Immigration Study shows that 31,5% of newborns in France in 2010 have non-european parents...

[JFWR]

When I say genetic continuity, I do not mean genetic homogeneity. I just cannot imagine a Europe in 100 or 200 years that would have lost all its ethnic Europeans and been repopulated by Africans. I also don't think that culture can survive without the genes of the people who created it. Culture, values, languages and mindsets can be learned and copied by outsiders, but they always come into existence naturally as an expression of one's genome, or more precisely of a society's gene pool, and how it interact with the local environment. Culture could be seen as a form of extended phenotype (to use the expression coined by Richard Dawkins), just like a bird's nest is characteristic of one particular species.

This is why culture tends to evolve faster when genetically distinct immigrants are absorbed into a country or region's gene pool, even if these immigrants become perfectly integrated and lose their original language and culture. This is simply because the most fundamental things that define who we are, our character, sensitivities, type of intelligence, health, energy level, etc. are all determined by our genes, and all have an influence on our lifestyle, and the way cultures emerge and evolve.

I agree in part with your hypothesis here, Maciamo, but do not forget that human beings are rational, self-aware, sapient creatures, and culture is as much an outgrowth (if not moreso!) of these features than of the physical bases. I do not, for instance, think that "character" and "sensitivities" result from our genotype at all. Character is an expression of the thinking aspect of mankind, and our sensitivities develop (outside of things that would kill us) from our education and culturation.

 

[JFWR]

I also regret that Rome fell and we lost it's advances in science and technology.
You have to keep in mind that Rome wasn't without it's fault and with a steady decline through few hundreds of years. It finally fell during cold spells, failed crops, and related to this, hordes of 'barbarians" coming into Europe in mid millennium. It is worth noting that it fell shortly after embracing Christianity as a state religion.
Interesting fact is that in middle ages the whole western europe was lead by Germanic nations, plus center and east by Slavs. You can blame the pure stock of these conquerors that they ignored all the Rome knowledge and stuck to their traditions.

Yes, they defeated Rome and didn't fully embrace Roman civilization. This is actually telling about what may well happen in Europe when Europeans are not at home there.

Let's take 3 power centers in Europe of last few hundred years.
Great Brittan, substratum of whatever there was before Celts, then Celts, Romans, Vikings, Saxons, Normans. After all that mixing they kick started industrial revolution.
Germany. Rose to a prime power in Europe after unification by Bismark of Prussia. A mixture of Germans and Prussians (Balts). The only cultural continuity was language and few prominent families.
One can only look at Y DNA to figure out how heavily all Germans were mixing anyway.

Your point? That these countries have a sophisticated backstory?

Russia, a Slavic expansion over many substrates. Till today, the biggest country in the world with vast array of cultures, still mixing and mixing.
Just because people mix, it doesn't mean it is going to be worse. It only means it might not be the way we like it. Similar to me not liking a big changes to Canadian way of life.

Do not underestimate the effect of -radical- changes in culture. Saxon and Norman England is far less of a shift than if the Mongols had managed to over run Europe and install the Khanate of Great Britain.

Actualy it would be nice to know how you argument your statement.
[/QUOTE

Primarily Roman civilization was far grander in scope with greater achievements. I don't really care to argue either which way, though.

In modern Italy population density is much greater than in pick of Rome. It means that food production is way greater and mortality way smaller, compared to Rome. Also the know that modern Italians can enjoy more free choices, more goods, more variety of foods, more traveling, more vacations, more liberties, more democracy, and more pleasures in general. In short, standard of living is way better. Can we measure cultures in way of life of ordinary citizens, amount of pleasures and pains?

Sure, that's one way. Industrialization has helped all industrialized societies.

Well, be a man and honor your words. Pack you bags and leave America, cause as you said :"The result of those outside the new rulers are always negative, and a valuable cultural tradition is lost to history.", and return America to Natives. I'm sure not many will fallow you, but you will be a man of your words, you'll be like Gandhi to me.

As I sometimes bring up in discussions, "Ask the American Indians what happened when invaders came?"

I see no reason to give back conquered lands, though. But if I were an American Indian c. 1850, I'd be pretty damn pissed that the last of my lands were being destroyed and taken from me.

