Humanities desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

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 17

Christian fundamentalism, Biblical literalism, and creationism outside the United States

I am aware that I asked a question on this very topic eight months ago; however, the answers I received there were relatively unsatisfactory. This time, my questions will be more more specific: why did Christian fundamentalism take root and gain much prominence in the United States in particular, as opposed to countries in Europe, and why hasn't Christian fundamentalism generally caught on outside the United States? Let's take one of the most prominent features of fundamentalism: creationism. As far as I know, in conservative Christian (in this, Catholic) countries with much social opposition to abortion such as Ireland and the Philippines, there isn't much opposition to the teaching of evolution, at least not by Catholics. Europe is actually leading the way in the movement against the promotion of creationist beliefs, despite some of its countries being predominantly (mainline) Protestant. Sure there are prominent creationist organizations outside the US (Answers in Genesis was originally Australian; the Australian organization is now known as Creation Ministries International after a split with AiG), but even in such countries support for creationism is far lower than in the United States (for example, according to Creation and evolution in public education and Level of support for evolution#Australia, although efforts have been made to introduce creationism in schools, a majority of Australians still believe in some form of evolution, whether natural or theistic). While in many Christian countries (such as the aforementioned Ireland and Philippines) there are significant conservative Christian movements, these movements generally aren't Biblical literalists (Biblical literalists being the main proponents of creationism). So why did Biblical literalism, and Christian fundamentalism as a whole, not become as much of a force in other countries as they were in the United States? Why didn't the concepts of Young Earth creationism, intelligent design, and other related concepts, catch on among present-day Catholics and mainline Protestants? It is interesting to note though that Orthodoxy, at least in Russia, seems to be more receptive of creationism, and even then Orthodoxy apparently does not believe in a purely literal interpretation of scripture, and historically mainline Protestants were major proponents of Young Earth creationism, although their support for it faded over time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-script: I'm aware that many countries in Europe are now predominantly irreligious; however, in these countries, as well as countries which are still predominantly religious, it seems that Catholics and mainline Protestants have no problem with the teaching of evolution. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be such a huge amount of discussion of this on the internet; I don't suppose it will be easy to narrow down an answer.

This, by a company that seems to publish travel guides and other reference material, says fundamentalism in America arose as a political reaction (by people who didn't like liberalism) or in reaction to an influx of non-Protestant Christian immigrants a century ago.

This, by a Duke University prof and published by an independent university, sees fundamentalism's rise worldwide as an anxious reaction to the complexities of modern life that seeks refuge in trying to restore the past, and in the US, similar reasons again linked to the wave of immigration before and after 1900.

This, a paper in academic journal Annual Review of Sociology, is about the resurgence of fundamentalism worldwide since the 1970s and describes it as a reaction to secularization. It also says the movement is oldest in the US (because of early modernization there), which might explain why it appears most prominent there.

Here, an organization that exists to try to reduce the influence of religion on politics reports on a study into fundamentalism in Europe, concluding that in the 15-20% range of European Christians are Biblical literalists, as well as antisemetic, antigay and or anti-Muslim.

That's probably pretty long already and I'm sure your reading will give a more nuanced picture. Hopefully these references are a decent start. But the first apparent reasons seem to be that this movement had a head start in the United States, so is more established there, but it is also possible to see it "catching on" in Europe at t--TammyMoet (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)he present. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the US's two-party political system is to blame. With only two parties, instead of Christian fundamentalists being relegated to some minor party, as they would be in a multi-party system, they are part of the Republican Party, along with fiscal conservatives and libertarians, giving them real political power to change the curriculum, etc. (They, in turn, try to help the US Republican Party, although the religious fundamentalism of the Republican Party may turn off mainstream voters [1]). This power may make them more attractive than a powerless movement in another nation. StuRat (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever organized the Tea Party saw that the third-party route always fails, so they decided instead to infiltrate the Republican Party. The result is the Washington gridlock we've had since 2011. (God help us if they ever get a majority.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely inaccurate. No one "organized" the tea party and "infiltrated" the Republican party. The Tea Party simply consists of those Republicans who oppose the spendthrift ways of what they see as the establishment Republicans, and oppose unconstitutional laws. There was no top-down organization, rather the Tea Party was a meme that those embarrassed by Bush and Boehner have adopted. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather skeptical that nobody organized it. Somebody came up with the name. Somebody set times and locations for rallies. Somebody set up web sites and twitter feeds. Somebody decides which candidates are acceptable and which are not. This is all "organization". StuRat (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the public will wake up and figure the T.P. out before they can totally take over. Their embracing of Christian-right ignoramuses is downright scary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: did you ever read The Handmaid's Tale? Oh, sorry, I meant to type, have you ever visited Texas? Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the moon is made of green cheese, and I have a bridge in Manhattan to sell. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be quite embarrassing when the public sees your Bush or Boehner, as the case may be. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, worse, if the public seize your Bush and Boehner. Good one, Stu. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, beware of pubic seizures. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The simple answer from the British point of view is that we sent all our religious fundamentalists to North America some centuries ago! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's question is an essay that assumes a whole bunch of vague and unsupported claims. Very few Christians would call themselves fundamentalists, that's basically an oustider's term of criticism. One might call groups that shun former members fundamentalists, that would include groups like The Mormons, whom some don't consider actual Christians, and the Mennonites and Amish who are of European origin.

