Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 21

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.

August 21

Islam

If a disaster destroyed Mecca, what would Muslims do, since it wouldn't be possible for them to make the Hajj any more? Would they think that they're all going to hell? --168.7.231.202 (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Jihad, I guess. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please guess elsewhere - that isn't even an attempt at a rational answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect they would rebuild it at the same location; after all any disaster wouldn't erase the latitude and longitude from existance, merely the buildings and stuff like that. That can all be rebuilt. There are some irreplacable relics which are a part of the Hajj, such as the Black Stone within the Kaaba, but it is likely that Islam would survive and adapt. Religion is somewhat plastic, and when major events like that happen, the religion changes. Consider what happened in Judaism after the Destruction of the Temple, Judaism changed and adapted. It would provide a good model for what would happen if a similar fate befell Mecca. --Jayron32 03:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Firstly, Mecca is a location - a geographic coordinate, How do you destroy a coordinate? In any case, "The Hajj is the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that all Muslims are required to make at least once in life, provided that a person is physically and financially capable of doing so". [1] If Mecca didn't exist, Muslims wouldn't be 'physically and financially capable' of doing it, and would be exempt. If there is a religion that insists that you will 'go to hell' if you don't do something that nobody can do, I can't think of one offhand. If anything I suspect that in this regard at least, Islam is a little more tolerant in its 'keep out of hell' requirements than those imposed on other 'People of The Book'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The Hajj is only required if it is reasonably possible, so if Mecca was gone every muslim would be excused. But what sort of disaster are you talking about? Even if the city was leveled they could still attend the site, and structures can usually be rebuild. Unless it was underwater or swallowed up by a subduction zone or left radioactive or otherwise poisoned, then nothing would stop people rebuilding or just attending the site. If the disaster was natural, many of the faithful may take it as some sort of sign. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(entirely speculative sci-fi scenario) What if Earth were destroyed but there were Muslim colonists on other planets/moons? --168.7.235.250 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See above answers. They are excused if it isn't physically or financially feasible. Mingmingla (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Malaysian_National_Space_Agency#Muslims_in_space and List_of_Muslim_astronauts#Praying_towards_Mecca_in_space. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I could see a situation where Israel is attacked from all sides, about to be wiped out, threatens to nuke Mecca if they don't back off, then carries out the threat, leaving Mecca destroyed and irradiated. I wonder if Moslems would still visit, even though it meant an increased risk of cancer. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless it was a salted nuclear weapon, the site wouldn't be very radioactive after a relatively short time, so the Hajj would at worst be put on hold for one or two years. Also note that Mecca is important to Muslims that might otherwise not have any major issues with Israel, like Indonesians, Malaysians and Pakistanis, so pissing them off might just result in a nuclear power weighing in against Israel. It would make more sense to use the nukes against military targets or mabye civilian populations of the countries that are actually attacking them (I doubt Saudi Arabia is going to attack them). 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the explicit exemptions to Hajj is if you feel that it will endanger your life to go on Hajj. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

---

By the way, the Wahhabites of Saudi Arabia have actually destroyed a large number of former subsidiary holy sites in Mecca and Medina (houses and tombs associated with members of Muhammad's family and other prominent early Muslims), because they didn't fit with the Wahhabi version of Islam -- see Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites... AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe there was a point where the Umayyad Caliphate (then based in Damascus) lost control of Mecca. Their response, I gather, was to build the Dome of the Rock. 58.111.229.109 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

