Fundamentalismo religioso: enfermedad mental

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kathleen-taylor-religious-fundamentalism-mental-illness_n_3365896.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

O. E. Wilson views

http://ordenhymenoptera.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ants-and-superorganism.html
Views on religionAs paraphrased by Michael McGoodwin^[16]

The predisposition to religious belief is an ineradicable part of human behavior. Mankind has produced 100,000 religions. It is an illusion to think that scientific humanism and learning will dispel religious belief. Men would rather believe than know... A kind of Darwinistic survival of the fittest has occurred with religions... The ecological principle called Gause's law holds that competition is maximal between species with identical needs... Even submission to secular religions such as Communism and guru cults involve willing subordination of the individual to the group. Religious practices confer biological advantage. The mechanisms of religion include (1) objectification (the reduction of reality to images and definitions that are easily understood and cannot be refuted), (2) commitment through faith (a kind of tribalism enacted through self-surrender), (3) and myth (the narratives that explain the tribe's favored position on the earth, often incorporating supernatural forces struggling for control, apocalypse, and millennium). The three great religion categories of today are Marxism, traditional religion, and scientific materialism... Though theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline, religion will endure for a long time to come and will not be replaced by scientific materialism.

Scientific humanism

Wilson coined the phrase scientific humanism as "the only worldview compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature".^[23] Wilson argues that it is best suited to improve the human condition. In 2003 he was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.^[24]

God and religion

On the question of God, Wilson has described his position as provisional deism.^[25] He has explained his faith as a trajectory away from traditional beliefs: "I drifted away from the church, not definitively agnostic or atheistic, just Baptist & Christian no more."^[17] Wilson argues that the belief in God and rituals of religion are products of evolution.^[26] He argues that they should not be rejected or dismissed, but further investigated by science to better understand their significance to human nature. In his book The Creation, Wilson suggests that scientists ought to "offer the hand of friendship" to religious leaders and build an alliance with them, stating that "Science and religion are two of the most potent forces on Earth and they should come together to save the creation."^[27]
Wilson makes a similar suggestion, and appeal to the religious community, on the lecture circuit. An article on his September 17, 2009 lecture at Midland College, Texas, reports, "he said the appeal received a 'massive reply' and a covenant has been written. 'I think that partnership will work to a substantial degree as time goes on,' Wilson said."^[28]
Wilson appears in the upcoming documentary Behold The Earth, which inquires into America's "divorce from nature" and the relationship between science and religion.

Ecology

When discussing the reinvigoration of his original fields of study since the 1960s, Wilson has said that if he could start his life over he would work in microbial ecology.^[29] He studied the mass extinctions of the 20th century and their relationship to modern society, arguing strongly for an ecological approach:

Now when you cut a forest, an ancient forest in particular, you are not just removing a lot of big trees and a few birds fluttering around in the canopy. You are drastically imperiling a vast array of species within a few square miles of you. The number of these species may go to tens of thousands. ... Many of them are still unknown to science, and science has not yet discovered the key role undoubtedly played in the maintenance of that ecosystem, as in the case of fungi, microorganisms, and many of the insects.^[30]

His understanding of the scale of the extinction crisis has led him to advocate a number of strategies for forest protection, including the Forests Now Declaration, which calls for new markets-based mechanisms to protect tropical forests.

Criticism of human sociobiology

Wilson experienced significant criticism for his sociobiological views from several different communities. The scientific response included several of Wilson's colleagues at Harvard,^[31] such as Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, who were strongly opposed to his ideas regarding sociobiology. Marshall Sahlins's work The Use and Abuse of Biology was a direct criticism of Wilson's theories.^[32]
Politically, Wilson's sociobiological ideas have offended some people who favored the idea that human behavior was culturally based. Sociobiology re-ignited the nature-versus-nurture debate, and Wilson's scientific perspective on human nature led to public debate. He was accused of racism, misogyny, and eugenics.^[33] In one incident, a member of the International Committee Against Racism poured a pitcher of water on Wilson's head and chanted "Wilson, you're all wet" at an AAAS conference in November 1978.^[34] Wilson later spoke of the incident as a source of pride: "I believe...I was the only scientist in modern times to be physically attacked for an idea."^[35]
“I believe Gould was a charlatan,” Wilson told The Atlantic. “I believe that he was ... seeking reputation and credibility as a scientist and writer, and he did it consistently by distorting what other scientists were saying and devising arguments based upon that distortion.”^[36]
Religious objections included those of Paul E. Rothrock, who said: "... sociobiology has the potential of becoming a religion of scientific materialism." ^{[37]
 =============================================}
Biologist E.O. Wilson on Why Humans, Like Ants, Need a Tribe
 Apr 2, 2012

