Sounds like the only responsible country in the developing world is China. They, at least try to address problems of overpopulation and increase the standard of living. India and the Islamic world are hungry for the numbers over a decent standard of living.

Sounds like an argument for stricter immigration, particularly if these countries expect to export excess population.

In short, the West is stuffed. Perhaps it’s our time to go as have other civilisations in the past, but we (i.e. the cultural relativists and moronic politicians) are either actively encouraging our own demise or, at best, doing nothing about it. In matters of trade, technology and jobs, the Indians are already laughing their heads off at our stupidity. China’s communism and brutality to its own people has been put aside so that we can sell them uranium and other raw materials we dig out of the ground like ignorant peasants, while China knocks our manufacturing in the head with slave-like labour and appalling conditions for workers and citizens. And Islam? Well that’s well on the march to eventual world domination which will see even China and India out the door, turning the world back to the dark ages.

Globalisation of employment, production standards, standards of living, wealth balance, equal rights, human rights, increased social expenditure; ie. housing, cars, insurance, education, retirement savings, all the little niceties that have our bank cards maxed will most likely affect all these other countries in turn.
India and China have some serious challenges ahead. Both countries have placed a greater value on male children and I have read that India by 2020 will have a huge population of males turning 25 years old that will be finished with their education and looking for employment and wives. Birth control will be vital for these countries as well as a 360 degree turn about regarding their thinking on large families. I'm unsure as to what the author means by including "many in Europe and the United States extol the virtues of birth control and abortion". Are Australians above such means?

If present trends continue the scenario described in this essay will most probably come true.
But meanwhile China is already one vast environmemtal disaster area and it will be impossible to do anything about it.
It is also impossible for the millions of aspiring Indians and Chinese to live a western middle class lifestyle. The ecosystems of the planet cannot support it.
Sooner or later the planet will bite back.
And we really do have a planetary over-population population altogether.
At least a billion people already lives in appalling slums. And their numbers a growing every day as the relentless capitalist world machine grinds all traditional ways of living to dust! See Planet of Slums by Mike Davis.

I seem to recall someone saying all of this before. "Please Explain".

I guess my response to the changing ethno-demographics (if there is such a word) is: so what?

Intellectually it's fun game to leap by half or full centuries and compare and contrast with 'our' world but in fifty years time some baby born today will be a middle-aged person living in their equivalent of 'our' world and not be any the wiser, other than to look back and say 'it was different in the olden days'.

It's easy to highlight racial profiles for mention and forget to recognise the changes that will occur in technology, energy, climate etc. In the end we may occupy different countries but we are still all Homo Sapiens scattered across the planet.

Hells Angel... the attitude for tighter immigration is exactly what will cause us grief in the coming years.

Put simply, the rise of these nations is inevitable. There is nothing we can do about it.

If we adopt insular policies and try to hold on to some kind of arrogant superiority complex, what message will that send to the new superpowers?

The greatest mistake we could make would be a failure to adapt to the changing world.

John,

If history taught us anything is that every culture have a cylce of a 100-200 years(rise, maturity and decline). Whether China and india are the new rising super powers is not really the issue but how each culture interact and contribute to the issues of the day.

PS: the word 'west' and 'east' lost their context since we discovered the earth is round.

Peace,

T

I for one look forward to the new demographics.

Most migrants who come here would prefer to stay in their own countries if they had the same economic opportunities there. Most people prefer to live near their own kind. Basic fact of human nature.

If this situation comes to pass you'll only have people living in Australia who genuinely like it, making for a far happier place than the one we've got now.

Sorry, I don't see that at all.

In fact, I see other cultures adopting not only western technology, as they have over the last hundred years, but adopting western morality too.

Despite leftist aims to keep us all seperate, promote cultural traditions - however backward, we will all meld as nature intended.

Given that it is only western morality and law that is built on reason, this will ineviatably be adopted.

One won't be able to say to an infidel, for example, that they are to be treated less than a Muslim, as although a concept in Islamic law, one couldn't in a million years provide reasons other than "God told me so" to show why this should be enacted.

On the other hand, however, western logic, that everybody should be considered equal before the law, i.e, no four witnesses for women as they are equal - not half the value of a man, and so on.

People can't deny the logic of the west's morality, which is why they are all flocking to get here no doubt.

