Humanities desk
< January 27	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 29 >

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.

January 28

Apostasy in the Jehovah's Witness denomination

I am mainly wondering how the denomination deals with apostates, be they inactive members or disfellowshipped members. Are inactive and disfellowshipped members still allowed to communicate with their family members, or are they kept from communicating with their JW families too (like some Amish families)? Please do not cite Wikipedia, because I already checked that page, and it doesn't really say much about people who leave the denomination. It does say that the denomination has a somewhat low retention rate, so most individuals who are raised by JW parents probably de-convert from the denomination. It also basically talks about the grounds and process of disfellowshipping someone, including shunning. My main question is, is this shunning method of disfellowshipping someone personal? I mean, do the parents and relatives of the disfellowshipped person stop writing to the apostate or stop all communication? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for the official position of the clergy of the denomination, or are you looking for individual anecdotes for how people were treated by their families? The one may have more to do with the religion, while the other may have more to do with the dynamics of the individual family, and may not have any official religious reason. Something to think about in your research... --Jayron 32 02:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Official documentation as well as personal anecdotes. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I chatted with the local librarian, and the librarian directed me to EbscoHost, Proquest, and the Library Catalog. At least I found two biographies titled "I'm Perfect, You're Doomed: Tales from a Jehovah's Witness upbringing" and another book titled "Awakening of a Jehovah's witness: Escape from the Watchtower Society". They sound interesting, and may shed light on the lives of some ex-Witnesses. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience, inactive is a pretty broad spectrum from believer who for whatever reason isn't active in the ministry to non-believer who has avoided being disfellowshipped or has chosen not to disassociate themselves (a separate state on a level with disfellowshipping). An apostate may be just about any where on that spectrum (or even an active Witness - not that they would usually last long). The treatment of a disfellowshipped person, in my experience, varies depending on 1) living arrangements - if the person is a minor or a parent, they can't exactly avoid contact with them, 2) the infraction that caused the person to be disfellowshipped, 3) the level of "spirituality" (devoutness) of the family 4) the attitude of the disfellowshipped person toward their offence. 27.33.234.172 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their official website has information about apostasy indexed at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=akpostasy&p=par, and information about disfellowshipping indexed at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=disfellowshipping&p=par. Information specifically about how to treat disfellowshipped relatives is at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102008083?q=disfellowshipped+relative&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have published the movie "The Prodigal Returns" (1:34:45) at http://tv.jw.org/#video/VODMovies/pub-ivpro_E_1_VIDEO.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, what does the movie have to do with the question? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion in our article Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline#Shunning including how to treat family members linked to a variety of sources. Alternatively a simple search for something like 'jehovah witness shunning' should find sources such as those above or [1]. Perhaps more importantly considering the question, it should also find anecdotes like [2] [3] [4] [5]. Add 'anecdote' or similar and you'll probably find more like [6] [7] [8] Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Edit: [9] may also be of interest, as the person discusses how they found relatives who had already been shunned. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article generally discusses the process of the shunning practice. Also, I found a more academic source. [10], in which the researcher poses as an ex-Mormon and joins an ex-Jehovah's Witness website, with a large nonreligious community. The researcher interviews the people on Skype. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the end of that article, the author indicates that she is actually an ex-Mormon. 27.33.234.172 (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

about drama

If it is for solo performance for 10 minute drama, how and what can be the best to perform ? What exactly should it be like? Any suggestions. I hope my sentences are understandable.

Learnerktm 08:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough information in the question for us to give you a meaningful answer. How many people are in the audience? Are they children, adults, or a mixture of both? Is there a specific theme? If this is a school/university assignment, why not ask your teacher? Please be a bit more specific. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KägeTorä - (^影_虎) Thanks, once again for your answer. I was thinking to participate in 10 minute drama festival next month here in Nepal. Yes, I am from Nepal and there is going to be drama festival. They have said it for no particular age groups and themes can be any. And, one should not need be from theatrical background.

...hope the spelling "theatrical" is correct. Confused :(

Learnerktm 12:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider part of a dramatic poem or other monologue. For example, you might consider part of The Song of Hiawatha, which is particularly good for people who are learning English as the grammar and vocabulary are both very clear. Alternatively, if you (and your audience) speak exceptional English you might consider part of John Dryden's translation of the Aeneid: the scene of the storm at sea in Book 1 is particularly good to read out loud, as you get all of Juno's wrath and all of Neptune's power on full display.

