Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 20

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.

July 20

Did Britain ever try to take over Europe?

Seems like other major European countries have tried at some point to take over Europe like France or Germany, but did Britain ever attempt this? If not, why not? ScienceApe (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

They certainly tried to take over France (see Hundred Years' War), and they also conquered Ireland (see Tudor conquest of Ireland). Attempting to take over other countries would have been problematic due to the distances and transportation requirements. You'll notice that almost all of the Europe conquering was done in more-or-less a geographically contiguous way. England wouldn't have skipped over France and started to invade Austria, for example. Even trying to conquer Norway would have been problematic due to the long sea voyage. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (first part reply to the OP) Depends on what you mean by "Britain". At one point, the ruling dynasty in England (the Plantagenets) controlled vast parts of France directly, and even laid claim to the throne of France itself. Maybe you've heard of the Hundred Years War? The term Angevin Empire (Angevin after Anjou, the region of France where the family originated.) is sometimes used for the continental possessions of the English Royal Family at this time; however this was long before the concept of the nation state ever existed, so speaking of "countries" as we mean them in the modern sense doesn't work here. (post EC reply to 140.142) Excepting that the Norse invaded and took over England, see Cnut the Great. There's nothing problematic about that, it actually happened, just in the other direction. --Jayron32 03:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that England, and later the UK, actively followed the colonial policy that many ascribe to them: let the foreigners bicker around on the continent, and focus on the colonial empire. Such a policy meant a natural double role for the navy: support the colonies, and prevent an invasion. This would have been supported by the fact that several French attempts at invading England and one very famous Spanish one had been unsuccessful. Similarly, Britain was often defeated on the European stage: the Seven Years' War, for example, saw several losses in Europe (and in general, the leaving-the-war-there-to-someone-else policy). Britain's personal union with the Kingdom of Hannover would have allowed European meddling, but the British clearly had no appetite for such complicated politics. So I think the story is of a line of thinking that became gradually reinforced; from the times the the Tudors lost Britain's remaining lands in France, and before that had spent vast sums attempting to maintain them, through to a colonial period characterised by the Seven Years' War where British colonialism was seen as a great success, and so a priority. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Building on some of the earlier comments, a long string English monarchs (some of whom were also British monarchs) would have perceived their claims over France as reconquest of what was rightfully theirs, rather than the POV-laden "take over" of the question. But I don't think any of them can genuinely be regarded as having made a genuine stab at taking much more than a bit of the continent at a time. The closest is probably Edward I. He owned England and a chunk of France, conquered Wales, came close to taking Scotland and at the time of his death, was trying to arrange for his son to not only get all of that, but also the norse inheritance of Margaret, Maid of Norway. But he failed. And that's still a long way short of "Europe". The OP should also consider that Britain, even in Empire days, has for centuries seen itself predominantly as a maritime power - see Britannia rules the waves. As an aside, User:Clio the Muse would have loved this question, if not my answer. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Article 5 of ICJ Statute

Article 5 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice prescribes:

"At least three months before the date of the election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a written request to the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration belonging to the states which are parties to the present Statute, and to the members of the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2, inviting them to undertake, within a given time, by national groups, the nomination of persons in a position to accept the duties of a member of the Court."

Can anyone please explain this provision in normal language to me? I've read it repeatedly but I still don't clearly understand it. Especially, I don't understand why the phrase "by national groups" is there; not knowing what is the function of that phrase (to deal with the phrase "within a given time" in order to express the meaning that such time is given by the national groups?).

Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand it either, but I'll have a go. My reading is that "by national groups" is independent of "within a given time", and it means the nomination is to be carried out by national groups. As best quick googling can tell, the national groups are the up-to-four people each state has on the Permanent Court of Arbitration or has appointed by Art 4 para 2 which basically says "exactly the same conditions apply". [1] is an Irish Foreign Ministry page sort of indicating that. [2] seems to be about the (proposed?) similar organisation for the Arab League, and section 3.2.1 is a discussion of the system of nomination to the ICJ. Does that make any more sense? 95.150.23.60 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

But I understand that the Secretary-General requests both (1) the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and (2) the members of the national groups to make the nomination, isn't that correct? I also think that "by national groups" is independent of "within a given time" because there is comma between them. However, I still don't know the truly purpose/function of the phrase "by national groups". That's why I don't really understand this provision. --Aristitleism (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No I think the national groups are the only ones who make the nominations. This includes the national groups who are part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and some other national groups. Perhaps some of the confusion arises because of the part about 'members of the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2' which reflects the fact the article shouldn't be read in isolation. If you read article 4 paragraph 2 [3] it's clearly referring to national groups appointed by UN members who are not a part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

The 'within a given time' is I presume either instructing the SG to give a time frame or indicating that the national groups have a limited time to make the nominations and aren't supposed to try to hold up the process by refusing to nominate anyone.

Note that International Court of Justice also says it is the national groups who make the nominations. See also [4] which discusses the national groups in the PCA and how they can nominate members for the ICJ. BTW from the above linked article on the PCA, only 112 out of the current 193 (well I've included the newest member South Sudan for the 193 but not the 112 but it's possible they've already joined the PCA, Sudan was part) indicating somewhat why the Article 4 Paragraph 2 thing is needed.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So, the function of the phrase "by national groups" (after "within a given time") is to merely emphasise that the "nomination of persons in a position to..." is to be made "by national groups" (those requested by the UN secretary-general according to such provision)? --Aristitleism (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes. This would be opposed to the nomination by the various members ambassadors to the UN or some other such person/s and would also be opposed to each member of the PCA giving their own individual nominations (perhaps the more important point). Note that since there are up to four members who are part of a national group, there is obviously a big difference between each member and each national group making nominations. And there are limits on the nominations (no more then four nor double the members that need to be elected and no two from one country). BTW I've made some minor changes to my above comment which I only saved after you replied. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's talking about the United Nations Regional Groups? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it has nothing at all to do with the UN Regional Groups. A "national group" is a group of individuals from one nation, as Nil Einne has explained. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

To understand Article 5, you first have to read Article 4 thoroughly. For each state, its "national group" is either (a) in the case of states who are parties to both the ICJ and the PCA, the group of up to four arbitrators on the PCA from that state, or (b) in the case of states who are parties to the ICJ but not the PCA, a group of up to 4 individuals appointed by the government of the state for this special purpose.

Now looking closely at Article 5 paragraph 1, it speaks of a written request. The written request is not addressed to the state governments, but rather to the individuals who are members of the PCA, i.e. to the arbitrators themselves. (Additionally, the request is sent to the individuals belonging to national groups, if any, appointed under Article 4 paragraph 2.) So all of these individuals have received this written request from the UN Secretary-General, requesting nominations of judges to the ICJ. But the nominations are to be undertaken "by national groups". So for example, suppose I am one of the four arbitrators from Canada who is a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. I would receive this written request from the UN Secretary-General, and I would then sit down with the other three Canadian arbitrators who are members of the PCA. Then the four of us (constituting the Canadian "national group") would collectively send back to the Secretary-General our nomination(s). That's the meaning of "by national groups" in Article 5 paragraph 1. Without those three words, I as an individual member of the PCA could just write back to the Secretary-General with my nomination for an ICJ judge, and some other Canadian member could write to the Secretary-General with different nominations. But since Article 5 paragraph 1 specifies that the nominations are to be undertaken "by national groups", the four Australians on the PCA must agree among themselves, the three Bahrainians on the PCA must agree among themselves, the four Cameroonians on the PCA must agree among themselves, and so on and so forth. Mathew5000 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Forming one's own country

How to establish one's own country? --Mango0099 (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Declaration of independence and Micronation will be of interest. 130.88.73.71 (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, none of the Micronations are actually "recognized" as countries, they're basically composed of members of fringe political groups who decided that they didn't want to follow the laws of the countries they were residents of. --Jayron32 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument that I have heard some micronations make is that Article 3 of Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (an "accepted as part of customary international law," according to our article) states that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. " Ergo, "recognition" should not be required. However, in practice, I believe this tends to be overlooked by most countries. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:44, 19 Tamuz 5771 / 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Queen proposing

