With the recent case, whereby bike helmets are now exempt for certain religions, one has to wonder, at what point do we become no longer Australia.

Strange you should mention bike helmets.

Here in Byron Bay, there aren’t any! No lights either. No reflectors. And a complete free-for-all as far as riding on the wrong side of the road or footpath or wherever goes, day or night!

All the cycling rules that apply throughout the country have been thrown out the window here!

It’s like being in a different country! Not Australia any more.

It’s got everything to do with the laid-back hippy culture, .…and nothing to do with immigrants of different religions.

I imagine this country stopped being Australian when the first 'immigrants' arrived here over 200 years ago rehctub...

Or maybe we stop being Australian when we deny we have always been a multicultural country, and refuse to embrace it?

That's an easy one. Australia always stops being Australia when we get a Labor Government.

When the Earth's magnetic field reverses. The name Australia is derived from the Latin 'australis', meaning 'southern'. When the field flips - which it's due to do any day now - southern becomes northern and we should change our name to 'Borealia'.

Cheers,

Tony

Like it or loath it, as Rechtub appears to.
Religion and its belief is behind this storm in a tea cup.
The people involved can be as Aussie as rechtub, and just as loyal, even Liberal party members.
A community based near Coff,s Harbor in NSW has been in this country longer than both me and rechtub.
We are, some of us, becoming quite xenophobic.
A hint, in threads spotlighting why many, including me, are concerned about Muslim migration, some identified these folk as other than the folk who in some cases here for 100 and over years, having introduced Camels as transport to our out back.

Rechtub, are you an Australian? Do you define what Australia is?

I am an immigrant from the United States where it is illegal to give taxpayer funds to non-public schools and to have chaplains in the public schools. I would like to see a greater separation of religion and state in Australia, to stop subsidies to non-public schools and to have no chaplains in the public schools. If that happens would Australia stop being Australia?

Australia would still not be the United States even if that happened. A country is not a fixed unchanging entity. Australia would change even if there were no immigration. In fact the Queensland Education Act of 1875 specified that public education be free, universal and secular so I would just like to see the 1875 Act restored. In 1910 the Bible Society of Queensland succeeded in getting the word, secular, removed from the Education Act. Before that there was no religious instruction (indoctrination) in the public schools during school hours. Beasts of pray were allowed in the school after school hours, but the kiddies didn't hang around. The beasts wanted their prey corralled so they succeeded in getting the law changed. However, Australia is a democratic country, and the beasts had a right to get the law changed. I have a right to try to get it changed back. The Sikhs have a right to get an exemption from the helmet requirement.

Viva a living, vibrant, changing Australia!

David f I believe you understand the thread and its author.
I can not refrain from this thought.
In not so many years to come, if we look back on this and much like it, being said, we will be forced to ask what drove it, and much more.
These folk settled at Woolgoolga and started this country,s Banana growing.
They bought food and supply,s to the out back, on Camels.
They fought alongside us, in at least ww2, I think in the first world one too.
And handful, of Bigots, every country has them, tried to bar them, from an RSL Club, and lost.
Others too know, the head gear is a must, under the rules of their faith.
We would not dare, surely, say they do not have that right.
So what is the reason that we see this threads direction so very far from our proud tradition of freedom to follow your faith.
Tomorrow morning, art dawn services around the country, and in the community mentioned, we will see these proud folk, some 4th generation Australians, Honoring the dead.

I dunno, rehctub - it seems that old Australia is still very much alive and well......

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-24/aboriginal-men-sue-qantas-after-being-kicked-off-plane/4648596

Butch,
I seem to recall an exemption given also for Sikhs to carry that little knife, because it is a religous symbol.

Hey we turn a blind eye to other cultural matters, like polygmy, forced marriage and FGM. We also have seen bottle shops and lingerie shops closed in shopping malls, due to muslim intimidation.

We compromise our own culture all the time

Perhaps I should convert to Sikhism so I get a chance to ride a bicycle before I die (on the road, I mean, other than the stationary ones in the gym).

In 1990, just when this law was introduced, I was about to buy a bicycle and take up cycling - in order to be fitter and to help the environment. Then as I couldn't, I keep gaining weight, driving my car and polluting the air whenever I need to get from point A to point B.

It's a tragedy to appoint the secular, God-less state as an arbiter into which acts and behaviours are religious and which are not: churches today seem to be short-sighted, wrongly believing that they are immune, so strong that no government can ever trample them over and render their religious practices illegal. It should instead be in the interest of every church to understand that the only way to have religious freedom, is to have freedom for everyone!

Hang on Belly,
You're getting mixed up, the camel teams were mostly Arabs and Baluchis with a few Afghans as well, not Sikhs, their "contribution" to the opening of the outback is grossly overstated, we're talking a few thousand immigrant workers over the course of half a century.
You are however correct in saying that Australia has always been multicultural and again, our historic "racism" is a gross exaggeration but I'd say that due to globalisation we're actually in grave danger of losing that cosmopolitan identity rather that this fictional Leftist bogey of "White" identity.

Been a very long time since I logged in to comment...

Anyway, the premise of the thread seems a little silly to me. To counter the relentless negativity and paranoia it implies, allow me to post this.