There's evangelicalism, which is growing strongly in Latin America and elsewhere. The premise that there's something peculiar to America that hasn't caught on elsewhere isn't a ref desk question, it's a thesis, and one not supported by the facts on the ground outside certain circles of the European left. What's much more interesting is the fact that while Europeans aren't converting from Lutheran and CoE to "Christian Fundamentalism", their churchs certainly are being converted: "the new normal", etc. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before "Fundamentalism" came to be a pejorative for any religious dogmatism, it had a more specific meaning as the (self-chosen) term for a movement within Protestantism that emphasised as fundamental, among other things, Biblical inerrancy. Related to this is the Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura, which says that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. These are doctrines that are not shared by - and in many cases explicitly rejected by - other Christian traditions. I think that answers half of your question - the reason Catholics don't generally believe in Biblical literalism or young-earth creation is because those beliefs are (or are a result of) a particular variety of Protestant doctrine that Catholicism specifically rejects. What I can't say is why these doctrines became influential in American protestantism more than in other countries' protestantism. Iapetus (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 100, Iapetus. I just didn't want to write a very long post and go off onto specific Lutheran doctrines. There's also the point that while Jewish and Islamic fundamentalism are somewhaty well defined, it's unclear what Christian Fundamentalism would actually consist of. Presumably not stoning women accused of adultery, getting smacked on the cheek a lot, and happily rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niderbergdorf

The article for William F. Lukes says he was born in Niderbergdorf, currently a redlink. This town surely now goes by a Czech name, but which town? This (which says it's from the World Heritage Encyclopedia, but sure reads like it's from Wikipedia) says it was de:Dolní Pertoltice (which was formerly called Nieder Berzdorf), which seems to be the lower part of Pertoltice (Liberec District). Can anyone confirm this with a reliable, unambiguous source (as there is at least one other Nieder Berzdorf in the Czech Republic)? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 08:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous, but probably not reliable: Czech American Timeline: Chronology of Milestones in the History of Czechs in America by Miloslav Rechcigl, Jr, (self-published and unsourced as well) writes that Lukes was born in Dolní Pertoltice. I couldn't find any publication at all saying he was born in the other Nieder Berzdorf, Dolní Suchá. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset House

Hello,

I am looking for infomation on the total floor space for Somerset House, however I am unable to find anything? Do any of you guys have anything on the matter? Thanks in advance.2003:60:D16:B501:71C3:9ADF:2E91:5A2B (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset House is our article. Since that lacks the info you seek, have you tried a Google search ? So far all I've found is this: [2], which lists 59,000 square feet. You could always contact the appropriate government agency which maintains the property, and ask them. (Note that how you define square footage is always an issue, such as whether you include storage space, etc.) StuRat (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a rather brief article about different measures of square footage. DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors publish a code of measuring practice which explains the three principal measures used in the UK (GEA, GIA, and NIA). Code of Measuring Practice. This will help you understand the figure when you do manage to find it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Valuation Office Agency Website Find my property valuation and searched for the rating valuations for WC2R 1LA (the postcode of Somerset House). There are approx. 140 separate rated units in Somerset House. The four largest come to a total of over 97,000 square feet, so the total will be rather more than this. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of cigarette prohibition laws (1890-1927)

I was surprised to read an article [3] that said that 16 U.S. states had banned cigarette smoking between 1890 and 1927. We don't have an article on cigarette prohibition but the Anti-Cigarette League of America article says 15 states made such prohibitions and 22 more considered them.