Who made up the rule that Queen regnants had to propose to their husbands? And has all European queen regnant in modern age proposed to their husbands like Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II, ie. Portugal, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (although only Grand Duchesses)? Did Queen Mary I propose to Philip of Spain or was it the other way around? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do queen regnants have to propose to their husbands? A number of sources say Philip proposed to Elizabeth.[5][6][7] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Although Elizabeth wasn't queen at the time, if that makes a difference. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Victoria's decision to propose marriage to her cousin Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was anything other than her own personal sense of majestic responsibility. If she was observing any "rule" it was, rather, the pre-20th century custom that restrained persons of inferior but dignified rank from approach their betters to beg boons. The situation was awkward because by the time of their courtship, affection was expected to play a part in the betrothal, so it was no longer left to court ministers to simply negotiate an international marriage treaty. Yet it would have seemed importunate for a petty princeling to make a request of a powerful monarch that was at once so important, intimate and aggrandizing. Plus their mutual Uncle Leopold probably nudged her along. I've never heard of any other female sovereign, before or afterwards, doing likewise. But I admire her for it. FactStraight (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Aside: "Queens regnant" is better usage than "Queen regnants", since regnant is an adjective rather than the noun. Compare secretaries general. Brammers (talk/c) 08:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Philip of Spain had already become King of Naples when the marriage negotiations started and was thus equal to the Queen of England. Surtsicna (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

American liberals vs socialists

What is the difference between American liberals and socialists? --79df (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Liberals are generally linked with Democratic Party (United States); see Liberalism in the United States. The Socialist Party USA is socialist(!) and the article has a little info on its policies: widespread public ownership and workers' control of corporations are key, as well as publicly owned free healthcare; its official website has more details[8]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) "Socialist" is a very vague term nowadays, because many parties in Europe retain their names from a more leftist period. The OP should explain whether s/he means "socialists" as in the French socialist party, for instance (just left of centre, not too different from American liberals), or "socialists" in the sense of "proponents of socialism", i.e. proponents of an economic system different from capitalism, where factories, companies and land aren't private property (like Socialist Party USA). People who call themselves "socialists" in the USA are likely to be of the second type, I think.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

By socialist, I mean anti-capitalist people who advocate public ownership of key industries, public ownership of healthcare and education sector, free healthcare, free and compulsory education (these are controversial issues and I'm not interested in the debate whether these so-called "free" something are good or bad) for poor, and maximum "redistribution of wealth" by imposing maximum taxes on riches. Private business, if exist, according to them should be taxed heavily. They also advocate maximum "minimum wage", rigid labor laws, oppose hire and fire policy, opposed to property rights. Socialists also believe that owners of capital exploit the workers, this is why public ownership is the solution to stop "exploitation", as they call it, of workers. Do American liberals have these beliefs? --79df (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of "socialist" is a rather weird hybrid, an attempt to combine the two distinct types of "socialism" that I mentioned and seems to be influenced by right-wing propaganda. It doesn't exactly match any existent type of "socialist". Lumping together moderate positions such as high taxes and free education with radical positions such as the confiscation of all private property is completely artificial. A "socialist socialist" does not focus on taxes on the rich, because, in view of the public ownership of the economy, the rich wouldn't exist. Saying that taxing the rich to provide education is the same as abolishing private property is absurd.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The positions I described above are democratic socialist positions, as opposed to classical socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat). Classical socialists advocate forceful confiscation of private property, democratic socialists do not. Their means of achieving socialism and eradication of capitalism are different, but their fundamental view is same. --79df (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A modern day "democratic socialist" is afraid of the very word "nationalization". I don't know what you mean by "forceful" confiscation - classical socialists were not united in wanting a revolution, confiscation or even buying by the democratically elected state could have worked, too (though I suppose that specifically Marx wouldn't believe in that possibility). The fundamental view is not the same - European "reformed" socialists and American liberals want to keep capitalism and inequality and just mitigate their negative effects a bit by occasional interventions of state policy. Classical socialists don't want any capitalism and any inequality. The difference is enormous, although if one is located in the opposite end of the political spectrum, both will seem like anathema to one. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Free health care and compulsory education are not socialist positions, except in the rhetoric of US right-wingers. They are entirely mainstream in most developed market democracies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To OP's questions immediately above Stephen Schulz's response: In that case, no. On the political continuum, the Democratic Party (America's "Left-Center" party) comes closer to that than the Republican Party (America's "Right-Center" party) does, but that's not saying much. Generally, some of those issues are well supported by both parties, some by neither, but in general the Democratic Party comes closer. For example, both parties in general fully support free and compulsory education (A very small number of Republicans and some members of the Libertarian Party, a small "third party", oppose it) and both parties support major health and welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare. That is, even the conservative Republican Party has no desire to dismantle these programs, and supports them fully. Neither party supports completely free or government provided healthcare (though the Democrats support implementing Medicare-like programs for a greater number of people). Neither party AT ALL supports government ownership of major industrial sectors, or oppose property rights, and neither party supports "redistributing wealth", though the Democrats generally favor meeting budget shortfalls by increasing the government's income, usually through increased taxes, while the Republicans generally favor doing the same by reducing expenditures instead. --Jayron32 12:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The GOP has put forward certain proposals, which have been cited by its opponents in accusations that it wants to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, even though it avoids these exact terms.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Part of the problem is that your assumptions about Socialism aren't actually Socialist views. They sound more like classical Communism, which no nation has ever actually achieved.

