A game

Not against a very strong opponent, but all but 3 of my moves were either the first or second moved recommended by Fritz (The three moves were 3.c3, 4.Bd3, and 9.a3 – the fact that I did not chose one of the main lines in the Sicilian account for the two first “deviations”. As a comparison, only half of the moves made by my opponent matched Fritz’ recommendations). I liked 16.Nb6 in particular, I doubt I’d have found that move a few years ago – back then I’d probably just have checked on e7 and contented myself with the fact that I would be up a pawn and have the bishop pair. The move I employed in the game is much stronger.

US – anonymous player, unrated blitz 3+0:

1. e4…c5,
2. Nf3…d6,
3. c3…Nf6,
4. Bd3…Nc6,
5. Bc2…e6,
6. d4…cxd4,
7. cxd4…Be7,
8. Nc3…0-0,
9. a3…a6,

10. 0-0…Re8,
11. Bf4…Qc7,
12. Rc1…Nh5,
13. Be3…d5?,
14. exd5…exd5,
15. Nxd5…Qd6

16. Nb6! …Nf6?,
17. Nxa8…Ng4,
18. Nb6…Nxe3,
19. fxe3…Bg4,
20. Nc4…Qf6,
21. Qd3…Bxf3??
22. Qxh7+

resigned, 1-0

Quote of the day

In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to
shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.

…

From Lionel Giles’ translation of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War

(…yet another reason) Why chess is more complicated than you might think

Black to move. Is this position won for black?

It is. Here’s why. In a pawn vs. two knights endgame, the player with the knights has a theoretical win if he can block the pawn with a knight behind the Second Troitzky line. If black was to play Ne4, followed by Nc5, he would be able, with correct play, to win the game within the 50 move limit. A kibitzer confirmed this when the game was being played by plugging the position into a Nalimov Endgame Tablebase.

The position if from a game from the last round of this year’s Amber Chess Tournament. You can play the game here, choose round 11, then select game #4, between Wang Yue and Vishwanathan Anand. The game was a blindfold game – all the players had to look at when they were playing was an empty chess board without pieces on a computer screen – notice that the game nevertheless went on 85 moves. The player that had the black pieces is the current world champion; human players don’t get much stronger than this. He played 61…Kc5, and even if the position is perhaps still winnable, he didn’t find the win.

This is one of the many reasons why I object when people call chess “just another game”. It’s not.

Too good not to post here

(Via 180)

Fiscal responsibility

(Click the image to view it in a higher resolution)

More here.

Reasonable Explanations for Atheism

i) Moral depravity

The history of the atheist community and various studies regarding the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal factor for atheism. In addition, there is the historical matter of deceit being used in a major way to propagate atheism from the time of Charles Darwin onward. The Bible asserts that “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)). The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of Proverbs states: “A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge.”(Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)). The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: “The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil.” (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV)). Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: “The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is deceit.” (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)). Noted Bible commentator and clergyman Matthew Henry wrote regarding atheism: “A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the world, is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the sun.”

ii) Rebellion

Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God’s existence

iii) Superficiality

Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford professors who were united in disbelief regarding God

iv) Error

Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts

v) State churches

Rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable. It is important to distinguish “state-sanctioned churches,” where participation is voluntary, from “state-mandated churches” (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death

vi) Poor relationship with father

Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards holding the position of atheism. Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled Faith of the Fatherless in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent. Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.[120] Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.

vii) Division in religion

According to Francis Bacon, atheism is caused by “divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism”

viii) Learned times, peace, and prosperity

Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by “Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion.” Jewish columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of atheism is the “secular indoctrination of a generation.” Prager stated that “From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages.” Atheists and secularists rarely point out that universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, and many others were founded by Christians

ix) Negative experiences with theists

x) Scientism

Science has in many ways become a new God.

