Interviewed this morning on Radio Three Star Gianantonio by journalist, political scientist Giovanni Sartori Florentine explained his thoughts on the reception and the granting of citizenship to immigrants. We caught only a few steps, but we think that pragmatically Sartori distinguishes between immigrants who accept the system constitutional, legal and civil-liberal democratic, based inter alia on the separation of church and state, and immigrants who, like many Muslims, do not accept it. It stands out well, both by the xenophobic ultra right (hypocritically, to get the votes of more conservative voters, they say they do not want to enter, let alone the recognition of immigrants, but then secretly require as entrepreneurs in search of labor low cost) and the nonconformist "politically correct" of the Left which simply repeat the well-known statements of principle such as equality and freedom, regardless of future sociological and psychological consequences, and even of cultural, anthropological religious and yet described.
All ethnic groups have equal dignity, of course. And all immigrants, provided they respect the rules and do their constitutional, legal and civil co-existence of liberal democracies, in due time are entitled to be recognized as citizens of Italian, French, English or German. He believes this blog.
But we are not blind, and look for decades the anthropological reality and the record. It 's a matter of incontrovertible fact that in any liberal democracy, with the possible exception of the United States, Muslim immigrants are actually placed culturally and socially, for example by accepting public the total separation of church and state (the famous inaugural speech of John F. Kennedy, who promised to be a Catholic president, but president of all), reserving all'intimitù of conscience or religious precepts of Islam's house, help loving how do you impose on all Islamic countries, no of which it is a democracy, much less liberal. Outside the U.S., however, almost never this entry occurred. Why should happen in Italy, what did not happen in countries with more liberal immigration experience?
There must be something, then, is in the way of emigration and the type of U.S. society, both in the Islamic religion, which could explain the phenomenon. By confining the second factor, of course Islam is not only a religion, and still goes beyond a mere spiritual element. The fact remains that led over the centuries, and especially in recent years, as aggressive, the "conquest", or even violence against other religions and against civil institutions. Fortunately in a few cases, this violence was high grade, but that does not lessen the danger, because even just one episode to have a massacre.
the thorny issue of granting citizenship to Islamic Sartori had written an editorial in Corriere della Sera on 20 December:
.
"In the short term, the Chamber will rule on the citizenship and then, also, on 'Italianization "of those who, for better or worse, you get married in our home," began the writing of Sartor. "The issue is fought, as a rule, with blows of injuries, in the key of" racism ". I say, more calmly, that he who does not like the stranger is a stranger who feels "xenophobic", while those who like it is a "xenophiles. And that there 'is nothing inherently wrong with either of the two reactions. Who is more averse 's immigration has always been the league, but at the time, in 2002, Fini also signed with Bossi, a very restrictive law. Now, however, Fini has become an enthusiastic supporter of 'Italianization fast. Who knows why. Fini is a tactical e il suo dire è "asciutto": troppo asciutto per chi vorrebbe capire. Ma a parte questa giravolta, il fronte è da tempo lo stesso. Berlusconi appoggia Bossi (per esserne appoggiato in contraccambio nelle cose che lo interessano). Invece il fronte "accogliente" è costituito dalla Chiesa e dalla sinistra. La Chiesa deve essere, si sa, misericordiosa, mentre la xenofilia della sinistra è soltanto un "politicamente corretto" che finora è restato male approfondito e spiegato. Due premesse. Primo, che la questione non è tra bianchi, neri e gialli, non è sul colore della pelle, ma invece sulla "integrabilità" dell' islamico. Secondo, che a fini pratici (il da fare ora e qui) non serve leggere il Corano ma imparare dall' esperienza. La domanda è allora se la storia ci racconti di casi, dal 630 d.C. in poi, di integrazione degli islamici, o comunque di una loro riuscita incorporazione etico-politica (nei valori del sistema politico), in società non islamiche. La risposta è sconfortante: no. Il caso esemplare è l' India, dove le armate di Allah si affacciarono agli inizi del 1500, insediarono l' impero dei Moghul, e per due secoli dominarono l' intero Paese. Si avverta: gli indiani "indigeni" sono buddisti e quindi paciosi, pacifici; e la maggioranza è indù, e cioè politeista capace di accogliere nel suo pantheon di divinità persino un Maometto. Eppure quando gli inglesi abbandonarono l' India dovettero inventare il Pakistan, so that five centuries of coexistence in surly end up in a sea of \u200b\u200bblood. I know, s' means, other cases and variations, from Indonesia to Turkey. All cases show a return to greater Islamization, and not (as was hoped at least for Turkey) 's coming of a Muslim population that accepts the secular state. We come to Europe '. England and France have agreed to fund the problem, yet find themselves with a third generation of young Muslims Torque tube loose more fervent than ever. The surprising fact that Chinese, Japanese, Indians, marry without problems in 'the West while maintaining their respective cultural and religious identities. But - herein lies the difference - the 'Islam is a religion home, is a rather invasive theocratic monotheism that after a long stagnation it has awakened and is increasingly inflamed. Illusion to integrate italianised - Sartori concluded - is a huge risk by inexperienced, do not risk a risk. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment