Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 29

= December 29 =

Catholic Communion Practices
My spouse maintains that, in the Catholic rite of communion, only the bread is distributed to the participants; the wine is drunk only by the priest(s). I know that both are distributed in those protestant churches that use the rite (in Canada, in the Anglican and United churches, for example). The WP article on the Eucharist suggests both are distributed. Does anyone know for certain? If the answer is that both are distributed, has this always been the case? Bielle (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My family is Catholic and whenever we went to church here in the UK we only received the Host and never the wine. I was always told b my parents that when I grew up I would be old enough to receive the wine, but to be honest, I had noticed that it was only the priest who took it and nobody else. I do not have any sources for this, so I guess I can only offer this as OR. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  02:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See Communion under both kinds. At one time the Roman church reserved the cup to the clergy, although this has been changing over the past century or so.  (I have been to RC services where the laity were given bread, and where they were given both bread and wine.)  Anglican canon law requires both the bread and wine to be distributed to the laity, as a reaction to the practice of reserving the cup to the clergy (see Article 30 of the Thirty-Nine Articles).  Finally, this Anglican would like not to be called a Protestant, if it's all right with you. Marnanel (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Having been raised in the 1980's in American Roman Catholic churches, the laity were given both the bread and wine. I believe the practice changed for many (but of course, not all) Roman Catholics after Vatican II.  -- Jayron  32  02:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all. If we have a source for Jayron32's suggestion that the practice changed with Vatican II, it could be an addition to Eucharist. The dates are right for his thought to be an answer to my original query; my spouse's memory would have been rooted in his teen and pre-teen years, prior to the early 1960s, when he last had a consistent relationship with formal religion.

And in response to Marnanel, an Anglican "who would like not to be called a Protestant", so be it. You are not a Protestant. I had no idea that there was any controversy to the inclusion. (There is yet another topic I need to add to my "falling behind the times" list of readings.) Bielle (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To respond to Bielle's question on Anglican being not protestant: Protestants are members of Christian sects/denominations who derive their origins from Martin Luther or John Calvin or Huldrych Zwingli or similar reformers as part of the protestant reformation; they sought to reform the church and had serious theological and practical differences with the Catholic church. Anglicanism (known as Episcopalianism in the U.S.) arose primarily as a church governance issue (whether or not the Pope served as the head of the church or not).  Anglicans, in their origin, had very little objection to Catholic theology or liturgy (indeed, many of the practices observed in Anglican/Episcopalian churches would be very recognizable to any Roman Catholic) and are not really "Protestants" in any definition of the word, since the Anglican church didn't arise from the tradition that produced the Reformation.  -- Jayron  32  04:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Many of the practices" and words of the liturgy of the Eucharist in the Lutheran church would also "be very recognizable" to Catholics. Edison (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but the Lutheran Church has a strong historical connection to the Reformation; the Anglican church does not. The Anglican church didn't start out in protest to anything theological; rather it was mostly about the right of governance of the Church.  The English church went through a wild roller coaster ride during the reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts.  Still, on the balance most of the theological positions of the Catholic church (with the notable exception of the right of priests to marry) were retained by the Anglican church.  The two have drifted further apart theologically over time, but initially the intent was to keep the English church basically "Catholic minus the Pope".  It is the fact that the early Anglican church had no origins in the Reformation (though later developments were influenced by it) that may lead a member of the Anglican Communion to object to being called a "Protestant".  Its a simplistic view that holds that Christendom exists in 3 strains, "Orthodox", "Catholic", and "Protestant".  In reality, it is much more nuanced than that.  -- Jayron  32  04:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayron32 gives one useful and valid definition of Protestant, but it's not the only one; in British legislation the Church of England is clearly classified as Protestant (the Bill of Rights 1689 calls the nation "this Protestant kingdom" and requires the monarch to be Protestant and to take a coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion, and the Act of Settlement 1701 requires the monarch to be a Protestant descendant of Princess Sophia. The Protestant religion here is, of course, Anglicanism. - Nunh-huh 05:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very true; many Anglicans, including apparently Parliament at various times, has no problem with considering the Anglican church to be a protestant one. However, it is clear that some Anglicans (at least one above) does have an objection to such a classification.  I was merely providing some background as to why an Anglican may object to being called a Protestant.  It was not an attempt to say that they definitively were, or weren't, merely an explanation of one side of the issue.  As I said, its a nuanced issue, as much informed by each persons individualized theology as anything.  It is best to say that some Anglicans think of themselves as protestants, and some do not.  I was merely trying to provide a background as to why one would not.  -- Jayron  32  05:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with anything you've said, I'm just pointing out that since the Church of England is an established church (by acts of Parliament), one can't simply ignore that the body that established it says it's protestant. - Nunh-huh 05:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also add that the view that the Anglican Church was really founded simply so that the King could be in charge, rather than the Pope, is consistent with the version I learnt in an English Catholic primary school, whereas the view that it was part of the Protestant movement, and was a popular uprising by the people, is consistent with the version I learnt in an English (supposedly secular) secondary school. I was forced to conclude at a tender age that neither was entirely consistent with all the facts I had to hand, and that the truth had to be some combination of these. Oddly, the (at first glance, more biased) Catholic version seemed to include more facts that were absent from the 'establishment' version than vice versa. At least this taught me to be wary of my textbooks.
