Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 29

Humanities desk
< May 28	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 29

Restriction imposed on Jewish population of Nazi Germany

Hi is there a place online where I can find a comprehensive list of the restrictions imposed on the Jewish population of Nazi Germany. I dont just mean the famous laws like the Nuremberg Laws or the April boycott I mean the measures that included making jews walk in the gutters, enabled them not to own cars or to have a telephone connection. Thanks, Hadseys 01:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This web page and this list from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum seem pretty comprehensive. That second page states that "government at every level -- Reich, state and municipal -- adopted hundreds of laws, decrees, directives, guidelines, and regulations that increasingly restricted the civil and human rights of the Jews in Germany." I'm not sure every last anti-Jewish regulation has been catalogued in one place. —D. Monack ^talk 01:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Number of Italian governments?

I have often heard that Italy has had some large number of governments since World War II (more than 60), as indicated in Politics of Italy. However, I don't understand when an Italian government turnover is deemed to occur. List of Prime Ministers of Italy sheds some light on this; it appears that a government is considered to turnover when (a) there is a legislative election, (b) a party goes into or comes out of the government coalition, or (c) the prime minister changes. But that still doesn't explain all the government changes; I see that on 23 August 1982, there was a change between Giovanni Spadolini's 1st and 2nd governments, yet both governments had a DC-PSI-PSDI-PRI-PLI coalition. So how is an Italian government turnover defined? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If it follows the British model, then the "government" in Italy would be the collection of executive departments and ministers which executes policy within the bounds set before them by the legislature. Under that model, considering that Giovanni Spadolini led a coalition of 5 parties, there may have been pressures internal to his coalition which demanded that he reoganize his government departments and ministers; that sort of reorganization may count as a new government. Several Italian Prime Ministers appear to have done this. The en.Wikipedia article Giovanni Spadolini is rather stubby, and does not explain his career in any meaningful detail, but the italian article at is very detailed; if anyone reads Italian (or is willing to use an internet translator), you could probably work out the details. --Jayron32 04:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the Italian article about Spadolini, and the key sentence appears to say, In August of that year he reconstituted a government perfectly identical to the previous one (the "Spadolini-bis", renamed by the radicals "the reheated soup") .... This doesn't clarify much for me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been living in Italy for years and nobody really understands the mechanism of Italian politics. Here governments change quicker than models on a Milanese catwalk.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that if you can have a change of government with the same prime minister and featuring the same coalition of parties as you had before, how can you tell the difference? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A ministerial shuffle? You could have different parties take different ministerial positions, making it in effect a very different government, even with the same coalition. TomorrowTime (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Legitimate" descendants Peter I of Portugal

Ok I was looking at the Line of succession to the Portuguese throne and notice the different alternative claims on the throne. It seem to fail to list another one. When King Ferdinand I of Portugal died and his daughter Beatrice of Portugal succeeded and was later deposed by the Portuguese nobility who didn't want an union with Castile, there were two canidate for the throne Infante John, Duke of Valencia de Campos and John, Grand Master of the Order of Aviz. One was a son whose legitimacy can be debated but was recognize by his father and the other was plainly illegitimate. In the end the latter won but Infante John had descendants. I was wondering if anyone knows if he still has any direct descendants left and who would be Kings of Portugal (minus the fact Portugal is no longer a monarchy) now if the first John had won out instead of the second one?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Infante John's grandson, Infante Fernando, Lord of Eça, apparently had 42 children, but the marriages and descents seem a little muddled, according to that article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam War responsibility

I know this is a sweeping question, but which American president was actually responsible for the heavy US involvement in the Vietnam War? In other words, who has to take the rap for the 58,000 American dead? Kennedy or Johnson?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There were US troops in Vietnam long before Kennedy...maybe Eisenhower is to blame? Maybe it's Truman? I just don't think it makes any sense to assign all the responsibility to one president/presidency. Role_of_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War might be interesting to you. Tinfoilcat (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to point to Kennedy and MacNamara as the main culprits. It fails to mention that in October 1963, Kennedy wanted to reduce the level of troops realising that thw war was "unwinnable".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

