Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 25

= October 25 =

colonies in Bangladesh
How colonies are there in Dhaka city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.59 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about "colonies", but the Dhaka article states that the city consists of seven thanas. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought exercise: Banning Divorce in California
Background: In the fallout of proposition 8 in California to ban gay marriage, there were some making tongue in cheek suggestions to create a proposition to ban divorce in the state. The premise was that such a movement would be opposed by many of those who supported proposition 8, exposing them as hypocrites if they really wanted to "protect marriage" (as opposed to simply trying to deny homosexuals of the rights already granted them under court rulings). Well, it turns out that a guy named John Marcotte had taken up the mantle and is ready to gather signatures to try to get just such a proposition on the ballot.

I am not here to debate prop 8 or this man's actions. Instead, I got to wondering about one provision of the proposition. Specifically, while it would ban divorce it would still allow a married couple to seek a civil annulment. Assuming that this measure passed and that couples began seeking annulments instead of divorce (and that the courts would grant them even for couples married for extended periods of time), I would expect that it would basically toss all precedent of divorce law out the window. While children conceived during an annulled marriage have always been explicitly legitimate, all the existing law involving children and divorce (custody, child support, etc) would go away. Similarly, property settlements, alimony, etc. would also be thrown into chaos. After all, how can you have community property if you were never married? The way I see it, whenever a settlement is to be had, the court would be stuck with the unenviable task of determining case by case who actually owns each piece of disputed property accumulated during the annulled marriage.

So, here's my question: What would the fallout be for annulled couples in this situation? Is my assumption that all existing legal precedent established under divorces going away correct (at least until the legislature passes an explicit "use the old divorce rules for annulments as well" law)? For that matter, how does the court currently determine such issues with an annulment instead of a divorce?

Thanks,

--KNHaw (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference desks are not an appropriate place to engage in general discussion or debate or "thought exercises" about purely hypothetical situations. It is most properly a place to get references to help one find facts about things which one is having trouble finding.  -- Jayron  32  06:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that California already has legal procedures in place to deal with the consequence of an annulled marriage (on the grounds of bigamy, consanguinity, non-consummation, etc). Presumably those would be applied to a marriage that's annulled by mutual consent, if that's what the new law would introduce.  Tevildo (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Archiving as this isn't the appropriate place for hypothetical debate or "thought exercises", as has been said. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► First Secretary of State ─╢ 09:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Un-archiving. I don't see a real "thought exercise" here other than the title (and yes, we do plenty of "thought exercises" here—people ask all the time, "what would happen if" and etc.). The questions as put at the end are concrete, and if one knew something about annulment law (I don't), they are probably answerable with a range. Perfectly acceptable for the Ref Desk, though I don't know the odds of anyone here being clued in to this rather esoteric area of marriage law. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And while I am at it—I just want to note how silly and contradictory our policy on legal questions is. If the OP had asked about annulment straight out, people would holler, "no legal advice!" If the OP takes pains to point out that this is just a hypothetical question, we get people saying "no hypothetical questions!" This is, to say the least, ridiculous. If you don't know the answer and don't care—just ignore it and move on! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be a violation of freedom of religion, as there are religions that demand divorce in certain situations?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 17:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Banning divorce in California would pretty much destroy the entertainment industry, as they would have to move elsewhere, and that could have an impact on California's tax base. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a commercial site, but it appears to give a fairly comprehensive overview of the existing California provisions on annulment. Among other things, it says that "A party to an invalid marriage or domestic partnership who has "putative" spouse or domestic partner status may be entitled to property, support and attorney fees/costs rights similar to those attaching upon the dissolution of a valid marriage or domestic partnership" provided that they believed in good faith that the marriage was valid.  So in the event of your entirely hypothetical legislative change, it appears the lawyers might be able to argue the case for business as usual when a marriage ends.  Then again, lawyers can argue pretty much anything as long as you can afford $250 an hour ...  Ka renjc 19:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