 * Oh, and the wine with communion is largely a Vatican II thing, but there's an element of individual parishes, priests, bishops, diocese and archbishops making decisions, as well as more Vatican-led changes. For example, about 15 years ago the bishop for my diocese visited us to carry out confirmations and told us that if any of the girls wanted to be altar servers, let him know (previously, we had only had altar boys, and our priest was opposed to female altar servers). Globally, this decision had been made much earlier. Similarly, maybe about a decade ago, there was a crackdown on the wording of the parts of the Mass, and previously popular sung arrangements which altered the words (even just by repeating them in a non-standard way) were completely removed from practice unless used as hymns. About the same time, communion was changed to include wine for the laity, and many more extraordinary ministers were trained to allow for this. I am unsure if this was a Vatican-led crackdown, or if it was just that we got a new bishop, or quite what happened. But, in brief, these things change for a number of reasons, and they tend to propagate out to parishes at variable rates. 86.164.67.8 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More OR: I was an "attending" Catholic as a child in Perth, Western Australia, and I recall in the late 1970s and early 1980s that for most weekly masses, the wine was only drunk by the priest, while the laity received only the Eucharist. However at masses for some significant event (Christmas, etc) - and/or possibly only at some specific churches - the laity received wine as well. I'm uncertain of the details, because it was a long time ago, and also it was usual from me to attend the small local church most weeks, but attend a larger church on "special occasions", such as Christmas, funerals, Catholic school annual masses etc, so any distinctions in my mind may be due to selection bias. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In Canada we never get the wine (at least since the 1980s), although I did get to drink it once in an Anglican mass. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am an Argentinian Catholic, and I recently got married. We had a mass (not just the wedding ceremony) and both my spouse and myself had Communion under both kinds. I remembered once before, as a teenager, we had also Communion under both kinds in a mass inside a stadium. So communion in both species is admitted, but not widespread (at least in here). I must remark that the deacon also has the wine, not just the priest (after all, the deacon is in charge of the chalice). Sometimes, also the (extraordinary) ministers of communion recieve both species. Lastly, I've seen coeliac sufferers (or people suffering from similar conditions) receive communion under the species of wine, from the chalice, just after the priest drinks from it. Pallida  Mors  19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all; this has been a wonderfully entertaining read. Bielle (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (Interesting idea for coeliac sufferers to receive under the species of wine only. I have seen special wafers used for this.) Marnanel (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with special wafers if that "Pastors and the faithful are reminded that for bread to be valid matter for the Eucharist, it must be made solely of wheat; contain enough gluten to effect the confection of bread; be free of foreign materials and unaffected by any preparation or baking methods which would alter its nature. The amount of gluten necessary for validity in such bread is not determined by minimum percentage or weight, though hosts which have no gluten are considered invalid matter for Mass. In the Roman Rite, the bread prepared for the Eucharist must also be unleavened.", so it is a bit tricky: there are low gluten options, although you need a dispensation and it can't be gluten-free, so only receiving the wine (if possible) is easier for most. It gets harder for priests, who must partake of both species when carrying out Mass: I've had a coeliac priest who broke the smallest possible bit from the wafer for himself. 86.164.67.8 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