More interesting question would be an earthquake at the "al-aqsa mosque," as Jerusalem has faced very severe earthquakes in the past and experts predict an event worse one is coming in the next few years. I think that's a more likely scenario than Mecca. --Activism1234 22:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear from an actual Muslim on this question. One would think they would have contingency plans in case of disasters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm thanks for bringing that up. Maybe I'll go ask a Muslim friend of mine. If you're a cynic, you don't have to believe I actually did that, but I'm not lying to ya. --Activism1234 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My wife's a muslim. She hasn't been and doesn't plan to ever go. Her family are all too poor to make the trip, and I would offer to help (since I'd be interested just to go and see what it's all about), but she shot that idea down. I suspect they would want to go if they could as some are quite devout. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're non-Muslim, then you would not be allowed to go on the pilgrimage, or even allowed near the city of Mecca at all (see the infamous "Christian bypass"). (Also, if you're non-Muslim and your wife is Muslim, then your marriage is theoretically in violation of traditional Islamic law.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but I would just say the shahadah before I go. Also, even though our marriage is a clear cut violation of Islamic law, her family, (including her brother-in-law who has some sort of Islamic scholarly title) don't seem to have any problem with it at all. Her mother always said how I was so much better than the last guy (who was a muslim). Even though I'm not Christian either, we had to have a certified Catholic marriage in Indonesia as the authorities there require some sort of religious ceremony and the Muslim one was just patently too much hassle. Her passport still lists her as a Muslim though. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the response my friend gave me. "Possibly we might have to do other pilgrimages in other mosques 3) hajj being destroyed is a sign of doomsday there would be mass panic about the arrival and of the messiah and the antichrist."

Hope that helps! --Activism1234 01:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Muslim names for "the messiah and the antichrist" in an apocalyptic context are Mahdi and Dajjal... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I quoted exactly word for word what I was told. That may be true, I was just using a quote. --Activism1234 21:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that he was trying to phrase things in terms that would be more comprehensible to you, but he quasi-Christianized the terminology so that it would be difficult to correlate the words he used with the relevant Wikipedia articles. AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Although there are similarities between the concept of 'Messiah' and 'Mahdi', Islam still considers Jesus to be the Messiah (Masih), being distinct from the Mahdi. Both the Masih and the Mahdi are said to arrive in the end-times. - Lindert (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The story of the Qarmatians might be relevant here, they sacked Mecca in the 9th century. The pilgrimage sites in Mecca are obviously a lot more extensive now, but I'm sure they could rebuild and everyone would get on with their lives, just like they did then. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Romley

Where can I find information about the meaning of the first name "Romley", like in Charles Romley Alder Wright GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's probably the surname of an ancestor, likely a female one. It used to be very common for surnames lost through marriage to be preserved by being given as middle names. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which seems to be an uncommon surname from the north of England (Cumberland, to be specific). It may have originally been an Anglicization/corruption of Romilly - or, far less likely, Romney (Romney is Kentish in origin, so from the other end of the country). It could also be derived from a local geographical feature. --NellieBly (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The latter I thought too. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 13:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Punishment for having caused monks to break their vows

This is a hypothetical question pertaining to France in the early modern age. If a woman was suspected to have had sexual intercourse with monks (or indeed the other way around, with a man and nuns), was she then considered to have had committed a religious crime, that is to say a form of heresy? She would in that case after all have made the monks to break their vows. And could she be arrested by the church rather than the royal authorities? Avignon was at the time a papal province, I have understood. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

She made the monks break their vows? They couldn't say "No"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]}

I am sorry; I am from Sweden, so I may have used the wrong English words occasionally. I don't understand. But do you have an answer? This is not a pornographic question, but a serious historical one, even if it is about sex. Please respect that. --Aciram (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed. The Third Council of Constantine (accepted by the Catholic Church) decrees that "A monk convicted of fornication, or who takes a wife for the communion of matrimony and for society, is to be subjected to the penalties of fornicators, according to the canons." (source), but says nothing specifically about the other partner involved. To equate this fornication with 'heresy' seems to me a little far-fetched. - Lindert (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The women did not "cause" the problem - the monks were responsible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but that does not absolve the women from responsibility. If a single man sleeps with a married woman, the woman breaks her marriage vow, but the man is equally at fault, despite not having made any commitment. - Lindert (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be heresy but sexual questions were always under ecclesiastical jurisdiction (adultery, homosexuality, incest, etc), so yes, that would have been a crime tried in a church court. I guess it depends on the time period, since "early modern" is a lengthy period. It may also depend on the order of monks as well, but fornication would certainly be forbidden in any monastic rule. It's also certainly possible by the standards of early modern law that a woman who seduced a monk would be accused or witchcraft or of enticing him some other way, so the monk may not have been at fault. Of course it didn't work the other way, if a married woman was seduced by a man, it was still the woman's fault! (I actually know some people who work on this exact question for medieval monks and nuns, I should ask them...it's funny when a monk and a nun get caught together...) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not really a moral question, but a factual one. Am I to understand, that the woman would be tried for fornication by a church court? Would it be the same for the monks, or would it differ? If this happened in France in the 18th century, would she then perhaps be arrested by the papal Avignon court? AdamBishop, do please ask them, it would be much appreciated; you can give me their answer on my talk page if you wish. I thought it would be considered heresy, because the vows was after all considered holy in a religious sense? --Aciram (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It would almost certainly be fornication, and perhaps also adultery (especially for nuns), since they had taken vows to the church. Heresy is a very different crime, which doesn't really have anything to do with breaking monastic vows. Adam Bishop (talk) 8:19 am, Today (UTC−7)

