Wednesday, 13 June 2018

A ruling in a Wedding Cake Dispute

The material below has been posted from this site.
This article is lengthy and comes from the USA.
First Amendment protections of religious freedom were affirmed in a narrowly drafted decision today. 
The decision is a welcome move by the Court. But we should not confuse it with a landmark of any sort. 
The Court rejected the state of Colorado’s attempt to force Jack Phillips, owner operator of Masterpiece Bakeshops to bake a wedding cake with a congratulatory message on it for a same-sex wedding. This is good news for those of us who support separation of Church and State and individual religious freedom.
However, the Court took this action in a narrowly defined decision that was based on the egregious religious bigotry that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated in the way it conducted its hearings on this matter. The Supreme Court decision limits itself to the narrow question of unequal protection under the law and whether or not religious belief is protected by the First Amendment from overt government hostility in this specific case. It stops far short of affirming the right of individual Americans to refuse services based on their religious beliefs. 
Both the Ruling and the Writ make clear that the Court will not tolerate direct attacks on a particular faith such as those the Commission members launched against Christianity. But the decision does not address the overall question of how individual religious freedom from government oppression will be balanced against civil rights’ claims of defined groups of people in future decisions.
In other words, the Court ruled that a government agency violates the First Amendment when it acts in accordance with what amounts to an attack against a particular religious faith. The Commissioners used language in the hearing involving the Masterpiece Bakeshop which, to any fair-minded person, was bigoted and an attack on Mr Phillip’s faith. 
Here is the pertinent section from the Writ, emphasis mine: 
… Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12. 
(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case. 
The Court also noted in its Writ that the Commission’s handling of Mr Phillips’ case was an uneven application of the law, which raises the question of equal protection. Their reasoning was that the Commission had allowed bake shops to refuse to bake cakes with anti-gay messages on them, but that they did not give Mr Phillips the same consideration. Here is the pertinent section about that. Again, the emphasis is mine: 
… State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. … Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection. Pp. 12–16. (c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. The bottom line of this ruling is that any laws regarding the provision of services and the civil rights of individual citizens must be written and enforced without prejudice. What that means is, basically, that what’s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. If a law requires bake shops to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, it must also require bake shops to bake cakes for anti-gay groups. More to the point, no law may be enforced in an unequal or unfair manner based on an individual American’s religious beliefs. The law, whatever it is, must be indifferent to the religious beliefs of American citizens. Its enforcement must be the same for everyone. I think that the major victory in this decision was the clear signal from the Court that First Amendment protections of religious practice free from government intrusion is a right that belongs to individual Americans. This flies in the face of recent claims by the Obama Administration that the First Amendment is limited to corporate faith practices inside church buildings. However, in this same ruling, Justice Kennedy goes off on a hypothetical riff about the nature of First Amendment rights in which he says that, while clergy clearly have the Constitutional right to refuse to perform gay-weddings, individual citizens may not have similar broad rights of refusal. That’s an important sticking point which leaves the question of whether and to what degree the First Amendment rights to religious freedom apply to individual American citizens, and how much of it is a corporate right held only by organized religious bodies.
The current logic that is being used to attack our religious freedom as individual American citizens is that First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom from government oppression applies only to organized churches operating within church facilities, and not to individual American citizens. That makes it somewhat chilling that Justice Kennedy references this line of reasoning so favorably in this ruling. It’s important to note that the Court limited this ruling to this specific case only. It stated a number of times that it might rule differently if the circumstances were different. Here, from the Ruling, is what they said. Emphasis mine:
However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission’s order must be invalidated. The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market. The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered. What this seems to mean is that the Court stands ready to rule differently when the government handles itself in a less prejudiced and sloppy manner. The Court seems to be hinting that what it wants to see is a neat, carefully-crafted set-piece case that will allow it to rule on hypothetical issues without having to mess with the misbehavior of local left-wing bigots. The language in this decision seems to signal that the Court, as it stands now, is eager to place gay people under 14th Amendment protections, along with African Americans. To read the Ruling, go here. 

