zanima me vase misljenje o izboru urednistva ovakvog layouta naslovne stranice. znaci, na stranici je oslikana zvijezda i polumjesec na nebu vise brandenburske kapije, pod nasolv glasi: "tiha islamizacija."
Primjereno ili ne
Moderator: anex
-
repeater
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: 04/07/2005 04:59
- Location: Yoknapatawpha County
- Contact:
#1 Primjereno ili ne
zanima me vase misljenje o izboru urednistva ovakvog layouta naslovne stranice. znaci, na stranici je oslikana zvijezda i polumjesec na nebu vise brandenburske kapije, pod nasolv glasi: "tiha islamizacija."
-
Abu FEED el-Castro
- Posts: 1655
- Joined: 19/04/2006 11:41
- Location: BH Teheran
#2
Nema tu jaro sta, to ti je to 
Svi cete vi meni na kraju po dresove reko sam ja to...
Svi cete vi meni na kraju po dresove reko sam ja to...
-
Majjah
- Posts: 672
- Joined: 01/04/2004 02:26
- Location: Iza choska
#3
A sta je ovdje sad sporno?? Nije ovo vijece za fetve niti se ovo ikako moze porediti sa onim karikaturama (ako na to aludiras)!!
Radi se o cistoj simbolici, ne znam zasto bi u simbolu Islama prikazanog na nebu iznad simbola Njemacke bilo nesto sporno?? Mene vise zabrinjava clanak koji ide uz ovu naslovnicu?? Pred onaj rat su hajkama na Jevreje u toj istoj Njemackoj prethodili ,,Mein Kampf'' i prateci clanci koji su osudjivali i napadali sve vece ,,judiziranje'' Njemacke!! Nije valjda da se i kod Svaba historija ponavlja svakih 50 godina??
Radi se o cistoj simbolici, ne znam zasto bi u simbolu Islama prikazanog na nebu iznad simbola Njemacke bilo nesto sporno?? Mene vise zabrinjava clanak koji ide uz ovu naslovnicu?? Pred onaj rat su hajkama na Jevreje u toj istoj Njemackoj prethodili ,,Mein Kampf'' i prateci clanci koji su osudjivali i napadali sve vece ,,judiziranje'' Njemacke!! Nije valjda da se i kod Svaba historija ponavlja svakih 50 godina??
-
Bosanac_21
- Posts: 1313
- Joined: 07/05/2005 04:56
- Location: Bosanski Novi
#5
Sad trebaju javno otvarati i koncentracione logore za Muslimane da se i njih
rjese jer su previse sutali a sad smetaju cak i oku
rjese jer su previse sutali a sad smetaju cak i oku
-
Bosanac_21
- Posts: 1313
- Joined: 07/05/2005 04:56
- Location: Bosanski Novi
#6
Primjerno ili ne, vidio pa me odmah paranoisalo, sve u svemu zalosno i jadnoInfraRedRidinghood wrote:Bosanac_21 wrote:Sad trebaju javno otvarati i koncentracione logore za Muslimane da se i njih
rjese jer su previse sutali a sad smetaju cak i oku
De prvo vidi o čemu se radi, pa onda paranoiši
-
pitt
- Posts: 27093
- Joined: 03/12/2002 00:00
- Location: Steelers Nation
#7
Vidis bosanac.....jedna od karakteristika dobrog novinarstva je i da bude provokativno u nekoj mjeri u cilju podsticanja diskusije o vrucim temama o kojima niko ne govori. U slucaju The Economista, clanak se bavio polozajem muslimana u Evropi (u odnodu na Ameriku) gdje su vecinom diskriminirani u drzavama gdje zive kao i njihovom ne-adaptiranju u novo drustvo. Clanak podjednako dijeli krivicu braci zbog furanja svog stila zivota koji je cesto u sukobu sa nekim urbanim normama kao i propustima zemalja domacina da urade nesto vise da emigranti imaju bolje uslove. Clanak je sve samo ne anti-islamski.
evo ti jos jedan provokativan:
THE MELTING POT
Stars, Stripes, Crescent
A reassuring portrait of America's Muslims.
