Reading a number of other threads has got me thinking: what kind of social norms do we want for our country in the future? I’m pretty sure that a degree of tolerance of difference and freedom of thinking and belief is very high on the agendas of just about anyone who is likely to be reading this thread.

A site like OLO gives us the freedom to vent, to put our own ideas into public space, and to challenge and be challenged.

A common theme on many threads is the tension between the ideals of a coherent society and that of one which provides space for expressing differences in ways of living, belief, values, and life experience.

What do people see as the essential differences between multiculturalism, pluralism, secularism and any other kind of hey-we’re-not-all-the-same-but-that’s-okay-ism?

What are the rules of engagement?

What is non-negotiable?

Point 1 - Having once been both a weekly church goer for over 12 months and a weekly mosque goer for over 12 months, I reckon a true christian and true muslim are more likely to have more in common than an irreligious "western" man and a christian western man.

Point 2 - In my short 40 years I reckon "mainsteam" culture has changed so much that yesteryear's "western" man has less in common with today's western man than todays muslim.

It is quite plain that "multiculture" is an abysmal failure. Society has deconstructed into tribes, each with their own failures and few successes.
There is crime, violence,religious intolerance and the free and easy Australian way is under deep threat because of the same tribal division.
It is an experiment turned toxic.It is our way of life that is now being called immoral.....by those who's religion excuses the most dreadful butchery now going on in the world today.
It is an experiment that will only lead to terrible anguish, all in the name of the failed utopia of socialism.

It never ceases to amaze me how humans form tribes. Then they brand others as "not one of us".

Yellow Peril
Reds under the bed
evil zionists
murderous islam

Who next?

If our leaders promote similarities and not differences things may change. But the politics of fear are alive and well and nothing has changed.

Indeed,

If given a choice to move to a more appropriate nation in the world somewhere which one would they choose?

It doesn't exist...

Mickijo, society has not deconstructed into tribes, it never evolved out of them. People have a deep-seated need to belong. Those that have a strong family background and deep sense of self will be better equip to tolerate and live with the difference of others. You can see Western vs Muslim (as opposed to Christan vs muslim - very interesting), catholic vs protestant, white vs black, pom vs mick, Greek vs croat, and so many more permutations that they are immeasurable. It is human nature to seek out those that are similar to you. It is comforting and uplifting to be surrounded by those with similar opinions and beliefs that understand why you are a certain way. The question is whether these tribes can co-exist in close proximity, and if so, then how long will the peace hold.

Dear Snout
your topic is most important and raises vital and timely issues!

Secularism for example is just as much an 'ism' as the rest. It equally marginalizes Christians and Muslims, but probably less so for Buddhists and Hindus.

There are 3 basic approaches.

1/ Open slather..
each man doing what is right in his own eyes (Judges 20:21) which will inevitably result is absolute chaos such as we are seeing now in Iraq.

2/ Strict Secularism.
Total separation of Church/Religion and State.
Which communicates the unspoken message that we are nothing more than 'organisms' (to quote a medical text book)in a meaningless universe where it does not ultimately matter squat what we do.

3/ Cultural Prevalence.
Where the nation has a basic cultural glue which all are aware of holding it together. Once this is recognized, all sub culturess can then know their place relative to the main. Not in an 'inferior' manner, but in position/peck order.. however u want to put it.(one of those inescapable things in life)

How would "3" translate into Education ? Simple. We can inculcate agreed values at every level. This can include our Judao Christian heritage, but not in an 'enforced belief' manner more in a 'values' way. (which is impossible)it should also include our broad Western History and our place in it.

If the only message Secularism can send to our emerging youth is:

"The only thing you can believe with confidence is that there is nothing absolute to believe in"

-Then we will reap a generation of alienated, lonely, violent, uncaring members of a clockwork orange nihilistic society that looks after number ONE.

Forunately, we are FINALLY seeing the signs of the total death of Multiculturalism in the Australian Article yesterday. "Multiculturalism is a dirty word"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20697488-601,00.html

Now we need to advance to the next step of embracing our true culture, re-captureing the best of the 50s, and rejecting the worst,
and synthesizing it into a vibrant new integrated and assimilated Australia.
The 60s ? just consign them to the pit of hell where they belong. (along with Bratz dolls) :)

Apoligies to Snout... kinda off topic.