Spiritual ecology : the sacred in everyday life

Spiritual Ecology: 10 Practices to Reawaken the Sacred in Everyday Life offers inspiring and practical guidance for reconnecting to the sacred in every day life and transforming our relationship with the Earth. Describing the power of simple, daily practices such as Walking, Gardening, Cooking with Love, and Prayer, this small book supports profound changes in how we think about and respond to the ecological crisis of our times.
Our groundbreaking book, Spiritual Ecology: The Cry of the Earth, (now in its second edition)—which included spiritual perspectives on climate change, species loss, deforestation, and other aspects of our present environmental crises from renowned spiritual teachers, scientists, and indigenous leaders—drew an overwhelmingly positive reaction from readers, many of whom are asking: "What can I do?"
Spiritual Ecology: 10 Practices to Reawaken the Sacred in Everyday Life answers that question with inspiring, personal anecdotes from the author—Sufi teacher Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee—and simple practices we all can do. Rooted in the mystical foundation of the world's great spiritual traditions, with a particular connection to Sufism, these timeless practices remind readers of our deep connections to life, each other, and the Earth, and invite a return of meaning to our desecrated world.
As Rumi says, "there are a thousand ways to kneel and kiss the ground," and it is this sacred ground that is calling to us, that needs our living presence, our attentiveness. This small book offers simple ways to reconnect so that we can once again feel the music, the song of our living connection with the Earth.

6. Cleaning
1. Walking
7. Simplicity
2. Breathing
8. Prayer
3. Gardening
9. Death
4. Seeds and Their Stories
10. Meaning and the Sacred
5. Cooking with Love
Notes & Acknowledgements