Freedom, equality, inclusiveness, and tolerance are not beliefs. People that hold to these values can live and work peacefully, no matter how they look, dress or pray.

These are not beliefs? They are certainly. They are the evaluation of certain positions as being worth while to be held by individuals.

These are not universal human values.

I don't care if they believe in Santa or not, or they walk around in turban, as long as they recognise principia of my country.

So again, you're objecting to one person retaining their culture, yet not...objecting to the de-culturing of Europe by immigrants who do not want to be European?

If they ignore our core values, we won't let them in. Simple like that.

That's a good position.

I'm not naive to think that people are born clean slate. We are a genetic product of thousand years of evolution and mingling of many hominid species. We are different outside and we are different inside too, though science is still young to answer how different. I'm not talking about individuals, but statistical predispositions of races. One political system or economic system that works for some, might not be good for all the races on earth. Therefore I would advise against rampant and wide open immigration polices if most people like the way their country is at the moment, unless they don't care. The character of every country will definitively change giving open emigration policy. There is also a risk of economic collapse due to a big number of unsuitable emigrants.
Having said that, in many situations, it won't mean that country and its citizens will be worse off. In most instances, it will be just a bit different country.

Ideological and populatioon changes tend to be dramatic and wide spreading.

 

[Keegah]

Eliminate or severely cut back social welfare for everyone. Aside from encouraging a society based on self-reliance, a concept that drastically needs reviving in many Western nations including my own, this would solve the issue of immigrants sucking at the government's teat without contributing anything. Immigrants would be on the same footing as Europeans, and their birth rate would most likely decline as a result - they simply wouldn't be able to support the vast families they would have reared in the past.

Emphasize democracy governed by a more or less immutable constitution, one that outlines Western values and Western values only, rather than a pure democracy where sharia law could theoretically be voted into effect by a Muslim majority. As the saying goes, (pure) democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. While I'm skeptical of the villianization treatment that Muslim immigrants tend to get (and on this side of the pond, Mexican immigrants), I can definitely see them voting for changes conducive to Islam should they ever get a sizable majority in a European country. It's natural behavior. In their view, they're voting for something morally right, something good. While they may not have negative intentions, they have no understanding of the Western value system, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread. You see the same here in America with religious fundamentalists that simply cannot grasp the concept of the 1st Amendment. If you ensure that your constitution reflects Western ideals however, AND that it cannot be modified, not easily at least, then barring an armed uprising of some sort the basic framework of your nation will remain unscathed regardless of how many Muslims populate the state.

Emphasize compulsory Western education WITHOUT demonizing or condemning the cultures and religions of immigrants. This encourages naturalization in my view, quickening adoption of Western ideas in the minds of young generations. Historically, educating children into a culture different than the one that they were raised with only leads to animosity and hatred if the goal is total replacement of the child's original culture, rather than augmentation. The "Welsh Not" signs the English used are one example of that kind of approach. A version of Islam compatible with Western democracy is possible, I've personally witnessed it. But cultivating it in recent immigrants requires a delicate approach to naturalization, not the ham-handed methods used in the past by nations like the United States, England, and France.

Tying into NOT demonizing Islam, allow immigrants maximum freedom in practicing their native religion and culture where it does not contradict the constitution mentioned above. This keeps Muslim immigrants from seeing their religion as being inherently contradictory to the culture of their new home, and encourages more rapid adoption of Western values. You will not convince these people to swear off Islam and adopt the secularism of a liberal democracy. Attempting to do so will accomplish nothing, other than radicalizing their beliefs. Instead, Muslim immigrants must be convinced that integration is possible.

Finally, for the most fundamentalist and radical immigrants that simply refuse to conform to and adopt Western values in their new home, I'm with LeBrok. Deport them. They're unworthy of any further effort and represent a hazard to society. I don't believe that most Muslim immigrants are like that, however.

I believe that if all of these policies were to be adopted, it would largely immunize a country from a so-called "Islamic takeover", again, barring an armed uprising. However, these policies would combat what causes uprisings in the first place - malcontent, caused by perceived injustice. The answer isn't to block out all immigration, which I'm not even sure is possible without transforming your previously enlightened democracy into a police state. It also isn't to naively believe that all cultures are equal in value, and thus should be welcomed. Instead, the answer is somewhere in the middle, gently integrating immigrants into Western culture without creating a conflict that need not exist.