One problem is perhaps the racism of non-western cultures.

As geneticists have shown, only the west has mixed over the centuries with other races, explaining the vast differences in appearance (even within one family) as opposed to the identical appearances of Africans, Asians, and those of the middle-east.

We know that non-western cultures were, are, inherently tribal, and prefer to mix only with their own kind. There are no doubt exceptions, but we still see even in the very mixed in Italian and Greek cultures in Australia a tendency to marry their own.

I myself went to school with Italian girls who claimed their fathers would kill them if they married anyone but an Italian, and this was only ten years ago, so we're talking about third generation.

Studies by Professor Bob Birrell at Monash University show that, for Lebanese Muslims, it's appalling. 75% of the males go so far as to go back to the town in Lebanon where their family is from to find a wife, now there's xenophobia!

This is why there is also so much inbreeding, as to mix with outsiders is frowned upon. We've also seen cases of Muslim males marrying Australian girls being disowned by not only the family, but community as well, and been the subject of death threats.

This xenophobia, this institutional racism, and must be overcome.

I believe that in about a thousand years, non-western races will definitely be dominant in appearance, and there will be a race with Indian-Chinese characteristics, with whites also being mixed to quite a significant degree, the poor whites that is.

I see the wealthy whites being like the Jews of today, living within their own set of rules so to speak, where they dominate politics and business, and especially science, as they do today.

I don't see how you get Muslims into that future though, as they don't have children on the scale they do in Asia. In western democracies it's true that many have seven, eight, nine, kids, but one sees that in their countries of origin this isn't so as there is no welfare state.

I believe that the welfare state in the west will dissapear thanks to immigration from the third world too, as we simply won't be able to provide such advanced services with such large numbers living here from cultures that have no concept of empathy for those outside their tribe.

Which is exactly why such cultures don't have welfare, as the tendency to abuse it, to take it when it isn't needed, is too common.

You could be totally wrong though, as if the backward Iranians get their hands on the supreme of all western technology, the nuclear bomb, there will no doubt be a nuclear war - Israel will definitely retaliate, drawing in the rest of the tribal savages who occupy the area into all out war.

"You could be totally wrong though, as if the backward Iranians get their hands on the supreme of all western technology, the nuclear bomb, there will no doubt be a nuclear war - Israel will definitely retaliate, drawing in the rest of the tribal savages who occupy the area into all out war."

You are such a racist Benjamin, Iranians are far from backward. The apocalypse you describe is about as likely to happen as pigs flying. What would be the point of a nuclear exchange in the region?

Even with only Isreal possessing the capability, it would be stupid of Isreal to resort to such measures as it would be an own goal at the same time. Isreal will suffer just as much.

The nuclear powers are not using nuclear capability to defend 'civilised'living standards, they're using it as a threat to divide the world up between themselves - well at least from a natural resources point of view.... and they don't seem to care who gets in their way either.

Benjamin I did not realise you were so young, but that does not excuse your total lack of knowledge.

"opposed to the identical appearances of Africans, Asians, and those of the middle-east".

Try telling an Egyptian (yes it is in Africa) they look identical to a Zulu. Tell a Japanese they look like a Sikh from India, tell an Iranian (not arab) that they look like a Saudi.

Good grief what are we teaching kids today.

There's a lot of naivete out there, particularly from the Left, and it shows up in this thread.

Many people seem to think that Western values are so logical, so self-evidently beneficial, that other cultures will simply throw up their hands in surrender when confronted with the superiority of our way of life.

Surely the lesson of the past few years is that this is staggering hubris. Many in the Middle East and other places reject Western values, and probably always will. Migrants come to Australia for the economic opportunities, primarily. They don't necessarily ascribe to our values, as the rantings of that Hilaly ratbag and his strong grassroots support attest to.

Look at a country like Malaysia. It's had the opportunity to go the route of the West and it's said, no thanks, and is quite deliberately charting a course towards Islamic fundamentalism. Look at Turkey. An economically successful country but one which still has to have draconian laws to stop the Islamists from taking over. Look at Russia, democracy not doing too well there. Look at China: many seem to think that democracy there is inevitable. I'm not so sure

History does no fly off at tangents and you cannot extrapolate current trends indefinitely.