It's a collection of responses between Bostonians and Syrians on social networks, with both sides giving condolences over the recent violence in both locations.

Strangely, they were able to communicate, share culture and words, without fearing that they would lose their culture! Imagine that!

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201304222133-0022692

Jay of Melbourne,
Perhaps you should look at your definition of Multiculturalism.

Other than our own, there is no culture that we accept in its entirity. Kiwis are probably the closest to our culture and they are quick to point out the differences between their culture and ours. We do not make special laws to accomodate other cultures. Except in a minor nature, like the subject of this thread.

I maintain that we are multi-racial or multi-ethnic, but not multicultural. Certainly not the MC ideology forced upon us by governments of the past. The basic foundations of our society come from the Westminister system which can be seen in all levels of governance, the services, police, education and emergency systems.

Dispite the imposed ideology, we expect all to obey our laws and live within our social standards. It is up to others to fit in with our way of life.

I definately oppose any move to compromise our culture further just to accomodate some alien cultural whim. We have compromised far too much as it is.

Yes Tony Lavis, some time in the next million or so years I would suspect!

David F, I would assume that being from the US, you enjoy our peaceful existence, and no doubt you have brought a few habits from your country, which I think is great.

However, I assume I would also be right in saying that you didn't come here and try to change our laws, to best suit yourself. Would I be right?

Now for the record, I am not against multiculturalism, unless of cause the culture in question, (which is the case here) wishes to change OUR LAWS to suit their needs or wants.

Now I remember us being called racist, when we wanted the burka removed in public.

We Already have schools where birthdays can't be celebrated with the kids, and the traditional BD cake can't be enjoyed, or the shopping centers where Santa can no longer say HO HO Ho.

As I have said many times over, everyones welcome, just leave your baggage at the front door, because after all, this is Australia and if anyone doesn't like it, they are always welcome to leave.

rehctub wrote:

David F, I would assume that being from the US, you enjoy our peaceful existence, and no doubt you have brought a few habits from your country, which I think is great.

However, I assume I would also be right in saying that you didn't come here and try to change our laws, to best suit yourself. Would I be right?

Dear rehctub,

You are absolutely wrong.

Apparently you didn't read my post. I am trying to change Australian law to get rid of chaplains in the public schools and subsidies to the non-public schools. I am a citizen of Australia and like every other citizen I have a right to try to change the laws to suit myself. As long as it is done in a democratic way there is absolutely nothing wrong in trying to change the laws to suit myself.

Banjo,
That sounds more like the U.S.A than Australia.
Look,as a result of the Immigration Restriction Act White Supremacy was not to become entrenched in this country the way it did in the U.S.A.
The Act was devised to prevent the kinds of racial strife which had occurred elsewhere, that's why we've always been more tolerant and easygoing when it comes to people of other races. The problem with immigration is and has always been caused by the Anglo bourgeoisie and the economic elite, if you look back over our history the elites were constantly trying to implement a White Supremacist system with an Asian proletariat or bonded servant caste.
Go to the Trove site and look over the old editorials and letters to the editor from the 1890's, the White workers were at war with the pastoralists and squatters over their use of cheap Asian labour to build up monopolies and a colonial aristocracy or oligarchy.
Flash forward to today, the same crony capitalist class and middle class criminals are trying the same thing all over again, creating cartels and monopolies through the use of Asian labour.
The government is soon going to have to resort to some form of immigration restriction act to pull the criminals into line or face the racial strife predicted by the labour movement all those years ago.
White Supremacy isn't Skinheads, Lynch Mobs and White Hoods those are the reactions to it, it's real face is the Oligarchs and their bourgeoisie and they hate ordinary White people like you and I.

Dear Rehctub,

<<As I have said many times over, everyones welcome, just leave your baggage at the front door, because after all, this is Australia and if anyone doesn't like it, they are always welcome to leave.>>

There is nothing that grants you a monopoly over this whole continent, enforcing your particular way of life over everyone living on it. May I remind you that your ancestors have taken it by force, through the barrel of the gun from its original owners: which gives you no moral right over this continent (and the islands around it).

What you and your ancestors developed here by the sweat of your brow is yours and neither myself nor David F want to take it away, nor do we want to tell you how to live your life (apparently it is you who demand that we may not ride a bicycle without wearing a pot on our head), but this vast land is not yours and if we cannot find a way to live together in peace, respecting each other's liberty to live according to our respective values (religious or otherwise), then we will need to share and split this land.

We are here and that's a fact, we are Australian citizens, we have nowhere else to go and just because our culture is different to yours we are not going to leave any more than you are going to leave back to England.

"""
one has to wonder, at what point do we become no longer Australia
"""

What exactly is Australia in your eyes, rehctub?

Well said, Yuyutsu. They need reminding this is a free country after all. As long as you eat meat pies and follow the footy and cricket that is!

"""
I am a citizen of Australia and like every other citizen I have a right to try to change the laws to suit myself. As long as it is done in a democratic way there is absolutely nothing wrong in trying to change the laws to suit myself.
"""

Hit the nail the squarely on the head, david f. Problem is; those that consider them selves the true Aussies hate having to accept others that think and live differently than them. I've put up with it for 50 years and I was born here to immigrant parents, so it's just as much my country as any Aussies, but they don't see it that way!