 

[spongetaro]

I wonder how long it would take to the African immigrants (If they were to overcome the native Europeans) to become white. This is basically what happened to E1b people in Europe and to IJ people earlier.

 

[ebAmerican]

Lets see - out of Africa ~70 kya, the white gene evolves ~6 kya, so ~63 ky. Phew (wiping brow), there's still hope for the white man to rule Europe, LOL!

 

[sparkey]

I wonder how long it would take to the African immigrants (If they were to overcome the native Europeans) to become white. This is basically what happened to E1b people in Europe and to IJ people earlier.

It's an interesting thought experiment. The most likely answer is: They won't, or at least it will happen far more slowly. There's a big difference between modern genetic selection and genetic selection during the Paleolithic. The disadvantages of having dark skin in Europe are practically overcome by modern medicine. Also, recessive and newly mutated traits are less likely to expand in a large population like we have in modern society.

How many people do you know who weren't able to have children because their skin is too dark?

 

[spongetaro]

It's an interesting thought experiment. The most likely answer is: They won't, or at least it will happen far more slowly. There's a big difference between modern genetic selection and genetic selection during the Paleolithic. The disadvantages of having dark skin in Europe are practically overcome by modern medicine. Also, recessive and newly mutated traits are less likely to expand in a large population like we have in modern society.

How many people do you know who weren't able to have children because their skin is too dark?

Interesting. Does it also mean that new SNP are less likely to appear in our current world? Because I also imagined that a new haplogroup tree could evolve in Europe over thousands of years out of a population of African immigrants like F* did before. If it were to happen it would likely be due to a sudden drop of the Human population following an ecological disaster or a war.

 

[Maciamo]

I wonder how long it would take to the African immigrants (If they were to overcome the native Europeans) to become white. This is basically what happened to E1b people in Europe and to IJ people earlier.

Skin colour doesn't change naturally over time because people live in more northern latitudes. We still don't know for sure when and or quickly our ancestors' skin colour shifted from black to white, but I for one think that we inherited the fair pigmentation (also for hair and eyes) from Neanderthals. After all they had been living in Europe for 600,000 years, which give more opportunity for the right mutations (because there are many) to take place. We know for sure that Neanderthals had white skin and fair hair and eyes. We also know that the early Cro-Magnons who arrived in Europe were still dark-skinned and haired. Finally, we know that all Eurasians (and North Africans to a lesser extent) have partial Neanderthal ancestry, while Black Africans do not. So it makes a lot of sense that we inherited at least our fairer skin from Neanderthals. In other words, it might take hundreds of thousands of years for Blacks to become White without any external gene flow. It's all very theoretical because even Blacks already have varying degrees of darkness due to back migrations from Middle Easterners or Europeans to Africa, and of course plenty of recent mixed marriages.

 

[spongetaro]

Skin colour doesn't change naturally over time because people live in more northern latitudes. We still don't know for sure when and or quickly our ancestors' skin colour shifted from black to white, but I for one think that we inherited the fair pigmentation (also for hair and eyes) from Neanderthals. After all they had been living in Europe for 600,000 years, which give more opportunity for the right mutations (because there are many) to take place. We know for sure that Neanderthals had white skin and fair hair and eyes. We also know that the early Cro-Magnons who arrived in Europe were still dark-skinned and haired. Finally, we know that all Eurasians (and North Africans to a lesser extent) have partial Neanderthal ancestry, while Black Africans do not. So it makes a lot of sense that we inherited at least our fairer skin from Neanderthals. In other words, it might take hundreds of thousands of years for Blacks to become White without any external gene flow. It's all very theoretical because even Blacks already have varying degrees of darkness due to back migrations from Middle Easterners or Europeans to Africa, and of course plenty of recent mixed marriages.

