Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 August 20

Jewish Song
No offense intended to Jewish people, but what is that song called that is kind of considered the "theme song" of Judaism (to non-Jewish peoples)? I think it has some words in there that sound like "naki la hama" (spelling!) or something like that. Thanks for the song ID. --71.117.35.76 01:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hava Nagila. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Zoe! :D --71.117.35.76 01:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Dradle Dradle Dradle I made you out of clay
 * As in Dreidel? --Lambiam Talk 07:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How might Jews be offended by this question? DirkvdM 07:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the user was using kids gloves to avoid any possible controversy. Too many ppl in this PCworld are using kids gloves on a variety of subjects these days (race, religion, sex, war, politics, history, etc) to avoid the slightest possibilty of hurting other ppl (god forbids from other cultures and religions - that could be regarded as rassism - instead of a honest mistake made out of ignorance or neglect). Don't tell me you hadn't noticed this trend by now. Flamarande 09:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The question-asker clearly felt they were venturing out of the territory they knew and didn't want to accidentally step on toes. (Well and most ethnic groups or religion don't consider their folk songs to be "theme songs" for the whole ethnic group/religion.) --Fastfission 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah sort of like US tourists thinking Hansje Brinker is a Dutch hero. No problem. Hell, we even put up a staue of him to satisfy them. :) DirkvdM 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all offended. Although I find the idea of a religion/nation to have a "theme song" as if it were some sort of sitcom to be rather silly, it's still not offensive. However if you're indeed looking for Jewish "theme songs", some better examples would be HaTikva, (Israel's national anthem, the only national anthem in the world to be written in the minor key,) or Yerushalayim Shel Zahav. Hava Nagila is more of a lighthearted, "happy birthday" type song. Loomis 00:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maureen McGovern Question
Maureen McGovern had a hit song with 1973's "The Morning After". I've downloaded this song from the Net and it has the full music production behind it. I thought the song was song by Maureen Mc Govern in the 1972 or 1973 movie; "The Posideon Adventure". She is the singer in a scene from the ship's ballroom and sings it acoustically.

Question: Is there a version of "Morning After" on the soundtrack to the Posideon Adventure soundtrack or straight from the movie? That's what I'm looking for; an acoustic version of the "morning after" IF it was ever recorded commercially.

Many Thanks,

Jay


 * [this site] is Maureen McGovern's official site, and "the morning after" begins playing when the site loads. More information on it at our article on that very song, The Morning After (Maureen McGovern song).  --Bmk 03:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sumerian Religion vs. christianity
What are the basic differences in the Sumerian Religion and christianity? Thank you, Richard.


 * The most obvious difference is that the Sumerian religion appears to have been polytheistic, whereas christianity is monotheistic. However, the two religions are so radically different (with some interesting connections) that it is difficult to compare them.  I would recommend our articles on Mesopotamian mythology, and christianity, as well as Sumer for background info.  --Bmk 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

These religions had no connections at all. Bengurion
 * The only way that is possible is if the two religions developed outside each others' light cone. Seeing as they both developed on the earth, and they took more than a tenth of a second to develop, that is unlikely.  --Bmk

Is it possible that the question is about Zoroastrianism? Although much later than Sumer, it stems from the same region, and is much closer to the Abrahamic religions. --Lambiam Talk 08:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish alien?
I found this picture of a "Spanish alien"... but I can't get any background for it. Help? Here's the picture: http://www.techgnosisweb.com/wp-content/alienSpain.jpg
 * Dead link. Anchoress 04:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the blog containing the picture is dead at the moment, but the picture is still viewable. I just tested it again to be sure. I was wondering if anyone had seen it elsewhere.
 * Oh yeah I saw it now, but I tried your link three times before and it wouldn't load. Not familiar with it, sorry. What info do you have on its Spanish providence? Anchoress 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I see two men on a horse, walking in different directions, with a dog or something between them. Where is the alien?Evilbu 11:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "alien" is a small white figure to the immediate right of the left man on a horse. As for its relation to Spain, I have no idea except the name of the picture.


