Sacrilege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrilege

 

Konstantin Makovsky, The Bulgarian Martyresses, 1877. Depicts bashibazouks of the Ottoman Empire violating adherents of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church inside one of its churches.

Sacrilege is the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object, site or person. This can take the form of irreverence to sacred persons, places, and things. When the sacrilegious offence is verbal, it is called blasphemy, and when physical, it is often called desecration. In a less proper sense, any transgression against what is seen as the virtue of religion would be a sacrilege, and so is coming near a sacred site without permission.

Most ancient religions have a concept analogous to sacrilege, often considered as a type of taboo. The basic idea is that realm of sacrum or haram stands above the world of profanum and its instantiations, see the Sacred–profane dichotomy.

Etymology

The term "sacrilege" originates from the Latin sacer, meaning sacred, and legere, meaning to steal. In Roman times, it referred to the plundering of temples and graves. By the time of Cicero, sacrilege had adopted a more expansive meaning, including verbal offences against religion and the undignified treatment of sacred objects.

Owing to the phonetic similarities between the words sacrilegious and religious, and their spiritually-based uses in modern English, many people mistakenly assume that the two words are etymologically linked, or that one is an antonym of the other. Religious is derived from the Latin word religio, meaning "reverence, religion", (from religare, "to bind [to the god{s}]"; Tully derived it from re- [again] and legere [to read]), whereas sacrilegious is derived ultimately from the Latin combining form sacr-, meaning sacred, and the verb legere, meaning "to steal", "to collect", or "to read". The Latin noun sacrilegus thus means "one who steals sacred things".¹

Christianity

A medieval painting depicting host desecration by Jews

With the advent of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the Emperor Theodosius criminalized sacrilege in an even more expansive sense, including heresy, schism, and offenses against the emperor, such as tax evasion.

By the Middle Ages, the concept of sacrilege was again restricted to physical acts against sacred objects, and this forms the basis of all subsequent Catholic teachings on the subject. A major offence was to tamper with a consecrated host, otherwise known as the Body of Christ.

Most modern nations have abandoned laws against sacrilege out of respect for freedom of expression, except in cases where there is an injury to persons or property. In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court case Burstyn v. Wilson (1952) struck down a statute against sacrilege, ruling that the term could not be narrowly defined in a way that would safeguard against the establishment of one church over another and that such statutes infringed upon the free exercise of religion and freedom of expression.

Despite their decriminalisation, sacrilegious acts are still sometimes regarded with strong disapproval by the public, even by nominal or former members and non-adherents of the offended religion, especially when these acts are perceived as manifestations of hatred toward a particular sect or creed.

Catholic Church

According to Catholic theology sacrilege is classified as personal, local, or real.

Personal sacrilege is irreverence shown to a person consecrated by religious vows (monks, nuns, etc.) or by holy orders (deacons, priests, bishops). Ridiculing, mocking, or abusing members of the clergy is considered personal sacrilege, as often the animosity is directed not at the person themselves but at the Church or at God whom they represent. Whenever those in religious or clerical life violate the sixth Commandment and break their vow of chastity, it is considered a personal sacrilege on their part. Laying violent hands on a cleric used to incur an automatic excommunication according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Since 1983, only someone who physically attacks the pope is excommunicated.

Local sacrilege is the violation and desecration of sacred places and space. Robbing or vandalizing a church, chapel, oratory, convent, or monastery would be of this category. It could also be committing immoral and sinful acts inside a sacred building, such as murder or sexual acts. The 1917 Code considered the burial of a publicly excommunicated person in a Catholic cemetery or hallowed ground to be sacrilege. The current 1983 Code makes no mention of it.

Real sacrilege is the contemptuous irreverence shown for sacred things, especially the Seven Sacraments or anything used for divine worship (altars, vestments, chalices, tabernacles, et al.). This can happen first of all by the administration or reception of the sacraments in the state of mortal sin, as such as receiving Communion, as also by advertently doing any of those things invalidly. Using sacred vessels for secular use, such as a chalice to drink cocktails, or using common items like paper plates and Styrofoam cups for liturgical worship, are also examples of real sacrilege. The worst kind is desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, as it is the most important and most sacred item in Catholicism (far more than any relic or historical artifact whatsoever).

England and Wales

In Post-Reformation England, sacrilege was a criminal offence for centuries, though its statutory definition varied considerably. Most English dictionaries of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries appealed to the primary sense of stealing objects from a church.

Criminal law was consolidated by Peel's Acts from 1828. Of these, 7 & 8 Geo 4 c 27 repealed the provisions of 1 Ed 6 c 12 in relation to sacrilege, while two created new laws around larceny: 7 & 8 Geo 4 c 29 for England and Wales, and 9 Geo 4 c 55 for Ireland. Section 10 of each was identical:

That if any person shall break and enter any church or chapel, and steal therein any chattel, or having stolen any chattel in any church or chapel, shall break out of the same, every such offender, being convicted thereof, shall suffer death as a felon.

Both of those sections were replaced by section 50 of the Larceny Act 1861, which was described by its marginal note as "breaking and entering a church or chapel and committing any felony" and which read:

Whosoever shall break and enter any church, chapel, meeting house, or other place of divine worship, and commit any felony therein, or being in any church, chapel, meeting house, or other place of divine worship, shall commit any felony therein and break out of the same, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to kept in penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than three years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.

This offence was not triable at quarter sessions

Section 50 of the Larceny Act 1861 was repealed by section 48(1) of, and the schedule to, the Larceny Act 1916. It was replaced by section 24 of the Larceny Act 1916 which provided:

Every person who -

(1) breaks and enters any place of divine worship and commits any felony therein; or

(2) breaks out of any place of divine worship, having committed any felony therein;

shall be guilty of felony called sacrilege and on conviction thereof liable to penal servitude for life.

