The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE and CULTURAL IDENTITY.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE and CULTURAL IDENTITY.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Our founding fathers said 2 things in the constitutional context of interest to me regarding cultural identity.

1/ The pre-amble calls on the guidance/blessing of Almighty God.
2/ They stated that the government should not make any law promoting or hindering any religion. (if I understand it correctly)

HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Considering that most white Australians of that time were from England Ireland and Scottland, it is reasonable to assume that they were seeking to avoid the historical wars between Catholicism and Protestantism which characterized their past.

It is unlikely that they had any thought of other religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam at this time,though I would welcome evidence to the contrary if such exists.

FLAWED FOUNDATIONS.
If we build a house in a termite infested area, we use concrete stumps and termite shields to combat them.
If we had just ONE softwood stump with no termite shield, infestation is guaranteed.
Who, in their right mind would do such a thing?

IMMIGRATION POLICY IS A SOFTWOOD STUMP.

We need to revisit the constitution and alter it in terms of the following:

1/ Based on the strong cultural links of Australias pioneers and settlers to the JudaoChristian heritage, Government will provide good stewarship of this heritage by supervising all migration such that people are accepted on the basis of compatability with that heritage.

2/ People from other historical backgrounds are welcome, but in numbers which will never constitute a threat to the basic cultural cohesian of Australia.

3/ All creeds followed by would be migrants are to be scrutinized for any hint of animosity or values which are not compatable with the values established by the JudaoChristian heritage of Australia.

4/ Expressions of cultural difference should be managed, supervised and controlled such that they will not lead to outbursts of anti Australian sentiment. This could include:
a) Size and locations of houses of worship of non Christian traditions.
b) Numbers they are allowed to cater for.
c) Prohibition of ethnically based cultural societies (including 'English, Scottish, Irish)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 26 May 2007 8:55:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz you say "JudaoChristian heritage". What have the Jews done for Australia except champion the cause of Israel? You make it seem like their contribution to Australia is equal to that of Christians which could not be further from the truth.
Posted by EasyTimes, Saturday, 26 May 2007 12:07:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Twenty years ago, I held high hopes for this country that one day soon, the superstition of religion would be pushed out of mainstream debate, but sadly, it seems religious fanatics are spreading their idealogical nonsense in even greater and greater numbers. Take a look at the US. There's no shortage of places of worship packed to the doors with deluded people waving their arms in time to weird rock music and I'm afraid we have the same problem beginning to appear right here in Australia.
Christians, Muslims, they're all the same as they fervently scramble to spread their hatred and lies to the general populace.
I started life in the Catholic movement. It took me years to shake off the deceit and lies of the "faith." I remember a nun once telling me.... "I'll crack your head like and egg-shell" and "Communists will force you to turn against God by shoving splintery sticks through your ear drums." That one had me terrified for years. Indoctrination of children into religious organisations, no matter what particular creed they belong to, should be seen for what it is. Child abuse!
The one firm item that should have been written into the constitution is that religion indoctrination of all types should be immediately banned. It wasn't of course, because the constitution was written in a time when religious superstition held sway over the majority of people. I'm absolutely appalled to see that nothing much has changed.
Posted by Aime, Saturday, 26 May 2007 12:54:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EASY... I mention 'Judao' as well as Christian, because Christ emerged from the Mosaic tradition, and he was in fact the fulfullment of the law.

Jesus expressly said:

"This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." (Luke 24:44)

I mean 'Judao' in the spiritual sense not the ethnic sense. It has nothing to do with "Jews" as a race, but as part of the broader Tradition of the Christian faith.

AIME
I totally sympathize with your plight. Nothing would irk me more than to have had your experience of what you accurately describe as 'indoctrination'. Not only that, but you were obviously told things which were either half true or outright wrong, or threatened in order to persuade you to comply with a particular religious tradition, that being the Roman Catholic.

I also identify with your description of the mindless happy clapping types who are about as deep as a overflow from you sink to the benchtop. "been there, seen that".

Human traditions tacked onto true faith by religious leaders who place more importance on prestige and position were attacked by Jesus without mercy.

"You blind guides"
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
-You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside
-are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."

The verbal equivalent of an RPG in your face.

So, my main concern for you, is that you seem to share Christs view of 'religion' as you experienced it, but you also seem to have rejected Christ? This is very sad, because in one sense you are on the same page.

