Multiculturalism can take (at least) two forms: one focussing on diversity, and another focussing on inclusion. Each has very different implications for the notion of an Australian community

One way for governments to go is to welcome people from overseas, fund their particular 'community' organisations, schools and media, each in its own cocoon, as part of a diverse and extremely colourful and quaint collection of 'communities'.

A more difficult task faces a government which is focussing on an inclusive community built around what are broadly upheld as Australian values - basically, the values of the Enlightenment, of equality and the rule of law, in the interests of a common, open, multi-faith community, built on broadly-shared values. If a government chooses this path, it would be obliged to constantly promote the imperatives of commonalities, common rights and responsibilities, and build around that adherence to those Australian values, and forswear divergent values which do not fit easily into that common framework.

There is an enormous amount of play in the concept of 'Australian': one can adhere to Greek or Filipina or Chilean or Dinka traditions, culture and social relationships simultaneously with adhering to Australian values. But if we are to remain one, every-blossoming, ever-enriching Australian 'community', then major divergences in values would need to be tempered to come broadly into line with those of the general community.

If we are to have an inclusive community, then that inclusion must be anchored around the values that we more or less share in common. This doesn't mean that we have to live in each pockets or constantly be looking over each other's shoulder, but every Australian, from no matter what background, is equally entitled to the protection of the law on the one hand, and to social opportunity on the other.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Do you hear yourself Cherful?

You, according to you (!), are much better informed about Daesh's motive and those of its adherents than they are themselves. They, according to you, have deluded themselves about what their real motives are. Seriously? Wow I bet they wish they had someone like you on board to tell them what their real aims are.

I agree that most wars in most times of history in most parts of the world are fought over resources or for security - more the later than the former, but that's a different discussion. But that doesn't mean that all wars at all times are fought for that reason. You've fallen for the oldest syllogism in the book...

All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat.
All wars are fought for territory. This is a war, therefore its about territory.
I doubt you'll see the logic but others might.

These people are zealots, thoroughly imbued with the teachings in their holy books. Their religion isn't a 'smokescreen', its the whole picture. They haven't deluded themselves into thinking their acts are holy. In their terms they are holy.

Its a common error by those unfamiliar with historical research to project your own thinking, motivations and prejudices onto others. Its clear that for most civilisations and movements, aggression is about gaining some material advantage. But if you do a little (well actually a lot) of reading about what Daesh says its aims are and what their holy texts tell them their aims should be, you'll soon learn that their thinking is very different to what you imagine.

Hi Mhaze,

Hmmmm .... I think you snookered yourself :)

All cats have four legs (as do most mammals). My dog has four legs. Therefore the best one can say is that it is a mammal.

"All wars are fought for territory. This is a war, therefore its about territory."

Well, yes: that is precisely how you have define a 'war', 'all wars', war as a form of conflict which is invariably a fight for territory: 'all' wars. The implication is that, if it is not a fight for territory, then it is not a war.

Anyway, for those interested in a philosophical critique of fundamentalism, and the weak support for Enlightenment values in Europe, try this article by Pascal Bruckner:

http://www.signandsight.com/features/1146.html

in which he points out that: "Denouncing the excesses of the Enlightenment in the concepts that it forged means being true to its spirit."

Exactly !

Joe

Loudmouth (or Joe?),

You missed my point. I was parodying Cherful's thinking. He has stated earlier that this must be about territory because all wars are about territory. I was pointing out that the logic doesn't follow in the same way as the famous dog-is-a-cat syllogism doesn't follow.

Hi Mhaze,

Not really: it depends how you define war: if you declare that "all wars (A) are about territory (B)", and (C) is a war, then B follows from your first premise.

Your first syllogism breaks the Law of the Excluded Middle: If you re-phrased it as follows: all four-legged animals (B) are cats (A), my dog (C) has four legs (B), therefore it is a cat (A), that would be logical, but because your first premise is false (since not all four-legged animals are cats), of course the conclusion is false.

As it stands, if you had said: all cats (A) have four legs (B), all dogs (C) have four legs (B), therefore my dog (C) is a dog (C), no worries, the premises AND the conclusion are true, but you're not saying much.

Perhaps what you are getting at is that since, you may suggest, ISIS (A) is not fighting a war (not B), i.e. a conventional war, therefore its fight is not about territory (not C). Is that it ? Of course, the conclusion still doesn't follow from the premise.

Cheers,

Joe

mikk - "This is our fault as much as the terrorists. ... We are guilty."

I think it is fair to say that this kind of viewpoint is akin to an IMMUNODEFICIENCY DISEASE in our community.

I base this judgement on the fact that those who hold this viewpoint DO NOT extend the same rationale to the "white" disaffected elements of the community they tend to deem "racist".

The same logic should apply to ALL members of the community, national and global. If angry Non Muslims are somehow responsible for Moderate Muslims becoming Radical Muslims, why can't one rationalise the same logic for why the so-called Anglo 'racists' (e.g. Cronulla rioters) become who they are seen as in the media as angry and resentful? Why are the latter the 'racists' who need to act more responsibly but not the former? Are the former Moderate Muslims seen as child-like somehow and not capable of responsibly taking a different course of action than to be pushed into sypathising for Jihad by their apparent racist Anglo neighbours?

Who is the CAUSE and who is the EFFECT??