…

They left out one or two, but overall they do sound quite “reasonable”, don’t they? Ok, maybe not viii (somebody might think the causality was reversed – that religion caused hardship instead of the other way around – can’t have that now, can we…) and ix (how could anyone have a negative experience with a son or daughter of God?), but the rest of them sound really smart and deep.

Here’s the link.

Kun ikke-troende læser bloggen?

…eller rettere: Besvarer mine polls?

12 svar, 11 af 12 respondenter giver tre af de mest populære fantasi-væsener under 0,5% sandsynlighed. Den sidste kan lige snige sig op på 0,5-10%. (Hvis du ikke har svaret, så se at følge linket og få det gjort. Det tager højst 20 sekunder).

Jeg er lidt overrasket over det resultat. Jeg ved godt det mest er unge mænd, der burde vide bedre, der læser min blog, men alligevel.

Det rager jo egentligt ikke mig, men jeg bliver alligevel lidt nysgerrig: Er der nogen af Jer, der svarede >0,5%, der er medlem af Folkekirken? I så fald: Hvorfor?

Quote of the day

If you regulated politicians’ economic promises like businesses’ they’d all be in jail.

Glenn Reynolds.

Æv!

Jeg har fået resultaterne fra den øjenscreening jeg fik foretaget for et stykke tid siden. Resultatet: Det kan nu for første gang ses på mine øjne, at jeg har diabetes. Efter 21 år uden forandringer, er de første nu dukket op. Selvom forandringerne er nogen alle (diabetikere) får, hvis de lever længe nok, og de er stærkt variable over tid og almentilstand (forbigående højt blodtryk eller højt blodsukker kan, som jeg har forstået det, have indflydelse på testresultaterne) og de således mest er at sammenligne med rynker, hvilket var den analogi, lægen brugte, da jeg fik forelagt resultaterne, er det lidt træls at få at vide, at man har fået sine første “rynker” som 23-årig.

Givet resultaterne af undersøgelsen vil Tilma godt have mig med i sit projekt. Jeg skal nok skrive mere herom løbende.

Uniqueness

I just got thinking about the answer to this question: How many factors do you need to include in your descripition of individual X, in order to separate an average individual from the rest of the human race (I ban the option of simply giving relevant x, y, z and t values here, they should be at least second order variables)? At first, I was thinking the answer must be somewhere between 10 and 20. Assume there are ~6.5 billion people. Assume every factor rules out 99%, and assume that the factors included in the description of the individual are independent. That would mean you’d need to include five factors to be sure you had the right person (these assumptions are of course ludicrous, as there’s ie. no way the factor distribution functions are independent. To get results that corresponded closely to real-life circumstances, you’d need to both define some factor distribution functions and deal with the massive overlaps using some very non-trivial mathematics from set theory. However, the fact that we know of the existence of multiple rare and non-independent uniqueness factors makes finding combinations of these easier, rather than the opposite. I take advantage of this in my own attempt below, which consists of one initial factor with very low population incidence (a) combined with two factors that are like (a) both rare on an absolute level and very unlikely to overlap with the initial factor).

Can you come up with a few sentences about yourself that make you a unique individual in the human race? My attempt would be the following. I assume I’m the only individual on earth that has:
a) read Lenin, en biografi, by Georg Moltved and
b) Read A concise history of the Russian Revolution, by Richard Pipes, and
c) read Relativity, by Albert Einstein.

I doubt anyone else has read this exact combination of books, even if I can’t know for sure. If those 3 factors are not enough, I’d probably add Aristotles’ Nicomachean Ethics and/or More’s Utopia – maybe I should throw in Growth of the International Economy 1820-2000, by Kenwood & Lougheed, just for the hell of it. If those factors aren’t enough, add the fact that I have type 1 diabetes and/or the fact that I’ve played Rachmaninoff’s Prelude in C sharp minor. If that still isn’t enough, add the fact that I know what Jensen’s inequality is, I know what autocorrelation is and I’m an atheist. The list shrinks very rapidly…

I know my take on this is very “knowledge-centric”, and of course there are other ways to do this. How about you? Why/how are you unique? I would find comments using my “book approach” very interesting, but other ideas/approaches are welcome as well. (as always, responses/comments in Danish are of course welcome too)

Taking it to the next level

I have let you in on Verizon’s customer service employees lack of basic math skills before. Via failblog, here’s Randall Munroe’s (xkcd) way to deal with these morons (click on the pic to see it in a higher resolution):

I just love it!

