Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you don't mind boat people coming to Australia?
Some may call it an invasion but it's just a progression in civilisation
You've hit the nail smack on the head
No, I don't mind necessarily, providing they leave their religious baggage and cultural differences behind and assimilate with the rest of us, but I fear that will NOT be the case as that 'culture' and 'religion' thing will raise their ugly heads, but it's food for thought isn't it as that scenario *could* become a reality for some generation in the future.
We can play around with the odd boat or three now, but how would we go if those boat numbers increased significantly, and constantly?
Australia has a propensity to bend over backwards in supporting and cow-towing to other races and religions here, at the expense of all else. That's more animosity stirred up by the do-gooders, academics, beurocrats and politics.
Interesting times ahead for some future generation me thinks?
I won't be 'race' that will be the deciding factor, it will be 'religion'!
And I'll tell you something else, they won't tolerate this 'indigenous' BS.
Did the people on the boats that sailed into Botany Bay a few centuries back try and assimilate with the indigenous people and understand their culture and not force their religion on anyone else?
Did the people on the boats that sailed into Botany Bay a few centuries back try and assimilate with the indigenous people and understand their culture and not force their religion on anyone else?
That's my point, it's been going on since time began and no doubt it will continue into the future, it's occurring as we speak somewhere on this planet, it's the inherant nature of the human animal.
However, the way I see it, the term or reference of 'civilisation' doesn't go in reverse, it always moves forward {and the term 'forward' could be open to debate?}. The coloniser or invader won't regress to the natives level of lifestyle or culture, rather they will automatically override that to what they consider is more acceptable to the structure or level of civilisation as they perceive it at that given point in time {not sure if I've explained myself very well here}.
Lands that are 'colonised' or 'taken over' etc by and large have the colonisers or invaders will/culture/religion forced upon them. Not saying I agree with it necessarily, but that's how it's been for centuries. The only difference I see today is it's more what is ON or IN that land which is considered valuable to this capitalist system in operation today as opposed to just a nation or peoples yearning for expansion/extension of their own land mass.
The aboriginal is just caught up in that 'moving forward' concept.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,144,031 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzrugby
So you would base it on what ?
Would you allow white South Africans in to Aus ? the ones who believed apartheid was a fine system when they had a maid living in a dog kennel in their South African house.
On what they can contribute to our society, as is happening now.
If the South African doesn't bring his/her racist attitudes with him...unfortunately some do, especially the way the country has done a back-flip and is now persecuting whites.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,144,031 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by ino
You've hit the nail smack on the head
No, I don't mind necessarily, providing they leave their religious baggage and cultural differences behind and assimilate with the rest of us, but I fear that will NOT be the case as that 'culture' and 'religion' thing will raise their ugly heads, but it's food for thought isn't it as that scenario *could* become a reality for some generation in the future.
We can play around with the odd boat or three now, but how would we go if those boat numbers increased significantly, and constantly?
Australia has a propensity to bend over backwards in supporting and cow-towing to other races and religions here, at the expense of all else. That's more animosity stirred up by the do-gooders, academics, beurocrats and politics.
Interesting times ahead for some future generation me thinks?
I won't be 'race' that will be the deciding factor, it will be 'religion'!
And I'll tell you something else, they won't tolerate this 'indigenous' BS.
I think the whole religion thing is a bit overrated. Immigration from Muslim nations isn't even all that high in Australia. It looks to be a worry in certain parts of Europe, however, but I don't know why the Europeans are so liberal with immigration there. It's relative, I know, but they've got a right to protect their ethnic homelands.
The Lebanese vs 'Aussies' conflict is based more on racism and xenophobia than religion. Most Lebanese who come here are actually Catholics, it's the vocal Muslim minority which gets the headlines. Just because 60 minutes aired some story about some radical imam who declared women are 'pieces of meat', and just because Liz Hayes visibly takes the emotive position, does not mean Islam is taking over. Occasionally a story appears about about Muslim women wanting to take over swimming pools for an hour or two a week. Even that is promptly shot down by public opinion. Most Australian Muslims understand that Australia never will be an Islamic nation, and are happy enough practising their religion within their own community or in private. Seldom do I see the sort of social extremism of Saudi Arabia in Australian Islam anyway.