The words "arrestable offence" were substituted for the word "felony", in subsections (1) and (2), by section 10(1) of, and paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 2 to, the Criminal Law Act 1967.

Section 24 was replaced by sections 9 and 10 of the Theft Act 1968 (which create the offences of burglary and aggravated burglary.

As violence, self-harm and pride

Main articles: Religious violence, blasphemy, heresy, religious discrimination, list of religious slurs, and self-sacrifice

Violence against God was the sign of arrogance which brought attributes of a divine nature down to the material world, while their existence belonged to gods and thus was inviolable.

Defamation of religion and the United Nations

Defamation of religion is an issue that was repeatedly addressed by some member states of the United Nations (UN) from 1999 until 2010. Several non-binding resolutions were voted on and accepted by the UN condemning "defamation of religion". The motions, sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), now known as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, sought to prohibit expression that would "fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences". Religious groups, human rights activists, free-speech activists, and several countries in the West condemned the resolutions arguing they amounted to an international blasphemy law. Critics of the resolutions, including human rights groups, argued that they were used to politically strengthen domestic anti-blasphemy and religious defamation laws, which are used to imprison journalists, students and other peaceful political dissidents.

From 2001 to 2010 there was a split of opinion, with the Islamic bloc and much of the developing world supporting the defamation of religion resolutions, and mostly Western democracies opposing them. Support waned toward the end of the period, due to increased opposition from the West, along with lobbying by religious, free-speech, and human rights advocacy groups. Some countries in Africa, the Pacific, and Latin America switched from supporting to abstaining, or from abstaining to opposing. The final "defamation of religions" resolution in 2010, which also condemned "the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques" four months after a Swiss referendum introduced such a ban, passed with 20 supporting, 17 opposing, and 8 abstaining.

In 2011, with falling support for the defamation of religion approach, the OIC changed their approach and introduced a new resolution on "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief"; it received unanimous support.

The UN Human Rights Committee followed this in July 2011 with the adoption of General Comment 34 on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1976 that binds signatory countries. Concerning freedoms of opinion and expression, General Comment 34 made it clear that "Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant". General Comment 34 makes it clear that countries with blasphemy laws in any form that have signed the ICCPR are in breach of their obligations under the ICCPR.

United Nations resolutions

Defamation of religion resolutions were the subject of debate by the UN from 1999 until 2010. In 2011, members of the UN Human Rights Council found compromise and replaced the "defamation of religions" resolution with Resolution 16/18, which sought to protect people rather than religions and called upon states to take concrete steps to protect religious freedom, prohibit discrimination and hate crimes, and counter offensive expression through dialogue, education, and public debate rather than the criminalization of speech. Resolution 16/18 was supported by both OIC member countries and Western countries, including the United States.

1999

In April 1999, at the urging of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Pakistan brought before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights a resolution entitled "Defamation of Islam". The purpose of the resolution was to have the Commission stand up against what the OIC claimed was a campaign to defame Islam. Some members of the Commission proposed that the resolution be changed to embrace all religions. The Commission accepted the proposal, and changed the title of the resolution to "Defamation of Religions". The resolution urged "all States, within their national legal framework, in conformity with international human rights instruments to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance, including attacks on religious places, and to encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief". The Commission adopted the resolution without a vote.

2000 to 2005

In 2000, the CHR adopted a similar resolution without a vote. In 2001, a vote on a resolution entitled "Combating defamation of religions as a means to promote human rights, social harmony and religious and cultural diversity" received 28 votes in favour, 15 against, and 9 abstentions. In 2002, a vote on a resolution entitled "Combating defamation of religion" received 30 votes in favour, 15 against, and 8 abstentions. In 2003, 2004, and 2005, by similar votes, the CHR approved resolutions entitled "Combating defamation of religions".

In 2005, Yemen introduced a resolution entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions" in the General Assembly (60th Session). 101 states voted in favour of the resolution, 53 voted against, and 20 abstained.

2006

In March 2006, the CHR became the UNHRC. The UNHRC approved a resolution entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions", and submitted it to the General Assembly. In the General Assembly, 111 member states voted in favour of the resolution, 54 voted against, and 18 abstained. Russia and China, permanent members of the UN Security Councils, voted for the Resolution.

2007

On 30 March 2007, the UNHRC adopted a resolution entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions". The resolution called upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the activities of her office with regard to combating defamation of religions.

On 30 March 2007, the UNHRC adopted a resolution entitled "Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief". The resolution called upon the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief to report on this issue for the Human Rights Council at its sixth session.

In August 2007, the Special Rapporteur, Doudou Diène, reported to the General Assembly "on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights". Among other recommendations, the Special Rapporteur recommended that the Member States promote dialogue between cultures, civilizations, and religions taking into consideration:

(a) The need to provide equal treatment to the combat of all forms of defamation of religions, thus avoiding hierarchization of forms of discrimination, even though their intensity may vary according to history, geography and culture;

(b) The historical and cultural depth of all forms of defamation of religions, and therefore the need to complement legal strategies with an intellectual and ethical strategy relating to the processes, mechanisms and representations which constitute those manifestations over time; ...

(e) The need to pay particular attention and vigilance to maintain a careful balance between secularism and the respect of freedom of religion. A growing anti-religious culture and rhetoric is a central source of defamation of all religions and discrimination against their believers and practitioners. In this context governments should pay a particular attention to guaranteeing and protecting the places of worship and culture of all religions.

On 4 September 2007, the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported to the UNHRC that "Enhanced cooperation and stronger political will by Member States are essential for combating defamation of religions".

On 18 December 2007, the General Assembly voted on another resolution entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions". 108 states voted in favour of the resolution; 51 voted against it; and 25 abstained. The resolution required the Secretary General to report to the sixty-third session of the General Assembly on the implementation of the resolution, and to have regard for "the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world".

