Humanities desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

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.

June 22

Space Exploration

Are humans allowed to travel in Space? Are their any religious statements defining limitations for humans to stay to Earth...? -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Human spaceflight: the humans who participated have almost exclusively done so with the sponsorship of sovereign states themselves, so for any reasonable definition of "allowed", the answer is "of course". I know of no major world religion which has any tenets that disallow human spaceflight; though of course with the diversity of religious thought around the world, it is possible that there is some group, sect, or person who has expressed such sentiments. --Jayron 32 19:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably it's unethical because of the heavy environmental cost (greenhouse gas generation in the rocket launch). Itsmejudith (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with "allowed?" --Jayron 32 19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. -- Space Ghost (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take the Q to be whether an ordinary person can go into space without prior permission from their government. That would depend on the government, but for most I suspect the answer is no, you definitely need approval, for airspace and civil defense reasons. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was not thinking about what you stated after I posted this...

-- Space Ghost (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, maybe, but compared to other human endeavours, the overall environmental impact of the space program is fairly negligible. And counting indirect effects, such as pale blue dot and better weather forecasts, the balance may well be in favour of the space program. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmejudith, Stephan Schulz: Like people give a damn about the environment. Everyone talks the 'talk' but never walks the 'walk' - they wanna use the 'wheelchair' instead; they want someone else to do it and are happy to mourn about it...some are more than happy to use the money upon themselves regardless of the thought of 'GO', 'NGO', personal money (Lottery, hard earned cash, drug money...). They'll probably be the one's who are throwing things appropriately in the bin, not breaking a bear bottle after its finished, not spitting/pissing in the street, not throwing a coke can as far as they possibly can, or something... I swear I would've changed the world if I had money...people would've lived in another galaxy by now. It makes me feel like vomiting purposely when I hear them talking about it anyway, how much they've (companies, rich people, GOs and NGOs) done for/about it... I swear the world itself as an 'organism' and does more than its 'Bacteria' (humans). Anyway, it's an endless discussion, there is no point of arguing about it in this post... -- Space Ghost (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two planets meet in outer space. The first asks "How are you?" "Not good," replies the second, "I have a bad infection with humans". "Never mind," says the first. "Those usually pass quickly". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist Ken Ham thinks "space exploration is driven by man’s rebellion against God", according to this progressive secular humanist site. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome statement! -- Space Ghost (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Ask yourself this: Is there anything in the Bible forbidding space travel? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like Dr. Zakir Naik; one sided...

-- Space Ghost (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's that bit in Genesis where God grants humans "dominion" over all the Earth, animals, fish, etc. Nowhere does God grant dominion over space. That could be taken as a "no". StuRat (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to that logic, if I visit Russia, I'm conquering it. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To visit Russia you would need the permission of those who own it (the Russian government). If we assume that "God still owns space", then we would need God's permission to visit. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. -- Space Ghost (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see good old Leviticus 19:19: ...neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together - which would definitely rule out most space suits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao. Good one! Noted! -- Space Ghost (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that a mix of wool and linen is compulsory for an effective space suit. In any case, are space suits necessary for space travel? You really don't have to get out of the vehicle. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wool and linen is in Deuteronomy, if I remember correctly. Leviticus is less specific. Now Leviticus may mean the same thing, but maybe not. If you want to read a prohibition, you can ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A passage in the Pope's recent Encyclical (which I've read in entirety) seemed to me to imply that traveling beyond Earth is theologically wrong. I've had a quick flick through and can't relocate the section I have in mind (so i could be mistaken), but I'll try again later. This was also a theme of C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you sign one mate? You use the service, you help, but you don't let us know who you are, what's the point of looking like a '666'/Barcode/IP number... Its more fun if we know each other...our friends/associates...we can help in a better way... Anyway, its up to you. just saying as a Wikifriend... -- Space Ghost (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume that there are other sentient life forms out there, one could argue that space travel is actually a duty (at lest for the proselytizing religions such as Islam and Christianity) ... How else can one bring the "true religion" to the heathen aliens? Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement conflicts with Islam, as far as I recall, from a hear say, apparently Muhammad said 'humans place is on earth, here where they were born and here where they'll die'. In strict 'Osama bin Ladin' style, it means 'you are not allowed'... -- Space Ghost (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Blish's A Case of Conscience and Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow are two science fiction novels predicated on that idea. --ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A priest in a short story by Randall Garrett, iirc, explains that the Church has ruled that nonhumans are not its proper concern, as they did not inherit Adam's sin. —Tamfang (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does that suppose to mean, am I allowed?

-- Space Ghost (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we ever encounter intelligent extraterrestrial life, the question will come up as to how they should be treated religiously. Most of the rules in the Bible are now taken to apply only to how humans treat each other (other than some dietary laws on how animals are to be treated). So, do those laws then apply to the aliens ? For example, "Do unto others and you would have others do unto you". And should we try to convert them to our religion ? It would all get very complicated. StuRat (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A point to note: Never try to convert someone, the converter (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whoever) should bare in mind that the person he/she's trying to convert, is not meant/born to be/for their religion; the person would've birthed within that religious group if so. If a person is trying to convert themselves willfully, then its a different story. A conference, should only be for that particular group, until or unless they willfully wish to discuss differences and resemblance. And of course, the aliens must always be given the opportunity to entre and grasp the information without putting them in shackles... No matter what you do, you are bluddy praying to that 'one God', find out which religion teaches you how to best seek for forgiveness; I guess... -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not always one God. The Hindu religion is polytheistic. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I believe they took their prophets as Gods naively due to the divine attributes displayed, or the prophets themselves took the micky (unknown), did not re-correct their followers. No one was available at that time to justify the thought. It is apparently clearly stated in their Holy Books (Vedic and so on) to Worship only one unseen and unknowable God. What's surprising is, some Christians do this with Jesus, knowingly that Jesus came after Moses, and both are from the Abrahamic Line, and I believe that Jesus did not take the micky (this is apparently clearly stated in the Bible). However some people need that Spiritual belief, otherwise they can't connect with their religion. So I guess I have to conclude that Hindusim and Christianity took this route. -- Space Ghost (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks friends, analysis states "its not allowed". Sorry for the delay, I ran out of my payg; internet 'bytes'.

I wonder if we re are allowed to at least stay in between the 7/8 Earth's layers, in the religious sense. Note that we are already living/breathing in one layer, aeroplane's fly in one, the one to note is the ISS; is in another. Nothing is stated about aqua life/layer in the Outer Space article's diagram...(the full information could be in Earth article). Any comment(s) would be helpful for analysis friends. -- Space Ghost (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when God supposedly granted humans "dominion over all the birds that fly in the sky", I suppose that implies dominion over the portion of the sky where birds fly, as well. Not quite sure how far up that is, but it's not the ISS. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say, my whole life time, I thought there were 7 heavens, because it states in the quran, now I find out, it talks about the layers.(pissed) -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is Antonio Nariño's correct full name because Wikipedia in English and Spanish differ?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Antonio_Nari%C3%B1o So is it Álvarez or Bernardo for the mother's surname in Antonio Nariño's name??

Antonio Amador José de Nariño y Álvarez del Casal (article is Spanish has this) or Antonio Amador José de Nariño Bernardo del Casal (article in English has this, despite a contradictory note in italics, just above it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.244.46 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do reliable sources outside of Wikipedia say? That's all that matters. --Jayron 32 19:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi courts

I am trying to find an old criminal case or any related reports. In what court would a man accused of murder or killing be tried in Mississippi in the 1950s? Does anybody know some useful public records database from that period? trespassers william (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to know where in the state the murder occurred, as that would determine which court would handle the case. StuRat (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it's in Mississipi, probably one of these twenty-two circuit courts. Might not have been 22 then, but there were some. The man who killed Jessie James (not to be confused with the man who killed Jesse James) went through the Forrest County one in 1952, on his way to the chair in 1953. It was a simpler time. Now Forrest and Perry are "District 12". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With murder, which defendants traditionally love appealing, the Supreme Court of Mississippi hears the last one, if the Court of Appeal doesn't work out. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trespassers william, if the case had a reported opinion it would be in the Westlaw database (to which I have access) or the Lexis database. John M Baker (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Baker: What is a reported opinion? I guess it was an utterly insignificant case at the time. Anyway the accused is R. L. Burnside. The time, probably the 50s. the place, most likely Panola, Tate, Marshall, Lafayette or Tunica counties of MS - which would make the Oxford, MS circuit (?) court most likely. The original sentence - incarceration in Mississippi State Penitentiary (one source says 5 years). I would guess there was no appeal with a poor black sharecropper, but it seems he was pulled out before serving the full time, so maybe that went through an appeal procedure. trespassers william (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A legal opinion is a court's explanation of its ruling on points of law, particularly if the court is an appellate court. In many but not all cases, these opinions are published. As you suggest, there probably was no appeal in Burnside's case and, hence, no legal opinion. In any case, I did not find any opinions from this period from Mississippi that mentioned Burnside. John M Baker (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. trespassers william (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]