Oliver,

Re “the three religions lived harmoniously side-by-side under an atmosphere of freedom”

I think you may be simplifying it a bit too much and, this may encourage some who have in the past seen Muslim rule in Spain (from beginning to end) as a multicultural/liberal golden age.

“In general the caliphate of Cordova was a remarkably tolerant regime under which Christians and Jews were able to prosper , though, as in Umayyad Syria, , there were limits to that tolerance and the Christians and Jews were discriminated against in all sorts of ways*. The caliphate of Cordova fell apart in the early decades of the eleventh century and towards the end of the same century Spain was occupied by the Almoravids, Moroccan Berbers who espoused a much more bigoted form of Islam. Both Christians and Jews were intermittently persecuted by the new masters of al-Andalus (Muslim Spain). In 1066 there was a massacre of Jews in Granada. A number of Christian Churches were demolished and many Christians and Jews were deported to North Africa. [ For Lust Of Knowing – By Robert Irwin]

*This discrimination included:
Death to anyone proselytising Muslims
Death to anyone who hid apostates’.
Death to anyone who insulted Islam.

(More like a modern Muslim society, than a modern multicultural/liberal society)

"Anglo Christian tribalism"? Really?
The many and diverse non Anglo Christians have told me plenty about a certain non- Christian tribalism that discriminated against them, mocked them, tortured them and even killed many of their family past and present. They migrated to Canada, the US, Australia and Europe to get away from this horrible situation.

Will enough people and will our media speak up on behalf of the Middle Eastern Christian people and African Christians who have suffered, been raped, died, had their daughters kidnapped?
I somehow don't think so.
We live in an new era of secular humanist intolerance against Christians in which secularists have absolutely no shame about using hypocritical words and actions. Very unilateral behaviour.

Ho-hum. Another standard Anglo-bashing article in which the European Christian majority in this country is demonised as "intolerant" and blamed for the failure of Muslim immigrants to assimilate and fit in to Western society.

According to the author's logic, if certain immigrant minorities are culturally incompatible with the host society, then it must be the host population's fault. Rather than the newcomers changing to better fit in with the host population, the host population must change to better suit the newcomers. If they don't, then they are "intolerant", "bigoted", "xenophobic", even "racist".

I can only imagine what would happen if a large population of Westerners moved en masse into a Muslim country, say Nursel Güzeldeniz's ancestral homeland, and demanded that the host society change to suit the newcomers and redefine itself as a multicultural country (an oxymoron if ever there was one). When the Muslim host population reacts in fear and outrage to the changes this alien cultural group is imposing on their country, the Westerners answer: "What are you so uptight about, brothers? You need to accept and acknowledge that your country is now a multicultural society, and to come to terms with this fact. Your old, pre-multicultural identity is no longer valid."

Of course, if Western immigrants flooded into Muslim countries and began changing those societies to better suit themselves, they would be accused of "cultural imperialism" and more than likely forcibly evicted by the host populations.

Pericles wrote: "I've always particularly liked this objection, because it is effectively saying "we should conduct our communities like they do in Saudi Arabia", without the slightest trace of irony."

Oh, I see.

So, in order to demonstrate our moral superiority over the intolerant, we here in Australia should be tolerant of groups which are highly intolerant and accept peoples and cultures that would never accept us if the roles were reversed?

Obviously tolerance, like immigration, is a one-way street.

Moral superiority is I suppose one way of looking at it, Efranke.

>>So, in order to demonstrate our moral superiority over the intolerant, we here in Australia should be tolerant of groups which are highly intolerant and accept peoples and cultures that would never accept us if the roles were reversed? Obviously tolerance, like immigration, is a one-way street.<<

Or you could call it civilization.

Which is in a very crude sense a form of moral superiority, I suppose.

Otherwise, why would we have bothered introducing tolerance into our culture in the first place?

The process of civilization over the centuries has always been a matter of choosing behaviours which makes it easier to live as a group, and rejecting those which don't.

I for one feel that is a good thing, rather than something to be regretted.

You clearly don't.

I'll bet these immigrants didn't do all this moaning and groaning in the the countries they came from - they know what would have happended to them if they did.

We are told that these people are escaping from totalitarianism and persecution; but, when the arrive in a democratic country, they don't like that either. The only difference is that they can feel free to citicise their hosts because they know that they can get away with it. They abuse free speech, and blame the host culture for their own problems.

I'm sick and tired of johnny come latelies badmouthing Australia. Nursel Guzeldeniz is an extremely rude person, as are all immigrants who can't keep their mouths shut and be grateful for being allowed to come here.