Part of the problem with Islam and Western secularism is that Islam "lacks" the dualism of church and state, of pope and emperor, on which secularization in the West has been historically based. To the contrary, Islam conceives of itself as a civic religion. Ironically, it was just such a civic religion that Rousseau, looking back at the paganism of the classical republics, pined after, in the face of the political problems posed by the privatism/other-worldliness of Christianity.

Australians believe all sorts of nonsense anyway. I was shocked to hear a couple of people at the bus stop praising the North Korean regime for developing nukes the other day.

I'm not too worried by Muslims, to be honest. Australian culture, with its beer, wine, fun in the sun etc, is seductive and while I'm sure Muslim communities will try hard to fight it, the Aussie allure will do to middle-eastern Muslim communities what it did to conservative Greek and Italian communities that arrived 40 years ago.

John,
I agree with you that the problem with 'Islam and Western secularism is that Islam "lacks" the dualism of church and state, of pope and emperor, on which secularization in the West has been historically based.'

The separation between church and state is a defining characteristic of liberal modernity. But it is not just a conservative Islam that does not recognize the differentiation between church and state. A fundamentalist Christianity does want also desires to make liberal democracy a Christian nation.

Simon,
don't you think that we can talk about conservative middle-eastern Muslim communities in a similar way to the conservative Greek and Italian communities that arrived 40 years ago?

That means the second generation amongst the middle-eastern Muslim communities will be more willing to embrace liberal modernity. We can that conflict around the recent comments of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali.

Hmm Sheik al-Hilarious? Yeah look, that is my point, the second generation will be fine. The main thing is just to leave them alone and let nature take its course.

I mean, look at the Lebanese in Sydney. When they aren't mumbling "allah akbhar" they are following that other form of insidious barbarism, rugby league, or to be precise, the Canterbury Bulldogs.

Simon,
what about the second generation radicalised young Australian Muslim men?

The ones who regard Australian liberal society as alien and white racism from the shock troops of the far right, and who experience disempowerment and lowly status. But they are far too Australian to be a real Muslim.

So they deal with their resentment by finding refuge elsewhere, in a form of Islam where ideological commitment is more important than literacy in one's ancestral culture.

So attempt to gain status by wielding power over those who are more powerless and, more particularly, the women in their lives.

Sheik Hilali's comments address the concerns of these second generation Muslim men as well as the first generation.

Its going to be hard for them, but they'll have to learn to cope. I don't fancy telling the women of Australia they have to cover up to avoid inflaming the sexual tensions of a small minority of Sydneysiders.

I'm pretty optimistic about the long run. But there'll be a few more 'Cronulla' based riots along the way. These are the sort of road-humps you get in any society, and especially a multicultural one.

Did you read Paul Sheehan's 'Amoung the Barbarians' nearly a decade ago? He was going on and on about how the Chinese in Sydney were this great menace to Australian values and they were going to make criminals of us all and it was the end of the world... you don't hear that sort of stuff anymore!

It's the usual 'fear' factor that is traditional in Australian society. The appropriate antidote is to chill out and let people be people.

Simon
I notice that Chris Hurford, an immigration minister in the Hawke Labor government from 1985 to 1987, says in The Australian, that:

some, particularly in the academic class, have gone over the top and converted the adjective multicultural into a noun, multiculturalism. They have left the impression that separate development of these cultures should be an objective of policy. But does separate development ring a bell with you? South African apartheid, perhaps? This has never been the objective of our policy, nor should it be. We are not, nor should we be, a nation of many cultures. We are a multiracial nation that strongly celebrates core Western cultural values of liberal democracy.

That's playing to the politics of fear is it not?

I don't quite follow.

My point was that people aren't 'afraid' of the Chinese community in Australia anymore, and that given time and some new community to pick on (Pacific Islanders most likely) the Islamic phobia will die away (though it would happen quicker if there weren't these highly publicised bombings going on every couple of years...)

Not sure what Hurford's point is in this context. Should we be afraid of....former Hawke government ministers?

Simon,
Sorry I wasn't very clear. I agree with your comments by and large.

The point of introducing Hurford is to highlight how the ALP can play the fear card. He is arguing that political leaders need to ' toughen our settlement policies and redefine multiculturalism. For too long, some uninformed commentators have preached diversity and tolerance at the expense of integration and social cohesion. That must change.' Multiculturalism means separate communities means apartheid.

I was trying to show how Hurford is so way over the top that he working within the politics of fear, just like John Howard and Pauline Hanson before him.

Oh, now I'm understanding you.. yes, I agree. It's all about the votes. Where it leaves our nation and society is not quite so clear.

Simon,
as a fortress wrapped up in fear

Easy tiger. I'm not sure things are as bad as all that.