Humanities desk
< February 17	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 19 >

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.

February 18

Kickstarter for causes?

Is there a website that's like Kickstarter, only for political and social causes (which Kickstarter prohibits)? Theskinnytypist (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that projects for social causes are allowed on Indiegogo. Katie R (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine is raising money for her music store at GoFundMe.com. Dismas|^(talk) 20:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is your friend's music store a political or social cause? --Viennese Waltz 22:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the only music store in the area, they do try to put an educational spin on the benefits of supporting the store. But I think I see your point in that I wasn't directly addressing the OP's question. For that, I would also note that Go Fund Me's home page lists categories such as missions, faith & church, non-profits, charities, volunteer, and service. Dismas|^(talk) 05:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction at Luke 1:48 (NIV) and Luke 11:27-28 (ESV)

I have been replaying Luke 1:48 and Luke 11:27-28 in my mind. Something doesn't make sense here. Luke 1:48 is the part of Mary's song where Mary announces that all successive generations will call her blessed because of her son Jesus. Then, in Luke 11:27-28, when Jesus is a grown man in his ministry, a woman tells him that his mother is blessed for carrying him in the womb and nursing him, which ironically seems to allude to what Mary says earlier, but Jesus replies, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." Apparently, Jesus is not concerned with his own pedigree, and if that is the case, does this mean that he rejects Mary's blessedness? 140.254.227.86 (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like He's trying to discourage idol worship. Which, at least in terms of the Catholic Church, didn't really work. But Christian churches in general, including the Catholic, certainly preach the latter verse as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does he say that Mary didn't hear his word and follow it? --Jayron32 15:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published an explanation of this passage at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010566?q=Luke+11%3A27-28&p=par. The thought here is that Jesus used a figure of speech to say that serving God is a greater source of happiness than motherhood (even than being the mother of Jesus). (See also http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001912, where "hate" is said to be used sometimes to mean a lesser degree of love.)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC) and 17:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this explained in a manner comparable to what Wavelength says: Jesus' point is that we're supposed to focus on our own spiritual condition and on obeying God's commands, above all else. Vaguely comparable is the idea "it's good to have godly ancestors, but better to be a godly ancestor". Quick question, though: why are you referring to different versions for the two texts? You might do better if you use just NIV for both or just ESV for both, or if you consult both versions' translations for both texts; relying on one version for one and the other for the other can produce confusion, since the two versions follow different philosophies of translation. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"How do you plead to the specification ?"

I just watched The Caine Mutiny. During the trial the following dialog occurred:

"Charge: mutiny."

"Specification: Steven Maryk, Lieutenant, US Naval Reserve, while serving on board the USS Caine, did on July willfully and without authority relieve Lt. Commander Queeg. Queeg was engaged in the exercise of his command, the US being at war."

"Steven Maryk, how say you to the specification? Guilty or not guilty?"

"Not guilty."

"How say you to the charge?"

"Not guilty."

I'm wondering what the difference is. My first thought is that the specification merely relates to the facts, in this case that he took control of the ship, while the charge relates to having done so illegally, that is, counter to regulations. However, the not guilty plea on the specification wouldn't make much sense, then, as it was quite clear he took control of the ship. Of course, this being a movie, they might have just gotten that part wrong.

Here's the script: [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/c/caine-mutiny-script-transcript-bogart.html]. (Do a find on "not guilty", without the quotation marks, to find the above dialog.) The specification includes the phrase "without authority". So, is it possible to be guilty of the specification and not the charge ?

Are there any US Maritime Law experts around to explain ? StuRat (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could become an "armchair expert" by reading The Uniform Code of Military Justice and Manual for Courts-Martial. I find the phrase "charges or specifications", but thus-far nothing explaining any distinction. Article 94—Mutiny and sedition would presumably apply in this situation. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear both for the example in StuRat's post and others like List of charges in United States v. Manning [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] that a specification is a detailing of alleged offences resulting in the charge (or violation of law). Or as the last source puts it "A court-martial “specification” is a description of the distinct alleged criminal act".

As is also clear from these sources and I guess common sense, a person could have multiple specifications under one charge if they did multiple different things which could result in that charge. Or if there are differing possibilities of what they did but both result in the same charge.

I'm not sure but find it unlikely a person could normally plead guilty to a specification but not the charge as specifications seem to specify a clear cut offence. There may be exceptions such as if the specification is poorly drafted. In any case, it seems clear a person could plead not guilty to at least one specification of a charge and also plead guilty to another specification of the same charge and likely therefore the charge. I suspect a person could also plead not guilty to all specifications but still plead guilty to the charge if they feel all the specifications are wrong, but they are guilty of the charge for some reason and are coping to it, although I'm really guessing on this part.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just an armchair lawyer here, but I think it could also mean "I committed the act so specified, but that act did not constitute the crime as alleged". That is, someone could say "I did what you say I did, but that wasn't a crime, and here's why..." as part of their defense. That is, the specification (which describes an act committed) is distinct from a crime (which is the charge). Thus, they could be guilty of the specification, but not the crime. --Jayron32 02:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was my initial thought, too, but the phrase "willfully and without authority" being included in the specification seems to make admitting to that tantamount to admitting guilt to the charge. StuRat (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source I am familiar with on this is Frederick Bernays Wiener's book on procedure for courts-martial. Unfortunately, I don't have that here with me, so I'll quote from this web page by a military defense lawyer:

"On a court-martial charge sheet there will be one or more “charges” and one or more “specifications.” A court-martial “charge” is the Article of the UCMJ that was allegedly violated. A court-martial “specification” is a description of the distinct alleged criminal act. All specifications fall under the charged UCMJ Article. So, for example, there could be one charge of Larceny under UCMJ Article 121, and several specifications under that charge that describe each specific claim of theft under that charge."

The redundancy you perceive in The Caine Mutiny scene probably results from the fact that under the charge of mutiny, there was only one specification. Thus, guilty or not guilty of the specification will generally equate to guilty or not guilty of the charge. But it is equally possible for a charge to have two or more specifications, in which case the accused might admit guilt, or be found guilty, of some specifications but not others.

Another use of the specifications system is to deal with what some civilian criminal codes refer to as "lesser included offenses." In a New York court, if the defendant is indicted only for murder, the court might ultimately convict him of manslaughter, because manslaughter is a "lesser included offense" of murder. This is so because all the elements of manslaughter are also elements of murder as well, so that an accusation of murder is simultaneously and automatically an accusation of manslaughter as well (although murder requires proof of additional elements beyond manslaughter). In the military system, an equivalent result is sometimes reached by a verdict of guilty of all or some of the specifications, not guilty of the original charge, but guilty of the lesser charge that is made out by the sustained specifications. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all so far. It sounds like a "specification" is much like a "count", in civilian court (as in "guilty on all counts"). StuRat (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]