Dear Savior68

I'm most concerned that you have headed in the direction of a Mosque.
Could you elaborate a little please ?

You mentioned 12 months in 'a' church....then a mosque.
Which church ?

Can I ask.. have you made the effort to study the scriptures yourself..and sought to meet the Living Christ in the Gospels and Letters of the Apostles ? Have you considered the conversion of Paul?

Please look closely at the man Mohammed, and not at the sugar coated screen saver portrait you are given by Islamic web sites and at Mosques.

Dig..dig... claw away the outer shell of 'respectability' which Muslims have built up around this man they revere as "The best of mankind" and ask how the 'best' can have 11 or more wives, can cut off the hands and feet of thieves, and poke their eyes out with hot irons and leave them to die slowly... ask ask ask...

Ask how the best of mankind can take as wife (against his own laws) a woman who's father he has had killed and husband he has just decapitated (Kinana at Khaiber).. and if you believe the earliest Islamic biographical source 'Sirat Rasul'(Ibn Ishaq)...had also tortured. These are hard 'spade a spade' questions which must be faced honestly. You will be told by some Imams that Ishaq is 'a liar' as claimed by another early historian 'Malik'...but I refer you to a discusion of 'sources' in Muir, which seems very balanced and honest.
Read his treatment of Ibn Ishaq and various others.

http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Muir/Life1/chapter1.htm

You will be told also that the above site is 'propoganda' etc..but if you read very carefully, you will see the purity of motivation of the scholar Muir. He even claims the Quran is very well preserved as a document.

but then.. compare.. contrast.. with the Lord Jesus. I make no apology for stating it like this. A verses B... its valid and can make the difference to your own eternal destiny.

yes multiculturalism has become a dirty word, good ole paul keating
if people come to australia they should accept that as otherwise why did they leave their own country in the first place, for a better way of life.

Their are values within this culture of being able to do as you would like, speak as you like and so on but some of those that come here and that have been here for many years have taken no notice and have just prefered to stay in their old ways.

Change is for us the people to make and if we do not stand up then who will do it.

Australian Peoples Party

email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

This is a choice
like the old saying you can take a horse to water but cannot make him drink.

tapp

Get your facts straight, multiculturalism was introduced by Malcolm Fraser.

It has served us well until the wedge politics of our "liberal" govt. saw it as a way to divide the nation.

If you want to start a new political party the least you can do is understand our history.

I want to add some minority points.

These views are my own:

In answer to Snout, I think that individual sovereignty is non-negotiable. This anchors us as individuals. Growth is form there.

savior's points have merit, as we see old Aussie fade away, replaced by a contrite 'other'.

mickijo's socialist utopia deserves to fail as a foistered experiment. Particularly in light of the self-appointed shadow government continually howling and enforcing its machinations.

I hope we never see reverse racism.

Rainers right, he sees the complaints against what we have; but they want it for their own.

I hope that those who don’t want to be grafted onto society, won’t be squeezed away from Gals Country.

Boaz, your on yer own (too long)

i like to tapp to the song of a different tune (a God one), but i would prefer to be Aussie valued.

So there you go, i used the above to summarize what i look forward too, and hope Snout finds my responses worthy of the post.

Get your facts straight, multiculturalism was introduced by Malcolm Fraser.

It has served us well until the wedge politics of our "liberal" govt. saw it as a way to divide the nation.

If you want to start a new political party the least you can do is understand our history.

Oh well it seems that i was wrong about that you wouldnt see that from labor /liberal or the others.
It had seemed that the keating labor government had opened the floodgates when they where in.
Oh and about history
one would notice that when capt philip came to australia he had to fight the aboriginals for the place just like war and the british won.
Hence why is it that we have to give land rights native title when it is obvious.
If this is not what happens to america,europe,england and lets keep going do we give it all back to the chimps or unless you are god fearing, palistians/jewish,isrealis
please disregard spelling that is not what it is about.
to divide the nation is easy look here on cracker the papers easy.

