“Kigger man her i Danmark så er de etniske danskere dobbelt så kriminelle som de indvandrere vi tager imod fra USA, Kina og Indien. Er det fordi danskerne kun tror på én Gud, mens inderne tror på flere?” Tarek Ghanoum
Kilder:
I bogen Bare fordi at på side 81 stiller undersøger Knud følgende påstand “Muslimer er i kraft af religion mere kriminelle”. Nu omhandler videoen indvandrere og derfor er det i den kontekst at emnet skal undersøges. Et af de forskere der har kigget nærmere på det er Rubén G. Rumbaut, som er professor i sociologi University of California og forfatter til en række bøger. I hans videnskabelige artikel ved navn “Debunking The Myth Of Immigrant Criminality: Imprisonment Among First- And Second-Generation Young Men“ skrives der ingen steder at religion er en mulig årsag tværtimod kigges der på andre mulige faktorer. Her er et uddrag:
“In the absence of rigorous empirical research, myths and stereotypes about immigrants and crime often provide the underpinnings for public policies and practices, are amplified and diffused by the media, and shape public opinion and political behavior. Periods of increased immigration have historically been accompanied by nativist alarms and pervasive pejorative stereotypes of newcomers, particularly during economic downturns or national crises (such as the “war on terror” of the post-9/11 period), and when the immigrants have arrived en masse and differed substantially from the natives in such cultural markers as religion, language, phenotype, and region of origin. “
Et andet ekempel er Robert J. Sampson, som er professor på Harvard Univeristy og leder af sociologi afdelingen, der i sin videnskabelige artikel “Rethinking crime and immigration” konkludere at en øget diversitet i kulturer blandt folket kan lede til en sænkning af kriminaliteten:
“[…] immigration and the increasing cultural diversity that accompanies it generate the sort of conflicts of culture that lead not to increased crime but nearly the opposite. In other words, selective immigration in the current era may be leading to the greater visibility of competing non-violent mores that affect not just immigrant communities but diffuse and concatenate through social interactions to tamp down violent conflict in general. Recent findings showing the spread of immigration to all parts of America, including rural areas of the Midwest and South, give credence to this argument.”
Et tredje ekempel er Natalie Farka, som er uddannet inden for Public and international affairs har skrevet om de stereotyper der er omhandlende immigranter (Old Stereotypes Die Hard? Public Perceptions and Political Outcomes of Perceived Immigrant Criminality) i den konkludere hun bl.a.:
“[…] the presumption that immigrants disturb the social cohesion of neighborhoods (Social Disorganization Theory), and that they bring with them a particular culture that conflicts with the values of their host society (Cultural Deviance Theory). While these theories seem intuitive, empirical evidence over the last thirty years has disproved various elements of this perception. A consistent finding within the literature is that across ethnic group, documentation status, socioeconomic status, level of education and various indicators of criminal behaviour, recent immigrants commit significantly less crime than non-immigrants. It also described the finding that the crime rates of immigrants converge with the non-immigrant average with each successive generation, but that this may in fact indicate inadequate integration of immigrant communities or larger societal problems within a host state, rather than an inherent quality with respect to immigrants themselves.”
Bemærk at både Natalie og Rumbaut er nævnt i bogen Bare fordi at på side 88 og 89, ligeledes refereres der til Scot Wortley, hvor Knud bruger ham i gennemgangen af fustrationsteorien, desorganiseringsteorien, kultursammenstødsteorien og importteorien, men ingen steder kobler Scot religionen sammen med en øget kriminalitet.
Når det er sagt så var ovenstående analyser kombineret med indvandringen og ikke generelt snak om religion. Dog kan man også nævne Cavanaugh William, som er uddannet inden for religiøse studier med speciale i politisk teologi og økonomisk etik, har i sin bog ‘The Myth of Religious Violence‘ konkludere bl.a. følgende: “[…] there is no transcultural and transhistorical phenomenon called ‘religion’ that is especially prone to violence.”
I første kapitel af bogen argumentere han bl.a. for at sekulære ideologier såsom nationalisme, liberalisme og endda marxisme kan være lige så absolutistiske, splittende og irrationelle som religion, dermed er man nød til at kigge på andre bagvedliggende faktorer end blot det overfladiske.
- Cavanaugh, William. The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.