I think the whole religion thing is a bit overrated. Immigration from Muslim nations isn't even all that high in Australia. It looks to be a worry in certain parts of Europe, however, but I don't know why the Europeans are so liberal with immigration there. It's relative, I know, but they've got a right to protect their ethnic homelands.
The Lebanese vs 'Aussies' conflict is based more on racism and xenophobia than religion. Most Lebanese who come here are actually Catholics, it's the vocal Muslim minority which gets the headlines. Just because 60 minutes aired some story about some radical imam who declared women are 'pieces of meat', and just because Liz Hayes visibly takes the emotive position, does not mean Islam is taking over. Occasionally a story appears about about Muslim women wanting to take over swimming pools for an hour or two a week. Even that is promptly shot down by public opinion. Most Australian Muslims understand that Australia never will be an Islamic nation, and are happy enough practising their religion within their own community or in private. Seldom do I see the sort of social extremism of Saudi Arabia in Australian Islam anyway.
In Europe the reason why it allowed so many non european immigrants is due to the labour shortage over there. In Germany it brought in guest workers as as Turkish people and they were expected to live there for an few years before returning back to their countries. They never went back to their countries.
Yes you are right the Muslim immigration is small compared to Asian and Indian immigration. (Most indians are Hindu).
Of course there are muslims that don't wish to integrate in Australia and some are outspoken about it. In parts of sydney I dont find it unusual to see muslim women to have an face veil or burka. Yet they have no chance of ever taking over this country.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,144,031 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by other99
In Europe the reason why it allowed so many non european immigrants is due to the labour shortage over there. In Germany it brought in guest workers as as Turkish people and they were expected to live there for an few years before returning back to their countries. They never went back to their countries.
Yes you are right the Muslim immigration is small compared to Asian and Indian immigration. (Most indians are Hindu).
Of course there are muslims that don't wish to integrate in Australia and some are outspoken about it. In parts of sydney I dont find it unusual to see muslim women to have an face veil or burka. Yet they have no chance of ever taking over this country.
Nothing wrong with wearing a veil, but when they want to impose their culture and beliefs on OTHERS then it becomes a problem.
I thought it was ludicrous when the media was making such a hoo-ha about some Muslim imam saying that western women who dressed skimpily were like 'pieces of meat.' So what? He's not committing any crime is he? No different to what any preacher would say to his congregation on a Sunday. Who bloody cares what some guy in white wearing a cap thinks anyway? It's not going to change our habits or anything so it's obviously a case of them being desperate to find controversy.
Nothing wrong with wearing a veil, but when they want to impose their culture and beliefs on OTHERS then it becomes a problem.
I thought it was ludicrous when the media was making such a hoo-ha about some Muslim imam saying that western women who dressed skimpily were like 'pieces of meat.' So what? He's not committing any crime is he? No different to what any preacher would say to his congregation on a Sunday. Who bloody cares what some guy in white wearing a cap thinks anyway? It's not going to change our habits or anything so it's obviously a case of them being desperate to find controversy.
Find me a priest/reverend/minister/rabbi in Sydney who would agree that the women who were gang-raped by those thugs deserved it. That is what Hilali was referring to. Before he got to his "meat" remark he had referred to Judges giving people 65 years (which is what Skaf got for the gang-rapes).
Quote:
"And then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years". "But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked....
In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?
"The uncovered meat is the problem."
Whether it was a Christian/Jewish/Muslim cleric who said it, it wouldn't change how disgusting the statement was.
Nothing wrong with wearing a veil, but when they want to impose their culture and beliefs on OTHERS then it becomes a problem.
I thought it was ludicrous when the media was making such a hoo-ha about some Muslim imam saying that western women who dressed skimpily were like 'pieces of meat.' So what? He's not committing any crime is he? No different to what any preacher would say to his congregation on a Sunday. Who bloody cares what some guy in white wearing a cap thinks anyway? It's not going to change our habits or anything so it's obviously a case of them being desperate to find controversy.
What caused controversy is what he stated was against the values of Australia. Even though Australia is an secular country plus the founding fathers were secular it was founded under an Christian judeo values and it is still to an certain extent is. Thats why there is no uproar regarding what preachers in the churches say compared to certain muslim preachers.
Last edited by other99; 02-05-2012 at 07:15 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