Also one would like to go forward than backwards like we are doing now

Whatever we have, there is no law or policy (e.g. multiculturalism) that can make us think what we don't wish to think.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of a friendly chat at a picnic ground with a friendly bloke of Greek birth.

He told me "Australia is the most tolerant country in the world"

If you are in Greece, he said...there is only ONE religion.."Greek Orthodox" if you are not 'Greek Orthodox' you cannot get any social service or welfare. Employment is also difficult. (His words not mine)

He said.."I was born in Greece, but my children are more Aussie, and their children will be even more so"

Gadget.. yes.. its feeling a bit lonely out here :) (hmm.. note to self..."Remember 'the power of ONE' " :)

Multiculturalism is a sad political word. I believe it was introduced to curry favor with migrant groups who may have been perceived to be in important electorates. There must have been a strategic decision balancing the probabilities of a migrant swinging vote verses traditional ausse backlash.

But.... now we take heart it is DEAD..and now we will see more of integration and assimilation and national unity, national values, cultural solidarity etc

and of course.. Utopia will undoubtedly arrive within a short decade and we will all have picket fences, 4 ducks on the wall, and father will know best, and and.. and... :)

It is laughable to think that multiculturalism "served us well" until the advent of "wedge politics". The reason things are falling apart is not due to the political milieu but because of the underlying faults of trying to maintain special interests without acknowledging the overarching primacy of the dominant culture. This is coming to a head now, it would have done so regardless of who was in office. Perhaps it has been hastened by the Howard government but it was inevitable.

Lionel...I'm heartened to see a new contributor come out with a strong point as you did. "amen".

Promote this truth among your friends and family mate... I'm doing the same.

I'm taking every opportunity to engage on this issue, and forge stronger Australian cultural bonds and awareness.

Steve Madden,
Your first post; Multiculturalismm highlights the differences and causes divisions in the comunity. An idoelogy that has failed. "unity in diversity" indeed?

Your second post; I believe you will find that MC was first introduced by Grassby and Whitlam. I can recall them promoting the concept of all lovey dovey, with children in colourful costumes, dragon parades and beer festivals, etc. No mention of the baggage of hate and massive cultural differences that came as well They followed the Canadians as it was the "in" thing to do. Fraser, the fool, merely kept it going.
Millions have been wasted on this and a whole industry built around it, that produces nothing.

The sooner MC is discarded the better and will lead to a much more harmonious community.

Banjo

Wrong again.

1977 - the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council, appointed to advise the Fraser Liberal-Country Party Government, recommended a public policy of multiculturalism in its report Australia as a multicultural society.

1978 - the first official national multicultural policies were implemented by the Fraser Government, in accord with recommendations of the Galbally Report in the context of government programs and services for migrants.

1979 - an act of parliament established the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (AIMA), whose objectives included raising awareness of cultural diversity and promoting social cohesion, understanding and tolerance

Snout, I reckon BD has identified one of the non-negotiables: "Australia is the most tolerant country in the world"

Tolerant:

# showing respect for the rights or opinions or practices of others
# kind: tolerant and forgiving under provocation; "our neighbor was very kind about the window our son broke"
# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
# able to tolerate environmental conditions or physiological stress; "the plant is tolerant of saltwater"; "these fish are quite tolerant as long as extremes of pH are avoided"; "the new hybrid is more resistant to drought"
# showing the capacity for endurance; "injustice can make us tolerant and forgiving"; "a man patient of distractions"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

STEVE... re the MultiCultural council thingy...

"objectives included raising awareness of cultural_diversity and promoting social_cohesion, understanding and tolerance"

I'm wondering.....does anyone else see it ? :)

DIVERSITY and SOCIAL COHESIAN. errrr..cough...splutter... choke... gasp.....

The person who wrote that knows very little about 'culture' I feel.
"The shared beliefs and behaviors of a group/race/tribe"

Now..practically speaking, you can only have harmony to the extent that (just like the old Venn diagram) you have 'overlap' of agreement or compatible values.

At every point where there is 'conflict' or.. simple difference, a choice has to be made.. "yours or mine" ?

Bottom line, there are so many holes and flaws in that 'objective' that it could only ever have been coined for political purposes.

