4 the record .... + 4 the sake of some mischief... [I edit ] how everything that's wrong with Australia .... is over regulated and partly under-developed... regardless of the cultural relativism's and a history of helping migrants?

I too agree with Peter Sellick, Mercurius.

It is a change to read such well written material ... and so good to see it so well received inside this forum.

Hope for US yet eh?

Nathan... replacing religion with the state... shudder...

and I suppose we will have gulags for the politically incorrect ?
The State only survives by force. Christianity survives by 'faith'.

The State should be not a 'replacement' for religion, but simply a carefully worked out system of managing people and economics for the betterment of all citizens. In the case of Christianity, it can never be an 'either or' because Christ did not seek to establish a system of government, other than that of God in our hearts.

The most we can legitimately expect is that our government will include Christians who will use their position in a democratic manner to promote that most fundamental of values "Do for others as you would have them do for you" which of course is the 2nd major part of the Hebrew Law along with "Love God with all your heart"...Christians cannot do things in government which 'legally' promote love for God, but they can certainly defend the general environment and freedom of opportunity to know of such a thing.

Rossco and Monash..... it would take an anthopologist to make a valid list of Australian values. They are there, but we all 'live' them rather than referring to a list of 'things to do next'. The simplest example is to look at 'social greetings', 'rites of passage' (Birth, marraige and death). Even the way we serve food... by and large, we have the dishes prepared and serve each person ? Many Asians have the dishes on the table and each person helps themselves a bit at a time.
We usually take as much as we think we will eat for the meal, and it looks 'greedy' to them :) They will continue to come and fill your cup, until you physically prevent them (with a smile).. we 'ask' "Would you like another up"... as I said.. 'They are there' :)

MERCURIOUS.. 'Thought Police' ? Impossible. 'Expressed' thought police -different story. The nature of democracy means that acceptable and unacceptable will rise and fall with the loudest most organized voices.

Boaz, I was not advocating the replacement of religion with the state, I was commenting on the similarity between dogmatic religion and the blind nationalism of 'my country right or wrong'. They are not mutually exclusive, and both limit their followers by demanding they think in a particular way rather than exercising their own intellect. Both have been used to gain political control over large groups in the past by breaking the world into 'us and them', and stating categorically that 'us' is better than 'them' (I have never heard of a religious or nationalist group believing in their inherent inferiority to a competing religion/nation).

Please do not see this as an attack on all religious beliefs nor rational love of country. Spirituality delivers a lot of value to many, and their are many good things in ones country which we can relate to and admire. My issue is with that rigid mode of thought that dictates an individuals values. I believe in the value of "Do for others as you would have them do for you", yet this is not derived from a set of beliefs with which I have been indoctrinated. There is no reason that this and other "Christian values" cannot be exercised by those in government, regardless of their religious beliefs (or otherwise).

Yes David

Christ did promote 'that most fundamental of values "Do for others as you would have them do for you" which of course is the 2nd major part of the Hebrew Law' and no he didn't 'seek to establish a system of government' that 'defend(ed) the general environment and freedom of opportunity'.

You should know he adhered to and accepted Hebrew Law and attempted to refine it in it's application ...notably during his Sermon on the Mount.

Now David the west moved on from the Fundamentalist traditions of the Hebrews. No we haven't entirely rejected them but we added something the Hebrews didn't have.

I'll tell you what that was... It was the analytical and scientific nature of the Greeks along with their view of democracy which we in the west refined and are still refining with the aim of 'defend(ing) the general environment and freedom of opportunity'. Note that was first prompted by the Greeks never by the Hebrews. And that 'defend(ing) the general environment and freedom of opportunity' is something that was and still is lacking in those who adhere only to the fundamentalist attitudes of those who professs adherence only the Judeo/Christian belief system. Note the recent examples, of fundamentalist intolerance which aimed to limit 'the general environment and freedom of opportunity', of the Israeli fundamentalists invasion and destruction of Lebanon and of our fundamentalist Liberal health minister in the matter of stem cell research...please.

pheeew. The miss-mash and highjacking of thought that you have expounded as a fundamentalist basic is breathtaking in it's arrogrance.

Benjamin.
I proffer a minor but significant correction to what might be seen as a "loaded" proposition that you surely unconsciously offer. It is actually the WEST launching "Jihad" against the oil-rich and strategically located Middle East and West Asia, which happens largely to be populated by a particular cultural strain of humanity; Arab and Aryan Moslems; Shia or
Sunni.
That's what you meant to say, wasn't it?
To suggest otherwise to resort to jingoism and black propaganda. They have the oil, the US and Western Europe want it and Israel wants a chunk of the land and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
That's the begining and the end of it. All that's required is a good excuse to justify the take over and help folk salve their consciences, along the lines of the situation suggested by Mercurious, re Australian indigenes. Hence ideology, belief and manipulated self-delusion against the backdrop of unfolding history, which is the basic subject of Mercurious' sensible article.
We have to decide, it seems nevertheless, what "Australian Values " are.
We have to decide whether these "values" are ethically and rationally determined, or sly apologetics for slimy attitudes and behaviours.
Do Australian Values relate to something like, say, the spontaneous outpouring of generosity that constituted the response of the Australian public to the Aceh Tsunami?
Or are they the warped mutation irresponsibly promoted for the basest of reasons by politicians like Howard and his tabloid media slimeball mates; the mean, dogmatic, bigoted, ignorance and fear-driven response that constituted the despicable Cronulla debacle and all that has followed?
Will we have an honest attempt at recognition and appreciation of reality, regardless of unpleasant realisations we make about ourselves and others? Or will be the increasing censorship and myth-formation be the only evidence remaining of the dumbed-down era of an increasingly lazy and cowardly remnant of a once-healthy culture, as it headed for self-inflicted obscurity?

Boaz, you said “it would take an anthropologist to make a valid list of Australian values. They are there, but we all 'live' them rather than referring to a list of 'things to do next'. The simplest example is…. (etc)”

From most of your posts you seem to be positing a particular set of exclusively Christian values and opposing the most objectionable “Muslim” values as expressed by Islamist extremists as somehow typical.

Come on, you’re avoiding the central point of Mercurius’ thesis, which as far as I can tell questions the idea of a uniquely “Australian” canon of values..

Here’s a random collection of “Australian” values, as I see them:

• Backing the underdog – justice and a fair go for all

• Treating the politically powerful, especially those who use religion to back their power, with suspicion

• Respecting genuine intellectual endeavour, especially when it results in observable good for people

• A good natured tolerance for cultural difference – which means both taking the piss and also respecting people’s humanness. A sensible balance between political correctness versus preciousness and paranoia.

I have never personally met any Australian Muslim who would see any of the above as antithecal to any of their beliefs. Nor have I ever come across anyone else from any respectable belief system or culture that would find the above objectionable

Jesus’ teaching of the Golden rule “Do unto others… etc” is similar to the core teaching of pretty much every other religious and non religious ethical system of the past couple of thousand years, including Islam and atheist secular humanism.

Boaz, I’m sure your values and morals are very respectable, but, mate, you’ve got to give up defining them in opposition to straw men of your own creation.