Neanderthal could indeed explain whiteness but only partially when you think about Asian haplogroups. Between the Andaman islands and Japan haplogroup D people almost went from black to white skin without interbreeding with Neanderthal who is absent from eastern Asia. Some O people are also white or at least fair skinned. That is why there are half asian people who look European like him

Eric Charden, French father and Tibetan mother.

 

[ebAmerican]

I question the Neanderthal connection to white skin. It is well known that the genes that make Europeans white are not the same genes that make Asians white. They evolved this trait separately. If Europeans showed more Neanderthal genes than Asians, then I could agree (Asians aren't as white as Europeans). Asians (not south Asians - Denisovian) and Europeans show the same amount of gene mixture ~4%. It is believed that the white gene is ~6 ky old, much to late for any significant contribution from Neanderthals. If it was Neanderthals it would seem the white gene would be older (around the time of interbreeding).

 

[JFWR]

I question the Neanderthal connection to white skin. It is well known that the genes that make Europeans white are not the same genes that make Asians white. They evolved this trait separately. If Europeans showed more Neanderthal genes than Asians, then I could agree (Asians aren't as white as Europeans). Asians (not south Asians - Denisovian) and Europeans show the same amount of gene mixture ~4%. It is believed that the white gene is ~6 ky old, much to late for any significant contribution from Neanderthals. If it was Neanderthals it would seem the white gene would be older (around the time of interbreeding).

It is highly unlikely that paleolithic Europeans were darker than mediterreneans. They certainly were not negroid-level darkn individuals, or they would have suffered from extreme vitamin D deficiencies. It is highly likely they were fairly pale very early on in their entry to Europe.

Let's also not forget that Caucasoid and Mongoloid (of all sub-races) skin tones differ when they are pale. Europeans are "white", Orientals are "yellow" or "peach".

 

[LeBrok]

Neanderthal could indeed explain whiteness but only partially when you think about Asian haplogroups. Between the Andaman islands and Japan haplogroup D people almost went from black to white skin without interbreeding with Neanderthal who is absent from eastern Asia. Some O people are also white or at least fair skinned. That is why there are half asian people who look European like him
Eric Charden, French father and Tibetan mother.

Before Homo Sapience exodus from Africa, the Eurasia was settled by Homo Erectus for almost a million years. Neanderthal was a subgroup of Erectus centered in Europe, but in Asia we have many different subgroups of Erectus, plus pockets of other hominids.
Here is a good read:
http://www.athenapub.com/13intro-he.htm

I'm pretty sure that Homo Erectus in Asia have had also enough time to get the right mutations, though different, for lighter skin colour.

To get spontaneous right mutation it is not that easy. Take native Amazon, or any equatorial Indians for example. They lived there for good 10-15 thousands of years, but their skin colour is brown and not black. They still didn't get the mutation for black skin, even though looking at equatorial Africa, we can deduct that this is the best skin color to have in these locations.

 

[Mkk]

Anti-racist = anti-white

Let me post the mantra:

ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

 

[Maciamo]

Neanderthal could indeed explain whiteness but only partially when you think about Asian haplogroups. Between the Andaman islands and Japan haplogroup D people almost went from black to white skin without interbreeding with Neanderthal who is absent from eastern Asia. Some O people are also white or at least fair skinned. That is why there are half asian people who look European like him

Eric Charden, French father and Tibetan mother.

Andaman islanders are black like pure Dravidians from South India. Aboriginal Australians, Papuans, Indonesians and Malays also have considerably darker skin than Thais or Vietnamese. This is also a remnant from the haplogroup C and D from the first out-of-Africa migration 60,000 years ago, before humans first mixed with Middle-Eastern Neanderthals (of course there would be later admixtures with European and Central Asian Neanderthals that would give even fairer pigmentation to Europeans, Siberians and East Asians).

Neanderthal may not have lived in East Asia, but East Asia was recolonised by people who entered Asia though the Middle East and Central Asia circa 50,000 years ago. The latest migration from Central to East Asia must date from after the split of haplogroup NO (ancestral to N and O) from P (ancestral to Q and R), so roughly 30 to 35,000 years ago. All ethnic groups corresponding to haplogroups N, O, Q and R have white skin (though only R is associated with fair eyes and hair).