legal
i need a copy of the fourth amendment and related materials, uch a search warants, surreptitios entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.68.8 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the text of all ammendments to the U.S. constitution, from www.house.gov: . I'm not sure what you mean by "related materials", but search warrant is a Wikipedia article which covers that.  The Wikipedia article Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has lots of background info on the 4th amendment as well.  -- Jayron  32  02:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

2nd Book on History of Roosevelt NY
I am the author of One Square Mile please advance data with addition of Beyong the Wishing Well- Sheldon Parrish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.236.25 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't parse that. Could you, as an author, please elaborate your question so we can answer it intelligently?   Thanks!  -- Jayron  32  03:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a book called "One Square Mile: The History of Roosevelt NY from an Autobiographical Perspective" by Sheldon Parrish.
 * Are you writing now a second book from that perspective, Sheldon? Could you clarify how you would like us to try to help you with that?  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  03:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

why Parliament?
why we need a Parliament? I think, it slows down government. whatever politicians want to discuss they could do so through public forums or through multiple radio / tv channels. I don't think, one guy speaks and others listen, is not a wise thing these people are doing. what is the rationale behind this entire Parliament and discussions? how this can be justified in this Internet era? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If humans had perfect prescience, and the ability to forsee the best way to solve all problems, governance would be unneccesary. The fact that we have problems, and that those problems do not have obvious solutions, requires people to deliberate over how to best solve those problems.  The solving of "big problems" requires the existance of a deliberative body to work through the various proposed solutions and to arive at a sort of consensus way to approach them.  While different modern societies have arived at subtly different ways to approach this deliberation, they all seem to require some sort of body, be it Parliament, Duma, Knesset, or Congress, to discuss, debate, and deliberate over the best way to solve problems.  The danger in letting one person make all of the decisions without confering with anyone (totalitarianism) is if the person makes the wrong decision, or is more likely, as motivations less honorable than "the good of the nation".  -- Jayron  32  05:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Question is about neither favouring totalitarianism nor against Parliament system. It is about Parliament's inherent nature of discussion. why we need system like one guy speaks, and others listen? what is stopping us to embrace new(?) technologies (like tv, radio, internet) and make use of other efficient methods? Governments are using these mediums, why not ditch parliament, in favour of these ways? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the use of Parliamentary procedure like Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice for governing how a Parliament operates? Or over the very concept of requiring an actual group of people to meet in one room to discuss issues of the day?  -- Jayron  32  05:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * second one. "the very concept of requiring an actual group of people to meet in one room to discuss issues of the day" --122.172.41.118 (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer is that they by-and-large do not. What you see in the actual chambers of parliament is the end bit of a process that is largely done exactly as you describe.  Most of the text and specifics of bills are hammered out in committee meetings of small groups of MPs, and often they will use technology, even including such things as email and videoconferencing, to work out the details of bills.  MPs make frequent use of the media to build public support for (or against) various bills as well.  The final bit of actually voting on the completed bill does go on in the actual chamber, accompanied with some debate and discussion, but this is actually only a VERY small part of the legislative process.  They don't literally write the bill from scratch through parliamentary debate; its often some very small tweaks which are being discussed among the "committee of the whole"; most of the major work is done by the exact methods you describe.  -- Jayron  32  06:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think more pertinent links would be representative democracy and direct democracy. Small city states, like those in ancient greece, could get everyone together in the agora and everyone permitted a say could have one. Once states became larger a representative would be used to stand in for the views of the people in a region, and they would convene in a parliament or such like. Technology now allows for e-democracy to permit direct democracy over a potentially global scope. As to why we are not at that state of affairs yet, I don't doubt our representatives are less than keen on making themselves redundant but there are lots of attendant problems with such a system: the fact that many are still disenfranchised from modern communications and the problems of ochlocracy.  meltBanana  14:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would come at this from a different angle. It's true that government decisions could possibly be made remotely through an internet forum, though we would still need clear rules on who gets to vote, assuming we want to be democratic, since it would be unfair to let those who have the skill and inclination to spend time on the forum to make decisions that affect others.  Also, it would be difficult to have a meaningful discussion if the forum had to accommodate 10,000 different opinions on a subject.  Still, technically, it should be possible for elected representatives to make decisions in an online forum or a videoconference.  However, this leaves out a very important element.  The fact is that we are human beings, primates, and social interactions are much more effective when they happen in person, because of all of the nonverbal cues (body language, the physical environment, perhaps even pheromones) that can't be captured effectively even in a videoconference.  Part of the usefulness of parliaments (and particularly of committees and hallway conversations where members meet for more informal discussions) is the rapport and the sense of trust that members are able to build with each other when they meet in person.  These qualities are tremendously helpful in achieving the compromises that democratic government requires.  Marco polo (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * it would be unfair to let those who have the skill and inclination to spend time on the forum to make decisions that affect others — to be fair, we already have that to some extent with the current system. Marnanel (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean here, Marnanel. Formally, only elected representatives get to make decisions in a parliamentary system.  If you are trying to say that those people act at the behest of a moneyed oligarchy, at least in the United States, I won't argue with you, but formally the oligarchy don't vote in the parliament.  This is a bit of a tangent.  Marco polo (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

