Wednesday, July 12, 2023

 Hands Hope Open Candle Candlelight Prayer Pray Give

Homo Sapiens, Civilization And Religion – OpEd


Homo sapiens humans have been here for more than 200,000 years but didn’t settle down and develop the basic technologies of civilization until very recent times. For more than 90% of the time Homo Sapiens have been around, our ancestors made their living by hunting wild animals and gathering wild plants.

The first animal to be domesticated about 15-20,000 years ago was the wolf; and most scientists of domestication think that the wolves themselves did most of the domestication process. We do not know why this first process of domestication did not begin ten or twenty thousand years earlier.

The earliest evidence of human civilization appeared just north of the Syrian border in Turkey’s Göbekli Tepe, which existed between 11,500 and 10,000 years ago, well before the development of agriculture.

Civilization can’t start until people can settle in one place and have the time to invent technologies for metals, buildings, pottery, writing, and the like. You can’t do those things when you are moving around hunting, fishing, and collecting wild plants. Agriculture allows you to stay in one place, but humans didn’t invent agriculture until the last 10,000 years.

So, the question is what held up agriculture? Climate may have been the key factor. The last 10,000 years have been unusual, with mild winters and moderate moisture. Before then, the world was often much colder than now, except for brief periods when the temperature rose above our levels.

The Earth is a big place, and you might think that there were always regions where people could have begun raising plants and animals. But, for much of this era, there was less land suitable for farms than now.

After the ice ages, climates changed in ways that made human agriculture possible throughout much of the world. Forests appear where conditions are good for plants to grow.

Maybe, if the climate had been different, human civilizations might have arisen much sooner. 

Or maybe non-material factors like religions stimulated human beings over the last fifty thousand years to create civilizations. 

Modern Homo sapiens, our own species, ventured forth from Africa 50-70,000 years ago, at a time when three or four other almost human species still existed. Yet today, only Homo sapiens remains. Because all of our closest relatives died out; our closest living relatives are chimps and bonobos, who are physically and culturally rather distant from humans. Why did we manage to survive, when all our pre-human close relatives died out?

Our closest living relatives are the great apes, and there are six species alive today: chimpanzees, bonobos, two species of gorilla and two species of orangutan; and while they all use, and even make tools, none of them put on clothing, bury their dead, or carve figures for worship. 

Until 30-40,000 years ago, in addition to modern humans, three other pre-human hominin species were around: the Neanderthals in Europe and western Asia, the Denisovans in East Asia, and the “hobbits” from the Indonesian island of Flores.

Markings on a cave wall in France are the oldest known engravings (57,000-70,000 years ago) made by Homo Neanderthals, according to a study published June 21, 2023, in the open-access journal PLOS ONE. Because these are non-figurative symbols, the intent behind them is unclear. They are, however, of a similar age with cave engravings made by Homo Sapiens in southern  parts of Africa.

One of the reasons that other species of Homo disappeared once modern Homo Sapiens came out of Africa is that making bows and arrows was invented by Homo sapiens 70-80,000 years ago in Africa, and brought by them into Eurasia by 55-65,000 years ago. In conflicts between Homo Sapiens and other spices of Homo, the latter would have suffered an ongoing great disadvantage which led them into hopeless depression.

But I think the major reason Homo Sapiens alone survived is because they were fruitful and multiplied better than the others; and because they spread throughout the world faster. They had turned from bands of families with dozens of fighters into tribes of many clans with hundreds of fighters held together by their religious celebrations, ancestral myths, and shaman-priests. 

There are limits to the size of  personal networks of bands of individual humans. Many studies find the mean size of extended networks (the largest component of a band’s person’s social network) to be between about 100 and 300 (see Boissevain 1974:117; Hill and Dunbar 2003; McCarty et al. 2001; Roberts et al. 2009; Stiller and Dunbar 2007). Religion provided the bonds that enabled bands of many dozens to become tribes of many hundreds.  

These tribes pushed the smaller bands away from the best resources, especially during times of prolonged draught. Their greater tribal numbers resulted in more variety of skills and discoveries as well as greater opportunities to engage in long distance trade. The Qur’an itself refers to all these advantages.

