Darwin & The Theory of Evolution

” Darwin himself never claimed to provide proof of evolution or of the origin of species. His claim was that if evolution had occurred, a number of otherwise mysterious facts about plants and animals could be easily explained. After his death, however, direct evidence of evolution was observed, and evolution is now supported by a wealth of evidence from a variety of scientific fields.


The theory of evolution by natural selection that was developed by Charles Darwin revolutionized the study of living things. In his Origin of Species (1859) he provided a scientific explanation of how the diverse species of plants and animals have descended over time from common ancestors. His theory remains central to the foundations of modern biology. Moreover, by demonstrating how natural laws govern the world of living things, Darwin helped usher in a new era in the cultural and intellectual history of humankind.

Charles Robert Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, England, on Feb. 12, 1809. Darwin‘s father was a successful and wealthy physician; his mother was a daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, the famous British potter. She died when Charles was eight years old, and the boy was reared by three older sisters, who constantly found fault with him.

Darwin was such an indifferent student that his father said, “You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family.” He had no interest in the classical languages and ancient history taught in school. Instead, he liked to collect shells, birds’ eggs, and coins. He also watched birds and insects and helped his brother make chemical experiments at home.

At the age of 16, Darwin began to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh. There too he found the courses dull, and watching operations made him ill. In 1828 he transferred to Cambridge, intending to become a clergyman. Instead, he devoted most of his time to studying plants and animals and later to geology. He received his bachelor’s degree in 1831.

Then came the event that shaped his life—an appointment as unpaid naturalist on the exploring ship Beagle. It left England on Dec. 27, 1831, to chart the southern coasts of South America and sail around the world. The voyage, with many side trips on land, lasted until October 1836. During those five years Darwin examined geologic formations, collected fossils, and studied plants and animals. In the jungles, mountains, and islands he visited, he saw evidence of the many geologic changes that have been occurring over the course of eons—for example, the land gradually rising in some places and falling in others. He also considered the great diversity of living things, even in the depths of the ocean where no humans could appreciate their beauty. He thought about how the fossils he collected suggested that some kinds of mammals had died out. And he returned home filled with questions.

Back home, Darwin settled in London and quietly began work on what would become his great theory of evolution, developed largely in 1837–39. Meanwhile, he wrote up the Journal of his scientific work on the Beagle. He also consulted experts to help him identify the thousands of fossils and specimens he had brought back, and he published the results. In 1839 he was admitted to the prestigious Royal Society.

Darwin married his cousin Emma Wedgwood in 1839, and they eventually had 10 children. He began to avoid society, and in 1842 the couple moved to the isolated village of Downe. This was partly owing to physical illness: a few years earlier, Darwin had begun to experience the heart palpitations and nausea that would plague him for the rest of his life. But he also sought seclusion because he knew that his radical theory would shock and offend Victorian society. Believing in evolution, Darwin said, was “like confessing a murder.” And so he continued thi

In Darwin‘s time, the nearly universally accepted view was that God had created all species of living things in their current forms and that their attributes were the result of God’s design. Nevertheless, Darwin was not the first to suggest that living things might change over time. Since ancient times, people have proposed other ways that plants and animals could have developed. The first broad theory of evolution was proposed in the early 19th century by French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. He maintained that plants and animals evolved because of an inborn tendency to progress from simple to complex forms. Environment, however, modified this progression and so did use or disuse of parts. He thought that giraffes, for example, developed long necks by straining to reach the leaves of trees, while snakes lost their legs by crawling.

Darwin knew about Lamarck’s theory of evolution. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had published several books expounding similar ideas. He felt, however, that early writers on the subject had speculated too much and had not based their theories on a solid foundation of observable phenomena. In developing his theory of evolution, Darwin drew upon observations made in a wide array of scientific disciplines and conducted a great many experiments.

Darwin also happened to read An Essay on the Principle of Population, by British economist Thomas Malthus. Malthus had undertaken to prove that human populations tend to increase more rapidly than food and other necessities. The result is a struggle in which some people succeed and become wealthy while others fail or even starve.

Darwin applied this theory to the world of nature. Plants and animals, he knew, reproduce so rapidly that the Earth could not hold them if all their young survived. This meant that there was a constant struggle for space, food, and shelter, as well as against enemies and unfavorable conditions. Certain hawks, for example, struggle, or compete, with each other for the mice they eat, and the poorest hunters go hungry. Mice, in turn, struggle to keep from being caught by hawks. In frigid winters living things struggle against the cold. Some endure it, while others fail to keep themselves warm enough and die. Although Darwin did not coin the phrase “survival of the fittest,” his ideas about struggle expressed the same notion.