While each individual's death is a tragedy for their friends and relatives, 58,000 rather pales into insignificance when compared to the 1.4m Vietnamese soldiers and over 4.3m Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian civilians. I'm guessing that no US president took the rap for them. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not trying to minimise the vastly higher Vietnamese death toll (which will likely never truly be known), I'm asking the question from an American perspective. My point in asking this question pertains to the fact that an American president has a moral duty to protect the lives of his citizens, not send the teenage sons of the very people who voted him into office (the average soldier was too young to vote) to fight a war in a foreign land with both hands tied behind their backs. This is why I want to know who is responsible for this? IMO, it was Johnson, as he was the president who escalated the war and augmented the US troops in 1965. In his re-election campaign in 1964, LBJ used scare tactics against his opponent Barry Goldwater. I am not attempting to soapbox here, I just want some input from other editors. Thanks Tinfoilcat and Daiaregos for replying.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

LBJ tends to get the rap. It was he who escalated the troop involvement, against growing opposition. He was the Prez who payed the political price. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

He also used scare tactics against Goldwater in his 1964 campaign by basically lying to the American people by saying that Goldwater would use nuclear bombs in Vietnam, ultimately leading to World War III. Have you ever seen those television ads?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The little girl with the flower commerical & there's the "In your gut, you know he's nuts" response to the Goldwater slogan "In your heart, you know he's right". GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You can see that ad at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-MEdAPhYA. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on that -- Daisy (advertisement)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What appears to have happened was that Kennedy got the ball rolling in 1962, which Johnson happily picked up in 1963, then took it onto the playing field in 1965.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no evidence, just my memories of those times, but weren't the "defense" lobby culpable? Daicaregos (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely; as well as chemical companies. Remember all the anti-war slogans?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And the music? Edwin Star for one. Daicaregos (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and Country Joe and the Fish, The Doors (Unknown Soldier), Barry McGuire, John Lennon, Joan Baez.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Did Country Joe and the Fish do: and it's 1, 2, 3 what are we fighting for? Don't ask me 'cause I don't give a damn, next stop is Vietnam, and it's 5, 6, 7, open up the Pearly Gates. Don't give us the chance to wonder why, whoopee, we're all gonna die? Daicaregos (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's Country Joe! I believe the song is on the soundtrack of Full Metal Jacket.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I'm fixin' to die rag should really redirect to The "Fish" Cheer/I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die Rag, although I Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag works. 86.164.65.106 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Added redirect for un-capitalised version. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