 * The alien is supposed to be what you're calling a dog. I've seen that picture before, I always thought it looked really humorous (I imagine the little "alien" saying "Take me to your leader! Hey! I'm talking to you! Hey! Big guy! Up there! Hello?"). Obviously I have my doubts that there is any reason to assume that this isn't doctored or just confusing (it's another one of these "why is all supposed footage of aliens done by people with cameras that can't focus?" sorts of pictures). --Fastfission 15:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the z-rays. The aliens emit them and they really mess up the focusing ability of the camera - very annoying, let me tell you!    --Bmk 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples of 1980's clothing
I am searching for reference, (pictures), of 1980's clothing to wear to a fancy dress party.

Notnamp
 * Duran Duran, Miami Vice, Cyndi Lauper, Family Ties, Facts of Life, Madonna, Prince, Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion, The Wedding Singer, Back to the Future. Check out the articles and/or google pics. Are you male or female? Anchoress 05:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also check out 1980s in fashion. Pyro19 13:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oooh, Pyro19, you're so smart! Anchoress 02:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm male, thank you both for guide.

Industrial Relations
I need help with finding information about the major changes in Australians industrial relations since 1987. Also what effect on the Australian economy have these changes had, or have been predicted to have.

Thanks


 * There's a lot of information on the Parliamentary Library website. There are a few Wikipedia articles which may be helpful (and easier to sift through) at Category:Australian labour law. --Canley 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cohen v. California jacket
I was reading about the Cohen v. California case, in which the Supreme Court upheld Paul Robert Cohen's right to wear a jacket on which an expletive was written. I haven't had any luck finding a picture of the jacket, which is really what I'm looking for. Anybody know where I might find one? --ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 09:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly in contemporary newspapers reporting on either the initial arrest or the overturning? You might have more luck trying local or "alternative" publications, which would be more willing to print a photo. Shimgray | talk | 17:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do some models get paid such a lot?
It is against the theories of economics. The job requires very little skill, there are a huge number of young women willing to do it, really they should get paid no more than hairdressers. You could say they get paid for being slim, and being attractive without acne scars, but there is still a huge over-supply of people who fulfill those criteria. So why does Naomi Campbell or Kate Moss get paid such a lot?


 * Because, at their peak, they were the very best at what they got paid for, in a job where the distribution of the rewards is strongly skewed towards the very top of the tree. These days, to be honest, I suspect it's because their fame itself helps to sell products, but at their very best their looks (which doesn't only include their face, for catwalk models their figure and grace up on the catwalk) were such that their appearances in catwalks and magazine covers offered something unique, at the time that that specific look was desirable amongst fashion designers and photographers.


 * Really, your argument is something akin to "anybody can kick a ball, why does Ronaldinho get paid so much?" --Robert Merkel 15:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Supply and demand. High demand for an individual model's time, very low supply. Most places don't use high-priced models or actresses and will instead look for "fresh faces" who are a lot cheaper. But brand recognition seems to work pretty well and some places think it is worth the price. "Skill" is just another word for "things only a few people can do," and "being Kate Moss" is something which actually requires a lot of "skill" (there is only one). If people want Kate Moss, they have to pay for Kate Moss. If they want "some generic model," then it can (and is) cheaper. There are different reasons to want each. --Fastfission 15:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I hear this question often. Movie stars are overpaid. Authors are overpaid. They may or may not do good work, which may or may not be reproducible easily, but it is a matter of how many people you serve. A bank teller serves one person at a time. A movie star or author serves millions at a time. Only a small percentage of that movie ticket you buy goes to the thespian, but it all adds up. Why are CEOs of huge corporations paid so much? The entrepreneur started a business, catered to a large amount of people, and only some of the money in the system went to him. — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)

I don't agree with the idea that they get paid a lot because they are the best in the world. If you had the best model in the world walk down the catwalk, and then the 1000th best model in the world walk down, I very much expect you wouldnt notice any difference. Its not like footballers (soccer) where there are noticible differences in performance.

The second arguement, that they get paid a lot because they serve a lot of people, dosnt hold up. For example a tv studio cameramen on a show that broadcasts to many millions does not get paid so very much.

I do agree that being a name or a celebrity would have a lot to do with it - so the resultant question could be - Why do we need celebrities? Its not as if they do anything productive.