Religion. Sports. War. Biologist E.O. Wilson says our drive to join a group—and to fight for it—is what makes us human.

Have you ever wondered why, in the ongoing presidential campaign, we so strongly hear the pipes calling us to arms? Why the religious among us bristle at any challenge to the creation story they believe? Or even why team sports evoke such intense loyalty, joy, and despair?

The answer is that everyone, no exception, must have a tribe, an alliance with which to jockey for power and territory, to demonize the enemy, to organize rallies and raise flags.

And so it has ever been. In ancient history and prehistory, tribes gave visceral comfort and pride from familiar fellowship, and a way to defend the group enthusiastically against rival groups. It gave people a name in addition to their own and social meaning in a chaotic world. It made the environment less disorienting and dangerous. Human nature has not changed. Modern groups are psychologically equivalent to the tribes of ancient history. As such, these groups are directly descended from the bands of primitive humans and prehumans.

The drive to join is deeply ingrained, a result of a complicated evolution that has led our species to a condition that biologists call eusociality. “Eu-,” of course, is a prefix meaning pleasant or good: euphony is something that sounds wonderful; eugenics is the attempt to improve the gene pool. And the eusocial group contains multiple generations whose members perform altruistic acts, sometimes against their own personal interests, to benefit their group. Eusociality is an outgrowth of a new way of understanding evolution, which blends traditionally popular individual selection (based on individuals competing against each other) with group selection (based on competition among groups). Individual selection tends to favor selfish behavior. Group selection favors altruistic behavior and is responsible for the origin of the most advanced level of social behavior, that attained by ants, bees, termites—and humans.

Among eusocial insects, the impulse to support the group at the expense of the individual is largely instinctual. But to play the game the human way required a complicated mix of closely calibrated altruism, cooperation, competition, domination, reciprocity, defection, and deceit. Humans had to feel empathy for others, to measure the emotions of friend and enemy alike, to judge the intentions of all of them, and to plan a strategy for personal social interactions.

Photographs from 'The Disciples' by James Mollison, published by Chris Boot ((c) James Mollison / Chris Boot Ltd.)

As a result, the human brain became simultaneously highly intelligent and intensely social. It had to build mental scenarios of personal relationships rapidly, both short term and long term. Its memories had to travel far into the past to summon old scenarios and far into the future to imagine the consequences of every relationship. Ruling on the alternative plans of action were the amygdala and other emotion-controlling centers of the brain and autonomic nervous system. Thus was born the human condition, selfish at one time, selfless at another, and the two impulses often conflicted.

Today, the social world of each modern human is not a single tribe but rather a system of interlocking tribes, among which it is often difficult to find a single compass. People savor the company of like-minded friends, and they yearn to be in one of the best—a combat Marine regiment, perhaps, an elite college, the executive committee of a company, a religious sect, a fraternity, a garden club—any collectivity that can be compared favorably with other, competing groups of the same category.