Sure India and China are potential dominant powers. Whether they can fulfill their potential remains to be seen.

History is littered with unfulfilled potential. Russia is a prime example for a long time it was bigger in size and population than the US. In the 30's while the west was in the great depression it's economy was booming. Ten years later its victorious armies were spread out over the world. Yet another 50 years later it's empire has collapsed and it is a shadow of its former self.

Europe too is undergoing a growth spurt. Twenty five years ago when southern Europe emerged from right wing dictatorship its nations were absorbed in the EU to protect their democracies. Northern Europeans scratched their heads and wondered how they were going to pay for it all. A generation on and Greece has held a successful Olympics and Spain's economy is more powerful than Italy's. The same is happening now that eastern Europe has escaped communism.

China and India have great potential and you'd hope that their politicians can make it happen for their citizens but don't be surprised if corruption and nepotism wreck the dream in the long run.

Interesting to listen to you all discuss this one.
Who knows how it will all unfold?

Especially if the gospel once again significantly strengthens humanity here - and there.
Thankfully, Christ is Lord of the nations, and also of history.

Even in the judgement of unbelief, the world is still in faithful hands.
Thankfully.
Perfect love casts out fear!

India....I can understand.
China... I can understand.

but "Islamic people"? perhaps someone can enlighten me on 'how' ?

here is food for thought.

ALL should visit and view this. (*warning*, dramatic footage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1ymxQZ-DLE#qI9AKgfzs3Y

I'd like to hear comments on exactly how we as normal citizens might respond to this ? (jdrmot@tpg.com.au if you wish to make a private comment)

cheers all.

Good question David,
My answer: The freedom which a person can have in Christ, is of such a high and excellent quality, that it needs to be better known, and appreciated among 'Westerners', if it is ever to make a significant impact upon the Islamic world.
Many coming out of Islam, into such freedom, warrant our support, help, and the use of our microphones, and publicity.
I personally know Daniel Shayesteh, formerly an Islamic fundamentalist in Iran. He knows this freedom, and has a very moving, very real story to help take the lid off this 'little by little' invasion of liberty.
People in our society need more knowledge of these things, to engage well with it all. Certainly the sanitised versions of the dynamics, we are regularly getting from the insipid politically correct media, need to be transcended, and by-passed. Sadly, we have relied on the mainstream TV and paper to be our interpreters. They are too naively optimistic, that we will all just live in harmony, once Islamic people 'feel' accepted.
A brief outline of Daniel's story:

http://www.cma.org.au/cmamissions/missprofiles.asp?name=Daniel%20Shayesteh

It must be very comforting for all these right wingers to know they are always right? Well at least they think they are. Whenever someone starts a post with leftist or rightist you know what will come next will be complete crap. Ben your young and we all know the education systems doesn't spend much time on these subjects anymore so your silly ideas can be forgiven. However many of the other posters have said some silly things to.
Lets start by restating that everyone has a right to improve their lives. These countries have every right to move into the first world. To talk about these like "containment" is blatant racism.
Next these countries cultures will change, just look at how the "West" has changed in the last 50 years. To think that they won't is silly.
Western culture is not the end point of humanity merely a stepping stone I for one look forward to the contribution that these people will have on humanities future. Sure there will be some bad, but over all it is something to look forward to.

Most of the left have hated the freedoms that came with adopting Christian principles. The selfishness of humanism will reap what it has sown. Their will be no G20 protests under Islamic law or Communism

Interesting topic.....

The trouble is, it's about religion. Which is the most powerful force for destruction on the planet. Yep, it's about hate: which engenders war and killing. Why?

Have a quiet think about the following.... Most of religion is about believing something. Whether it be that one person believes their is one "god" (their particular brand e.g Christianity), or many "gods" (viz-a-viz Hinduism), or some prophet of their "god".. or no "god" (other religions). These groups take it upon themselves to slaughter anyone else who doesn't believe the same as themselves. Just think about that for a minute.... why do humans do that?

In the book, Gulliver's Travels, the illustration of the Big-Endians and the Little Endians is exactly the parody I am after. (For the illiterate; it's a story about the conflict between two groups of people; one who cut the top off their boiled egg at the Big End and the other at the LIttle End - get it?)