I've traveled and lived in more parts of this country than most Aussies, I helped build its infrastructure, as did my father. I even lived and schooled with the native inhabitants for over three years. Yet I still don't feel I'm accepted as an Aussie in the eyes of those like, rehctub. The funny thing is, it's only my real name that gives it away, otherwise they'd never know, LOL. Fools the lot of them!

JOM pure twaddle, not true as well.
Banjo, ease up bloke! yes Muslims are a problem, our author may very well not know the difference.
And be a sured the Liberal Party, even the red necks, did I say that? Nationals are most unlikely to be offended by this group and the courts ruling.
Let us not be unwise enough to link this issue with the Muslim one.
And let us not link past generations of Migrants, who helped us build this country with this multi cultures thing.
Are we a nation of bigots? or is it just uninformed few?
I hope the latter.
That head gear is not a maybe, its is demanded by the faith they live and breath .
Are we saying in this country only some faiths should be practiced.
Are we that bigoted?
Now picture the helmet on top of that woven head dress.
As big as a very big water melon!
The head gear will be of more use than a helmet if truth be known.
If the thread and a couple of contributors wants to slander non-Aussies you can take to 25 percent of us, born all over the world.
Be careful! very careful! research will show we all, mostly are from migrant stock.

One problem is Australia is too much like my home country, the US. They have the same thumpy, ugly rock music and 'country' music with whiny voices. Baby talk such as footy, brekky and the like comes from adult mouths. The Age of the Dinosaurs is still on as this thread illustrates. The school system is segregated by class with fancy private schools funded in part by taxpayer money leaving the public schools neglected - this while there's talk of a fair go. Politicians spend much time arguing about a few boat people while the US has millions of illegal aliens and still operates. The above is in the great Australian tradition of the whinge.

However, meat pies are great as is my lovely Aussie wife. Howard got the gun control that they should have in the US. The Queensland beaches are beautiful, and the people are generally friendly - at least to me who doesn't look Aboriginal or Middle Eastern. There is also Graham Young & olo. In Australia there is an almost rigid party discipline so corporate interests contribute to the party. In the US legislators are freer to vote independently so corporate interests contribute to individual politicians. Retail is more expensive than wholesale so here we are.

I remember a few years ago visiting Canberra
and going to a session of "Question Time" in
Parliament. Part of my attire was a very elegant
hat (or so I thought) that I wore with pride.
Anyway, I was told to remove the hat by the
security guard. He told it was not allowed -
"unless what I was wearing was for 'religious
reasons'." I said - "ok it is."
The guard smiled and told me again - "Take it off."
And I was forced to comply.

The hat by the way was small, did not hide my face,
or obstruct anyone's view. So there you are.
"Religious Reasons," are acceptable even in our
houses of parliament.

david f,
I do not think you have any chance of stopping government funds going to private schools, but you are welcome to try. I recall, in the 60s, a huge and protracted debate about this issue. It culminated in the private school kids all being sent to government schools in the town of Goulburn, NSW, which demonstrated that the existance of private schools saved the government heaps and that alone warranted government subsidy. Suggest you google 'Catholic schools strike' or similar. I doubt the polies will want to visit the issue again.

Jay of Melbourne,
I do not care if you are a white supremist or not, but you have not addressed what you mean by saying we are a MC country. I say we are a multi-racial country that tolerates some aspects of some other cultures. Certainly we are open enough to allow people from many countries to integrate easily. But there are many cultural practices we do not allow, either by law or social standards.

The only thing I have ever had to do with private schools, is to help a state school football team to thrash their football team.

However I can not see how anyone can promote the use of tax payer funds to educate some kids & not other kids. Surely every kid should be entitled to the same government spend on their education.

This is even more the case when one considers that those sending their kids to private schools are funding much of the education of those who are not.

Those against equal funding of all kids education are to me immoral class warfare fools, or the teachers union spruikers. Neither have a legitimate leg to stand on.

Banjo,
Australia was multicultural from the beginning but the struggle has always been against Anglo Saxon Oligarchs who want sidestep or dispense with people like us and our rules of fair play and return to some version of the White supremacist slave states which existed in other colonies. What does Gina Rinehart mean when she says that she would like to see special economic zones created in the north of the continent and that she wants to fill them with low paid Asian workers?
More people need to read about what this historical struggle against the "Asian Invasion" has been about:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/70925605?searchTerm=afghan%20camel%20invasion&searchLimits=

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3570197?searchTerm=afghan%20camel%20invasion&searchLimits=

These articles are objective, they examine all the issues in a balanced way, they admit that the union's work practices, though fair for the White carriers were not popular with the pastoralists who were intent on getting cut price haulage from the Afghan monopoly on camel teams. One man ran all the Camel teams in Western Queensland, employed all the foreign labourers, provisioned fed, housed and watered his own men and beasts from his own supplies and bought nothing from local traders along the routes. The White bullock drivers on the other hand were mostly sole traders or small businessmen who had to pay tax and fees to the government, buy their own provisions, arrange their own lodgings and abide by the union rules which queued drivers and allocated loads.
"We" the White working people can live with other races in relative harmony as long as everyone plays by the rules, ie the "Fair go", the trouble starts when the Anglo Oligarchs try to skew the system in their favour by exploiting or showing favouritism to one group while marginalising another.