If 2 cultures are only 20% compatible.. errr 'cohesian' ? NOOOO.. it will be fracture, disruption, conflict and disharmony.. "I'm Chinese, hmmm I'll make my business sign only in CHINESE" errrr...seems silly doesn't it, if not for the very fact that this is what Marrickville council is grappling with.

How could anyone be so incredibly THICK headed, ignorant and discriminatory, not to mention racist, as to put a foreign language ONLY on his business ?

Well..that is 'the thing'...they do ! and thats just one example. What about speaking ONLY to those of your race in YOUR language in the tea room ? We had a blow up about that once.. 3 philippino girls (out of say 10 people) spoke ONLY to each other, in THEIR language, and totally isolated the rest of us. We tried to include them, but it was like they had to be mentally re-oriented each time. One looked quite strained at the thought of actually having social interaction with 'us'.

Something I value highly is COURTESY in mixed groups.. and that includes language. Clearly 'my' (aussie?) value was in conflict with that of a small sub group and when the issue was raised (not by me) it exploded into a very loud anti_Australian yelling match.

We want to include...but the "culturally exclusive brethen" sometimes just don't wanna be included :)

do for others......etc

Boazy

Maybe my point of view is different because I have felt the descrimination of the primacy of the dominant culture.

I am an immigrant from anglo-irish roots, I arrived in Australia in 1969.

The dominant culture was rugby league, I played soccer with all the other wogs. In fact I was the only english speaking wogball player in the team.

I remember one kid who said "Australian's can fight, have you ever heard of Johnny Famechon", the idiot did not even realise Famechon was French.

I then reminded him of Enry's 'Ammer and was never picked on again.

This was way before multiculturalism, Australia needs tolerance and acceptance not vilification of minorities because it gives people a sense of superiority.

What a boring place we would live in if we all accepted the conventional wisdom of the dominant culture.

Boaz, once again your stance fascinates me.

>>Yesterday I had the pleasure of a friendly chat at a picnic ground with a friendly bloke of Greek birth.

He told me "Australia is the most tolerant country in the world"<<

What I cannot work out - and you are going to help me with this, I'm sure - is whether you see his description that we are "tolerant" as praise, or as a term of opprobrium?

As w kindly pointed out, tolerant means "showing respect for the rights or opinions or practices of others", being "forgiving under provocation", and "showing or characterized by broad-mindedness"

Yet everything you have written on this subject places your position at the other end of the tolerance scale.

You are continually putting forward the proposition that we should be far less tolerant of other people's opinions or practices, but instead somehow reprocess them into a replica of yourself, and opinions and your practices - the Australian way.

Do you see my problem?

Did you point out to your Greek friend that you believe this to be a grave failing of Australian society, to be so tolerant?

Or did you enthusiastically endorse his opinion, contrasting it with the repressive background he described for his erstwhile homeland?

Time to make it clear, Boaz. Do you see yourself as tolerant? Do you really see Australia as tolerant? And is it a good or a bad thing, this tolerance?

Steve First.
I don't think anything I've said would justify your experience of discrimination mate... All I'm saying is that when there is an actual 'clash'....then something has to give. On balance, the newcomer should give way out of courtesy to the resident, but I'd not suggest this in some legalistic way..more of a guide.
Your experience calls for (what I've been calling for also) pro-active 'civics' education introduced which targets such things.

Pericles. You've been away ?...

You should realize by now that tolerance and what not exist within a moral framework. There are limits. We don't tolerate many behaviors we deem anti social (racist slurs) or outright criminal.

You know my position on such things as Radical Islam, Gay behavior,Abortion etc..
All I can do is vote. If I like the policies ok... no matter which way I vote, SOMEone is going to feel more marginalized or less tolerated as a result.... such is life.

I think tolerance should be thoughtful. We should consider social and cultural outcomes, (based on sound social research) and the will of the people.

For example the prayer hall at Baulkham Hills.. was vehemently opposed by local residents yet the courts were used to steamrole their feelings. If that prayer hall is built (might already be..I don't know) you can be sure there will be lingering community resentment about it, and for very valid reasons. (related to the social/political nature of Islam) This is where we have to apply 'educated tolerance' or the lack thereof.

