Germany's Federal Ministry of the Interior has released a new study titled Muslime in Deutschland (Muslims In Germany). The English language summary of the 509 page study concludes:
[T]he great significance of religion for all Muslims in Germany is striking, as well as the high percentage of those who confess their religion in theory and practice. Fundamentalist religious orientations, however, are not synonymous with distance to democracy, and distance to democracy is not automatically a sign of the willingness to commit violence; other factors must be added here. It is, however, certainly the case that the seed of radicalism can be sown more easily in this ground of the basically aloof view of the Western way of life and society, a view that can change into extremism against the background of personally experienced marginalization or the sense of the worldwide oppression of Muslims. For this reason, the potential for danger is considerably greater than the modest membership figures in the known Islamic-extremist associations might suggest.
.jpg)
Posts
22 comments:
That's an interesting bit of overgeneralization and a lot of politically correct pussyfooting around.
Fundamentalist religious orientations, however, are not synonymous with distance to democracy, and distance to democracy is not automatically a sign of the willingness to commit violence; other factors must be added here.
So, Fundamentalism (F), Distance to Democracy (DD), Violence (V)
F->DD->V is invalid seems a odd thing to discuss, when many might argue for F->V.
F->V is probably disproven by the Amish, at the very least.
But that's not really the question that should be asked. This isn't a general philosophical study about what's possible, it's about fundamentalist Muslims (FM) and Islam specifically. They should be looking at:
FM->V
There seems to be some modicum of support for a link like this, at least among some sects of Muslims.
What a waste of time and money! But I guess the German government feels a need to justify whatever next step they're going to take.
As for me, I know from personal experience that fundamentalism of any kind is the direct antithesis of democracy. Fundamentalism is always about the power of the group (especially the leaders of the group) over the individual. Democracy is about the power of the individual within the group.
I've never considered the Amish to be a fundamentalist group, though, CL. They believe what they believe, but they have never tried to force their beliefs on anyone else, have they?
I skimmed the summary, and didn't find it quite so wishy-washy as you two did. A few findings I took home:
1. 6% (200,000) German Muslims have an affinty for violence, 14% (500,000) if you include those with a 'great distance to democracy' and who 'reject the rule of law'. Scary numbers.
2. Fundamentalism is growing at a rapid pace. For example, Muslims believing that women should wear headscarves has increased from 27% to 47% in the last 5 years.
This study seems to provide a rational basis for identifying dangerous groups; and justification for their surveillance. The US could take a lesson here, ie. a problem's qualification best precedes its solution.
And I'VE been called wordy! Whoeeee! The Germans need a writer --or their efforts lost some clarity in the translation.
Chimera, Fundamentalism is NOT originally or necessarily about the power of leaders --it's about doctrines and a group's commitments to those doctrines --and they typically include lifestyle rules that the group considers to be essential to the practice of their faith.
Fundamentalism is not necessarily violent nor trying to force others to practice or accommodate their ways. And YES, Amish are examples in both their doctrines and their lifestyle concerns.
I believe the term was first coined by the fundamentalist forerunners of today's evangelical Christians. There were two camps in protestantism --modernists and fundamentalists. The fundamentalists said there were certain "fundamentals of the faith" --non-negotiables of the faith for Christians --and they also shunned what they considered worldly living --jewelry, make-up, ostentatious clothing, dancing, drinking, smoking, chewing, movies, playing cards, gambling, Sunday work and Sunday recreation (trying to keep the day holy.) also, no shorts, no immodest swimwear, I was raised this way. I don't feel sinful if I wear jewelry or swim or eat out on Sundays. I still wouldn't play cards or gamble (my kids know how to play cards but it's not a big pasttime for any of them) We don't buy lottery tickets nor approve of it. (Neither does the Blade!) We won't go see the R rated movies or worse -- unless it's R for graphic historical violence like probably The Passion?
Dancing is now IN the church and my girls choreograph for school and church and I am a fan of broadway shows, though not Rent or Chorusline with their gay advocacy.
My point, is that while people hold narrow views in belief and about lifestyle choices, that doesn't predict violence AT ALL!
Perhaps it was that I didn't read more closely, tim. Clearly the study is trying to say Muslims are more prone to violence than other groups (wow! such controversy!), it just looked like from the conclusion that they were dancing around it a bit.
Fundamentalism is about literally going to the fundamental scripture of a religion. For Christians and Muslims, this typically means heavy proselytization, which is probably why you thought it had to do with forcing views onto others. Hasidics are also "fundamentalists", but have no concept of proselytization (they believe if you're one of them, you have a chance to be saved, but don't even have a very open route to conversion to their faith).