Dear Banjo,

There is such a thing as being penny wise and pound foolish. The government spends less on education by subsidising private schools. To have an adequate public school system and stop government support of private schools would cost more, but there would be a return on the investment. Public school students would be better equipped to go on to further education than they are now. This would result in more prosperity for Australia which would benefit most Australians. There would also be less divisiveness than there is now with class-based education.

The Grattan Institute's report, 'Catching Up', compares Australian schools performance with that of our Asian neighbours and a major OECD report, 'Equity and Quality in Education', is one of a series on the characteristics of high-performing systems in the developing world. The last report emphasises: "The evidence is conclusive: equity in education pays off." Both reports point out the need for changes in school policy and funding. Public education must be adequately financed, and it will not be as long as government goes for the cheap option.

david f,
I don't intend to have a debate with you or anyone about the issue. I don't have an opinion about it

It was debated extensively early 1960s and you can research all the arguments made then. I do not think you can come up with anything that was not considered, or argued, then. There would be heaps of news articles at the time. Volumes of Hansard, enough to keep you reading for months. I post this for your info only.

But I think you are flogging a dead horse. Just accept that this is the way it is in Aus. Good luck with finding even one polly to take the issue on.

Jay of Melbourne,
You still evade the issue, maybe deliberately.

Since the first fleet we have been multi-racial and all our laws and social standards are based on the Westminister system.

Multiculturalism was introduced was imposed on us by the Whitlam government and further implemented by the Fraser government. Millions have been spent promoting this flawed ideology. We all were supposed to live in perfect harmony, remember 'Unity in Diversity'?

Dispite the millions spent, some ethnic groups still hate others and the Lebs hate everyone else. We still retain the base foundations of this society that was built on.

Multiculturalism is a misnomer, we never have been and are not multicultural.

My god, talk about you lot playing the victim.

The one criteria that should apply to ALL IMMIGRANTS is assimilation.

JOM yes, I got it wrong.
It was Afghans who bought the camels in, along with our first explorers who bought the Afghans.
Sikhs did travel our out back with Camel's, as traders and tinkers.
I continue to be amused by the junk comment, about intergeneration in respect of these folk.
Some do not follow the religion any more, and few could tell them apart from any Aussie.
Rechtub, lets look at your posts and thread, why are you offended by these folk wanting to continue their faith?
Can you remember? in posts you made about the quite separate Muslim faith?
Did you not challenge their right to tell us what to do? I did.
What world shattering thing will we face? if they continue while being as Aussie as you, continue to believe in a different God.
Stone the Crows Bloke you are on thin ice here!
Are we all aware the courts under our laws said it was ok?

Lexi you may not be aware, and it might be what drives Rechtubs[in my view missplaced ]passion.
But a tradition we got from England is still strong.
Take our hats off, in RSL clubs and places like Parliament are a mark of respect, meant to be strictly adhered to always.
Some 20 years ago, in Woolgoolga RSL it was such that saw Sikhs Bared, because under their faith they MUST NOT take the head gear of.
They fought wars in it, beside us, some first came here at least 150 years ago.
I question has the increasing fear, in my view well founded, about Muslim migration, made us bigots?
Yes integration, for SOME is never going to happen.
But please!
America, a country often feeding us sad events, last year saw Sikhs murdered, because it seems some fool and murderer thought they are Muslims.
I fear for us all, if we start targeting every one, in this case folk innocent of any wrong.
I hope we are better than that.
Worth knowing, the RSL lost that case too, it turned out the victim had many medals and had been proved a hero over and again.

rehctub wrote: We Already have schools where birthdays can't be celebrated with the kids, and the traditional BD cake can't be enjoyed, or the shopping centers where Santa can no longer say HO HO Ho.

Dear rehctub,

I don’t believe you. Please cite what shopping centres bar Santa or the schools where birthdays can’t be celebrated with the kids. I think you are just scare-mongering.

Dear Banjo,

I am aware of the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) case and the fact that chaplains in the schools and subsidies for private schools are thoroughly entrenched at this time.

However, I was responding to rehctub’s statement to me:

“However, I assume I would also be right in saying that you didn't come here and try to change our laws, to best suit yourself. Would I be right?”

In pointing that rehctub was wrong I mentioned chaplains in the schools and subsidies for private schools as two items in Australian law I would like to change. Whether it is possible or likely to change them is another matter.

Wise man David f, let me, from a true bigots point of view, first an explanation of that.
The Sydney RIOT, unlike the Cronulla one,that took place ONLY AFTER YEARS OF TAUNTS AND ASSAULTS!
Firmly put me in the anti Muslim migration paddock.
I execept the word bigot, it underlines my defense of my country and its values.
BUT the statements used here are not true, in our longest ever thread, one started by Rechtub, such lies, on investigation, are found to be untrue.
Yet, still seen as fact all over the inter net, and red faced red necks wanting to kill, because of those lies.
I hope we all are SICKENED by the reports of racism on buses and trains, aimed every time at non Muslims we should be ashamed of instigating any racist act against any one.
We see here a view by our author , not just aimed at a common wish, integration, in my case along side the culture people are born in to.
But a request we see religions dropped as a price for living here.
David like you I follow no God, but while we see courts ruling in favor of these people and the human right,to practice their religion, why are some unwilling to agree.
I warn Australia,our future is indeed bleak, if we target every migrant every 4th generation Australian who looks different indeed every Muslim, for racist rants.