Their thirst for group membership and superiority of their group can be satisfied even with symbolic victory by their warriors in clashes on ritualized battlefields: that is, in sports. Like the cheerful and well-dressed citizens of Washington, D.C., who came out to witness the First Battle of Bull Run during the Civil War, they anticipate the experience with relish. The fans are lifted by seeing the uniforms, symbols, and battle gear of the team, the championship cups and banners on display, the dancing seminude maidens appropriately called cheerleaders. When the Boston Celtics defeated the Los Angeles Lakers for the National Basketball Association championship on a June night in 1984, the mantra was “Celts Supreme!” The social psychologist Roger Brown, who witnessed the aftermath, commented, “The fans burst out of the Garden and nearby bars, practically break dancing in the air, stogies lit, arms uplifted, voices screaming. The hood of a car was flattened, about thirty people jubilantly piled aboard, and the driver—a fan—smiled happily ...It did not seem to me that those fans were just sympathizing or empathizing with their team. They personally were flying high. On that night each fan’s self-esteem felt supreme; a social identity did a lot for many personal identities.”

Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong. Even when the experimenters created the groups arbitrarily, prejudice quickly established itself. Whether groups played for pennies or were divided by their preference for some abstract painter over another, the participants always ranked the out-group below the in-group. They judged their “opponents” to be less likable, less fair, less trustworthy, less competent. The prejudices asserted themselves even when the subjects were told the in-groups and out-groups had been chosen arbitrarily.

‘The Social Conquest’ of Earth by Edward O. Wilson. 352p. Liveright. $17.01

The tendency to form groups, and then to favor in-group members, has the earmarks of instinct. That may not be intuitive: some could argue that in-group bias is conditioned, not instinctual, that we affiliate with family members and play with neighboring children because we’re taught to. But the ease with which we fall into those affiliations points to the likelihood that we are already inclined that way—what psychologists call “prepared learning,” the inborn propensity to learn something swiftly and decisively. And indeed, cognitive psychologists have found that newborn infants are most sensitive to the first sounds they hear, to their mother’s face, and to the sounds of their native language. Later they look preferentially at persons who previously spoke their native language within their hearing. Similarly, preschool children tend to select native-language speakers as friends.

The elementary drive to form and take deep pleasure from in-group membership easily translates at a higher level into tribalism. People are prone to ethnocentrism. It is an uncomfortable fact that even when given a guilt-free choice, individuals prefer the company of others of the same race, nation, clan, and religion. They trust them more, relax with them better in business and social events, and prefer them more often than not as marriage partners. They are quicker to anger at evidence that an out-group is behaving unfairly or receiving undeserved rewards. And they grow hostile to any out-group encroaching upon the territory or resources of their in-group.

When in experiments black and white Americans were flashed pictures of the other race, their amygdalas, the brain’s center of fear and anger, were activated so quickly and subtly that the centers of the brain were unaware of the response. The subject, in effect, could not help himself. When, on the other hand, appropriate contexts were added—say, the approaching African-American was a doctor and the white his patient—two other sites of the brain integrated with the higher learning centers, the cingulate cortex and the dorsolateral preferential cortex, lit up, silencing input through the amygdala. Thus different parts of the brain have evolved by group selection to create groupishness, as well as to mediate this hardwired propensity.

When the amygdala rules the action, however, there is little or no guilt in the pleasure experienced from watching violent sporting events and war films in which the story unwinds to a satisfying destruction of the enemy. The horrors make the fascination. War is the strong life; it is life in extremis.

Literature and history are strewn with accounts of what happens at the extreme, as in the following from Judges 12: 5–6 in the Old Testament: the Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim, and whenever a survivor of Ephraim said, “Let me go over,” the men of Gilead asked him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” If he replied, “No,” they said, “All right, say ‘Shibboleth.’?” If he said “Sibboleth,” because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time.

Research has shown that tribal aggressiveness goes well back beyond Neolithic times. And there is a good chance that it could be a much older heritage, dating beyond the split 6 million years ago between the lines leading to modern chimpanzees and to humans, respectively.