 * God is dead, said Nietzsche, but we still need little goddesses and gods, said he not. -- DLL .. T 19:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Their name sells. --Proficient 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Nietzsche is dead": God. Loomis 23:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, Nietzsche actually said that. Bhumiya (said/done) 04:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How did he manage that? Was it some nifty act of paranormal ventriloquism or was he just kidding around? Loomis 00:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

John 'Jock' 'White Hat' Willis, the Cutty Sark
You'll have to forgive me but I'm quite frustrated! I can't seem to find ANY information on my great-great grandfather, John 'Jock' 'White Hat' Willis, the captain and owner of the Cutty Sark other than finding him under the name of Hercules Linton, who built the ship. My great-great grandfather asked him to build it, it was his ship. So, tell me, please tell me why I'm having such a ridiculously hard time finding any biographical information on someone who is supposedly famous, such as John 'Jock' Willis! Sorry, I don't mean to come across as brash or offensive I'm simply frustrated because my family, including me, has attempted much research regarding my great-great grandfather, John Willis. I don't know when he was born, when he died, how many children he had (other than my great grandfather, who then fathered my grandmother, Loraine Black nee Willis). I don't know anything about him other than his name and who he was in the grande scheme of life. Unfortunately, my grandmother never really liked to talk about her family as it was hard for her; she didn't have the easiest of childhoods. My grandmother has passed away in the recent years and my family and are left wondering where we all came from. Believe me, trying to obtain information for a family genealogy book is extremely hard. If you could help me in anyway possible I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for letting me rant and I hope you can help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.40.138 (talk • contribs)


 * The Cutty Sark must be something. I heard about it, it must be a ship that had a history and was related to people who made history. What are those people ? The guy who built it, the guy who captained (!) it, and so on ... But the owner ? He was there before there was any history, and did not think there would be any more, in the ship, than his own dreams of adventures, if he intended to be a passenger, or wealth. Let us recognise this : "(My) great-great grandfather asked him to build it." There is nothing else. Or am I wrong ?
 * I wish you good luck for your search, as it may be good for you to find something. -- DLL .. T 19:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "The origins of the middle story, The Secret Sharer, are quite other.It was written much earlier and was published first in Harper's Magazine, during the early part, I think, of 1911. Or perhaps the latter part? My memory on that point is hazy. The basic fact of the tale I had in my possession for a good many years. It was in truth the common possession of the whole fleet of merchant ships trading to India, China, and Australia: a great company the last years of which coincided with my first years on the wider seas. The fact itself happened on board a very distinguished member of it, Cutty Sark by name and belonging to Mr. Willis, a notable shipowner in his day, one of the kind (they are all underground now) who used personally to see his ships start on their voyages to those distant shores where they showed worthily the honoured house-flag of their owner.I am glad I was not too late to get at least one glimpse of Mr. Willis on a very wet and gloomy morning watching from the pier head of the New South Dock one of his clippers starting on a China voyage—an imposing figure of a man under the invariable white hat so well known in the Port of London, waiting till the head of his ship had swung downstream before giving her a dignified wave of a big gloved hand.For all I know it may have been the Cutty Sark herself, though certainly not on that fatal voyage.I do not know the date of the occurrence on which the scheme of The Secret Sharer is founded; it came to light and even got into newspapers about the middle eighties, though I had heard of it before, as it were privately, among the officers of the great wool fleet in which my first years in deep water were served."
 * The incident Conrad is discussing is i think a shipboard murder. Wasn't a white hat featured in The Secret Sharer? EricR 04:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "'My God! Where are we?' cries the terrified mate. 'Lost!' The captain has Leggatt to fortify him, whereas the terrified mate hasn't even 'the moral support of his whiskers.' The transferred moral quality of Leggatt has infused itself into the captain's soul and it is this transaction--symbolized in the spot of white hat--that saves him. (The hat is Conrad's symbol for his theme of fidelity.) It is by virtue of his fidelity to that ideal of selfhood that the captain triumphs, and at that decisive moment of his destiny when he measures up to it a new existence begins for him--a spiritually unified one. It begins for him when the cabin is emptied and Leggatt, the secret sharer of his cabin and of his thoughts, has been deposited into that once dark and mysterious but now sunlit sea." EricR 04:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He's mentioned in Cutty Sark. No article, though. DirkvdM 07:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We now have Jock Willis Shipping Line (article started in 2014), which includes a photo of John 'White Hat' Willis. -- ToE 15:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Did you have a question? It might be worth bearing in mind that in its day the Cutty Sark was not a particularly remarkable ship, and, since so little seems to be known about him, perhaps Jock was not particularly remarkable either. Obviously the people who would have any known information about him would be the people who now run it as a museum ship. You should be able to contact them through their official website. They are looking for all the publicity they can get at the moment, so if you say who you are they might invite you along and set up a press call.--Shantavira 08:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He never had any children but the company went to three scotish boys who married his brothers three doughters. the family home was cardigan house in london, Richmond and he also owned a house in Deal Dover where he used to watch the ships come in befor going to London for their arrival. The house in Deal is now a cul de sack but the sevents quaters remain as a house.
 * He worked as a deck boy I belive as his father was in the traid and I belive was the origanal owner of the company. So he learnd the traid in order to continue the buisnes. A large number of the figur heads wher in the garden in Deal befor they where guifted to the Cutty Sark museam. Good luck with your search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.236.131 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