2008

On 27 March 2008, the UNHRC passed another resolution about the defamation of religion. The resolution :

10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

11. Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect all religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that all necessary and appropriate education or training is provided;

12. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but only those provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals;

13. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulates that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;

15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;

16. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the implementation of the present resolution and to submit a study compiling relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions to the Council at its ninth session.

21 members were in favour of the resolution; 10 were opposed; 14 abstained.

The High Commissioner presented her report about defamation of, and contempt for, religions on 5 September 2008. She proposed the holding of a consultation with experts from 2 to 3 October 2008 in Geneva about the permissible limitations to freedom of expression in accordance with international human rights law. In another report, dated 12 September 2008, the High Commissioner noted that different countries have different notions of what "defamation of religion" means.

Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, addressed the UNHRC on 19 September 2008. He delivered the report prepared by Doudou Diène. The report called on Member States to shift the present discussion in international fora from the idea of "defamation of religions" to the legal concept: "incitement to national, racial or religious hatred," which is grounded on international legal instruments.

On 24 November 2008, during the Sixty-third Session, the General Assembly's Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian & Cultural) approved a resolution entitled "Combating defamation of religions". The resolution requests "the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world, to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session". 85 states voted in favour of the resolution; 50 states voted against the resolution; 42 states abstained.

2009

In February 2009, Zamir Akram, permanent representative of Pakistan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in a meeting of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, commented on the "defamation of religion". He said "there was an impression that Pakistan was trying to put in place an international anti-defamation provision in the context of the Durban Review Conference". Akram said the impression "was totally incorrect". Akram's delegation said:

... defamation of religions could and had led to violence... . The end result was the creation of a kind of Islamophobia in which Muslims were typecast as terrorists. That did not mean that they opposed freedom of expression; it merely meant that there was a level at which such expression led to incitement. An example was the propaganda campaign that had been led by the Nazis in the Second World War against the Jews which had led to The Holocaust."

In advance of 26 March 2009, more than 200 civil society organizations from 46 countries, including Muslim, Christian, Jewish, secular, Humanist and atheist groups, urged the UNHRC by a joint petition to reject any resolution against the defamation of religion.

On 26 March 2009, the UNHRC passed a resolution, proposed by Pakistan, which condemned the "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation by a vote of 23–11, with 13 abstentions. The resolution:

17. Expresses its appreciation to the High Commissioner for holding a seminar on freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, in October 2008, and requests her to continue to build on this initiative, with a view to contributing concretely to the prevention and elimination of all such forms of incitement and the consequences of negative stereotyping of religions or beliefs, and their adherents, on the human rights of those individuals and their communities;

18. Requests the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers, to the Council at its twelfth session;

19. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at its twelfth session on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world.

Supporters of the resolution argued that the resolution is necessary to prevent the defamation of Islam while opponents argued that such a resolution was an attempt to bring to the international body the anti-defamation laws prevalent in some Muslim countries.

On 1 July 2009, Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, submitted to the UNHRC the report requested by it on 26 March 2009. The report "reiterates the recommendation of his predecessor to encourage a shift away from the sociological concept of the defamation of religions towards the legal norm of non-incitement to national, racial or religious hatred".

On 31 July 2009, the Secretary General submitted to the General Assembly the report that it requested in November 2008. The Secretary General noted, "The Special Rapporteurs called for anchoring the debate in the existing international legal framework provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – more specifically its articles 19 and 20." The Secretary General concluded, "In order to tackle the root causes of intolerance, a much broader set of policy measures needs to be addressed covering the areas of intercultural dialogue as well as education for tolerance and diversity."

On 30 September 2009, at the UNHRC's twelfth session, the United States and Egypt introduced a resolution which condemned inter alia "racial and religious stereotyping". The European Union's representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattei (France), said the European Union "rejected and would continue to reject the concept of defamation of religions". He said, "Human rights laws did not and should not protect belief systems." The OIC's representative on the UNHRC, Zamir Akram (Pakistan), said, "Negative stereotyping or defamation of religions was a modern expression of religious hatred and xenophobia." Carlos Portales (Chile) observed, "The concept of the defamation of religion took them in an area that could lead to the actual prohibition of opinions." The UNHRC adopted the resolution without a vote.

In Geneva, from 19 to 30 October 2009, the Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards met to update the measures for combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance that the Durban I conference had formulated. The committee achieved little because of conflict over a variety of issues including "defamation of religion". The United States said that defamation of religion is "a fundamentally flawed concept". Sweden, for the European Union, argued that international human rights law protects individuals, not institutions or religions. France insisted that the UN must not afford legal protection to systems of belief. Syria criticized the "typical and expected Western silence" on "acts of religious discrimination". Syria said "in real terms defamation means targeting Muslims".

Zamir Akram (Pakistan) wrote to the Ad Hoc Committee on 29 October 2009 to explain why the OIC would not abandon the idea of defamation of religion. Akram's letter states:

The OIC is concerned by the instrumentalization of religions through distortion or ridicule aimed at demeaning and provoking their followers to violence as well as at promoting contempt towards religious communities in order to de-humanize their constituent members with purpose of justifying advocacy of racial and religious hatred and violence against these individuals.

The letter says defamation of religion has been "wrongly linked with malafide intentions to its perceived clash with" the freedom of opinion and expression. The letter declares:

All religions are sacred and merit equal respect and protection. Double standards, including institutional preferential treatment for one religion or group of people must be avoided. The OIC demands similar sanctity for all religions, their religious personalities, symbols and followers. Tolerance and understanding cannot merely be addressed through open debate and inter-cultural dialogue as defamation trends are spreading to the grass root levels. These growing tendencies need to be checked by introducing a single universal international human rights framework.

