Oh, Look! Australia Has A Pair!

[Famine]

I think it's slightly amusing that a country founded on immigrant criminals wants to turn away radical Islamic fundamentalists.

 

[Swift]

This is America, so learn English? Why aren't we learning Native American languages? This is America after all. And before we Americans start enforcing English as our only language, how about we start learning to speak it correctly? I hear too many could of's and should of's for us to be taken seriously with this whole English thing.

At school, there was a Japanese girl talking to her mom on her cell phone. Someone, in the most rude manner, yells out, "Speak English!" He then walks away thinking he has just done something patriotic.

SHE IS TALKING TO HER MOM. If I travel to Japan and wish to call my mom and speak English with her, I hope no one yells at me to speak Japanese.

My apologies for being slightly off-topic but that statement really set me off. If anything, this thread is about cultural acceptance and that's what my rant was about.

First, you're quite right. That guy was way off base. As long as she wasn't talking to him in Japanese, he shouldn't have a problem.

But, you general argument is full of holes. There's a difference between trying to speak english and just saying, "forget it, I'm going to stick with 'insert language here' and they'll just have to get used to it" That's the type of attitude that I believe that other person was posting about.

I WISH I was bilingual. It's a wonderful assest and can even be turned into profit. But I must admit that it gets on my nerves that even now at my bank before I even enter my PIN at the ATM I have to choose between English and Spanish.

"This is Australia and our language is English" That's excellent and beyond fair. If you don't like it, split. I wish America would take a similar stance. But we're so worried about the stupid liberal orginaztions branding us evil in the press. Morons.

I think it's slightly amusing that a country founded on immigrant criminals wants to turn away radical Islamic fundamentalists.

Two things on that

1. Shouldn't it be "founded BY immagrant criminals"
2. America, much like the rest of the new world, was founded and started by the then undesirables of the time. In the case of America, religious "refugees"

 

[dougiemeats]

Thanks Swift, for being respectful in your disagreement with me. Don't get me wrong, I think the English language should still be taught to anyone living here, but we also need to acknowledge the fact that as long as we remain "the greatest nation in the world," there will be many that wish to live here. It's a downside to having the title. We can resort to building walls, (figuratively and physically) or we can learn the benefits of acceptance.

I just viewed the statement as misoverstood patriotism. You know, coming from the same people that hold up all of the anti-Toyota signs at NASCAR events.

 

[ledhed]

I think it's slightly amusing that a country founded on immigrant criminals wants to turn away radical Islamic fundamentalists.

Sure ..instead of robbing them first then shooting them ...criminals now days are really getting soft .

 

[Famine]

Two things on that

1. Shouldn't it be "founded BY immagrant criminals"
2. America, much like the rest of the new world, was founded and started by the then undesirables of the time. In the case of America, religious "refugees"

Nope. Founded BY immigrant gentry, but founded ON immigrant criminals. After all, someone had to do the labour...

I have no problem with God-botherers (US) preaching - it's what they do. I just find it ironic that thieves and deserters (Australia) are preaching too.


But hey - we were founded by naked people smeared with weeds, then Norweigans, then Italians, then more naked people smeared with weeds and, finally, the French - with the Germans getting a say in it too.

 

[a6m5]

Too bad that if I wanted to live in Australia (or continue living in the United States, for that matter) the "Christian values" that are claimed to be the "foundation" by whoever wrote this would make me just as much an outsider as a radical Muslim. Please do explain how one set of religion-based governmental principles is better than another set?

I share their belief, and it still made me a bit nervous. I hope they meant in like the similar issues facing the United States right now with the "In God We Trust", etc.

This is America, so learn English? Why aren't we learning Native American languages? This is America after all. And before we Americans start enforcing English as our only language, how about we start learning to speak it correctly? I hear too many could of's and should of's for us to be taken seriously with this whole English thing.

Good point(s), but ultimately, the bottomline to me is this: United States has a language that it uses and its' own values. If you want to live with us in this country(I know, I'm not even a citizen, but bare with me), then you should accept those things, not forcing your value and language to the country you are immigrating to.