BY BRET STEPHENS AND JOSEPH RAGO
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Ever since it became clear that three of the four jihadis who bombed London on July 7 were born and bred in England, the British have been taking a hard look at their Muslim neighbors: Do they share the same values? How do they fare economically? Whom do they cheer when England plays Pakistan at cricket? And how many more would-be bombers are among them?
As it happens, Her Majesty's government was well clued on these questions before the bombers struck: A 2004 Home Office study showed, for example, that British Muslims are three times likelier to be unemployed than the wider population, that their rates of civic participation are low, and that as many as 26% do not feel loyal to Britain. By contrast, the U.S. Census Bureau is forbidden by law from keeping figures on religious identification (although it collects voluminous information on race and ethnicity), so there are no authoritative data on the size and nature of America's Muslim population. Yet if the U.S. is ever attacked by American jihadis, we will no doubt ask the same questions about our Muslim community that Britons are now asking about theirs.
Here is what we know.
First, let's dispose of the common misconception that Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans are one and the same. In fact, most Arab-Americans aren't Muslim, and most Muslim Americans aren't Arab. According to the 2000 census, there are 1.2 million Americans of Arab descent, of whom only 24% (according to a survey by the Arab American Institute) are Muslim. As for the rest, they are mainly Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant. They are also highly successful, with an above-average median household income of $52,000 and an astonishing intermarriage rate of over 75%, suggesting they are well on their way toward blending into the great American melting pot.
Information on American Muslims is sketchier. Thanks to a 2004 Zogby International survey, we know that a plurality of Muslim Americans--about one-third--are of South Asian descent; 26% are Arab and another 20% are American blacks. But until 2001 we had no idea how many Muslims lived in America, and even now the figure remains a matter of intense controversy. All major Muslim advocacy groups put the number at above six million, which, as Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum observes, has the convenience of being higher than the American Jewish population. Yet all independent surveys put the real figure at no more than three million, while the most credible study to date, by Tom Smith of the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, estimates total Muslim population at 1,886,000. "[It] is hard to accept that Muslims are greater than one percent of the population," he writes.
Whatever the real figure, what's reasonably clear is that Muslim Americans, like Arab-Americans, have fared well in the U.S. The Zogby survey found that 59% of American Muslims have at least an undergraduate education, making them the most highly educated group in America. Muslim Americans are also the richest Muslim community in the world, with four in five earning more than $25,000 a year and one in three more than $75,000. They tend to be employed in professional fields, and most own stock, either personally or through 401(k) or pension plans. In terms of civic participation, 82% are registered to vote, half of them as Democrats. Interestingly, however, the survey found that 65% of Muslim Americans favor lowering the income tax.
In these respects, Muslim Americans differ from Muslim communities in Britain and Continental Europe, which tend to be poor and socially marginalized. Four other features set American Muslims apart.
First, unlike in Europe the overwhelming majority of Muslims arrived here legally, and many of those who didn't were deported after Sept. 11, 2001. Currently, according to Ali Al-Ahmed of the Washington-based Saudi Institute, there are probably no more than a few thousand Muslim illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Second, 21% of Muslim Americans intermarry, according to the 2001 Religious Identification Survey of the City University of New York--close to the national rate of 22% of Americans who marry outside their religion. And because 64% of Muslim Americans are foreign born, there is reason to expect that figure to grow among second and third generations.
Third, according to Ishan Bagby, a professor at the University of Kentucky who recently made a study of mosque attendance in Detroit, the average mosque-goer is 34 years old, married with children, has at least a bachelor's degree, and earns about $74,000 a year. If this is representative of Muslim Americans as a whole, it suggests that the religiously committed among them hardly fit the profile of the alienated, angry young Muslim men so common today in Europe.