In New York, on 29 October 2009, the UN's Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian & Cultural) approved a draft resolution entitled "Combating defamation of religions" by a vote which had 81 for, 55 against, and 43 abstaining.

On 18 December 2009, the General Assembly approved a resolution deploring the defamation of religions by a vote of 80 nations in favour and 61 against with 42 abstentions.

2010

In March 2010, Pakistan again brought forward a resolution entitled "Combating defamation of religions" on behalf of the OIC.

The resolution received much criticism. French ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei, speaking on behalf of the European Union, argued that the "concept of defamation should not fall under the remit of human rights because it conflicted with the right to freedom of expression". Eileen Donahoe, the US ambassador, also rejected the resolution. She said, "We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' concept used to justify censorship, criminalisation, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world."

The UNHRC passed the resolution on 25 March 2010 with 20 members voting in favour; 17 members voting against; 8 abstaining; and 2 absent.

2011

In early 2011, with declining support for the defamation of religion approach and at the time of the Arab Spring, which was in part due to a lack of freedom of speech, political freedoms, poor living conditions, corruption, and rising food prices, there was a real possibility that another resolution on the defamation of religion would be defeated. The OIC shifted position and opted to pursue an approach that would gain the support from both OIC and Western countries. On 24 March 2011, the UN Human Rights Council in a very significant move shifted from protecting beliefs to the protection of believers with the unanimous adoption without a vote of Resolution 16/18 introduced by Pakistan.

Among its many specific points, Resolution 16/18 on Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief, highlights barriers to religiously tolerant societies and provides recommendations on how these barriers can be overcome. The resolution calls upon all member states to foster religious freedom and pluralism, to ensure religious minorities are properly represented, and to consider adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief. Other recommendations include creating government programs to promote inter-religious tolerance and dialogue, training government employees to be sensitive toward religious sensitivities, and engaging in outreach initiatives.

At a meeting on 15 July 2011, hosted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the OIC/IRCICA premises in the historic Yildiz Palace in Istanbul and co-chaired by the OIC Secretary-General Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanogl, U.S. Secretary of State Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, together with foreign ministers and officials from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Sudan, United Kingdom, the Vatican (Holy See), UN OHCHR, Arab League, African Union, gave a united impetus to the implementation of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 with the release of a Joint Statement. The text includes the following:

"They called upon all relevant stakeholders throughout the world to take seriously the call for action set forth in Resolution 16/18, which contributes to strengthening the foundations of tolerance and respect for religious diversity as well as enhancing the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world.

Participants, resolved to go beyond mere rhetoric, and to reaffirm their commitment to freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression by urging States to take effective measures, as set forth in Resolution 16/18, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief. The co-chairs of the meeting committed to working together with other interested countries and actors on follow up and implementation of Resolution 16/18 and to conduct further events and activities to discuss and assess implementation of the resolution."

In July, 2011, the UN Human Rights Committee adopted a 52-paragraph statement, General Comment 34 on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1976, concerning freedoms of opinion and expression. Paragraph 48 states:

Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.

Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Covenant states: Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

The ICCPR binds all signatory countries. Consequently, countries with blasphemy laws in any form that have signed the ICCPR are in breach of their obligations under the ICCPR.

On 19 December 2011, the UN General Assembly endorsed Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 with the adoption of Resolution 66/167. The resolution was sponsored by the OIC after consultations with the United States and the European Union and co-sponsored by Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Uruguay, Thailand and the Dominican Republic. With longer preambular statements, Resolution 66/167 repeats the language and substantive paragraphs of Resolution 16/18.

2012

At the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council, on 22 March 2012, the Human Rights Council reaffirmed Resolution 16/18 with the unanimous adoption of Resolution 19/8. The General Assembly followed on 20 December 2012 with the adoption of Resolution 67/178.

2013

At the twenty-second session of the Human Rights Council on 22 March 2013, the Human Rights Council again reaffirmed Resolution 16/18 and Resolution 19/8 with the unanimous adoption of Resolution 22/31.

Blasphemy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

Blasphemy is a speech crime and religious crime usually defined as an utterance that shows contempt, disrespects or insults a deity, an object considered sacred or something considered inviolable. Some religions regard blasphemy as a religious crime, especially the Abrahamic religions, including the speaking the "sacred name" in Judaism and the "eternal sin" in Christianity.

In the early history of the Church heresy received more attention than blasphemy because it was considered a more serious threat to Orthodoxy. Blasphemy was often regarded as an isolated offense wherein the faithful lapsed momentarily from the expected standard of conduct. When iconoclasm and the fundamental understanding of the sacred became more contentious matters during the Reformation, blasphemy was treated similar to heresy, and accusations of blasphemy were made not only against people who made off-the-cuff profane remarks while drunk, but against those types of persons who espoused unorthodox ideas that religious officials considered dangerous.

Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008, and in Ireland in 2020. Scotland repealed its blasphemy laws in 2021. Many other countries have abolished blasphemy laws including Denmark, the Netherlands, Iceland, Norway and New Zealand. As of 2019, 40 percent of the world's countries still had blasphemy laws on the books, including 18 countries in the Middle East and North Africa, or 90% of countries in that region. Dharmic religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, have no concept of blasphemy and hence prescribe no punishment.

Etymology

The word "blasphemy" came via Middle English blasfemen and Old French blasfemer and Late Latin blasphemare from Greek βλασφημέω, from βλασ, "injure" and φήμη, "utterance, talk, speech". From blasphemare also came Old French blasmer, from which the English word "blame" came. Blasphemy: 'from Gk. blasphemia "a speaking ill, impious speech, slander," from blasphemein "to speak evil of." "In the sense of speaking evil of God this word is found in Ps. 74:18; Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24; Rev. 13:1, 6; 16:9, 11, 21. It denotes also any kind of calumny, or evil-speaking, or abuse (1 Kings 21:10 LXX; Acts 13:45; 18:6, etc.)."