Another possibility would be to consider doing part of a dramatic monologue such as one of Alan Bennett's Talking Heads. It might be worth seeking further guidance by cross-posting this question to the Entertainment section of the Reference Desk. RomanSpa (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t say what language you will perform in, Learnerktm? Just in case here are some non-English ideas. Taknaran (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Tandava Stotram is always a dramatic recitation. This video is bad quality but the sound is ok: [11].
The Heart Sutra – a version by the Dalai Lama is here.
Or Hanuman Chalisa; here’s an example of a recitation by famous actor Amitabh Bachchan.

Yorick is a good one. You'd need to find some props, however. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 15:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't everyone have a spare human skull in their crawlspace ? :-) StuRat (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I have crawlspace inside my human skull, where a brain would normally go. Does that count? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You might want to buy a copy of The Faber Popular Reciter, edited by Kingsley Amis, a collection of poems that work particularly well when read aloud. It includes dramatic monologues. --Antiquary (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Al-Mrrajjam", Jordan

This article (Al-Mrrajjam) was created in 2009. It is almost totally uncited. Googling "Al-Mrrajjam", I can't find any reference to it that isn't liked to the Wikipedia page. There are no Google books results. Does anyone have any idea if this places exists? Might it be a transliteration issue, and it's usually spelt differently in English? Sotakeit (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link at the bottom of the page links to a site which has an arabic translation of the name [المرجم]. Googling that leads to results that confirms that the place exists, such as this random article from Al-Dustour newspaper [12] "Oldest man has died in Al-Mrajem in Ajloun province". I could not find an article in the arabic wikipeida, but the village is mentioned in the article about Ajloun province [13]. Al-Marajem would be another possible transcription. --Xuxl (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This website also gives details of the Al-Mrrajam Secondary Comprehensive Girls School, including its phone number. If you speak Arabic you could try ringing them up. --Antiquary (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the directory above puts a shadda above the "r", so it makes "Al-Merrajem" or "Al-Marrajem" a more correct transcription. Neither spelling gets any result in English however. --Xuxl (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the place called Merjam on this Bing map.--Cam (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes of Rome