I ask you to search your own heart.. to see if there is any other underlying reason why you may wish to reject God on the basis of His supposed representatives behavior, then.. why not re-consider and seek fellowship with those who are more like the Jesus we can all read about ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 26 May 2007 1:14:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1
Well David, a nun once did indeed try to crack my skull. She hipped me into the brick wall of the little boy's toilet while helping the other side to win a game of net-ball. However, I'm sure it was an accident and her soothing words and apparent concern were genuine acts of remorse :-)

On a more serious note, I spent a number of years looking at various religious brands to see if I was missing something. Yes, I still felt guilty about abandoning my religion. Finding nothing of substance, I began to look at all angles of religion from the biker creed...."Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" to way out religions such as Buddhism (which isn't truly a religion at all) to Seven Day Adventists and while I respect all people's right to believe what they want, or be as deluded as they allow themselves to be, I have never found any reality in believing in things that I believe do not exist ie: Something called God that flies around in the sky watching your every move and seeking to destroy you for what it concedes as being against it's own idea of right and wrong.
And what happens when you die? Maybe you believe your "soul" goes to heaven or a "better place?" What's a soul David? (I hope you don't mind me calling you David?) When is a "soul" formed? When "it" goes to "heaven" (or where ever), is it old? young? infirm like some of the people I care for at work? If not, then how will we recognise them when our "soul" get to heaven? What about twins? Who gets the "soul" then?
Posted by Aime, Saturday, 26 May 2007 1:52:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2.
David, we're simply animals that were cursed with being able to think. This ability allowed us, in centuries long ago, to twist natural phenomena into superstitions. We went one step further and needed "something" or "someone" to blame/praise for these "strange" events, events that in that time had no seemingly logical explanation, so the "thinking animal" dreamed up "God!"
Religion belongs to a dinosaur past. You don't have to be religious to be kind to others. As it is, I'm stepping well outside my usual "kindness comfort zone" by replying to you in this way, but if people don't continue to speak out against the superstition of religious beliefs, then I can't see much of a future for this big ol' World of ours.
Posted by Aime, Saturday, 26 May 2007 1:53:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do believe Boazy that the "founding fathers" as you put them made no mistake when they said religion but not specifying which one. This would be because those of the Muslim faith and of Buddhist (Chinese) have been a part of the cultural landscape for a long time, even before Federation.

The chinese have been a major part of our pearl industry and early gold mining history and they don't call the 'Ghan railway that for nothing you know.

But this part intrigued me:
"4/ Expressions of cultural difference should be managed, supervised and controlled such that they will not lead to outbursts of anti Australian sentiment. This could include:
a) Size and locations of houses of worship of non Christian traditions.
b) Numbers they are allowed to cater for.
c) Prohibition of ethnically based cultural societies (including 'English, Scottish, Irish)"

The more I thought about it, the more I thought it sounded like a Fascist manifesto. Seriously, any understanding of what the constitution was supposed to protect has totally passed you by. I suggest that you really think about what you are saying before you type it. Pericles is right, you are just a rabble rouser, but I do take heart in fact that if it weren't for the internet, then you you would never be listened to. You aren't an Al-qaeda troll are you? It all fits, the intimate knowledge of the Quran, the idiotic things said seemingly in support of christianity, which aren't very christian at all. Its all either very clever or very stupid, I can't tell yet.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 26 May 2007 9:39:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The foundation of this country was on the premise of defending the country from the "yellow peril" and at the same time, some how upholding the virtues of a modern democracy. Founders such as Deakin (from the white Australia movement: ANA) and Parkes (well known megalomaniac) were not ashamed at all about their racist agendas.

Their only criticism came from the United Kingdom, which was more reserved about grotesque boldness in disharmony within the Empire; this is, between all races.

We missed having a Bill of Rights by virtue that the Tasmanian Premier missed the founding conference as he had a fever. He wanted a United States of Australia with a Bill of Rights. This would have given freedom of religion as well as the separation of religion and state. We were left with a compromise with Parkes and Deakin dominating the foundation.

Of course we need a Bill of Rights or a Charter of Rights. It is just a matter of completing the business of Federation, which was never sufficiently resolved.

Also David, you can never assume that a religion is necessarily imported. If we grow as insane as America, and Australia is following this insanity to the book, you will probably see a number of new religions sprout from within this country.

Like in America, you will see people worshipping nuclear bombs as sacred (I'm not even being satirical here), and Raolians who are waiting for the grey aliens from outer space to land. They even built a multi-million dollar landing pad for their convenience. This is not dissimilar to the Cargo Cult.

When you play with the constitution, you are not looking at the next decade or two; you have to look forward to a hundred years or so for our grandchildren and great grandchildren. The forefathers did their best, but all we have to do is complete the task. We don't need to take away religious freedom; we need to have it in writing, just in case.
Posted by saintfletcher, Sunday, 27 May 2007 2:59:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime... I recognize your personal struggle, but if I may, it seems you began with your conclusion and ended up there also :) in spite of your obvious wide reading. I'm encouraged that you looked closely enough at Buddhism to realize is isn't a religion.. well done.

I can't dissuade you in my own strength, I can only pray, and seek the Lord about opening your heart further. I recommend a reading of Marks Gospel (for brevity/action movie style) and Matthews for detailed teaching, Lukes for connection to history and Johns for the deeper elements of compassion and love in the relationship between the believer and Christ.

Bugsy, yes I can see why my 'presciption' might be termed 'fascist' but I always thought fascism was more connected notions of racial superiority,purity and supremacy like Aryans etc.. I don't hold such views. I do hold very much to the idea of a 'dominant' or prevailing cultural situation, but that is only linked to race in a 'coincidence of history' rather than doctrinal way.

The reality is, I was simply relating the restrictions outlined in the Charter of Omar for "dhimmi's" i.e. Christians/Jews under Muslim rule, and putting that into a modern context.
You have now given me joy by recognizing that Islam is in fact Fascism :)

A healthy Church is one which lives by its creeds, and has the authority (by living its creeds) to be Salt and Light to any form of government or economic structure.

"My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." John 18.36

"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" said Paul (Phil 3:20)

Because we (the Church) are not linked to earthtly movements for power, (in terms of the fundamentals of the Christian faith) we can stand back and criticise, encourage, advise, rebuke etc..in Gods name
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 27 May 2007 10:45:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saintly.... your noting of the British concerns for Australia being linked to their basic self interest of keeping a lid on things in the Empire is astute. Yes, they cared little for the future of Australia, and more for their own money making/power expanding opportunities.

The British didn't care about the massive influx of Chinese to Australia, in fact they opposed any stop due to treaties they worked out with the Chinese ..probably due to guilt over the oppressive opium wars. Again.. its all national self interest at work.

Isaiah the prophet would have torn the British government to shreds over their dealing with China and then with Australia.
(read Isaiah 1)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 27 May 2007 10:49:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheers boaz thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by EasyTimes, Sunday, 27 May 2007 12:51:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well spotted Bugsy.

>>The more I thought about it, the more I thought it sounded like a Fascist manifesto<<

Regrettably, Boaz takes this type of observation as a compliment.

Mind you, my mind is still boggling at this example of his chutzpah:

saintfletcher wrote:

>>The foundation of this country was on the premise of defending the country from the "yellow peril" and at the same time, some how upholding the virtues of a modern democracy. Founders such as Deakin (from the white Australia movement: ANA) and Parkes (well known megalomaniac) were not ashamed at all about their racist agendas. Their only criticism came from the United Kingdom, which was more reserved about grotesque boldness in disharmony within the Empire; this is, between all races<<

To which Boaz responds:

>>Saintly.... your noting of the British concerns for Australia being linked to their basic self interest of keeping a lid on things in the Empire is astute<<

Classic!
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 27 May 2007 5:56:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gees Boazy you are a patronising pr!ck
Posted by alanpoi, Sunday, 27 May 2007 10:42:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan... I'm trying to engage and remove barriers.. but thanx for the criticism... I surely need it. I'll take it as constructive and well meant.

Pericles, I summed up the British attitude. No matter what they were up to, they cared little for racial harmony except in how it fed the coffers of Empire.

The redeeming glory of the Empire is that it produced such scholars as Muir on whom I rely considerably for information about Islamic origins.
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Books/Muir/Life2/index.htm

cheers.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 27 May 2007 11:20:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Preamble to the Australian Constitution

We the people of Australia, having come from all lands on earth, commit to this Constitution.

We call on all future legislators to protect the rights of Australian citizens seven generations hence, each and every time they consider making new laws.

For justice we require; freedom from discrimination of any description, be it on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality, age, marital status, religion or political belief or any other failure to respect group or individual rights to freedom.

We establish as inviolable and mandatory, the right to free education as a national imperative to enable our people to develop their talents to the fullest. We consider the provision of quality education for all, the soundest basis for our defence and prosperity.

We will honour our treaties and international obligations to the United Nations. Any Government that attempts to break our commitment must relinquish office and take the issue to the people.

Further we command and establish Citizen led Referendum and the vote as both an absolute right and responsibility.

We establish as inviolable and mandatory, the principle that our armed forces shall never be used to make or begin an offensive war and will only ever act internally or beyond our borders, to defend and protect the security of or citizens and the sovereignty of our republic. The use of our armed forces against the human rights of immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers and any of our peoples in times of civil unrest, is repugnant to the memory of those who have served our nation and would debase the honourable military tradition we hold so dear.