Some socialists endeavor to implement communism, but not the majority. The American brand of liberalism generally accepts our mixed-market economy, with more emphasis on social programs than conservative Laissez-faire economics. The majority of American liberals are still conservative by European standards. There are a few on the fringe who could be called actual Socialists, but the majority of American liberals are still pretty centrist with their policies. American politicians are very unlikely to be truly "anti-capitalist," nor are they for true "redistribution of wealth." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have misconception on the meaning of communism. Do you know what does communism mean? Communism is a social system which is be both classless and stateless. The term "communist state" (which is widely used in popular culture) is an oxymoron because communist social order and the state can't co-exist.. Soviet Union was a socialist state. As Marx said, socialism will be the transition phase from capitalist social order (society divided among capitalists and workers) to communist social order (classless and stateless society). Classical socialism (USSR) is dictatorship of the proletariat (single-party rule by a workers' vanguard party), democratic socialism is socialist economic policies within a democratic political framework (multiparty electoral system). The positions I described above are democratic socialist positions, as opposed to classical socialism (USSR). --79df (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

79df, HandThatFeeds uses "socialism" and "communism" in the sense of political ideologies/groupings (of "socialists" and "communists"), not the narrowly Marxian use of the terms in the sense of different stages in the development of a society. The same applies to my response to him. Both uses of the terms are "correct", just in different contexts.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, classical socialism was the same as communism. The current "pro-capitalism socialists" are a recent phenomenon. When the term "communist" came to be used to denote something distinct from "socialist", it was only to designate members of Lenin's Third International as opposed to other socialists. Both groups had public ownership of the economy as the ultimate aim, and that aim had been characteristic of all socialists long before Lenin.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, both classical socialists (violent overthrow of capitalism) and democratic socialists (gradual overthrow of capitalism) believe owners of capital exploit the workers. This is the main diagnostic feature of a socialist. Thus both classical and democratic socialists are two sub-species of the same species. Some democratic socialists advocate public ownership of all means of production, other democratic socialists advocate imposing high taxes on owners of capital, implementing rigid labor laws, and then redistribute the wealth among the workers as an alternative to government ownership. These two kinds of democratic socialists (advocate of absolute public ownership and advocate of moderate public ownership with strong redistribution mechanism) are phenotypically different, but genotypically similar. --79df (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @IP91, classical socialism was a step towards communism, but not one-and-the same. Yes, you're correct that public ownership of the economy was the ultimate aim, but socialism veered away from that very quickly. Hence, my distinction between socialism and true communism (which would be the end-product of those goals).