The prayer centre was for 35 families. The council had 5000 written objections. Why ? because with a prayer centre 35 will quickly become...yes.. lots more. Why is this a problem ? Simple. cultural compatability full stop. Been to a mall in Bankstown lately ? Noticed the dress code ? Or Cabramatta ? Feel like you were in Australia or Saigon ? If a community has a cultural status quo, it also has a right to resist cultural intrusion which would make them feel alienated and marginalized,imho.

When ur on a good thing...stick to it :)

Pericles....

Some history.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2002/s750461.htm
2002
ABBAS ALY: The residents have a fear of the unknown more than anything else.
But I think the Mayor particularly has made comments that are quite detrimental to any culture, in fact, saying comments such as we fear for our women and ladies, for instance.
I find that hard to believe.

Key words "Fear for our women and ladies"

2003 "Skaf, who is a convicted serial rapist serving 55 years behind bars, drew the pictures depicting extreme sexual violence against women"
If you recall... 'race' was a factor in these serial rapes. They were raped because....they were Australian.

2006
Lakemba Mosque

"Uncovered women are like meat on the road.. a cat will come and eat it. Who's fault..is it the cats ? NO..its the meats"

SUMMARY
Putting all this together. It becomes clear that being 'Aussie' in a community where there are a significant number of Muslims, you would have a well founded fear of rape or persecution due to your race. In fact, you would probably be granted 'refugee status' based on this fear.

A considerable amount of attention was given during the trials to "But in their culture an uncovered women deserves to be raped".
So, all it would take for the already well founded fear to become virtual paranoia..would be a large influx of new migrant muslim males to Annangrove/Baulkham hills.

Now, knowing you, you will probably pick and scrape at my facts and reasoning..pointing out inconsistencies, and thats good :) its called debate.

Boaz: "It becomes clear that being 'Aussie' in a community where there are a significant number of Muslims, you would have a well founded fear of rape or persecution due to your race. In fact, you would probably be granted 'refugee status' based on this fear."

Even for Boaz, I think that's an appallingly racist statement.

Shame on you, Boaz. You really are no great advertisement for Christianity.

That would be the Annangrove Prayer Hall that BD is referring to: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/24/1088046217094.html?oneclick=true

I have to confess that I was being ironic when I suggested that BD had found one of the non-negotiable shared values. Even though it’s never been his thing, I never imagined that he’d take a stick to tolerance as brutally as he just did:

“no matter which way I vote, SOMEone is going to feel more marginalized or less tolerated as a result.”

I think it’s the lack of hope that disappoints me most, when someone finds it inevitable that he’s going to spend the rest of his life crapping on others. Even the most jaded, cynical souls find hope that things can get better, but BD resigns himself to a lifetime of bitter intolerance, and condemns us to a lifetime of dealing with it.

Can I add a qualification to the opening question? What are the non-negotiable values for all of us except BD?

Here are a few:

• greeting difference (including, unfortunately, intolerance) with civilised discourse
• submitting ourselves to the rule of law
• focussing on similarities we share with others, not the differences that divide us
• teaching our children to have a broad understanding of the world and its diversity

Steve Madden,
You do not go back far enough. The whitlam government introduced MC and it was Al Grassby's baby, as Immigration Minister. Governments do not neccessarily need to legislate to change policy. The Fraser government had to legislate to set up various committees, etc.

You may have to check cabinet/caucus records to verify this. If you are sufficiently interested.

However, when MC was introduced is not really revelant. The important thing is that it was simply implemented without us having a say on such an important issue. As it was a bipartisan decision, it was kept quite low key.

If you think culture is only about what football code is mainly played, you have a very shallow idea of culture. By the way, soccer was played at my school back in 1950.

The most apt discription of MC I have heard thus far is:- "A system introduced by politicians, whereby ethnic furhers are given taxpayers money and jobs in exchange for votes"

After wasting millions of dollars, the politicians are the only ones to have gained, by chasing the ethnic vote.

We are far too tolerant. Multiculturalism = divisiveness

Integration = togetherness

No Boaz, I'm not going to "pick and scrape at [your] facts and reasoning..pointing out inconsistencies".

You are pointing out your own inconsistencies perfectly well without my help.