JFK started the US involvement, of course, but it was a relatively small affair (like so many US involvements during the Cold War). But it was LBJ who really "committed" to it and made it the war that it became—large scale, wide-ranging, high-cost to all sides. I would say "both" are obviously responsible, but LBJ definitely gets the rap for the horror that the war became. And of course by LBJ I really mean, "LBJ, McNamara, the various generals, etc."—no single man can be responsible for all it alone. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mr98, I agree with your assessment. Besides LBJ, McNamara also has to take the rap. He was the person who encouraged and staunchly supported the sending of troops. In 1965 LBJ, after winning the '64 election, really got the show on the road with the escalation of US troops deployed, bombings, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a sweeping question, and it's difficult – and probably inappropriate – to stick any one person with the blame. For a thorough and accessible treatment of the mistakes made by the United States in Vietnam, I would strongly recommend that you locate a copy of Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. The entire book deals with how and why governments and leaders choose to take actions that are against their own self interest; its final and by far largest section is titled America betrays herself in Vietnam, and spans a period of bad decisions and ignored advice running from the end of World War II all the way to 1973. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne, this is a reference desk. We can come up with all manner of references about who made what decisions when, and what the immeediate and long-term effects of those decisions were. But as for deciding "who gets the blame" or "who takes the rap", that's not a matter we can decide or should be discussing. There are many candidates for ultimate responsibility (or credit) for any war, and there's no final arbiter, so it's down to personal opinion. This whole thread is way too close to soapbox territory for my liking. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the title of the Tuchman book, TenOfAllTrades. I shall try to get a copy of it as Tuchman was one of my favourite historians. JackofOz, as I had pointed out before, I only wanted answers to a specific question, I was Not trying to soapbox. I'm sorry that you view it in this light; however, in this case your lighting is erroneous.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your original question is: "who has to take the rap for the 58,000 American dead? Kennedy or Johnson?". That is a specific question, to be sure, but it calls for opinion. Whether sending troops to war is a great thing because it defends the people back home, or a bad thing because it necessarily involves the death of some of the troops, or any other kind of thing, is not something you'll ever get universal agreement on. Choosing just one of those positions, and then seeking evidence to back it up, is putting the cart before the horse. Better to get all the information, and then decide whether it was a good, bad or other kind of thing; and if you conclude it was a bad thing, you'll already have all the knowledge you need to decide who is or are to blame, if that's what you want to do with the information. But having blamed someone, what then? Are you any better off? Is the world any better off? Finger pointing for its own sake is the most unproductive action there is. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the least understood aspects of America’s involvement in Vietnam, probably best classified as “what if” history, is the impact an American withdrawal during the mid- to late-1960s might have had on China’s strategy of aiding liberation movements. Imagine the impact of a South Vietnamese defeat on the already radicalized Chinese political and social milieu, and then consider which other South-East Asian nations might have also faced better supported and led insurgencies. Under such a scenario, South-east Asia might today resemble the formerly communist East European economies. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Roosevelt refused to get the U.S involved when the Japanese invaded Indochina, saying "The U.S. will not go to war over a place called "Ding Dong (probably "Dinh Donh.") OSS forces were in Vietnam by the wars end, and advocated independence, but the US back the re-colonization by the French. Truman and Eisenhower kept the US in shadowy involvement through the 1950s. Eisenhower refused French pleas to aid them in the Dien Bien Phu debacle. After the "temporary" partition into the artificial "North Vietnam" and "South Vietnam" Eisenhower refused to allow nationwide elections because Ho Chi Minh would have been elected as national leader. Kennedy saw Vietnam as a more winnable battle in the "domino theory" than Laos, and sent advisors. The US became disillusioned with the South 's dictator Diem and colluded in his assassination in 1963 (before Kennedy's own assassination). Johnson did not want to be the one to "lose another country to communism" so he sent large number of combat troops for the first time, and alluded to "secret treaties or agreement" requiring it, which did not exist. Johnson did not have any "exit strategy" to get the U.S. out if the affair did not go well. Any withdrawal would mean that the thousands of dead "had died in vain" and would anger their families more than if the conflict led to a surrender by the other side like in WW2. Nixon also did not want to be the one to "lose Vietnam to communism," and continued the slaughter, as the military claimed that the war could be "won" if only larger and larger number of troops were sent. Eventually Nixon basically did what Senator George Aiken had suggested back in 1966: just declare we had won and leave. So Johnson escalated a small involvement to a massive slaughter, then Nixon continued it , and eventually ended it. Edison (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the responses. Seeing as I asked a sweeping question, I shall now go on and make a sweeping judgement in saying that Vietnam was basically Lyndon Baines Johnson's show, therefore he has to take the rap for it. I appreciate the well-formulated and detailed answers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ambitious oldies

Whereas in the past it was compulsory slippers and armchairs for anyone over sixty, in recent years a number of golden oldies have been active. Not just doing a job, but being ambitious go-getters. Ridley Scott and Vince Cable, both seventy something. Alan Greenspan, held a demanding job in his eighties. What other examples of ambitious oldies are there please? 92.28.242.45 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out this old guy from the past: John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk. How many old-age pensioners can you imagine today going into battle, heavily-armoured and swinging a battle-axe?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Esther Rantzen springs immediately to mind. And of course our own dear Queen Elizabeth II ... not to mention the old wild men like David Gilmour, Roger Waters, all of the Rolling Stones, The Faces, Rod Stewart, Andy Williams, Neil Diamond, Tony Bennett ...

And there was Bob Hope who made it to 100, before he died in 2003.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

John Howard, approaching 71, is about to become the Supremo of World Cricket. Most cardinals were traditionally considered unelectable as popes unless they'd reached 70; something about not being experienced enough yet. Now, they become unelectable when they reach that age. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Pope Benedict XVI became pope when he was 78. John Paul II was 65, and considered young. He also ended up as one of the longest serving popes. One of the reasons to elect an older pope, apart from experience, is that it makes sure they won't be pope for too long: if you elect someone pope when they're 35, and they live to be 90, that could cause problems. 86.164.65.106 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, struck out now. I was getting confused with the mandatory retirement age for priests (70) and bishops (75). I've sought clarity on this issue @ Talk:Cardinal (Catholicism)#Retirement age and eligibility for papacy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No probs, it's just that I'd reread it about 5 times looking for a joke or humorous link! It's like when someone uses the phrase 'no pun intended' and there is no pun... 86.163.2.99 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One of my grandfathers used to beat all-comers at the local fair at the Hammer throw. My golden oldie hero is Bruce Forsythe. Dmcq (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW Vince Cable is 67, not "seventy something". --86.136.242.235 (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Manoel de Oliveira just made a new film, and Elliott Carter (who was born on the same day) is still composing. They are 101. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, was still attending official ceremonies at the age of 101[1].

