I CONFESS.....I am StevenLMeyer in Jewish clothes... I have to be.. afterall... Steven says so much which would come from my own mind.. I HAVE to be 'him' :)

Amazing Steven... I would happily vote for you or join you in a public action on the issues we seem to stand together on.

Pericles... you feel my 'creed' is worrisome ? :) but Gibbons says:

The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister"

Good grief.. sounds like they were actually trying to reflect the teaching of Jesus "When your enemy harms you bless him"

Yep..Christians are dangerous.. history says so...and so does Pericles. Actually... I do agree that if a lot of us were in power and tried to implement the Lords teaching LITERALLY along those lines...... as state policy.... we would last until the first wave of 'whoever' decided to grace our shores with their fascist/militarist presence.
But I sense that kind of approach to State will have enough voices who know Romans 13 and how to apply it to save the day...hopefully anyway.

F.H. mate.. your either not reading my posts or you are living in the past.
Or..you read other peoples posts and simply 'transfer' what they say to me.
I the only time I've 'whacked' "Muslims" is this thread... and I simply referred the reader to a Muslim who acted out his religion.

FYI "Islam" is just a symptom of a deeper malaise in the West. See the Quintus Fabius Maximus thread for further information.

With regard to the Roman Empire, one of the books I am reading at the moment is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/books/review/Rodenbeck-t.html

It makes some interesting points about diversity within the Eastern Empire during the latter stages.

The empire –though largely Christian ---had two or three major contending creeds. The empire also had racial divisions , in particular Christian-Arabs, who had been allowed to settle within or on then fringes of the empire.

When the Muslim -Arabs came to invade the Levant they didn’t have technical superiority and they didn’t have superior numbers -- what they had was unity of purpose .

Some of the empires groups collaborated with the invaders, thinking they might get advantage over their local opponents.And even when there wasn't collaboration there was uncertainity about where group loyalities lay.

Nah! cultural diversity is not like cholesterol ---it’s more a case of leukaemia which is temporarily in remission – and will return as soon as environmental conditions stress the carrier.

Fellow_Human wrote:

>>I think a good diveristy is a by product of making all groups of different backgrounds, beliefs, income, etc,... come together under one umbrella and contribute to what makes a good citizen (in our case: what makes a good Australian).>>

These are “motherhood” statements. They say what you believe “ought to be” without explaining the “how”.

Let’s take a look at the REALITY of 21st century immigration.

The following is my observation of what happens in Australia which is infinitely better than what happens in Europe.

Immigrants cluster in enclaves. They mix largely with each other. So do their children. Thus was it ever.

What’s different is modern communications. At the click of a mouse an immigrant can keep track on what’s happening in his home country or even his home neighbourhood. It is much easier to stay connected to your home CULTURE.

There has been an explosion of cable TV outlets. For a few dollars a month a Muslim immigrant can pipe Arab Radio and Television into his home.

This means that the traditional links with home country / culture attenuate more slowly than in the past. What we call “multi-culturalism” is a reaction to this reality. Diversity persists for much longer so let’s “celebrate” it.

In reality however a combination of modern communications and multi-culturalism has the potential to balkanise the host country. Immigrants bring their enmities with them and they persist for generations

The combination of modern communications and multi-culturalism encourages immigrants to NURTURE GRIEVANCES. Immigrant groups have real grievances. But for some immigrant groups nurturing grievances has become more important than viewing them as challenges to overcomes which was OF NECESSITY how they were viewed in the past.

Immigrants find the natives mostly indifferent or vaguely suspicious. Attempts to “manage” this by labeling suspicious natives “racists”, “rednecks”, “Islamophobes”, “bigots” etc usually inflame the situation.

Some immigrant groups are mostly successful. Others are mostly failures. That’s another reality. The ones most likely to fail seem to be the ones that expend most of their energy in grievance nurturing.

Horus

Looks an interesting book. I’ve ordered it.

Pericles,

Gibbon was not the last word in historical writing. I have read similar theses to the one expounded in the book by Hugh Kennedy that Horus linked.

In fact Kennedy’s thesis is very relevant. Consider the case of Jonathan Pollard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

Pollard is an American Jew who was seduced into spying for Israel. He is currently serving a life sentence.

This raises the question of what you do about people who may have emotional attachments to countries or causes that are inimical to the interests of the host country. Major Nidal is another case in point. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan

During World War 2 the British interned many refugees from Nazi Germany. The Americans interned their Japanese citizens. My father was barred from joining the South Africa army in 1939. All these were probably over-reactions but understandable under the circumstances.

Let’s take a look at a developing situation that does not involve Muslims. China is the growing power in this region. Good intelligence on China is important for Australia’s security. At the same time, because of our links with the US, Australia is an important espionage target for China.

I think almost all Australians of Chinese origin will be loyal to Australia. The difficulty will be Australians with family in China. They are vulnerable to blackmail. During the cold war having relatives behind the “iron curtain” was often sufficient to bar you from employment in sensitive positions. Would we have to do the same in future?

I have no easy answers to these questions except to say that ignoring the issues is not an option.

Lentaubman

Excellent post.

Many immigrant groups do seem to devote most of their energies towards nurturing grievances.

Here is another reality:

Historically the newcomers have always had to EARN THE TRUST of the residents.

Tens of thousands of years of evolution have hardwired us to be like that. That’s why attempts by governments to circumvent this process always backfire.

ALGOREisRICH

I’m afraid we are too different to be anything but uneasy allies.

It's not an either/or situation.

There can be good and bad in non diversity, and there can be good and bad in diversity. Neither diversity or non diversity are good, or bad, in and of themselves. It's what we do with diversity, or non diversity, that's either good or bad. In other words, it's the 'people' who are good or bad.

Dear Steven
we are too different ? :) I don't think so really.

I'll accept 'allies' but not uneasy...because I don't feel uneasy about you at all.

HORUS.. *important point* from your historical reference about the Arab Christians at the borders of the Empire.

Your reference to them is much too 'kind' on the Muslims.

The real situation is this..and is referred to in the 9th surah of the Quran "Fight those who do not believe in Allah...until they are subjected" v 29

According to the Islamic sources I've read.. here is what happened.

1/ Muhammad realized that the Romans were looking at his newfound 'State' as a new 'threat' and they gathered at a place called 'Tabuk' to look at an invasion.
2/ Muhammad, realizing he needed a buffer.. approached the Arab Christians with a choice they could not refuse "Fight and die or change alliegance"
3/ Many were intimidated into becoming vassals of the Islamic state, and in fact became a 'buffer of human flesh' against the Byzantines.

4/ Muhammad simply considered them 'road kill' to slow down the Romans in the event of an invasion.
5/ Dumah is a case in point of his methods. The prince of Dumah, Ukkaydah, had not signed a 'treaty of treachery' with Muhammad, so Muhammad sent Kalid bin Al Waleed to 'teach him a lesson'. They murdered Ukkaydah's brother outright, and while the blood was still congeiling on the ground suggested to Ukkaydah he accompany them back to Muhammad who gave him the 'choice' of embracing Islam and keeping his life..or... suffering the fate of his brother.

My next post will be from the Muslim history source.. read it yourselves.