At school, there was a Japanese girl talking to her mom on her cell phone. Someone, in the most rude manner, yells out, "Speak English!" He then walks away thinking he has just done something patriotic.

Similar thing happen to my family, when we first came to the States as well. There are people like that everywhere you go, unfortunately.

I think it's slightly amusing that a country founded on immigrant criminals wants to turn away radical Islamic fundamentalists.

I think you are being slightly tough on them. Australians today aren't thieves and deserters....... well, not many of them.

 

[McLaren]

This is America, so learn English? Why aren't we learning Native American languages? This is America after all. And before we Americans start enforcing English as our only language, how about we start learning to speak it correctly? I hear too many could of's and should of's for us to be taken seriously with this whole English thing.

I have to agree to an extent. While I don't think people should come into America, and make me learn their language (cause I'm not going to unless I want to), I do think we should learn proper English first. Today, I think we've bastardized the original English language into a series of sub-English. There's regular English, the "redneck" English and the Ebonics "English".

But before you talk about learning Native American languages, which one? There's not just 1, and even today, I don't think America is going to drop English and learn Cherokee. It's too late for that. We've been speaking English for what? 150-200 years?

 

[Swift]

But before you talk about learning Native American languages, which one? There's not just 1, and even today, I don't think America is going to drop English and learn Cherokee. It's too late for that. We've been speaking English for what? 150-200 years?

230 years.

 

[dougiemeats]

But before you talk about learning Native American languages, which one? There's not just 1, and even today, I don't think America is going to drop English and learn Cherokee. It's too late for that. We've been speaking English for what? 150-200 years?

Don't worry, I hope we don't have to learn any new languages either. I'm not a kid anymore, so it's not easy to learn a new language.

I was just making the point that English was forced on others many years ago exactly like Spanish is being forced on to us today.

 

[Duke]

Like he said, "Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

What I'm failing to understand is how this would be different from an Islamic faith-based culture, except in the flavor of the faith.

Now, what he's saying is that if God offends you then split. But you, being an atheist, shouldn't be offended by any "god" so there shouldn't be a problem correct?

That depends. If "god" is used as a basis for governing me, then you can bet I'm offended. Can I coexist with private citizens who are religious? Sure. Can I accept being ruled by religious LAWS made by govenrment officials who are religious? No way.

But you can't say "your religious law is bad, but our religious law is fine, so deal with it" if you expect to be taken seriously by anybody other than those who already agree with your religion completely.

 

[Swift]

What I'm failing to understand is how this would be different from an Islamic faith-based culture, except in the flavor of the faith.

Because Islam in general, isn't tolerant of other faiths. Look at ANY islamic nation if you want proof of that.

That depends. If "god" is used as a basis for governing me, then you can bet I'm offended. Can I coexist with private citizens who are religious? Sure. Can I accept being ruled by religious LAWS made by govenrment officials who are religious? No way.

If you can say that this law is bad for another reason then "It's based on the bible or God" then that's great. If not, deal with it or split. That's what the guy from Australia was saying.

And are you saying that government officals can't have faith? I don't think you're saying that, right?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Because Islam in general, isn't tolerant of other faiths. Look at ANY islamic nation if you want proof of that.

Strongly disagree.

Qur'an 60:8
Qur'an 2:256

Just because there is an intolerant sect WITHIN a religion doesn't mean the religion (as a whole) is intolerant. I know plenty of Christians that swear that theirs is the only TRUE religion.

 

[Swift]

Strongly disagree.

Qur'an 60:8
Qur'an 2:256

Just because there is an intolerant sect WITHIN a religion doesn't mean the religion (as a whole) is intolerant. I know plenty of Christians that swear that theirs is the only TRUE religion.

First, if you going to quote from scripture, post it. I don't have a copy of the Quran handy.

Second, I should have said said nations that are lead by islamic leaders. Not the faith itself.

 

[emad]

First, if you going to quote from scripture, post it. I don't have a copy of the Quran handy.

Second, I should have said said nations that are lead by islamic leaders. Not the faith itself.

