Humanities desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 6

Both religious and secular left or religious and secular right

Can a political party or a politician be both secular left and religious left? How about a political party or a politician be both secular right and religious right? If so, which parties or politicians were known to be like that?Donmust90 (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "secular"? If you mean "non-religious" (as in secular humanism), then being secular and religious is a contradiction... AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the meaning "on the left both regarding secular issues and regarding religious issues" makes sense, if you think there are a left and a right to religious issues. That's how I read the question, anyway. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok -- If the question means "Is there any significant number of politically-progressive Biblical-literalist fundamentalists, or ultraconservative Unitarian-universalists?" then the answer is "No" (at least in the United States). Back in the William Jennings Bryan days, there were a number of semi-fundamentalists who wanted various social reforms, but they kind of got diverted from supporting a number of 19th-century populist goals to focusing fairly narrowly on silver monetization, alcohol prohibition etc (and of course, that was over a hundred years ago)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A strict interpretation of the New Testament as well as of the Qur'an should lead a believer to be far more progressive in assisting the poor and condemning the unbridled acquisition of wealth than the policies of countries in which they live, even as these holy texts are generally seen there as guiding principles. So a non-hypocrite fundamentalist religious politician might well lean to the right on political issues like abortion or Sunday laws, but to the left on issues like minimum wage and paid sickness leave. --Lambiam 07:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, many who considered themselves strict Bible-believers thought that the Bible enjoined generous personal giving of charity, but were much less enthusiastic about centralized state action. Of course, in the latest Trump-supporting phase of white evangelicalism in the United States, many religious rightists consider only those who resemble themselves to be "deserving" recipients of charity, while those who are unlike them religiously or ethnically are undeserving, in spite of the Biblical injunctions to succor "strangers", because "you were strangers in the land of Egypt" -- which does smack of Biblical hypocrisy. AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They would hardly admit to descent from anyone who ever lived in Egypt. —Tamfang (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if by "secular" you mean believing in the separation of church and state, its entirely plausible that someone could think they have a religious justification for supporting left-policies, while also supporting separation of church and state, and opposing the existence of explicitly religious laws. Iapetus (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

socially centre and economically centre

So far, I know that a politician or a political party can be a) socially left and economically left; b) socially left and economically right; c) socially right and economically right; and d) socially right and economically left. But, can they be the following:

a) socially centre, economically left,
b) socially centre, economically right,
c) socially centre, economically centre,
e) socially right, economically centre, and 
f) socially left, economically centre?

If so, which parties or politicians were known to be like that?Donmust90 (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a homework question. And sure, a pol could describe themself as any of those combinations. We'd have to know at the very least what left, centre, and right mean where you are. Temerarius (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A user who went (from Bangladesh?) to Birmingham, England, on a business trip in 2012[1] is pretty unlikely to be still doing homework in 2020. --Lambiam 07:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that DonMust90 is well-intentioned in his own way, but he often has a tendency to ask "combinatorial" type questions, about all possible permutations or intersections of various sets of categories, even when such questions have no easy answer, or are somewhat pointless (because certain theoretical combinations of parameters are actually incompatible in the real world)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonable to position political parties on a left-to-right scale relative to the political spectrum in the country (and epoch) of their activities. --Lambiam 07:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The European Christian democratic parties are generally both socially and economically centrist, although socially mostly centre-right and economically mostly centre-left. In most or perhaps all of these parties there are politicians who are leaning more to the left or more to the right than the mainstream of their party, whether economically or socially. --Lambiam 07:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donmust90, you may be interested in: Liberal? Are we talking about the same thing? (BBC, 2010). Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant concept is Political spectrum (aka Political compass). You can test your own position on this site, which also ranks politicians and parties from various countries. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, having stretched your mind to the idea that people can occupy four corners of the range of opinion, you're questioning whether certain points in between are accessible? Is there a reason to suppose that the range is discontinuous? —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA, my (albeit bias) answer to the Original Question is the Democratic Party.

a) socially centre, economically left: Andrew Yang
b) socially centre, economically right: Cory Booker
c) socially centre, economically centre: Elizabeth Warren
e) socially right, economically centre: Michael Bloomberg
f) socially left, economically centre: Bill Clinton

DOR (HK) (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Warren is not economically centrist in the context of the United States, as I think many of her supporters and opponents would agree (it's certainly strange to put her in the same category with Michael Bloomberg). Economic centrism actually has something of a bad odor in the U.S. in recent years, since it's come to be associated with types such as Peter G. Peterson, No Labels etc. who, whatever lofty rhetoric they use, always in practice seem to be trying to generate concern over the deficit to sabotage Social Security (what Paul Krugman calls Very Serious People)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the idea that Bloomberg is "socially right" also makes no sense. He supports same-sex marriage, gun control, a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, public health insurance, and the scientific validity of climate change. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Left, center, and right of WHICH society? And of WHICH economy?--Khajidha (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do they stage fistfight in filming movies?