The patterns of collective violence in which young chimp males engage are remarkably similar to those of young human males. Aside from constantly vying for status, both for themselves and for their gangs, they tend to avoid open mass confrontations with rival troops, instead relying on surprise attacks. The purpose of raids made by the male gangs on neighboring communities is evidently to kill or drive out its members and acquire new territory. The entirety of such conquest under fully natural conditions has been witnessed by John Mitani and his collaborators in Uganda’s Kibale National Park. The chimp war, conducted over 10 years, was eerily humanlike. Every 10 to 14 days, patrols of up to 20 males penetrated enemy territory, moving quietly in single file, scanning the terrain from ground to the treetops, and halting cautiously at every surrounding noise. If they encountered a force larger than their own, the invaders broke rank and ran back to their own territory. When they encountered a lone male, however, they pummeled and bit him to death. When a female was encountered, they usually let her go. (This latter tolerance was not a display of gallantry. If she carried an infant, they took it from her and killed and ate it.) Finally, after such constant pressure for so long, the invading gangs simply annexed the enemy territory, adding 22 percent to the land owned by their own community.

Our bloody nature, it can now be argued in the context of modern biology, is ingrained because group-versus-group was a principal driving force that made us what we are. In prehistory, group selection lifted the hominids to heights of solidarity, to genius, to enterprise. And to fear. Each tribe knew with justification that if it was not armed and ready, its very existence was imperiled. Throughout history, the escalation of a large part of technology has had combat as its central purpose. Today, public support is best fired up by appeal to the emotions of deadly combat, over which the amygdala is grandmaster. We find ourselves in the battle to stem an oil spill, the fight to tame inflation, the war against cancer. Wherever there is an enemy, animate or inanimate, there must be a victory.

Any excuse for a real war will do, so long as it is seen as necessary to protect the tribe. The remembrance of past horrors has no effect. It should not be thought that war, often accompanied by genocide, is a cultural artifact of a few societies. Nor has it been an aberration of history, a result of the growing pains of our species’ maturation. Wars and genocide have been universal and eternal, respecting no particular time or culture. Overall, big wars have been replaced around the world by small wars of the kind and magnitude more typical of hunter-gatherer and primitively agricultural societies. Civilized societies have tried to eliminate torture, execution, and the murder of civilians, but those fighting little wars do not comply.

Civilization appears to be the ultimate redeeming product of competition between groups. Because of it, we struggle on behalf of good and against evil, and reward generosity, compassion, and altruism while punishing or downplaying selfishness. But if group conflict created the best in us, it also created the deadliest. As humans, this is our greatest, and worst, genetic inheritance.

Nathan der Weise

Lessing creó al personaje de Nathan el Sabio a imagen de su amigo el filósofo judío Moses Mendelssohn.

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (* 22 de enero de 1729 en Kamenz (Sajonia); † 15 de febrero de 1781 en Brunswick) fue el poeta alemán más importante de la ilustración. Con sus dramas y ensayos teóricos tuvo una influencia significativa en la evolución de la literatura alemana.

Contenido

• 1 Su vida
• 2 Su creación
• 3 Su obra

Nathan el Sabio es una obra de teatro escrita por Gotthold Ephraim Lessing evangélico, y publicada en 1779. La obra es un fervoroso llamamiento a la tolerancia religiosa y, como tal, su representación fue prohibida por la Iglesia en vida de Lessing junto con otra de sus obras, Los judíos. Los Nazis también prohibieron su puesta en escena.
La parábola del anillo

La catástasis (punto culminante) de la obra se alcanza con la Parábola del Anillo, narrada por Nathan cuando Saladino le pregunta cuál es la religión verdadera. En dicha parábola, una familia posee un anillo mágico capaz de hacer a su poseedor virtuoso a los ojos de Dios y de los hombres. Dicho anillo ha ido pasando de padres a hijos generación tras generación hasta llegar a manos de un padre, que tiene tres hijos a los que ama por igual y a los que promete, por separado, legar el anillo.

Dado que sólo lo puede legar a uno, pero ama y desea legárselo a los tres, decide encargar dos réplicas exactas del anillo, indistinguibles del original, y en su lecho de muerte da a cada uno de sus hijos uno de los anillos. Muerto el padre, los hijos comienzan a discutir sobre quién tiene el auténtico anillo y, al final, acaban pidiendo arbitrio a un sabio juez, que los conmina a vivir de manera virtuosa para que los poderes del anillo se muestren ciertos. Nathan compara esta parábola con las tres religiones, concluyendo que cada uno de nosotros sigue la religión que hemos aprendido de aquellos a quienes respetamos, y que las tres son verdaderas del mismo modo en que los tres anillos lo eran, en tanto en cuanto cada creyente siga los buenos preceptos de cada una de ellas. 