So, in terms of the religious act, does the fact that you believe something:
a. make it right?
b. give you the self -appointed right to force others to (outwardly) believe it too?
c. demand rights, excuses, concessions, favourable laws and the altering of ethical standards just because YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING?

Give me a f&v*(cking break! I think all religions should take a long hard look at themselves and then leave us secular humanists to get on with our rational lives. Sure they can go all out in their hand-to- hand combat to convince each other they are right.

In the meantime stop bloody whinging about my inability to accede to your convoluted belief systems!

tennyson's_one_far-off_divine_event,

"Sadly, we have relied on the mainstream TV and paper to be our interpreters. They are too naively optimistic, that we will all just live in harmony, once Islamic people 'feel' accepted."

I think Jesus was just as optimistic - "just love each other"?

I'm with Iluvatar.

Similarly, the whole thing reminds me of the Red Dwarf episode where Cat is about to be the last of his kind, since all the other Cat people had died fighting over whether it was religiously correct that they should wear the green, or the red hats, despite the two schools of thought being identical in every other conceivable way. Idiots.

Sounds sadly like our future if we stay the current course.

Stomont: Thank's mate !

I have a belief - call it blind faith, if you like.

This world without religion would be a more peaceful place.

Now let's see the argy bargy over that one !!

"Myself, I married an Asian woman and I’m learning to speak Chinese. I think I’m almost inoculated."

I hate to call you an idiot, but that is a stupid, racist comment, since we are talking about the second half of this century and it has nothing to do with anything other than you feeling better than other people because of your association with an Asian (presumably).

What are you inoculated against by marrying an Asian woman and when will this Chinese language benefit you exactly? You could be doing something far more constructive with your future than learning Chinese. Whether you like it or not, white people have led this world up until this point and countries with white people have the best standards of living and freedoms (as always there are exceptions and this is a general rule). I don't see China bringing in reforms that will markedly change anything for several decades, because corruption is pervasive (both institutional and personal, like in most developing countries around the world).

Tennysons.....

Well said bro.... my biggest fear for people like Daniel is that they have come to Christ in an environment where they put their lives on the line, and perhaps here in Australia, the quality of our discipleship is so lamentably 'social' and tame they might loose heart in us.

I've begun taking it to the coal face by attending various protests where I find there are many people who are quite open to an alternative to the same old same old political perspectives they know in reality don't mean much. I'm inspired by many conversations I've had now, where it is easy to bring Christ into the convo in a relevant way. The main starting point is when people recognize that 'we' are the main problem, in our own hearts.

On 9th of December there will be (?) a 'bikini march' to a mosque in Melbourne. Apparently its organized by some right wing groups but I don't know many details. I'm sure such an event would have people's juices flowing one way or the other. Who knows, there might be opportunities there also.

I do know one thing though, unless we become more vigilant about trends in our society and challenge falsehood where it stands, we will only have ourselves to blame for the 'new management' referred to in the article.

We pray and soldier on :)

I don't want to live under any theocracy. That includes Christianity, which appears to be seeping into government policy in Australia. Christianity is as bad as Islam when it comes to politics and interfering with individual freedom..ok it's slightly better at this moment in time, but there isn't really a good example of a Christian theocracy, so we have no comparison....Oh wait Christianity in a more archaic configuration was equally as obscene and violent.. Basically anyone who believes in liberty should not tolerate any religious interference in the daily lives of fellow citizens, because as soon as a religion overtakes policy, they start dictating how people should live and restricting freedoms.

It's unfair of secular humanists to speak as if they are the "rational" ones whereas the religious are fundamental crazies, ready to kill anyone who does not share their beliefs.

I'm a "strong" Christian. One of my friends is a strong Hindu. Another, a strong Jew. Another, a strong Muslim. Another, a strong atheist. Another, a strong Pagan. Another, a strong Bhuddist. Another, a strong member of the Sikh religion. Another, a strong Hare Krishna. Etc, etc.

I'm also pretty rational. I work hard at university and achieve high marks in the science/health faculty.

Did my attendance of an AOG church this morning, however, suddenly make me grossly irrational? I think not.

Please afford those who hold supernatural philosophies/beliefs the same respect you would give those of naturalistic beliefs. Making crazy generalisations about the religious is akin to the religious making generalisations about secularists (want to take over the world, outlaw religion, replace it with worship of self, etc.)