Just a small point: The Avignon Papacy lasted from 1309 to 1376. It was long gone by the 18thC. Rojomoke (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

However, Avignon did continue to be one of the Papal States until the French Revolution. --Jayron32 16:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The punishment for having broken the vows of celibacy

Was there any particular punishment practised by the Catholic church for monks and nuns who had broken their vows of celibacy? Was this considered a form of heretic crime against religion? And if the monk or nun had broken their vows with some one not a monk or nun, how was that outsider punished? Please note, that I am referring to the time period before 1789. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be easier to keep these questions in one section, but in any case, no, that was not heresy. Like I mentioned above, it might depend on time and place, and the specific monastic order, but flogging was a typical punishment, or being expelled from the order. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Breaking the vows would probably be considered "sinful", a personal failing. Publicly advocating the breaking of vows by others (or of violating any church doctrine) would probably be considered heresy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not heresy either. Violating a doctrine is one thing, but still probably not heresy. In this case violating a monastic rule is certainly not heresy, nor is it even likely to violate a church doctrine. Advocating that others break the monastic rule would get you in trouble, but not for heresy. It would be heresy to deny a specific doctrine, or to teach something contrary to a specific doctrine (usually something more abstract than chasing after women). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing. To publicly proclaim that the church has got it wrong, with respect to Biblical doctrine, is heresy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read about Urbain Grandier, somewhat notorious for his opposition to clerical celibacy, and how he ended up being treated. eldamorie (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerical celibacy (also not a doctrine, and so not heretical to oppose) is not the same thing as a monastic rule of celibacy, which is what the question asks about. 86.169.212.200 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerical celibacy is a church doctrine (or rule might be the better term), which they readily admit is not a Biblical doctrine - it's just how the church wants to operate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't quite true that the Catholic Church doesn't have biblical backing for their belief in clerical celibacy. [1 Corinthians 7 contains passages that clearly indicate that celibacy is the preferred state; Paul advises marriage as the second best state over celibacy, and urges those who have the strength to use his own example of Celibacy as the model. For those that find they cannot live the celibate life, he advises marriage, but only as a "second best" option. Which is not to say that the Catholic Church is necessarily right or wrong in enforcing clerical celibacy, but there are clearly parts of the bible which could be easily used to justify the policy. Especially since the instructions come from Paul, whose epistles spend a large portion of their text dedicated to the instructions for churches and their leaders. --Jayron32 03:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerical celibacy is not a Church doctrine. It is a discipline, that is a practice which is required in a particular time and place, but is not held to be universally necessary. It is not a doctrine because it is not a belief. It is not heretical to oppose, because it is not a belief, let alone a core belief universally defined. Opposing a relevant doctrine would involve opposing that celibacy is a good and desirable practice among Christians, especially those in pastoral roles. As shown by Jayron's reference, that is a doctrine with a Biblical basis, based on Sacred Tradition. It would be possible to heretically oppose those doctrine, but opposing a discipline is not heresy. Requiring clerical celibacy is a matter of canonical law, and is only required in the Western Catholic Church, and even there is not completely universal (just the norm). This is different to, for example, only ordaining men, which is a matter of doctrine in that the Church officially teaches that it is not possible to ordain women. 