[Impact]

mike777, on Feb 7 2007, 10:31 PM, said:

"By contrast with the US, any politician who addressed the nation and attempted to invoke God on his side - or even tto bless the country/nation would invite ridicule and electoral defeat!"


You are joking of course, many countries outside of Europe do this, even Chavez in South America. See India, Africa, South America, Mexico, Indonesia, etc.

Yes funny enough the USA is considered the most church going country in the world, who would have thunk.

In any event I think if Oz land allowed more immigrants from its very near neighbor it would be much more religious. Instead it seems to fear them and shut them out from a land that is water poor but land rich.

Mike,

The comment was not joking but drawing out the difference in the attitude of the electorate between Oz & US - yet both countries with overwhelming migrant population and real smorgasboards (ours is AT LEAST as diverse as US - albeit from a smaller base as our total population is only a little over 20.7 million) with English culture and legal systems.

OTOH we originally got the convicts and you got the puritans - so who got lucky?

regards

[mike777]

Teetering on the brink of damnation? Unfit??


Are you saying that is mainline Methodist?

As for OZ land, my impression from speaking to citizens there is that Indonesia is not welcome.....not welcome in the extreme sense of that word.....100+ million to 20 million?

As I asked them why not have 20 million Muslims and change the culture?
If France and other countries are going to a more Muslim culture why not Oz land or the usa?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 8 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

As for OZ land, my impression from speaking to citizens there is that Indonesia is not welcome.....not welcome in the extreme sense of that word.....100+ million to 20 million?

As I asked them why not have 20 million Muslims and change the culture?
If France and other countries are going to a more Muslim culture why not Oz land or the usa?

I really don't understand your logic here. Its perfectly possible to believe

1. The US is full of religious fanatics
2. Unlimited immigration from Indonesia into Australia is a bad idea

In what way does the second point invalidate the first? I'll note in passing that your last post seems to responding to post Winston and to Impact, both of whom seem to be commenting on different subjects.

BTW. I was just over in Oz a couple years back. The Aussies (appear) to have a much more sensible immigration policy that does the US these days. Moreover, the country seems to have a very real appreciation that it future depends much more on integration with Asia and the Pacific its position as a member of the British Commonwealth or as a European colonial outpost. There are certainly limits regarding the number of immigrants that are accepted into the country. However, my impressions is that these limits have less to do with cultural differences and more to do with ideas about to the carrying capacity of the country. (You know... all that environmental crap that you seem to mock all the time)

Australia certainly has its problems. There have been some well publicized race riots between white supremicists and muslim fundamentalists. However, these are especially notable because they represent a major change. Its hard to know which set of idiots is more to blame. The fundamentalist muslims who fear the fact that their children are integrating into Austrlalian society or the Howard loving fascists whole thrive on the whole clash of civilizations model that you so love.

[akhare]

Impact, on Feb 7 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

Richard Dawkins' book THe God Delusion is worthy reading no matter which side of the fence you sit on.
Dawkins (THe Selfish Gene etc) is an eminent (perhaps pre-eminent) biologist and his training in that area and expansion on Darwinian theory is well-written.

I completely agree w/ the observations about the book. I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins, but was initially leery of reading the book because I thought it might be too strident.

However, it does make for some pretty compelling reading -- not that the readers of the book will be swayed one way or the other .

[mike777]

I thought his last book was a repeat of his brilliant ideas of decades ago...and a call for worldwide crusade.

Dawkins has one of the brightest minds of our generation. I do not agree with his politics but.....he is brilliant in the extreme sense of the word.


ok Richard, surprise we agree to disagree, I found the impact of Muslim migration more intolerant and less a matter of too little water, as I pointed out. Your visit was different from mine.

[Impact]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2007, 12:21 AM, said:

mike777, on Feb 8 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

As for OZ land, my impression from speaking to citizens there is that Indonesia is not welcome.....not welcome in the extreme sense of that word.....100+ million to 20 million?

As I asked them why not have 20 million Muslims and change the culture?
If France and other countries are going to a more Muslim culture why not Oz land or the usa?

I really don't understand your logic here.
***I HAVE TO AGREE WITH RICHARD, AND ASSUME THAT MIKE IS TROLLING OR BEING SARCASTIC.

Its perfectly possible to believe

1. The US is full of religious fanatics
2. Unlimited immigration from Indonesia into Australia is a bad idea

In what way does the second point invalidate the first? I'll note in passing that your last post seems to responding to post Winston and to Impact, both of whom seem to be commenting on different subjects.

