fatvegan

I don't agree with John Howard, but I don't agree with his critics either. I think it's difficult to talk about "Muslim communities" or "Christian communities", and you can do it badly, but I still think it can be done. There are Muslims and Christians who self-identify as being part of a broader community. And there are benefits to being a community in terms of credibility and visibility. Muslim organisations call themselves Muslim organisations, and they claim to play some sort of leadership role to Muslims in Australia. And I think that part of that role, as it is for any sort of leadership role, is to criticise its own community, and be a spokesperson for the sorts of values that really do represent that community.

I don't think Christians do it well enough. Particularly in Africa, and Latin America, Christian leadership has looked the other way claiming only very selective responsibility. In Australia, a lot has been done in the name of Christianity, that may not have been approved of by the broader church, that was simply ignored. I suspect the Christian church has become sufficiently marginalised, homogenised and watered-down that those internal conflicts aren't so noticeable. Most of the practical values shared by the Christian church are accepted as not unreasonable by the mainstream.

I wonder if because Muslim communities are more likely to apply their faith to their lives, the diversity of belief has a greater impact. A greater impact on what their lives look like, and a more diverse range of behaviours that "Muslim leaders" have to accomodate. And I think it's very hard to draw a distinct line anywhere between Palestinian terrorism at one end and believing that Muslims have a valuable faith that needs to be preserved from forces that might overcome it. Christians believe there are forces that might overcome the Christian church, and that they will have to fight to defend it. But Christians in most of the world haven't felt the need to pick up swords or bomb kits to do that.

For example, someone like me might say that in defending your culture there is a clear line between deliberately killing civilians and not. Or a clear line between treating men and women identically, and treating them differently. But I'm not sure if a Muslim leader can easily make that distinction, because there are so many people with values hovering around right where that line would otherwise be. Any bold statement you make about it will inevitably antagonise a large proportion of the people who are attempting to lead. Muslims leaders must be aware of that the bulk of Australians don't think these are blurry lines. And if there are groups of people who want to vocalise this blurriness, someone will inevitably taken issue with them. I think it would be better if that cultural conflict was discussed by Muslim leaders, not Australia's political leaders.

I have no interest in integration or assimilation. I don't care if people don't learn English, or don't hang it with white Australians at the pub, or don't eat beef. But I think you do have to be careful about living in a country where you know your culture (which is very important) will be in conflict with the local culture (which is also very important). White people go to other countries all the time knowing they will be in conflict with the local culture but wanting to change it. That's essentially what Ayni was doing, and I think it's the purpose of virtually all aid and mission projects. I think that desire only has any validity if it's done persuasively, and not subversively or coercively. I'm very happy for anyone who comes to Australia to attempt to change our culture, if they think that will improve it. People should be free to persuade us to change. But it should be open, and it should be done in good faith.