Finally, Muslim Americans benefit from leaders who, despite some notable exceptions, are generally more responsible than Muslim leaders in Britain and Europe. Just compare the forthright condemnations of terrorism by the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council to the cunningly ambiguous utterances of France's Tariq Ramadan, to say nothing of the openly jihadist positions of some of Britain's most notorious imams.
So does the U.S. have a "Muslim problem"? If the data above are accurate, they strongly suggest we do not; on the contrary, America's Muslims tend to be role models both as Americans and as Muslims. But that does not mean there aren't any problems. One comes in the form of U.S. mosques funded by Saudi Arabia, which can serve as a conduit for the kingdom's extreme Wahhabist brand of Islam. Mr. Al-Ahmed calls these mosques "an incubator for suicide bombings and terrorism." Another is that, while most American Muslims have successfully integrated into American life, there remain culturally isolated and impoverished enclaves of Muslim immigrants. It was in just such an enclave in Jersey City, N.J., that the disciples of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Similarly, in Lodi, Calif., where two Pakistani men have been charged with attending terrorist training camps, some 80% of the Pakistani community does not speak adequate English.
Hanging over all this is the question of the long-term trajectory of the American Muslim population. In Britain, as in Germany and France, a striking feature of the Islamist movement is that it has taken root among second-generation Muslims, whose disenchantment with their Western lives is matched by the romanticist appeals of ethnic authenticity and religious purity. America's mostly foreign-born Muslims are perhaps less susceptible to this. But that's no guarantee their children won't be seduced. Then, too, neither a first-rate Western education nor economic affluence offers any inoculation against extremism: Just look at the careers of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, educated at the Technical University of Hamburg, or Daniel Pearl killer Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who did undergraduate work at the London School of Economics.
It takes no more than a few men (or women) to carry out a terrorist atrocity, and there can be no guarantee the U.S. is immune from homegrown Islamist terror. But if it can be said that "it takes a village" to make a terrorist, the U.S. enjoys a measure of safety that our European allies do not. It is a blessing we will continue to enjoy as long as we remain an upwardly mobile, assimilating--and watchful--society.
Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. Mr. Rago, a recent graduate of Dartmouth, is a Journal editorial page intern.
evo ti jos jedan provokativan:
THE MELTING POT
Stars, Stripes, Crescent
A reassuring portrait of America's Muslims.
BY BRET STEPHENS AND JOSEPH RAGO
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Ever since it became clear that three of the four jihadis who bombed London on July 7 were born and bred in England, the British have been taking a hard look at their Muslim neighbors: Do they share the same values? How do they fare economically? Whom do they cheer when England plays Pakistan at cricket? And how many more would-be bombers are among them?
As it happens, Her Majesty's government was well clued on these questions before the bombers struck: A 2004 Home Office study showed, for example, that British Muslims are three times likelier to be unemployed than the wider population, that their rates of civic participation are low, and that as many as 26% do not feel loyal to Britain. By contrast, the U.S. Census Bureau is forbidden by law from keeping figures on religious identification (although it collects voluminous information on race and ethnicity), so there are no authoritative data on the size and nature of America's Muslim population. Yet if the U.S. is ever attacked by American jihadis, we will no doubt ask the same questions about our Muslim community that Britons are now asking about theirs.
Here is what we know.
First, let's dispose of the common misconception that Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans are one and the same. In fact, most Arab-Americans aren't Muslim, and most Muslim Americans aren't Arab. According to the 2000 census, there are 1.2 million Americans of Arab descent, of whom only 24% (according to a survey by the Arab American Institute) are Muslim. As for the rest, they are mainly Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant. They are also highly successful, with an above-average median household income of $52,000 and an astonishing intermarriage rate of over 75%, suggesting they are well on their way toward blending into the great American melting pot.
