Quote:
Originally Posted by tomfon
I agree with you. What i really don't understand though is why Europeans turn a blind to the whole thing? If they believe they know better than the Turks then they must be stupid. Turkish politicians are looking for ways to satisfy the interests of their own country. If you ask me, they are doing just fine. The problem is that Europe should do the same. Diplomacy and politics must obey to the Newtonian principle of Action-Reaction. I think that Europe lacks both parts of the equation, at least for the time being.
Also, I do not agree with the results of the study you mentioned. They seem quite naive: "Muslim = bad behaviour, Christian = good behaviour"? 
But then again, maybe, i did not understand what you wanted to say.
Could you elaborate, please? Any links in English, s'il vous plait? |
The study has just been published in Germany, two days ago or so, I do not know of any english link, maybe tomorrow in the English edition of Der Spiegel. Currently, this of several German news sites:
http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Machokult...cle907123.html
Quote:
Vor allem Jungs aus muslimischen Zuwanderer-Familien zeigten sich dabei im Vergleich zu ihren Altersgenossen als besonders gewalttätig, das heißt, sie begingen nach eigenen Angaben – und nach Angaben von Opfern – häufiger Delikte wie Körperverletzung und Raub. Die Kriminologen interessierte zudem der Zusammenhang mit der Religion, sie fragten die Schüler, wie gläubig sie sind – mit ebenfalls sehr bedenklichen Resultaten: Häufiges Beten und Moscheebesuche bremsen die Gewaltbereitschaft nicht: Wer besonders religiös lebt, das legt die Statistik nahe, schlägt sogar häufiger zu. "Selbst wenn man soziale Faktoren herausrechnet, bleibt ein signifikanter Zusammenhang zwischen Religiosität und Gewaltbereitschaft", sagte Pfeiffer.
Christen weniger gewaltbereit
Bei evangelischen und katholischen Jugendlichen zeigte sich eine gegenläufige Tendenz: Wer seinen Glauben lebt, begeht seltener jugendtypische Straftaten. Dies gilt gerade auch für christliche Zuwanderer, die meist aus Polen oder der ehemaligen Sowjetunion stammen.
|
The study was done by the
Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen. It questioned several tens of thousands individuals.
The result you criticise, is a result they make on basis of their numerical findings. The found a correlation between strength of faith, and record of criminal/violent behavior, saying the stronger the christian faith of the subject is, the more peaceful it showed to be, whith the muslim juvenile showing the more crimianl/aggressive behavior the stronger the role Muslim religion played in his life. they also said that this is because of the typical macho-culture Muslim male juveniles grow up with and that islamic culture educate them in: that that creates a male role model that educates them to behave like that. These differences in behavior they xclaim to be typical for muslim male juveniles, I see cionfirmed almost every ime I walk in town. Groups of men of Muslim foreign origin definetly behave different than similiar groups of asian, western europeans or Africans - they are much more "macho" indeed. I go as far as saying that "machismo" is one of the most typical characteristics of men from various ME countries, even more so with the young ones.
Earlier studies have found this: that the offsprings of the original migrants coming to germany, the now third generation, are much more religious and conservative than even their grandparents ever where. Somehow, this integration thing goes 180° at the wrong direction.
I then linked this to what I repeatedly have said in the past: that a Christian for wanting to behave violent and aggressive, he must explicitly
violate the teachings of Jesus (Christ-->Christian, I do not talk of the church and it's politics), where for a Muslim behaving vilent towards others (women, infidels), he must explicitly
follow the teachings of Muhammad (Quran). Jesus and muhammad's teachings are lightyears apart, one could almost say the one is the anti-thesis to the other. I can only lauch out loud when "tolerant" Christians and priests think they must try to ennoble themselves when wanting to compare Muhammad and Jesus and claim that they were preaching the same things. They were not. One could as well claim that Stalin compares to Ghandi.
Also, as I said before, too, tolerance cannot be shown by the weak (it simply is impossible), but only by the stronger of two or more sides. The weak must suffer what the stronger does or does not to him. The stronger has the freedom to enforce his will upon the weak - or stay away from doing that. The latter is called tolerance. Tolerance is a possible characteristic of the stronger one, not the weaker one. In the confrontation of the Wetsern world with Islam, I do not see the West as the stronger one, but the weaker one, due to its rotten inner structure and confused self-understanding, and due to the archaic power coming from this totalitarian will for unity and dominance in islam. islam always is stagnating in its inside, but to the outside it is a barbaric power brimming with vitality and aggressive, expansive energy. We in the west crucify ourselves over implications inside implication of more implication of our oh so civilised self-description. We weaken ourselves by making simple things complicated that way, and call that political correctness, for example, or sensibility (or tolerance, which is wrong, as I explained). Islam preaches to crush everything (external differences, internal critics) in order to acchieve maximum, undisputed power by totalitarian unity. Our precious Western "tolerance" - real or just imagined - is no match for such a relentless force.