I must look a bit two faced to some.
After all I am anti illegal arrivals, boat or plane.
But think with all my heart we are in very real danger, of becoming some thing we would not like.
What, if we are taking this thread seriously, next?
Do we tell the Scott,s not to wear kilts, do we force them not to celebrate in towns and villages named after the country they came from, or their great great grand parents did?
The Greeks wearing traditional dress, Irish for river dancing.
Should we explode with rage at smaller German beer fest,s?
Worse, are some of us feeding the hate? hate seen too often in our streets and on public transport by half wits?

Rechtub>>With the recent case, whereby bike helmets are now exempt for certain religions, one has to wonder, at what point do we become no longer Australia.<<

1975

I after mentioning Rechtubs last post here and the one without thought above, linking human rights our courts and the western world supports, and defaming us for them.
Rest my case racism is growing on the back of boat people and Muslim separatism our country.
We, some of us, to their eternal shame, lash out at folk they think they see a difference in.

Dear Belly,

Thanks for explaining about taking off hats
as a mark of respect from by-gone days. But
did this apply to women as well? Afterall
the Queen and her female entourage - always
wore hats in public. And I'm sure that the
security guard in Parliament who made me take
my little hat off, didn't know the reasons
why that rule was put in place. Or if he did
he certainly did not explain it to me.

I was so irate at the time - 'cause I'd
bought that hat especially to match my elegant outfit
for Parliament (and so that I could wave to
Malcolm Turnbull from the Gallery. ;-)

Belly>> I after mentioning Rechtubs last post here and the one without thought above,<<

“The one without thought above,” my china? Is that your response to my all encompassing but brief “1975” comment?

I beg to differ Belly; it is a great and thoughtful comment, but only for those with knowledge of Australian politics. They will quickly resolve that in 1975 muslim immigration was ramped up by the Labor party and we doubled the number of musilims in Australia by 1977. In 1975 the first Vietnamese immigrants began entering the country….they were the original “boat people,” and that also contributed to major changes in the culture of our nation

In 1975 we began to implement protocols from the Lima agreement, which changed the structure of our social laws and began the decline of manufacturing in Australia.

I still luv ya china even if you’re my team right or wrong attitude is insulting your intellect.

sonofgloin,

Wasn't it around the same time that we ramped up activity in the North West, deciding it was easier to dig out great lumps of our country and and send it offshore to be fashioned into stuff?

Lexi>>I was so irate at the time - 'cause I'd
bought that hat especially to match my elegant outfit
for Parliament<<

I can only surmise Lexi that you were an elegant addition to a pedestrian forum.

Poirot I think you are right.
What the Lima agreement stopped us from doing was to value add to what we dug up. As one example we dug up Bauxite and turned it into aluminum in Weepa...remember Comalco? After the Lima agreement we still dug up the Bauxite but it was shipped to Asia for processing.

Belly, I don't dislike the guy, but, the fact remains that he has (in my opinion) made a mockery out of our laws, laws that were introduced to protect (mainly) young lives.

Our authorities are battling to enforce these laws, even some twenty or so years later, and situations like this are (again in my opinion) a huge backward step.

What's next, the Burka!

sonofgloin, I would suggest that, as is the case in many situations these days, is now due to out of control costs with doing business in AUS..

Dear Rehctub,

<<laws that were introduced to protect (mainly) young lives.>>

So the life of older or even middle-aged people, is cheap.

Has anyone counted the number of Australians who died of Arteriosclerosis and similar sedentary illnesses in the last 20 years or so because the government prevented them from riding a bicycle?

<<What's next, the Burka!>>

Freedom for EVERYONE (not only Sikhs) to wear or not whatever they want.

Yuyutsu, many laws are introduced with the intent to teach young ones. Plain packaging in smokes is another example.

It doesn't mean older folk are any less important, but you know that.

As for wearing what one likes, or not, no religious belief should ever be seen as more important IN AUSTRALIA than the law, FULL STOP.

So what if we have some yank come over and want to change the law so he/she doesn't need a motorcycle helmet.

I say, you come here, you accept our ways, or you leave. It really is that simple.

In any case, I thi

Dear rehctub,

Talking about laws ...

There aleady exist laws that are anti discrimination,
religion is included in that group. For example,
there is a requirement that places an obligation on
employers to accommodate for religious observance -
be it in the form of allowing religious garb -
or prayer, et cetera.

These laws form part of the social equity of our society.
They are part and parcel of the ideology of an egalitarian
society and that has been a uniquely Australian quality
of "We're-in-this-together-and-no-one should-be-considered-
to-be-anything-other-than-equal" which has been an integral
part of politics in this country since the first European
settlement.