Information on American Muslims is sketchier. Thanks to a 2004 Zogby International survey, we know that a plurality of Muslim Americans--about one-third--are of South Asian descent; 26% are Arab and another 20% are American blacks. But until 2001 we had no idea how many Muslims lived in America, and even now the figure remains a matter of intense controversy. All major Muslim advocacy groups put the number at above six million, which, as Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum observes, has the convenience of being higher than the American Jewish population. Yet all independent surveys put the real figure at no more than three million, while the most credible study to date, by Tom Smith of the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, estimates total Muslim population at 1,886,000. "[It] is hard to accept that Muslims are greater than one percent of the population," he writes.
Whatever the real figure, what's reasonably clear is that Muslim Americans, like Arab-Americans, have fared well in the U.S. The Zogby survey found that 59% of American Muslims have at least an undergraduate education, making them the most highly educated group in America. Muslim Americans are also the richest Muslim community in the world, with four in five earning more than $25,000 a year and one in three more than $75,000. They tend to be employed in professional fields, and most own stock, either personally or through 401(k) or pension plans. In terms of civic participation, 82% are registered to vote, half of them as Democrats. Interestingly, however, the survey found that 65% of Muslim Americans favor lowering the income tax.
In these respects, Muslim Americans differ from Muslim communities in Britain and Continental Europe, which tend to be poor and socially marginalized. Four other features set American Muslims apart.
First, unlike in Europe the overwhelming majority of Muslims arrived here legally, and many of those who didn't were deported after Sept. 11, 2001. Currently, according to Ali Al-Ahmed of the Washington-based Saudi Institute, there are probably no more than a few thousand Muslim illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Second, 21% of Muslim Americans intermarry, according to the 2001 Religious Identification Survey of the City University of New York--close to the national rate of 22% of Americans who marry outside their religion. And because 64% of Muslim Americans are foreign born, there is reason to expect that figure to grow among second and third generations.
Third, according to Ishan Bagby, a professor at the University of Kentucky who recently made a study of mosque attendance in Detroit, the average mosque-goer is 34 years old, married with children, has at least a bachelor's degree, and earns about $74,000 a year. If this is representative of Muslim Americans as a whole, it suggests that the religiously committed among them hardly fit the profile of the alienated, angry young Muslim men so common today in Europe.
Finally, Muslim Americans benefit from leaders who, despite some notable exceptions, are generally more responsible than Muslim leaders in Britain and Europe. Just compare the forthright condemnations of terrorism by the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council to the cunningly ambiguous utterances of France's Tariq Ramadan, to say nothing of the openly jihadist positions of some of Britain's most notorious imams.
So does the U.S. have a "Muslim problem"? If the data above are accurate, they strongly suggest we do not; on the contrary, America's Muslims tend to be role models both as Americans and as Muslims. But that does not mean there aren't any problems. One comes in the form of U.S. mosques funded by Saudi Arabia, which can serve as a conduit for the kingdom's extreme Wahhabist brand of Islam. Mr. Al-Ahmed calls these mosques "an incubator for suicide bombings and terrorism." Another is that, while most American Muslims have successfully integrated into American life, there remain culturally isolated and impoverished enclaves of Muslim immigrants. It was in just such an enclave in Jersey City, N.J., that the disciples of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Similarly, in Lodi, Calif., where two Pakistani men have been charged with attending terrorist training camps, some 80% of the Pakistani community does not speak adequate English.
Hanging over all this is the question of the long-term trajectory of the American Muslim population. In Britain, as in Germany and France, a striking feature of the Islamist movement is that it has taken root among second-generation Muslims, whose disenchantment with their Western lives is matched by the romanticist appeals of ethnic authenticity and religious purity. America's mostly foreign-born Muslims are perhaps less susceptible to this. But that's no guarantee their children won't be seduced. Then, too, neither a first-rate Western education nor economic affluence offers any inoculation against extremism: Just look at the careers of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, educated at the Technical University of Hamburg, or Daniel Pearl killer Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who did undergraduate work at the London School of Economics.