History

Heresy received more attention than blasphemy throughout the Middle Ages because it was considered a more serious threat to Orthodoxy, while blasphemy was mostly seen as irreverent remarks made by persons who may have been drunk or diverged from good standards of conduct in what was treated as isolated incidents of misbehavior. When iconoclasm and the fundamental understanding of the sacred became more contentious matters during the Reformation, blasphemy started to be regarded as similar to heresy.

In The Whole Duty of Man (sometimes attributed to Richard Allestree or John Fell) blasphemy is described as "speaking any evil Thing of God":

...the highest Degree whereof is cursing him; or if we do not speak it with our Mouths, yet if we do it in our Hearts, by thinking any unworthy Thing of him, it is look'd on by God, who sees the Heart, as the vilest Dishonour.

The intellectual culture of the early English Englightenment had embraced ironic or scoffing tones in contradistinction to the idea of sacredness in revealed religion. The characterization of "scoffing" as blasphemy was defined as profaning the Scripture by irreverent "Buffoonery and Banter". From at least the 18th century on, the clergy of the Church of England justified blasphemy prosecutions by distinguishing "sober reasoning" from mockery and scoffing. Religious doctrine could be discussed "in a calm, decent and serious way" (in the words of Bishop Gibson) but mockery and scoffing, they said, were appeals to sentiment, not to reason.

In Whitehouse v. Lemon (1976), the last blasphemy prosecution heard by English courts, the court repeated what had by then become a textbook standard for blasphemy cases:

It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not as to the substance of the doctrines themselves.

By religion

Christianity

Christian theology condemns blasphemy. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain", one of the Ten Commandments, forbids blasphemy, which Christians regard as "an affront to God's holiness". Leviticus 24:16 states that "anyone who blasphemes the name of Yahweh will be put to death". In Mark 3:29, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable—an eternal sin.

In 2 Kings 18, the Rabshakeh gave the word from the king of Assyria, dissuading trust in the Lord, asserting that God is no more able to deliver than other deities of the land.

In Matthew 9:2–3, Jesus told a paralytic "your sins are forgiven" and was accused of blasphemy.

Blasphemy has been condemned as a serious sin by the major creeds and Church theologians, along with apostasy and infidelity [unbelief], cf. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae.

• Thomas Aquinas says that "[if] we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one's neighbor. On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder does more harm to one's neighbor, than blasphemy does to God".
• The Book of Concord calls blasphemy "the greatest sin that can be outwardly committed".
• The Baptist Confession of Faith says: "Therefore, to swear vainly or rashly by the glorious and awesome name of God…is sinful, and to be regarded with disgust and detestation. …For by rash, false, and vain oaths, the Lord is provoked and because of them this land mourns".
• The Heidelberg Catechism answers question 100 about blasphemy by stating that "no sin is greater or provokes God's wrath more than the blaspheming of His Name".
• The Westminster Larger Catechism explains that "The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane...mentioning...by blasphemy...to profane jests, ...vain janglings, ...to charms or sinful lusts and practices".
• Calvin found it intolerable "when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked".

Catholic prayers and reparations for blasphemy

In the Catholic Church, there are specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy. For instance, The Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion (Prayer) first introduced by Sister Marie of St Peter in 1844 is recited "in a spirit of reparation for blasphemy". This devotion (started by Sister Marie and then promoted by the Venerable Leo Dupont) was approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885. The Raccoltabook includes a number of such prayers. The Five First Saturdays devotions are done with the intention in the heart of making reparation to the Blessed Mother for blasphemies against her, her name and her holy initiatives.

The Holy See has specific "Pontifical organizations" for the purpose of the reparation of blasphemy through Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ, e.g. the Pontifical Congregation of the Benedictine Sisters of the Reparation of the Holy Face.

Punishment

In 1636, the Puritan controlled Massachusetts Bay Colony made blasphemy – defined as "a cursing of God by atheism, or the like" – punishable by death. The last person hanged for blasphemy in Great Britain was Thomas Aikenhead aged 20, in Scotland in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles.

In England, under common law, blasphemy came to be punishable by fine, imprisonment or corporal punishment. Blackstone, in his commentaries, described the offence as,

Denying the being of God, contumelious reproaches of our Saviour Christ, profane scoffing at the Holy scripture, or exposing it to contempt or ridicule.

Blasphemy (and blasphemous libel) remained a criminal offence in England & Wales until 2008. In the 18th and 19th centuries, this meant that promoting atheism could be a crime and was vigorously prosecuted. It was last successfully prosecuted in the case of Whitehouse v Lemon (1977), where the defendant was fined £500 and given a nine-month suspended prison sentence (the publisher was also fined £1,000). It ended with the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

Disputation of Paris

During the Middle Ages a series of debates on Judaism were staged by the Catholic Church, including the Disputation of Paris (1240), the Disputation of Barcelona (1263), and Disputation of Tortosa (1413–14), and during those disputations, Jewish converts to Christianity, such as Nicholas Donin (in Paris) and Pablo Christiani (in Barcelona) claimed the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus.

The Disputation of Paris, also known as the Trial of the Talmud, took place in 1240 at the court of the reigning king of France, Louis IX (St. Louis). It followed the work of Nicholas Donin, a Jewish convert to Christianity, who translated the Talmud and pressed 35 charges against it to Pope Gregory IX by quoting a series of alleged blasphemous passages about Jesus, Mary or Christianity. Four rabbis defended the Talmud against Donin's accusations. A commission of Christian theologians condemned the Talmud to be burned and on 17 June 1244, twenty-four carriage loads of Jewish religious manuscripts were set on fire in the streets of Paris. The translation of the Talmud from Hebrew to non-Jewish languages stripped Jewish discourse from its covering, something that was resented by Jews as a profound violation.

