Well Pericles, as usual, there are things of value in your posts, in between the sustained and unabating ad hominems.

1/ "People should not have to leave their religion behind at the border."

Agreed...except when that religion actually has at its core the value of 'overthrowing the new non Islamic state and implementing a Sharia based society' Naturally, 'most' Muslims would take the view that it can only be by conversion that such 'overthrowing' can occur, but then....there are others, London Bombers, Madrid Bombers, Sydney and Melbourne would be bombers (allegedly)..... and the list goes on, who prefer to take a more aggressive approach, so that statement of yours, while 'sounding' balanced and compassionate, is on closer inpsection on a par with Chamberlains 'Peace in our time'.

It continues to amaze me that you can (did you ?) view such vile actions as the cartoon protesters in London with their signs calling for death, destruction, decapitations and disaster on the West, yet not detect a mild 'problem' in the existence of a substantial Muslim community in any country.

The conference in question was in fact aimed at building up this community, and what you appear not to have recognized is that it was put on by a Wahabist movement. Sheikh Bilal Philips, is on record as being in agreement for old males like me, marrying children of 9 "because Mohammed did it".

2/ The meeting was out of my comfort zone NOT because of its geography, but its spirituality. Refer point 1 above.

3/ Missed the point of the exercise ? You mean my exercise or that of the conference ? Mine was fulfilled. The conference itself had a dodgy purpose and my presense was to highlight that, though in the end I took a low profile approach.

Why does that disqualify my experience from being of value to others ?

From a Westerners view-point Islam is not a religion of spiritual values but it is a political system of national laws to be enforced upon society in the name of Allah. Democracy is anathma to the rule of Allah's laws, because it fails to curb behaviour defiant of Allah's laws. Democracy allows the individual freedom of expression and choice, which is the primary value upon which Western society is based. Islam cannot coexist in a democratic society; it must subvert and overthrow it so that Allah might reign supreme.

I think that at the moment, for most people, Islam remains an abstraction, and that a lot of people assume that like any other group of immigrants, they may keep their cooking or an odd festival or two, but they'll largely be assimilated. I don't believe that to be the case.

What will be interesting will be when a country like the Netherlands passes the mark at which it becomes more than 50% Muslim (which is predicted at or before mid-century). Then it will be really interesting to see what happens. Western democracy's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness in that ultimately, it doesn't matter whether someone is a ratbag or not, but whether that person has the numbers behind him.

Will the Netherlands remain the most "liberal" of western nations? If not, to what degree will it change? I think we're fairly fortunate in Australia in that this sort of friction point will occur in a great many countries before here, and so we'll have enough time to assess the fallout and get things right. However, I have to say that I wouldn't like to be in the Netherlands (or a few other European nations), which is set to become the petri dish of this whole cultural clash within my lifetime.

I personally think that at some point (perhaps when it's too late for some), Europeans are suddenly going to wake up and realise they don't live in Europe anymore, and then they're going to be really, really pissed off. Europeans have always been good at organisaing an inquisition, pogrom or holocaust though, so I'm sure they won't have any problems sorting it out. Sure, they've spent spent the past fifty years acting like a bunch of namby pambies, but a couple of thousand years of stylishly kicking the crap out of each other and everyone else they've encountered doesn't just go away, as much as some bureaucrats in Brussels would like it to. Despite two millenia of Christianity, at heart, Europeans are a bunch of savage pagans (Roman or barbarian), and that will be their saving grace.

Stephany said: "To what extent do immigrants bring their home country attitudes to Australia."

At the risk of being assailed by the political correctness police, I happen to agree with the recent comments made by Israeli Professor Raphael Israeli when he suggested that Australia should limit Muslim immigration from Indonesia in the interest of social cohesion and cultural preservation.

According to Israeli, there will be demographic pressures for Indonesian Muslims to emigrate, with Australia being "one of the big possibilities", with the Professor warning that "they will continue to come legally, or illegally, and settle here, and when they get to the rate of the 10 per cent, like in France, then you will see life will become untenable".

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=2626

shorbe said: "Multi-culturalism didn't exist in Imperial Europe -- to be an ethnic minority was to be oppressed in most ways, including even linguistic."

Germany is still by no means a multicultural nation (the only exception being perhaps the special rights granted to the Sorb minority). In fact, Germany has some of the strictest citizenship laws in Europe, and expects migrants to assimilate. This is understandable as Germany has never been an immigrant nation. Considering the ethnic and cultural problems experienced in neighbouring "multicultural" Holland, the German model seems preferable.

Ad hominem, Boaz?

I think not.

Referring to you as a rabble-rouser, when it is supported so well by the evidence that I unfailingly present together with the claim, does not constitute an ad hominem attack on you.

If I were to call you a stupid unfeeling dunderhead, without presenting evidence to support the claim, that would be ad hominem.

But I think you will discover that I have been pretty scrupulous in justifying my position - I wouldn't swear to a hundred percent record, because you do tend to get under my skin occasionally, but you'll certainly find a small enough number for me to escape the "sustained and unabating" charge.

No matter.

I have mentioned before that your position is one-eyed in the extreme, and once again you do not disappoint. I observed that

"People should not have to leave their religion behind at the border."

... to which you replied:

>>Agreed...except when that religion actually has at its core the value of 'overthrowing... etc. etc.<<

This once again shows that you have tarred every Muslim with the brush of automatic sedition. You have inferred from the fact that they are Muslim, they are de facto unable to live in Australia.

Do the parallels with other regimes, who vilify a race by amplifying one particular perceived attribute, escape you still?

>>It continues to amaze me that you [do]not detect a mild 'problem' in the existence of a substantial Muslim community in any country<<

You are right. I don't.

I abhor terrorism, whether it is the IRA, the Red Brigade or the Tamil Tigers. I despair of the politicians who use factional terrorism as an excuse to fight a war against an entire people.

It occurrs to me that if the US had decided to spend the money it has since 9/11 allocated to the "war on terror", creating allies instead of enemies, Al Quaeda would be a mere historical footnote by now.