chicken noodle soup
Did you know that there is a dance called "chicken noddle soup" that originated in Harlem? It's popular now so I was thinking there should be a description of it in wikipedia. Just wanted to let you know


 * So... um... Is the question "Did you know that there is a dance called "chicken noddle soup" that originated in Harlem?". To answer you, no, I have never heard of the chicken noddle soup dance.  Viva  La   V  i  e   Boheme! 


 * Nothing like being pedantic about spelling errors! Boy, that sure is helpful and clever.
 * A search for "chicken noodle soup" dance turns up a lot of Google hits; unfortunately I don't know how one would write an entry on this which was properly referenced according to our Verifiability policy. --Fastfission 18:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A list of the pragmatic reasons for the success of Christianity
In a second hand bookshop I saw what looked like an early paperback, perhaps from around the turn of the 19th/20th. centuries, that had a cover that looked like brown paper with small black text on it (although the colour of that copy could have darkened over the years if stored in sunlight). It was quite slim. Its title was something like the history of the christian church or of christianity.

Inside it mentioned five or six reasons for the success of christianity (perhaps in early times). These reasons were not mystical, but were pragmatic and rational. One of them, I remember, was that that it had written texts.

I returned to the bookshop with the intention of buying it, but alas it had gone. Ever since then I have been intrigued by what those reasons were.

Can anyone identify them please? Or identify the book? Or suggest an eg Christian forum where I could post the same questions?

The reasons were NOT the reasons given by Edward Gibbon - I've already checked those. Also, searching on the British Library online category found a great many possible books. I've found that there are dozens of different books all called "History Of The Christian Church" or slight variations of this title, by many different authors around that time, so suggesting a likely title would not help.

Thanks. 62.253.52.139 19:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We can certainly offer a few reasons:


 * 1) The Romans had a rather silly religion, so pretty much any monotheistic religion would have a good chance of being accepted (after feeding a few thousand Christians to lions, that is).


 * 2) The prompt collapse of the Roman Empire after it spread Christianity was also critical. Without this, Christianity might have been despised as the "state religion of the conquerors".


 * 3) The later European expansion into the Americas and elsewhere further spread Christianity.


 * StuRat 19:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I am not going beyond the point, something about historical persecution by christians could also be pointed out for this question, as many were forced to convert (in the europe and also in latin america).nids 19:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have been more specific. I am trying to find those particular reasons given in that book, not just people's own personal ideas about plausible reasons. The reasons in that book might also have been re-printed in some other later book of course. And as far as I recall they were all about the qualities of Christianity itself, not about the historical context. I remember thinking that you could use them to promote an organisation today.


 * I've no idea what the book you're looking for is, but perhaps a few more personal opinions might remind you of the reasons it gave.