BTW. I was just over in Oz a couple years back. The Aussies (appear) to have a much more sensible immigration policy that does the US these days. Moreover, the country seems to have a very real appreciation that it future depends much more on integration with Asia and the Pacific its position as a member of the British Commonwealth or as a European colonial outpost. There are certainly limits regarding the number of immigrants that are accepted into the country. However, my impressions is that these limits have less to do with cultural differences and more to do with ideas about to the carrying capacity of the country. (You know... all that environmental crap that you seem to mock all the time)

*** OZ AND USA HAPPEN TO BE THE 2 MOST SOUGHT-AFTER DESTINATIONS FOR MIGRANTS.
OZ HAPPENS TO BE AN ISLAND-CONTINENT AND ACCORDINGLY DOES NOT SHARE LAND BORDERS WITH ANY OTHER NATION.
THE CITIZENS OF OZ TAKE THE VIEW THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE BOTH THE NUMBER OF MIGRANTS AND THE ORIGIN OF THOSE MIGRANTS (notwithstanding the existence of a vocal minority which is unrealistic and would allow as many who want to come to be present). WHY WOULD WE SEEK TO IMPORT PROBLEMS THAT WE DON'T HAVE JUST BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO COME TO OZ ( as opposed to genuine refugees, but effectively the only countries for whom we are the closest port of call are Papua new Guinea, Indonesia/Timor and New Zealand). WE TAKE THE VIEW THAT WE DON'T WANT SHARIA LAW OR VARIOUS OTHER MATTERS - AND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COME TO OZ HAS TO ACCEPT THAT IT IS UP TO THEM TO FIT IN WITH US (at least initially).

Australia certainly has its problems. There have been some well publicized race riots between white supremicists and muslim fundamentalists. However, these are especially notable because they represent a major change.
***CLASSIC CASE OF MISREPORTING: THE SO-CALLED RACE RIOT AT CRONULLA WAS A JOKE COMPARED WITH RIOTS IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD: NO ONE KILLED, VIRTUALLY NO PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ONLY A FEW INJURED. THE CAUSE WAS AS MUCH A MEDIA BEAT-UP AS ANYTHING ELSE, BUT SERVED TO HIGHLIGHT A POTENTIAL PROBLEM. IT WAS SO UNTOWARD FOR OZ THAT IT MADE HEADLINES AND OIPINION WRITERS EXAGGERATED IT OUT OF ALL IMPORTANCE - EACH OF COURSE TO SUPPORT HIS OWN CONTENTION!

Its hard to know which set of idiots is more to blame. The fundamentalist muslims who fear the fact that their children are integrating into Austrlalian society or the Howard loving fascists
***RICHARD, METHINKS YOUR RHETORIC HAS OVERCOME THE REALITY. IT IS CURRENTLY PERCEIVED WISDOM TO DENIGRATE HOWARD AS A MATTER OF COURSE - PARTICULARLY AMONG THE THE INTELLIGENTSIA, AND THE HOWARD-HATERS ARE STRONG BECAUSE HE HAS TAKEN SO MUCH OF THE MIDDLE GROUND WITHOUT ACCORDING THEM AND THEIR HOBBYHORSES, GRATIFICATION AND HONOUR.
I AM SURE THERE IS A RATBAG OR FASCIST ELEMENT IN OZ (LEAGUE OF RIGHTS IS THE FASCIST PARTY SUPPORTED BY AUSTRALIANS AGAINST FURTHER IMMIGRATION) BUT THESE PARTIES REGULARLY POLL UNDER 3%. HOWARD IS THE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY (conservative as opposed to the Labour left) but that Liberal party would still sit well to the left of the Democrats in the US!

whole thrive on the whole clash of civilizations model that you so love.

see below

[mike777]

As I have posted many times before I am for a rather liberal(open) migration policy per the the hated WSJ

Ya I dislike trying to get a job or promotion from all those super smart, harder working guys as anyone....

[Impact]

I happen to be in favour of immigration - but we have a real issue of sustainability in terms of both the infrastructure in the country and, inter alia, water resources.

If I wanted to live in a country of 300 million I would go there.

With due respect, my single greatest criticism of "Americans" (a generalisation) is their parochial nature and assumption that everything echoes their own country - and if it doesn't that is aberrant.

It is normal to compare with that with which you are familiar, but not to immediately assume that different is wrong - albeit not suiting you.

A little bit more knowledge of the existing circumstances in other countries would not go astray.
As a country of only nearly 21million a long way removed from elsewhere, Australians tend to be much more outward-looking and well-travelled. We don't have the option of pretending that we are the centre of the universe - although the occasional politician still has delusions (of adequacy).

[mike777]

I think I have mentioned the water problem several times......

Just a matter of tech...

Need cheap, clean water in great amounts.