Ch 1—Walking:
This is a practice that has been with me since my teens—when I first started to meditate I also needed to walk. It was not taught or learned, but came as a need, a way to be, an antidote to much of the world around me—a world of people and problems, demands and desires. When one foot follows the other and the day has hardly begun, it seems these demands cannot touch me, as if I am immersed in something simpler, more essential. Placing each foot on the earth is a practice, but a practice that comes from my own roots, not a book or a teacher. Later I came to hear it called 'walking in a sacred manner,' and it is sacred, a return to what is sacred. But it also is deeper or more primal thanany purpose. Nature speaks to me and I listen. Nature calls and something deep within me responds, and I just need to give it space. I am part of a life far greater than any 'me.'(p. 2)
Ch 2—Breathing:While we are alive, with each cycle of the breath the soul makes its journey into this world and then back to the Source. Spiritually we aspire to make this journey conscious. It is the lived prayer of the soul, an offering of our self to the mystery of life and its all-embracing relationship to the Divine. With each breath we consciously connect the two worlds, the world of the spirit and the physical world. We are present in the love affair that is the relationship between the Creator and the creation. (p. 10)
Ch 3—Gardening:Recently I have loved to grow potatoes. I made two new beds for my potatoes, dug and composted, and planted my seed potatoes, and then waited. As I said, I am not a natural gardener, not naturally in tune with the rhythms of the Earth. This has been a gift that life has unexpectedly offered to me—this simple joy in waiting, watching the shoots begin to come from the soil, and then finally putting my fingers in the soil to dig up my potatoes, feeling the wonder of so many potatoes from a single seed. Of course these are not the perfect potatoes bought from the store. These are my own potatoes, cherished because I planted them, and their imperfections do not bother me. I love their taste, sweet and buttery. In my potatoes the Earth has given me more than abundance and nourishment; it has also brought this joy I had never expected—a simple primal joy that is a remembrance of life. (p. 21)
Ch 4—Seeds and Their Stories:What I experience in my small garden is part of a story that has held us for millennia. It has given life meaning and sustenance. But today we are losing both our seeds and their stories. The biodiversity that was central to life for thousands of years is being lost. We are becoming a monoculture with a scarcity of seeds, a scarcity so severe that people have even created seed banks in the frozen North to protect our heritage of seed diversity. (p. 27-28)
Ch 5—Cooking with Love:Through being attentive to the preparation of our food we bring an awareness into a basic substance and sustenance of life. Just as being aware of the breath is central to spiritual life, reconnecting us with life's essence, so is the simple art of cooking. What is more satisfying than a bowl of rice and vegetables that you have prepared and cooked with attention—what is a greater gift to a visitor and friend? (p. 38)
Ch 6—Cleaning:There is a simple spiritual practice that is often overlooked—the art of cleaning. The image of the monk sweeping the courtyard has a deep significance, because without the practice of cleaning there can be no empty space, no space for a deep communion with the sacred. Outer and inner cleaning belong to the foundation of spiritual practice, and as the monk's broom touches the ground, it has a particular relationship to the Earth. We need to create a sacred space in order to live in relationship to the sacred within ourselves and within creation. (p. 47)
Ch 7—Simplicity:How can we create a space of clarity, of attentiveness? How can we return to what is essential? How can we remember what really matters, what gives meaning and substance to our daily lives? How can we return to a simplicity of life that honors the simplicity of our essential nature, that gives space for the sacred? (p. 58)
Ch 8—Prayer:Watching, listening, we develop the ear of the heart, the eye of the heart, the inner receptivity of the soul. And if we can listen to the Beloved within creation, to the miracle of the Earth in all Her forms, we will hear the Beloved speak to us as She spoke to our ancestors. We will find ourself in a world as whole as it is holy. (p. 69)
Ch 9—Death:Nature does not need a facelift. She is eternally young because she is always dying. She is the hundred-year-old tree falling in a thunderstorm as well as the first shoots of spring. The Japanese understood this quality of the sacred, building their temples in wood and not stone so that they would have to be rebuilt again and again. (p. 78)
Ch 10—Meaning and the Sacred:When our ancestors knew that everything they could see was sacred, this was not something taught but instinctively known. It was as natural as sunlight, as necessary as breathing, a fundamental recognition of the wonder, beauty, and divine nature of the world. From this sense of the sacred real meaning is born, the meaning that makes our hearts sing with the deepest purpose of being alive.
      Tragically, our present culture appears to have lost sight of this vital quality. Instead we live on the surface, separated from the real substance that has always given everyday life a depth of meaning. We are told to find meaning in our individual life, but all around us life itself tells us a different story—that we are part of the Earth, that we belong to the community of all of life in its myriad forms. Only through recognizing and living this sacred unity can we find and experience the real meaning that life is offering to us. And so we have to find ways to remember, to reconnect, to feel again what is all around us. (p. 88)

Monday, 11 June 2018

ARAN (Australian Refugee Action Network) Conference in Melbourne - 7 and 8 July 2018

Saturday 7 July – Sunday 8 July: 

The Australian Refugee Action Network is organising the second ARAN National conference, which will be held in Melbourne on Saturday 7th and Sunday 8th July 2018 – we hope you are planning to join us there!  

The conference is moderately priced ($40 concession, $75 full) and is open to anyone interested in refugee activism and advocacy.  Conference dinner on Saturday night – Tamil Feast at rooftop venue in CBD.    Additional $35. 

Gather with other activists and advocates for refugee rights from across Australia to: Discuss the political context and campaign priorities; Share ideas and experience for mobilizing and effective campaigning; Explore strategies for networking across activist and advocacy groups to strengthen the campaign effort. 

Updates with the latest on the conference at

including some low cost accommodation options.

For more information email 

Sunday, 10 June 2018

Can oil and water mix? Mormons and the Liberal Party of Australia?