Recepción

Lessing era un autor muy conocido en su tiempo, y la aparición de Nathan el Sabio fue un gran éxito entre los círculo a los que interesaba la problemática de la tolerancia. No obstante, en su estreno en Berlín en 1783 fue recibida fríamente por la crítica. Schiller, en todo caso, realizó una adaptación de la obra, extendiendo sobre todo sus simbolismos e imágenes pero eliminando la parábola del anillo, que fue representada en Weimar en 1803, con gran éxito. Será esta versión de la obra la que se impondrá durante el siglo XIX, y no será hasta entrado el siglo XX cuando el texto de Lessing sea recuperado.

Tras el inicio del siglo XIX, la obra, en su versión de Schiller, se convirtió en una de los textos básicos de la literatura alemana, un texto que todos los estudiantes alemanes debía leer. Como clásico teatral, se convirtió en una pieza típica del repertorio de los teatros alemanes, y hasta la segunda guerra mundial era una obra muy conocida por el gran público. El régimen nacional socialista, en cambio, prohibió su representación al afirmar que la caracterización de un judío ejemplar era contraria a la ideología del tercer Reich. En 1922 la obra fue adaptada al cine por Mafred Noa. Esta versión muda en blanco y negro elevó las críticas antisemitas y fue prohibida, como la propia obra de Lessing, por el Tercer Reich. Curiosamente, el actor principal de esta película haría de judío perverso en algunas películas de propaganda nazi. Con la caída del régimen de Hitler en 1945, Nathan el Sabio fue, de manera simbólica, la primera obra de teatro en ser representada en un teatro de Berlín.

En 1968, en un ensayo titulado Men for Dark Times (Hombres para épocas sombrías), la filósofa Hannah Arendt elogió a Lessing, reconociendo el compromiso de éste con valores como la amistad y la verdad. Tras los atentados del 11 de septiembre, la obra de Lessing experimentó un considerable aumento en su popularidad: Un llamamiento a la tolerancia resuena aún hoy, tras el siglo XVIII, tituló el New York Times a la reseña de la obra el 9 de diciembre de 2007. Los sucesos de guerra religiosa en el oriente medio han revalidado la actualidad de la obra de Lessing, que ha sido actualizada a los tiempos modernos por Edward Kemp en una versión de dos horas y media. En los Estados Unidos, la obra ha sido frecuentemente citada como una respuesta a las discrepancias religiosas entre distintas comunidades.

Film

Plakat zur Uraufführung des Films 1922

Das Drama wurde im Jahre 1922 durch den jüdischen Filmregisseur Manfred Noa unter dem Titel Nathan der Weise verfilmt. Der Stummfilm galt nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg als verschollen. Mitarbeiter des Filmmuseums München entdeckten ihn in Moskau, sorgten für eine aufwändige Restaurierung und veröffentlichten ihn 2006 auf DVD. 2009 wurde der Film für eine HD-Ausstrahlung auf arte mit neuer Filmmusik versehen.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_der_Weise_(1922)

Contenido del filme: El judío lo es todo; los demás, o cristiano o turco, son nada
– Regierungsrat Dr. Werberger, supervisor de la legislación

Nathan der Weise entstand als Großprojekt von Erich Wagowskis Bavaria-Filmkunst, die zum Konzern Münchner Lichtspielkunst (M.L.K., auch Emelka) gehörte. Im Gegensatz zu demokratischen Berlin, wo zu Beginn der 1920er-Jahre zahlreiche Ufa-Filme entstanden, hatte sich in München nach Niederschlagung der Räterepublik die politische Lage verschärft – die antisemitische Stimmung bekamen nicht zuletzt jüdische Kulturschaffende wie Wagowski und seine Regieentdeckung Manfred Noa zu spüren. Es ist jedoch nicht bekannt, inwieweit die Verfilmung von Lessings Nathan der Weise als Reaktion Wagowskis und Noas auf die antisemitischen Angriffe gewertet werden kann.

Die Dreharbeiten waren im September 1922 so weit beendet, dass der Film der Filmprüfstelle München vorgelegt werden konnte. Diese sprach sich gegen eine Zulassung des Films aus:

„Der Inhalt des Filmes [ist]: Der Jude ist alles, die anderen, ob Christ oder Türke sind nichts. […] Der Film wird […] Meinung und Gegenmeinung sofort im Kino herausfordern: dadurch wird es aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach zu erregten Auseinandersetzungen und erfahrungsgemäß auch zu Tätlichkeiten kommen, sodaß der Bildstreifen außerordentlich geeignet erscheint, die öffentliche Ordnung und Sicherheit zu gefährden.“

– Regierungsrat Dr. Werberger, Gutachter^[1]

Die Kammer II der Filmprüfstelle München gab den Film jedoch mit dem Hinweis frei, dass antisemitische Ausfälle beim Sehen des Films nicht auf den Film selbst, sondern auf „die falsche Einstellung der Leute“ zurückzuführen seien – ein Verbot des Filmes würde im Umkehrschluss auch nicht dem Antisemitismus entgegenwirken.^[2] Bereits im November 1922 versuchten Rechtsradikale, das Filmnegativ zu vernichten, doch wurde dies vereitelt.

Die Uraufführung von Nathan der Weise fand am 29. Dezember 1922 im Berliner Alhambra im Rahmen einer Veranstaltung zugunsten der Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen des freien deutschen Schrifttums statt. Die Kritik bewertete den Film positiv. In München sollte Nathan der Weise am 9. Februar 1923 in den Regina-Lichtspielen erstaufgeführt werden. Obwohl wohlweislich keinerlei Reklame gemacht wurde, um Übergriffe auf die Spielstätte zu verhindern, wurde dem Kinobetreiber am Tag der Erstaufführung angedroht, die Regina-Lichtspiele im Falle einer Aufführung des Films am folgenden Tag zu demolieren. Nachdem sich der Betreiber des Kinos ratsuchend an die Bavaria-Film gewandt hatte, fasste deren Direktor Hoppe einen waghalsigen Entschluss:

„Im Bewußtsein der Gefahr und auch, woher sie zu erwarten sei, wurde beschlossen, sich mit dem Parteiführer Hitler direkt in Verbindung zu setzen. An Stelle Hitlers empfing sein Vertreter […] Esser die Herren. Herr Direktor Hoppe erklärte sich bereit, eine Sondervorführung des Films für Herrn Esser zu veranstalten, damit er persönlich die Überzeugung gewinnen möge, daß dieser Film frei von jeglicher ihm zugemuteter Tendenz sei. […] Nach der Vorführung gab Esser seiner Meinung Ausdruck, der Film sei ein Propagandafilm, und beharrte darauf, trotz versuchter Widerlegungen des Direktors Hoppe.“

– Nathan, der Allzuweise – für München.^[3]

Am folgenden Tag hetzte Esser im Völkischen Beobachter gegen den Film, der ein „von verlogener und geheuchelter Humanität triefendes, echt jüdisches Machwerk“ sei.^[4] Bereits nach 48 Stunden wurde Nathan der Weise in München wieder aus dem Programm genommen und in der Folge auch von keinem anderen Münchner Kino gespielt. Erst 1930 ist eine Vorführung von Nathan der Weise in München nachweisbar.^[5] In Warschau wurde der Film 1923 aus politischen Gründen von der Zensur verboten; in Österreich wurde von der Zensur ein Schulverbot ausgesprochen und der Film unter dem „unverfänglichen“ Titel Die Träne Gottes gezeigt.