Lexi wrote: "These laws form part of the social equity of our society.
They are part and parcel of the ideology of an egalitarian
society and that has been a uniquely Australian quality
of "We're-in-this-together-and-no-one should-be-considered-
to-be-anything-other-than-equal" which has been an integral
part of politics in this country since the first European
settlement."

Dear Lexi,

Equity has not been an integral part of politics in this country since the first European settlement.

During the first few years after 1788 the only clergymen given official status were Church of England chaplains attached to the royal armed forces and the only churches built were C of E. This was in spite of the fact that Catholics and Jews came over on the First Fleet. Later Australia officially adopted the White Australia policy. It was not until 1967 that Aborigines were included in the national census. Equity is a goal that many Australians now share, but it does not date from the first European settlement.

Dear Rehctub,

<<I say, you come here, you accept our ways, or you leave. It really is that simple.>>

Simple? Your allegedly-Australian "Ho Ho Ho" custom is actually Canadian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_ho_ho), exclaimed by an American Coca-Cola character (formerly White-Rock, http://www.whiterocking.org/santa.html)!

<<As for wearing what one likes, or not, no religious belief should ever be seen as more important IN AUSTRALIA than the law, FULL STOP.>>

This approach was already tested by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/greek_persecution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes#Sacking_of_Jerusalem_and_persecution_of_Jews), and was met by the revolt of the Maccabees.

Every worthy religious person would and should rather die than betray God in favour of some man-made laws. Fortunately, neither the vast majority of Australian people, nor even the current Australian government, stupid as they are, or any former Australian government for that matter, takes your view of making enemies with God and His people and face the wrath of their revolution.

Australians in general are by far more tolerant and generous than yourself, but had the majority of Australians held your views, then it would not be a matter of words, but of swords to speak.

I do however, to promote tolerance and avoid coming anywhere near Antiochian times, repeatedly address all people of religion:

Never think that you are immune, that your church is so strong that it couldn't happen to you, that you may collude with the state so that only other, smaller, religions will be persecuted. The only way to assure religious freedoms in the long run, is to promote a culture where EVERYONE is free to live their way of life, religious or otherwise, of your church or another.

Applying this principle to helmets, if you are a Sikh, then you should not campaign only for Sikhs to be allowed to ride bicycles: you should rather campaign for no-one to be ever forced by the state and its laws to wear, or not to wear, anything. True, some people may use their freedom to walk around naked, which you may not like, but that's the logical and reasonable price to pay for assuring that nobody may ever take your Turban off.

Dear David F.,

I did go back a bit too far. So just ignore
the last sentence. Access and equity has been
in place as a policy framework for quite a few
decades as a means to encourage Australian
Government programs and services to consider
barriers facing people based on race, religion,
language or culture.

The Australian Government's National Agenda For
a Multicultural Australia: Sharing Our Future (1989)
stated:

"...our institutions are now required to respond to
the needs of a culturally and linguistically divers
society ... it is in the interest of all Australians
that the three tiers of Government, Commonwealth,
State, and Local, intervene where necessary to manage
our diversity in the interests of cultural tolerance,
social justice and economic efficiency..."

I think "Australia" is all ready past tense.

With the first wave of post war migration there were enough of us to bring most migrants, a number of them from not very pleasant societies into the fold. We converted all those European to the Australian egalitarian way. Remarkably quickly we became one.

Come the first wave of Asian migration, even with the now Australianised first wave to help us, we were not quite so successful. May be the antisocial, & criminal element element was higher or stronger, but still many aspired to become that nebulous "Ozzie" & did so.

Now however we have been overwhelmed. With our past successes we thought we were invincible. How wrong we were.

We have brought in by invitation, & by letting gate crashers stay, many truly horrible people, from very nasty societies. They have no intention of fitting in, or making a contribution. They are here only for what they can get, & many hate us for having what we have managed to put together.

We may be one of the last of western countries on the slippery dip of collapse, but we are on our way down, into the pool of failed civilizations. Our new culture of entitlement & handout is lubricating the slope, while our latest arrivals are using our good nature to push us down.

Hold your breath folks, it wont be long now.

Dear Hasbeen,

Where's the lovely sailor that we've all come
to admire?

Of course there will be problems
in a society that sees homogeneity as not
only desirable but mandatory.

There was always going to be
tension between the ethnic groups and "us,"
not to mention between and within the ethnic
groups themselves. But in
the process we've ended up with a more vigorous
exciting Australia, and in the future, as we've done
to date, through interaction and discussion, we'll
sort the problems out.

cont'd ...

This may cheer you up:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/everyday-australians-make-multiculturalism-work-20110217-1axoj.html

RECHTUB your post above has me cringing.
You talk of nothing should over rule the law.
IF I was on Hasbeens boat I would rush for the rail.
Law upheld the man your thread targets right to not wear a helmet.
It did so years ago in that RSL, backed by the RSL movement.
It does for people of Jewish faith.
So what is your point?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I agree with you that the state should not reign supreme. However, that need not have anything to do with religious belief. If one feels that a law is unjust and the injustice is not a trivial matter then one should disobey the law. Henry Thoreau refused to pay taxes to support the Mexican War as he thought the war was unjust. He went to jail for his refusal to pay the tax.

http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html points one to his Essay on Civil Disobedience which inspired both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Their protests were connected with their religious beliefs, but Thoreau's essay does not justify his protest by any appeal to religion. One's conscience may or may not be influenced by religion. A sense of right and wrong need not be justified by any belief in the supernatural.