It takes no more than a few men (or women) to carry out a terrorist atrocity, and there can be no guarantee the U.S. is immune from homegrown Islamist terror. But if it can be said that "it takes a village" to make a terrorist, the U.S. enjoys a measure of safety that our European allies do not. It is a blessing we will continue to enjoy as long as we remain an upwardly mobile, assimilating--and watchful--society.
Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. Mr. Rago, a recent graduate of Dartmouth, is a Journal editorial page intern.
-
uozo
- Posts: 1438
- Joined: 20/05/2006 01:34
#8
Spiegel je, nije sad sto i ja ponekad nesto njima cusnem, najbolji casopis na svijetu u svojoj kategoriji! 
Nema objektivnijeg, kvalitetnijeg i zahtjevnijeg casopisa! Ovo sto kazem je cinjenica!
Naslovnica je potpuno u redu! Sta joj fali?
Quadriga na brandenburskom je ionako svasta prezivila. I Napoleona, i Hitlera, i DDR i jos ce mnogo toga! Kad je Napoleon neke, 1804 ce bit', us'o u Berlin svidila mu se Quadriga i skino je i odnjeo u Pariz!
Ratovi su trebali da prodju da je vrate! Nike Gate!
Quadriga je inace Nike boginja u cetveropregu ! Imal' dje adidas?
Nego ovdje se radi o jednoj presudi koju je neka sutkinja donijela neki dan i izazvala zestoke reakcije! Neki levat je razbio svoju zenu. Slomio je i ona ga tuzila. Inace je levat iz Pakistana il' tako nesto. I ona donese presudu da je to maltene u redu sto je je on zgazio, jer to odgovara Islamu i serijatu. Tako nesto!
Onda su, naravno, ovdje svi skocili i .ebali sutkinji sve po spisku i o'cerali je u 3PM.
Naslov potice otuda, jer se odmah razvila zestoka polemika o muslimanima u Njemackoj!
Dje i ne bi?
Nema objektivnijeg, kvalitetnijeg i zahtjevnijeg casopisa! Ovo sto kazem je cinjenica!
Naslovnica je potpuno u redu! Sta joj fali?
Quadriga na brandenburskom je ionako svasta prezivila. I Napoleona, i Hitlera, i DDR i jos ce mnogo toga! Kad je Napoleon neke, 1804 ce bit', us'o u Berlin svidila mu se Quadriga i skino je i odnjeo u Pariz!
Ratovi su trebali da prodju da je vrate!
Nike Gate! Quadriga je inace Nike boginja u cetveropregu ! Imal' dje adidas? Nego ovdje se radi o jednoj presudi koju je neka sutkinja donijela neki dan i izazvala zestoke reakcije! Neki levat je razbio svoju zenu. Slomio je i ona ga tuzila. Inace je levat iz Pakistana il' tako nesto. I ona donese presudu da je to maltene u redu sto je je on zgazio, jer to odgovara Islamu i serijatu. Tako nesto!
Onda su, naravno, ovdje svi skocili i .ebali sutkinji sve po spisku i o'cerali je u 3PM.
Naslov potice otuda, jer se odmah razvila zestoka polemika o muslimanima u Njemackoj!
Dje i ne bi?
-
freak_with_a_laptop
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: 12/10/2006 13:01
- Location: Kifino selo
#9
Uozo, jesi procitao taj clanak? Ja jesam i mogu ti reci, za moj pojam je taj clanak toliko populisticki, da sam ga nazor do kraja procitala. Citam redovno Spiegel - ali da su najobjektivniji - ne bih to rekla, imaju i oni lapsusa gomilu.
Clanak jeste napisan povodom ovog incidenta, koji je Infra navela, i to jeste zaista za osuditi. Medjutim, autori clanka su dosli do zakljucka, da to nije izuzetak, cak sta vise, da se u Njemackoj donose sudske odluke per se u korist muslimana a zasto? Radi straha od terorizma Halo? Vecu glupost odavno nisam procitala.