But this business of "tolerance" is key.

>>You should realize by now that tolerance and what not exist within a moral framework. There are limits<<

Sure. But those limits are self-imposed, part of the individual. Being tolerant or intolerant is not of itself measurable against any moral framework, but against other people.

There are things that I can tolerate that you clearly can't. Like a prayer hall.

And vice versa. You tolerate beating children. I wouldn't contemplate it.

Let me try to be clearer.

In any given situation, we each place ourselves, of our own free will, on a point of our own choice in the tolerance spectrum. And when it comes to different religions I, I suspect, will always find myself seated towards the "more tolerant" end of the range, while you are constantly heading in the opposite direction, towards the "intolerant" end.

Would you not agree?

And here's the thing. The reason this is critical to the discussion is that dissonance between individuals, groups, societies, religions etc. is far more often caused by people along at your end of the range, than mine.

So, however you visualize yourself as the evangelist with the answer to all our "living together" issues, it is you, Boaz, who is far, far more likely to be the instigator and fermenter of strife between people than I am.

And unfortunately, that is how people will inevitably view your unique brand of Christianity, and - unless they are fortunate enough to meet a Christian more tolerant than you - how they will judge your entire religion.

Yes...I agree.

On your point about you more tolerant... you should consider the social ramifications. If you tolerate those things which will ultimately undermine your social standing, position, culture... freedom etc.. by all means do so, but there is a cost.

You are more on the 'conflict avoidance' side of things, but in avoiding the conflict, there will only be 2 possible outcomes.

1/ A bigger conflict later on.
or
2/ Your own identity will be subsumed by those you are tolerating.

Point 2 can be avoided only if you don't have any sense of identity which you hold dear, and can simply go with the flow of everything around you.

Yes ? no ?

Banjo and Steve Madden,

Have noted your posts in this thread. Banjo's quote defining multiculturalism as "A system introduced by politicians, whereby ethnic fuhrers are given taxpayers money and jobs in exchange for votes" is interesting. Interesting because it accepts the notion that so-called 'ethnic fuhrers' are capable of delivering some sort of bloc vote. First, to vote, members of that ethnic group have to become citizens. Significant numbers choose not to become so. For those that do, on the face of it, it is very believable, but when you really consider the secret ballot process and the preselection for independent mindedness that the act of migration demonstrates, it doesn't stand up so well. Independent mindedness translates to a thinking, perhaps swinging, voter. Maybe the real function of ethnic fuhrers is to keep us looking in the wrong direction, and focusing upon the wrong (non)issues?

Steve, interesting your pointing to the Frazer government's ongoing facilitation, if not conceptual introduction, of multiculturalism. I think it would have to be acknowledged that you are probably both right as to its legislative origins. This brings me to suggest that the 1975 Dismissal and subsequent electoral result was not so much a genuine, even if unexpected, change in political direction as it was an orchestrated charade whereby certain 'core policies' could continue without voter interference. I suspect that inconsistencies to the like of which Sir David Smith has drawn attention in his article http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5018 may be pointers or evidence supporting such a view.

Could the emphasis placed upon the multicultural composition of Australian society, to the total exclusion of recognition of the British heritage of the vast majority, have been necessary to provide an explanation for long-term voting trends that might, in the absence of identifiable ethnic groups, have been inexplicable to significant numbers of Australians? Has there been a bloc vote able to be delivered at elections and referenda that is real, but in reality has come from an entirely different and unsuspected source over the years?

I think you are missing the point Boaz.

>>If you tolerate those things which will ultimately undermine your social standing, position, culture... freedom etc.. by all means do so, but there is a cost<<

Do you have a "for instance" in mind?

Are you suggesting that a prayer hall for 35 people can undermine my social standing? Or that someone choosing to wear a veil threatens my freedom? Or that someone who chooses to pull out a prayer mat halfway through the working day and kneel on it for a few minutes affects my position as his manager? Or that a Greek guy who still supports his country's football team has, or will ever have, an impact on my culture?

I suggest that none of these is at all possible.

Even more oddly, you suggest that

>>in avoiding the conflict, there will only be 2 possible outcomes.