Let's not forget Tina Turner! She turned 71 last November.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

..Chuck Berry is still going at 83. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As a general point, these people may well not be "ambitious" in any personal sense - they may simply feel that the world would benefit in some way from their experience and expertise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to mention Betty White!--Wetman (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sophia Loren recently starred in an Italian television film.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And Giulio Andreotti is still running Italy (from behind the scenes) at 91. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the man who travelled pole to pole and sawed his own frost-bitten fingers off? 92.24.184.45 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Polish-American pianist Mieczysław Horszowski died a month before his 101st birthday. He gave his final concert at age 99, and was still giving lessons up to a week before he died.
• After a long international career, the Swiss tenor Hugues Cuénod finally made his Metropolitan Opera debut in 1987, aged 84. At age 104 he married his partner after Swiss law was changed to permit same-sex marriage. He’s still alive and kicking at the age of 107 (he'll turn 108 on 26 June if anyone's interested in sending him a cake).
• George Abbott was Mr Everyman in American musical theatre, and he died in his 108th year. According to his widow, “a week and a half before his death he was dictating revisions to the second act of Pajama Game with a revival in mind”.
• And I've just noticed the birthdates of these 3 gentlemen were 23 June, 26 June and 25 June respectively. Must be something about the last week of June. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hazel McCallion was elected mayor of Mississauga, Ontario, in 1978 when she was 57, and has been there (in office) ever since. She's now 89.

Martin Gardner just died aged 95. A book of his writing was published as recently as last year, although I don't know how much of the content was new.

--Anonymous, 05:04 UTC, May 30, 2010. (Edited for clarity 05:02, May 31.)

Los Angeles Dodgers announcer Vin Scully is 82 and still works without a color commentator. U.S. Senator Robert Byrd is 92. Strom Thurmond won re-election to the Senate at age 93 and served until age 100. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood of course! --TammyMoet (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's turning 80 tomorrow. Happy birthday, Clint. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The prolific Science Fiction author Jack Williamson, whose first professionally published SF story appeared in 1928 (when he was 21), died in 2006 aged 98. To quote selectively from our article: "He continued to write as a nonagenarian and won both the Hugo and Nebula Awards during the last decade of his life, by far the oldest writer to win those awards." and "Despite his age, he had made an appearance at the Spring 2006 Jack Williamson Lectureship and published a 320-page novel, The Stonehenge Gate, in 2005 [aged 96 or -7]." Amongst other things, he invented the terms 'Genetic engineering' and 'Terraforming'. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! At least another half century of fun and frolics for me then. 92.15.12.12 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Niemeyer is apparently still designing (or reworking) buildings at the age of 102. Same with I. M. Pei, who is currently 93. Graham87 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations in a Catholic litany

At the end of the Litany of the Most Precious Blood, seen in the Blood of Christ article, there appear lines beginning with "V/." and "R/." without explanation. The passage originated in the now-merged-in Precious Blood article, and they were originally "V." and "R." until changed in this edit. Any idea what these abbreviations would signify? Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

They stand for versicle and response. I'm not sure that the revised punctuation has any significance beyond a desire to separate the abbreviations from the following text. Karenjc 12:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguated my link. Karenjc 12:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen "versicle & response" abbreviated the same way (with a "forward slash") in Anglican liturgical texts. Not the Book of Common Prayer which uses "Minister" and "Answer" instead. Maybe the Oxford Psalter or the English Hymnal? Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I've added links to versicle and response. I had previously wondered if perhaps they were typos for P and C, priest and congregation, or something like that. Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden Fruit

Can someone explain to me the point behind the forbidden fruit/tree of knowledge story in Genesis? If man wasn't supposed to touch it then why did god put it there in the first place? What was the alternative, would adam and eve just have wandered around the garden for eternity? It just seems like putting something right in someone's reach and telling them to ignore it forever is a huge con. Not to mention the huge punishment (farming for food, pain in childbirth) for eating a piece of fruit. Oh and please no interpretation I want a literalist understanding. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this falls under interpretation or literalist, but I always understood the fruit to be a test of faith - god put it there and made it off limits to see if Adam and Eve would obey him in not touching it. So eating the fruit is basically a betrayal of god by man. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no answer to your question that's not interpretation. A literalist understanding of the passage is simply the text itself. The subject is a very interesting area for theological discussion, but theology is inherently about interpretation. The text answers none of your questions directly (but your questions do seem to assume that it was just an ordinary piece of fruit, when in fact it granted knowledge of good and evil), so literalism has nothing to say.