Regisseur Noa wurde 1924 von der Gloria-Film angeworben und verstarb bereits 1930 im Alter von 37 Jahren. Wagowski beging 1927 aufgrund finanzieller Probleme mit seiner Firma Ewe-Film Selbstmord.

Nathan der Weise, der nach 1933 keine Aufführung mehr erlebte, galt lange Zeit als verschollen. Erst 1996 wurde im Moskauer Gosfilmofond eine vollständige Schwarzweißkopie des Films entdeckt, die dort unter dem Titel Die Erstürmung Jerusalems gelagert war. Die Kopie erlebte mit korrigiertem Haupttitel und Akttiteln 1997 ihre öffentliche Neuaufführung. Im Jahr 2006 wurde Nathan der Weise in viragierter Fassung in der Edition filmmuseum auf DVD veröffentlicht.

Die öffentliche Weltpremiere des restaurierten Stummfilms fand am 24. Oktober 2009 in der Philharmonie im Gasteig München mit Live-Musik des deutsch-libanesischen Komponisten Rabih Abou-Khalil statt.^[6] Anschließend ging das Projekt auf eine Filmtour im In- und Ausland.^[7] Auch die Fernsehfassung des Films ist mit der Musik Abou-Khalils unterlegt. Neben Symphonieorchester und einem Streichertrio und sind an der Filmmusik auch Michel Godard, Jarrod Cagwin und Rabih Abou-Khalil selbst als Solisten beteiligt.

Kritik

Von der zeitgenössischen Kritik wurde Nathan der Weise bereits vor Fertiggestellung als „einer der schönsten Schlager 1922/23“ angesehen^[8] und selbst vom Völkischen Beobachter als „geschickt aufgemachter, technisch zweifellos hervorragender“ Film gelobt.^[4] Nachdem der Film der Münchner Presse vorgeführt worden war, war der Tenor überwiegend positiv.

Nach dem frühen Tod Manfred Noas geriet auch Nathan der Weise bald in Vergessenheit. Vor allem vor dem Hintergrund des expressionistischen Films galt Noa schließlich Filmkritikerin Lotte Eisner nur noch als mittelmäßiger Regisseur.^[9] Erst seit den 1990er-Jahren wird Regisseur Noa und dem Film Nathan der Weise wieder mehr Aufmerksamkeit zuteil.

Der Filmdienst konstatierte: „Der bildgewaltige, eindrucksvoll inszenierte und faszinierend gespielte Ausstattungsfilm, dessen Titelcharakter durch seine Weitsicht die verschiedenen Glaubensrichtungen zum versöhnlichen Einlenken bringt, ist das Musterbeispiel eines politisch mutwillig missverstandenen Werks.“^[10]

Weblinks

• Nathan der Weise in der deutschen
  und englischen
  Version der Internet Movie Database
• Nathan der Weise
  bei filmportal.de
• Nathan der Weise bei arte.tv

Perdón tico!

Fuente

Los 300 sacerdotes de la Archidiócesis de San José de Costa Rica podrán 'perdonar', durante la Cuaresma y la Semana Santa, a los fieles que hayan practicado un aborto o hayan ayudado a llevarlo a cabo.
Se podrán beneficiar de la magnanimidad de los sacerdotes aquellas personas que les confiesen haber cometido dicho acto o ayudado a hacerlo (médicos, comadronas, familiares o amigos) desde el próximo 25 de febrero -inicio de la Cuaresma- hasta el domingo de Pascua, 19 de abril.

La facultad de perdonar los pecados tipificados como tales por la Iglesia católica recae en los obispos, según el presbítero Mario Segura, de la Curia Metropolitana, citado por el periódico La Nación. La práctica de un aborto es objeto de excomunión en la Iglesia católica, aunque, según Segura, no es ésta la que excomulga al culpable, sino él quien "hace la ruptura con el Señor".

Estas ticas, al fin libres de pecado... hasta la próxima ovulación.

The right to criticise religion

Why should I respect these oppressive religions?

The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid.
Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism –giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds-  are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.

More Johann Hari articles

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist",
and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.

Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".

In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what
the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.

....

Shame on The Netherlands