“Humanity was [of] one religion [pre-Adam polytheism]; then Allah sent the prophets as bringers of good tidings and warners and sent down with them Scripture (Torah, Zabur, Evangel, and the Qur’an) in truth to judge between the people concerning that in which they differed. And none differed over the Scripture except those who were given it – after the clear proofs came to them – out of jealous animosity among themselves. And Allah guided those who believed to the truth concerning that over which they had differed, by His permission. And Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path. (2:213)

Thus, religious monotheism is God’s will: “If God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you. (5:48) and “If your Lord had pleased, He would have made all people a single community, but they continue to have their differences. (11:118–19)

The only way humans learn about what God wants us to do is from God’s Prophets and Messengers. The Qur’an says:”There never was a people without a Warner (prophet) having lived among them.” (35:24) because “We would never visit our wrath (chastise any community) until We had sent a Messenger (prophet) to give a warning.” (17:15)

After tens of thousands of years of hunter-gather, nomadic, polytheistic nature worship, humans began the process over many centuries of settling down to farm. (Genesis 2:15, 3:18-19 and 23) The beginning of the Abrahamic monotheistic religions starts with Prophet Abraham, who is called a Muslim in the Arabic Qur’an; and in the Hebrew Bible he is called a Hebrew [speaker] and a Babylonian immigrant who crossed the Jordan River. 

The name or term ivri (the Hebrew) first appears in the Torah, when Prophet Abraham is called “the Hebrew: “And it was told to Abram the Hebrew” (Genesis 14:13) And Prophet Joseph uses the name as both a geographical and an socio-ethnic term: “I was kidnapped from the land of the ivrim” (Genesis 40:15), and “The Egyptians could not eat with the ivrim, since that would be an abomination” (Gen. 43:32)

The word Muslim is a religious identity term that refers to faithful monotheistic believers. The word Hebrew is a linguistic, geographical and ethnic identity term like German [a language],  Germany{a country] and Germans [a people]. The word descendent is a biological inherited birth identity term like nobility or tribe.

Islam was a religion designed by God to overcome other self-identities: “O mankind, We created you from male and female, and made you (into) peoples and tribes, that you may know (respect) one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” (Quran 49:13)

“Once all humans were but a single community; then they disagreed (saying only my religion is true). Had it not been that your Lord had already so ordained, a decisive judgement would have been made regarding their disagreements.” (10:19)

This is why the Qur’an declares: “Let there be no compulsion in Religion: truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah (one God) has grasped the most trustworthy unbreakable hand hold: Allah hears, and knows all things.” (2:256)

And: “Who is better in religion than one who submits himself to Allah while being a doer of good and follows the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth? And Allah took Abraham as an intimate friend.” (4:125)

Jews have many names to self-identify because they have been immigrants for a little more than half of their 36 centuries of Jewish history. Even more important, by God’s design Prophet Abraham’s biological descendants through Isaac and Jacob became the first ongoing monotheistic community to last to this very day. “And remember Our servants, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – those of strength and [religious] vision. Indeed, We chose them for an exclusive quality: remembrance of the home [the “safe haven” Land of Israel]. And indeed they are to Us among the chosen and outstanding.” (Qur’an 38:45-7) 

“Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people (who oppose you Muhammad) but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are disbelievers.” (Qur’an 5:44)

Prophet Isaiah said: “Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, you who seek the Lord: look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for he [Abraham] was only one [person] when I called him, that I might bless him and multiply him. (Isaiah 51:1-2) and the Qur’an states: “You have an excellent example to follow in Abraham.” (60:4) and “Follow the way of Abraham as people of pure faith.” (3:95)

“If God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you. (5:48) 

“If your Lord had pleased, He would have made all people a single community, but they continue to have their differences. (11:118–19) and that is good.





Rabbi Allen S. Maller
Allen Maller retired in 2006 after 39 years as Rabbi of Temple Akiba in Culver City, Calif. He is the author of an introduction to Jewish mysticism. God. Sex and Kabbalah and editor of the Tikun series of High Holy Day prayerbooks.
Marjorie Taylor Greene brands NATO ‘not a reliable partner’ as she calls for US to withdraw

Marjorie Taylor Greene calls for US to leave NATO membership

President Biden expressed the US’s ‘ironclad commitment to NATO’

Kelly Rissman

Far-right Rep Majorie Taylor Greene has introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorisation Act that “directs the president to withdraw the US from Nato.”

“They are not a reliable partner whose defense spending should be paid for by American citizens. For the better part of the last decade, Germany has contributed only around one per cent of its GDP to finance Nato obligations while the United States is paying around four per cent of our GDP to defend Nato countries,” Ms Greene said in announcing the amendment.

She added that the US “has been financing and promising to defend Nato countries for decades and paying more than its fair share.”

“Western European countries could and should be stepping up their financial contributions to ensure the security of Nato. Instead, they are entirely beholden to Russia and US taxpayers expected to foot the bill,” Ms Greene concluded.

The Georgia congresswoman’s amendment comes the same day that President Joe Biden expressed the US’ “ironclad commitment to NATO” in a tweet amid a Nato summit in Lithuania.

Earlier on Tuesday, Nato leaders wrote in a declaration that “Ukraine’s future is in NATO,” adding, “We will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the alliance when allies agree and conditions are met.”