The modern Ainu have darker skin than the Japanese, and historical accounts describe them as very dark only a few centuries ago. There aren't any pure Ainu left today though. Nevertheless the Ainu are not pure descendants of the original haplogroup C and D migration. Although the few surviving Ainus are almost exclusively D2 today, their mtDNA is quite mixed and include a lot of Siberian and Sino-Korean haplogroups, which must have diluted their original appearance. 70 Jomon-era (i.e. pre-Sino-Korean) skeletons from Hokkaido were tested for mtDNA and included the Siberian hg G1 and the Sino-Korean and Native American hg D1 and D4h2. Even Aboriginal Australians have post hg CD admixture (notably Y-hg R2 from Central/South Asia).

 

[Maciamo]

I question the Neanderthal connection to white skin. It is well known that the genes that make Europeans white are not the same genes that make Asians white. They evolved this trait separately. If Europeans showed more Neanderthal genes than Asians, then I could agree (Asians aren't as white as Europeans). Asians (not south Asians - Denisovian) and Europeans show the same amount of gene mixture ~4%. It is believed that the white gene is ~6 ky old, much to late for any significant contribution from Neanderthals. If it was Neanderthals it would seem the white gene would be older (around the time of interbreeding).

The genes for white skin are mostly the same for Europeans and East Asians (e.g. the A326G allele near the KITLG gene, and mutations in the ASIP gene). They even share the gene for freckling (BNC2). Europeans have more mutations (notably in the MC1R and SLC24A5 genes), which can give them even whiter skin, because they have more Neanderthal admixture. East Asians carry some unique mutations for fair skin too (such as OCA2), probably inherited from their increased Denisovan admixture or from descendants East Asian Homo Erectus (if Denisovan isn't already one of them).

 

[JFWR]

Let me post the mantra:

ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

This is manifestly true.

This identification of hatefulness with benevolent nationalism is utterly disgusting, also. It is manifestly untrue and culturally genocidal.

 

[Mzungu mchagga]

I guess that once Europeans will really start to realize and feel that they have become a minority, they will protect themselves much more against the immigrant groups, in the same way Muslims are doing it right now. So instead of becoming extinct, I imagine a scenario which is similiar to Brazil (or former South Africa), in which a rather tiny and highly protected elite of fully European ancestry will rule over mostly non-European nations. The sad glory for our children and descendants will be the side effect of probably having much higher career chances and earnings than we have now.

 

[Taranis]

I guess that once Europeans will really start to realize and feel that they have become a minority, they will protect themselves much more against the immigrant groups, in the same way Muslims are doing it right now. So instead of becoming extinct, I imagine a scenario which is similiar to Brazil (or former South Africa), in which a rather tiny and highly protected elite of fully European ancestry will rule over mostly non-European nations. The sad glory for our children and descendants will be the side effect of probably having much higher career chances and earnings than we have now.

I haven't replied much in this thread because to be honest, it reeks with paranoia and fearmongering. A lot of this is based on the premise that "if the current trend continues", and frankly, I don't see how it can continue, at least for a prolonged time which is essentially the sine-qua-non of these scenarios. There's a number of reasons why and how it cannot happen:

The first and most obvious is that birth rates world-wide are dropping, and have been dropping consistently for the past few decades, especially for countries with traditionally very high birth rates (most notably the Middle East). As a positive side effect of this population projections of the past had to be consistently projected downward. Populations will still continue to grow in most of these countries for many decades because there is still a surplus of young people. This actually very consistently reflects the developments that we saw historically in the West: birth rates began to drop in the 1960s, but western nations didn't feel the heat of a surplus of elderly until the 1980s or 1990s.

You might ask, why is this happening? It clearly cannot be exclusively due to Western lifestyles because this is also a phenomenon/trend that is happening in countries that are hardly to minimally westernized and where female emancipation is heavily frowned upon. In my opinion, the primary reason is urbanization, and the fact that the traditional large family model is non-sustainable in long-term within an urban environment. The costs of living are increasing considerably so even if people don't live in affluence, there are factors that drive people to have fewer children.