1/ A bigger conflict later on.
or
2/ Your own identity will be subsumed by those you are tolerating<<

Switzerland, as I pointed out on another thread, has avoided international conflict for many years. Are they simply storing up a holocaust for themselves down the track? Do they not continue to display a uniquely Swiss identity - despite, I have to point out, the inbuilt disadvantage of being host to three languages?

>>Point 2 can be avoided only if you don't have any sense of identity which you hold dear, and can simply go with the flow of everything around you.<<

Tolerance is not about subservience, Boaz. It is about making room for people who don't share your narrow view of the world. You don't have to imitate them. You don't even have to approve. Just tolerate.

It does occur to me that you are willing to be described as intolerant, yet you actively disapprove of intolerance in others. Would I be right?

Pericles...

Switzerland:

1973 20,000 Muslims
1990 152,000 Muslims 2.2%
2001 310,000 Muslims 4.26% (only 36,000 have Swiss nationality)
Between 1990 and 2001 the Swiss population increased by 4%
Clearly, 2.06% of those were Muslims.

National fertility rate 1.47 per woman.
Muslim fertility rate for new immigrant women is 4-5/woman
2nd generation Muslim women is less, but still more than the Swiss.
Population growth rate .43%/annum
If the National fertility rate is 1.47 (decreasing)and the population growth is .43% i.e. barely growing. Growth can only come from women who are more fetile than 1.47 hence... from where ? and the demographic social question of importance... TO ..where ?

Now..given that Islam is a "political" system, the obvious question is how might this growth effect Christian Swiss ? I'll leave the echos of Hilali in your ears to prompt your own answer to that.

You might not have a problem with someone dragging out their mat and praying at specific times, but in our culture I do. If it was a manufacturing environment, it doesn't work. or..is simply discriminatory. What is someone said "My religion requires me to pray for one hour every 3 hours ?" You have to have common standards, and with our cultural system we have them.

Only 2 cantons in Switzerland have separated Church from State. Those 2 alone have had legal challenges from Muslims to the prohibition of wearing the veil. Most interesting. Sounds like "Use freedom to advance specific incompatable cultural objectives"

You may not dread life under Islamic Sharia, but I'll bet you would if you experienced it, given your secular values and freedoms.
Have a natter with the Mufti of Perak or Kelantan... 'Separate checkouts' for male and females at supermarkets ? No mixed bathing ....Many of your existing cultural cues gone....have fun.

Your approach consists entirely of leering nudges and innuendo, Boaz, and is quite irritating.

>>Now..given that Islam is a "political" system, the obvious question is how might this growth effect Christian Swiss ? I'll leave the echos of Hilali in your ears to prompt your own answer to that.<<

You appear to be suggesting that at some point in the future, Switzerland will not only become a Muslim state, but an extremist one at that.

This is exactly the kind of dog-whistle racism that does you and your religion no credit at all. In fact, it is becoming difficult to determine which is worse, the intemperate rantings of a renegade cleric or the needling scaremongering of christian fundamentalists.

>>You may not dread life under Islamic Sharia, but I'll bet you would if you experienced it, given your secular values and freedoms.
Have a natter with the Mufti of Perak or Kelantan... 'Separate checkouts' for male and females at supermarkets ? No mixed bathing ....Many of your existing cultural cues gone....have fun.<<

QED

Pericles: "...it is becoming difficult to determine which is worse, the intemperate rantings of a renegade cleric or the needling scaremongering of christian fundamentalists."

Quite so. I've made the same point myself.

I also think you're right that they key issue here is that of tolerance - which is a virtue that is deficient in fundamentalists of any persuasion. Futher, IMHO it is the absence of tolerance, rather than the existence of cultural difference, that underlies much social discord.

Fundamentalists - including but not limited to those obsessed by religious beliefs - are by defintion bigots, since their world view does not permit the existence of contrary views.

This is of course why there's little point in trying to debate with them, except perhaps for entertainment value :)

BD inhabits a very small but steep-sided hill. Every way he looks there's a slippery slope.

It's a pale, distant hope, but maybe one day he will learn that the way to defend his hill is to get along with all the people around, rather than hurling down excrement upon them.

(cross-posted by mistake at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5105 :(