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Bank of America fined $250m over junk fees, other issues

The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has launched a crackdown on a range of so-called ‘junk fees’ that it says lenders unfairly charge customers.

A Bank of America logo is seen in New York City, US
Bank of America reaped hundreds of millions of dollars by charging multiple fees to customers 

Bank of America on Tuesday agreed to pay $250m in fines and compensation to settle claims that the bank systematically double-charged customers fees, withheld promised credit card perks, and opened accounts without customer authorisation.

Bank of America agreed to pay $100m in restitution to harmed consumers and another $150m in civil penalties after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) said the bank violated a number of United States laws beginning in 2012

Bank of America reaped hundreds of millions of dollars by charging multiple fees to customers who did not have enough funds in their accounts from February 2018 until February 2022, the CFPB said in a statement. Consumers could not reasonably expect or understand they would be hit with $35 fees each time the bank declined to pay a single transaction, regulators said.

In a statement, Bank of America said it voluntarily eliminated or reduced a range of fees last year.

The CFPB has launched a crackdown on a range of so-called “junk fees,” including overdraft and insufficient fund fees that it says lenders unfairly charge customers for banking services.

“These practices are illegal and undermine customer trust. The CFPB will be putting an end to these practices across the banking system,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a statement.

Under sales pressure or seeking rewards, Bank of America employees illegally applied for and enrolled consumers, without their knowledge, in credit card accounts from at least 2012, the CFPB said. The accounts represented a “small percentage” of new accounts at the bank, regulators said.

The bank, based in Charlotte, North Carolina in the US, also failed to make good on cash rewards and bonus points promised to tens of thousands of credit card customers, according to the CFPB.

In addition to paying penalties of $90m to the CFPB and $60m to the OCC, the bank agreed to update regulators on its compliance progress in a year.

“We voluntarily reduced overdraft fees and eliminated all non-sufficient fund fees in the first half of 2022. As a result of these industry-leading changes, revenue from these fees has dropped more than 90 percent,” Bank of America said in a statement.

Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown described the case as an example of US banks padding their profits with Americans’ money.

“This is just the latest in a long line of illustrations of why we can’t trust Wall Street to do the right thing,” he said.

Separately, Bank of America’s financial advisory arm Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith agreed to pay $12m in penalties to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for failing to file hundreds of suspicious activity reports to regulators from January 2009 to November 2019.

Merrill discovered the issue in 2019, according to the SEC’s order.

“Following an internal review, we reported this matter to regulators and have enhanced our process and training regarding these filings,” the bank said in a statement on the matter.

Bank of America shares were up 1.1 percent by 2:02pm ET (18:02 GMT), recovering losses seen in early trading.

France police killing riots trigger $715 million insurance bill


Riot police stand near a burning vehicle during protests in Nanterre, west of Paris, on June 28, 2023, a day after a 17-year-old boy was shot in the chest by police at point-blank range in Nanterre, a western suburb of Paris. 


AFP
Published: 12 July ,2023
Damage from riots sparked by the police killing of a teenager in France has resulted in a $715 million insurance bill, an industry body said Tuesday.

The government battled days of unrest after a police officer shot dead 17-year-old Nahel M. during a traffic stop in a Paris suburb on June 27.

Nahel had Algerian roots, and the killing rekindled long-standing accusations of systemic racism in France.

There have been 11,300 claims linked to the riots, said the head of the France Assureurs federation Florence Lustman -- who put the bill at 650 million euros.

Last week, Lustman gave a figure of at least 280 million euros, stressing that many claims had yet to be made.

Around a third of the damage being claimed for took place on local authority property, France Assureurs said.

Earlier this month, Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire urged insurers to extend the deadline for claims.

The riots marked France’s most intense urban violence in nearly two decades, with cars torched, buildings damaged and public spaces vandalised across the country.

Last week a UN committee called on France to ensure an investigation into the killing of Nahel was “thorough and impartial,” and called for racial profiling to be banned.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination raised concerns over “racial profiling and excessive use of force by law enforcement.”



Why Bollywood remains 'sexist and regressive'

  • PublishedShare
IMAGE SOURCE,SCREENSHOT FROM YOUTUBE
Image caption,
The song 'Oo Antava' from film Pushpa that was dubbed into Hindi from 
Telugu sparked a conversation around sexism last year

Bollywood, India's hugely popular Hindi film industry, is often described as a man's world.

It's something that's been talked about for a long time, but now a new study shows just how little gender equality there is - both on and off screen.

The $2.1bn (£1.5bn) industry produces hundreds of films every year and has a massive following among Indians globally. The sway the films and the stars have on their fans' imagination cannot be overstated. But over the years, many Bollywood films have been criticised for being regressive, promoting misogyny and gender biases.