Anyways, thanks for sparing me the temptation to provide my own thoughts about this story, as that would probably fall outside the purview of the reference desk. Paul (Stansifer) 21:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if it granted them knowledge of good and evil then how could they know it was evil to eat it in the first place? That's not an interpretive questions; it's in the text. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, quite. You may be interested in this blog: [2] which remarks "There is always the distinct possibility that YHWH is an evil deity." (Though you should probably start on the previous chapter, An Introduction to Source Study.) 81.131.4.89 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's interpretive because what you are looking for is not in the text. You are looking for information beyond the literal text itself. (Even true "Biblical literalists" do a great deal of interpretation as well, they just don't own up to it.) Anyway, they wouldn't have had to know it was evil to eat it—they were told not to eat it. The serpent says, "oh, go ahead, eat it," and so Eve does. That's pretty much what the text says. If you want to ask, "why would God have put it in there in first place if he didn't want it eaten?" and "why is God so uptight about a single tree?" and maybe even "if God knows everything, wouldn't he know that they were going to eat from the tree anyway, so did he set them up to fail?" and so on and so on, you're going to need a heaping serving of interpretation. All of that is without even asking if the story is supposed to be a larger allegory and not meant to be taken as some kind of literal story that explains why women have pains in childbirth and why life is kind of rotten most of the time. Taking religion seriously is hard work and probably should be if you believe it to be true. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The image has been adapted from neighboring Near East traditions, as Joseph Campbell will explain to you. The tree is the tree of the knowledge of distinguishing good and evil, that is, of enlightenment, and the Serpent that protects the tree from harm as its guardian spirit is a god not a snake. It's all downhill from there... --Wetman (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

TheFutureAwaits, do you want a Jewish perspective or a Christian perspective? The account isn't much interpreted in the Hebrew Bible — aside from the Genesis narrative and a genealogical account at the beginning of 1 Chronicles, the name Adam only appears twice: as the name of a city in Joshua, and in Hosea chapter 6, where the text notes that Adam broke his covenant with God. Christianity also includes an interpretation in 1 Timothy chapter 2, which notes that Eve was deceived by the serpent, and in Romans chapter 5, which states that the sin of Adam in eating the fruit is ultimately responsible for causing everyone's sin (see original sin) and bringing about death. By the way, note that there's no prohibition of touching the fruit or the tree; God prohibits picking it and eating it, but not touching it. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The traditional Catholic answer is summed up in the Exsultet: "Oh Happy fault, oh necessary sin of Adam, that gained for us so great a Redeemer." Personally, I don't think that goes far enough in terms of what the story is saying, but seems along the right lines. 86.163.2.99 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

From a mathematical point of view, this is a action of a (mathematically) stupid god. Consider that God knew that there is a non-zero chance that man/woman will eat the fruit. Consider that Adam and Eve will be in the garden FOREVER. Therefore the probability of man/woman eating the fruit (at some point in time) is ONE (mathematically speaking). If this story shows anything, it shows that God is a lousy mathematician. 122.107.207.98 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

But since mathematics is a human construct, that says nothing about God. Apparently he's also a lousy dice player, since he never practises, and after all, practice makes perfect. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldnt the true literal interpretation be that its just a fictional story? Good point that 81.131... makes that YHWH is an "evil deity" - even just the Forbidden Fruit story shows the deity setting up a situation for Adam & Eve to fail in, and the subsequent psychological and other torture they (and we) suffer. Consider the evidence, even from just reading the bible let alone the real world, and it points to God being a bad deity rather than a good deity. 92.15.12.12 (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