Struggling and living or dying could not lead to evolution if all members of each living kind or species were exactly alike. Darwin found that members of a single species vary greatly in shape, size, color, strength, and so on. He also believed that most of these variations could be inherited.

Under the constant struggle to exist, organisms with harmful variations are more likely to die before they can reproduce. And, on average, living things with useful variations are more likely to survive and bear young and thus to pass on their helpful variations. When their descendants vary still more, the process is repeated. In other words, the struggle for existence selects organisms with helpful variations but makes others die out. Darwin called this process natural selection.

Over the ages, Darwin believed, changes from natural selection produce a slow succession of new plants, animals, and other organisms. These changes have enabled living things to go into all sorts of environments and become fitted, or adapted, to many different types of life. Darwin called his theory descent by modification, because he proposed that all living things were descended from earlier forms.

Darwin wrote a short sketch of his theory in 1842 and a longer one in 1844. Instead of publishing the second statement, however, he continued his investigations. He also wrote books on coral reefs, volcanic islands, barnacles, and the geology of South America. Not until 1856 did he begin what would be a multivolume work on evolution.

In 1858 he received a manuscript from a young naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, who also had developed a theory of natural selection. With Wallace’s approval, short statements by both men were published late in 1858. Darwin went on to write his famous book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, which appeared in 1859.

The book caused a tremendous stir, and not just in scientific circles. The general public also read, discussed, and vigorously defended or denounced Darwin‘s theory, which became a popular topic in society salons. Some religious leaders believed that evolution was incompatible with their teachings and so opposed it. Newspapers publicized with great scorn a conclusion that Darwin had been careful to avoid—that humans are descended from apes. Evolutionary imagery spread through many other fields, including literature, economics, and political and social science. During Darwin‘s lifetime, the scientific community largely accepted his theory of descent, though it was slower to adopt his idea of natural selection.

After completing the Origin of Species, Darwin began The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, which showed how rapidly some organisms had evolved under artificial selection, the selective breeding of plants and animals by humans. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871, discussed human evolution. Later books dealt with earthworms, orchids, climbing plants, and plants that eat insects.

Darwin became very weak in 1881 and could no longer work. He died on April 19, 1882, in Downe, and was buried in Westminster Abbey among England’s greatest citizens.

Darwin himself never claimed to provide proof of evolution or of the origin of species. His claim was that if evolution had occurred, a number of otherwise mysterious facts about plants and animals could be easily explained. After his death, however, direct evidence of evolution was observed, and evolution is now supported by a wealth of evidence from a variety of scientific fields.

Evolution has been rejected by members of some religious groups who prefer their theory of creationism. This attempts to explain some features of plant and animal life through a literal interpretation of the Bible. In the scientific community, however, there is little doubt that the general outline of Darwin‘s theory of evolution is correct.

To cite this page:

• MLA Style: “Darwin, Charles.” Britannica Student Library. Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009.
• APA Style: Darwin, Charles. (2009). Britannica Student Library. Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

Darwin & The Theory of Evolution

” Darwin himself never claimed to provide proof of evolution or of the origin of species. His claim was that if evolution had occurred, a number of otherwise mysterious facts about plants and animals could be easily explained. After his death, however, direct evidence of evolution was observed, and evolution is now supported by a wealth of evidence from a variety of scientific fields.


The theory of evolution by natural selection that was developed by Charles Darwin revolutionized the study of living things. In his Origin of Species (1859) he provided a scientific explanation of how the diverse species of plants and animals have descended over time from common ancestors. His theory remains central to the foundations of modern biology. Moreover, by demonstrating how natural laws govern the world of living things, Darwin helped usher in a new era in the cultural and intellectual history of humankind.

Charles Robert Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, England, on Feb. 12, 1809. Darwin‘s father was a successful and wealthy physician; his mother was a daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, the famous British potter. She died when Charles was eight years old, and the boy was reared by three older sisters, who constantly found fault with him.

Darwin was such an indifferent student that his father said, “You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family.” He had no interest in the classical languages and ancient history taught in school. Instead, he liked to collect shells, birds’ eggs, and coins. He also watched birds and insects and helped his brother make chemical experiments at home.