David Miller (in his book A Very Short Introduction to Political Philosophy) discusses exactly this topic, namely, why the Internet revolution has not yet made elected representatives redundant or superfluous. He argues (citing Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter) that people are simply not competent to make many of the decisions currently entrusted to politicians, and that it is therefore in the interests of people to "outsource" governance and law-making to representatives with whom they broadly agree. Gabbe (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote
Once, James Madison said:


 * If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

By that statement, he meant that humans are imperfect and capable of wrongdoing so government, controls on government, and democracy is necessary.

But did he mean it in a Christian or religious sense? Did he mean it in a Christian or religious context? Was he talking about or referring to original sin or the Fall of Man? Was he talking about or referring to the Christian belief that humans and human nature are sinful? Was he talking about or referring to Christianity or religion? Did he mean all that?

I am asking you all this because I first heard about this statement in Chapter 34: Biblical Christian Politics of the book The Battle for Truth: Defending the Christian Worldview in the Marketplace of Ideas by David Noebel. The chapter said that that was what the statement meant. It also said, "Government became necessary because of the Fall. Since each man is inherently sinful, these sinful tendencies must be kept in check by laws and a government capable of enforcing these laws." and "This Christian understanding of human nature helped pave the way for a more just government than a government founded on a faulty view of human nature.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought we covered this issue exhaustively a few weeks ago. To sum up the previous discussion: Madison isn't overly concerned with being scrupulously correct in his use of "angels" as an analogy. He's merely noting the reasons why a) government is necessary and b) government must itself be governed. Any attempt to analyze Madison's quote for religious significance is misguided. It misses the point. Later analysts, such as the one you quote, may have been attempting to draw an explicitly religious or even Christian viewpoint, on the point Madison was making. Lets be clear here: This was not part of Madison's initial quote, these are later additions by later analysts. It may be fine to discuss such concepts on their own; whether, for example, Christian theology requires the existance of government for the exact reasons that Noebel provides in your quote. However, I seriously doubt if Madison's quote has that background to it, however. As I said before, Madison was making a statement about Government, not about Religion. In other words, Madison may accept that government is necessary because people will do bad things; but I am not sure he is thinking about these "bad things" except in the very general sense.  He's not thinking of them as "sin" in the sense of being religious proscriptions, merely as the fact that government is necessary to prevent people from being bad, whatever your definition of "bad" is. -- Jayron  32  05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea for a fruitful discussion: just how many angels can dance on the top of a pin? And is there any difference if these are Roman Catholic angels or Protestant angels? TomorrowTime (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In some Protestant denominations, angels don't dance. How many angels can stand on the head of a pin and tell the other angels to stop dancing? —Kevin Myers 00:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the article: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What would it mean for an intelligent being to have no spatial extent (in our 3-space anyway)?  If it must have spatial extent, what and where is it?  What if angels can "dance" the way we can "focus attention" – how many people can focus their attention on the head of a pin?  Does that awareness in some sense "occupy" that space, without having any physical extent in that space? Etc.  Who knows?  Good question, though. :)  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer to the head-of-a-pin question is: "Either all of them... or none of them." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Golden Jubilee guest lists
Does anybody know who was on the guest list during Queen Victoria of England's Golden Jubilee in 1887? I interested in foreign dignitaries and kings and queens. I heard Emperor Guangxu and Empress Dowager Cixi were invited, but obviously they didn't go in person.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Some "50 foreign kings and princes, along with the heads of Britain's overseas colonies and dominions, attended the feast. The widowed queen was escorted for the evening by Christian IX, King of Denmark. On her other side at the table sat King George I of Greece, whom Victoria knew as Willy...[later] she received a long procession of diplomats and Indian princes." Neutralitytalk 08:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anybody know about those who didn't attend but were invited? Also any non-European kings and queens since most of Europes kings and queens were her grandchildren or relatives at the time.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Supposedly the future Kaiser Wilhelm II spent the Golden Jubilee being his usual obnoxious and arrogant self, insisting on being given an extra high-degree of formal precedence, and making derogatory and racist remarks about some of the non-European royal individuals present (among other things), which is why he wasn't invited back for the Diamond Jubilee... AnonMoos (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * King of Denmark
 * King of the Belgians
 * Queen of the Belgians
 * King of Saxony
 * King of the Hellenes
 * Crown Prince of Austria
 * Crown Prince of Germany
 * Crown Princess of Germany
 * Princess Victoria of Prussia
 * Princess Sophie of Prussia
 * Princess Margaret of Prussia
 * Crown Prince of Portugal
 * Crown Princess of Portugal
 * Crown Prince of Sweden
 * Duke of Sparta
 * Infante of Spain, Don Antonio
 * Infanta of Spain, Doha Eulalia
 * Grand Duke Serge
 * Grand Duchess Elizabeth
 * Grand Duke of Hesse
 * Princess Irene of Hesse
 * Princess Alix of Hesse
 * Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
 * Heriditary Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar
 * Heriditary Grand Duchess of Mecklenberg-Strelitz
 * Duke of Coburg
 * Duc d'Aosta
 * Prince William of Prussia
 * Princess William of Prussia
 * Heriditary Grand Duke of Hesse
 * Prince Henry of Prussia
 * Prince Ludwig of Bavaria
 * Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Meiningen
 * Hereditary Princess of Saxe-Meiningen
 * Prince Philip of Saxe-Coburg
 * Princess Philip of Saxe-Coburg
 * Prince Herman of Saxe-Weimar
 * Prince Louis of Baden
 * Prince George of the Hellenes
 * Prince of Leiningen
 * Princess of Leiningen
 * Prince Louis of Battenberg
 * Princess Louis of Battenberg
 * Prince Hohenlohe Lagenberg
 * Prince and Princess Edward of Saxe-Weimar
 * Prince of Wales
 * Princess of Wales
 * Duke of Edinburgh
 * Duchess of Edingburgh
 * Duke of Connaught
 * Duchess of Connaught
 * Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein
 * Prince Victor of Schleswig-Holstein
 * Princess Louise, Marchioness of Lorne
 * Marquis of Lorne
 * Duchess of Albany
 * Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg
 * Prince Henry of Battenberg
 * Duke of Cambridge
 * Duke of Teck
 * Duchess of Teck
 * Princess Victoria of Teck
 * Prince Frederick of Anhalt
 * Prince Ernest of Saxe-Meingen