the belief that human ancestors were giants
I have a vague memory that people used to believe (in the 18th century, ealier?) our prehistoric ancestors were gigantic in size - a belief perhaps inspired by the discovery of dinosaur bones. Note that I'm not referring to biblical or other myth here. Can anyone direct me to texts referring to this?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at the articles Nephilim, Emim, Rephaim and Anakim for Biblical references. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cyclops also might be worth a look - there's a theory that the legend of the cyclops was inspired by fossil dwarf elephant skulls. See Othenio Abel. Tevildo (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this site . The page deals with greek giants. Pollinosisss (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also Cyclopean masonry. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't the story used to go that the humans killed all, or almost all, of the giants and replaced them, rather than being their descendants? 148.197.114.207 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies - all most useful - that sounds more likely, 148.197.114.207; what else do you know about it? Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The book you need is The First Fossil Hunters, where author Adrienne Mayor goes into minute detail regarding Greco-Roman attitudes towards fossilized mammal remains and the parts they played in various myths and legends. The idea that "there were giants in those days" is one that has existed for a very long time. And, as Ms. Mayor points out in Fossil Legends of the First Americans, it's one that is extremely widespread - Amerindians came to much the same conclusion about those bones as the ancient Greeks did: only heroes could possibly be of such stature. Both books are very well referenced and exceedingly detailed; I highly recommend them if you'd care to learn more about the topic, but will issue the caveat they they (particularly the first) are somewhat dry and scholarly. I assume you've also seen what our article has to say about the idea? Matt Deres (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Matt; I'll look it up. Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Case/event question relating to international child abduction.
Relating to the article International parental abduction in Japan, specifically the specific cases section. There have been cases of Japanese men "kidnapping" their children to Japan, and more commonly Japanese women bringing their children to Japan (or retaining them within Japan), thus depriving the other parent of custody or visitation rights. However, my question relates to the definition differences between nationality and ethnicity/race.

Have there been specific cases of international, as it pertains to two individuals who have different citizenship/nationality at the beginning of the relationship, couple where both are ethnically Japanese, where one parent absconds with the child(ren) and uses Japans non-signatory status to the Hague Convention, in order to shield themselves and their children from the other parent? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Evolution and the Lemon test
The second criterion of the Lemon test says that any law must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion. Doesn't this mean that the mandatory teaching of evolution is unconstitutional because it has the primary effect of advancing atheism and inhibiting religion?