We therefore, mandate that all civil unrest whether it is generated internally or from beyond our borders shall be addressed by our civilian police force under civil law.

And so, we pass to you who follow the care of our beloved Australia, honour our trust, and sustain our democracy with courage, integrity, fairness and good humour.
Posted by lorry, Monday, 28 May 2007 12:34:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Lorry.. not a bad effort there mate... and welcome to this thread.

Clearly, that version which you offered, contains a lot of ideas which need to be looked at more closely, but 2 points I'll pick up on here....

BACKGROUND STATEMENT.

Amnesty International has recently taken a rather idiological stance re abortion. The general secretary is a Muslim.
(Irene Khan)

RELEVANCE to the UN.
My worry always, is that the concept of 'Human Rights' is defined by people who have not considered many dangerous ramifications of such a policy. The UN being a pseudo political body, a venue where many horrific regimes and simply 'greedy' ones, or.. cultural interests (Japanese whaling) seek to control the body for their own benefit.
UN conventions are not really needed, we just need 2 simple principles for life, which, can be reduced to '1' if we agree that the world 'might' have occurred simply by chance and that the Almighty is not there.

The 2 Principles are a)Love God b) Do for others as you would have them do for you.

If the idea of God is rejected, then we are left with 'Do for others'.

Now it becomes very tricky. Without any divine authority for that, we are faced with the likes of China, and other atheistic or.. militant religious regimes who have pretty much zero interest in such quaint ideas as doing nice things to others unless it serves their national or religious interest.

I wish there were some inalienable, certain, sure, enduring human princple which could guide us all, that we could all agree on, but the sad truth is... mostly its just make it up as you go with the 2 'primal' instincts of
1/Survival-self (and own kind) preservation.
2/Self (or own kind) propogration.
3/Self (and own kind) gratification.

Me..I live under the Almighty and His grace in Christ Jesus. I know of no other workable alternative.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 28 May 2007 1:14:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz_David said......

Me..I live under the Almighty and His grace in Christ Jesus. I know of no other workable alternative.

Perhaps part of my beliefs (or delusions you may prefer to say) is that there is another workable alternative. Surely there's enough people in the World that could forsake hatred, greed, anger and superstition long enough to actually care for all the animals and people and plants on this Earth?
Humanists go a long way down this path, as do Buddhists, but both continue to believe in a greater power. Buddhist believe in re-incarnation. Humanists believe in the power of humanity alone which is essentially flawed. You, David, have all the right stuff, but about there being a God or someone who walked on Earth thought to be the son of God, well, on that we'll have to agree to disagree.
I've read the New Testament. I've read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as you mentioned above on many occasions. At one time I attended bible classes, yet that scientific notion of "proof" kept gnawing at the back of my mind. Eventually, I had to concede that I didn't believe what I read in the bible. You can't continue to sit on the fence. I had to be true to myself and attempt a life's path of "do no harm."
Already, I'm overstepping that boundary because I realise these words could well cause you mental anguish. That is not my intention.
All I wish is that you would use scientific argument instead of quotes from a book that not everybody on this site adheres to.
I'll say no more on the subject as this is not a site intended for that purpose, except to say.... Thanks David for the opportunity and your obvious care.
Posted by Aime, Monday, 28 May 2007 2:46:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear BOAZ, Your proposed changes to Constitutional and Cultural identity, is not necessary, as the Howard government has been working on your wishes for eleven years. Pauline kicked the process off by denigrating Aboriginals and Asians, Howard appropriated Pauline's hatred and added Muslims to his hate list.
Aime, i totally agree with you, i too suffered torture and cruelty at the hands of the catholics. Religions are responsible for the hatred and ignorance, so apparent in the world today.
The religious USA administration, is the major torturer and punisher , and with the most blood on it,s hands in today,s mad mad world.
Posted by Sarah101, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 7:47:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Aime :) cause me mental anguish ? .. good grief.. yep.. about as much as your words would cause the man born blind who Jesus healed and responded to the Pharisees "Don't you know this man is a sinner"?
with "Whether he is a sinner I don't know, but one thing I do know.... I was blind..but now I see"....

You don't need to worry about hurting my feelings.. but thanx for the concern.
I read your post carefully... and would like to pick up on one point.
You mentioned 'proof'... can I offer the idea of 'legal proof' against 'scientific' proof ? The testimony of Witnesses is something we hang/or not hang people on (figuratively speaking) We shape our national destiny of the basis of reports etc..
If only we could spend some time in Bible study.. I warmly recommend a thorough study of New Testament background.. and the letters of Paul. Sometimes little pearls of 'self evident truth' crop up in amazing ways. You can see the living connection between the writer and other peoples lives.. do a topical study on DEMAS and see where his name crops up..its fascinating.