So where does this leave us in the future? Radical ideologies like Islamic fundamentalism (or, to pick historic examples, communism, or the Nazis) are primarily based around a large number of young (teens and early twenties), poorly-educated followners that have malleable minds and that can be easily indoctrinated for such ideologies to become zealous fanatics for the respective course. People in their 30s and 40s are much less likely to follow such ideologies so it's very likely that once the average age increases, I think that support for Islamic fundamentalism will vanish. Another aspect is that it is an ideology that offers no future. Well, it offers the prospect of a rosy afterlife for it's followners, but here and no, it's an ideology without any solutions for real life problems. It doesn't solve social or environmental problems. This is why I believe that radical Islam will eventually disappear on it's own. Not tomorrow, not in ten years, but eventually.

Apart from that, I'd like to point out something entire else: people in this thread have been talking about anonymous, homogenic mass that they address as "Muslims", which in fact are not a monolithic block, but are fractured by ethnic, linguistic, sectarian and social divides in any country on this planet. In particular, what about Albania and Bosnia? These are two European countries with substantial percentage of their population Muslims. Why do they fall off the rug?

Somebody also brought up the buzzword "Clash of Civilizations". What Samuel Huntington did in his "Clash of Civilizations" was that he draw lines which existed only in his mind onto a map. The worst thing that we can do is that we buy them and take his book as a blueprint for the next world war. In my opinion, Islam by itself does not pose a threat to Western civilization. Note that I'm neither apologetic of Islam nor blue-eyed on the issue: radical Islam (or, more accurately, violence-endorsing Islam, because that's the real problem) is much more a problem for the Islamic world itself than for the West. In my opinion, at the bottom line, Islam is just as much an intolerant, women-discriminating and violence-endorsing religion as Judaism and Christianity (if you don't want to believe that, I recommend reading the bible!). You get a very good idea when you listen to what Christian fundamentalists in the United States who use the First Ammendment as a blanc cheque for hate speech and for attempting to force their views on abortion, homosexuality and education upon the entire country.

So, I'd hereby like to ask everybody in this thread to stop the fear mongering and paranoia, the generalizations and stereotypes and start reading between the lines.

 

[Keegah]

You get a very good idea when you listen to what Christian fundamentalists in the United States who use the First Ammendment as a blanc cheque for hate speech and for attempting to force their views on abortion, homosexuality and education upon the entire country.

Want to make a quick comment here. As I alluded to earlier in my post, Christian fundamentalists here try to force legislation establishing a state religion in contradiction to the 1st Amendment, not because of it. It is the 1st Amendment that dictates the freedom of individuals to practice whatever religion they like, and explicitly states that the government cannot make any decisions one way or another in that department.

Also, while I'm no Christian, let alone a Christian fundamentalist, I feel I need to play devil's advocate for a second. Just as Christian fundamentalists push their values on America in contradiction to the 1st Amendment, they hold those values in the first place in contradiction of the New Testament. That would be irrelevant if they claimed to be Jews rather than Christians, but because they don't, the New Testament is supposed to supersede anything and everything in the Old Testament, which is there mostly for "historical" value.

Having been raised in a household of actual Christians (even if the title has been claimed by fundamentalists), I can tell you that Jesus preached tolerance and brotherly love, not hatred. In fact, if you were to follow the teachings of Jesus closely - as Christians are, by definition, supposed to - your behavior would very closely resemble that of a Buddhist's. But the nature of religion, from what I've seen, is that its practitioners mold it to their own natures, rather than the other way around. A superstitious, close-minded, hateful bigot will still be a superstitious, close-minded, hateful bigot after adopting Christianity. Or Buddhism. Or Islam, for that matter. An inherently good-natured person will still be an inherently good-natured person after adopting religion also. It's not the religion itself to blame. Heck, for all the condemnation Islam gets, if you read the Quran - for the most part - you'll find that it's a peace-loving religion. Is it less so than Christianity? Yes, because Muhammad was a warrior while Jesus was essentially a pacifist. But it still blatantly outlaws the behavior of radical Islamists in a way that allows for no second-guessing.

Honestly, I think it's simple human nature that stands in the way of peaceful integration, not the immigrant's religion.

 

[ElHorsto]

For some reason the migration debate is increasingly becoming a religion debate, at least in german media, as if there were no atheists anymore, only fundamentalists everywhere.