86.169.212.200 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going by what a prominent Catholic spokesman said on a conservative talk show some time back: "Celibacy is a church doctrine which they could change tomorrow if they wanted to. Men-only as priests is a scriptural doctrine which will never change." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither statement is fundementally true. One can find bible passages to both disallow and to allow women church leaders, as well as clerical celibacy, and how a particular denomination chooses to interpret those passages, and what value to place on them, says more about the church values than about any universal principle. The more time one spends reading scripture with an open mind and heart (and trying, hard as it may be, to read it without any personal filters) the more one finds conflicts within the scripture itself, and muddiness in interpreting that scripture. That doesn't mean that, as a Christian, I don't believe it isn't all true. That means that, sometimes, I find it hard to understand how it is all true, but also have Faith that God knows, and perhaps that is enough. But one cannot deny that scriptures are rarely clear and often internally inconsistant, which is why one denomination can make a claim that its practices are biblically-based, and another can make a claim that its different practices also are. Paul himself anticipates this problem, when he states in Romans 14 "Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters." and later in the same chapter "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves." That is, there are going to be "disputable matters", and the properly behaving Christian doesn't cause conflict over these matters. We're all going to make mistakes in interpreting scripture, and my mistakes are not less problematic than your mistakes. Knowing we're all going to make such mistakes means it is futile to condemn others for their misinterpretations when I am making misinterpretations myself. Later in Romans 14 Paul says "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves." In other words, before you condemn someone else by criticising a bad interpretion, consider that you yourself may be the one in error. --Jayron32 14:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know where you'd find the Biblical case for female church leaders. Are you talking about the witches that according to Leviticus are supposed to be put to death? Or would it be some statement in passing that comes down to, "Thou shalt respect thy womb-bearing neighbors"? --79.193.63.173 (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Either you misheard, or the "prominent Catholic spokeman" mis-spoke. "Doctrine" is a word with a specific meaning in Catholicism, referring to a belief not a practice. Clerical celibacy is not a doctrine, and it is also still not relevant to this thread, because the question was about monks and nuns. 86.169.212.200 (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Reconsidering, I strongly favour that they mis-spoke, because Catholic teaching doesn't differentiate between Church and Scripture as sources of law like that, but between Divine and Man-made. Scripture alone is not the basis for any Catholic or Orthodox teaching, and something doesn't have to be in the Bible to be considered immutably true by either group. It seems unlikely that you'd have misheard enough to make the original statement a valid explanation of the Church's teaching, so he must have seriously confused the issue. 86.169.212.200 (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Was the French inquisition abolished in 1772?

