to flourish.
But bear in mind, it flourished in Israel when it walked with God in covenant relationship.

This is abundantly clear from a read of the book of Kings and Chronicles. (have you read them lately ? :)... it all goes back to the point where the Israelites WANTED an earthly king, and from that point on, they 'got' what they wanted. Those kings, with few exceptions, ruled with an iron and undemocratic fist, for sure.
The very existence of the 'Prophets' like Isaiah and Jeremiah and others is testimony to the bad rule of the kings.

But if I may, please look at the exceptions, to see how life went under their rule... those of a reformist and repentant nature..Josiah is a good example.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=12&chapter=23&version=31
(seriously... please read this chapter)

When you read that chapter.. you will see just how far paganism had taken hold in the religious life of Judah.. and this is the classic 'make_it_up_as_you_go' version of religion:

"10 He (Josiah) desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in [b] the fire to Molech."

Are their occasional grounds for government to destroy the symbols of some types of paganism ? I think this indicates there are. But what would the likes of Bob Brown and 'MultiCulturalists' say about that ?

Why are our laws prohibiting child_sacrifice to pagan_deities not subject to challenge by post modernist moral relativists ? :) Well, the only thing I can point to is the revealed truth of the Bible. Humor me with some other source :) Clearly 'human_concience' did not work for the Jews who worshipped Molech nor for Pol Pot.

Government should come from the people. But if the people are going after 'Molech'...how would the government be ?

Socrates regarded 'slaves' as a lower form of life :) Touche.