According to Australia's 2016 Census data, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) forms 0.3% of the population.  Mormons have been more or less invisible on the political landscape.  I have been politically active for most of my long life and I can't recall any members of any Australian parliament who were/are Mormons.

I can't even recall them being politically active i.e. active in political campaigns, door knocking, public statements, etc.

Until the last few years. 

In recent times, a program has come about called Safe Schools Coalition Australia and  This program has caused angst and outrage among people on the political right and out of the woodwork has come some people who are Mormons.  

These people have found a home and consolation within the right wing of the Liberal Party of Australian (Victorian Division).  To clarify the political spectrum in Australia, the Liberal Party in Australia is a party more like the Republicans in the USA and the Conservatives in Britain.   There would be some true Liberals in Australia's Liberal Party but there are also Conservatives and people on the Far Right of the political spectrum. So if Mormons joined an Australian political party it is highly unlikely that they would join the Australian Labor Party (which is the equivalent of the USA's Democrats). 

In the wake of the scare campaigns run by the Right and the Mormons in relation to the Safe Schools program, Mormons have been acquiring strategic influence in the Victorian Liberal Party - and, in some quarters, this is causing concern. 

Thursday, 7 June 2018

What is planned for Refugee Week in Ballarat

Just in from Ballarat Interfaith Network

Hello Everyone,
There are a couple of free events during Refugee Week.
Please note that our film for this month 
will have the writer/producer
joining us from S.A.
The launch of the container art has all been done by a refugee and 
Tom Ballard who has befriended him will be there to talk on his behalf.
Look forward to seeing you.

To find out more about Refugee Week in Australia go here

Wednesday, 6 June 2018


Refugee Week 16-24 JUNE 2018
Soup and Sandwich
#I Stand With Refugees

When history looks back will it be to see them standing alone
or will it see we were standing #WithRefugeesC:\Users\Maureen\Downloads\received_735379013320665.jpeg

Performances by:
The Namarilly Bagarook Dancers
The Australian Irish Dance Company Ballarat
The South Sudanese Cultural Group
“Caroline Chisholm – The Immigrants Friend”
Stalls and Competitions
Launch of 2018 major fundraiser -
prizes include a family holiday in Victor Harbor
12.30 pm Wednesday 20 JUNE 2018
Entry: $20 Nazareth House Hall, Mill Street Ballarat
All funds raised will assist local asylum seekers and their families.

C:\Users\Maureen\Downloads\Victor_Harbor_Logo_JPEG.jpgC:\Users\Maureen\Downloads\The Forge Pizzeria - Logo - Print - Copy_rotated.jpgC:\Users\Maureen\Downloads\BRASSN.jpg

HOUSE OF WELCOME BALLARAT: Inquiries mob: 0401 175 045 ph: 5332 2103 email:

Tuesday, 5 June 2018

German politics and the Christian cross

Crosses on chains are offered in a devotional objects shop 
in Munich, southern Germany, on June 1, 2018. (AFP)
The government of Bavaria has decided to instruct 
all state administrative buildings in the German state 
to display a cross in their public entrances by June 1.
A controversial decree requiring Christian crucifixes to be installed at entrances of most public buildings in Bavaria came into force on Friday, sparking accusations of identity politics ahead of elections in the southern German state.

Markus Soeder, Bavaria's conservative state premier, had initiated the measure in April, saying "the cross is a fundamental symbol of our Bavarian identity and way of life."
But the order sparked an outcry, with critics accusing Soeder of politicising a religious symbol as his CSU party battles to claw back voters who have turned to the far-right and Islamophobic AfD ahead of state election in October.
"Soeder has misused the cross for an election manoeuvre," the region's Social Democrat chief Natascha Kohnen told the Augsburger Allgemeine daily.
Soeder was also widely mocked, including by the state premier of neighbouring Baden-Wuerttemburg, Winfried Kretschmann, who said a photo of his Bavarian colleague holding the cross made him "think of a vampire film."
But among the harshest condemnations was that from Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the president of the German Bishops' Conference, who warned Soeder that "if the cross is viewed only as a cultural symbol, then it has not been understood."
"Then the cross is being expropriated by the state," said Marx in an interview with Sueddeutsche daily, adding that it must not be used as a tool to exclude.
Amid the push-back, Soeder's office had sought to tone down the decree, saying that while it was compulsory for buildings like police stations, courts or ministry offices, it was merely recommended for higher educational institutions, museums and theatres.