Does anyone know why Saint Agnes (Agnes of Rome) has two separate feast days in the Roman Catholic calendar? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Her feast day is 21 January. In pre-1970 versions of the General Roman Calendar an additional feast of the same saint is given one week later, on 28 January (see Tridentine Calendar). The 1969 revision removed this as a duplication of the 21 January feast." [14] Alansplodge (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, But, I had already read that in the Agnes of Rome article. So, I am not sure how that answers my question. Why was she given an additional feast day (two, in total) to begin with? The 1969 revision basically said "OK, we don't think she needs two. One is plenty. So, let's remove the second one." But the question is why did she "merit" two, to begin with? In fact, today (January 28) is called the "Second Feast Day of Saint Agnes" (on my Catholic calendar of 2015). And, on the same calendar, last week (January 21) was marked as "Feast Day of Saint Agnes". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly, 28 January is her birthday and 21 January is the anniversary of her martyrdom. --Antiquary (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I am not articulating well, and I am not making my question clear. Let me try again. She has two feast days; most saints have only one. In fact, if I am correct, all saints (not "most"") have only one feast day. So, why would she "merit" having two instead of the "regular" one? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We understand what you're asking but are just forwarding the information that we've found. Everything that Google could find me seems to point to 28 January being an alternative (rather than additional) feast day, now officially abandoned. There may be another explanation, but if so, it eludes me. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All of the links given above are copies of the Wikipedia page (or vice versa). And, on my calendar, she specifically has an "additional" feast, not an alternate. In fact, Wikipedia has an article (redirect) specifically for "Second Feast of St. Agnes", which is listed on the "Feast Days" for the January 28 article. If it were an "alternate", it would not specifically bear the name "Second Feast Day". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's odd. As a matter of practicality, it seems that all the action with the Pope and the lambs etc seems to take place on 21 January. We Anglicans only have 21 Jan [15], but I expect that doesn't help much. Alansplodge (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! I Googled "Second Feast of St. Agnes" and got 28th January, the second Feast of St Agnes, The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite by Laszlo Dobszay (p. 129) and the simplest explanation; "This feast commemorates the apparition of St. Agnes to her parents who came to pray at her tomb eight days after her martyrdom." [16] A footnote (No. 21) at the foot of this page says; "The second feast of St Agnes on 29th January is not generally called an octave, but certainly resembles one. The two feasts, of great antiquity, are described respectively as of her ‘passion’ and her (heavenly) ‘nativity’ in the Gelasian sacramentary and the Würzburg gospel list; their designation as ‘primo’ and ‘secundo’, used in the 1962 calendar, comes from the Gregorian Sacramentary, where the feasts are also found. See W.H. Frere Studies in Early Roman Liturgy Vol. I: The Kalendar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930), p. 89.". Mystery solved. Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's helpful and interesting detail. But, my question still remains. Why does she get two, when every other saint under the sun only gets one? In other words, there are many other saints who are martyrs. What is different about her that merits her two feast days in the Roman Catholic Church? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Catholic practice so I may be missing something, but it looks to me like there are quite a few saints who have, or used to have, more than one feast day. Looking at some of the more obvious ones I find two or more feast days for John the Baptist, St. Paul, St. Joseph, St. Peter and the Virgin Mary. In mediaeval England 10 saints had two feast days, one had four, and one had five (see p. 94 n. 52). Is the case of St. Agnes really so very unusual? --Antiquary (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is still a distinction. Those others have multiple feast days, but they are usually for some specific event in the life of that saint. For example, John the Baptist: (1) his nativity; and (2) his beheading. Saint Paul: (1) his conversion; (2) his shipwreck; and (3) the dedication of his church . Or such. Saint Agnes doesn't really have some specific "event", as far as I can tell. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from the sources that I quoted above, the first seems to commemorate her martyrdom and the second, her apparition to her parents eight days later. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Crusade

Our article says, The campaign was largely successful, capturing the important cities of Acre, Jaffa, and reversing most of Saladin's conquests...
Is there a more accurate account of how many total cities captured and how many people involved? withdraw--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

‘Out-of-body’ and ‘Inside the body’ Experience

Hello,

Out-of-body experience is when your soul/spirit is outside your body. I understand the feelings perceived during this momentum. How would you classify similar experiences from being inside the body? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Corporal will work, but you need to give an example. See also, St. Theresa. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: Think of it as you realised your body parts one day, how the face distinguished with other...you realised you don't belong inside your body. An OBE kind of feeling but you could still control your body... And you are awake when you had this feeling, while you are looking in the mirror, talking to people, and so on... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

That's disassociation (or depersonalization or derealization). An extreme mixture lies in the K-hole. I don't think you want to find it, but it's probably safe to click the link. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Thanks bro

. Wish we done this together, you are the perfect guy... (always helping out...) -- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved

Exchange of prisoners with ISIS

There has been a lot of activity recently with the idea of exchanging prisoners with ISIS, in order to get hostages released. And, just today, this has happened with that Jordanian pilot who was captured by ISIS a few weeks ago. So, these incidents have prompted my question. Let's say that the USA exchanges one of our prisoners (for a hostage being released or for whatever reason). So, that means that the federal government is releasing the prisoner from prison. So, my question is: is that (former) prisoner now 100% free and clear? Or can he somehow be sent back to prison? So, in other words, what is the legal effect of the prisoner exchange? Is it like he was pardoned? And he is now 100% free to go on with his life? Or, if he is walking around the streets (in the USA), can he be re-arrested and sent back to prison? Or is he protected by double jeopardy? I mean, what happens in these cases? Practically speaking, I assume, the prisoner is sent back to his home country, so many of my questions are not applicable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If it is decided to release persons deprived of their liberty, necessary measures to ensure their safety shall be taken by those so deciding." Some more context to that rule and further reading here.