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

--Yusuf Ali translation http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/

edit: It seems the same site has 3 different translations. Gotta love the power of the interweb

 

[MrktMkr1986]

First, if you going to quote from scripture, post it. I don't have a copy of the Quran handy.

Second, I should have said said nations that are lead by islamic leaders. Not the faith itself.

Sorry:

60:8 = GOD does not forbid you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes [read: Australia]. You may befriend them [non-believers] and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable.

So by treating non-believers with the same respect as believers, you're doing right by God.

2:256 = There shall be no compulsion [coercion, force] in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way.

 

[Swift]

Sorry:

60:8 = GOD does not forbid you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes [read: Australia]. You may befriend them [non-believers] and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable.

So by treating non-believers with the same respect as believers, you're doing right by God.

2:256 = There shall be no compulsion [coercion, force] in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way.

yeah, that's great. But it doesn't say anything about letting the non-muslims to influence YOUR walk. So basically, what the Australian guy said is exactly what the Quoran says, "You be cool and we'll be cool. But don't try to make us like you"

 

[MrktMkr1986]

yeah, that's great. But it doesn't say anything about letting the non-muslims to influence YOUR walk. So basically, what the Australian guy said is exactly what the Quoran says, "You be cool and we'll be cool. But don't try to make us like you"

Agreed, I don't have an issue with that. I just wanted to clear up the misunderstanding about certain religions and their tolerance of others.

 

[Duke]

First, the Australian Christians in that piece are saying that the Muslims should leave if they can't accpet that Australia is a Christian country... are you failing to grasp the irony here?

Second, government officials are allowed to have faith - private, personal faith. The moment they try to make that faith into law that binds others (how may or may not share the faith) then they are overstepping their bounds.

Such as laws prohibiting same-sex marriages, because the Bible defines a marriage as between "a man and a woman". But that's only an example, and the discussion of that example is for elsewhere.

 

[a6m5]

First, the Australian Christians in that piece are saying that the Muslims should leave if they can't accpet that Australia is a Christian country... are you failing to grasp the irony here?

If you want to immigrate to Australia, you can't have their laws accomodate to your foreign faith. I think that is perfectly reasonable. You are an immigrant. Australia welcomes you, if you accept the country as it is now.

Second, government officials are allowed to have faith - private, personal faith. The moment they try to make that faith into law that binds others (how may or may not share the faith) then they are overstepping their bounds.

I guess you are right. But if Australia has some laws that are based on Christian Religion and majority of citizens supports it, I don't think it's the place of outsiders or immigrants to say Australia needs to change them.

Such as laws prohibiting same-sex marriages, because the Bible defines a marriage as between "a man and a woman". But that's only an example, and the discussion of that example is for elsewhere.

First, it's not just the bible that only allows marriage between a man and a woman. But also, is it only inside the religions at all? I had never heard of Gay Marriage until just recently. I thought the original concept of marriage was supposed to be between man and woman to start a family. I'm sorry, I don't mean to turn this into a Gay Marriage thread, but that's my take on the issue. I am all for some sort of union between two gay people, so they can get the equal benefits as the married couples.

 

[Casio]

First, the Australian Christians in that piece are saying that the Muslims should leave if they can't accpet that Australia is a Christian country...

Where? Here?

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

They are saying that if you can't accept part of our culture, then bugger off. Not that you have to be Christian, but you're not having 4 wives Mr Muslim, that's not the way it works here. If you want to have 4 wives, feel free to leave to a country where you can. We're not forcing you to be here.

Regardless, how could you not accept the Australia is Christian country? It just a fact. It would be like me going to the Middle East and not accepting that it's an Islam area.

Second, government officials are allowed to have faith - private, personal faith. The moment they try to make that faith into law that binds others (how may or may not share the faith) then they are overstepping their bounds.

I don't think that's happening. It's just said 'Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia'. Here in Australia we have laws, and if they coincide with Christian beliefs then so be it. But we're not having a different set of rules for every person. Just because you think a law is against what you believe in, and the law also happens to agree with Christian beliefs doesn't make it a Christian law.