Also, would a law not specifically banning the teaching of evolution, but rather banning teaching anything about the origin of life, atheist or Christian, be unconstitutional?--75.39.194.188 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Teaching evolution has the primary purpose of increasing knowledge and understanding of a widely accepted scientific theory. That is happens to contradict some religious teachings is irrelevant. It certainly doesn't serve a primary purpose of advancing atheism - plenty of religious people accept evolution. As for your second question, I don't know. I'm not an expert on the US constitution. I assume you mean banning teaching it in state funded schools - if you ban it altogether then it would probably be a restriction of free speech and fall foul of the 1st amendment. --Tango (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Science and religion are two different studies. Science does not oppose religion. I think the banning of the dissemination of knowledge (of science or religion) for no apparent reason would probably be "unconstitutional." Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason that past anti-evolution laws have been ruled unconstitutional is because they either specifically prohibit evolution or require teaching Genesis. However, banning all teaching about the origins of life would prohibit creationism/intelligent design as well as evolution, so it wouldn't advance religion. --75.39.194.188 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From a legal standpoint, evolution is primarily religiously neutral—it does not tell you that Christianity is right/wrong, that Judaism is right/wrong, that Islam is right/wrong, that Buddhism is right/wrong. It does imply that certain very strict interpretations of these religions are not supported by evidence, but there are plenty of people of faith who also subscribe to evolution. On the whole, the teaching of it its facts is separate than teaching its metaphysics. I suspect a court would not find that it's primary effect was to promote atheism. To put it another way, you can't teach or believe in Creationism without believing in a deity. You can teach and believe in evolution believing in a deity, or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As for constitutionality of banning all origin stories from public school curriculum... I'm not sure. It's not a great idea, to be sure, but does it violate the constitution? I'm not sure it is clear on that. I suspect this is not a different question than, "can a state ban sex education altogether?", and as far as I can tell, the answer is "yes, it can." I've changed my opinion. If the teaching of evolution is religiously neutral (as I think the courts have indicated they consider it to be), and the teaching of Creationism/ID is not (which again, the courts have said), then the banning of all origin stories is identical with banning evolution (since you can't teach Creationism anyway). The law would not pass the Lemon test—it has no secular purpose, no purpose other than prohibiting the teaching of evolution. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Proponents of religion, if they are similarly proponents of reality, will see that evolution poses no more problem for religion than does rain. If the religious person asserts that God both created and continues to supervise the world, and thus asserts that God caused in to rain in a particular place at a particular time, there is no conflict with science stating that the rain was due to the water cycle in general and a cloud from which water descends in specific. God works in science -- so too does God work in science in regards to evolution. For those religious persons who deny science, they likely don't know science and probably don't even know religion. So a ban on teaching evolution is nearly similar to a ban on teaching genetics, protein synthesis and causes of precipitation (both weather-related as well as chemistry related -- ha, just thought of that one).  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't know. One can imagine making the distinction between teaching genetics with and without saying what it implies on the "big picture". When I learned biology in high school, genetics was a totally different unit than evolution. We could easily have just learned about all of those specific genetic reactions, and Punnett squares and all that, without getting into the question of what happens if you apply this over the course of a million years. In an idealized world of science, it's all connected inextricably, but in practice, there is plenty of detail to dive into at each of the topics without getting into the overall connections. I could easily imagine making a high school curriculum that included genetics, protein synthesis, and plenty of other biological topics but left out completely natural selection, common descent, etc. Watson and Crick could probably have accomplished their work without knowing a thing about evolution—for them it was all small-scale chemistry. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You might have misunderstood what I meant -- I meant to speak about genetics as a wonderful example of inherent chance, probability and odds as a deciding factor in inheritability, gene mutation, etc. While scientists concur that such things do occur as a result of chance, the religious person may assert that such things are not chance, but are directed by God.  The religious person who understands science would assert that God works through science, such that each individual case may be and effect of prayer (or the lack thereof), but would concur that, in the large picture, statistics obviously play a role.  God working through the natural processes of the world doesn't seem to upset most anyone when it comes to saying that God makes simple recessive genes phenotypically expressing themselves with probability of 25%, but they sometimes do take issue with God working through evolution.  Those people, I suspect, either have a hole in their knowlege about science, religion, or both.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I thought you were saying (as I have sometimes heard), than trying to ban evolution from schools simply wouldn't work, because you'd have to ban basically the rest of biology as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is important to note the difference between religion as a general concept and specific religions. There is certainly no conflict between science and the idea of some kind of supreme being(s). There is a conflict between science and all major religions that I've studied. For example, the Bible says that the Earth is about 6000 years old and various parts of it were created in a certain order at a certain speed; science says it is about 4.5 billion years old and was created in a different order at a much slower speed. That is a conflict. Most Christians resolve it (if they consider it at all) by saying that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally. What that boils down to is changing your religion to fit this new information (which requires a rather strange definition of "sacred", but that's their problem). So, you can accept science and religion, but only if you are willing to change your religion to fit with science. --Tango (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily—there are plenty of non-literal traditions in religion whose non-literalness has nothing to do with science. You seem to be imagining that all religions are by themselves literal and that science has forced them to be non-literal. That isn't true on either a historical or individual level. And one should never underestimate the human ability to genuinely believe in two inconsistent things at the same time. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tango -- you seem to assert the trueness of things that are false.  For those who do not have a profound understanding for particular religions, it's very easy to see "clearing up of inconsistencies" as convenient contrivances.  But for those who see religion as an overwhelming, all-encompassing world view, there can be no conflict with science, because if the religion is true, and the science is true, then they must comply.  You may disregard claims of supernatural events, such as national revelation, as being outside the bounds of possibility, but if you do accept the possibility of miracles (defined here as "apparent violations of laws of nature), there is no trouble whatsoever.  And Mr98 -- Judaism, which substantiates itself on the Old Testament in its original version and language, not only doesn't take some things literally, it claims to take almost nothing literally.  See Talmudical Hermeneutics.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've studied various religions in quite a lot of detail, so please don't dismiss my comments as ignorance. Miracles are, by your own definition, not compatible with science. You can explain all the inconsistencies away by just saying "God made it look like that to test our faith" or similar if you want, but that isn't accepting science as true. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said science was the only reason people don't take religion literally, I said it requires people to take religion non-literally - that is a completely different assertion. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But you seemed to imply non-literal interpretation of the Old Testament as a contrivance secondary to apparent run-ins with science. It's important to make the distinction of reality from conventional wisdom that the Old Testament in laregely meant to be understood from a non-literal interpretation -- from the Jewish perspective.  From other perspectives, I cannot fathom how they assert their understanding of a text if they don't even understand it in its original language, but it's obvious that they indeed fathom it.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, God provided us with an English translation, so it all works out. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting how evolution is always the flashpoint for this. After all, anything taught in school might run counter to some religious belief. For example, pretty much all of science could be a problem for some animists. The mathematics of irrational numbers would be a problem for a Pythagorean, if there are any of those left. For some Muslims, teaching literacy to girls is a problem. And for the Amish, any education past the eighth grade or so is a problem, which is why they pull their children out of school at that point. Conversely, for the really strict fundamentalist, it's not just evolution that is a problem (although that's the hot button): it's also the entire science of geology, since it clearly requires an "old" earth. - Jmabel | Talk 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally in agreement with you there -- evolution has been labeled with some sort of probe, so that whenever it is mentioned, all hell breaks lose. But I can say with much experience that when such a thing occurs in circles of Judaism, it is because the "hell-breakers" don't know science and perhaps don't even know religion.  At a conference of Jewish scientists once, an eminant astrophysicist got up and, to begin, said something along the lines of, "I don't know much about Judaism, but I think religion can be summed up by saying that it doesn't fit in with science."  The rabbi got up and said, "I don't know much about astrophysics, but I think it can be summed up by saying 'Twinkle, twinkle, little star.'"  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's it, except that geology is not biology. It's the notion that man descended from something else, as opposed to being literally built by God, that the literalists have the most problem with. Biblical literalism, and the current scientific theories about geology and biology, are incompatible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Sir Gabriel Horn has an interesting take on this:


 * "I see nothing incompatible between the teaching of science in schools and belief in the existence of God. Scientists seek to understand the universe through observation and experiment. Science is an empirical discipline. So far as I am aware, no empirical tests have been devised that provide compelling evidence to refute the existence of a God."

Rockpock e  t  19:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Biblical literalism and current evolutionary theory are incompatible. And the atheist would point out that they don't need to prove the non-existence of God. The burden of proof is on those who claim that God exists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove that evolution is true. That means that an atheist must show that every single change which has ever occurred to any organism has been beneficial and that all organisms descend from a common ancestor. --75.34.66.54 (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 75.34.66.54, Evolution, like all science, has shown sufficient reliability to be considered acceptable by a broad swathe of the scientifically-oriented community. That is not to say that it can't be supplanted by more broad-ranging theories, or even simply proven incorrect. Every change to an organism probably cannot be shown to be "beneficial." That in no was "disproves" the sturdiness of evolution as a theory. Furthermore I don't even know if it is posited that all organisms descended from a common ancestor. Couldn't life have sprung up more than once? Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 75 shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. In fact, evolutionary theory would hold that most changes may well be not beneficial. But there is a greater chance that those individuals will not survive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't even know what "God" is, so how can we debate whether God exists or not? I'm not even talking about any agreed-upon definition. As individuals we are not contemplating whether or not there is or is not a planetoid orbiting around the Earth at an orbit closer to the Earth than the known Moon and which in fact is larger than the Moon. That is not the sort of question contemplated when one is thinking about whether or not there is "God." Isn't God by definition unknowable? Isn't that entity by definition posited as being fathomless? So, how can we talk about whether God exists or not? Isn't it a given that we would be incapable of answering that question, if we fully formulated that question? It doesn't matter whether you say God exists or not. It is just a guess. And it has about as much significance as one's preferences in fashions. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need to know what "God" is to consider the question of whether the Big Bang and universe just randomly happened, or whether some "intelligence" made them happen. --  JackofOz (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are defining God. You are fitting God to "intelligence," but you don't know what intelligence means vis-à-vis "God." Perhaps God's "intelligence" is quite low. Is that not possible? Or, would God do exceedingly well on a standard human intelligence test? Bus stop (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Biblical literalism is not a religion. Furthermore, Horn's whole point is those studying science have no interest in proving or disproving the existence of a God, since it not empirically testable hypothesis. There is no burden of proof either way, since it is simply not a scientific issue. Rockpock  e  t  20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Biblical literalism by itself is not a religion, but it is a cornerstone of fundamentalist Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, guys. This shouldn't become a forum for a general evolution/creation debate. The question was pretty straightforward and has to do with constitutionality. Can we restrict our discussion to that general approach, please? There are million of pages of internet available for those who want to know about evolution/creation more generally. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a loaded question to begin with, as it asserts that evolutionary theory necessarily is atheistic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I took it more to ask whether or not evolutionary theory passes the Lemon test. I think it is pretty clear that it does, from a legal point of view, even if you take the point of view (as many prominent thinkers do and have) that taken to its logical conclusion, evolution supports atheism more strongly than organized religion. (Whether I myself think that is the case holds no bearing on the legal problem!) That's fairly specific, IMO, and is answerable without a long debate (the legal principle is separate from the philosophical one). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the OP includes this phrase in his second paragraph: "... would a law not specifically banning the teaching of evolution, but rather banning teaching anything about the origin of life ..." As with a large proportion of folk who complain about evolution, he appears not to know what evolution actually is about in the first place. Evolution is not concerned with the origins of life, but in the changes that occur within lineages after life began. You will note that Darwin's book is the Origin of Species, not Life, and that he habitually called the subject "descent with modification." The OP seems to be worked up about nothing, not knowing what he's talking about. B00P (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is a good description for most of the opponents of teaching evolutionary theory. But it's not just evolution that's at issue, it's the age of the earth. The evolutionary process cannot possibly have happened in only 6,000 years, hence "it can't be true". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The contemporary debate over teaching creationism fails on one very specific count: it defines which creation story is the “accepted” one. Until and unless all creation stories – or a fair representation – are taught in balance, there is no safe way to teach just one. Better to stick to evolution, and leave religion to the Literature Department. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Russia Fresh Water
How does Russia deal with the problem of freshwater management, including water stress and sanitation?