In a very general sense, the prisoner isn't totally free, but given over to another authority. It's then up to that authority to pardon, imprison, execute or whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though apparently, like much else to do with the War on Terror, the "Terror" side is often considered differently from regular soldiers by those on the "War" side. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All of your links, I believe, apply to prisoners of war and also apply only during war time. So, apparently, there are "rules" for that. And what about situations where it is not a prisoner of war and not during war time? In other words, say that some crazy person (like an ISIS member or whoever) takes a civilian hostage (maybe a journalist or whatever). I don't think Geneva Convention rules apply at all. Right? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the debate. Is the War on Terror a "real" war? Is every non-Western soldier just a "crazy person"? The issue is kept purposefully muddy, to allow for all sorts of legal and rhetorical interpretations.

As for hostages, the US has made a cliche out of their "We don't negotiate with terrorists" policy. Again, it's not so clear-cut as that.

For clearly non-war prisoner trading, the Geneva Convention means nothing. All about the various extradition laws then. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what is clearly non-war is not clear. I just read a story about an Iraqi-Canadian civilian who allegedly e-mailed two Tunisian civilians in Syria regarding a bombing in Iraq. Four years after he was arrested by civilian police in Canada, he was finally allowed to plead in civilian court last week, in the United States, defended by an American lawyer. Because five non-civilian Americans died while on active duty in a warzone.

Confusion like that is why only lawyers can be lawyers. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For another look at how foggy words have become, see how sending soldiers to kill enemies in another country only sort of maybe counts as sending them to do "combat". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of releasing the ISIS suicide bomber, with a bomb sewn up inside her, and detonate it when when returns to her comrades. Poetic justice. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think inciting mass murder of an identifiable group is really appropriate on wikipedia considering the illegality of such statements in the developed world, can you please stop making unrelated and offensive posts. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nobody captures suicide bombers. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, unless you mean to distinguish between suicide bombers and would-be suicide bombers. Bombs frequently fail to go off, or just fizzle, as in the case of the Detroit underwear bomber or the shoe bomber. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the suicide pilots employed by Japan in WWII. Many of them perished, but not all. Like the world's oldest living Kamikaze pilot, "Chicken" Teriyaki. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I count them as suicide bombers in the same way I count LA waiters as actors. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's LA, not L.A. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You are easily offended, 70.Lgriot (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two elements of answers to the OP's question. 1) If a country swaps a prisoner they hold for one held by a foreign group, the former prisoner likely has no intention of returning the the country which imprisoned them. Were they to do so, they would likely, at best, be refused entry, and yes, risk being locked up again. 2) The former prisoner may or may not be "100% free" in regards to their past conduct which landed them in prison. If they return to committing imprisonable offences (e.g. terrorism or murder) post-release, they can, from a legal perspective, be put back behind bars for the "fresh" offences. Of course, this will only happen in practice of if they're stupid or unlucky enough to be captured again. 120.144.155.161 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Of course, subsequent conduct of "new" charges ("new" criminal activity) will be handled appropriately. In other words, the "release" (exchange) on the first crime does not give him license to commit any new crimes in the future (without legal repercussion). I am trying to determine the legal status of the "old" crime (the one for which he was imprisoned and eventually exchanged). Is it like that crime is "wiped off the books" and he is free as if he were pardoned? Double jeopardy does not attach? And the real gist of the question is: once the USA agrees to this exchange, is there some legal "loophole" by which they can throw the guy back in jail (presumably, after the USA has received the other prisoner in exchange)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The United States (or others in good standing with the World Bank) doesn't need a loophole to kill or capture someone. What's anyone going to do? Arrest a President? Kick down all these doors with warrants? When you're this big, you can wipe pretty much anything off the books. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that answers my question? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't directly. But the lack of a need for a loophole suggests they don't use a loophole. It might still exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question of international law (that I'll apparently be researching later this semester) is whether engaging in negotiations with non-state actors for the release of their ~~prisoners~~ hostages is even legal. Apparently it's unclear. As a corollary, the formerly common practice of paying ransoms for ships, cargoes, and crews captured by Somali pirates is explicitly unlawful under US law. If we're talking about non-state actors negotiating with ISIS for the release of prisoners, payment of funds would probably be unlawful under laws prohibiting the funding of foreign wars/terrorism (depending on how you want to classify ISIS). If we're talking about a sovereign state negotiating with ISIS, one thought I have is that if the negotiation itself wasn't legal, any agreement they reach would be a nullity in international law, and so the state could just turn around and recapture the guys. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]