Ni jedan primjer nisu naveli kao dokaz njihove 'dijagnoze' Sta je sa sudskom odlukom u slucaju nastavnice i zabrani nosenja samije, sta je sa sudskom odlukom o zabrani izgradnje dzamije u Minhenu, sta je sa politickom krizom u vezi slucaja Murat Kurnaz, sta se desilo sa turskim imamom Yakup Tasci, pa onda slucaj Metin Kaplan, sudjenje protiv brace Surucu? Ovaj clanak nidje veze
Clanak jeste napisan povodom ovog incidenta, koji je Infra navela, i to jeste zaista za osuditi. Medjutim, autori clanka su dosli do zakljucka, da to nije izuzetak, cak sta vise, da se u Njemackoj donose sudske odluke per se u korist muslimana
a zasto? Radi straha od terorizma Halo? Vecu glupost odavno nisam procitala.Ni jedan primjer nisu naveli kao dokaz njihove 'dijagnoze'
Sta je sa sudskom odlukom u slucaju nastavnice i zabrani nosenja samije, sta je sa sudskom odlukom o zabrani izgradnje dzamije u Minhenu, sta je sa politickom krizom u vezi slucaja Murat Kurnaz, sta se desilo sa turskim imamom Yakup Tasci, pa onda slucaj Metin Kaplan, sudjenje protiv brace Surucu? Ovaj clanak nidje veze
Last edited by freak_with_a_laptop on 01/04/2007 13:15, edited 1 time in total.
-
basta sljezove boje
- Posts: 3623
- Joined: 16/03/2007 14:54
#10
od Spiegla se nista drugo nije moglo ni ocekivati. "Tipicna spieglova prica" odnosno osobine teksta za Spiegel su vec odavno predmet zezancije. Cudi me da "Dani" padaju na tako nizak nivo, pa objavljuju clanak koji vrvi raznoraznim izjavama koje su prenesene iz drugih medija koji se uopce ne citiraju. Ekin D. ciju izjavu prenose Dani nije imala zadnjih dana nijedan susret sa bosanskim novinarima
Martin Klingst za Die Zeit
Wenn der Empörungssturm abflaut, wird man hoffentlich etwas nüchterner auf das Fehlurteil der Frankfurter Richterin schauen können. Klar, sie hätte niemals so entscheiden dürfen. Doch in Ruhe betrachtet, hat ihr Spruch manches heraus gekehrt, was im hektischen Alltag einer Multi-Kulti-Gesellschaft gerne verdrängt wird.
Die Frankfurter Juristin ist keine Scharia-Richterin, ihr Urteil spricht auch nicht, wie manche unterstellen, für eine schleichende Islamisierung Deutschlands. Das ist blanker Unsinn, da kann Alice Schwarzer noch so wüten und schwarzmalen.
Zunächst zum Urteil selbst: In der Regel gilt eine Ehe nach einjähriger Trennung von Tisch und Bett als zerrüttet und kann ohne weitere Begründung geschieden werden. Wünscht einer der Partner die vorzeitige Scheidung, muss er darlegen, warum es für ihn "unzumutbar" ist, bis zum Ende des Trennungsjahrs zu warten. Im vorliegenden Fall verhielt es sich, nach allem, was man bislang weiß, so: Eine Deutsche marokkanischen Ursprungs hat in Marokko nach dortigem Recht einen Marokkaner geheiratet. Zurück in Deutschland wurde sie von diesem geschlagen und bedroht, sogar mit dem Tod. Ihr wurde von der Justiz deshalb eine eigene Wohnung zugewiesen, und dem Mann verbot man den Zutritt. Diese schlimme, traurige Wirklichkeit trifft auch viele deutsche Ehepaare. Ihre Ehen werden deshalb aber nicht in jedem Fall wegen "Unzumutbarkeit" vorzeitig, also vor dem Ablauf des Trennungsjahrs, geschieden. Es kommt vor, dass, soweit die Ehefrauen in Sicherheit sind, ihnen abverlangt wird, die restlichen Monate des Trennungsjahrs abzuwarten. Gegen diese Entscheidung des Amtsrichters können sie sich selbstverständlich vor Gericht zur Wehr setzen.