@79df you miss the distinction. Or, you're applying a very strict definition of socialism. If that's the case, American liberals have nothing to do with socialists as you understand them. They lean towards social programs & tighter regulation, but have no desire to sublimate all commerce & property into government hands. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Very quickly" is a relative term. The non-communist socialists didn't have to renounce the ultimate goal officially, since they could just postpone it constantly in view of their "reformist", gradualist strategy. I recall reading that as late as the beginning Mitterrand's presidency, the French socialists were seriously thinking of nationalizing industries. About that time, the great rightward change began, and now the European "socialists" are often even seen privatizing instead of nationalizing.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not American liberals have similarity with the second type of democratic socialists (implementing a "redistribution" mechanism by imposing high taxes on riches and then using that tax money for "social welfare" polices as an alternative to common ownership of property)? --79df (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Calling taxation "redistribution" is a bit of a stretch, as the taxes are used for far more than just social programs. And, under the current circumstances, it's revoking the tax cuts for the rich that are being discussed, not new taxation. The thing to keep in mind is that American liberals (and some conservatives) support social programs like federal parks, basic education and health inspection. But, there's no attempt to make "common ownership of property" at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare." BTW, progressive taxation is violation of equality before law because it discriminates against the riches. --79df (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream American liberals are not really interested in redistribution of income per se. They are interested in making sure that, in a rich society, nobody goes hungry or is denied needed medical care. They think that the cost of achieving those goals should be shared according to people's ability to pay. They are not opposed to inequality of wealth or to capitalism, per se. They do see a role for government regulation where the market has failed to meet society's needs, in areas such as financial intermediation or healthcare provision, but this hardly amounts to opposition to capitalism as an underlying economic system.

As for the notion that progressive taxation violates equality before the law, that is debatable. Everyone at a given income level is treated equally, according to law. Laws by their nature have to discriminate. Should children under the age of 5 be allowed to drive? Aren't laws preventing them from doing so a violation of equal treatment? The fact is that people over the age of 16 or so are better able to drive. Similarly, people over a given income level are better able to pay. Another example would be a law regulating a military draft during a time of national emergency. Such a law would target people within an age range best able to provide the service needed. Would the draft law's exemption of people under the age of 16 and over the age of 65 count as a violation of equality under law for those aged 16–65? Few people would make such an argument. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

False analogy. Barring children from driving is based on the harm principle with which taxation has nothing to do. Just as you can't fly an aircraft without proper training (because there is possibility of crash killing the untrained pilot and other innocent people), children can't drive and they can't be trained unless they reach maturity. And conscription is involuntary servitude, which is a more formal term for slavery. Proponents of conscription justify draft using social contract theory. "American liberals are interested in making sure that, in a rich society, nobody goes hungry or is denied needed medical care. They think that the cost of achieving those goals should be shared according to people's ability to pay." - it is also based on social contract theory. Whenever a government forces someone do something against their will (violates free will of an agent), whether it is draft, taxation, abridgement of personal freedom, anti-terror laws, or violation of privacy, they justify it using social contract theory. It is a matter of broader debate whether social contract a valid theory or not, but it is not the right place for that. --79df (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right that this is not the right place for debate. But, you seem to have made up your mind on certain things (ie. "conscription = slavery"), so I wonder what you're actually wanting us to answer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Marco polo sums it up very well. There's no legal basis for the claim that a tiered or progressive tax is discriminatory, and the phrase "redistribution of wealth" has been turned into a pejorative phrase used by American anti-tax proponents. American liberals aren't anti-capitalist, but they are for regulations that protect consumers & workers. To pure Capitalists, I'm sure this appears to be an abridgment of freedom. Most Americans don't see it that way, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's sum it up: The traditional definition of socialism is belief in the public ownership of the means of production, like when the UK nationalized its steel industry. Nowadays, a lot of "socialist" parties, so named because they or their predecessors once advocated that position, no longer believe in it. Today's socialists sometimes say they believe in "a market economy but not a market society." In other words, they're just people on the left wing. It gets more confusing when you bring in the word "liberal." Originally, and to this day in most of the world, a "liberal" is one who supports a free market and human rights. In the U.S., a "liberal" is someone on the left (although probably not as left-wing as socialists in Europe, American politics generally being far to the right of other developed countries). For the U.S., we can say a liberal is a moderate left-winger and a socialist a more hardcore left-winger, but those definitions are not necessarily the only ones. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So the conclusion is socialists are in the fringes of American political spectrum, right? --79df (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, true "socialists", under any normal definition of the word, lie pretty far outside of the mainstream of American political thought, and the main platforms of the two major parties don't include a whole lot of socialist doctrine. Though both parties have a few tenuous connections to actual socialism, neither party would properly be described as "socialist". It may be better to think about both parties as essentially captalist, free marketers, with the Democrats favoring economic supports for labor, and the Republicans favoring economic supports for management: neither one supports socialism, per se, but both find their base in different parts of the free market. --Jayron32 02:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

However, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a Social Democrat (probably more social democrat) who runs as an independent, though he does caucus with the Democrats. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

However Sen. Sanders (Independent) thinks, acts and votes in practice, he's always called himself a socialist or democratic socialist. That doesn't, of course, exclude his being a social democrat, too. (I've always thought of myself as both a democratic socialist and a social democrat.) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ramayana: Disambiguation

Recently I came to know about the largest Indonesian departmental stores chain called Ramayana. Since Ramayana is a Hindu epic and Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, I think it is of interest and a disambiguation could be relevant. I want to know about your decision in this matter.

Also, though I have done some editing, I don't know how to handle a disambiguation. Can some editors handle it if I send you the text (if the suggestion is Okayed)?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shillog (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

this question is really for the Wikipedia:Help desk instead of the reference desk. That said, it's really not necessary to do a new disambiguation page for it. If the store chain has enough references, you can create Ramayana (store) and use Template:Redirect at the top of the main Ramayana page to let people know about the other option, or just add it to Ramayana (disambiguation). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do scriptures say that ancestors' sins are inherited?

Some argue that aborted babies go to Hell because of the original sin. I haven't seen any verse saying that ancestors' sins are inherited? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Exodus 20:5,6 − "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." (part of the Ten Commandments)

Ezekiel 18:1-3 − Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, 'The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children’s teeth are set on edge'? As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die." —Akrabbim^talk 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find any serious theologians espousing the view that aborted babies go to hell. The modern conception of original sin is more akin to "imperfection". Humans are created with free will and so have the ability to choose to be less than they were intended -- hence, we can choose to deviate from our divine origins and so to introduce imperfection (i.e., sin). As for "inheriting sin", the modern interpretation is not that sin is a genetic abberation, but that it is a socially commnicable disease. When one sins, one damages community and (by example) encourages others to do likewise. Wikiant (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Aborted babies may not go to Hell, but live-birth babies who die before being able to be baptised go to Limbo, not to Heaven. So says the Catholic Church's teaching on original sin. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. Some Catholics have taught that unbaptised babies and children go to Limbo, but Limbo for the unbaptised is not official Church teaching: it is not in the Catechism. There are been official statements stating that it is not official dogma. The Church actually says that we can't know what happens to unbaptised babies and children, although if their parent wanted them to be baptised they may have the so-called 'baptism of desire' at death. Since we know the ordinary situation requires someone to be baptised to enter Heaven ("No one can enter Heaven unless he is born again of water and the Holy Spirit"), but we also know God is not bound by his sacraments, we can simply hope, and baptise babies whenever possible to be safe. We do know (according to Catholic teaching) that God will make a just and merciful decision, whatever that is, so we can hope that the unbaptised children are in Heaven. 86.164.72.255 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction to my long-standing misconception, which came from what I was taught by my Christian Brothers school and my priests, and reinforced by my parents. My sister was born very premature and was not expected to live, so she was immediately baptised in the hospital to ensure her passage through the pearly gates, as otherwise she'd have remained in Limbo for eternity, or so the family story has always gone. In the event, she pulled through and is very much alive. I must inform my mother that she and my late father are guilty of having unwittingly spread theological inexactitudes, and may technically be heretics. I doubt she'll lose any sleep over it, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The "unbaptised infants to Limbo" idea was commonly espoused and taught until recent decades. There was a TV documentary shown in the UK about people in Ireland who are trying to get the Church to help them find the unmarked and unconsecrated spots where their children and relatives are buried. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Itsyoujudith. I knew I wasn't mis-remembering what I thought I was taught. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument laid out by the IP is the Church's current teaching, much more humane. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't meaning to say Jack wasn't taught it (I thought that was clear in 'some Catholics have taught that...'). It was certainly taught as if it were dogma by certain 'enthusiastic' Catholics, but it wasn't actually dogma. It wasn't defined until recently, when the magisterium clarified that it wasn't official dogma at all (which isn't to say some don't believe it). A Catholic parent in Jack's parents' position would still be encouraged to perform the emergency baptism, because we can hope that unbaptised babies go to Heaven (although we cannot know for sure), but we know that a baptised baby definitely will. So the real change has been in emphasising our trust in God's mercy and justice, and clarifying that the extra 'location' wasn't dogma. When people bemoan the lack of factual (Catechism) learning in modern Catholic education, and the emphasis on loving God and one another, I think they forget how many wrong things were taught by over-enthusiastic teachers, and passed on down the generations, without the grounding of love. 86.164.73.177 (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18:20) 99.2.148.119 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you didn't get the update. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but interpretations of the NT vary, especially books outside the Gospels. Also, there's Jews, Muslims and other assorted religions based off the OT to consider. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a not-so-uncommon belief, especially in the Southern United States. People who hear this opinion espoused can be turned away from God, disgusted by this injustice. The matter of fact, though, is that God is "perfect... all his ways are justice" (Duet. 32:4). The Bible also promises everlasting life to righteous ones; even more so "a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous" (Acts 24:15). In a relatively short time period (Judgement Day (hint: it's not one day)) these righteous and unrighteous will have 'proved his or her worth,' so to speak, whence the unrighteous will be cut off, i.e. destroyed forever.
The point being here is that the belief in a torment in Hellfire teaches a perverted form of everlasting life, wheres The Bible teaches the exact opposite. Schyler (one language) 00:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, it is disingenuous to stealthily present JW doctrine as if it were consensus Christian doctrine. Per our Christian views on Hell article, hell rather than obliteration remains the theological majority view (if not literal "hellfire"; I've no real idea there), and the Watchtower bible has significant deviations from mainline translations. — Lomn 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the questioner didn't specify which scriptures they are asking about, we might as well have a variety of perspectives. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@92.2.148.119: The problem here is not that Schyler is presenting the Jehovah's Witness perspective on the issue. That perspective is more than welcome. The issue is that he presents that perspective as though it were the only perspective, or presents it in such a way as to mask that he is speaking for a single faith, and instead represent that he is somehow speaking for all faiths. Its fine to present the perspective of different faiths, it is not fine to present those perspectives as if it were self-evident that all people should believe them. --Jayron32 17:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it traditional for religious people to speak as if their faiths are the only true faiths? I'm not saying it's not a problem, just that it's not unexpected or unusual in any way for persons of all strong faiths to do so. 76.202.153.93 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that my faith is the only true faith. However, I do not assume that others believe as I do. There is a distinction between knowing what I believe, and assuming that because I believe it, everyone else in the world does as well. I may think that they should believe what I believe, but that's a different issue. If they do not, I cannot speak as though they do. --Jayron32 20:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Jewish interepretation of the Exodus verse is that if you hate God, you get punished for your forefathers' sins as well as your own. If you love God, however, you're off the hook of ancestral sin. I have no idea if progressive Judaism has a different view or not, but it's an interesting counter-point to the Christian concept of Original sin. Does anyone know if there is a single Muslim view on the subject or if it is the subject of debate? --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)