In a first of its kind study, researchers from Tiss (Tata Institute of Social Sciences) in Mumbai attempted to quantify just how severe the stranglehold of patriarchy on Hindi cinema is.

They selected 25 of the biggest box-office hits from 2019, the last pre-pandemic year, and 10 women-centric films between 2012 and 2019 - the period was chosen to see if there were any changes in the narrative following the 2012 gang-rape of a female student on a bus in Delhi, the resulting uproar over the crime and the introduction of tough new laws to deal with crimes against women.

The list of hits included War, Kabir Singh, Mission Mangal, Dabangg3, Housefull4 and Article 15 and the women-centric films included Raazi, Queen, Lipstick Under My Burkha and Margarita with a Straw, among others.

The researchers studied nearly 2,000 on-screen characters to see the types of occupation actors played and analysed the films over several parameters such as sexual stereotyping, consent and intimacy and harassment. They counted the number of LGBTQ+ and disabled characters and how they were portrayed, and studied how many women worked off-screen on these films.

They have concluded that though women-centric films give some reason for optimism, the box-office hits continue to be sexist and regressive and women and queer representation remains abysmal in them.

For instance, 72% of characters in the films that were analysed were played by men, 26% by women and 2% by queer actors.

IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
A majority of the film audience is believed to be male in India

Prof Lakshmi Lingam, the project lead for the study, says "the big bucks are riding on all big men in Bollywood" and the filmmakers say "a very strong female character won't work with the audiences".

"There's very little attempt to do something different because patriarchal norms colour people's idea of a story or narrative and they come to believe that this is what can give them money," she told the BBC.

So, she says, they stick to the "formula".

"The protagonist has to be male from the upper caste, the female lead has to be thin and beautiful. She has to be coy and demure who expresses consent through gestures rather than words, but wears sexually revealing clothing and has to be somewhat modern to allow for her to be in a pre-marital relationship which is a transgression."

The jobs on screen are also imagined through a narrow gender lens - Prof Lingam says although "42% female leads were employed in these films - [way higher than India's real employment figures of 25.1%] - they were in very stereotypical professions".

"Nine in 10 men were in decision-making roles playing army officers, policemen, politicians and crime lords; women mostly played doctors and nurses, teachers and journalists and only one in 10 were in decision making roles," she says.

The portrayal of the LGBTQ+ characters, the study shows, remains hugely problematic - they were never in a decision-making role and often a butt of sexist jokes. The disabled fared equally poorly -making up only 0.5% of all characters and most were used as tropes to invoke sympathy or as comic relief.

"Filmmakers say it's the reality they're showing. But there is so much other reality that they do not show. They swing between reality and fantasy to justify being like this," Prof Lingam says.

The depiction of women and queergender in the industry, she adds, must change because "real life is also dictated by what we see in cinema".

"In India, where families and schools rarely teach about sex education and consent, all our responses are influenced by books and cinema," she says, adding that it's a problem when a film like Kabir Singh shows the male lead stalking and harassing the heroine to woo her.

"It normalises toxic masculinity. so when a woman is stalked or harassed on the street, everyone says it happens. And there is rarely any pushback."

IMAGE SOURCE,BBC SPORT
Image caption,
Vidya Balan questioned patriarchy in her film Mission Mangal

A few films though, she points out, are breaking from the mould - for instance, in Mission Mangal, when a rocket scientist, played by Vidya Balan, is berated by her husband for spending too much time at work and ignoring their children, she turns around and asks him if children aren't his responsibility too.

Queen and Lipstick Under my Burkha were among a handful of films that were led by women actors and revolved around strong female characters. But the number of such films is still very low.

Visual media, Prof Lingam says, "can bring new narratives into the conversation and change won't happen overnight, but it will happen over time".

The Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown, she says, have already shown the way forward. "There's a lot of churn in society and people are producing different content to reflect that. There's a lot of interesting content on OTT platforms that is doing well."

On the other hand, the Bollywood formula is no longer working. "Many male-dominated violent films helmed by some of our biggest stars such as Salman Khan and Akshay Kumar have bombed. The one exception has been Shah Rukh Khan's Pathaan."

So the industry, she says, needs to re-imagine these ideas.

"The typical thinking is that a majority of the audience is male so films are being made for them. We are not saying don't do those films, but do a spectrum of films so that there is a wide variety."

One reason, she says, why the Bollywood gaze is so overwhelmingly male is because there are so few women working off-screen in the industry and even fewer in core filmmaking departments - the films Tiss studied had more than 26,300 men and only 4,100 women in the crew.

"If films are made for a diverse audience, by a diverse people behind the screen, the stories will also be diverse," says Prof Lingam.