Martin Klingst za Die Zeit
Wenn der Empörungssturm abflaut, wird man hoffentlich etwas nüchterner auf das Fehlurteil der Frankfurter Richterin schauen können. Klar, sie hätte niemals so entscheiden dürfen. Doch in Ruhe betrachtet, hat ihr Spruch manches heraus gekehrt, was im hektischen Alltag einer Multi-Kulti-Gesellschaft gerne verdrängt wird.
Die Frankfurter Juristin ist keine Scharia-Richterin, ihr Urteil spricht auch nicht, wie manche unterstellen, für eine schleichende Islamisierung Deutschlands. Das ist blanker Unsinn, da kann Alice Schwarzer noch so wüten und schwarzmalen.
Zunächst zum Urteil selbst: In der Regel gilt eine Ehe nach einjähriger Trennung von Tisch und Bett als zerrüttet und kann ohne weitere Begründung geschieden werden. Wünscht einer der Partner die vorzeitige Scheidung, muss er darlegen, warum es für ihn "unzumutbar" ist, bis zum Ende des Trennungsjahrs zu warten. Im vorliegenden Fall verhielt es sich, nach allem, was man bislang weiß, so: Eine Deutsche marokkanischen Ursprungs hat in Marokko nach dortigem Recht einen Marokkaner geheiratet. Zurück in Deutschland wurde sie von diesem geschlagen und bedroht, sogar mit dem Tod. Ihr wurde von der Justiz deshalb eine eigene Wohnung zugewiesen, und dem Mann verbot man den Zutritt. Diese schlimme, traurige Wirklichkeit trifft auch viele deutsche Ehepaare. Ihre Ehen werden deshalb aber nicht in jedem Fall wegen "Unzumutbarkeit" vorzeitig, also vor dem Ablauf des Trennungsjahrs, geschieden. Es kommt vor, dass, soweit die Ehefrauen in Sicherheit sind, ihnen abverlangt wird, die restlichen Monate des Trennungsjahrs abzuwarten. Gegen diese Entscheidung des Amtsrichters können sie sich selbstverständlich vor Gericht zur Wehr setzen.
-
basta sljezove boje
- Posts: 3623
- Joined: 16/03/2007 14:54
#11
Im vorliegenden Fall hat die Frankfurter Richterin allerdings nicht argumentiert, die Ehefrau sei doch sicher und ihr Mann müsse Abstand halten, sondern fantasierte mit dem Koran und marokkanischen Verhältnissen herum. Das war ein schwerwiegender Fehler, aus vier Gründen: Erstens akzeptieren auch der Koran und das auf ihm fußende islamische Recht keine körperliche Gewalt in der Ehe. Zweitens hat gerade Marokko vor kurzem ein neues fortschrittliches Ehe- und Familienrecht eingeführt. Drittens lassen gerade Muslime ihre Frauen während der Ehe nicht in Ruhe, fühlen sich, wie auch immer, weiter für sie verantwortlich. Erst nach der Scheidung lassen sie von ihnen ab. Und viertens schließlich: Selbst wenn erstens bis drittens nicht zutreffen, gilt bei einer Scheidung in Deutschland das Grundgesetz. Das Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit darf kein Ehemann verletzen, egal, welcher Kultur, Religion und Rechtstradition er auch entstammt. Wer diese Rechte verletzt, mit dem ist es in der Regel unzumutbar, in einer Ehe weiterzuleben.