Monday, 4 June 2018

One Nation reads the nation wrong - as usual.


Fact check: 

Are more than half of Australia's 

working-age Muslims not in the workforce?

Posted about 11 hours ago

The claim

Independent Senator Fraser Anning has frequently used Twitter to campaign against those migrants and asylum seekers he claims come to Australia "for a life of permanent handouts".
Senator Anning, who represented Pauline Hanson's One Nation party until January 2018, has also praised Turnbull Government plans to tighten eligibility for welfare payments for recently-arrived migrants.
The Government has legislation before Parliament which would extend the waiting period for various welfare payments to migrants from two years to three years, while proposing to extend this to four years in the 2018 budget.
Senator Anning has told Parliament: "Free welfare and public housing attracts the very worst type of migrants: transnational parasites who travel not in search of opportunity, but in search of a free ride at everyone else's expense."
In keeping with his campaign against "so-called refugees who just want to jump on the welfare gravy train", Senator Anning tweeted on May 11: "It's no coincidence 56 per cent of Australia's working-age Muslims are not in the labour force."

It's no coincidence 56 per cent of Australia's working-age Muslims are not in the labour force.

Free welfare and public housing attracts the very type of migrants, transnational parasites who travel not in search of opportunity, but in search of a free ride at other’s expense.
Is Senator Anning correct? Are more than half of Australia's Muslims, who could be in the labour force, in fact, not in the labour force? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

The verdict

Senator Anning is wrong.
Fact Check analysed data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which economics professor John Quiggin, of the University of Queensland, then verified.
The analysis showed 43 per cent of working-age Muslims were not in the labour force — significantly less than the figure of 56 per cent cited by Senator Anning.
It also revealed that the high Muslim non-participation rate — which compares to a national working-age non-participation rate of 24 per cent — is almost entirely due to the large number of Muslim women who are not working.

Getting the definitions straight

The ABS defines the labour force as the sum total of people aged 15 and over who are employed either full-time or part-time, as well as unemployed people who are actively looking for work.
People not in the labour force are considered to be those aged 15 and over and who undertake unpaid household duties or other voluntary work only, as well as people who are retired, those permanently unable to work and those who do not want to work.
It's worth noting that the ABS labour force definition comprises people aged 15 and over (that is, with no upper age limit). But it defines the working-age population as only those people between the ages of 15 and 64.
Fact Check has used the working-age definition to calculate workforce participation rates because Senator Anning referred specifically to "working-age Muslims".

Where did Senator Anning's incorrect number come from?

Asked for the basis of his claim, Senator Anning's media spokesman, Boston White, referred Fact Check to an opinion piece by economist Henry Ergas, published in The Australian on September 14, 2015.
In the column, Mr Ergas raised concerns about the religious composition of Australia's refugee intake. At the time, the Government had expanded its humanitarian intake by 12,000 places to accommodate refugees from Syria.
Mr Ergas argued that Middle Eastern Muslim refugees found it difficult to integrate harmoniously into Australia's economy and society because they brought with them religious hatreds.
In this context, he stated that "56 per cent of Australia's working-age Muslims [are] either unemployed or not in the labour force".
In doing so, he refers to two groups of Muslims: those who are unemployed (that is, in the labour force but seeking work) and those who are not in the labour force (that is, not in paid work and not seeking work).
When Senator Anning lifted this figure from Mr Ergas's column, he tweeted it, saying 56 per cent of working-age Muslims were not in the labour force.
In other words, he attributed the figure only to the latter group of Muslims referred to by Mr Ergas.
Regardless, as the column was written in 2015, data from the 2016 census would likely have rendered the number out of date.