But you and 122 are starting from the assumption that the consequences of eating the fruit are undesirable, and an overall negative outcome for both the individuals and mankind. It says, right there in the Bible, Isaiah 55:8-9 "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the Lord. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.'" So, you can't just assume that what looks like a negative outcome to you is a negative outcome to the god of the Bible. I mean, the story of the Garden of Eden seems pretty clearly to be describing the end of a childish state and the difficult start of adult life living with the knowledge of good and evil, achieved through experience of the consequences of doing wrong. I'm sure some people would consider it better to live in childish innocence forever, but apparently the god of the Bible disagrees. 86.163.2.99 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If He was omnipotent, then He could make everyone blisfully happy all the time, but either He chooses not to do so and is a bad deity, or He is not omipotent. Or He's just fiction. Problem of evil. 92.15.12.12 (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Or he has better plans than simply making everyone happy all the time; it wouldn't exactly work very well for everyone to be happy all the time, since we often desire contradictory things. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. See Bruce Almighty for an interesting (and sometimes humorous) illustration of exactly that point. Kingsfold (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If He's omnipotent then he can make everyone happy all the time and make it work very well, and make 1+1=3. Truth is, he's fiction. 92.24.182.209 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how him being fictional would be at all relevant here: we're talking about the in-book logic. After all, you don't get to answer "Why did Dumbledore give Harry the invisibility cloak?" with "He's fictional", when what is being discussed is the Harry Potter books. Or, you do, but then people will tend to ignore you. 86.163.2.99 (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) The tree of the knowledge of good and bad was the tree representing God's right to decide what is good and what is bad. The serpent lied when it said that it was a tree imparting knowledge of good and bad. (http://multilingualbible.com/genesis/3-5.htm)

(2) Why does disobedience by perfect creatures have to be inevitable? Have you ever experienced perfection (spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical perfection)?

(3) Satan the Devil used ventriloquism to make the serpent "speak", and earned himself the epithet "ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος" ("the old serpent" or "the original serpent") (wikt:ἀρχαῖος). (http://multilingualbible.com/revelation/12-9.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second, the verse you quoted under (1) doesn't seem to quite say what you said, it says:"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.". Where exactly does the serpent's lying about gaining knowledge of good and bad and God's right to decide come into it? In fact, the verse makes it pretty clear that God knew that the day Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they would gain knowledge of good and evil and be like God. Isn't it true then that what God knew (rather than "the serpent lied about this") was that the tree would be imparting knowledge of good and bad? Or am I missing something here? Are you being interpretative rather than literalist? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the context because I got to the point quickly. Verses 1 through 4 of the same chapter indicate that those words were spoken by the serpent. (The linked page has menu buttons for selecting book, chapter, and verse.) He also said that they would not die, in contradiction of what God had previously said. (http://multilingualbible.com/genesis/2-17.htm) History shows that humans have not gained knowledge making them competent to set standards about what is good and what is bad. (http://multilingualbible.com/jeremiah/10-23.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

God knew the outcome ahead of time

I God knows all, wouldn't He have known what Eve would do? In which case, He'd have created sentient beings with full knowledge that they would ultimately be tortured? --78.148.133.46 (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is understood that He did know. Actually, a related question was already discussed here recently (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 18#God and free will). In short, humans are considered to have been created so that they would be loved by God and love Him (for example, the Catechism says so - [3]). Now, it is understood such love can only be provided with free will ([4]) and it is worth the risk ([5] - fourth question). It's just like Wikipedia - an encyclopedia that anyone can vandalise. And yet it is arguably more successful than some encyclopedias that are much harder to vandalise... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more than even that. God created sentient beings with full knowledge that they would one day torture him. Wrad (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

God knows. He just doesn't care.--Wetman (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that God knows everything? -- Wavelength (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This article may interest you: Akashic records.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he forgot, or thought he could change the future. Or maybe he knows every possible thing that might happen, not just the ones that actually will. Or perhaps, if he knew it was going to happen, he had to do his bit toward making sure it did, regardless of what he wanted. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

He asked for evidence, and you gave him an article lacking it, but since none seems to care about evidence here, I'll give my opinion too, I would say that someone who knows something bad is going to happen yet either does nothing or work pro it is a manipulator, now which one is a theme for another discussion. 200.144.37.3 (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 200...., had you read the article you would have seen where it talks about the universal computer and Mind of God.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

God and religion causes a lot of unnecessary human suffering as they result in people believing the Just-world hypothesis, but thankfully the more responsible media has been slowly chipping away at this idea in recent times. 92.28.254.179 (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