Yes, or course we can agree to disagree, but still, with the safe distance of the forum between us, there is surely room for some civil back and forth which might challenge both of us?

Sarah.. I am sometimes rather harsh on your views, please don't take it personally. I hear what ur saying, but the problems are far more complex than simply 'Howard this and/or that'... if you find an old thread of mine (which didn't have much outside interest) on "Cherbourg" you might see the depths of the problem, and also a solution.

My solution and vision/dream is found in "ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE ONE RACE...FULL STOP" thread.. which is deliberately designed to be controversial.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=164#3027
I don't believe any of us are racially 'less' than others, that thread shows why.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 8:50:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many of us believe we are all descended from Adam and Eve so is distressing to see so many of our cousins arguing their lineage is worth more than anothers.
Posted by polpak, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 9:39:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy old son when are you going to respond to my query in a previous post? how do you reconcile your vilifaction and hatred of other religons and races, in light of Jesus's 11th commandment "that ye shall love one another" John 13:34-35?.
Posted by alanpoi, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 9:41:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our founding fathers should read: 'English constitution adopting' Fathers.

'Of course we need a Bill of Rights or a Charter of Rights. It is just a matter of completing the business of Federation, which was never sufficiently resolved.' ( Ain't that the truth.)

What is needed is a real Australian Constitution, created by the honourable citizens of Australia for the peoples of Australia.

No more b.s. about being sworn in with the use of any name from any Queen who has no more power over foreign people.

Any "Australian poli who was sworn in under the Queen's name is a foreign agent."

"just my Eureka coin's worth "
Posted by eftfnc, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 3:06:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan.. its difficult to respond to something I don't stand for mate.

I'll quote you so I'm spot on here..

[how do you reconcile your vilifaction and hatred of other religons and races, in light of Jesus's 11th commandment "that ye shall love one another" John 13:34-35?.]

I criticize only 'religions' (Particularly Islam)..not races.
People were....

1/ Born with it,.. too difficult to question it... its their culture. -They have my sympathy.

2/ Those who have converted, based usually on limited, sugar coated information, by Islamic web sites and promotional brochures. This group is simply 'sucked in'.. and have my sympathy.

3/ Those who have come from a violent or criminal background, and found in Islam a focus for their rage, and no contradiction between the faith and their predisposition to violence. These are enemies of our laws and our state.

4/ Those who are simply 'extremists' in the sense of regarding the Quran as 'the absolute word of allah' for all time. Who work towards a goal of establishing Sharia law in Australia and an Islamic Caliphate.
This group is my absolute enemy and the enemy of this country.
While I'm prepared to offer the love which Christ spoke of, I am also prepared to 'tell it like it is' in terms of Pauls denunciation of 'a different gospel' in Galatians 1 (please read the chapter)

It should be remembered though, that Paul was speaking to Christians when he said this.. so I don't take it as my que to tell such people 'TURRRRN OR BURRRRRN' so to speak. But I will unapologetically point out reasons why I feel Mohammad was :
a) Not from God
b) Not a prophet
c) Not to be followed or believed.

When Jesus spoke of what you describe as the 11th commandment.. he was in reality summing up the last 6 commandments and saying "This is what they mean...."love others as you would have them love you" and if I had cancer, I'd prefer the Doc told me before it became terminal.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 4:21:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saintfletcher said: "The foundation of this country was on the premise of defending the country from the "yellow peril" and at the same time, some how upholding the virtues of a modern democracy. Founders such as Deakin (from the white Australia movement: ANA) and Parkes (well known megalomaniac) were not ashamed at all about their racist agendas."

What an absolute load of revisionist nonsense.

Nation-states are political expressions of a "nation", with a "nation" defined as a specific ethno-cultural community. That's why, even today, most nation-states impose immigration controls in order to retain their respective ethnic and cultural majorities.

Australia was founded as an off-shoot of British civilisation. Its culture, traditions and institutions were British derived. The overwhelming majority of its people originated from the British Isles. In a democracy, societies have always had the fundamental right to determine who should belong to them. Therefore, I fail to see how concerns about "yellow peril" were mutually exclusive with democracy.

From my perspective, Australia's founding fathers were merely seeking to preserve the country's British characteristics. Thus, concern about "yellow peril" was driven more by self-preservation than egregious racism.
Posted by Oligarch, Monday, 11 June 2007 2:39:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy