Confusion over Religions and Cultures - Multicultuaralism Betrayed

Hijacked multi-religionism mistakenedly touted as multi-culturalism that has failed us. It would be more reliable to follow the common ethnic identification than religion that is divided, cuts across cultures, ethnicity and personal. In modern diverse societies, tolerance and non-interference would help to foster peaceful relations and unity.

The bottomline is that democracy, English common law and secular government must prevail over all else unless exceptions are provided for in the constitution for the protection of indigenous rights. A clear boundary must be drawn in no uncertain terms.

No religious group should be allowed to challenge the existing laws of the country. Neither should any religious sect or group be allowed to undermine safety and quiet living of our people. Penalising innocent cultural / religious groups would not augur well for harmonious relations among Australians of different backgrounds.

Emotionally charged and misguided government leaders, media and religious fundamentalists who have often contributed to the strife and misunderstanding in communities should reflect on their actions and omissions. Clarifying the issues in their minds will bring about constructive comments and policies.

This is a frank, balanced and insightful article published in The Australian.

QUOTE :

Religious leaders should not be the only Muslims allowed to speak

MULTICULTURALISM is under severe strain. Not from detractors such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel who confuse having an ethnically mixed society with a policy of social integration designed to cope with and cherish ethnic diversity. No, multiculturalism is undermined because religious groups, more specifically Muslim groups, have come to supplant ethnic ones. This has been a slow, almost inevitable process.

The problematisation of Muslim identity in the wake of terrorist attacks have presented Muslims in the West with difficult questions. In the pre-September 11 era, issues of socioeconomic integration dominated, often focusing on the experience of distinct ethnic groups rather than the community of faith. Unemployment, wealth disparity and educational achievements were the issues of concern.

But the emergence of terrorist activity among the Muslim population of the West has elevated the question of socioeconomic integration into an existential one. Now the issue is no longer about the social standing and wealth disparity between ethnic groups of Muslim background and the rest of the society but the presumed threat that Islam poses to the Western way of life.

The heightened sense of unease concerning the place of Islam in the West has put Muslims on the back foot. All of a sudden, Muslims feel an overbearing pressure to condemn terrorism and pledge loyalty to the state of their residence/citizenship. At the same time, public scrutiny of Islam has offered the moderate Muslim leadership an opportunity to advance a version of Islam that is modern, tolerant and aligned with the rule of law in the West. In articulating Muslim loyalty to the state, the moderate leadership has found the multicultural system very useful on two key counts. It allows Muslim leaders to express their views publicly, reiterate Muslims' commitment to social harmony and criticise aspects of government policy or public discourse that they find harmful. At the same time, these leaders can defend Islam and maintain their position among their communities. In other words, declaring loyalty to Australia does not necessary have to come at the expense of religious belief, as multiculturalism allows for cultural/religious autonomy within the framework of civic citizenship. This flexibility makes moderate Muslims among the most ardent defenders of multiculturalism.

The assertiveness of moderate Muslim leadership, however, has tended to come at the expense of the public visibility of non-religious Muslims. Cultural Muslims who congregate in ethnic organisations face difficult questions about the extent of their "Muslimness". The more pious moderate Muslims speak in defence of Islam in the public domain and government agencies turn to such spokespeople for advice on Muslim issues, the more cultural Muslims are marginalised. This is a self-perpetuating process that undermines the credibility of cultural Muslims as "true Muslims" in the public eye and reserves the title for the use of the religiously inclined.

Perhaps the best example of this was the convening of the Muslim advisory committee under the Howard government. It excluded the Turkish community, even though Muslim Turks constitute the second largest ethnic group among Australian Muslims. This omission was as bad as the practice of interviewing hijabi women when there are more qualified, but unveiled, Muslim women. In the eyes of the media, unveiled Muslim women do not have the authenticity of hijabi women. Just as ethnic Muslims are not considered genuinely attuned to community sentiments when compared with religious organisations.

This process is restricting the public space for cultural Muslims who see Islam as part of their ethnic identity and refuse to be classified as simply Muslim. The policy of multiculturalism allows for the public presence of a multiplicity of ethnic groups. It is unfortunate that this flexibility is being bracketed for, and by, religious groups.

- Shahram Akbarzadeh is professor of Asian politics (Middle East and Central Asia) at the University of Melbourne.

(emphasis are mine for easier reading)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/religious-leaders-should-not-be-the-only-muslims-allowed-to-speak/story-e6frg6zo-1225944419389