At the age of 16, Darwin began to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh. There too he found the courses dull, and watching operations made him ill. In 1828 he transferred to Cambridge, intending to become a clergyman. Instead, he devoted most of his time to studying plants and animals and later to geology. He received his bachelor’s degree in 1831.

Then came the event that shaped his life—an appointment as unpaid naturalist on the exploring ship Beagle. It left England on Dec. 27, 1831, to chart the southern coasts of South America and sail around the world. The voyage, with many side trips on land, lasted until October 1836. During those five years Darwin examined geologic formations, collected fossils, and studied plants and animals. In the jungles, mountains, and islands he visited, he saw evidence of the many geologic changes that have been occurring over the course of eons—for example, the land gradually rising in some places and falling in others. He also considered the great diversity of living things, even in the depths of the ocean where no humans could appreciate their beauty. He thought about how the fossils he collected suggested that some kinds of mammals had died out. And he returned home filled with questions.

Back home, Darwin settled in London and quietly began work on what would become his great theory of evolution, developed largely in 1837–39. Meanwhile, he wrote up the Journal of his scientific work on the Beagle. He also consulted experts to help him identify the thousands of fossils and specimens he had brought back, and he published the results. In 1839 he was admitted to the prestigious Royal Society.

Darwin married his cousin Emma Wedgwood in 1839, and they eventually had 10 children. He began to avoid society, and in 1842 the couple moved to the isolated village of Downe. This was partly owing to physical illness: a few years earlier, Darwin had begun to experience the heart palpitations and nausea that would plague him for the rest of his life. But he also sought seclusion because he knew that his radical theory would shock and offend Victorian society. Believing in evolution, Darwin said, was “like confessing a murder.” And so he continued thi

In Darwin‘s time, the nearly universally accepted view was that God had created all species of living things in their current forms and that their attributes were the result of God’s design. Nevertheless, Darwin was not the first to suggest that living things might change over time. Since ancient times, people have proposed other ways that plants and animals could have developed. The first broad theory of evolution was proposed in the early 19th century by French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. He maintained that plants and animals evolved because of an inborn tendency to progress from simple to complex forms. Environment, however, modified this progression and so did use or disuse of parts. He thought that giraffes, for example, developed long necks by straining to reach the leaves of trees, while snakes lost their legs by crawling.

Darwin knew about Lamarck’s theory of evolution. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had published several books expounding similar ideas. He felt, however, that early writers on the subject had speculated too much and had not based their theories on a solid foundation of observable phenomena. In developing his theory of evolution, Darwin drew upon observations made in a wide array of scientific disciplines and conducted a great many experiments.

Darwin also happened to read An Essay on the Principle of Population, by British economist Thomas Malthus. Malthus had undertaken to prove that human populations tend to increase more rapidly than food and other necessities. The result is a struggle in which some people succeed and become wealthy while others fail or even starve.

Darwin applied this theory to the world of nature. Plants and animals, he knew, reproduce so rapidly that the Earth could not hold them if all their young survived. This meant that there was a constant struggle for space, food, and shelter, as well as against enemies and unfavorable conditions. Certain hawks, for example, struggle, or compete, with each other for the mice they eat, and the poorest hunters go hungry. Mice, in turn, struggle to keep from being caught by hawks. In frigid winters living things struggle against the cold. Some endure it, while others fail to keep themselves warm enough and die. Although Darwin did not coin the phrase “survival of the fittest,” his ideas about struggle expressed the same notion.

Struggling and living or dying could not lead to evolution if all members of each living kind or species were exactly alike. Darwin found that members of a single species vary greatly in shape, size, color, strength, and so on. He also believed that most of these variations could be inherited.

Under the constant struggle to exist, organisms with harmful variations are more likely to die before they can reproduce. And, on average, living things with useful variations are more likely to survive and bear young and thus to pass on their helpful variations. When their descendants vary still more, the process is repeated. In other words, the struggle for existence selects organisms with helpful variations but makes others die out. Darwin called this process natural selection.

Over the ages, Darwin believed, changes from natural selection produce a slow succession of new plants, animals, and other organisms. These changes have enabled living things to go into all sorts of environments and become fitted, or adapted, to many different types of life. Darwin called his theory descent by modification, because he proposed that all living things were descended from earlier forms.