I seem to remember, that I once read about the Inquisition in France. According to what I remember, the French Inquisition was not as strict as others, and by the time it was finally abolished in 1772, it had in reality stopped being active for many years. Is this true? When was the French inquisition abolished? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that during the 18th century, cases of blasphemy was handled by the local judges rather than an ecclestiastical court, as the case against Jean-François de la Barre shows, so I would guess that a French Inquisition only existed by name, and not by deed, until it was finally abolished in 1772. However de la Barre was a nobleman, so it is possible that the judicial jurisdictions regarding blasphemy for commoners would have been different. But concerning your title question, yes, the French Inquisition was abolished in 1772. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The authority of the Papal Avignon in France

Did the Papal province of Avignon (I seem to remember Avignon was a Papal province until 1789) have any authority over religious crimes committed in France during the early modern age? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Church courts don't work like that; ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction over their own dioceses, so the diocese of Avignon was responsible for that diocese, and that was all. But even if Avignon claimed special authority as a papal enclave (and I don't think they did), the Kingdom of France, secular and ecclesiastical authorities included, would never have allowed them to exercise that claim anywhere else. (The papal enclave at Avignon had an uneasy relationship with France, to say the least.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. That seems simple enough. I assumed the papal authorities would automatically have authority over all clerical matters, no matter were they were. I suppose a religious crime in France would rather be handled by the French church then? The French inquisition? --Aciram (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about the French inquisition at this period, but inquisitions in general were meant to root out heretics, if I'm not mistaken. The local church court would deal with simple religious crimes. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Avignon (as well as the Comtat Venaissin) was not part of France until the Revolution, although from frwiki it appears that Louis XI, and most other French kings beginning in the 16th century, were the de facto rulers of the territory. Beginning in 1691, the secular government was abolished and Avignon was controlled directly by the papal legate, so it would appear that at least in Avignon the church had complete power. Elsewhere in France it's less likely that that was the case due to the influence of gallicanism, which suborned ecclesiastical power to the French monarchy. eldamorie (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as the Inquisition goes... I am not really sure that it is correct to talk about a "French Inquisition" as if it were a distinct thing or phenomenon... unlike the Spanish Inquisition (which had its own administration and authority). I also think it a misnomer to talk about a "French Church" existing at this time, as if it were a distinct ecclesiastical entity... yes, there were some cultural distinctions between the Church in France and the Church in Italy or the Church in Germany (etc)... and we can certainly identify a French faction in Church politics and in the Church hierarchy, but administratively and judicially each diocese was an distinct entity unto itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Iraq-Afghan relations pre 9/11

Leave to one side all the bunk about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda links.

What was the diplomatic relationship like between Saddam's Iraq and Afghanistan under the Taliban?

They were both enemies of Iran as well as America. That much I know.

But did Saddam and the Taliban collaborate at all? The religious enmity between the Shia mullahs of Iran and the Sunni Taliban precluded any accord between them, despite their mutual hostility towards America.

The Taliban's philosophical gulf with Saddam's Baath party was far wider than their divide with Iran. Did this divide likewise prevent an understanding between Afghanistan and Iraq?

Or was Saddam's Sunnism and his hatred of Iran enough to drive him into the Taliban's arms?

Any knowledgable input is welcome. Knowledge backed up by books/journals/newspapers and other citeable things, even more so :). Risingrain (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

From an ideological perspective, the Ba'ath party is, for all intents and purposes, a secular party that was initially formed and dominated by Arab Christians. In the early years of the Iraqi Ba'ath party it was mostly Shia but slowly came to be dominated by nominal Sunnis. Their goals are Pan-Arabism, Arab socialism and anti-imperialism. They view fundamentalist Islam (Sunni or Shia) as just as much a threat to their power as "western imperialism". As a fundamentalist, non-Arab (the Taliban are Pashtuns) entity, the Taliban would have been less than ideal as an ally for Saddam's Iraq. In fact, the government of Iraq never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE were the only countries to do so). Likewise, fundamentalist Muslim groups such as the Taliban view the Ba'athists mostly with contempt for suppressing fundamentalists movements so the Taliban would not have viewed Iraq as a particularly helpful ally either.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 18:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That said, Realpolitik has a tendency to make people and countries work with sworn enemies when they deem it to be in their interests. Not sure if this happened to be the case in this particular situation. But ideologically, no, they would not have been natural friends. 58.111.229.109 (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was realpolitik I was wondering about. The Iranian mullahs and Libya's Gaddafi were allies, even though ideologically they could not have been more different. Syria and Iraq were both ruled by Baathists, but they were bitter enemies.

Iraq and Afghanistan had no territorial disputes or history of war. They also had a mutual enemy (Iran). Their ideologies were different but that was no bar to an alliance, and let's face it in history it rarely has been.