Irriterende…

Jeg hader bare, når journalister viderebringer oplysninger uden i øvrigt selv at foretage sig andet end at kopiere det, andre har skrevet for dem.

Det er eftermiddag. Jeg sidder og læser jp, og falder ved et tilfælde over den her artikel, om et nyt metastudie som linker BMI og overdødelighed. Jeg ved forskningen er delt på området, ved at sammenhængen mellem fedme og forhøjet mortalitet er veletableret, men at linket er svagere for “almindelig overvægt”, så jeg bliver nysgerrig. Læser artiklen. Den siger ikke så meget, vil gerne vide mere. Kigger efter kilder. Opdager de eneste links artiklen indeholder, er interne links til andre jp-artikler. Ingen eksterne links til studiet, og kun en af studiets formodentligt ganske mange bidragydere, Gary Whitlock, nævnes ved navn – åbenlyst fordi det er ham, der har udtalt sig til BBC-journalisten, som bragte den oprindelige historie, som jp’s artikel tilsyneladende ikke er ret meget andet end en oversættelse af, og som han ikke engang har haft energi til at linke til (selvom det kun tager mig 2 sekunder med google at finde artiklen).

Hvis jeg havde skrevet et blogindlæg om det pågældende studie, havde jeg linket til det sted, jeg havde fundet nyheden (BBC). Jeg havde derefter slået op på google scholar, hvis ikke den oprindelige artikel havde et direkte link (det har den ikke), fundet artiklen der og som minimum skimmet den, før jeg linkede til den i mit indlæg og fortalte om den. JP’s journalist, som får penge for det han gør, skriver bare af efter en engelsk kollega, han har tydeligvis hverken snakket med Gary Whitlock eller læst studiet (det er ikke engang online endnu på Lancet’s hjemmeside), og gider ikke engang linke til dem, der har. BBC-journalisten linker naturligvis ikke til studiet, eftersom han beskriver studiet, inden det overhovedet er publiceret. Hvorfor pokker gør han for øvrigt det? Trumfer nyhedsværdien af en sådan historie alt andet? Hvordan kan man forvente folk skal tage beskrivelsen af et studie alvorligt, når a) vedkommende som beskriver det, tydeligvis ikke selv har læst det (og/eller har nogen forudsætninger for at kunne læse og forstå det), og b) studiet ikke er tilgængeligt endnu, så kun forfatterne i realiteten ved, hvad der står i det? Hvorfor ikke vente til man faktisk kunne linke til studiet, og på den måde give folk en chance for at sætte sig ind i, hvilke forudsætninger m.v. der ligger til grund for analysen? Hvis man er så utålmodig, at man ikke kan vente med at fortælle om studiet til det faktisk er offentliggjort, hvorfor så ikke som minimum da lade artiklen indeholde et link til The Lancet, når man nu ved, at det vil være der, studiet vil kunne findes, når det ‘publiceres’?

De store bladhuse lever stadig primært af papiraviserne. Det er et af deres store problemer, for uden offentlig støtte er det ikke nemt at få den forretning til at løbe rundt. Men det er langtfra deres eneste problem.

Poll – tro?

Uddyb gerne i kommentarsektionen.

Dagens citat

Det springende punkt er naturligvis ytringsfriheden, som nok kaldes »en forudsætning for udøvelsen af andre rettigheder,« men straks derefter betoner regeringen ytringsfrihedens begrænsning. Hvis man vil forsvare ytringsfriheden, hvorfor så indskærpe, at begrænsninger er »nødvendige af hensyn til respekt for andres rettigheder eller omdømme eller af hensyn til statens sikkerhed, den offentlige orden, sundhed eller sædelighed.« Samt at man ikke må tilskynde til »had« eller »ophidse« sindene?