Crunching the numbers

At the time of the last census, the population of Australia was 23.4 million, including more than 604,000 Muslims (2.6 per cent of the total).
There were 12.7 million Australians in the labour force, representing a participation rate of 65 per cent (that is, the percentage of all Australians 15 and over who were either in work or actively looking for work).
However, when focusing on the ABS's more narrowly-defined 'working age' population (that is, people aged 15-64), the participation rate for the general population is considerably higher — 76 per cent.
Fact Check used data collected in the 2016 census to calculate the workforce status of Muslims compared to the rest of the population.
The data indicated that working-age Muslims, compared to people claiming other religious affiliations, had the lowest workforce participation rate at 57 per cent, followed by Buddhists (70 per cent).
Fact Check created tables (below) using ABS data to provide a comparison of participation rates. As mentioned, the methodology was checked by Queensland University's Professor Quiggin.
The numbers were broken down further to show participation and non-participation rates for both men and women.
The figures show that the participation rate for Muslim women — at 42 per cent — was the lowest among both sexes.
Muslim women, as well as women who identified as Buddhist (65 per cent), were well below the national female working-age participation rate of 72 per cent.
For men, the picture was similar: Muslim men had the lowest participation rate at 70 per cent, followed by Buddhist men (77 per cent), both ranking below the national working-age male participation rate of 81 per cent.
Clearly, the very low participation rate for working-age Muslim women is reflected in the low participation rate for all Muslims.
Or, as Professor Quiggin told Fact Check: "The higher non-participation rate for Muslims is almost entirely due to lower participation rates for women."

Why do Muslim people have such a low workforce participation rate?

The inference contained in Senator Anning's Twitter claim and comments in Parliament are that a significant number of Muslim migrants are a burden on the Australian economy because they are not in work and rely instead on welfare.
However, Professor Quiggin said that although Muslims had the lowest workforce participation rate, it was worth noting that women who were not in the labour force, but whose husbands or partners were employed, would not be eligible for government benefits in most cases.
An academic paper produced by Beth Cook, of the University of Newcastle, which examined the labour force experience of Australian Muslims, found that Muslims were less likely to participate in the labour force partly because they faced discrimination.
Ms Cook, formerly of the university's Centre for Full Employment and Equity, noted in her paper that a number of constraints affected workforce participation, such as poorer English language proficiency, employer attitudes and cultural and religious issues.
Referring to a 2005 UK study, Ms Cook wrote: "Religious beliefs may have a significant impact on the employment prospects of Muslims living in Western countries."
The UK study of mostly Muslim jobseekers indicated they were not prepared to work in some or all of the following situations:
  • Places where alcohol was sold;
  • Gambling establishments, or places in which the accrual of interest was promoted;
  • Places where they were required to handle non-halal meat;
  • Places where there was no time or suitable place to pray.
There were further restrictions for some Muslim women relating to:
  • Observing hijab;
  • Wanting to work in an all-female workplace;
  • Not being prepared to work at night or in jobs that involved meeting the public;
  • Islamic rituals, such as observing Muslim holidays and restrictions on shaking hands.
In her paper, Ms Cook said Australian Muslim women expressed a preference for Muslim-run childcare services and some had experienced pressure from their family to remain at home, with priority placed on caring for children or elderly relatives, rather than participating in the labour force.
In Australia, the highest female non-participation rates are among Muslims and Buddhists. Professor Quiggin noted that this most likely reflected cultural attitudes rather than specifically religious differences.
"It is likely that cultural differences of this kind will tend to fade in the second generation as has happened with earlier groups of migrants," he said.
Principal researcher: Sushi Das


Topics: immigrationworkaustralia