 * The success of Christianity has a lot to do with its adoption as state religion by the Roman Empire, so why did the Romans adopt it? Religion is in a lot of ways a metaphor for politics. When Rome was a city-state ruled by an oligarchy, a polytheistic religion made perfect sense, but as it became more autocratic the metaphor began to fall down. Participating in the state religion was an indication of loyalty to the state, and polytheists from whatever culture had no problem with worshipping the Romans gods alongside their own, but Christians couldn't do that. They believed their God was the only god, and to worship any others was wrong - so they couldn't show their loyalty to the state by sacrificing to Jupiter, or to the Emperor. Making Christianity the state religion solved that problem, and now, since everybody was required to worship the same one God, monotheistic religion matched monarchical politics quite nicely.--Nicknack009 20:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Half remembered books always difficult to find, unlike reasons for the rise of christianity. You may be looking in the wrong era paperbacks don't really go as far back to the turn of the century. Was the list the central thesis or just something mentioned. What was the style of the book: academic, popular history. Your best chance would be to search bookshops for simmilar binding and find out the publisher/era. MeltBanana  21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yes they do! According to this site http://paperbarn.www1.50megs.com/Paperbacks/msg3.htm the earliest US paperback was from 1687, and probably before that in europe. The paperback article is therefore rather misleading and does not go back far enough. The second illustration on the page linked is somewhat similar to what I remember, although the book I am seeking was much plainer, so I may have underestimated how old the paperback was: now I think it could have been from 1850-1900. But thanks anyway.


 * Well.
 * Many of Jesus' purported qualities and experiences appeal to the human psyche I think - although it's a bit tough to determine whether it's our historical psyche or if the modern human psyche has been shaped by Christianity. a) Jesus being betrayed by Judas appeals to our inclination to root for the underdog, as does the purported resistance of the Pharissees (sp?). b) Jesus dying on the cross for our sins appeals to our sense of self-sacrifice, and it also makes us feel beholden to him. c) Jesus' rebelliousness appeals to our tendency to want to defy authority. d) His defense of poverty and criticism of avarice and institutional corruption appeals to the powerless in society, and e) his admonishment to 'love the sinner, hate the sin' makes us feel better about ourselves.
 * Many of the tenets of Christianity, in some cases genuine, and in some cases interpreted, are appealing. a) The nativity story is very visceral. b) The concept of no sin being sufficient to bar a repentant soul from heaven is very appealing. c) The concept of a human 'intermediary' to the God of the Old Testament. d) The idea that God was willing to sacrifice his only Son for us. e) The idea that God changed his mind about being so judgemental, as long as people accepted his Son. That's all I can think of for now. Anchoress 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the way Jesus' actions could be interpreted as anti-semitic (per the call for the destruction of the temple, his resistance towards the Pharissees' rule of law) is probably appealing to some. Not necessarily overt anti-semitism, but the idea that, 'Hah, Jesus was the Messiah and YOU didn't even realise it,' kind of thing.
 * Also, the perception that Jesus' emphasis on 'the golden rule' occluded the importance of the Ten Commandments. Anchoress 21:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean let's face it, if Jesus had been accepted as the Jewish Messiah during his lifetime, we wouldn't have wanted him. Anchoress 21:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is this "we" you speak of, Anchoress? Many contributors here are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist .....  :--)  JackofOz 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know that. I'm not being a cultural imperialist. It seems pretty clear to me that we refers to the people who want him now. And if you're just being funny I'm not in the mood. Anchoress 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being funny. Not intentionally, anyway.  It wasn't clear to me whether "we" meant you and all the other Christians, or you and all the other Wikipedia denizens (not all of whom are Christians).  Thanks for explaining your post.  :--)  JackofOz 05:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. The gigantic smiley at the end confused me. But now I see you seem to always use it. That's why I thought you might have been joking. I would think it would be pretty obvious that 'we' couldn't refer to Wikipedians, for the reasons you elucidated. Anchoress 02:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But another interpretation was that (a) you were proclaiming yourself to be a Christian, and (b) you were speaking not just for yourself but for all the Christians in the world.  The (a) bit is OK, but the (b) bit seemed somewhat grandiose.  I don't know you well enough to know your usual style, hence my question.  JackofOz 06:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you type in "Christian forum books" in Google, a few matches come up that might be suitable for you to post your question on. It doesn't look like anyone here knows. BenC7 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

polytheism
The above question inspired me, what is it about polytheism that people seem to think is more or less 'silly' than monotheism? other than cultural bias? ie, something other than, "person X is a monotheist, therefore person Y who isn't, is silly, according to person X" --205.188.117.12 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Saepe premente Deo fert Deus alter opem. -- Ovid, Tristia