Why not let some young Muslim genius solve it and make millions?
Ok provacitive

[helene_t]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 7 2007, 05:35 PM, said:

Religion is the ultimate refuge of the ignorant.

Let's consider an ignorant. It could be someone who doesn't know what's right and what's wrong, or someone who doesn't know how the Universe, plants, animals and humans came into being, or someone who doesn't know how to account for sentience in terms of neurophysiology.

1) First solution (refuge?) could be: "Some authority (science teacher, priest, parents, best friend, whoever) told me that ...."

2) Second solution/refuge: "My own reasoning/experiments/spiritual expirience/whatever tells me that ...."

3) Third solution/refuge: "I don't care what the real truth is and if the question makes any sense at all at a deep filosophical level. But in my present situation, it seems a reasonable working hypothesis that ....."

Only 3) is still ignorant, and has thus chosen a refuge rather than a solution. 2) could still be ignorant, depending on the realibility of the authority, and the second could be ignorant, depending on the correctness of the reasoning.

Intellectual progress depends on our ability to combine 1) and 2) in the right proportions. With 1 alone, ancient knowledge (which was often wrong in the first place) will decay as in the "Chinese wispers" game. Religious scriptures are extreme examples of that. The "the-Inuits-have-XXX-words-for-snow" hox is another example. With 2 alone, each individual and each generation will have to start from scratch.

I personally value 3) a lot. While I consider moral and cultural relativism to be way off, some flexibility (especially intellectual flexibilyty) is necesary in a pluralistic and fast-changing World. And if there are things that I can't know, I strongly prefer to admit my ignorance to pretending some knowledge. Case in point: I do understand Darwinism, but I don't understand cosmology. So if you challenge my atheistic World view by asking me how the Universe came into being, my answer is "I have no idea, and that doesn't bother me".

[jikl]

Not going to bother quoting anyone...

Australia is a poor example to use, sure we have the same land area as USA (not including Hawaii and Alaska). However the USA is a goldmine of arable land compared to Australia. The main problem for Australia and immigration is the fact we need to be able to support the people that live here. Water is a problem that can be overcome, but only with a small increase in population but would be very expensive (desalination plants etc). Food is a far greater problem, given that most of this country/continent/island is desert, where exactly is the food going to come from? Given most of Australia has been in crippling drought for over 10 years, where is the water going to come from for the food? Some reservoirs for major cities are now down under 25% capacity. What are you asking of this country, we import all water and food so we can hold more people? Good way to destroy the country financially. Our only real resource is mining whilst the drought has it in its grip, a FINITE resource. So to take on too many would cripple the country for generations. A far better solution is a very careful immigration policy. Also, we have a skills shortage as many of our best and brightest move overseas for better prospects. so therefore there is a natural choice for people with skills immigrating to this country.

So whilst some of the examples given about Australia had some merit, most were in ignorance.

Sean

PS: And no I am not a card-carrying member of the Liberal party etc

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Feb 7 2007, 09:32 PM, said:

I lean more towards God is knowable and wants us to know and understand him.

Since we all contain that divine spark, knowing our divinity is to know ourselves. The ultimate connection results in absolute resolution.

[Al_U_Card]

Impact, on Feb 7 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

my unfamiliarity with New Testament writing meant that his references to that material was new, and the position of the contradictions in the gospels (both between them and with events of undoubted historical authenticity and certainty of date) made edifying reading.

This is indeed an interesting sidebar. At issue is the apparently "brainwashed" attitude that a lot of people seem to have about the "New Testament". Its origins (is fabrication a better term?) with the Synod of Nicea. The selection of the 4 "Gospels" omitting and avoiding the eleven or so apocryphal gospels that refuted many Christian "ethics" like no reincarnation or included many "confusing" aspects of the Nazareen's life story as remembered and recounted many times, long after the fact. Christianity's reconstruction from a Hebraic splinter group to a "universal" faith. The more you know.......

[helene_t]

Impact, on Feb 8 2007, 05:25 AM, said:

Richard Dawkins' book THe God Delusion is worthy reading no matter which side of the fence you sit on.[.....]
I was familiar with the logic of the position he advocates - and perhaps it was alittle like "preaching to the converted" in part but my unfamiliarity with New Testament writing meant that his references to that material was new, and the position of the contradictions in the gospels (both between them and with events of undoubted historical authenticity and certainty of date) made edifying reading.[.....]
Returning to the original point, what did come as a surprise to me was Dawkins' indication of just how religious (at least in terms of both espousing a stated religion and the degree of credence given to say creationism) the US appeared to him.

I second that observation. When I bought the book I expected it to rephrase what he wrote about religion in his other books. But "The God Delusion" is, actually, an important book.