Muslims tend to be more likely to be fundamentalist, as they believe the Koran was written by Allah, rather than just dictated.
Barb, the reason I wouldn't use Christianity as an argument that fundamentalism doesn't cause violence is because the Bible does say "one shall not suffer a witch to live" and recommends stoning for relatively minor offenses, like wearing two different fabrics (not to make light of the seriousness of that crime, of course). You're a fundamentalist by today's perspective, but by the perspective of a few hundred years ago you're a licentious heathen.
You mean you swim, in a bathing suit? Does it cover your knees? No? Harlot.
I have always differentiated between fundamentalism and devotion.
The devout are sincere, spritual, and honest in their whole-hearted beliefs that they are doing absolutely the right thing in living their lives the way they do. They do not, however, go about exhorting everyone else to do the same, and threatening those who refuse.
In this group, you can find the Amish, as well as most other Christians and most Muslims, most Jews, most Pagans, most everybody.
Fundamentalists, however, are a fear-mongering, hateful, segregationist, oppressive bunch of lunatics. I have serious doubts of their actual devotion to anything but themselves, their leaders, and their cause. They form their diety in their own likeness, and he is one ugly MF! But you better not say so, or one of them will kill you. Happily. He guarantees himself a seat in "heaven" that way.
In this group, you can find terrorists of all stripes, and with countless methods of terror. Some of them throw bombs, or strap them to their bodies and walk into crowds to set them off. Others whisper to little children that they'd better be good according to some fantasy authoritarian figure, or they'll be tortured forever and ever amen. Easy to kill. And easy to terrify little children.
They do not, however, go about exhorting everyone else to do the same, and threatening those who refuse.
that's your personal definition and judgment, Chimera.
the Bible does tell us to exhort --and preach the GOOD NEWS that Jesus came to save sinners --so we might all be chosen for Heaven by our choice to repent and believe in Christ.
If we REALLY believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father and to Heaven after death, and if we REALLY love HIm and love people --then we obey HIM and tell PEOPLE how to He said to be saved.
If we keep it to ourselves, we haven't fulfilled the Golden rule --to do to others as you would have them do unto you. If YOU know the escape from death, and do not tell me, have you loved me? No. If I really believe the Gospel about Christ, and keep it to myself, have I loved you? NO.
So, Barb...you're admitting to being an oppressor.
Not at all --just an evangelist with a message of Good News of a loving Christ who saves --who beat the grave--better than all the suffering we know now --better than the alternative of death or any Hell to shun.
You can't feel oppressed by this message of God's redemption plan unless you are afraid it's true and afraid you'll miss out. AS long as you don't think there is an inkling of truth to the message, how are you oppressed?
Barb, I think it's something about the idea that non-believers should have less rights in society and that atheists should be viewed as something less than full citizens that makes us feel oppressed.
"...how are you oppressed?"
For starters, by your very attitude that you have the right to invade my privacy with your insistence on "sharing" that of which I want no part.
Or by your hubristic assumption that you know better than I how to live my life or govern my thoughts.
Or that you think you can somehow justify your oppression of other people by claiming to have their best interests at heart, when we all know you have only your own concerns foremost in your mind.
Brings to mind a dog owner who, convinced of the beauty of his dog's droppings, walks the dog in public parks; leaving said stools behind so all can enjoy. Those not sharing the owner's fascination with dog poop are free to step around it or walk elsewhere, but it is offensive.
Tim, that's pretty bitter to liken the Christian Gospel to dog poop. Who is more offensive here to the other --me for claiming to have your best interests at heart? or you for calling my beliefs dog dung?
Chimera, how are my "own concerns" foremost in my mind? Why do I care what you do or what you think that you should call my concern selfish?
Granted, for the sake of ALL children, I don't want new laws to redefine marriage as between any number of consenting people or adults -- as in gay or polygamous marriage --because society has a legitimate interest in supporting the equality of man and woman in marriage --and the economic advantages and the public health advantages to virginity followed by monogamy.
There are reasons for the laws we have had --and those reasons still make sense. Minority rights have to be balanced with legit majority concerns. In a civilized society, no one has a right to do just whatever he wants without regard to the common good and the effects on the future generations.
Chimera, how have I invaded your privacy on a public blog?? Why do you say I am oppressing you by telling what I believe and think and applying it to current events and legal cases.
Why don't I make the same claim since you disagree with me --that you are oppressing me and violating MY privacy? After all, we just are in disagreement. That is not oppression nor an invasion of privacy.