So, I guess what I'm asking is: did Saddam and the Taliban, in spite of their ideological disaffinity, attempt to gang up against Iran? Risingrain (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there was ever a military alliance between Saddam and the Taliban, but perhaps there might have been some negotiations between them about establishing closer ties. Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199757,00.html - Here's some further info. :) Futurist110 (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Stating that a link from Fox "News" is info is a rather unnatural stretching of the meaning of the word info, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 02:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of Fox News either, but it was the quickest news source I could find at the moment and this info appears to generally be accurate, since it's quoting another source. Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, since you opened the door I'm just wondering if you'd have made the same snarky comment if he had linked a story from MSNBC or CNN. They're just as biased (if not more so) in the other direction which doesn't make them any more, or less, trustworthy than FOX.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I never had the chance to make that comment, since no one used those sources. Would you like to make a link to an MSNBC article so I can make the same joke? Though, at this point, it wouldn't be funny. But I can make it if it would set your suspicious mind to ease. --Jayron32 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Using chains to block rivers

The Hudson River Chains were used in the American Revolutionary War from 1776–82 to block ships' access up the river. A similar device was used to guard the Chao Phraya in Siam/Thailand during the 17th–19th centuries. (Looking briefly through search results, Chevalier de Forbin mentioned using a chain to block the river during the Makassar pirate attack on the fort at Bangkok in 1686, and such chains were still employed when tensions against the British were rising in the mid-19th century.) These were most likely separate parallel developments. Are there records of such devices having been used elsewhere? --101.109.223.81 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Golden Horn#History mentions perhaps the most famous. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Other examples given in this forum include the River Dart at Dartmouth Castle in Devon (15th century), Fowey in Cornwall, the River Medway at Upnor Castle in Kent (1585) and the Grand Harbour at Valetta in Malta. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Much more information on the history of chain defences in Chaining the Hudson: The Fight for the River in the American Revolution by Lincoln Diamant (page 87) - assuming that you can see this result from Google books. Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Another example (a boom, not exactly a chain) was at the Siege of Derry. In that case, the royal navy successfully broke the boom, allowing their ships to sail up-river and relieve the city. The boom in question was apparently built by a clever french naval officer, Bernard Desjean, Baron de Pointis. 58.111.229.109 (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Harbour chains were typically found in any medieval port. Jpgordon mentioned Constantinople above, but there was also one in Acre and Damietta, for two other examples that immediately spring to mind. (The Latin word was "catena" but we don't seem to have an article about them specifically.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Raid on the Medway is an English example from the 1660s. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't Israel have the right to the Gaza Strip and West Bank

Since Jewish militias won a Civil War, the winner of a war takes it all isn't it that way? Shouldn't Israel have the right to those lands as well? Nienk (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The modern law of war (established after say Germany tried the same thing) forbids this. Hcobb (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See Right of conquest for more details. As to Israel's claim to the west bank, I'd say that's a somewhat more complex topic. If Israel wants to annex the west bank, it would be forced to give its' (Palestinian) residents citizenship, including the right to vote in Israeli elections. Aint gonna happen, methinks. That said, if such a proposal was put to a (Palestinian) referendum, I could see it winning, crazy as this may sound. The Israelis would be the ones to resist. Israel has long faced a struggle to be both "Jewish" and "Democratic" at the same time. Enfranchising the West Bank population would quite likely make this task impossible, as it would largely obliterate Israel's Jewish majority.

And as far as the Gaza Strip is concerned, Israel wouldn't even be remotely interested in doing any such thing. The place is generally considered a hellhole. Pretty much all Israel wants on the Gaza front is quiet.

As an aside, I believe International law still does recognize certain rights (as well as responsibilities) on the part of an occupying power. I remember reading that an occupying power may seize land for genuine military needs, for example. Can someone clarify this? 58.111.229.109 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/18/israel-reject-settlements-report

The Levy panel recommended overturning Israeli laws, military orders, and precedents that are based on the law of occupation. It called on the government to allow settlement construction on expropriated Palestinian lands, subject to the approval of the security services, rejecting a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that the Israeli military could not expropriate Palestinian land for the purpose of establishing a civilian settlement rather than for security needs.

