David F,
Incorrect, Aborigines weren't forced to live on missions, they lived on missions or camped nearby in order to take advantage of the facilities, the rations and such and a condition of gaining access to those facilities was church attendance or work. It's called the "No free lunch" principle and there's no way a lone priest or nun and their small staff could compel Aborigines to do much of anything around a mission.
Your explanation is a blatantly racist caricature because it strips Aborigines of any agency, maybe these "proud" people really were too proud to take charity and saw church attendance or doing odd jobs around the mission as a more dignified exchange?
Maybe some Aborigines were just greedy, or lazy and did want free tucker and medical care, because as fully autonomous, thinking people they also have negative as well as positive traits, they have emotions and desires, they lie and concoct schemes and come up with excuses and sob stories just like anyone else.

Jay of Melbourne,

On Friday, 15 August 2014 I posted a thread: "Too many people complain in Australia". It got 27 pages of comments and read:

"I have Epilepsy and saw my Neurologist today. Upon going there on the bus, I started to get a condition from earlier this year.

My specialist suggested a solution.

I was really impressed with what was suggested, thanking her. I said I was was really impressed with the fact that we have so many intelligent specialists here, compared to poor and war torn countries.

Too many people complain in Australia - like the $7.00? GP payment. Why? Look at Palestine or many third world countries and their countires. Grow up Australia - and stop complaining! We are a lucky country!"

Also read this piece from G'day Bruce, highlighting my point well: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6531&page=3

Too many Australian people of the extremist left and right wing cause complain too much - after all it's cheaper than going to see a specialist for professional help, with an addiction. P.S It's called the complaining drug (or TCD).

Dear Yuyutsu,

There is no agreed definition of religion. We are also on shaky ground to have the secular state define what is and what is not a religion. However, being familiar with your posts on the subject I would trust you less to define a religion than I would trust the secular state.

I also disagree with your analogy of cat guarding the cream. To me religion is more like curdled milk.

Islam was, and is, and forever will be a political movement.

It is theocratic, not democratic and as such is implacably opposed to our way of life.

If it is not removed from our society it will eventually destroy all that for which we and our forebears have striven.

There can be no compromise with such a political movement because it, of its very nature, cannot compromise.

Dear Is Mise,

Equating Islam with Jihadi terrorists means
equating the beliefs of 1.5 billion people
with terrorism.

To me at least, that is not logical
or accurate.

'afternoon to you FOXY...

I do agree with your statement that we are all different, whatever our religious proclivities may be ? Christian, Jewish or any other religion, save for the Muslims. While it's true there are many decent, good law-abiding Islamic people, nevertheless the radicals exercise huge influence and sway over all Muslims, moderates or otherwise ?

As an example, prior to WWII most of the German population were just ordinary people trying to earn a modest living post the Great Depression of the 1930's. Along came Mr HITLER and a handful of crazy Nazi's and the whole world became enflamed in total war. You see, HITLER and Co held such great influence over ordinary Germans, and the rest is history, as they say. It should be noted many ordinary German people were of the Christian faith.

The same applies to Islam ! Ask any Muslim residing in Oz today ? If hostilities between Australia and the Islamic religion were to break out ? On what side would they fully support ?

(i) Would they defend Australia, against all Islamic influences and demands ?

or;

(ii) Would they defend the Islamic religion and everything it stands for, against Australia and it's interests ? Ostensibly their home, or adopted home ? The answer is unquestionably the latter, without a doubt.

For some inexplicable reason, their tenets and ideology, seem only to breed and nurture, the most violent of these zealot's and their splinter (ISIL) sectarian follower's, like no other religion that I've ever heard of ? Where violence remains still, most prominently, within their very strict belief systems ?