Darwin wrote a short sketch of his theory in 1842 and a longer one in 1844. Instead of publishing the second statement, however, he continued his investigations. He also wrote books on coral reefs, volcanic islands, barnacles, and the geology of South America. Not until 1856 did he begin what would be a multivolume work on evolution.

In 1858 he received a manuscript from a young naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, who also had developed a theory of natural selection. With Wallace’s approval, short statements by both men were published late in 1858. Darwin went on to write his famous book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, which appeared in 1859.

The book caused a tremendous stir, and not just in scientific circles. The general public also read, discussed, and vigorously defended or denounced Darwin‘s theory, which became a popular topic in society salons. Some religious leaders believed that evolution was incompatible with their teachings and so opposed it. Newspapers publicized with great scorn a conclusion that Darwin had been careful to avoid—that humans are descended from apes. Evolutionary imagery spread through many other fields, including literature, economics, and political and social science. During Darwin‘s lifetime, the scientific community largely accepted his theory of descent, though it was slower to adopt his idea of natural selection.

After completing the Origin of Species, Darwin began The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, which showed how rapidly some organisms had evolved under artificial selection, the selective breeding of plants and animals by humans. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871, discussed human evolution. Later books dealt with earthworms, orchids, climbing plants, and plants that eat insects.

Darwin became very weak in 1881 and could no longer work. He died on April 19, 1882, in Downe, and was buried in Westminster Abbey among England’s greatest citizens.

Darwin himself never claimed to provide proof of evolution or of the origin of species. His claim was that if evolution had occurred, a number of otherwise mysterious facts about plants and animals could be easily explained. After his death, however, direct evidence of evolution was observed, and evolution is now supported by a wealth of evidence from a variety of scientific fields.

Evolution has been rejected by members of some religious groups who prefer their theory of creationism. This attempts to explain some features of plant and animal life through a literal interpretation of the Bible. In the scientific community, however, there is little doubt that the general outline of Darwin‘s theory of evolution is correct.

To cite this page:

• MLA Style: “Darwin, Charles.” Britannica Student Library. Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009.
• APA Style: Darwin, Charles. (2009). Britannica Student Library. Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

Whose God is Allah? [news]

Religion can be a tense affair in Malaysia.

Roughly two thirds of the population is Muslim, and religious minorities have repeatedly accused the government of undermining their rights.

The interception by Malaysian authorities of thousands of Bibles bound for Christians in the country has produced the latest flashpoint.

The reason – the Bibles use the word Allah to describe God, and that’s been banned by the government.

It says the risk of causing upset to Muslims is too great.

Muslim groups claim that Christian use of a word so closely associated with Islam in Bibles and children’s books could be aimed at winning converts.

Religion is closely associated with ethnicity in Malaysia, with ethnic Malays obliged to be Muslim.

Ethnic Indians and Chinese who practise Hinduism and Buddhism are welcome to convert to Islam, but Muslims are not allowed to adopt another faith.

The Malaysian government confiscated 5,000 Bibles earlier this year as they were imported from Indonesia, and it has now intercepted another 10,000.

But Christian leaders – representing a little under 10% of the population – say Malays have been using the word Allah to refer generally to God for hundreds of years.

Christians are now fighting back.

An Evangelical church launched a legal action in an attempt to win the right to refer to God as Allah in children’s books.

The Roman Catholic Church has also gone to court after its newspaper in Malaysia was threatened with the loss of its licence if it continued to use the word.

Christians are turning the issue into one about how minorities are treated in Malaysia.

The Christian Federation of Malaysia says the country’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and it’s asking whether that can still be meaningful if Christians are denied Bibles which use their own language.

SWISS DECIDE ON MINARETS

When the treatment of Christian minorities in Muslim-majority countries becomes an issue, Christian-majority countries are apt to compare it unfavourably with the equality they give to Muslims.
There are about 100 mosques across Switzerland

But strict equality – at least in the architectural arena – is up for debate in one Christian-majority country: Switzerland.

Later this month the Swiss will vote in a referendum on whether to ban the construction of minarets in the country.

The proposal came from right-of-centre groups and is backed by Switzerland’s biggest political party, the far-right Swiss People’s Party.

There are about 100 mosques serving some 300,000 Swiss Muslims and small minarets are not unknown – although they’re not used for calls to prayer.

Muslims have found allies among Switzerland’s Jewish population, who have claimed that the plan would threaten religious harmony and hold up the integration of Muslims.

As in Malaysia, the constitution is being invoked by opponents of the proposal.