Lots of fun stuff. "Do onto others as has been done unto you", I suppose. Hcobb (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny. The Hebrew version of the report actually doesn't say that stuff, and makes a really strong case using international law why settlements are legal. Well, doesn't matter, since Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu buried that report and disregarded it. --Activism1234 19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the OP, the Gaza Strip is irrelevant anymore, as Israel unilaterally withdrew from it in 2005, and evicted all Israelis living there. Israel has done the same to certain settlements in the West Bank, but a unilateral withdrawal may be unlikely, as really a final peace status is needed to decide on those issues. Now, I noticed someone said above that you can't win territory through war, but the counterargument would be that the territory it was won from, which was Jordan and Egypt, had been occupying that territory in an occupation that the international community didn't recognize, and a Palestinian state or idea wasn't established then, and also that the territory was won in self-defense. It's a disputed topic, and you'll hear people saying both things, but I like to focus more importantly on what should be done in the future to resolve it. Hope this helps. --Activism1234 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, for the OP, Israel does have certain rights to the West Bank under the Oslo Accords in 1993, which was signed with the Palestinians. Israel has full control over Area C (about 60% of the West Bank; also contains the settlements, which themselves are about 1% of the West Bank), and certain rights over Area B. Under the accords, the Palestinian Authority has full control over Area A, which is where most Palestinian cities are (except in Gaza, which a different Palestinian rival government controls). Since then, a number of treaties have been proposed, for example by President Clinton and Israeli President Ehud Barak, or by Israeli President Ehud Olmert in 2008 (over 90%), that would mean for Israel to withdraw from more of Area C and give more in the hands of the Palestinian Authority, but these proposals have been rejected by the Palestinian Authority. Hope this helps. --Activism1234 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Israel ignores international law when not in their interest, in any case. I've often thought it would be in their interest to implement a policy that each time they are attacked, they will seize a small chunk of the West Bank or Gaza Strip (whichever launched the attack), evict the residents, annex it to Israel, and move the wall to enclose it. This would make attacks by the terrorists look less "heroic" to the Palestinians. This would, of course, be called "ethnic cleansing", but, as I've said, Israel doesn't care about such things. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone ignores (or reinterprets) international law when it's in their interest to do so. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In the case of tiny nations, international law may be their only chance to win disputes with their neighbors, so they tend to support it wholeheartedly. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I.e. it's never in their interest to ignore it, so that doesn't contradict my statement. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's extremely incorrect and so disgustingly biased against a country, would never happen, and the only annexed territory has been Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest site which was abused under Jordanian control, and the Golan Heights, claimed by Syria. --Activism1234 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing usually refers to a population decreasing, not increasing. --Activism1234 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe forced relocation has been called ethnic cleansing. Also, moving Israelis in might not be wise, as they would come under immediate threat. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw, that "wall" you're referring to is actually 96% fence (another example of bias) and only a "wall" in areas where it came under heavy fire during The Second Intifada. Since it was constructed, terrorism has decreased significantly, and has saved countless of lives, and that includes Arab lives who are also killed in terrorism. Of course, some people think that Israelis don't get human rights, in which case I'd understand if saving people from terrorism is irrelevant. But really, when you start using these terms and ignoring the facts around them, it paints a one-sided extremely biased and incorrect picture to delegitimiez a legitimate country. --Activism1234 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In those places it might be wise to build an actual wall, as they would come under immediate threat. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

An oft-made point - International law isn't "law" as such. It's really just a bunch of politically-written conventions and treaties, which pretty much everyone ignores when they're strong enough (or needed enough) to get away with it. The world of "International Law" has as much (or more) to do with politics and politicians as it does with courts, lawyers, and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.229.109 (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean, exactly like all other laws... --Jayron32 20:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, with domestic law in a democratic country, one hopes that at least the law-enforcement authorities will be somewhat de-politicized. In the world of International "law", that's clearly an absolute pipe dream. Even when we're talking about a murder, politics can often see those responsible walk scot-free. The life of a human being is but a small pawn in the bigger game. Alas to humanity :( 58.111.229.109 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically speaking, Israel can annex all of the West Bank and Gaza. However, if Israel does that (even only in regards to the West Bank), then it will need to give all the Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizenship in order to avoid becoming an international pariah. Israel isn't going to do that, since having several million more Palestinian Arabs with Israeli citizenship will end Israel's existence as a Jewish state, while not giving them citizenship in the event of an annexation would open Israel up to the allegations of apartheid and discrimination. Thus, annexing the West Bank and/or Gaza is a no-win situation for Israel, since either way it acts it gets screwed (and expelling all the Palestinian Arabs from these territories would make Israel a huge international pariah as well). I hope that my response helped in answering your question. Futurist110 (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