Now, my bias is to assume that the prohibition would have contributed greatly, or even been necessary for, the popularization of cigarette smoking. Considering the precedents of opium prohibition in China and marijuana prohibition in the U.S., I think of prohibition laws as being like patents, which give those who have the right connections a profit motive to increase sales volume, plus they impart a word-of-mouth appeal. However, there are of course proponents of prohibition who think that the laws would have a negative impact. Which is where things get interesting, because there might be some applicable facts out there from what is virtually a controlled experiment:

Has anyone compared and correlated the rise of smoking statistics in U.S. states that passed the prohibitions to those that did not? Wnt (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that they are talking about bans or prepackaged cigarettes only, leaving loose tobacco and rolling papers, pipe tobacco, cigars, and chewing tobacco. 'Snuff said ? (Personally I think they were right, in that the additives to prepackaged cigs are the worst problem, although cigars sure can stink the place up, too.) StuRat (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that detracts from the experiment - if anything, the numbers for cigars, snuff, chewing tobacco etc. would be another control. The question is whether cigarette bans affected the sales of cigarettes, and if so in which direction. Wnt (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a major effect. People deprived of one from of tobacco can easily switch to another, which eliminates the desire to take a risk to get the illegal form. Likewise, if marijuana brownies were legal for all, there would be less demand for the (still illegal) smokable form. There's an economics term for this, where one product can easily be substituted for another. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's the term. StuRat (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there have been other cases where the substitution didn't occur in the expected direction. For example, "mariguan" was described in 1896 as a habit of some border Mexicans, and apparently was toloachi, a combination of datura and cannabis. However, as prohibition laws generally targeted the cannabis, widespread use - luckily, you might say - focused on the mostly harmless cannabis part. Some states have recently taken steps to outlaw henbane and other previously obscure chemicals that cause severe delusional behavior; over time we may have the entertainment of observing the effects of such bans play out in practice. Wnt (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read or even browsed thought it yet (3,758 pages!), but I am betting that the WNT's question is answered somewhere within this work:

Linder, Mark (2012). "Inherently bad, and bad only" : a history of state-level regulation of cigarettes and smoking in the United States since the 1880s. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa.

Chapter 1 titled The Cigarette Industry/Nicotine Trust in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century: Production and Consumption Levels and Trends andContemporaneous Views of the Impact of State Sales Bans looks promising and starts at page 89 of the pdf. Happy reading! Abecedare (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A winning title if ever there were one. I must develop a slightly longer variation of it for the title of my next romantic novel, an epic saga of 19 generations of one tragically stupid family that will span the ages and set hearts (and lungs) on flame in four continents. On second thought, I won't need to bother with any writing, as the title will be sufficient. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the reference... but it doesn't look exceptionally helpful in the slivers I've managed to examine. The statistics on page 300 make it sound like the figures going around weren't very accurate. There is a claim on page 1348 that the rate of smoking had increased several-fold after one state's prohibition law, but the newspaper at the time did not cite hard evidence. I don't see any sign of national tables in the document. I would hold out some hope they might exist, nonetheless, in some industry publication if nothing else. Wnt (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these documents actually list the 15 or 16 states which tried to ban cigarettes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The long one provides immense detail on each prohibition campaign - it's possible that the count varies because of philosophical distinction over the details, since it sounds like they tried everything: outright prohibition, public smoking bans, age limits, prohibitive taxes, etc. Wnt (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many if not all states currently have smoking restrictions of various kinds, including everything you've listed except total prohibition. And not just laws imposed, but also businesses having their own restrictions above and beyond the law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomatoes in pizza and stir-fried eggs and tomatoes

Tomatoes are from the Americas. How did they wind up in pizza (in Italy) or in stir-fried eggs and tomatoes (a common family dish in China)? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International trade. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer Bugs. This article History of pizza also contains useful info. MarnetteD|Talk 20:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article on tomato answers this quite comprehensively. Widneymanor (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It does not mention how the tomato reached the Far East and became included in a family dish there. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as a crop can grow in other places, there will be people interested in growing it there. Most people find tomatoes to be tasty, and they are quite nutritious, so it would be surprising if they didn't spread and weren't incorporated into local dishes. I'm sure you eat many foods that are not local to your area, too, like bananas. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the Far East, whatever you mean by that, but specifically regarding China, this abstract has some details on the history of tomato cultivation there [4]. Searching for relevant terms from that abstract should give more info like [5]. Such results may help with further searching like [6]. In terms of "family dish", well China is a very big place and it's unclear how you know this dish is as widespread as you suggest. Nor is it clear if you know how old this dish has been that common. A lot of things taken for granted nowdays or assumed normal are actually fairly recent in culinary terms. E.g. it wasn't that long ago that the banana was a luxury food in most temperate countries. That said, as our article mentions, China is the largest cultivator of tomatoes by far nowadays. Much of this is for processing and may be very recent [7] but it's hardly surprising if the tomato is going to end up in all sorts of dishes there. Nil Einne (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish merchants, who were the first Europeans to trade extensively with regions in the Americas where tomatoes were cultivated, were primarily responsible for bringing tomatoes from the Americas to Europe and Asia. This movement was part of the Columbian exchange. Marco polo (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not a reliable source, but this blog claims that they were taken to China along the Silk Road by Arab traders. Alansplodge (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And on the Italian question, see Pomodoro!: A History of the Tomato in Italy by David Gentilcore. Alansplodge (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