Disse citater er ikke grebet ud af sammenhængen. Disse ord beskriver de af regeringen foreslåede begrænsninger i retten til at tale og kommunikere frit, og ingen har endnu hørt udenrigsministeren tage afstand fra den eksplicitte understregning af, at den offentlige orden med mere står over borgernes ytringsfrihed. Hvorfor ikke? Antageligt fordi udenrigsministeren bifalder denne logik.

Hvorfor gør han det, når han samtidig forsikrer, at han vil forsvare ytringsfriheden? Et svar herpå kunne være, at den nye strategi hænger sammen med, at EU såmænd allerede har indført selvsamme begrænsninger i ytringsfriheden. Vel har den danske offentlighed knap nok hørt om denne beslutning, men ifølge EU-Tidende af 6. december 2008 forpligter den nye rammeafgørelse om bekæmpelse af racisme og fremmedhad medlemslandene til national lovgivning mod såkaldt hate-speech, herunder »offentlig udbredelse eller distribution af skrifter, billeder eller andet materiale«, der »tilskynder til had« og »udøves på en måde, der sandsynligvis vil forstyrre den offentlige orden« – eller som er – »forhånende«. I øvrigt kundgøres det, at »fremmedfjendtlige motiver betragtes som skærpende omstændigheder«.

Udenrigsministerens strategi flugter således, visse steder ord for ord, med EU’s rammeafgørelse, og konklusionen er, at Per Stig Møller, som endda har skrevet en bog om George Orwell, er blevet tilhænger af den nye europæiske newspeak.

…

Mikael Jalving, i dagens jp. Jalving har i øvrigt flyttet sin blog fra berlingske til jp, og blogger nu her.

Health and happiness in the US

Via Will Wilkinson, I came across this map:

Two remarks:

a) As Wilkinson demonstrates, there’s a positive correlation between income and wellbeing (Willkinson uses the words money and happiness, I’m not sure that’s correct given the way the data is defined).

b) The inter-state variation is relatively low; every single one of the states fit into an interval (from 61.2 to 69.2) that is less than a tenth the size of the scale used.

Durban udkastet

Der har været snakket meget om det, men hvor mange har faktisk sat sig ned og læst lidt i selve udkastet? Nu har jeg i hvert fald kigget lidt nærmere (jeg fandt det via Mikael Jalvings kronik i dagens jp), og herunder følger nogle relevante passager:

NEW PARA: Calls on States [that while identifying] [to identify] [different forms and manifestations of] [new emerging forms and manifestations of] racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance] [and] take effective, tangible and comprehensive measures to prevent, combat and eradicate them as a matter of priority;

NEW PARA: Calls on States to prohibit by law and adopt necessary policy measures to combat [in accordance with norms of international law] the dissemination of all ideas based on racial superiority or hatred and incitement to hatred;

152. Calls on States to combat impunity for acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, [and to grant appropriate redress for victims] [by securing access to justice, by granting [and maximizing] [maximum] [fair] [just and adequate] [appropriate] redress for victims];

153. Urges States, as a matter of priority, to [prohibit] [and criminalize] [any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence in accordance with [all] pertinent international instruments]…

ALT: Urges States, as a matter of priority, to prohibit [and criminalize] any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence in accordance with all pertinent international instruments

…

159. Urges States to take effective measures to address contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols;

160. Calls on States to develop, and where appropriate to incorporate, permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression into national legislation;

…

(General provisions on measures)

(National legislation)

179. Underlines the importance of combating impunity for crimes with a racist or xenophobic motivation, including through the adoption of appropriate legislation;

180. Urges States to amend, rescind or nullify regulations which can be interpreted as contributing to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