I watched a movie yesterday on Amazon.com. The title is "attackers." It is a Russian, with English subtitles, movie about German-Russian fighting in WWII. It is a contemporary production with a lot of computer simulation and air fights. In this scene two Russian officers argue. One is about a foot taller than the other. The shorter one accuses the tall one being politically unreliable which was a grave insult at that time in Russia. Finally the tall one, pissed off, swings at the short one and his fist lands on the latter's jaw. He simply crumples. He falls backwards on the cobbled street. While the tall one walks slowly away, the short one, who is not a Buster Keaton by any stretch of imagination, gets off the street holding his jaw. I actually looked carefully at the spot which he just left hoping to see a rope that was used to pull him back so spectacularly. There was no rope. How do they do it? In very old movies with young John Wayne, scenes like this were not done well, even movies with Buster Keaton. The skills have grown in a hundred year, that's for sure. Thanks, AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they used a rope, but if they did, you would not see it in the production movie, as they would have erased it from the copy. This was done even before the computer age. 2003:F5:6F02:C700:9D8B:D3A:F613:9C73 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

There are also various filming tricks, such as placing the camera so that the men seem closer than they actually are. There's also the technique of going through it slowly and then speeding up the film to make it look like the guy landed a crashing blow. Once in a blue moon they mess up and actually do slug somebody. In the Superman episode called "Night of Terror", bad guy Frank Richards was supposed to punch Lois Lane (Phyllis Coates). The camera was angled properly, but Coates missed her mark and when Richards swung he not only hit her, he knocked her out, and she fell to the floor - and they kept that take in the finished show. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You guys know so much about life, it is simply amazing! Thank you, AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or about movies, at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are Italians living overseas also eligible for government assistance?

We also lost our jobs because of the Coronavirus... 94.159.193.118 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly related to the coronavirus, but this guy was able to move from Syria to Italy after the start of the Syrian Civil War because he had an Italian grandfather and thus had Italian citizenship: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/story-exile-return-italy-syria-200204114721100.html Futurist110 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a citizen of Italy, you can contact your local consulate, embassy, or diplomatic mission to see if the Italian government will help you.

Here is the official website of the Ministero degli Affari Esteri, which can help you locate the nearest overseas-office of the Italian government.

Nimur (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything comparable to Hitler's Table Talk for any of the other political leaders of World War II?

Is there anything comparable to Hitler's Table Talk for any of the other political leaders of World War II? If so, what and for which World War II political leader(s)? Futurist110 (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Franklin Roosevelt’s Fireside chats? Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that they lasted past 1941. Yeah, they would work for this. Futurist110 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin avoided large meetings. Hitler was a big mouth and could not restrain himself from lecturing everyone. AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heartwarming mental images of Hitler and/or Stalin sitting in a rocking chair, near a crackling fire and having nice empathetic talks with an eagerly listening public. For Stalin, Uncle Joe's Cabin. For Hitler, Mein Kampfire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill communicated by regular speeches to Parliament, an option not open to Hitler after the Reichstag fire. Alansplodge (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the option was open; they could have just met in another location. Hitler chose not to do so, for his own selfish, power-hungry reasons. --Jayron 32 16:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler actually did sometimes give speeches to the German Reichstag after it became composed exclusively of Nazis and Nazi sympathizers, no? For instance, when he declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Futurist110 (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the top of the class Futurist110, the WP article is Reichstag (Nazi Germany). It met in the Kroll Opera House, where the delegates were more of an audience than a parliament. Alansplodge (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triumph of the Will (1935) depicts a Hitler speech at the 1934 Nuremburg rally, supposedly with 700,000 attendees. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a cosy chat though... Alansplodge (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]