I’m not sure who said it, but did someone say something like that most people have a set of mutually contradictory beliefs. Anyway I feel a bit like that with respect to some of these issues.

Ken Austin 10 August 2007 08:01 AM
I guess the only part of the two speeches that worries me is Kevin Rudd’s idea to let in many Iraqi refugees to our community.

I think we have a moral obligation to help Iraqis particularly how we contributed to the present Iraqi situation.

John Anderson 10 August 2007 08:35 AM
And I think that the influx of Islamic refugees to western countries is an opportunity that churches seem to have missed, in general .... if they are coming to us, it’s much easier!

I couldn’t agree more.  Maybe God is allowing these migrations to somehow let the good news be shared to those who haven’t heard.

Alan Dungey 10 August 2007 5:08pm
It’s worth repeating that the 12,000 refuges Australia takes per year makes us one of the most refugee-friendly countries on earth

Yes I think that Australia has been very open to people from other cultures - we must be one of the most non-homogenous societies in the world.

On the other hand can we do more ...

We are indeed very refugee friendly, so much so we have been involved in action that has created several million Iraqi refugees - the more the merrier right?

Luke Stevens 10 August 2007 07:10 PM
We are indeed very refugee friendly, so much so we have been involved in action that has created several million Iraqi refugees - the more the merrier right?

Can’t disagree that we have helped make Iraqi refugees - very sad really.

(Btw Luke what happened to your post count? - seems on the tad low side.)

Here’s a book irrelevant to this thread. But with a catchy title: Pushing the Limits: The Story of John Howard, the Incredible Human Machine.

Dereck Hazell said:

I think we have a moral obligation to help Iraqis particularly how we contributed to the present Iraqi situation.

The Australian contribution to the Iraqi conflict has always been only minimal. Compare the number of Australian troops over there to English and US troops. Maybe the refugee intake should be proportional. Let the USA take them.

Also, the trouble in Iraq is due to a civil war between two or three Iraqi religious sects, as well as an influx of terrorists. That is the cause of the misery over there. A refusal to accept democratic government is at the base of it. An insistence on medieval Islamic rule which does not accept seperation of religion and state.

Iraqis are being killed by other Iraqis due to the instability after the removal of the tyrannical rule of the Sunnis under Sadaam Hussein.

Should Australia pay the cost of backward thinking over there? Refugees are people who have to be paid for big time. They usually dont find work easily.

Ken Austin - 12 August 2007 11:11 AM

Should Australia pay the cost of backward thinking over there? Refugees are people who have to be paid for big time. They usually dont find work easily.

I wouldn’t say it’s about paying the cost, but it is about paying a cost in order to show love to our neighbour. I don’t think we should say only refugees can come in if they are going to be of use to our nation. It comes across as utilitarianism and devalues human life. We should accept refugees if we can because they are human beings in need of help. As a taxpayer I’m happy to pay a cost in order to give some people a helping hand. If you have to raise taxes, raise taxes, I’d be all for it.

Cheers

Geoff

We should accept refugees if we can because they are human beings in need of help. As a taxpayer I’m happy to pay a cost in order to give some people a helping hand. If you have to raise taxes, raise taxes, I’d be all for it.

I don’t agree, based on my reasoning given above.

Maybe there is some way where your taxes could be raised, and mine lowered???  ...LOL.

Hi Geoff,

Just back from church - great preaching, encouragement and fellowship there - what a beautiful day it is as well.

I haven’t got time to check out the figures, but Australia does do more than it’s fair share of looking after refugees - especially those who don’t try and jump the queue.  I’m not too sure how many Iraqi ‘refugees’ exist - I ‘m not aware that there are “several million” as claimed - but I will do my own research about that.

If you want to think about where to place these so called Iraqi refugees, then why not start with places like Iran and Lybia and other Islamic countries that are sending the so-called “insurgents” ( bloody mad murderers in my book ) and money and weapons etc into Iraq to do their ‘ Islamic inspired ‘ evil. Without their evil deeds, I believe that there would be no on-going ‘war’ still going on inside Iraq and the “war’ would have ended ages ago. Now this theory may not suit the anti-American Howard-hating brigade, but that is how a lot of us see the situation.

Well that’s enough verbal stoush from me for now on this subject. I’m off to welcome my new 3 day old great niece.

Cheers, Kevin

Ken Austin - 12 August 2007 12:10 PM

I don’t agree, based on my reasoning given above.