Between 1239 and 1775, the Roman Catholic Church at various times either forced the censoring of parts of the Talmud that it considered theologically problematic or the destruction of copies of the Talmud.

Islam

Sufi teacher Mansur Al-Hallaj was executed in Baghdad amid political intrigue and charges of blasphemy in 922.

 

Main article: Islam and blasphemy

Punishment and definition

Blasphemy in Islam is impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam. The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy. The hadiths, which are another source of Sharia, suggest various punishments for blasphemy, which may include death. However, it has been argued that the death penalty applies only to cases where there is treason involved that may seriously harm the Muslim community, especially during times of war. Different traditional schools of jurisprudence prescribe different punishment for blasphemy, depending on whether the blasphemer is Muslim or non-Muslim, a man or a woman. In the modern Muslim world, the laws pertaining to blasphemy vary by country, and some countries prescribe punishments consisting of fines, imprisonment, flogging, hanging, or beheading. Blasphemy laws were rarely enforced in pre-modern Islamic societies, but in the modern era some states and radical groups have used charges of blasphemy in an effort to burnish their religious credentials and gain popular support at the expense of liberal Muslim intellectuals and religious minorities. In recent years, accusations of blasphemy against Islam have sparked international controversies and played part in incidents of mob violence and assassinations of prominent figures.

Failed OIC anti-blasphemy campaign at UN

Main article: Blasphemy and the United Nations

The campaign for worldwide criminal penalties for the "defamation of religions" had been spearheaded by Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on behalf of the United Nations' large Muslim bloc. The campaign ended in 2011 when the proposal was withdrawn in Geneva, in the Human Rights Council because of lack of support, marking an end to the effort to establish worldwide blasphemy strictures along the lines of those in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. This resolution had passed every year since 1999, in the United Nations, with declining number of "yes" votes with each successive year. In the early 21st century, blasphemy became an issue in the United Nations (UN). The United Nations passed several resolutions which called upon the world to take action against the "defamation of religions". However, in July 2011, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) released a 52-paragraph statement which affirmed the freedom of speech and rejected the laws banning "display of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system'.

Judaism

See also: List of capital crimes in the Torah

 

Nathan confronts David over his sex scandal with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite, saying "by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme" (2 Samuel 12:14)

In Leviticus 24:16 the punishment for blasphemy is death. In Jewish law the only form of blasphemy which is punishable by death is blaspheming the name of the Lord.

The Seven Laws of Noah, which Judaism sees as applicable to all people, prohibit blasphemy.

In one of the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, called the Damascus Document, violence against non-Jews (also called Gentiles) is prohibited, except in cases where it is sanctioned by a Jewish governing authority "so that they will not blaspheme".

Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism

Indian-origin religions (also called Dharma religions), Hinduism and its contemporary Buddhism and Jainism, have no concept of blasphemy. It is an alien concept in Indian-origin theology and culture. In contrast, in West Asia, the birthplace of Abrahamic religions (namely Islam, Judaism and Christianity), there was no room for such tolerance and respect for dissent where heretics and blasphemers had to pay with their lives. Nāstika, meaning atheist or atheism, is a valid and accepted stream of Indian origin religions where Buddhism, Jainism, as well as Cārvāka, Ajñana and Ājīvika are considered atheist schools of philosophy.

Sikhism

Blasphemy is considered as the submission to the vanity of the Five inner thieves and especially excessive egoistical pride. According to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib 1st (832/5/2708), "He is a swine, a dog, a donkey, a cat, a beast, a filthy one, a mean man and a pariah (outcaste), who turns his face away from the Guru." Guru Granth Sahib, Page 1381-70-71 contains, "Fareed: O faithless dog, this is not a good way of life. You never come to the mosque for your five daily prayers. Rise up, Fareed, and cleanse yourself; chant your morning prayer. The head which does not bow to the Lord – chop off and remove that head."  In the Guru Granth Sahib, page 89–2 contains, "Chop off that head which does not bow to the Lord. O Nanak, that human body, in which there is no pain of separation from the Lord-let that be to the flames." Further in the Guru Granth Sahib page 719 contains, "Even if someone slanders the Lord's humble servant, he does not give up his own goodness."

Backlash against anti–blasphemy laws

Affirmation of Freedom of Speech (FOS)

Multilateral global institutes, such as the Council of Europe and UN, have rejected the imposition of "anti-blasphemy laws" (ABL) and have affirmed the freedom of speech.

The Council of Europe's rejection of ABL and affirmation of FOS

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, after deliberating on the issue of blasphemy law passed the resolution that blasphemy should not be a criminal offence, which was adopted on 29 June 2007 in the "Recommendation 1805 (2007) on blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion". This Recommendation set a number of guidelines for member states of the Council of Europe in view of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

UN's rejection of ABL and affirmation of FOS

Main article: Defamation of religion and the United Nations

After OIC's (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) campaign at UN (United Nations) seeking impose of punishment for "defamation of religions" was withdrawn due to consistently dwindling support for their campaign, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), in July 2011, released a 52-paragraph statement which affirmed the freedom of speech and rejected the laws banning "display of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system'. UNHRC's "General Comment 34 - Paragraph 48" on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1976, concerning freedoms of opinion and expression states:

Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.

International Blasphemy Day

International Blasphemy Day, observed annually on September 30, encourages individuals and groups to openly express criticism of religion and blasphemy laws. It was founded in 2009 by the Center for Inquiry. A student contacted the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York to present the idea, which CFI then supported. Ronald Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, said, regarding Blasphemy Day, "[W]e think religious beliefs should be subject to examination and criticism just as political beliefs are, but we have a taboo on religion", in an interview with CNN.

Events worldwide on the first annual Blasphemy Day in 2009 included an art exhibit in Washington, D.C. and a free speech festival in Los Angeles.

