Boaz: "The main work I constantly refer to regarding an Anthropological approach to culture and the impact of change for any period is this one. Not from 1980 on, but this article has been applied to modern business and education and for good reason.
Not to see it's wisdom re multiculturalism would be foolhardy."

I agree that Sharp's article is a good example of the structural-functionalist anthropology that was dominant half a century ago. However, I'm not all that surprised that you seem to be largely ignorant of the many critiques of that paradigm that have emerged in the intervening 50 or so years.

It's clear that you think that our society has been in decline since the second world war, but it's probably not all that clever a strategy to rely on superseded analytical frameworks in order to try and argue your case. It only weakens your argument and makes you appear ignorant and bigoted.

Bennie I apologise, I deleted a paragraph to lower the word count, lost with the paragraph was a reference to Boaz which I overlooked. Most of what I said was not meant to be directed to you.

The essential thing is that religion affects those who do not share their superstitions. Religion is only made public and attempted to be fused with politics when those with religious beliefs desire power over others. For this to be justified proof of god is absolutely necessary. The reason is because if a person is claiming a god to affect how others live and they have no proof of god before they start, they have no true knowledge of god to make any claim what so ever then what they are doing is conspiring to deceive others.

Another reason why proof is essential is because what Christians claim from their idol, magic, theology, even their concept of morality is irrational, unreasonable, illogical and nonsensical.

Evangelism is immoral because it is fraudulent. Even the belief in Christ is not based on knowledge and so is fraudulent and thus immoral. I have no misgivings for people deceiving themselves but the problem is many of these people are taking this deception from the privacy of their minds out to affect the general population. The alleged Jesus preached exclusionism and so his teachings are immoral. Christianity is a cult of immorality. Politics is bad enough without the injection of a greater evil.

Boaz: "Secularism ? that gives us Bob Brown and the slippery moral slope he would take us down. (xxx rated porn, free heroin, but lots and LOTS of trees)"

In the light of the hypocritical and creepy Exclusive Brethren's efforts to influence the Victorian election (http://www.theage.com.au/news/vicelection06news/radical-sect-attacks-greens/2006/11/23/1163871549994.html), it's instructive to re-read Boaz's strikingly similar disinformation above.

Boaz is a member of the 'Open Brethren', isn't he?

What's the difference between you and the "Exclusive Liars", Boazy? That you're allowed to vote and use computers, and they can't? You seem to have eerily similar ideas...

West, I tend to agree. Religion's fine, as long as it's kept to oneself.

I see no evidence organised religion makes for a better person, or even a better society.

gecko

You claim that "Many thousands of Australians have developed a secular morality, based on what we deemto be best for society, what is fair to all, what tends to develop social cohesion and stability."

1. Can you give us a ballpark of how "many" thousands? 2? 10? 100? 1000? And where do you get this data from?

2. What is a "secular" morality?

3. Do you really conceptualize morality as a matter of individual choice? If so how do you reconcile that with your claims that this alleged "secular morality" is channeled towards what is "best for society?

Steve Madden

It is impossible not to discuss Islam and immigration in any debate on multiculti. Especially given that multiculti is anathema to the Muslims.