The two largest Jewish groups said the referendum infringed religious freedom, a concept enshrined in the Swiss constitution.

ITALIANS CROSS ABOUT CRUCIFIXES

Part of the Swiss People’s Party’s argument against minarets is that they are a symbol of political power – more than they are about religion.

Now with a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights against the use of crucifixes in Italian schools, the same claim is being made for this symbol of Christianity.

Soile Lautsi wants to give her children a secular education and objected to the presence of a crucifix in every classroom at their school in northern Italy.

A law dating back to the 1920s requires crucifixes to be hung in Italian schools.

The European Court said the compulsory display of a symbol of a given religion in public buildings violated the rights of parents to educate their children as they wished.
A law from the 1920s requires crucifixes to be hung in Italian schools

The ruling has produced an angry response from politicians and church leaders who say the crucifix is much more than a religious symbol in Italy.

Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini said the crucifix was a “symbol of our tradition”, not a mark of Catholicism.

The Reverend Frederico Lombardi said the European court should not interfere in what was a profoundly Italian issue, and said it was wrong to imply that the crucifix could be a sign of division or exclusion.

Soile Lautsi’s case is similar to one brought in 1995 by a parent in the German state of Bavaria.

A German constitutional court decided it was against religious freedom for crucifixes to be imposed in classrooms.

The Bavarian parliament came up with a new law, requiring the removal of crucifixes – but only if a parent insisted.

The US Supreme Court has also had to decide whether religious symbols break the constitution, and its separation of church and state.

It recently ruled against the positioning of framed copies of the 10 Commandments in two courtrooms in Kentucky, because they had a “predominantly religious purpose”.

However, the court did acknowledge that even the 10 Commandments – taken from the Book of Exodus in the Bible – could be displayed, if it was done to illustrate the country’s legal history.

It said a monument outside a government building in Texas could continue to display the Commandments, which the Bible describes being given to Moses by God.

But even without court rulings some Italian Christians suspect that long-established traditions are under threat by the changing atmosphere.

Among the casualties, they complain that schools are abandoning nativity plays for fear of offending people from other faiths.

By Robert Pigott | © bbc.cok.uk

Este poporul evreu o invenție?