 * Often when one god oppresses, another brings help MeltBanana  21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * well i think i can answer that since i am a Hindu. though i am an athiest, but hinduism has many sects which are polytheistic (many are monotheistic too). And to be frank, they are proud for that. The persons who regarded polytheism as inferior were, more likely than not, monotheists. And in my view neither polytheism nor monotheism can be regarded as perfect. they both have their own positives and own negatives. It is somehow wrong to portray any of them as better than other.nids 21:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When you're brought up monotheist, and taught history as a "progression" from polytheism to monotheism, as I was, polytheism looks more "backward" than monotheism. As an atheist I don't really see much difference in value between them. They've both got some great stories. I see polytheism as a metaphor for the psychology of the individual - you can concentrate your worship on the gods you identify with most, while still acknowledging the others as representing something in you - and monotheism as a metaphor for political authority and national unity - Christianity restrained endemic intertribal warfare in Ireland, Islam created political unity in the Arab world. --Nicknack009 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that said the ancient Roman religion was silly, but I didn't say all polytheistic religions are. If you listen to a few of the Greek/Roman myths, it's hard to keep from laughing, like the god who took the form of a bull and impregnated a woman. I would think that would likely kill her. And having to invent a new myth and/or god/goddess every time you want to explain something, like spiders, is rather painful, isn't it ? Personally, I think a religion with two opposing forces forever at war with each makes the most sense, as in the Yin and the Yang. Also note that there were many religions and cults in the Roman Empire prior to Christianity, showing that there wasn't much satisfaction with the "official" religion. StuRat 22:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is also hard to keep from laughing when your hear the story of a woman who was impregnated by a ghost, somehow kept her virginity after giving birth, and despite being married (and I hope you know what normally happened on the wedding night) and having several other sons and daughters suppossedly kept her virginity until her death. Flamarande 23:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. :-) StuRat 23:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In Hinduism there are something like 300 million gods. Invariably if you serve/please one, there is bound to be another in the 300 million that you offend or are less able to serve. To me that seems "silly", because it is internally contradictory. BenC7 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that all religions are internally contradictory, but then I don't know every single religion. Flamarande 08:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the world there are something like 200 countries. Invariably if you serve/please one, there is bound to be another in the 200 that you offend or are less able to serve. To me that seems "silly", because it is internally contradictory. In fact, some countries are at war with one another. How silly. Ohanian 04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what wars are usually about, countries being at war with one another? I agree it's silly, but did you mean "in fact, some countries are at war with themselves"?  :--)  JackofOz 05:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As an example of harmony in polytheist Hinduism, they never had Holy wars, like the ones which engaged the monotheistic religions like Islam and christianity. By the way, Which roman/greek goddess was flamarande referring to?? (who had many sons and daughters and still kept her virginity}--nids 07:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are kiding with me, right? Well perhaps you aren't as you seem to be a Hindu. It is Mary, mother of Jesus of Nazareth. Never said she was a (ancient) Roman goddess. Flamarande 08:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if i offended you. Please, I wasnt kidding with you. I thought Mary just had one child, Jesus Christ. I might be wrong here. But if you dont mind, can you please tell me the name of her other children. (If not here than on my talk page)nids 09:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Relax man, I wasn't mad, you didn't insult me or my family or anything. I was just amazed, everybody who has studied a bit about the family of Jesus will find info about his brothers and his sisters. Of course many "conservative" ppl will say that these are cases of bad translations (which by now is a standart excuse in controversial questions). Flamarande 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to put another question here, on the basis of flamarande's answer. If there are other brothers and sisters of Jesus christ (from virgin birth), why arent they venerated as sons of god. Afterall virgin birth is the only thing that separates other messiahs from Jesus Christ(as son of god).--nids 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because these brothers are supossed to be sons of Mary and Joseph (or stepbrothers of Jesus and not sons of Mary at all), whereas the father of Jesus is ... let us say disputed. Flamarande 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mark 3:32 and 6:3 refer to Jesus having brothers and sisters (the same incidents are told in Matthew and Luke, but you can find the refs for those yourself). Presumably these are Joseph's natural children and not God's. --Nicknack009 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, I think Flamarande was wrong when he said Mary was still considered a virgin after having other kids (although that is technically possible, with artificial insemination). She is called Virgin Mary only because she was supposedly a virgin when Jesus was born.  Otherwise, when people see her in their grease stains, they would have to call the new shrine location "the grease stain of the lady formerly known as a virgin".  Personally, if we had the bones of Jesus, Mary, and everyone else who lived in the village, I bet a DNA test would show us who the real father was. StuRat 18:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The perpetual virginty of Mary till her death is part of the dogma of the catholic church. Flamarande 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer StuRat. So other children of Virgin Mary had biological father (humans), and she wasnt a Virgin when she died. (Ofcourse if we neglect the abstract possibility of artificial insemination). nids 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Except that Catholics and Orthodox Christians apparently believe in the Perpetual virginity of Mary, and explain away the reference to Jesus's brothers as actually meaning cousins, or Joseph's kids by a previous marriage, or something. --Nicknack009 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's ridiculous: "I don't care if the Bible says Jesus had brothers, they didn't really mean it". StuRat 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you questioning the "infalible" Holy Mother Church of Rome :)? The mother of Jesus was a perpetual virgin (see link above) unto her death and only the "heretical" Protestants doubt this fact (this is a joke and not to be taken seriously - what a world we living in to need such disclaimers). Flamarande 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This question has really morphed! May I ask, though, that everyone consider the topics here are very sacred to people -- polytheism (or monism if they're philosophical) for Hindus, the Virgin Birth for many Christians and the perpetual virginity of Mary for many other Christians. I'd ask us all to avoid characterizing what others hold sacred as silly or speculating about the parentage of Jesus. Whether you choose to believe these things or not others consider them more important than life itself. Life is too short to get anyone angry we do not have to cross.