Dear David,

<<I agree with you that the state should not reign supreme. However, that need not have anything to do with religious belief.>>

In an 'ideal world', religion (not necessarily 'religious belief') should reign supreme, seconded by the dictates of a righteous, enlightened and benevolent king (or queen) on mundane matters, who loves the people as his/her children.

But we do not have an ideal world, or anything close to it, nor can we expect such for 1000's of years to come (for an ideal world to possibly exist, human population and its economic activity must be reduced by several orders of magnitude). What we have is a secular government that does not even recognise God, let alone guide people to walk in His ways. They are after profit and power and 'Righteousness' is not even in their dictionary (heard any politician lately mentioning this word?).

Rehctub has a point when he states: "Yuyutsu, many laws are introduced with the intent to teach young ones": yes, there are some in society who do need guidance - but when a government is totally blind and has no tools whatsoever to distinguish between those who require guidance and those who do not; and when even if they tried to make such a distinction they would be surrounded by booing 'discrimination! it's not politically-correct! Apartheid!' and would back off, there is no way they can guide some without causing greater harm to others, hence they better do nothing. Let the blind not lead the blind!

<<If one feels that a law is unjust and the injustice is not a trivial matter then one should disobey the law.>>

Certainly, that's one's duty, except that I would also base this path on wisdom, not just on feelings.

<<One's conscience may or may not be influenced by religion.>>

One's conscience is always influenced by religion - one's conscience grows with religion, so if you find a man of conscience, a sense of right and wrong, then you probably also found a man of religion, regardless whether or not they hold any beliefs in the supernatural.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "In an 'ideal world', religion (not necessarily 'religious belief') should reign supreme, seconded by the dictates of a righteous, enlightened and benevolent king (or queen) on mundane matters, who loves the people as his/her children."

Such a world would not be ideal for me. I do not want to be ruled by either religion or royalty. Such a world would in my opinion be far worse than what we have now. I regard your ideal world with fear and horror.

Lexi my sweet you I'm sure you don't describe the attack my son suffered, by a bunch of 4 "Lebs" while walking home from the railway station, in broad daylight as exciting. I think he would describe the 2 operations he had to undergo to correct his 4 skull fractures, as something other than exciting, too.

This is becoming common in many areas, & is simply racially motivated.

We have recently brought a quite large number of very nasty people, from very nasty cultures to Oz, & if you can't or haven't seen this, you are a very lucky lady.

All too many ladies have found this to be cold hard fact, much to their detriment.

Many people, not just ladies, will no longer ride a train after dark, in much of our cities.

We have ethnic wars going on in some areas of major cities, & there are definitely areas which have become no go areas for law enforcement, unless in platoon strength.

Drive by shootings are becoming comon in some ethnic areas.

So sorry sweety, not only is multiculturalism a major failure, it is a major catastrophe that we will pay for in strife, & blood for many generations.

This is a fact, & there is no nice way to put it.

Dear David,

I am not surprised that you don't want to be ruled by either religion or royalty, given that the examples we had over the last millennia were miserable indeed, as we had corrupt clergy disgracefully abusing the name of God for personal gain and kings who were only interested in their own pleasures and treating their subjects like vermin.

Don't worry, we are not going to have an ideal world (or a 'new-age') any time soon, but it may help to understand that this rule of religion and enlightened monarchs cannot be seen in isolation and imposed on current society: it is part of a bigger whole.

Other characteristics of an 'ideal world' include:
* Low human population.
* Peace, plenty and contentment.
* A pure and simple lifestyle.
* Kings consider ruling a heavy burden, a duty they accept with a heavy heart and are happy when they can relinquish it and retire around the age of 50.
* If a citizen has a complaint, the king will get out of bed in the middle of the night to listen to it.
* If even one citizen finds fault with their king, the king will immediately abdicate the throne in shame, possibly even giving up his life.
* Religious leaders are sages who live in isolation and want nothing from the world.
* Following religion is spontaneous: one has to go out of one's way not to.
* If you are generally a responsible person, intelligent and academic as you seem to be, who has no conflict with others, then the king will not interfere in your life.

Such a situation is currently infeasible. It doesn't matter whether it ever did or will exist on earth, but like the number i=sqrt(-1), which despite being imaginary can help us draw conclusions about real numbers, the absence of the above indicates why current governments/laws should not be followed.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Monarchy as an institution is corrupt in itself. Religion is a delusional system. The examples we have had in the past of rule by religion and monarchy are logical outcomes of institutions that are basically faulty. There is no reason to think that nonsense restored will be any better than past nonsense. The Enlightenment rejected rule by religion, and people over the world have gotten rid of monarchy. Unfortunately in some instances Lenins and Hitlers have replaced monarchy with their own arbitrary rule, but we can hope that people will eventually choose reason, compassion and democratic institutions. Religion and monarchy can only return us to a bloody past.

