- The title of this post is false and misleading. It should have hit RKS between the eyes. Nowhere in the article does Chancellor Merkel say that Germany willMessage 1 of 131 , Sep 25, 2010View Source
The title of this post is false and misleading. It should have hit RKS between the eyes.
Nowhere in the article does Chancellor Merkel say that Germany will become an Islamic State.
To put a bit of perspective on the subject here are a few figures from Wikipedia:
According to organizational reportings based on projections in 2008 about 34.1% Germans have no registered religious denomination. According to a poll by Der Spiegel magazine, only 45% believe in God, and just a quarter in Jesus Christ.
Christianity is the largest religion in Germany, with around 49.4 million adherents (62.8%) in 2008 of which 24.5 million are Protestants (29.9%) belonging to the EKD and 24.9 million are Catholics (30.0%) in 2008, the remainder belong to small denominations (each (considerably ) less than 0,5 % of the German population). The second largest religion is Islam with an estimated 3.8 to 4.3 million adherents (4.6 to 5.2%) followed by Buddhism and Judaism, both with around 200,000 adherents (c. 0.25%). Hinduism has some 90,000 adherents (0.1%) and Sikhism 75,000 (0.09%). All other religious communities in Germany have fewer than 50,000 (or less than 0.05%) adherents.
artemistroy a écrit :
Date: September 23, 2010 12:04:33 AM EDT (CA) Subject: Germany Will Become Islamic State, Says Chancellor Merkel Germany Will Become Islamic State, Says Chancellor MerkelSeptember 22, 2010 - Paul Williams, PhD Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Germans have failed to grasp how Muslim immigration has transformed their country and will have to come to terms with more mosques than churches throughout the countryside, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily. "Our country is going to carry on changing, and integration is also a task for the society taking up the task of dealing with immigrants," Ms. Merkel told the daily newspaper. "For years we've been deceiving ourselves about this. Mosques, for example, are going to be a more prominent part of our cities than they were before." Germany, with a population of 4-5 million Muslims, has been divided in recent weeks by a debate over remarks by the Bundesbank's Thilo Sarrazin, who argued Turkish and Arab immigrants were failing to integrate and were swamping Germany with a higher birth rate. The Chancellor's remarks represent the first official acknowledgement that Germany, like other European countries, is destined to become a stronghold of Islam. She has admitted that the country will soon become a stronghold. In France, 30% of children age 20 years and below are Muslims. The ratio in Paris and Marseille has soared to 45%. In southern France, there are more mosques than churches. The situation within the United Kingdom is not much different. In the last 30 years, the Muslim population there has climbed from 82,000 to 2.5 million. Presently, there are over 1000 mosques throughout Great Britain - - many of which were converted from churches. In Belgium, 50% of the newborns are Muslims and reportedly its Islamic population hovers around 25%. A similar statistic holds true for The Netherlands. It's the same story in Russia where one in five inhabitants is a Muslim. Muammar Gaddafi recently stated that "There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without sword, without gun, without conquest. We don't need terrorists; we don't need homicide bombers. The 50 plus million Muslims (in Europe) will turn it into the Muslim Continent within a few decades." The numbers support him. FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Paul L. Williams, Ph.D., is the author of The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World, The Al Qaeda Connection, and other best-selling books. He is a frequent guest on such national news networks as ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, MSNBC, and NPR. Visit his website at http://thelastcrusade.org/. ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: firstname.lastname@example.org <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- Al, Here is my last intervention in this thread. ... Indeed I explained why my example of the absolute gender gap in achievement is explained by the sameMessage 131 of 131 , Oct 12, 2010View SourceAl,
Here is my last intervention in this thread.
> [Joao] No! Look into my statement again: I wrote
> "irrelevant to derive conclusions of innate capacities". And I justified it.
[Al] Joao, you far from justified it. Here were your 3 arguments in your own words:
1. "During that same period, nearly all creatives were men"
[Al] This is equally true across all the civilizations being compared between 800BC and 1950AD, thus it isn't really relevant for the task of comparing between accomplishments of those civilizations. It *would* be relevant if, say, Europe's women had been more free to contribute during that period because then you could suggest that comparison was unfair because Europe was firing on both (male & female) cylinders. So this IS NOT valid in this context.
Indeed I explained why my example of the absolute gender gap in achievement is explained by the same factor to absolute ethnic gaps in achievement in old times (pre-1950): in both cases, the group that contributed zero during many centuries (women in one case, and many ethnic groups in the other case) simply had no access to the activities that could lead to art and science achievement. Women had no access to them because they could not enter academic institutions, and free lance creative activities were seen as an aberration in women. Ethnies outside Europe had no access simply because they were not in Europe -- that is, the place where the academies guided by the scientific methods developed after Renaissance existed. The development of these methods in the West is a fascinating phenomenum that is long studied by historians of science, but the overwhelmingly majority of scientists did not create it; rather they thrived in it, they could become scientists because the methods were already there.
2. "The Italians had a golden age in the Renaissance, and then declined steadily. The Jews did little to nothing during the Middle Ages, and latter became a huge success story. The Islamics were very superior in the first couple of centuries of that period, just to decline afterwards. "
You originally said "Even if these stats are true..." which implies we are taking the supposition Charles Murray did a decent job writing that paper, in which case he must have taken account of the ebb and flow of civilizations. Bear in mind a good 500 years of "Dark Age" in Europe. So this IS NOT valid in this case. Which leaves...
3. "And if you pick the pos-1950 time, non-European contributions started to explode."
This is valid and important, but there are two important considerations. First, why have non-Western societies seen a creative explosion? In large (but not whole) part it is to do with adoption of the methods of science, engineering and technology *invented* in the West.
Very good questions. There are many historians of science with theses about that. I am not expert but I have read about Greek philosophy, relative de-centralization, mercantilization, relative secularism, afluence in the cities, all may have been factors.
> [Joao] This is understandable since most of these people
> are biologically illiterate, and the topic gave
> rise to many spicy café conversations.
[Al] Sure, but my point was that similar claims by a Euro about Euro would have been condemnded. Also, you haven't said whether in your opinion Pinker made racist statements? :O)
No, I don't think he made racist statements. Only he spoke too enthusiastically about that study, and his audience became enthusiastic too, which is both scientifically unwise and understandable.