Col

I think we are together on that. The question is how can we best assist the process and how long it will take? I think aspects of MC such as interest in each others cultures assist the process.

And importantly, what do we do in the meantime. I personally look at some cultures with excitement, and hope that they will be included. But things which we consider bad, the questions are how harmful are they to us, will they go away with the next generation, or do we need to stop them in their tracks.

David

If Islam is to reform anywhere it will be here. The old convict memory and attitudes are too strong, I worry about it less than you do. I laugh at some of the old Yiddish customs brought here by my great grandparents, but some of the are fine, and some Yiddish words are even in the Australian form of English.

Be concerned, but have patience.

The best quote from the article is "showing respect for each other’s culture, religion and race is a core universal value and fundamental to our democratic principles."

A fundamental starting point is the freedom to choose, and more importantly, CHANGE religion. This is found in the earliest of UN documents.

So, how can you apply a universalist notion to cultures and religions which do not share universalist principles. Notice race is not the question or issue here, as all HUMANS have inalienable rights even the unborn, but, the UN is trying to revise that one out of its founding documents and is another debate...

So how can we support MC when some groups do not ascribe to the underlying principles that allow its very existance? Can a Muslim go to Rome? Sure can, even into St Peter's, and in the absence of overt external signs, he/she could probably go to communion, or more likely, visit the very large mosque built in that city and across western Europe.

Can a westerner visit Mecca, or attend a cathedral in Saudi territory?

All of this boils down to some aspects being based on assent (to believe, follow the rule of law etc) cf to submission to force.

Hi Reality,

You've hit the nail on the head, pointing out that cultural relativism -- the pretence that all systems of values are equally valid -- is a dangerous falsehood.

"Multiculturalism" isn't cultural relativism. (Dresdner: it's not a Canadian coinage, it's Lenin's)

Multiculturalism encourages international relations, which in turn can encourage liberalisation of the places whence people have fled illiberal regimes.

It's about making minorities welcome in the nation they find themselves in after migration, revolution or annexation; protecting them from oppression by the majority population; encouraging them to bring gifts to the cultural table (dancing aside). It's simple good manners.

It also helps prevent or delay the disappearance of beautiful (even quaint) cultural practices. The Amish stay Amish and the Hasidim Hasidic through jealous defence of their own difference. Multiculturalism affords similar protection to people from less determinedly anachronistic cultures.

What multiculturalism must not do is privilege "tradition" within these protected minorities above reasonable law, permitting people to abuse "their" women and children by segregation, forced marriage, sexual or psychological abuse or by compromising their education.

All these abuses are -- as asserted above -- consequences of extreme religious belief. The unacknowledged elephant in the room is that the same flaws exist in *any* privilege of faith (even "moderate" religion) over reason. The right to practice one's religion should not extend to the right to teach one's children that faith trumps reason.

This is the subject of Chapter 9 of Richard Dawkins' book _The God Delusion_. I read this chapter last night, and it articulated what I failed to say clearly here before.

Secular principles (even when upheld by an established Church as in England) provide a country with freedom from extremism and a stable legal framework, and make it an attractive destination for refugees.

Extremism within majority "host cultures" is just as capable of assaulting sanity as minorities. Christian Reconstructionists threaten America like the Muslim Brotherhood threatens Egypt; both countries are at greater risk from their majority religions than Australia will ever be from any immigrant minority.

xoddam, apparently your religion and biblical resource is ok though, since you are free to use both to dictate to others how they should behave.

The very thing refugees are fleeing is their cultural behaviors. Multiculturalism ensures they make no clean break but, bring their nonsense with them to their host country which, prior to their arrival, had not that difficulty.

Very fvnny, aqvarivs. Science and law are not bibles.

I accord no canonical privilege to Dawkins nor any other science writer, I am merely persuaded to agree with them. I retain the ability and the right to persuaded by something better. Likewise I don't think the law of the land is perfect, but it makes a better and more useful starting point than anyone's holy book.

I do not tell anyone how to behave. If anyone is persuaded to agree with me by my writing then I will be rather pleased.

There are existing legal obligations on parents to ensure the safety and the education of children in our community. What I am doing is not dictating, but advocating an extension of the child protection already mandated by our community. There's a very good argument that religious indoctrination is a form of psychological abuse; it makes sense that children should be protected from it.

Any public policy which forces immigrants to "make a clean break" is *precisely* dictatorial. I have no idea who gave you the idea that Australia's existing multicultural policy imposes anything -- if people want to make a clean break from their past, on arrival in Australia as immigrants or at any time in their lives, they are free to do so.

xoddam

I for one think you have hit the nail on the head. We do have a right to forbid certain practices which go against our own dearly held principles. Within those boundaries, defined usually by law and public knowledge, people should be allowed to exist.

If we make it clear that these practicess (eg forced marriage) is not allowed, immigrants have a clear boundary. If their behaviour seems strange or amusing to the rest that is their problem, if on the other hand locals like their handcrafts or food or manners that will be appreciated. But the locals should still be encouraged to understand legitimate customs of the new arrivals, that to me is multiculturalism.

With regard to the indigenous inhabitants however the rules must be different. After all in this case the rest of us are the intruders.