 * If anyone would like to ask why I believe these things that seem ridiculous to you, I'd be happy to exchange email with you. You can be as rude as you like there. But here, since this is supposed to be a reference desk on an encyclopedia, can we focus on information? --CTS Wyneken (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We are suppossed to tolerate all religions FULLSTOP, and not be afraid to discuss them on fear of other ppl get mad at us. And yes making a lttle fun of them is a reasonable form of critic and as such falls under free speech (aslong we don't insult them - fine thin line there). The charge of blasephemy is quite outdated these days and not a crime in most countries (most exceptions are dead letters). The recent cartoon controversy showed us that unfortunatly too many ppl haven't fully understood these things. Flamarande 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I support flamarande on this. I think we should criticise irrational things, even if they are part of a religion. I feel we should criticise Islamic Hadiths which award capital punishments for apostasy like in case of Abdul Rahman (convert). Hinduism has many superstitious and irrational beliefs. A recent incidence of superstitions in India is. Ancient Aztecs believed that Sun needed blood of the people to rise every morning and so they used to sacrifice over 5000 people every year, (as a part of religious belief). I once asked a question on compatibility of Darwins theory and Christian Bible here on the reference desk and got wonderfull response. I feel reference desk is a perfect place to ask and answer these questions. But if there is a policy that you cant put religious questions or there answers on reference desk please inform me too. (In that case i will be sorry for the darwins question.)


 * Moreover the question put forward here was a perfect one in good faith. And i feel i should be allowed to answer that. nids 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of irrational things is fine as a general proposition. But when it comes to religion, this breaks down at a certain point. Religions are about faith in stuff that inherently is unprovable, and therefore irrational. There would be no point having a religion based on the belief that water is wet - because that is self-evident and needs no faith. But whether there is a God, or whether Mary remained a virgin even after giving birth to a tribe of kids, etc, that's something else. The advocates of such beliefs cannot prove them to be true, but the doubters cannot disprove them. Either you believe them, or you don't. If you believe them, it's not because they are rationally attractive, because they're not. It's because you have faith despite the absence of logical support. On the other hand, when religious organisations go beyond stating beliefs and philosophies about the universe and our place in it, and start advocating violence in any form, they have stepped outside religion and into something else. JackofOz 01:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Syrian president had close ties to Saddam Hussein before and after Gulf War II?
 claims the current president of Syria had close ties to Hussein before and after (well, I think by after they main, after May 2003) the second Gulf War. I don't get it? Didn't Syria support Iran in the Iraq-Iran war, enter the coalition against Iraq in the first Gulf War? Isn't it still forbidden for Syrian citizens to visit Israel and Iraq? I know that many of the things I mentioned were decided by the father of the current president, but still...