"Please afford those who hold supernatural philosophies/beliefs the same respect you would give those of naturalistic beliefs"

Depends what you call naturalistic beliefs. The laws of nature
are there for all to observe, quite different from people who
believe in an imaginary friend to feel good.

Sorry, I won't respect what you believe, but respect your right
to believe it, if it makes you happy etc.

"(want to take over the world, outlaw religion, replace it with worship of self, etc.)"
I haven't heard of any secularists making these statements...well, possibly "outlaw religion" once or twice in the fringes of debate, but never in the mainstream (and I would side with religion on that one myself). But I have heard of mainstream religious groups consistently making statements about homosexuality, abortion and contraception and sometimes religious groups trying to spread their religion under the veil of medical aid. So, it is well established that mainstream religion tries to restrict freedoms as soon as they enter politics. Secularists accept religion in society, as long as they keep to themselves. Unfortunately religious groups seem to have this overwhleming urge to convert people and interfere with their lives through politics.

K£vin,
Just one point, in reply.

Jesus said many things.
"Just love each other" was not one of them.

He did say 'love another, as I have loved you'
To add the word 'just' is to put a spin on his teaching, which alters the whole meaning.

Jesus linked loving one another with (1) obeying his commandments (2) knowing God and (3) responding to the love, revealed at the cross. These, together with (4) embracing the truth of his resurrection, and its implications, constitute 'the whole counsel of God'.

To love within the context of life, history, the future, the creation and all people, involves being on about what God is on about.

K£vin, if you desire to correct Christian comment, by quoting Jesus, you just need to be far more accurate.

Or you will just be ... unjust.
That's just about it for now.

Tennysons..

You quoted

"Jesus linked loving one another with (1) obeying his commandments (2) knowing God and (3) responding to the love, revealed at the cross. These, together with (4) embracing the truth of his resurrection, and its implications, constitute 'the whole counsel of God'"

In other words Jesus (pbuh) asked you to love people only if they share your faith and possibly the same church.

the same church with you only.

Boaz,

Do you support this view?

Peace

T

Nope.
You totally mis-read my post.

Love is not, (as you suggest I am saying), conditional upon the religion, creed, colour, shape, size, nationality, gender, goodness, badness, worthiness, or not, of the recipient of love. Not at all.

The issue here is 'What, according to Jesus, does it mean to love?'
It is not what we assume it to be.

Love is not limited by a vague adjective like "just", but rather defined by a human person, and his work of redemption, and his teaching (namely Jesus).

Love is what Jesus expounds, and reveals, and unveils, and displays it to be.
Hence the need to link the word love, not to the word: 'just' - but rather, to the whole counsel of God, to his character as Father (God is Love), his plan in sending his, his will for creation, and humanity, and so on.

Steel... I would not want to live under a Christian 'theocracy' either. So you are safe from me anyway.
The Christianity "creeping" into politics, is possibly more the RETURNing of it to where it has been hounded out by secularists.
Can you imagine the MCG with a crowd of 150,000 and all listening to Billy Graham preach ? The largest crowd EVER in the MCG attended a spiritual event. That at least tells you something about the level of faith in our community in 1957.

DEMOCRACY and FAITH. Steel, in a democracy, the people decide the laws. If sufficient people are 'Christian' they will enact laws they feel comfortable with. The one law they will NEVER implement is "You shall believe in Christ".

F.H. Brother Tennyson explained his point well. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, "If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have, even the sinners do that much".

The New Testament however, also gives authority to the STATE to prevent bad behavior, and if needed the sanction of the SWORD is valid. If an Emperor happens to be Christian, the use of the sword is still valid, providing it is used justly against the evildoer, not the peaceful law abiding citizens.

Coming down for the Bikini march ? :)

This thread has gone too far into preaching.... let's truncate it now.

Anyone else can go to the Hillsong Church for refreshment. ;-)

Tennysons..

Thanks for clarification.

Boaz,

You quoted:
"The one law they will NEVER implement is "You shall believe in Christ".

If there is one thing in history is once a theocracy is in power, it have a funny way of evolving into violence...no theocracies for me thanks...
Thanks for the bikini march invite...am sure you will enjoy it.

Peace,

T