Oliver: You're right. My question was somewhat rhetorical.

stickman: I understand what you're saying, but I think the problem is not one of incitement, it's one of Islam being largely incompatible with our liberal traditions. Other groups take it on the chin and understand that's part and parcel of living in a free society, even if they don't like what's being said. However, there's a vocal group (minority or majority, I don't know) of Muslims, both here and abroad, who take any criticism of their religion as reason to start breaking things.

I don't see that there's a responsibility not to offend because that defeats the whole point of freedom of speech. As such, I don't think we should be trying to appease the Muslim world over what we do or don't say. If they don't like what is said in the west, they can always do what anyone else does: stop reading or watching the media. Frankly, I find the notion of any organised religion offensive and oppressive, as little more than power-mongering and brain washing, but I'm still not calling for any of them to tone it down or keep quiet.

As to our broader relations with the Muslim world, I think we need to do two things. Firstly, yes, we need to stay out of their countries because it lowers our own ethical standing and it costs us too much. Secondly, we need to get off oil. Without oil, most of the Islamic world would be ignored for the anachronism that it is.

I think this is a large part of the problem: whilst other parts of the world (eg. China, India, Brazil) are steaming ahead by embracing the modern world, the Islamic world is fast having to wake up to the fact that its problems and backwardness have much more to do with its backward mindset and unwillingness to reform its world view than foreign interference or persecution. If the world is passing them by, they only have themselves to blame. The interesting thing will be how long the collective self-delusion and denial lasts.

Shorbe,

I find your comments quite pertinent.

I believe there are a great core of moderate Muslims in existence and will only remain collectively moderate under a strongly run, secular state – such as provided, for example, by the Australian constitution or as enshrined in the American Bill of Rights. Islamists (as opposed to the moderates) are hijacking any sensible debate or reason and Islam itself through ulterior motive. It is important to recognise a core peaceful aspect resident within Islam but to also realise, singularly, its deficiency in containing a deep-seated cultural malaise our civilisation barely contains nor recognises.

“Just as Gutenberg’s invention marked the first mass media revolution in the West, the Internet and satellite TV are now doing the same thing in the Islamic world. However, the outcome may be very different, and the parallels between the Protestant Reformation and what is happening in the Islamic world now shouldn’t be pushed too far…The turmoil in he Islamic world now affects more or less the entire world, and many of the critics are based in rival civilizations. And last, but not least: The religions are entirely different. Christianity was reformable, whereas Islam probably isn’t.” - Nick Cohen, Observer, March 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329426862-103390,00.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010828.php

Shorbe: Excuse me for not recognizing your question was rhetorical. How could I have missed it? ;-) My take was that you were looking for something profound, when the answers was merely complex (but visible.

Stickman: commondo appipio venia :-)

Relda, Would like to believe you are correct, but Arab and Western socialisation processes do differ. The former is theistic and extended familial (religious clans) and the latter cross-familial, since at least the tenth century.

The question is, "who will win the moderate Muslims"? Other [radical] Muslims or the Western democracies. Unless the Moderates have been significantly acculturated towards the West, the radical Muslims are a real threat.

Oliver,

Socialisation throughout the ages has occurred traditionally through family. Familial relations, rooted in a tribal setting, have been the cornerstone of most ancient societies. Religion and certainly Theism has helped bind traditional families and society (often in a severely patriarchal manner). Modern society continues to value family. "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State". (Declaration of Human Rights)

Our confusion within modernity lies in the defining of family and its inherent values. The implication of “family” is that it nurtures our young to extend our values and culture through time – so we often jealously guard the socialization of our children. Conflict between value systems tend to become exacerbated as children of migrants become more immersed in the host culture and only experience their parental culture at home.

Children often form a “hybrid” identity between the family culture and the new society.

The paradox of western culture and the freedom offered through ‘easy’ divorce and family separation is understandably feared by traditional family/tribal orientated cultures.

The conflict is real - our democratic and secular ‘state’ requires we submit our children to its process and its values. It is important we strengthen our families (our nurturing of children) as a part of our pluralism. The State must not only represent our values, but neither must it allow groups within our society to circumvent this process.

relda: I'm strongly opposed to a strong state of any kind, secular or theocratic. However, that's a whole other debate in itself.

Likewise, I don't believe we should submit our children to its process and values. In short, I would say that one of the reasons countries like Australia function so well is because the state (comparatively) meddles very little in our lives. We are beginning to see the gaping cracks in the European project, for instance. Personally, I believe that within my lifetime, we'll be marvelling at how autocratic, xenophobic and reactionary Europe will have become (yet for that continent, it would only be a return to business as usual) and be scratching our heads at how moderate and tolerant the English speaking world seems by comparison. I believe all of that is an inevitability though since there's far less room for abuse if power is dissipated (although the U.S. long ago abused such notions -- 1794 and 1861-1865 spring instantly to mind). Regarding the reach of power in this country, I think things are changing, and not for the better.

I think the issue of cultural conflict between "traditional" (ie. Anglo-Saxon) values and those of more recent migrant groups will resolve itself organically in this country, as it should. I think going down the path of a values debate (and somehow trying to enshrine them at some level) is a mistake. People may, of course, bring new and interesting things to our culture. Ultimately though, if after a few generations, our culture has failed to assimilate others into it by its own attractiveness and virtue, then that seems like a failing on the part of our culture, and I don't think that's something the state could remedy even if it wanted to and had benign intentions.

I'm a big fan of much of the western tradition, but I think one of its biggest failings is in trying to push that so hard on others. It's self-defeating to the supposed virtue and self-evidence of such values.

Shorbe,
I’m suggesting a strong democracy and its constitution need representation via a strong state and rule of law - as opposed to the problems created in many less developed nations by "weak states," which lack the power to enforce a constitution or bill of rights and to control, regulate or tax the economy. A strong state is also able to withstand the political and social challenges from non-state actors. The ideal world we might all seek or hope for might be one without government or state control – it is however utopian, existing only in our dreams.

Currently, we are generally compliant to the rule of Australian law and its statutes (albeit we do not always agree with it); we have willingly observed the requirement and the need to send our children to a state sponsored or state endorsed education system, despite the imperfections and current political correctness creeping into the structure. A strong state in a democratic and pluralistic country cannot by definition be overbearing, unjust or mean - unless its citizens (the true 'sponsors' of the state), through apathy, allow it