As for hubristic assumption that I know better --
don't you think you know better than do Christians? Of course you think so. But nevertheless, it bothers you that what I have to say is unsettling -because it has the ring of truth. There is a big gamble you take when you believe that we Christians are all wet, believing in fantasy and myth.
If you are SO SURE the Bible is untrue, then you should just be irritated or mildly amused --but not feeling oppressed! Christians aren't preventing any kind of sexual behavior with their teachings and their beliefs --they are just refusing to give in to your idea that the laws should be changed to allow gay and polygamous marriage.
No one is saying you can't act like a jack rabbit behind closed doors --although we don't want to see religion usurped and twisted to give men an unfair, diabolical advantage over either women or young men. Young girls and young men should be free to marry one another without the interference of old ginks proclaiming a mandate from God to take more than their share of young wives.
"Chimera, how have I invaded your privacy on a public blog??"
I was not talking about blogging, Barb, and you know it. I am referring to your wanting to pass laws that enforce your values onto me and others who want no part of them.
"Christians aren't preventing any kind of sexual behavior with their teachings and their beliefs --they are just refusing to give in to your idea that the laws should be changed to allow gay and polygamous marriage."
I'll bet you can't see the contradiction in that sentence, can you?
No, I didn't know it. I really thought from what you said that you didn't want me to express my thoughts on religion here on the Religion Clause blog.
You seem to want changes I do not want --in a law passed that will redefine marriage as between any consenting adults, as in polygamy and homosexuality.
I don't want our culture to go in such evil directions, luring kids away from good and healthy choices. by legalizing immoral ones.
No, I don't see the contradiction you refer to above --
TEACHINGS do not always succeed in preventing sin behind closed doors --but the LAW defining marriage will affect culture's view of right and wrong on this issue.
And I don't think gay partnerships should be called marriage by the law --and the same for polygamy. I think both are threatening to youth and inclining them into evil situations. But if you want to have a pseudo religious ceremony with someone of the same sex, go ahead --but don't ask me to pay for your self-imposed diseases for an avoidable high risk lifestyle. I might help you -- out of compassion--but not out of coercion.
Oh, Barb -- we love that you comment here. Your views are so delightfully amusing, except when they're comletely repugnant.
"You seem to want changes I do not want."
What I want is for adults to be able to decide for themselves how to live their own lives (and, being an adult, that means that YOU get to choose for yourself, too!), so long as they are having no negative impact on anyone else. Diversity is a good thing. It will ensure the survival of the species.
You cannot demonstrate that someone else's polyamorous marriage will impact negatively on you, so why should you care? And you cannot complain that you are being forced into a gay marriage, so why would you insist on nobody else's being allowed to choose for themselves if that's what will make them happy and secure? And you don't get to choose for your children or your granchildren or their grandchildren, either -- once they are adults, they get to choose for themselves. Learn to live with it.
"Evil," "good," "immoral": All subjective and inconsistent in quality. You don't get to choose definitions of subjective ideas for anyone else. Not unless you want someone else to define them for you.
You don't have to be a cheerleader for change. All you have to do is stay outa the way when it comes.
Diversity ensures the survival of the species??? NOT
DIversity causes a lot of wars --people who clash--whether on the interpersonal level or the larger cultural and national levels. Diversity causes more divorce than agreement and compatability. Every marriage counselor will tell you that having similarity in your religious, political views and ideas about money and family life --will help sustain a marriage more than disagreement on so many levels. E.G. a husband who believes in sleeping around isn't going to stay long with a woman who differs from him on that view.
Since evil, good and morality are so subjective, how do you ever know when you are right and someone else is wrong? I doubt you can tell --though you would be sure that I would be wrong if I COULD tell the difference. the only WRONG is being SURE that you are RIGHT! Right?
Prof. bloom wrote about this --in The closing of the Am. Mind --the inability of today's college students to make a value judgement.
No absolute truths to know or stand up for. What a world we are making!
Diversity (otherwise known as not putting all one's eggs into the same basket) does NOT cause wars.
What causes wars is fear. It all boils down to fear.
If you have nothing to fear because you are willing to accept that all people are different from one another, and none of them wants to force you into anything, you will do away with fear.
If you accept your neighbor's religion and allow him to conduct his own life without interference and without proselytizing him, he will have no reason to fear your religion. Push him to abandon his faith in favor of yours and you will make him fearful. Then he will hate you. Then he is likely to want to kill you before you kill him.
That's what causes war.
Post a Comment