Subiectul “evrei” a constituit o controversă de-a lungul ultimelor trei milenii și nu sunt semne că o astfel de controversă va dispărea prea curând. Cartea istoricului Shlomo Sand “Inventarea poporului evreu” (apărută în engleză la editura Verso, 2009) reprezintă unul dintre documentele care alimentează această dezbatere perenă. Ideea de bază a profesorului de istorie de la Universitatea Tel Aviv este că evreii nu reprezintă un popor sau o națiune, ci sunt mai degrabă o reunire de comunități disparate care au aderat de-a lungul timpului la aceeași religie, în speță iudaismul. O astfel de teorie nu are în sine nimic extraordinar sau inedit, însă faptul că ea este susținută de un evreu israelian, profesor universitar de istorie și veteran al războiului arabo-israelian din 1967 dă acestei teorii o credibilitate sporită. Shlomo Sand provine dintr-o familie de supraviețuitori ai Holocaustului din Polonia, evrei anti-sioniști pe care soarta i-a aruncat în Palestina, cu puțin înainte ca statul Israel să ia din nou ființă după un hiatus de aproape 1900 de ani. Sand a fost în tinerețe un simpatizant al diverselor partide comuniste din Israel, care susțineau egalitatea deplină a evreilor cu non-evreii și mai ales cu arabii cetățeni ai Israelului, pe care istoricul îi numește israelo-palestinieni. De altfel, Sand contestă faptul că statul Israel poate fi în același timp unul “evreesc” și “democratic” în același timp. Voi reveni la această dilemă, dar mai întâi să vedem care sunt principalele argumente ale autorului în sprijinul titlului incendiar al cărții. În primul rând, demitizarea Bibliei care, spune Sand, este un document pseudo-istoric, menit să legitimeze pretențiile sioniștilor din ultimii 150 de ani. Istoricul pune la îndoială veridicitatea istorică a Torei (primele cinci cărți ale Bibliei) și mai ales originile patriarhilor precum și exodul din Egipt în Canaan al evreilor conduși de Moise. În mod similar, el pune la îndoială existența regatului unit sub David și Solomon și chiar existența monoteismului iudaic înainte de întoarcerea din exilul babilonian la sfârșitului secolului VI înainte de Isus Hristos. Dar piatra de temelie a construcției ideologice a lui Shlomo Sand este negarea faptului că a existat vreodată un exil masiv al evreilor și că evreii înșiși au căzut în capcana antisemitismului creștin, care a lansat arhetipul evreului rătăcitor, pedepsit pentru deicid și condamnat să-și petreacă restul zilelor în rpibegie. Nici după distrugerea primului templu de la Ierusalim, în 586 î.d.Hr, nici după distrugerea celui de-al doilea templu, în anul 70 al erei creștine și nici măcar după înăbușirea de către romani a revoltei lui Bar Kochba, în 135, nu s-a produs un exod de masă al evreilor din Palestina, susține Sand. Și atunci de unde atâția evrei în lume? Simplu, explică Sand, prin prozelitism. Chiar dacă formal Tora și Talmudul (comentariul Torei de după distrugerea celui de-al doilea Templu) interzic prozelitismul, el a existat în permanență, fiind practicat cu violență de Macabei, în secolul al II-lea înainte de Hristos, fiind extrem de curent pe vremea Imperiului Roman. Cel mai puternic stat evreesc din istorie, Imperiul Hazar, care a existat în regiunea Volgii între secolele VII – X, a luat ființă tocmai în urma unei convertiri a unui popor de origine turcică. Aici Sand reia teoria lui Arthur Koestler, din cartea “Cel de-al treisprezecelea trib”, dar și a istoricului Abraham Polak, care la mijlocul secolului trecut avansa ipoteza că evreii europeni, cuoscuți și sub numele impropriu de așkenazi (germani), ar fi de fapt urmași ai hazarilor. De altfel, Sand susține că nici evreii sefarzi (spanioli) nu ar fi imigranți din Palestina, ci urmași ai convertiților berberi din nordul Africii, care au trecut strâmtoarea Gibraltar în 711 cu arabii musulmani, cucerind împreună Spania. Sand critică aspru toate încercările mai vechi și mai noi de a prezenta pe evrei într-o unitate etno-biologică. Și aici ajungem la statul Israel care a luat ființă ca urmare a “reîntoarcerii din exil” a evreilor – o reîntoarcere fictivă, susține Shlomo Sand. Pentru el, Israelul nu este o democrație, ci o etnocrație, dat fiind că este un stat al evreilor, în care minoritățile – arabi sau alți ne-evrei – nu au drepturi egale, pentru că statul este unul “al evreilor”. Nu există stare civilă și un evreu nu se poate căsători decât cu alt evreu pe teritoriul Israelului, iar religia nu este separată de stat. Cartea lui Shlomo Sand, publicată în limba ebraică în Israel, spre deosebire de cea a lui Koestler, a fost în mod firesc întâmpinată cu o anume ostilitate. Criticii au subliniat că Sand nu aduce nimic original și mai mult distorsionează anumite teorii ce le atribuie istoricilor sioniști – mai ales așa numita puritate biologică a poporului evreu. Cert este faptul că oricât ar fi de viciată democrația israeliană, ea a permis apariția acestei cărți, iar autorul ei își continuă fără probleme cariera universitară pe cheltuiala contribuabilului israelian.

animanews.com

Whose God is Allah? [news]

Religion can be a tense affair in Malaysia.

Roughly two thirds of the population is Muslim, and religious minorities have repeatedly accused the government of undermining their rights.

The interception by Malaysian authorities of thousands of Bibles bound for Christians in the country has produced the latest flashpoint.

The reason – the Bibles use the word Allah to describe God, and that’s been banned by the government.

It says the risk of causing upset to Muslims is too great.

Muslim groups claim that Christian use of a word so closely associated with Islam in Bibles and children’s books could be aimed at winning converts.

Religion is closely associated with ethnicity in Malaysia, with ethnic Malays obliged to be Muslim.

Ethnic Indians and Chinese who practise Hinduism and Buddhism are welcome to convert to Islam, but Muslims are not allowed to adopt another faith.

The Malaysian government confiscated 5,000 Bibles earlier this year as they were imported from Indonesia, and it has now intercepted another 10,000.

But Christian leaders – representing a little under 10% of the population – say Malays have been using the word Allah to refer generally to God for hundreds of years.

Christians are now fighting back.

An Evangelical church launched a legal action in an attempt to win the right to refer to God as Allah in children’s books.