I'm guessing they have Water treatment plants?? Also see Marina Rikhvanova.Popcorn II (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Lake Baikal? It contains a total of roughly 20 percent of the world's surface fresh water.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Disappearance of industries took care of the worst pollutants; for historic background see: NVO (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Electors and the US Electoral College
In reference to the above, I read about the mechanisms used to dissuade faithless electors, but it seems to me to be a ritual that may easily lead to a political catastrophe should a faithless elector actually cause the opposition to win an election. It's all nice and good to say it never happened, but if it should happen...I mean, it seems very similar to an outrageously terrible disease that strikes so ridiculously infrequently, yet, due to its exceedingly high morbidity (i.e. the degree that the condition affects the patient), a great effort is performed in establishing protocols for prevention and treatment, despite its extremely low incidence.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you have a question? --Tango (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If it happened, they'd probably change the system. As with the disease analogy, there's a question of trade offs between preparations and incidence. If the threat is actually very low (as it historically seems to have been), then the effort that would be required to change it (which as I understand it is a state-by-state thing) may be seen as not worth it. With diseases, arguably we should not spend excessive funds on diseases that are extremely rare, as to do so is to take away resources that would be otherwise used for the things that are more common. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They might change the law to deal with faithless electors, but the probability of doing away with the concept of the electoral college is fairly low. The whole point of the electoral college is to prevent the big states from overwhelming the small ones, which is why the small states are represented disproportionately higher in the Congress and hence also in the Electoral College. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Who's talking about doing away with the entire college? I just think this elector thing is pointless at best and dangerous at worst.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall, though, the ultimate decision for a U.S. presidential election is in the hands of the electors. That is one of the things that leads some sources to state that the U.S. is not a democracy but a "constitution-based federal republic". —Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in the Federalist Papers, Madison described the US as a democratic republic because we vote for people to choose for us -- sort like the other day's example of a democracy being 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch, a democratic rebuplic would assign a shephard to decide the best course of action for all parties involved. But what could be the possible reason for such a system?  Why not have no electors?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If there were no electors, then who would elect the president? —Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what Rosenbach is getting at is to do away not with the electoral college as such, but with the electors themselves, by making the electoral vote "automatic". That would prevent the shenanigans that have sometimes happened in the past. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Bugsy -- my comment was conflicted and cut off :) But yes...that is exactly my question.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 17:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where that idea would run into trouble is where some small states have decided to apportion their electoral votes, i.e. if the state has 3 electors, and 2/3 of the vote goes to one candidate, the electors would be split 2 and 1. That idea undermines what the founding fathers had in mind, though it hasn't yet tipped an election. That's another snag that would have to be decided upon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No snag -- it's automatic. Instead of having a machine tally the votes to present to an elector to enter into another machine to tally the outcome, just have the first machine tally the outcome based on whatever number of electoral votes were collected/assigned and how many are put towards each party (all-or-none or split up).  DRosenbach  ( Talk 17:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't like the idea of political parties or the people directly electing a president, but I will not debate the point here. For those with an interest in the original rationale, might be worthwhile reading. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs: that doesn't counter what the founders had in mind at all. They had no intention that states send uniform slates, nor even really that the electors reflect the specific presidential preference of the state's voters. All of that evolved over the next several decades after the Constitution. - Jmabel | Talk 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They had in mind that the states, rather than the people directly, would choose the President. Obviously they didn't foresee the flaws in their original approach, which had to be amended pretty quickly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Active Roman Catholic cathedrals
Are there any places where two actively operating Roman Catholic cathedrals (in other words, not historical and not Eastern Catholic) are found within walking distance of each other? I know of two instances: Rome and Winnipeg. Are there any others? Thanks! --NellieBly (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * List of cathedrals suggest there are more; two in Tirane and two in Shkoder, Albania; three (!) in Perth, Australia; two in Linz, Austria; etc etc. I'm sure not all of these meet your criteria, they might not all be active, but it's a start. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: The entry on Linz / Austria has to be corrected.  The two entries are referring to the same cathedral wich is either called St Mary´s C. (Mariendom) or New C. (Neuer Dom).  In theory, there are, indeed, two cathedrals there, the old cathedral being the church of St Ignatius (no entry on the en WP, but well known as Anton Bruckner was the organist there for 12 years or so).  The old cathedral was the seat of the bishop until 1909 and is now a "plain church" of the Jesuits.  It was replaced in the former function by the "New Cathedral".  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming that. Some of the cathedrals in those lists are no longer the home churches of a diocese, so it's not quite what I'm looking for. (What do you call the process of turning a cathedral into a "plain church"? Downgrading? Decommissioning?) --NellieBly (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How far apart are the two cathedrals in Velletri-Segni? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember not to blindly trust any list of cathedrals you find in the Internet, including unsourced lists in Wikipedia. Many people out there will refer to any big church as a "cathedral". I can think of three situations where there may be two or more active Roman Catholic cathedrals in one town:
 * two parts of one town belong to two different dioceses and each diocese has its seat in that town;
 * there's an additional cathedral for the military ordinariate (usually in a nation's capital city);
 * there's only one diocese, but there's a co-cathedral in addition to the proper cathedral.
 * I can give you one example for each of these cases, all in Poland: in Warsaw, there are three RC cathedrals: St. John's of the Archdiocese of Warsaw, SS. Michael and Florian's of the Diocese of Warsaw-Praga, and BVM the Queen of Poland's of the Military Ordinariate of Poland. Gdańsk has two RC cathedrals: Holy Trinity's in Gdańsk-Oliwa and BVM's Co-Cathedral.
 * Catholic-hierarchy.org is a pretty reliable site. It's about bishops, not cathedrals, but it should help you find some more of the cases one and two. For case three, perhaps googling for "co-cathedral" might work. — Kpalion(talk) 21:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone - you've given me some places to start (and thanks for the warnings too). I knew this desk would give me a good start! --NellieBly (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * New York City falls under Kpalion's first criterion (depending on how you define place). The Archdiocese of New York's has St. Patrick's Cathedral, and the Diocese of Brooklyn has the Cathedral Basilica of St. James.  --Nricardo (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethics of Cocaine use.
I've had a look around the Cocaine page and the Drugs and prostitution page but I was wondering if we had a specific page on the moral/ethical use of coke. Obviously there are many links to crime cartels and sex trafficking, etc. which are good reasons not to use coke, but I'm looking for as many concrete reasons as I can get why not to put your money into the coke industry. If we don't have a page, can I get some thoughts please? BTW, I'm not interested in any health issues, just facts that appeal to one's moral decency.Popcorn II (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to wave away the idea that the "crime cartels and sex trafficking, etc." have anything worth considering, but I would imagine that is the primary problem. The cocaine industry has been responsible for crime cartels that have been tearing apart South America for decades, and have had definitely negative effects on the lives of its people and the functioning of its government. Purchasing a product that is produced in such an economic system is giving support for such a system. Whether the answer to that is to not purchase the product, or to attempt to have it legalized so that alternative economic systems are developed, is up for debate. But putting your money into such an industry is fairly unethical, if one cares about the ethics of what one's money supports. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "...facts that appeal to one's moral decency." How about obedience to the law? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At the end of an evaluation, there may be no moral issues that result in a reason to avoid cocaine use. One can have an evaluatory tool such that, "if I ceased involvement, it would still occur to the same or with a negligibly different effect, and so, my contribution is absent or negligible."  I don't how much cocaine you're planning on using, but that may factor in.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ethics and morality are not about whether change is hypothetically possible, but about one's personal calculus. If your money is used to support murder and kidnapping and sex slavery, and you know this, then you are morally and ethically culpable. This is quite straightforward. The question is where to functionally draw that line without becoming a hermit, given the way the world works. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you don't speak for everyone. Check out veal Morals and ethics are not subjective, and although I suppose that many will take my statement as being subjective, all the pluralists who would would also be forced to accept my statement, as doing so would be embracing pluralism.  But purchasing veal has been ruled as not in violation of cruelty to animals because one's purchase doesn't unilateraly drive the torture.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 01:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no clue what the above little column on kosher law has to do with the general question (he's not saying that veal is uncruel, anyway—he's saying it's kosher, which is not the same thing... methinks you need to actually read what you decide should be evidence for your case rather than just posting whatever comes up on Google first). Unless you are referring me to the reader comments? Sorry—if you fund cruelty, you are participating in it. Whether you want to draw the line at food because it is convenient, doesn't change that basic, obvious fact. We are responsible (ethically) for our economic actions, just as we are our political actions, even if our one purchase, or one vote, does not decide the entire outcome. If you purchase tortured animal, you are participating in a market for tortured animals. How you deal with that fact is up to you. But that doesn't change the fact of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you didn't understand, all you had to do was ask. My point was that your POV assertions made above (If your money is used to support murder and kidnapping and sex slavery, and you know this, then you are morally and ethically culpable,) are just that -- your POV.  Judaism, which would forbids torture to animals, would not forbid Jews from benefiting from torture from animals.  Whether or not veal is torture -- I am not making that assertion.  But according to most (and it seems you are included in this 'most'), it is -- I've never evaluated it personally, though.  