Display:
Well, I think unless the level (not rate) of the two secularisations is synchronised, that's irrelevant, e.g. won't change the status of immigrant secularisation as an indicator of integration. And even if they are synchronised, it is a question whether one is influenced more by developments in the society you left or the one you live in. (Not to mention developments in the local community you live in, ghettoised or not.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 at 06:23:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd like to see a model of that. Too many variables to claim irrelevance of one of the correlations among them.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 at 06:29:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The "irrelevance" pertains to the question of whether or not the level of immigrant secularisation [relative to the general population] is a marker of integration (which your reply countered), not to the level of immigrant secularisation itself.

To sum up: if home country and host country levels of secularisation differ, the level of immigrant secularisation is a marker of integration, whatever the change in the level of secularisation in both societies.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 at 01:32:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series