Removal of blasphemy laws by several nations

Other countries have removed bans on blasphemy. France did so in 1881 (this did not extend to Alsace-Moselle region, then part of Germany, after it joined France) to allow freedom of religion and freedom of the press. Blasphemy was abolished or repealed in Sweden in 1970, England and Wales in 2008, Norway with Acts in 2009 and 2015, the Netherlands in 2014, Iceland in 2015, France for its Alsace-Moselle region in 2016, Malta in 2016, Denmark in 2017, Canada in 2018, New Zealand in 2019, and Ireland in 2020.

Nations with blasphemy laws

Main article: Blasphemy law

 

  Historic restrictions

  Local restrictions

  Fines and restrictions

  Prison sentences

  Death sentences

In some countries with a state religion, blasphemy is outlawed under the criminal code.

Purpose of blasphemy laws

In some states, blasphemy laws are used to impose the religious beliefs of a majority, while in other countries, they are justified as putatively offering protection of the religious beliefs of minorities. Where blasphemy is banned, it can be either some laws which directly punish religious blasphemy, or some laws that allow those who are offended by blasphemy to punish blasphemers. Those laws may condone penalties or retaliation for blasphemy under the labels of blasphemous libel, expression of opposition, or "vilification," of religion or of some religious practices, religious insult, or hate speech.

Nations with blasphemy laws

As of 2012, 33 countries had some form of anti-blasphemy laws in their legal code. Of these, 21 were Muslim-majority nations – Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, the Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Turkey, the UAE and Western Sahara. Blasphemy is treated as a capital crime (death penalty) in some Muslim nations. In these nations, such laws have led to the persecution, lynchings, murder or arrest of minorities and dissident members, after flimsy accusations.

The other twelve nations with anti-blasphemy laws in 2012 included India and Singapore, as well as Christian majority states, including Denmark (abolished in 2017), Finland, Germany, Greece (abolished in 2019), Ireland (abolished in 2020), Italy, Malta (abolished in 2016), the Netherlands (abolished in 2014), Nigeria, Norway (abolished in 2015) and Poland. Spain's "offending religious feelings" law is also, effectively, a prohibition on blasphemy. In Denmark, the former blasphemy law which had support of 66% of its citizens in 2012, made it an offence to "mock legal religions and faiths in Denmark". Many Danes saw the "blasphemy law as helping integration because it promotes the acceptance of a multicultural and multi-faith society."

In the judgment E.S. v. Austria (2018), the European Court of Human Rights declined to strike down the blasphemy law in Austria on Article 10 (freedom of speech) grounds, saying that criminalisation of blasphemy could be supported within a state's margin of appreciation. This decision was widely criticised by human rights organisations and commentators both in Europe and North America.

Hyperbolic use of the term blasphemy

In contemporary language, the notion of blasphemy is often used hyperbolically (in a deliberately exaggerated manner). This usage has garnered some interest among linguists recently, and the word blasphemy is a common case used for illustrative purposes.

Evolutionary taxonomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_taxonomy 

Evolutionary taxonomy, evolutionary systematics or Darwinian classification is a branch of biological classification that seeks to classify organisms using a combination of phylogenetic relationship (shared descent), progenitor-descendant relationship (serial descent), and degree of evolutionary change. This type of taxonomy may consider whole taxa rather than single species, so that groups of species can be inferred as giving rise to new groups. The concept found its most well-known form in the modern evolutionary synthesis of the early 1940s.

Evolutionary taxonomy differs from strict pre-Darwinian Linnaean taxonomy (producing orderly lists only), in that it builds evolutionary trees. While in phylogenetic nomenclature each taxon must consist of a single ancestral node and all its descendants, evolutionary taxonomy allows for groups to be excluded from their parent taxa (e.g. dinosaurs are not considered to include birds, but to have given rise to them), thus permitting paraphyletic taxa.

Origin of evolutionary taxonomy

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's 1815 diagram showing branching in the course of invertebrate evolution

Evolutionary taxonomy arose as a result of the influence of the theory of evolution on Linnaean taxonomy. The idea of translating Linnaean taxonomy into a sort of dendrogram of the Animal and Plant Kingdoms was formulated toward the end of the 18th century, well before Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was published. The first to suggest that organisms had common descent was Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis in his 1751 Essai de Cosmologie, Transmutation of species entered wider scientific circles with Erasmus Darwin's 1796 Zoönomia and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's 1809 Philosophie Zoologique. The idea was popularised in the English-speaking world by the speculative but widely read Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, published anonymously by Robert Chambers in 1844.

Following the appearance of On the Origin of Species, Tree of Life representations became popular in scientific works. In On the Origin of Species, the ancestor remained largely a hypothetical species; Darwin was primarily occupied with showing the principle, carefully refraining from speculating on relationships between living or fossil organisms and using theoretical examples only. In contrast, Chambers had proposed specific hypotheses, the evolution of placental mammals from marsupials, for example.

Following Darwin's publication, Thomas Henry Huxley used the fossils of Archaeopteryx and Hesperornis to argue that the birds are descendants of the dinosaurs. Thus, a group of extant animals could be tied to a fossil group. The resulting description, that of dinosaurs "giving rise to" or being "the ancestors of" birds, exhibits the essential hallmark of evolutionary taxonomic thinking.

The past three decades have seen a dramatic increase in the use of DNA sequences for reconstructing phylogeny and a parallel shift in emphasis from evolutionary taxonomy towards Hennig's 'phylogenetic systematics'.

Today, with the advent of modern genomics, scientists in every branch of biology make use of molecular phylogeny to guide their research. One common method is multiple sequence alignment.

Cavalier-Smith, G. G. Simpson and Ernst Mayr are some representative evolutionary taxonomists.