I am all for some sort of union between two gay people, so they can get the equal benefits as the married couples.

Which you can get in some states of Australia.

 

[emad]

I don't think that's happening. It's just said 'Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia'. Here in Australia we have laws, and if they coincide with Christian beliefs then so be it. But we're not having a different set of rules for every person. Just because you think a law is against what you believe in, and the law also happens to agree with Christian beliefs doesn't make it a Christian law.

It doesn't change the country's laws. Canada accepts religious judgement if both parties agree to it - it's called arbitration. It's not only used religiously. If company A had an issue with company B, they could, if both agree, take it to any third party and have them decide the end result. The result would be legally binding and both sides would leave happy - minimal time wasted in courts, bypassing legal fees, etc, etc. The same applies for religious issues. If two people have a problem, they can take it to their local cleric - assuming they both agree to this beforehand, the end result could be made legally binding.

The laws of the country still apply - ie, if the arbitrator says this person is to be burned at the stake, it would be called murder, the media would have a hooplah about muslims being whackos, etc, etc.

.....now, where did I put that gas can?

 

[Casio]

So say, in the case of Sharia law, someone wants to have death by stoning carried out, as punishment for adultery. So they trundle down to an arbitrator, who can give a punishment for a action that's not even a crime in the country?!

What are the chances of the two parties agreeing?

 

[emad]

So say, in the case of Sharia law, someone wants to have death by stoning carried out, as punishment for adultery. So they trundle down to an arbitrator, who can give a punishment for a action that's not even a crime in the country?!

What are the chances of the two parties agreeing?

If you read the whole of what I wrote in the previous post, you'd have noticed that arbitration of this sort is a form of conflict resolution. It's not meant to, as you put it, sentence people to death. If a person was to die for example, Islamic Law has it specifically set out which of that person's kin get what chunk of their remaining posessions. Technically, there is no need for a will if you are in an islamic country - the government would spread it out amongst the kin based on what the religion says to do.

And once again - if both parties don't agree on visiting an arbitrator then they would go to the courts - just like everyone else

Wikipedia does a better job at explaining it:

An unusual secular-state example was the (rejected) proposal[1] for a Sharia arbitration court to be established in Ontario, Canada. That province's 1991 arbitration court law allows disputes to be settled in alternative courts to avoid congestion and delay in the court system. The proposed sharia court would handle disputes between Muslim complainants. Critics claimed that misogyny which they held to be inherent in Sharia might influence the Canadian justice system, but proponents argued that those who do not wish to go by the court's rulings are not forced to attend it. Moreover, these sharia courts in Canada would be only orthodox in a limited way as they respect the priority of Canadian civil law. Anybody not satisfied with a ruling from the sharia court could appeal to a civil court. As such, this sharia court would be only a very pale version of Sharia.

 

[Casio]

I'll rephrase. Under Sharia law the penalty for Adultery is death by stoning. In Australian Law the penalty for Adultery is nothing. You can't have a country with different sets of rules for different cultures. If you practice Sharia law, as soon as you step on our soil your wife can go around 'Adulterising' anyone she pleases, and she's not going to get stoned to death. Or any punishment for that matter. That's how it should be.

 

[Sambert]

Second, government officials are allowed to have faith - private, personal faith. The moment they try to make that faith into law that binds others (how may or may not share the faith) then they are overstepping their bounds.

I don’t know where this article was sourced, though I haven’t come across references made by Costello, Howard or Robb in regard to Australian religious values. The points that were stressed in the interviews pertained to respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual (equality of men and women), the commitment to the rule of secular law etc.

Such as laws prohibiting same-sex marriages, because the Bible defines a marriage as between "a man and a woman".

Whilst our governing conservative party champions the view that marriage is defined by the union of a man and a women, the argument is not made from a religious perspective. Rather, the Liberals (party not persuasion) rely on arguments such as the declining population in order to maintain their position.

 

[Pottseh]

This article is odd in that it's so new. I could've sworn Peter Costello and John Howard said similar things months ago... either way, I agree with them. Again.