[BebopKid]

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2007, 08:18 PM, said:

Quote

In my opinion, people who practice strong faith generally do not waver on issues.

BeBop:

This I think is an accurate statement; however, have you considered the reason for the unwavering resolution is due to the nature of the Wesleyan theology of "salvation/hellfire-brimstone" that is the heart of so many protestant religions and leads to a black and white world view? You are either saved or you burn in hell - You are either with us or with the terrorists - do you see any connection?

The problem with faith is there is no room for self doubt. When confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one with faith has nothing to cling to but that faith. Because to accept the evidence means being wrong, and being wrong unravels not only the world view but unravels self - and we find there never was a self - only faith.

A world view based on faith is not a house built on granite, nor even sand, but only the thinnest of stands of hope that if ever broken leads to chaos within the self.

And clinging to a delusion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary can only be defined as insanity - not stubborn resolve.

I believe I did not expound fully enough.

[Opinion here]
I find that people of strong faith generally do not waver on issues. People of strong faith are open and non-judgemental. People of strong faith do stand fast in convictions.

Now on the topic of decisions. People of strong faith make decisions, just like anyone else. Sometimes they are wrong. If facts turn out contrary to what they believed, they admit it. They say they were wrong. They make new decisions. They don't, however, base all decisions on polls and popular opinion.
[Opinion stops]

I'm still waiting for the evidence of crimes committed by the White House as espoused eariler in this topic. I'm still waiting for evidence that taking a dictator out of power--a dictator who committed war crimes, mass murder, mass rape, and other crimes against humanity--is illegal. I'm still waiting for evidence that the White House condoned torture, when all the reports of torture are being investigated with some of the instigators being court-marshalled.

I've read lots of opinions that say illegal things have happened. I've yet to read a fact that proves any it. Saying something is so doesn't make it so.

If you cite facts that these things have happened, then I'll admit that you are right. Until then, I am waiting for facts.

Show me this overwhelming evidence you speak of.

Also, I appreciate all who have insulted me. It proves my point. When you can't come up with an argument to back up your opinions then insult people who don't agree with you.

Bravo.

[jtfanclub]

BebopKid, on Feb 8 2007, 12:57 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for evidence that the White House condoned torture, when all the reports of torture are being investigated with some of the instigators being court-marshalled.

Of course not, we're all just making this stuff up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Here's the actual memo.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn...JD_%20Gonz_.pdf

If you insist, you can look up 'Cheney' and 'Torture' and see what interesting things he's cooked up. The Memo is enough for me.

I have found that people of strong faith consider those who are not of the same faith to be subhuman. Specifically, that those with strong faith will torture or kill with impunity if they believe it does not violate their faith, even to the point of killing their own young children if they do not follow their faith. I have found this to be true of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, although I don't know enough people of faiths other than those three to claim to know what they're up to.

[pbleighton]

BebopKid, I'm still waiting:

"That state religion, Atheism, is the largest practiced religion in the USA."

And your evidence for this is?

"People of all faiths other than atheism are persecuted in the USA. It started small but is growing bigger every day."

And your evidence for this is?

Peter

[jtfanclub]

Sorry, I need to add a correction.

There is a subgroup of Christianity which I like to call the Perfect. In general, they forbid their children to join their religion until they become adults, and are very willing for the children to become non-Perfect. For them, the ability to become Perfect is such a privilege that they generally refuse to allow outsiders to join. Because they do not evangelize and the greatest possible blessing is for them to die Perfect, they eschew violence even in self defense. The most visible Perfect groups are Quakers and the Amish.

Needless to say, most non-Perfect Christians barely consider them Christian.

Jews used to have a philosophy similar to the Perfect, but after the King David Hotel bomb, I can't say I believe that any more.

[BebopKid]

jtfanclub, on Feb 8 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

BebopKid, on Feb 8 2007, 12:57 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for evidence that the White House condoned torture, when all the reports of torture are being investigated with some of the instigators being court-marshalled.

Of course not, we're all just making this stuff up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Here's the actual memo.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn...JD_%20Gonz_.pdf

If you insist, you can look up 'Cheney' and 'Torture' and see what interesting things he's cooked up. The Memo is enough for me.

I have found that people of strong faith consider those who are not of the same faith to be subhuman. Specifically, that those with strong faith will torture or kill with impunity if they believe it does not violate their faith, even to the point of killing their own young children if they do not follow their faith. I have found this to be true of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, although I don't know enough people of faiths other than those three to claim to know what they're up to.

You obviously haven't read either this or my question. This memo was written by the Department of Justice and states a legal opinion.

Please show me evidence of the White House or Bush condoning torture.

As for evidence of my claims of persecution, read this thread.

[jikl]

Just let the troll go.

Sean