May I remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a forum? A debate can be held in many other more suitable places - for example, Catholic Answers seem to have a forum specialising in such questions. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read the Problem of evil which touches on this, especially Plantinga's free will defense. Short version: God might know that people will commit evil acts (eg defying him), and that they will suffer, but it might be necessary for this to happen as part of a greater good. You may also wish to read the article on omniscience, which raises the question of how omniscience (or, more specifically, foreknowledge) can be compatible with free will, and offers explanations as to how God can be omniscient but still not know how people will act. On the other hand, if you don't take the description literally it becomes somewhat easier. - Bilby (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

recognition of Palestine

Did the murder of Bob Kennedy and 9/11 backfire and end any chance of Palestine being recognized by the US? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No. The door to such recognition is never permanently closed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(After EC) ::Are you saying that there is absolutely nothing that the Palestinians could do to close the door permanently? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to think that a civilised society will always keep the door to peace and good relations open, no matter how bad the relations may be now or have been in the past. Things were pretty nasty between the US and Germans, Japanese, Russians and Chinese for a while there, but bygones have become bygones. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As to September 11 attacks, I don't think they can be described as "backfiring" because, as far as I know, they were not intended specifically to force the U.S. to recognize Palestine. See Planning of the September 11 attacks, as well as Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy for background to both incidents. Certainly, Bin Laden didn't, and presumably doesn't, like the U.S. policy towards Israel, but I don't think the attacks can be as clearly linked to the Israel/Palestine conflict as they can in the RFK case. Buddy431 (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And such fact exposes the weakness in our ability to decipher the facts. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Buddy, you're talking as if bin Laden had some connection with 9/11, which afaik was not the case. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay now cowboy, just take of your spurs, have another beer and watch a little bit more TV. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had lots of evidence that bin Laden was in charge of the 9/11 attacks. Didn't he claim responsibility? Falconus^{p t c} 00:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bin Laden apparently wasn't directly in charge (that was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), but did give the specific OK for the plan. At least, that's what's in the Planning of the September 11 attacks article. Buddy431 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Bin Laden doesn't support the idea of a Palestinian state anyway but prefers the reestablishment of a pan-Islamic one. Though he presumably prefers it as an interim solution to Israeli occupation. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody but total nuts would hold all of Palestine responsible for Sirhan Sirhan (who was, incidentally, a total nut). It would be perhaps different if Sirhan Sirhan was some sort of sponsored agent of a Palestinian government, part of a giant shadowy plot, etc. etc. But as far as we can tell, he was a brain-damaged, paranoid schizophrenic anti-Semite. He was not in any way a representative of Palestinian cause, even under the most harshly anti-Palestinian interpretation. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to blame Israel for Kennedy's death by driving Sirhan Sirhan crazy? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously he is not. Stop trolling. DuncanHill (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So you prefer that clarification not be requested because it might imply that Isreal did something wrong? What if I question whether Ozwald's claim that the USMC and President Kennedy drove him kill crazy instead of Russia that would qualify from your perspective as trolling too. Forgive me though, I should not feed the anti-Christ. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Sirhan B. Sirhan Jordanian?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. DuncanHill (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Sirhan lived in the West Bank or East Jerusalem -- both of which were under Jordanian occupation before 1967 -- before his family moved to America. The notion of a "Palestinian" nationality wasn't that widespread at the time. Thus, news reports at the time may have referred to Sirhan as being of Jordanian origin. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times newspaper at the time of Robert Kennedy's assassination always referred to Sirhan as Jordanian, never Palestinian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That was certainly my recollection too, but I can see why they may have used this description back then of someone we would today refer to as a Palestinian. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Back then someone from Prague would have been called Czechoslovakian, whereas now, he or she would be referred to as Czech.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Czechoslovakian" was always a solipsism, even when the country was Czechoslovakia. People from that country were correctly referred to as Czechs, whether they were from the Czech part or the Slovak part. The desire of the Slovaks for their separate national identity was what led the country to split into two countries in the 1990s. "Czech" now means someone specifically from the Czech Republic alone. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I recall them being referred to as Czechs and Czechoslovakians. I normally referred to them as Czechoslovakian. Czechoslovakian was as correct as Czech.[6] Jack forbes (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the USA during the 1960s and 1970s, they were referred to as Czechoslovakian. We had a landlord who was an immigrant from Czechoslovakia and that's how he called himself; although judging by his surname, my Czech friend here thinks he was likely a Slovak. I also recall having met an elderly man in Los Angeles who referred to himself as Bohemian!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)