Dear David,

I was referring to an ideal rather than to our historical past, which we all know was bloody. Ideals may or may not exist, or perhaps may have existed on another planet, but they may be legitimately considered, like the imaginary number 'i', when assessing our policies in the 'real' world. Similarly, I referred to spiritual enlightenment, rather than the so-called 'enlightenment' period in Western history (1700-1800). I certainly am not wishing for a repeat of the rule of historical monarchs and historical corrupt churches.

As a political system, I certainly prefer a wise, loving, enlightened king (or queen) over democracy - the rule of the mob, which can be mediocre at best. The problem of course, is that the king may not turn out as wise, enlightened and benevolent as we assumed. Ideally we would have a prophet to choose and anoint the king (and sack him as well when necessary), but in this sceptical day and age, how many of us respect the prophets and have the skills to distinguish between the true and fake ones? Do we expect the mob to recognise the true prophet(s)? Ridiculous! It becomes circular, so politics in this day and age is hopeless and in conclusion we should therefore dismantle the state, or leave as little as possible of it.

As for religion, we discussed it several times already on other threads: an organisation such as a church or a set of teachings does not automatically qualify as 'religion' just because it claimed so or because it offers a belief in the supernatural. Many such organisations, both current and historical, fall short and are religions in name only. The Western-enlightenment-movement indeed rejected the rule of such phoney organisations - and rightly so.

Hasbeen I could post twenty items supporting your statement about the people who did that to your son.
It was and is the same people who turned Sydneys west in to a shooting gallery.
Lexi like I once walked those streets I am sure if she saw them now she would be shocked.
Read this mornings Sydney morning herald online.
But be prepared to be shocked.
Not by the usual Lebanese this time.
Syrians from different sides of their faith being threatened and bashed, forced out of business, in broad daylight, in Bankstown!
Ignore the truth but bit remains true, we have imported horror for many.

Dear Yuyutsu,

We just disagree.

You wrote:"I was referring to an ideal rather than to our historical past, which we all know was bloody. Ideals may or may not exist, or perhaps may have existed on another planet, but they may be legitimately considered, like the imaginary number 'i', when assessing our policies in the 'real' world. Similarly, I referred to spiritual enlightenment, rather than the so-called 'enlightenment' period in Western history (1700-1800). I certainly am not wishing for a repeat of the rule of historical monarchs and historical corrupt churches."

As far as I am concerned it is not ideal to have a monarch. I get no meaning from the words 'spiritual enlightenment' and would not apply the adjective, so-called, to the enlightenment period in Western history. That period in history opened up possibilities which had not existed before. Imaginary and real as terms used in mathematics are not the same as those words used in ordinary language. All numbers are imaginary since they are creations of the mind. Your imaginary ideal is not like the imaginary number i. Your imaginary ideal has no function. The imaginary number serves a purpose in electrical engineering and many other applications.

Dear Hasbeen,

I sympathise with your feelings about what happened to your son.

Dear David,

Do we in fact disagree that if we are to have some kind of "law and order", even the minimum, then it better be enforced by a decent, wise, loving, caring and independent king rather than by the median of the vulgar, foolish, selfish and easily-incited mob?

Of course there is the option of not having any "law and order" at all, which is fine if you are ready for it. I personally wouldn't go that far.

<<That period in history opened up possibilities which had not existed before.>>

For a millennium or two, in and around Europe.

This was certainly better than nothing, but still a far cry from enlightenment - the realisation of one's true nature as God, thus lifting the bondage of false identification with one's body and mind and being released from the painful illusion of birth and death.

<<All numbers are imaginary since they are creations of the mind.>>

And so is this world of objective existence.

Dear Yuyutsu,

"Do we in fact disagree that if we are to have some kind of "law and order", even the minimum, then it better be enforced by a decent, wise, loving, caring and independent king rather than by the median of the vulgar, foolish, selfish and easily-incited mob?"

The evidence is that kings are rarely 'decent, wise, loving, caring and independent'. However, people who are afraid of democracy characterise the people as a 'vulgar, foolish, selfish and easily-incited mob'.

I favour education in critical thinking and the mechanisms of democracy and the opportunity for discussion and debate so that people are not a 'vulgar, foolish, selfish and easily-incited mob'. I trust a well-educated and informed people to know better what is good for them than any monarch. The historical evidence is that a king is isolated from the people and is far more likely to be vulgar, foolish, selfish and easily-incited than the general public. Kings in general are isolated from the consequences of their acts. Ordinary people are not. The mass of ordinary people have a wisdom denied to kings.

Alexander wept because he had no more worlds to conquer. He was a stupid sod. Most ordinary people know there are far more worthwhile things to do with one's life than to go around killing and acquiring territory.

You also wrote: "the realisation of one's true nature as God"

That is meaningless nonsense.

You wrote: And so is this world of objective existence [imaginary].

This world of objective existence is the only real world.

You may answer, but I probably won't respond.

Here you go, rehctub,

More evidence that good "old Australia" is still alive and well - and as intolerant as ever.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-02/aboriginal-actors-racially-abused-in-melbourne/4664752

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-05/taxi-driver-refuses-to-pick-up-singer-gurrumul/4409100