Thanks Jack, take your point but I think it is “sticky” to suggest our Aboriginal culture didn’t do anything worthwhile. It all depends on our point of view – what is important (or not important) to one culture may not be as important to another. What makes one “right” and the other “wrong?”

As to other cultures forcing their culture on us … we could be forcing ours on them. This is the dilemma I think Australia is finding itself in – we have to find a balance, which brings me to your question.

Asian and Mid-East countries make it extremely difficult, as you would know and as I have experienced myself – BUT, this does not make it right or indeed acceptable.

I had hoped Australia would be able to do the right thing, but I fear we are just too juvenile. We are born into the life we have – you (I) could be a Muslim, Christian, Jew, atheist, whatever. We could also come from Oz, Somalia, China, Mars, whatever. We are what we are so why should any of us have less (more) rights than anyone else.

We have a finite planet with finite resources. Unless we can live with respect for other people’s differences, while maintaining our own human rights and growing in a sustainable way – we’re stuffed.

If we continue to live in a divergent world (us/them) we will always have conflict, between countries and cultures – this can’t be good.

Dear Q&A,

You're a person after my own heart... Well said indeed!

As I've said time and time again on so many of my posts - whether we choose to destroy our civilisation or save it it is a collective decision and hopefully may well be made within our lifetimes...

But if hatred is allowed to fester and grow, then surely we risk our own destruction. If ways are found to reverse the process then we can divert unprecedented energy and resources to the real problems that face us, including poverty, oppression, unemployment, and the devastation of our natural environment. We may hope and trust that our ultimate choice will be to enhance the life on this beautiful brown land on which all 20 million+ of us share our adventure.

Jack the Lad: "CJ, when you wrote, 'the lunar right and their knuckledragging cohorts ' did you mean fascists from the moon? Or was it just a bit of 'vacuous sloganeering'?"

Neither Jack. I was referring to vacuous oafs like you.

I thought my meaning was quite clear :)

Q & A said:

"We are what we are so why should any of us have less (more) rights than anyone else."

My goodness... *think* mate... are you actually suggesting that Australia does not have a culture ? and that if it does, it should simply be 'one of many' here and not assert its heritage at all? but just let all and sundry (who have a STRONG sense of their culture) promote and defend theirs...but not we ours?

Ok.. lets look at some practical outcomes of your policy:

GREETINGS..
-A Maori rubs noses...we shake hands.
-Japanese bow, we shake hands.
-Some Eskimo's share their wives with visitors. We don't

FOOD. Muslims (and Jews) don't eat pork, we do. All public functions should specifically exclude pork because of them ?

DRESS/ATTIRE.
-Driving licences and many other things require photographic ID. Many Muslims don't like the idea of women being photographed.
-Some Pacific Island cultures regard bear breasts as 'normal' but showing thighs as 'sleazy'..should we adjust our dress to accomodate?

LANGUAGE.. Many people who come here speak different languages. Should our schools offer education in ALL languages?

There are many aspects of culture which concflict. We have to decide which should prevail. If we have a culture here.. IT should prevail.

So, if a Japanese man greets our Prime Minister, he is welcome to bow, AND shake hands, but don't expect our PM to bow. (or rub noses)

On the other hand, if our PM goes to Japan, he is welcome to Bow out of respect for the local culture. Same with visiting a Maori area, he can rub noses.

Is this really so hard to grasp?

Q & A ... more for you:

You said:

"If we continue to live in a divergent world (us/them) we will always have conflict, between countries and cultures – this can’t be good."

There are 2 major barriers to removing 'us/them'......

1/ Linguistic. (which language should prevail)

2/ Religious.

If 1.4 billion people believe in 'us/them' and do so based on theological foundations such as:

9: 29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

....then Im afraid you have an uphill battle.

Now.. you might think "Oh.. he is just cherry picking verses, taking them out of context to suit his argumentative purpose"

to which I respond.. "No, I'm not" I've researched this chapter and this verse extensively, and find support for the understanding I am offering, in the hadith, and biographies of Mohammad.

So...your idea of 'get rid of them/us' is simply not achievable.
-Bali
-9/11
-London
-Spain
-US embassies in Kenya etc

CONCLUSION. You said if we have them/us it can't be good.. I AGREE totally, but as long as such religious/cultural ideas as outlined above exist.. it is unavoidable. So, we must take steps to protect ourselves from the impact of large numbers of people who hold incompatable ideas.
For me, this involves
-selective immigration (based on values)
-History focus on how we arrived where we are.
-Promotion of Australian identity and harmony (rather than diversity)

Boazy, thanks for your considered response. Really, you have put a lot of time in it and I can’t help but picture you burning the midnight oil (or you are an early morning riser who burns a computer keyboard), cheers.

I did say “We are what we are so why should any of us have less (more) rights than anyone else."

And you respond “My goodness... *think* mate... are you actually suggesting that Australia does not have a culture?”

No, I am not suggesting that.

So while I appreciate your subsequent effort in rebuttal, your argument is based on a false premise (suggesting something which I did not). Your time and effort would therefore be wasted, unless of course you have intentionally responded this way to misrepresent what I was saying for your own purposes.

I say this because you go on to say “Ok.. lets look at some practical outcomes of your policy”

No, this is not my policy – again, you are inferring this yourself and completely miss the point – so your argument is not valid.

All I can suggest is read my post again – but please, take off the blinkers, you sound as if you’re tunnel visioned with one purpose and one purpose alone.

Step back, try and see from another perspective … with a love that Jesus would, if that is your sway.

It is Sunday; I have other things to attend to. However, I felt you deserved some response given the thought and time you have given yourself.

Maybe we can continue another day or on another thread, these are serious issues that should not be prejudiced against. Thanks