Dennoch: nicht für diesen Fall, aber für das Zusammenleben verschiedener Religionen, Kulturen und Völker gilt ganz grundsätzlich, dass sich das Recht verändert, sich auf diese sich wandelnden Lebenswelten einstellen muss. Nicht, indem es sich selber und seine Grundwerte abschafft. Aber indem das Recht dort, wo es ihm möglich ist, Freiräume für Einwanderer schafft, ihre Eigenheiten zu leben. Die Gerichte mussten sich in der Vergangenheit immer wieder mit Zweifelsfällen befassen, Grundrechte gegeneinander abwägen, Grenzen neu austarieren und ziehen. Etwa beim Schächten oder bei der Frage, ob ein Sikh den von der Verkehrsordnung vorgeschriebenen Motorradhelm tragen muss. Auch der gemeinsame Sportunterricht für Jungen und Mädchen kann Probleme aufwerfen, jedenfalls dann, wenn es keine getrennten Umkleidekabinen gibt oder Sportarten gemeinsam betrieben werden, die wenig Bekleidung erfordern. Hier können religiöse Gefühle und Gesetzt leicht verletzt werden.
Jede offene Gesellschaft muss da ihre Grenzen und Prinzipien neu vermessen. Gerade das macht eine solche Gemeinschaft interessant, oft anstrengend und schwierig, aber auch lebenswert.
Dennoch: nicht für diesen Fall, aber für das Zusammenleben verschiedener Religionen, Kulturen und Völker gilt ganz grundsätzlich, dass sich das Recht verändert, sich auf diese sich wandelnden Lebenswelten einstellen muss. Nicht, indem es sich selber und seine Grundwerte abschafft. Aber indem das Recht dort, wo es ihm möglich ist, Freiräume für Einwanderer schafft, ihre Eigenheiten zu leben. Die Gerichte mussten sich in der Vergangenheit immer wieder mit Zweifelsfällen befassen, Grundrechte gegeneinander abwägen, Grenzen neu austarieren und ziehen. Etwa beim Schächten oder bei der Frage, ob ein Sikh den von der Verkehrsordnung vorgeschriebenen Motorradhelm tragen muss. Auch der gemeinsame Sportunterricht für Jungen und Mädchen kann Probleme aufwerfen, jedenfalls dann, wenn es keine getrennten Umkleidekabinen gibt oder Sportarten gemeinsam betrieben werden, die wenig Bekleidung erfordern. Hier können religiöse Gefühle und Gesetzt leicht verletzt werden.
Jede offene Gesellschaft muss da ihre Grenzen und Prinzipien neu vermessen. Gerade das macht eine solche Gemeinschaft interessant, oft anstrengend und schwierig, aber auch lebenswert.
-
repeater
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: 04/07/2005 04:59
- Location: Yoknapatawpha County
- Contact:
#12
par primjera:freak_with_a_laptop wrote:Citam redovno Spiegel - ali da su najobjektivniji - ne bih to rekla, imaju i oni lapsusa gomilu.
Previse useljenika - eksploziv za crveno-zelenu koaliciju 1998
Evropa zatvara vrata - Najezda useljenika 2002
nevezano za dobro poznatu desnicarsku retoriku spiegel urednistva, layout naslovnih stranica zaostaje debelo za reputacijom ovog politickog casopisa.
za razliku od economista, pittov post govori tome u prilog, spiegel po izgledu ne odskace mnogo od propagandnog materijala jehovinih svjedoka.
-
fantom slobode
- Posts: 9023
- Joined: 07/09/2006 15:24
#13 Re: Primjereno ili ne
sto ti je propaganda, samo da se cilj postigne, plasenje ljudi.Ne znam sta je tu problem, religija je licni izbor, ali izgleda za neke nije.repeater wrote:
zanima me vase misljenje o izboru urednistva ovakvog layouta naslovne stranice. znaci, na stranici je oslikana zvijezda i polumjesec na nebu vise brandenburske kapije, pod nasolv glasi: "tiha islamizacija."
-
basta sljezove boje
- Posts: 3623
- Joined: 16/03/2007 14:54
#14
Der Spiegel je bogato opremljena verzija Bild-Zeitunga za populaciju sa maturom, citajte die Zeit i ustedite sebi vrijeme
http://www.zeit.de/
http://www.zeit.de/