The Roman Catholic Church has also gone to court after its newspaper in Malaysia was threatened with the loss of its licence if it continued to use the word.

Christians are turning the issue into one about how minorities are treated in Malaysia.

The Christian Federation of Malaysia says the country’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and it’s asking whether that can still be meaningful if Christians are denied Bibles which use their own language.

SWISS DECIDE ON MINARETS

When the treatment of Christian minorities in Muslim-majority countries becomes an issue, Christian-majority countries are apt to compare it unfavourably with the equality they give to Muslims.
There are about 100 mosques across Switzerland

But strict equality – at least in the architectural arena – is up for debate in one Christian-majority country: Switzerland.

Later this month the Swiss will vote in a referendum on whether to ban the construction of minarets in the country.

The proposal came from right-of-centre groups and is backed by Switzerland’s biggest political party, the far-right Swiss People’s Party.

There are about 100 mosques serving some 300,000 Swiss Muslims and small minarets are not unknown – although they’re not used for calls to prayer.

Muslims have found allies among Switzerland’s Jewish population, who have claimed that the plan would threaten religious harmony and hold up the integration of Muslims.

As in Malaysia, the constitution is being invoked by opponents of the proposal.

The two largest Jewish groups said the referendum infringed religious freedom, a concept enshrined in the Swiss constitution.

ITALIANS CROSS ABOUT CRUCIFIXES

Part of the Swiss People’s Party’s argument against minarets is that they are a symbol of political power – more than they are about religion.

Now with a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights against the use of crucifixes in Italian schools, the same claim is being made for this symbol of Christianity.

Soile Lautsi wants to give her children a secular education and objected to the presence of a crucifix in every classroom at their school in northern Italy.

A law dating back to the 1920s requires crucifixes to be hung in Italian schools.

The European Court said the compulsory display of a symbol of a given religion in public buildings violated the rights of parents to educate their children as they wished.
A law from the 1920s requires crucifixes to be hung in Italian schools

The ruling has produced an angry response from politicians and church leaders who say the crucifix is much more than a religious symbol in Italy.

Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini said the crucifix was a “symbol of our tradition”, not a mark of Catholicism.

The Reverend Frederico Lombardi said the European court should not interfere in what was a profoundly Italian issue, and said it was wrong to imply that the crucifix could be a sign of division or exclusion.

Soile Lautsi’s case is similar to one brought in 1995 by a parent in the German state of Bavaria.

A German constitutional court decided it was against religious freedom for crucifixes to be imposed in classrooms.

The Bavarian parliament came up with a new law, requiring the removal of crucifixes – but only if a parent insisted.

The US Supreme Court has also had to decide whether religious symbols break the constitution, and its separation of church and state.

It recently ruled against the positioning of framed copies of the 10 Commandments in two courtrooms in Kentucky, because they had a “predominantly religious purpose”.

However, the court did acknowledge that even the 10 Commandments – taken from the Book of Exodus in the Bible – could be displayed, if it was done to illustrate the country’s legal history.

It said a monument outside a government building in Texas could continue to display the Commandments, which the Bible describes being given to Moses by God.

But even without court rulings some Italian Christians suspect that long-established traditions are under threat by the changing atmosphere.

Among the casualties, they complain that schools are abandoning nativity plays for fear of offending people from other faiths.

By Robert Pigott | © bbc.cok.uk

Este poporul evreu o invenție?

Subiectul “evrei” a constituit o controversă de-a lungul ultimelor trei milenii și nu sunt semne că o astfel de controversă va dispărea prea curând. Cartea istoricului Shlomo Sand “Inventarea poporului evreu” (apărută în engleză la editura Verso, 2009) reprezintă unul dintre documentele care alimentează această dezbatere perenă.

