Citizenship - The Citizenship Testing Discussion Paper (2 Viewers)

[daledugahole]

I'm definately not talking about excluding people. What I meant to say is that if you don't learn English it doesn't allow you to really interact with other. I know my great grandfather only really interacted with other Italian people except really for my dads family who are anglo Australian.

As far as I know there are a lot of opportunities to learn English, I know my mother is an ESL teacher at tafe and does teach a lot of migrants as well as refugees. I think there is a system where the government gives people benefits to go to classes so these people can learn English without worrying about not earning enough money to support their families.

Also now a lot of companies and organisations employ ESL teachers for their workers such as the cleaning staff at public hospitals.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

This is the most bullshit thing I have ever heard. Name me one example from history where a government has willingly altered its constitution due to the pressure from a minority group.
Furthermore, what is demographic warfare exactly?

Civil rights in the USA? But I guess that's a good thing.
The second question is answered quite completely here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

As for orthodox Muslims you are mistaken. The word orthodox refers to a commonly accepted view, usually in regards to religious belief and seeing as we both acknowledge the fact that 'Muslim' terrorists are an extreme minority it follows logically that moderate Muslims are in the majority.
Thus, seeing as they share a commonly accepted view they can be described as orthodox.

I know what orthodox means, I just meant that they don't call themselves that.
See, just because a Muslim doesn't blow himself up, doesn't make him a moderate. Bin Laden never blew himself up, but he is not a moderate. Similarly the average Muslim is mostly supportive of terrorism, hates Israel, hates the USA, etc. Those who are more secularised are considered apostates by the devout ones.

Well in that case I would be fascinated to see where you have got your information from...

You should read any of

America Alone (Mark Steyn)
While Europe Slept (Bruce Bawer)
Londonistan (Melanie Phillips)
Eurabia (Bat Ye'or)
The Force Of Reason (Oriana Fallaci)
The Rage And The Pride (Oriana Fallaci)
The Truth About Muhammad (Robert Spencer)
The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam And The Crusades (Robert Spencer)
The Myth Of Islamic Tolerance (Robert Spencer)
Islam Unveiled (Robert Spencer)

Useful websites are
Jihad Watch & Dhimmi Watch (appear to be down atm)
Little Green Footballs
Gates of Vienna
and The Jawa Report
plus dozens of others.

 

[yy]

English exams for migrants

 

[*Minka*]

So is John Howard playing a game of 'Lets see how Unwelcome we can make people feel in their own country'. Because seriously, way to make my family feel unwanted.

 

[banco55]

Noone's saying immigrants need to be able to quote shakespeare but requiring a minimal level of proficiency in English is reasonable.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Noone's saying immigrants need to be able to quote shakespeare but requiring a minimal level of proficiency in English is reasonable.

Yeah, agreed.

The test is taken after four years, if you can't answer thirty basic questions on the English language after living in an English speaking country for that long then you're in trouble. Even then, they're allowed to resit the test if they fail, seems very reasonable to me.

Of course that does depend on Mr Howard's definition of basic.

 

[*Minka*]

That is what I am getting at - how basic is Howard talking? English isn't my first language and while I think my English is good enough to get by, I would fall on my face if the test tested my grammar and spelling and my knowledge of possessive apostraphees and stuff like that.

 

[frog12986]

I know that most Christians believe that God is a good and loving god, and wants people to do good things. I believe that most people want to do good things and behave morally. I also believe that many Christians haven’t really read the Bible, or just read certain passages in church.

I really hate to do this, but if we are going to take quotes out of holy books to argue...well here are a few.

Firstly, "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)


As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

Some of God's Murders for stupid reasons:


God kills rude boys.

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

God sponsored rape and the klling of babies.

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)


And no man hath ascended up to heaven, even the Son of man which
is in heaven.
- John 3:13

... and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
- 2 Kings 2:11

Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord... Wealth and riches
shall be in his house...
- Psalms 112:1-3

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than
for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
- Matthew 19:24

For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works.
- Ephesians 2:8-9

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by
faith only.
- James 2:24

Leave the Qu'ran alone.