New methods in modern evolutionary systematics

Efforts in combining modern methods of cladistics, phylogenetics, and DNA analysis with classical views of taxonomy have recently appeared. Certain authors have found that phylogenetic analysis is acceptable scientifically as long as paraphyly at least for certain groups is allowable. Such a stance is promoted in papers by Tod F. Stuessy and others. A particularly strict form of evolutionary systematics has been presented by Richard H. Zander in a number of papers, but summarized in his "Framework for Post-Phylogenetic Systematics".

Briefly, Zander's pluralistic systematics is based on the incompleteness of each of the theories: A method that cannot falsify a hypothesis is as unscientific as a hypothesis that cannot be falsified. Cladistics generates only trees of shared ancestry, not serial ancestry. Taxa evolving seriatim cannot be dealt with by analyzing shared ancestry with cladistic methods. Hypotheses such as adaptive radiation from a single ancestral taxon cannot be falsified with cladistics. Cladistics offers a way to cluster by trait transformations but no evolutionary tree can be entirely dichotomous. Phylogenetics posits shared ancestral taxa as causal agents for dichotomies yet there is no evidence for the existence of such taxa. Molecular systematics uses DNA sequence data for tracking evolutionary changes, thus paraphyly and sometimes phylogenetic polyphyly signal ancestor-descendant transformations at the taxon level, but otherwise molecular phylogenetics makes no provision for extinct paraphyly. Additional transformational analysis is needed to infer serial descent.

Cladogram of the moss genus Didymodon showing taxon transformations. Colors denote dissilient groups.

The Besseyan cactus or commagram is the best evolutionary tree for showing both shared and serial ancestry. First, a cladogram or natural key is generated. Generalized ancestral taxa are identified and specialized descendant taxa are noted as coming off the lineage with a line of one color representing the progenitor through time. A Besseyan cactus or commagram is then devised that represents both shared and serial ancestry. Progenitor taxa may have one or more descendant taxa. Support measures in terms of Bayes factors may be given, following Zander's method of transformational analysis using decibans.

Cladistic analysis groups taxa by shared traits but incorporates a dichotomous branching model borrowed from phenetics. It is essentially a simplified dichotomous natural key, although reversals are tolerated. The problem, of course, is that evolution is not necessarily dichotomous. An ancestral taxon generating two or more descendants requires a longer, less parsimonious tree. A cladogram node summarizes all traits distal to it, not of any one taxon, and continuity in a cladogram is from node to node, not taxon to taxon. This is not a model of evolution, but is a variant of hierarchical cluster analysis (trait changes and non-ultrametric branches. This is why a tree based solely on shared traits is not called an evolutionary tree but merely a cladistic tree. This tree reflects to a large extent evolutionary relationships through trait transformations but ignores relationships made by species-level transformation of extant taxa.

A Besseyan cactus evolutionary tree of the moss genus Didymodon with generalized taxa in color and specialized descendants in white. Support measures are given in terms of Bayes factors, using deciban analysis of taxon transformation. Only two progenitors are considered unknown shared ancestors.

Phylogenetics attempts to inject a serial element by postulating ad hoc, undemonstrable shared ancestors at each node of a cladistic tree. There are in number, for a fully dichotomous cladogram, one less invisible shared ancestor than the number of terminal taxa. We get, then, in effect a dichotomous natural key with an invisible shared ancestor generating each couplet. This cannot imply a process-based explanation without justification of the dichotomy, and supposition of the shared ancestors as causes. The cladistic form of analysis of evolutionary relationships cannot falsify any genuine evolutionary scenario incorporating serial transformation, according to Zander.

Zander has detailed methods for generating support measures for molecular serial descent and for morphological serial descent using Bayes factors and sequential Bayes analysis through Turing deciban or Shannon informational bit addition.

The Tree of Life

Main article: Tree of life (biology)

 

Evolution of the vertebrates at class level, width of spindles indicating number of families. Spindle diagrams are often used in evolutionary taxonomy.

As more and more fossil groups were found and recognized in the late 19th and early 20th century, palaeontologists worked to understand the history of animals through the ages by linking together known groups. The Tree of life was slowly being mapped out, with fossil groups taking up their position in the tree as understanding increased.

These groups still retained their formal Linnaean taxonomic ranks. Some of them are paraphyletic in that, although every organism in the group is linked to a common ancestor by an unbroken chain of intermediate ancestors within the group, some other descendants of that ancestor lie outside the group. The evolution and distribution of the various taxa through time is commonly shown as a spindle diagram (often called a Romerogram after the American palaeontologist Alfred Romer) where various spindles branch off from each other, with each spindle representing a taxon. The width of the spindles are meant to imply the abundance (often number of families) plotted against time.

Vertebrate palaeontology had mapped out the evolutionary sequence of vertebrates as currently understood fairly well by the closing of the 19th century, followed by a reasonable understanding of the evolutionary sequence of the plant kingdom by the early 20th century. The tying together of the various trees into a grand Tree of Life only really became possible with advancements in microbiology and biochemistry in the period between the World Wars.

Terminological difference

The two approaches, evolutionary taxonomy and the phylogenetic systematics derived from Willi Hennig, differ in the use of the word "monophyletic". For evolutionary systematicists, "monophyletic" means only that a group is derived from a single common ancestor. In phylogenetic nomenclature, there is an added caveat that the ancestral species and all descendants should be included in the group. The term "holophyletic" has been proposed for the latter meaning. As an example, amphibians are monophyletic under evolutionary taxonomy, since they have arisen from fishes only once. Under phylogenetic taxonomy, amphibians do not constitute a monophyletic group in that the amniotes (reptiles, birds and mammals) have evolved from an amphibian ancestor and yet are not considered amphibians. Such paraphyletic groups are rejected in phylogenetic nomenclature, but are considered a signal of serial descent by evolutionary taxonomists.