China in World History by Paul S. Ropp agrees with Marc polo's Spanish route. Alansplodge (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking to the interesting Ropp source, Alan, but it doesn't really say that. The Portguese held Macau and had a presence on Taiwan, so that is a likely route of introduction. Ropp makes it clear that a whole range of New World crops were important in China, particularly the lower Yangzi, by the late 16th century. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the Portuguese were involved, but Portugal's connection to Mexico, the source of the tomato, was indirect, by way of Spain. In Europe, tomatoes were not widely grown and were mainly considered ornamental and were only gradually integrated into cuisines from the 17th to the early 19th centuries. Meanwhile, a Spanish trade route connected Mexico with China by way of the Philippines by 1565. (See Manila galleon). Tomatoes were used as food in Mexico at this time. The direct Spanish connection between Mexico, China, and Southeast Asia seems the more likely route of introduction, though I do not have a source. Marco polo (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't discuss tomatoes per se, but the direct China-Mexico connection is discussed in some depth in 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created, IIRC, China was a direct market of Pacific-bound trade from the New World, especially Fujian. --Jayron 32 14:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to be careful about assuming tomatoes were only introduced once in to China. There is the source I linked above suggesting that tomatoes may have been in China 2000 years ago. While I'm quite sceptical of the claim, particularly as it is from the 80s and early 90s [8] [9] when Chinese research may have still been fairly questionable such areas. But I don't think we can rule it out either since there have been a small number of species in the "Old World" which seem to have come from the Americas before Columbus. (Although I don't know if there's any evidence it's likely tomatoes would have been in anything like current form when it's possible they could have been transferred via a land bridge.) Cultivation of some crop basically dying out also isn't unheard of.

Anyway whatever the truth to the claim, it doesn't sound like anyone suggests it has had any modern influence. However I mentioned this primarily to reenforce my other point. As I said above, China is a big country. It's possible tomatoes may have come to different parts via different routes and different times, rather than coming to one part of China and then spreading to the rest of China. And as I also said above, the info we have doesn't really tell us much about how widespread tomatoes really were in China during the past centuries or heck even early this century. The report from someone who was in a missionary family in the early 20th century if true seems to describe at least one small Chinese subpopulation unfamiliar with tomatoes. In fact, for all we know, it's possible tomatoes weren't actually that dissimilar in China as they were in Italy.

(To be clear, I'm not saying the info isn't known, simply that I haven't seen enough in this thread to suggest we know it on the RD.)

Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we don't know it, we don't know it. What we do know is that Trans-Pacific trade pre-Columbus probably happened in a very limited sense, though 2000-year old Old-World Tomatoes would be one of those "Exceptional claims need exceptional evidence" things. AFAIK, the only major pre-Columbian New World crop which has been relatively reliably identified is the Polynesian Sweet potato (discussed in our article), and it is unknown how it got there, though there's good physical evidence that they arrived in Polynesia as early as 1000 AD. --Jayron 32 19:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the 'don't know' comment was only about how tomatoes spread in China after Columbus. As I said, I think it's clear that even if tomatoes did exist in China at one time before Columbus, this is irrelevant to the later spread since even the limited evidence which suggest they may have once been there doesn't support them having any later effect. I'm fairly sure that there is probably some decent information out there about how tomatoes actually spread in China post Columbus, but it simply hadn't been presented here on the RD yet, probably because it's not in simple form, and may not even be in English. The point of mentioning the 2000 year old thing again in my second comment above after I linked to it in my first comment was only to further emphasise that the point namely it would be foolish to assume that tomatoes only came in to a place as big as China once post Columbus and then spread internally from there. Similarly foolish to assume that they were super popular thoroughout China as soon as they were introduced just because they were mentioned in some old texts and common in certain foods in certain places nowadays. Perhaps I should have used small text but I wasn't intending to suggest it had any relevance in itself to the discussion of how tomatoes spread in China post Columbus in itself but instead simply a word of caution against simplistic thinking. Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne is quite right. While it seems likely that the tomato first reached coastal South China via Spanish (or less probably Portuguese) merchants in the early modern period, it is very plausible that the tomato could have first reached western China, probably a century or more later, through trade with Iran via Central Asia. (Though even in this case, the tomato would have reached Iran through trade with the Mediterranean region and ultimately with Spain.) And there may well be Chinese-language sources documenting the early presence of tomatoes in different places, but they are not likely to be available online or outside of China. Marco polo (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]