Christianity, (as spread by Jesus, the man know as 'Christ'), is premised upon the writings of the New Testament. Each section that you have quoted is from the Old Testament which although essential in understanding the plight of the former, is more aligned with Judaism and the Law of Moses as oppose to Christianity.

Much of what was written in the old testament, particular that which refers to retribution, punishment and the like, has been overriden by the words of the gospels in the New Testament. Although you point was not based on the content of the words written, it is based on a false premise as 'Christianity' is not founded upon the teachings that you mentioned. Read the New Testament, and you'll find much different vocabulary, ideas and content.

For example:

Matthew 5:43 " You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love you enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your father in heaven"


Matthew 7:1 " Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way as you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use it will be measured to you"

Matthew 5:38 "you have heard that it was said, 'Eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth'. But I tell you do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him on the other also. If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let them take your cloke as well..."

Each very different messages to the excerpts that you chose to use. Not a point of fact, but rather a point of validity. You cannot describe Christian beliefs, beliefs premised on the life of Christ on readings of the Old Testament regardless of your overall point..

 

[yy]

That is what I am getting at - how basic is Howard talking? English isn't my first language and while I think my English is good enough to get by, I would fall on my face if the test tested my grammar and spelling and my knowledge of possessive apostraphees and stuff like that.

don't worry, i think the only ones that know English grammar these days are those whose first language is not English

 

[HotShot]

200 questions is a bit too much.

 

[Robbeh]

if the test tested my grammar and spelling and my knowledge of possessive apostraphees and stuff like that.

If it was hard...

...

Hm, so in that case President of the United States of America, George W. Bush would not qualify to be an Australian citizen?

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''—Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001

Source: The Complete Bushisms - By Jacob Weisberg

 

[poloktim]

Christianity, (as spread by Jesus, the man know as 'Christ'), is premised upon the writings of the New Testament. Each section that you have quoted is from the Old Testament which although essential in understanding the plight of the former, is more aligned with Judaism and the Law of Moses as oppose to Christianity.

I saw a Luke, John and Matthew in the post... they're the basis of the New Testament.

Much of what was written in the old testament, particular that which refers to retribution, punishment and the like, has been overriden by the words of the gospels in the New Testament. Although you point was not based on the content of the words written, it is based on a false premise as 'Christianity' is not founded upon the teachings that you mentioned. Read the New Testament, and you'll find much different vocabulary, ideas and content.

The Old Testament is still important. Christians still hold the Ten Commandments as the most important rules in Christianity below Jesus' "Love thy neighbour" commandment. The Old Testament is also used to develop reasons why Christianity opposes several controversial issues (homosexuality, for example).

For example:

Matthew 5:43 " You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love you enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your father in heaven"


Matthew 7:1 " Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way as you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use it will be measured to you"

Matthew 5:38 "you have heard that it was said, 'Eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth'. But I tell you do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him on the other also. If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let them take your cloke as well..."

Each very different messages to the excerpts that you chose to use. Not a point of fact, but rather a point of validity. You cannot describe Christian beliefs, beliefs premised on the life of Christ on readings of the Old Testament regardless of your overall point..

That's the issue. Because the Old Testament is still part of the Bible, people will use it when necessary. In my above example, people quote Leviticus when forming an argument against homosexuality... While the New Testament does "cancel out" any conflicting point in the Old Testament for Christianity, that doesn't stop people from using the Old Testament to justify actions.

Besides the post you quoted didn't have a go at Christianity per se, they had a go at the Bible. They said the Bible can be just as violent as people make the Qu'ran out to be. Just reading the Old Testament is enough to understand that. You don't need the New Testament to realise the Bible is full of incest, rape, murder, torture, plagues, and other such things. Yet we let our children read the Bible.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The purpose of the new English test is to help keep the darkies out so Howard can slowly bring back White Australia step by step, gradually enough that hardly anyone notices.

 

[frog12986]

I saw a Luke, John and Matthew in the post... they're the basis of the New Testament.