Maybe there is some way where your taxes could be raised, and mine lowered???  ...LOL.

Fair enough. But I stand by my assertion that we shouldn’t put skilled refugees ahead of unskilled refugees. To me that devalues human life. God didn’t choose us based on our skills.

In regard to taxes. What I meant was, if the government said “we need to raise taxes in order to adequately care for all the refugees, provide skills training and language courses”. I’d be totally up for it.

But a good deal of my salary is tax free anyway :), but even if it wasn’t.

Cheers

Geoff

Kevin Goddard - 12 August 2007 02:48 PM

I haven’t got time to check out the figures, but Australia does do more than it’s fair share of looking after refugees - especially those who don’t try and jump the queue.  I’m not too sure how many Iraqi ‘refugees’ exist - I ‘m not aware that there are “several million” as claimed - but I will do my own research about that.

I’m not sure of the figures either. If we are, then great! But what i was saying was that if we had the ability to do more based on raising taxes or something, I’d be up for it.

In regard to other countries. If those countries say no, but we still have the capacity to accept more (I don’t know if we do), I’d say we have a responsibility to accept them whether or not they are Christian/Muslim/Hindu or Athiest. If it means we would be saving their lives, or there’s a good chance of that, then yeah, bring em on over.

Cheers

Geoff

Fair enough. But I stand by my assertion that we shouldn’t put skilled refugees ahead of unskilled refugees. To me that devalues human life. God didn’t choose us based on our skills.

I think you then agree with the Labor party, which has the same outlook. Unfortunately they have a record of putting possible votes by refugees ahead of the national interest. They bank on getting their votes, wheras good immigrants, with good work ethics, vote Liberal.

I think Labor thinks of the Labor party first, and Australia second, every time.

I don’t think they ultimately take the responsibility for their decisions. It takes a conservative government to bail them, out every time - after they run for one or two terms.

A vote for Rudd, is a vote for big, irresponsible spending. With GST a sure rising tax - possibly up to 15-20%. Lets see if I am right if they get in. Give them 3-4 years to achieve this. With Labor States and a Labor Federal government, they will run without any checks and balances.

And after the smoke clears, we will not be able to see where the money went.

Just like letting the kids loose in the candy store.

Dont fall for Rudd, he is a man without any plans or vision. He will either copy Liberal policies, or go with the unions’ demands. He shouldnt be trusted with running the country, despite his being a good bloke on the face of it.

Ken Austin - 12 August 2007 05:08 PM

I think you then agree with the Labor party, which has the same outlook. Unfortunately they have a record of putting possible votes by refugees ahead of the national interest. They bank on getting their votes, wheras good immigrants, with good work ethics, vote Liberal.

I don’t know much about either party’s polices toward refugees to be honest, so I’ll be careful not to put my foot in it (as I do oh so often).

But in regard to refugees from war ravished countries who face death, I think justice and social equity will come first, and Australia’s interests second in regard to how I vote. This does not mean I think we should flush Australia’s interests down the toilet, but I think the welfare of all human beings has to be taken into account, not Australia’s first, then other people’s second.

I think that’s my point of view :), I’m sure it has flaws and is incredibly idealistic and impractical.

Cheers

Geoff

Hi Ken

Reading in between the lines, national interest just seems like a slightly more respectable way of saying self interest.

and sorry if this sounds a little rude, but your last post sounds like a cut and paste from some liberal party scare monger site.

could it be argued that despite the economic cost of taking on more refugees, it is actually in our national interest to do so becasue it is actually good for us to be genreous wiht our vast wealth, and it is in our interest to be merciful - even loving our enemy- because that is the very nature of God which he commands us to do?

if I may be a little cheeky and extend your footer
your Kingdom come your will be done?

Enjoy Grace
Shane

ken said:
I think you then agree with the Labor party, which has the same outlook. Unfortunately they have a record of putting possible votes by refugees ahead of the national interest. They bank on getting their votes, wheras good immigrants, with good work ethics, vote Liberal.

Ken,
I think it is sad that you oppose “good immigrants” to “refugees”. There are plenty of hard working refugees in this country.

As a shameless plug, we’re running a men’s BBQ in the Springwood parish on Friday Aug 24 where Gordon Cheng will speak to the question ‘how would Jesus vote?’ and take questions.  7.30pm Blue Mountains Grammar School Preparatory Campus, Tusculum Rd Valley Heights, $7.  If any blokes are interested they should send me an email or PM.