  Ideea de bază a profesorului de istorie de la Universitatea Tel Aviv este că evreii nu reprezintă un popor sau o națiune, ci sunt mai degrabă o reunire de comunități disparate care au aderat de-a lungul timpului la aceeași religie, în speță iudaismul. O astfel de teorie nu are în sine nimic extraordinar sau inedit, însă faptul că ea este susținută de un evreu israelian, profesor universitar de istorie și veteran al războiului arabo-israelian din 1967 dă acestei teorii o credibilitate sporită. Shlomo Sand provine dintr-o familie de supraviețuitori ai Holocaustului din Polonia, evrei anti-sioniști pe care soarta i-a aruncat în Palestina, cu puțin înainte ca statul Israel să ia din nou ființă după un hiatus de aproape 1900 de ani. Sand a fost în tinerețe un simpatizant al diverselor partide comuniste din Israel, care susțineau egalitatea deplină a evreilor cu non-evreii și mai ales cu arabii cetățeni ai Israelului, pe care istoricul îi numește israelo-palestinieni. De altfel, Sand contestă faptul că statul Israel poate fi în același timp unul “evreesc” și “democratic” în același timp.
 Voi reveni la această dilemă, dar mai întâi să vedem care sunt principalele argumente ale autorului în sprijinul titlului incendiar al cărții. În primul rând, demitizarea Bibliei care, spune Sand, este un document pseudo-istoric, menit să legitimeze pretențiile sioniștilor din ultimii 150 de ani. Istoricul pune la îndoială veridicitatea istorică a Torei (primele cinci cărți ale Bibliei) și mai ales originile patriarhilor precum și exodul din Egipt în Canaan al evreilor conduși de Moise. În mod similar, el pune la îndoială existența regatului unit sub David și Solomon și chiar existența monoteismului iudaic înainte de întoarcerea din exilul babilonian la sfârșitului secolului VI înainte de Isus Hristos. Dar piatra de temelie a construcției ideologice a lui Shlomo Sand este negarea faptului că a existat vreodată un exil masiv al evreilor și că evreii înșiși au căzut în capcana antisemitismului creștin, care a lansat arhetipul evreului rătăcitor, pedepsit pentru deicid și condamnat să-și petreacă restul zilelor în rpibegie. Nici după distrugerea primului templu de la Ierusalim, în 586 î.d.Hr, nici după distrugerea celui de-al doilea templu, în anul 70 al erei creștine și nici măcar după înăbușirea de către romani a revoltei lui Bar Kochba, în 135, nu s-a produs un exod de masă al evreilor din Palestina, susține Sand. Și atunci de unde atâția evrei în lume? Simplu, explică Sand, prin prozelitism. Chiar dacă formal Tora și Talmudul (comentariul Torei de după distrugerea celui de-al doilea Templu) interzic prozelitismul, el a existat în permanență, fiind practicat cu violență de Macabei, în secolul al II-lea înainte de Hristos, fiind extrem de curent pe vremea Imperiului Roman. Cel mai puternic stat evreesc din istorie, Imperiul Hazar, care a existat în regiunea Volgii între secolele VII – X, a luat ființă tocmai în urma unei convertiri a unui popor de origine turcică. Aici Sand reia teoria lui Arthur Koestler, din cartea “Cel de-al treisprezecelea trib”, dar și a istoricului Abraham Polak, care la mijlocul secolului trecut avansa ipoteza că evreii europeni, cuoscuți și sub numele impropriu de așkenazi (germani), ar fi de fapt urmași ai hazarilor. De altfel, Sand susține că nici evreii sefarzi (spanioli) nu ar fi imigranți din Palestina, ci urmași ai convertiților berberi din nordul Africii, care au trecut strâmtoarea Gibraltar în 711 cu arabii musulmani, cucerind împreună Spania. Sand critică aspru toate încercările mai vechi și mai noi de a prezenta pe evrei într-o unitate etno-biologică. Și aici ajungem la statul Israel care a luat ființă ca urmare a “reîntoarcerii din exil” a evreilor – o reîntoarcere fictivă, susține Shlomo Sand. Pentru el, Israelul nu este o democrație, ci o etnocrație, dat fiind că este un stat al evreilor, în care minoritățile – arabi sau alți ne-evrei – nu au drepturi egale, pentru că statul este unul “al evreilor”. Nu există stare civilă și un evreu nu se poate căsători decât cu alt evreu pe teritoriul Israelului, iar religia nu este separată de stat. Cartea lui Shlomo Sand, publicată în limba ebraică în Israel, spre deosebire de cea a lui Koestler, a fost în mod firesc întâmpinată cu o anume ostilitate. 


Criticii au subliniat că Sand nu aduce nimic original și mai mult distorsionează anumite teorii ce le atribuie istoricilor sioniști – mai ales așa numita puritate biologică a poporului evreu. Cert este faptul că oricât ar fi de viciată democrația israeliană, ea a permis apariția acestei cărți, iar autorul ei își continuă fără probleme cariera universitară pe cheltuiala contribuabilului israelian.

animanews.com