BD, It always seems to be about the Muslim boogey-man.

There are about 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, roughly 1 in 5 of the total population of the planet. Of these, a minority are in the Middle East. Of these, some feel disaffected by a history of repeated betrayal and mistreatment by the West over the last century.

Within this decreasing minority are a small number of extremists waging a political battle with what they see as their enemy. Add the hostile presence of what is technically a “failed state” in their region – Israel - and then hopping on the bandwagon is a (relatively insignificant) number of religious zealots who are using these conflicts to expand their personal misguided agenda.
Despite their apparent status, these clowns have no real influence on the overwhelming majority of followers of that religion, who just seem to want to live a quiet and peaceful life.

I fail to see how the words or actions of an extremely small number of people can be used to condemn 20% of the world’s population and accuse them of plotting some sort of overt plan for world domination.

They are no more representative of the wishes of a billion people than the leader of the KKK is representative of the Catholic Church.

There are extremists in the Christian world as well, but with far more influence and military firepower at their disposal.

Of course you can (and no doubt will continue to) quote random ancient texts and the words of a handful of selected loonies but as much as you would like to believe it, this doesn’t make it true.

ALL religions by definition seek to denounce non-believers and to perpetuate themselves in any way they can.

Why not mention the violent deeds and history of Christianity for example.

Islam doesn’t have a monopoly on violence, barbarism, oppression or growing irrelevance in the modern world.

I’m guessing that you formulated your own beliefs long ago and are continuously looking for reasons to justify them.

Wobbles,

You merely demonstrate your total ignorance of multiculturalism and Japanese society.

Certainly, Japan has adopted some superficial “westernisms” for the tourists that they wish to attract. And, those of the younger generation who adopt Western dress, food etc. don’t encourage multiculturalism which means, my poor uneducated friend, that they don’t want their country invaded by other races permanently and have special considerations given to them. If they adopted our ways completely, they still would not be multicultural in any sense of the word.

Perhaps you would like to find out just how many non-Japanese people have been allowed Japanese citizenship.

Are you at all familiar with Japan and its people, Wobbles? My wife is a regular visitor to Japan; I am an occasional visitor. We both have Japanese friends.

A few remnants “retained for cultural and ceremonial purposes”? What nonsense! Even if this were true, which it isn’t, multiculturalism still does not enter into it.

How dare you compare a proud and ancient race with the ridiculous posers like yourself and other ignorant Australians!

The biggest barrier to any discussion is that most multiculturalists don’t even understand what multiculturalism is. Even the people behind the introduction of it have tried to tell you ignoramuses this; but you are all too silly catch on.

Ronnie Peters,

Sorry. Your kindergarten immaturity and poor language skills are beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you could find someone who could express what ever it is you are trying to say in an intelligible manner so that I could respond

Leigh,
Japanese Multiculturalism.

Despite their homogenity, there are at least two minority groups in Japan.

Ask your (probably long-suffering) wife about the treatment of “hirabetsu buraku” and the “Ainu” peoples, the look up the 2005 UN report about the “deep and profound” racism and xenophobia that’s happening in Japan.
Then find out about their current “kokusaika” movement.

Japanese culture has evolved greatly over the years, from the country's original Jomon culture to its contemporary hybrid culture, which combines influences from Asia, Europe, and North America and their current social policy is a movement away from social homogenisation to pluralism.

Not quite the perfect model of a successful society if they are trying to adapt their culture to the rest of the world.

As for citizenship, I thought they were pretty much “full” and don’t actually need any more immigrants beyond their large numbers of Korean and Brazilian workers.

Also, your observation “.. that they don’t want their country invaded by other races permanently and have special considerations given to them. “ Isn’t this a bit like what we are doing here as well?

Finally, personal abuse says a lot more about you than it does about others.

Turnleft Turnright,

It might be more dangerous to the long term surival of our people to have laws that dont allow the government to crack down on dissidents especially when it comes to threats of terrorism and demands for Islamic states.

If some of the old Kings and Queens of England hadn't cracked down on dissidents then they wouldnt have been in control of their countries for very long. Nor would the Roman Ceasars.
The trouble with Western society today is that civil liberties and tolerance are being used as weapons against the West and there comes a point where common sense in the name of survival needs to override some aspects of this. If that means cracking down on dissidents so be it.

Rache -: “Why not mention the violent deeds of history and Christianity for example.”

Indeed, we should look very hard at that period in history when the Priests headed up by the Pope had such power over the peoples minds. The pope could raise armies and wielded power over the Kings of countries. The Christian church does not have that power today but the Muslim religion does.

If we are to learn from history as they say, then we should see the same dangers inherent in the Muslim religion as were present in the Christian religion a few centuries ago.
The Muslim priests(clerics) have the same power over the people and the control of countries and armies as the Pope once did.

Incidently that’s why such a culture clash is happening between the Muslims and the West . The Muslims are still at that stage in their religion that the West was at a few centuries ago when all the violence was being perpetrated by the Christian church.

Sharkfin,

Unlike Christianity, which has a head representative, whether it's a Pope or an Archbishop (or even a Queen), Islam doesn't appear to have such a structured hierarchy, where one person is in central control.
Current activities in Iraq show that they can't even agree among themselves on a local level so I can't see them being organised enough to mount a global counter-crusade in any sense.

Cultural and language differences across the world also limit them in this way. Covered women in Iran, bellydancers in Turkey, women as prime ministers in Indonesia for example - so not much commonality there.

The violence perpetrated by Christians didn't stop centuries ago. Six million Jews plus about 120 million dead in the last 2 World Wars, the use of WMDs on civilian targets and so on.

More recently, 800,000 were slaughtered in Rwanda (a prominently Catholic country where the Church not only condoned but actively participated in the killing. Two nuns were recently sentenced for their role - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article632885.ece
and
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/06/07/rwanda010607.html for example).

Believe it or not. I'm not defending the horrors of terrorism and I'm not condemning Christianity but my point has always been that this whole debacle is being fuelled both sides for their own reasons and we really need to maintain some sort of perspective.