Some others in the procession were:
 * Sultaneh of Persia
 * Prince Komatsu of Japan
 * Queen Kapiolani of Hawaii and Princess Loluokalani
 * Prince Devawongse Varoprakar of Siam
 * The Thakir Sahib of Morvi
 * Maharaja and Maharani of Kuch Behar
 * Rao of Kutch
 * Maharaja Holkar of Indore

Monsignor Ruffo Scilla was the envoy of the Pope Any errors in the list are probably mine, all from the Times.MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we make this an template on her page?(Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC));

US VP.
When was the last time the VP was called upon to vote in the senate? i imagine its been quite awhile, but then again i could be wrong.(Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC));


 * For the sake of clarity I guess the OP means the Vice President of the United States. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We've got an article on that... Seems like the Cheney did it a number of times. This list goes up to 2008; I don't know if it has been updated since. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That senate page must be updated. it hardly has any delays and by "de facto" law it cant.
 * One should also add a "total" section to that wikipage(the senate page says 244)
 * Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean it can't be un-updated? That's silly. It certainly can be out of date and probably is. The Senate Historical Office, who maintains it, has neither infinite resources nor infinite time, and I think it's pretty clear that they did that report on it in March 2008, which is when it ends. (Note that a number of links on the page are also, as of this moment, dead.) Now, it might be that simply it hasn't happened since then. But I wouldn't trust that page to necessarily be up to date on the matter. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the dynamic of the last two years, it doesn't seem implausible that Joe Biden has never been called on in that capacity. There have been lots of close issues in the Senate, but the close vote has usually been cloture, not the bill itself.  It's certainly not impossible that there's been some less-noticed bill where a reasonable number of Dems voted with the GOP, but that wasn't important enough for the GOP to force a cloture vote, but I haven't heard about it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess another possibility would be a 50/50 vote with the Republicans on the "aye" side. Then the Democrats wouldn't need to filibuster; they could just call in Biden to vote "nay". --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I recall it happen routinely. Certainly not on every bill. It is after hours now but Thomas, Library of Congress,should have ready figures as should the VP's Office at the White House.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The pagan festival of Saturna (not Saturnalia)
The Saturnalia article says towards the end: "The Mishna and Talmud (Avodah Zara 8a) describe a pagan festival called Saturna which occurs 8 days before the winter solstice. It is followed 8 days after the solstice with a festival called Kalenda."

Where can I find more about this Saturna (repeat, not Saturnalia) festival please? After a half hour of Googling, all I've found are dozens of copies of the Wikipedia article, pages where people confuse or fuze Saturna with Saturnalia, and two extremely brief mentions here http://www.ajula.edu/Media/pdf/u6%20-%20chanukah.pdf and here http://onefootwalking.wordpress.com/ Thanks. 92.15.4.201 (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure these are not the same festival, just varient spellings on the same event? -- Jayron  32  21:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not according to the Wikipedia article. 92.15.4.201 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem like the Jewish sources were confused about the name of the festival; "Kalendae" is the name of the first day of any Roman month, not really a specific festival, so they were slightly confused about that too. It probably means Saturnalia. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A search through this version of Avodah Zara 8a only seem turns up "Saturnalia" and no "Saturna" so it is probably a misspelling that I will now fix. Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  22:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it looks like "Saturna" is used in this source (cited in the article). Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  22:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The original Hebrew says Saturnura סטרנורא not Saturnalia or Saturna (although that doesn't mean they are not the same). Ariel. (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [e.c.] At any rate, it looks like an attempt to rationalize some Roman customs by fitting them into the framework of Jewish historical tradition. Iblardi (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)