181. Urges States to adopt and implement stringent laws against political platforms and ideologies based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance or doctrines of racial or national superiority;

…

(Monitoring, data collection)

185. Recommends that States establish mechanisms through which disaggregated information can be collected effectively on health, education, access to housing, employment, treatment in the criminal justice system, political participation and representation as regards people of African descent and migrants, and that such information provide the basis for the creation and monitoring of policies and practices addressing racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

186. Requests States to produce a system of racial equality indicators and/or a racial equality index that, upholding the right to privacy and the principle of self-identification, makes it possible to assess and guide the formulation of policies and actions to eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, together with the promotion of racial equality;

…

(Intercultural dialogue, interreligious dialogue)

190. Urges States, as a matter of priority:
a. to promote intellectual and political acceptance of multiculturalism through a rights-based approach to victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

…

(Political parties and programmes, political participation, Parliaments)

193. Urges States to ensure that their political and legal systems reflect the multicultural diversity of their societies, and to develop more participatory democratic institutions in order to avoid the discrimination, marginalization and exclusion of specific sectors of society, and to study the possibility of introducing, whenever possible, affirmative action quotas for the election to Parliaments of indigenous and female representatives and persons of African descent;

194. Urges States to improve democratic institutions so that they are more fully participatory and avoid marginalization, exclusion of and discrimination against specific sectors of society, for instance by accepting electoral support proposals;

…

(Media)

200. Urges States to take necessary measures to denounce, actively discourage and prohibit the transmission of racist and xenophobic messages through all communications media, including new communications technologies such as the Internet;

…

The international legal framework

(International legislation, soft law, code of conduct)

216. Stipulates that national laws alone cannot deal with the issue of defamation or negative stereotyping of religions. A framework is needed to provide guidelines for States – aimed at countering defamation of religions;

…

Ja, der lægges virkeligt op til dialog her, det må man sige. Når man læser ovenstående passager står det selvfølgelig også helt klart, at hr. udenkrigsministeren sagtens vil kunne ændre mærkbart på slutdokumentet, ved at snakke lidt om ytringsfriheden, og hvorfor den er cool.

Hvad fanden har de danske politikere gang i? Er de virkeligt så snotdumme og selvtilstrækkelige, at de tror de kan ændre noget af betydning, når et udkast som dette er udgangspunktet? Mener de i virkeligheden, at de ting og tiltag som beskrives i ovenstående passage ikke er helt så dumme ideer endda? Eller er de måske bare så store skvat, at de ikke tør sige lige ud, at dem som udformede hovedparten af dokumentet da kan rende dem et vist sted?

Giv dem da for *** fingeren og bliv hjemme – det vil helt sikkert give dem der kommer noget at snakke om! Og dialog er nøgleordet her, right?

L’eau des collines

I’ve just been watching the duology Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources for the first time since my second year in high school. It’s a duology made by Claude Berri, after Marcel Pagnol’s novel(/s). I remember that back when I first watched it, when I had just seen the end of Manon des Sources, I had tears in my eyes and thought to myself that this had to be one of the best movies ever made. Then I saw a lot of other good movies, and basically forgot almost all about it, until the death of Claude Berri two months ago. Then I decided I had to see it again. This evening I did.

I didn’t remember the whole story well, only bits and pieces, and luckily I didn’t remember the ending. Therefore the emotional impact of the two movies was at least as big, if not bigger, than the first time I watched them.

My message is simple: Watch these two wonderful movies! You won’t regret it.