I do have to add that that site offered me to "meet Jewish singles" so maybe it's a little biased.

Evilbu 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the latter days of Saddam, Syria was turning a tidy profit by helping Saddam evade economic sanctions (a.k.a. smuggling). One of the first things the U.S. did when it gained control of Iraqi territory was shut off the oil pipeline between the two countries. AnonMoos 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Syria and Iraq oscillated between hatred and working together. In particular, when Iraq was powerful, Syria was rather concerned about being invaded, and for good reason, after Iraq invaded Iran and Kuwait. However, following the First Gulf War, Iraq was no longer much of a threat, so getting rich by smuggling things into and out of Iraq, in violation of the sanctions, then seemed like a good idea to Syria. StuRat 22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Between the U.S. and the Commonwealth of Nations...
This question has bugged me on and off for some years now: Although the United States gained independence from Great Britain in 1776, why is it not a member of the present-day British Commonwealth? --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because commonwealth of nations started in 19th century and US got its independence almost a century ago before.nids 22:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think nids meant to say a century before, not a century ago. I wouldn't say the US got it's independence in 1776 though, that's just when they declared so.  Only after the war was won and the treaty was signed did they actually have independence. StuRat 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Commonwealth began only after US got its independence (whenever the treaty was signed).nids 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The U.S. is apparently an applicant for membership. See Commonwealth of Nations.  JackofOz 01:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even a more recently separated Republic such as the Republic of Ireland doesn't seem to have any interest in being part of the Commonwealth. I don't see why the US would. Loomis 02:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Republic of Ireland has a lot of issues with the mother country Britain. The Irish Constitution lays claim to the entire island of Ireland, including the British part (Northern Ireland).  I can't see them ever joining the same club until that's sorted out.   But the USA and the UK are good buddies these days.  (Hey, why not invite Iraq to join the Commonwealth!)  :--)  JackofOz 04:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I realise this is a little offtopic, but JackofOz is incorrect - the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland got rid of the Republic's claim to Northern Ireland, although the amended Constitution does still state that "It is the firm will of the Irish Nation [...] to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland". Ironfrost 11:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we'd want Iraq in the Commonwealth, or that they would want to be in it! The Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, has expressed interest in joining though there's the problem of them not having adequate control of their own territory, and Israel's not interested. Mozambique joined the Commonwealth even though it was never in the Empire, because all its neighbours are in the Commonwealth and wanted to help Mozambique. -- Arwel (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think the US would want to be in as many trade orgs as possible, but would expect that the UK would object. With the US in the Commonwealth, it's hard to see the UK having much influence on the Commonwealth anymore, owing to the huge discrepancy in the sizes of the economies of the US and UK. StuRat 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Commonwealth isn't really a trade organization any more. In fact, it really doesn't do a great deal of anything much any more.  It's largely a talking shop where the leaders of the bigger Commonwealth nations rib each other about cricket results (Jean Chrietien probably muttering under his breath in French through this part, back in the day), the African members nag for more aid, and they annually change their minds about whether the most egregious miscreant nations (such as Pakistan and Zimbabwe) should be included or not.   --Robert Merkel 04:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The UK could hardly publicly object and still be seen to be a close friend of the USA, particularly in the post-9/11 world. Any objections would have to be expressed quietly at the diplomatic level, but denied publicly, and the delay attributed to process issues.  The Commonwealth is a child of the British Empire, and the Queen is the Head (although the position is not hereditary).  So, yes, the UK does definitely have more influence than the mathematics might suggest.  But at the end of the day, the UK is still only 1 nation out of 53, and has only 1 vote on the admission of new members.  I remember a CHOGM meeting in Vancouver in the 1980s where the intransigence of Margaret Thatcher over something or other (well, with Maggie, there was always something, wasn't there) exasperated the then Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke so much that he seriously raised the prospect of the Commonwealth expelling the UK from its ranks.  JackofOz 04:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed the recently added section on the U.S. application for membership from the Commonwealth article as it is unsourced and I could find no mention of this on Google. Rmhermen 17:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)