Anyway, the Talmud has specific regulations about aiding and abetting those who perform crimes, whether ritual or otherwise, and you should realize that your POV is essentially non-universal -- the veal was just an example for you, because I figured the average person could understand such a scenario.  If you're interested in particular examples brought in the Talmud, I could elaborate in a more personal, user-talk fashion.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Or, hey, you could boycott a product and lobby your government until the laws and practices are changed such that eating veal produced in your country is less cruel than consuming dairy products and not eating veal. Like in the UK. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The nice thing about ethics is that for most things, it is not a POV question—it is a question of just calculating out the effects. (Morals are different—morals are about what you value, which are entirely subjective.) There is no convincing way I have seen to argue that funding something unpleasant does not hold you culpable to some degree in the unpleasantness. Now the some degree is up for debate, and whether you consider the activity unpleasant is up for debate, but if you buy products that fund torture, then you are funding torture to some degree. Now whether you decide this doesn't cross your line of whether something is prohibited or not, that's a different question. Whether we decide that responsibility is strong enough to get us to do something, that's a different question. But the connection? Come on. It is basic ethics, basic economics, and basic logic. There is no rigorous way to squirm out of that. All you can say, in the end, is "I don't care enough to modify my actions," "I don't consider that a bad thing," or "I don't have a choice." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So you don't see any ethical or moral problem with violating laws against production and distribution of cocaine? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Violating the law is not an inherently unethical or immoral thing. There can be immoral and unethical laws, and situations where following the law is the unethical or immoral action. Don't confuse morality with legality! --Mr.98 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not true. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, come on, just think about it a bit. If a law was passed that forced you to kick people when they were down, that would be pretty unethical. Laws are made by a bunch of fallible representatives who are anything but ethical and moral. Sometimes the laws suck. Sometimes they are immoral. The entire point of the Declaration of Independence is that sometimes you've gotta do the right thing, and sometimes that means breakin' the law. In an ideal world, our laws would be a perfect mirror of morality and ethics, but we don't live in that world—never have, never will. Murder isn't bad because it's illegal, it's bad because it is immoral. If it was legalized, that wouldn't make it any better! --98.217.71.237 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Equating illegality with immorality is dangerous.  After all, it was illegal to hide Jews in Nazi Germany, but does that mean it was immoral ?  Under segregation and apartheid it was illegal for blacks to go into certain areas.  Did that make it wrong for them to do so ?  On the contrary, if the law is itself immoral, we should feel a moral duty to violate it.  In modern Western society the laws aren't quite as bad, but there are still some seemingly immoral laws, like not being allowed to put a quarter in somebody else's parking meter (because this would deprive the government of their much-needed parking violation ticket revenue).  I tend to think that anti-marijuana laws fall into the same category, as that certainly is no worse than legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.  As for the harder drugs, they can cause major societal problems, but so does keeping them illegal.  Perhaps a more nuanced approach is needed there, such as keeping them illegal for children, but allowing adults to use them only in supervised settings, so they can't drive while high, etc.  Of course, such an argument could be made for alcohol, too.  StuRat (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The "greater sin" ethic comes into play there. It's a sin to lie, but it's a greater sin to expose people to murder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks, back to my question, I'm guessing we don't have a page. I didn't mean to wave away the idea that the crime cartels and sex trafficking, etc. have anything worth considering, I'm just looking for something to say to someone next time they pull out a wrap of coke and offer me some? I don't want to look like some dick that just thinks he's better than everyone else, thus I need some quick points of reference to throw back at them. Like "You're funding some pretty horrible crime when you buy that shit. Did you know that....."Popcorn II (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh, I've found that, "oh, thanks, but not today, thanks, I'm cutting back," works better than giving people a lecture, if you don't want to look like someone who thinks you're better than anyone else. Especially since, in my experience, the guys offering you coke probably think Tony Montana is real cool, and thus appealing to funding crazy homicidal crime lords who assassinate people will not likely have the desired effect. But this is not exactly an answer to the question, though. Google "cocaine effects Latin America" and you will get a ton of articles about crazy violence and political discord caused by the cocaine industry. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the Child Support Agency ( CSA) UK Unconstitutional and,therefore, illegal?
Is the Child Support Agency ( CSA) UK Unconstitutional and,therefore, illegal? I have always believed that since Magna Carta it is an embedded principle of our Constitution that no citizen may be deprived of his or her life, liberty or assets without due process of Law. Uk citizens have never been afforded the opportunity of stating their case in a Court of Law regarding the effects that dealing with this Agency has had on their lives. The formula used to calculate the amounts demanded from "absent parents" bears no relationship to reality and has caused many to live in a state of penury. In my submission were the actions of the CSA subject to judicial review this unreasonable method of calculation and methods employed to obtain said amounts would never be countenanced.