children's book

I am trying to find the name of a book that I read over and over as a child. Unfortunately, I can't remember many details. It would've been in the late 70s or early 80s. The book was about a child who liked to sleep late/was lazy. I think the family was animals of some kind. One day the kid wakes up and the family has moved to their new house and left him/her behind while s/he was asleep. I don't think it was supposed to be horrendously cruel. The kid made friends and had adventures and eventually found his/her family. I think there was a swamp or pond involved somehow. Anyway, I know it's a stretch, but thought I'd ask because I'd really like to read it again and see how closely it matches my memories. Ingrid (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In which country would you have read it Ingrid? And at what age (or, since you shouldn't ask a lady her age, what age was it aimed at)? Was it a picture book or more like a novel? The plot vaguely rings a bell for me (would have been late 80s to early 90s in the UK) but I can't for the life of me think of a title. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course! Sorry I didn't think to provide that information. It would've been the US. I can't remember what age, but I'm guessing early reader. Somewhere between a board book and chapter book. I have associations with Frog & Toad, which I think means I was reading those books at about the same time, not that they were related directly. Ingrid (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Religion in Saxony

In 1697 Augustus II the Strong convert to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism to be eligible for the Polish throne, but after the 1800s, the House of Wettin (Albertine branch) lost any hope of ruling Poland again when it was partitioned between Russia, Prussia and Ausria and King Frederick Augustus I of Saxony losted the Duchy of Warsaw. So why didn't the family reconvert back to Protestantism since from 1827 to 1918 their subject in Saxony were overwhelmly Protestant and before 1697 the rulers of Saxony had been considered the "champions of the Reformation".--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are talking a span of 130 years between 1697 and 1827... multiple generations of the family had been raised as Catholics by the later date. My guess is that the family had simply gotten used to being Catholic, and self identified as such. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, there are several answers. The first is that it was a matter of conscience. Those particular rulers may have been genuinely and earnestly faithfully Roman Catholic. This may be the antithesis of realpolitik: an official sticking to their conscience in the face of political difficulties it creates. Secondly, I'm not sure how much it applied at that late of a date, but officially the position of Europe over religion after the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and confirmed by the Peace of Westphalia a century later, was Cuius regio, eius religio, which means "He who rules, it's his religion" or more directly that the personal religion of the Prince determined the official religion of a sovereign state, and not most importantly, the other way around. I am pretty sure that, officially, this never went away, which meant that it would not be expected that a Prince would change his religion to meet that of those he ruled over, though (and this is where realpolitik comes in) many did so, notably Henri IV of France, "Paris is well worth a Mass"... So Princes did choose to convert to meet the religion of their subjects, but there was no expectation that they had to, and there was a legal principle in place that the expectation was in the reverse: a Prince's subjects were expected to convert to his religion. However, by the later dates that you note, well past the Age of Enlightenment, more modern notions of religious tolerance and plurality were becoming entrenched in Europe, so there may not have been any expectation that it would matter that a Prince was of the same religion as the majority of his subjects. --Jayron32 20:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The monarchs of Belgium, Luxembourg and all of the newly created monarchies of the Balkans either converted to their country's majority religion by their own choice or were made to raised their children in the country's majority faith. I am pretty sure by the 1800s, Saxony was the only European monarchy in which its reigning family didn't follow their country's majority religion.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. So what? Some monarchs changed their religion. The Albertines didn't. Saxony wasn't really a "newly created monarchy"; foreign princes installed in Greece had a reason to convert to Orthodoxy to win the hearts and minds of their new subjects. Wettins had been electors of Saxony for well over a century before Martin Luther even thought about nailing lists to doors. In other words, they had nothing to prove; they had no reason to use religion to establish their legitimacy over a newly created state: they were an old family ruling an old state for a very long time. Legitimacy of their rule wasn't a question. They had no reason to change. --Jayron32 02:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)