The Old Testament is still important. Christians still hold the Ten Commandments as the most important rules in Christianity below Jesus' "Love thy neighbour" commandment. The Old Testament is also used to develop reasons why Christianity opposes several controversial issues (homosexuality, for example).


That's the issue. Because the Old Testament is still part of the Bible, people will use it when necessary. In my above example, people quote Leviticus when forming an argument against homosexuality... While the New Testament does "cancel out" any conflicting point in the Old Testament for Christianity, that doesn't stop people from using the Old Testament to justify actions.

Besides the post you quoted didn't have a go at Christianity per se, they had a go at the Bible. They said the Bible can be just as violent as people make the Qu'ran out to be. Just reading the Old Testament is enough to understand that. You don't need the New Testament to realise the Bible is full of incest, rape, murder, torture, plagues, and other such things. Yet we let our children read the Bible.

Although this is off topic, and religious debates are never-ending..

I understood the intention of the post, and the author did state that "I also believe that many Christians haven’t really read the Bible" which derives an argument against 'Christian' practices and beliefs.

Whilst you make the valid point in relation to the Ten commandments and the use of the old testament to develop a rationale against particular issues, it is important to understand which particular elements of the Old Testament are consistent with the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.

Homosexuality for example, although not explicit in the teachings of Jesus is still alluded to on a number of occasions, not by condemnation, but rather by conveying the sanctity of the relationship between man and woman:

Matthew 19:4 " Havent you read, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said 'for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"

This actually is in the course of discussion in relation to Moses', and the previous 'permission' for one to divorce; highlighting the subtle differences between the teachings of the Old and the New..
So whilst one of the commandments stipulated that 'thou shalt no commit adultery', the idea of adultery differs in the context of the Old and New Testaments due to the teachings of Jesus on the issue of divorce, and the previous manner in which it was dealt by Moses..

Mark 10:6-7 conveys the same passage..

For the most part, Jesus dealt with issues such as forgiveness, retribution, adultery and the like, which were either ambiguous or abused. Whilst no christian could deny that there are elements in the Old Testament that are violent or similar the New Testament is necessary to understand the differentiations and consistencies of beliefs between the Two covenants.

Oh and a Citizenship Test is a good idea that I believe most Australians would support..

 

[poloktim]

The purpose of the new English test is to help keep the darkies out so Howard can slowly bring back White Australia step by step, gradually enough that hardly anyone notices.

He's just playing the race card. Appealing to the rednecks.

An English test isn't entirely unreasonable. The Australian Values section, unless it only says "to abide by Australian law" is completely unacceptable. I can assure you my values are different to those of my parents, and possibly my friends. I'd say I couldn't get kicked out because I'm a citizen, but this government has already proven it can and will remove citizens.

I wonder what country they'd send me to? I don't think I could say no to an extended [working-]holiday in Japan.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Howard knows well that White people are better at learning English than black people. This pleases rednecks, because the working class hate black people.

 

[poloktim]

Howard knows well that White people are better at learning English than black people. This pleases rednecks, because the working class hate black people.

I was more referring to the "Australian Values" section as appealing towards the rednecks, not the English section. Hence why I said an English test isn't entirely unreasonable.

Though isn't there an IELTS requirement for PR now? (Obviously for people who come from ESB countries, so countries such as UK, USA, Canada, NZ, Singapore et cetera are exempt from IELTS).

Edit: NESB => ESB, I got my acronyms mixed up. I failed the English requirement.

 

[HotShot]

Howard knows well that White people are better at learning English than black people. This pleases rednecks, because the working class hate black people.

The test isnt really one test - rather on Australia values and cultures. Blacks tend to understand culture better than whites and they trend grasp it better.

 

[_dhj_]

This isn't about blacks, whites or racism but about the ideology of multiculturalism versus integration. Although Howard is a populist leader, his agenda here is not to gain popularity but to implement his ideological vision - that is, to eradicate multiculturalism in Australia. The current wave of antagonism against Australian Muslims pretty much provides Howard with sufficient popular backing to do so.

 

[ogmzergrush]

The test isnt really one test - rather on Australia values and cultures. Blacks tend to understand culture better than whites and they trend grasp it better.

Hmn.