Even when the absent parent has no assets the CSA allows the custodial parent to pursue the absent parent/ex-husband/wife/partner even when such a course of action would be challenged in a Court of Law.

I would argue that the Agency operates in an unconstitutional way in that due process has never been invoked. I would welcome your comments.

Angel

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.119.33 (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The UK has no written constitution, but rather an evolving set of customs and laws, some of which have taken on the character of a constitution. As such, the concept of "unconstitutional" is not really strong in British law. That said, I suspect you talk about child support payments. This is an issue between parents and child. The agency is only helping to enforce the rights of the child. As such, the Magna Charta has nothing to say on the issue - it deals with the relationship of the Crown and "the people" (which really meant "a small class of reasonably powerful nobles" ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This question is based on the false belief that if you have something in your possession, it is legally your asset. Try that in real life.  Go steal something and try to argue that the police can't take it from you because it is in your possession. --  k a i n a w &trade; 21:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also the argument that there is no court involved could also apply to taxes. Very few people would argue that taxes are depriving assets without due process. I am pretty sure the CSA is legally sound. -- Q Chris (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the question appears to apply the American meaning of due process to a British legal body (notwithstanding that nothing can be unconstitutional when there is no constitution). Rockpock  e  t  21:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the American and British interpretations of due process are pretty similar. It is a common misconception that the UK doesn't have a constitution - it doesn't have a single written document, but it certainly has a constitution. See British constitution. However, the British constitution can be changed just by passing regular legislation, so there is no concept of a law being unconstitutional. --Tango (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Our article on the subject suggests otherwise. Rockpock  e  t  07:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► cabinet ─╢ 11:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "However, neither concept [in English contemporary law] lines up perfectly with the American conception of due process, which... contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England." Rockpock  e  t  16:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I said "pretty similar" not "identical". Sure, the process is a little different, but the general idea is the same. --Tango (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant he appears to be invoking a constitutional right to procedural due process, which is not mandated in a British constitution (which we have already established is not a really a Constitution (with a capital C) because it is uncodified) but is in the US Constitution. In that sense, he appears to be using the American meaning of due process (the Constitutional codified right) to a British legal body, which does not respect such a right. Thats all. Rockpock  e  t  23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The UK's constitution has as one of its most important principles parliamentary sovereignty, which means that the Houses of Parliament are the supreme law-making authority, and can enact and repeal any law doing anything that they so wish. This was part of the settlements at and after Runneymede. Parliament chose to legislate the CSA into existence, and to empower it to do those things, and Parliament had every right to do that. End of! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► First Secretary of State ─╢ 21:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that the decisions of the CSA _are_ subject to judicial review - see, for example, R(Denson) v CSA, [2002] EWHC 154 (Admin). Tevildo (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the prohibition in the Magna Carta is only against executive action which is not supported by legislation or timely judicial action. If the UK parliament made a law to arrest Joe Bloggs of 9 Cherry-Tree lane that would not be contrary to the Magna Carta. See also the previous comment about parliamentary soverignty. The UK has a constitution but a UK act of parliament cannot be declared unconstitutional by a court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.138.15 (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "If the UK parliament made a law to arrest Joe Bloggs of 9 Cherry-Tree lane that would not be contrary to the Magna Carta." Indeed.  See Jonathan Wild and Brian Haw. Tevildo (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)