(Also, people who have watched this duology and didn’t like it; wasn’t deeply touched by it; watched Jean de Florette but found it boring and tiresome and therefore couldn’t be bothered to watch Manon des Sources; ect; well, they are simply not welcome on this blog. I don’t consider them human beings, and if I believed in hell, that’s where I’d wish they’d go…)

…

Update:

Just for the hell of it I checked if there was a free version of the movies flowing around somewhere online (gotta love google videos and youtube, even if you just bought the DVD a short time ago). There is. It even has English subtitles for those people, like me, whose french is a little rusty. Follow this link, click on the Jean de Florette (1986) part 1/12 icon, and work your way up. Manon des Sources, in 11 parts, is there too, it is the sequel to JdF, so watch the latter first. There’s no excuse for not watching now…

Muslims – USA vs EU

This is not a new idea, at least not to me, but I think this factor, when evaluating the relative merits of the US’ vs European immigration policies and results, must be somewhat overlooked in general if it’s the first time Razib thought about it (and thus – had not encountered the idea elsewhere before):

Here’s the link.

Hmm…

xkcd.

Sennels opgør med myterne

Herunder følger nogle bidder af Nicolai Sennels kronik i dagens jp, som bør læses i sin helhed.

Den første myte er, at der ikke er forskel på indvandrere. Men selvfølgelig er der det: Mennesker fra forskellige kulturer har brug for forskellige former for støtte, når de er i problemer. Der er verdner til forskel på, hvad f.eks. en japaner, en somalier og en amerikaner har brug for, hvis de har det svært eller laver problemer.

[...]

Den anden myte er, at indvandrerkriminalitet skyldes sociale problemer, og at indvandreres kulturelle baggrund ikke spiller nogen rolle i denne sammenhæng. Heller ikke her stemmer fordommene overens med virkeligheden: Konklusionen på hundredvis af psykologiske samtaler med muslimske indvandrere er, at den muslimske kultur har en meget høj accept af aggression.

Mens et ukontrolleret vredesudbrud er den hurtigste måde at tabe ansigt på i den danske kultur, forholder det sig omvendt i den muslimske kultur. Villigheden til at hævne sig anses i den muslimske kultur som et tegn på styrke, og vrede er klart mere socialt accepteret i muslimske kredse. Aggressiv adfærd er her et socialt redskab, som man bruger til at opnå respekt (ikke kun frygt) og status med.

Palæstinenseres dramatiske og destruktive måde at vise deres frustration over situationen i Gaza, imamers opfordringer til “hellig vrede”, familiehenrettelser (såkaldte æresdrab) og voldelige demonstrationer over Muhammed-tegningerne er alt sammen eksempler på, at man i den muslimske kultur ser aggressive former for adfærd som en socialt accepteret måde at udtrykke sig på.

Det faktum, at muslimske indvandrere og efterkommere begår to til tre gange så meget voldskriminalitet som etniske danskere, er også delvist et udslag af denne faktor. Så jo: Indvandreres kultur er en vigtig medspiller, når det drejer sig om indvandrerkriminalitet.

Den tredje myte er, at religiøs ekstremisme kun findes i snævre kredse. Her tager man grueligt fejl. Næsten samtlige af de muslimer, jeg har haft i terapi, tager deres religiøse ophav ganske alvorligt. På trods af, at størstedelen af dem ikke følger Koranens bud, er deres muslimske identitet overordentlig stærk. Muhammed-tegningerne, forsøget på at indføre mere demokrati i den muslimske verden og myndighedernes pres på indvandreres integration i det danske samfund har skabt en stærk følelse af opposition til vestlige værdier.

[...]

32 pct. af muslimske universitetsstuderende i England mener, at drab i religionens navn er helt i orden, og 54 pct. af de franske muslimer mener, at sharialovene skal indføres i hele verden. I Tyskland føler kun 12 pct. af landets muslimer sig som “tyskere”

[...]

Den fjerde myte er, at kulturelle og religiøse faktorer ikke har betydning for indvandrernes ofte dårlige sociale og økonomiske situation. Teorien har været, at indvandrere grundet faktorer, de ikke selv har indflydelse på, er fattige, og at det er denne fattigdom, som er årsag til asocial adfærd. [...] Laver man sociale problemer, og tilpasser man ikke sig selv og sine børn til samfundets sociale krav, bliver man fattig. Ikke omvendt.