Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 23

= July 23 =

Why do (most) Christians eat pork?
According to Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork, the passage that prohibits Jews from consuming pork is in the Hebrew Bible. According to Old Testament essentially all christian denominations accept the Hebrew Bible as part of the biblical canon, so why don't (most) Christians observe the prohibition of pork? 202.155.85.18 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See our articles on Christian views on the old covenant, unclean animals and the Council of Jerusalem. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For that matter, shellfish, catfish and any other type of "bottom feeder". Forbidden to Jews, but not to Christians, as per one interpretation of one of the epistles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Epistles? More like the Book of Acts... :)  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One of them, yep. The part where all the martyrdom occurs, otherwise known as "The Axe of the Apostles". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Acts discusses the matter, but so don't the Gospels AND the Epistles. Some passages that some Christians can point to which are often interpreted as freeing them from dietary restrictions include: Matthew 15:11 "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.", Romans 14:14 "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself." 1 Corinthinas 8:8 "But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do."  Not every Christians will interpret these passages the same way, but it is commonly held that these, among more general passages such as Romans 7 and Galatians 5, that Christians are not held to following Jewish dietary laws.  It cannot be repeated enough that YMMV, and you will likely find any number of Christians who have different beliefs than this.  -- Jayron  32  21:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "so don't the Gospels AND the Epistles"? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. In New England English "so don't" means "also".  See  and .  Every once in a while, I lapse into my native dialect.  -- Jayron  32  23:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll be on the lookout for that in future, because I could [sic] care less about linguistic weirdnesses.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 202.155.85.18 -- It's been the general position of many Christian groups that the ritual laws of the Old Testament no longer apply to Christians, but the moral laws do. AnonMoos (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Acts 11: 4 - 10 is the passage Til Eulenspiegel and Baseball Bugs are thinking of, and this is the basis for the lack of prohibition for Christians of any foodstuffs. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Some groups calling themselves Christian insist that everything in the Bible is the word of God and that it must all be taken literally, so are there any self declared Christians who won't eat pork? HiLo48 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That seems like a pov-loaded question, but in fact several Eastern Christians such as Oriental Orthodox eschew pork among other dietary restrictions. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info, but not for the POV allegations. What's with that? HiLo48 (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a "loaded question" because instead of suimply asking the question, it also assumes what their reasons are for their dietary restrictions, but it's not that simple. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean. Maybe you should have expressed those concerns about the OP's original question? HiLo48 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The OP didn't say "groups calling themselves Christian" "insist that"... see loaded question. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "I believe the entire Bible literally, even the parts that contradict the other parts." - Ned Flanders - StuRat (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Pinning down precisely what a Christian is is one of Wikipedia's bigger challenges. Total numbers claimed for Christianity and its various sub-groupings are based on self declarations at national censuses and the like, but that number has little relationship to the number who actually worship the Christian God on a regular basis. Some groups calling themselves Christian insist that other groups calling themselves Christian aren't. I was recently involved in a small debate over how to describe the two recent US Presidential candidates. Some argue that Mormons aren't real Christians. Some argue that Obama isn't really a Christian. (Rarely the same people, funnily enough.) And even if they accept that he is, they still have trouble because they can't pin an obvious, traditional denomination on him. That's where I was coming from with the expression that caused you concern. Are you still concerned? HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a new issue with wikipedia by any means. That's why some churches are "in communion" with others that they recognize and not others. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with HiLo48 on the first point and I was thinking it before their response. The 'calling themselves Christian' bit seems fine as it's simply acknowledging that there is no agreement on the term, although perhaps something like 'who consider themselves Christian' or 'who would describe themselves as Christian' would have come across better. There are some groups who many other Christians do not consider Christian but who do consider themselves as such, so HiLo48's response was just reflective of them wanting to know about any group who consider themselves Christian. I don't think 'in communion' is the right word as some groups may not consider themselves as being in communion with each other (or at least one way), yet would still consider each other Christian. I do agree the second part 'insist that everything in the Bible is the word of God' seems unnecessary, some groups which believe it is may still not practice the dietary laws for a variety of reasons, and others may practice them without believing it is and I doubt HiLo48 is only interested in those who believe the bible as the literal word of god and follow the dietary laws. Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea whether Seventh Day Adventists are a Christian sect, but having gone to school with one I can tell you they don't eat pork and their Sabbath is Friday night/Saturday. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a Spanish dish originating around the time of the expulsion that contains pork prepared a dozen different ways the name of which I can never remember. For Easter, my family (Rusyn people) eat a traditional Jewish passover seder with a ham substituted for the lamb.  These traditions seem to be more an issue of mediaeval anti-semitism (making sure the Jew will reveal himself by not eating with you) than any original Christian doctrine.  μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the Spanish thing also focused on islamophobia? 139.193.214.10 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Insofar as "Islamophobia" is the new controversial mot du jour intended as a supposed parallel to "anti-semitism", yes. I have seen this debate raging at Talk:Islamophobia for some time also. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever you call the latter (and I don't care for the neologism either) it would be nice to know the name of the pork dish. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I find that the term bigotry works in most cases. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems a funny name for a pork dish ;-). Is Cocido madrileño possibly what Medeis was thinking of? It's thought to be based on a Jewish recipe, but has lard, bacon, chorizo (pork sausage) and morcilla (blood sausage) added. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Small countries and large bank deposits
I was reading an article by an analyst on the Cypriot banking crisis, whereby he raises an interesting point. He says that it has long been accepted in the western world that bank deposits are not bonds, but riskless placements of money - explicitly guaranteed by Deposit insurance up to a certain sum, but in practice, guaranteed by the national wealth.

The issue he raises with this is: What happens when a country's banking system accumulates deposits which significantly (or at times, vastly) outstrip its' Gross Domestic Product, thus making such government guarantees impossible to fulfill? Cyprus is an obvious example of such a situation going awry. But he points out that there are others, such as Luxembourg, where a similar situation exists.

So my questions are as follows:

1. Should I assume, given the above, that such deposits are automatically at risk? Should people be afraid of placing large deposits in the banks of Luxembourg or similar countries, even if there are currently (seemingly) no problems there?

2. If I was to take over the Luxembourg banking system (or that of a country in a similar situation), how would I go about protecting my depositors from this quandary? Would the only approach be to put depositors' money into gold, or bonds of countries with high credit ratings? (i.e. effectively transferring the risk to a different, bigger, sovereign entity). Or are there other (perhaps additional) strategies that Luxembourg's bankers take, or should be taking, to safeguard the Country's deposits? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't know anything about Luxembourg banking, but you can examine the case of Iceland, where banks grew to a size which far exceeded any capacity of the government of Iceland to bail them out. Some say that Ireland was forced by the EU to take on a rather crippling burden by bailing out its banks... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. In general, national governments are not required to guarantee the safety of deposits in their country's banks, and usually they will run a mile from any suggestion that there be an implicit guarantee of this type, as this creates the possibility of moral hazard. On the other hand, when faced with a systemic banking crisis, governments do tend to get their cheque books out quite quickly - see "too big to fail". Before placing a deposit with any bank, you should always ask yourself "to what extent is my depsit protected if this bank fails ?". And don't put all of your eggs into one basket.
 * 2. It is the business of a bank to manage financial risks. One component of this risk management may be to transfer some of these risks to third parties. But if a bank transfers away all of its financial risks then it is no longer a bank - at best, it has become an investment adviser. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes, assume your deposits are at risk unless you see some impressive proof that they've taken the necessary actions to secure them. Claiming "it's guaranteed" alone is obviously not proof.


 * 2) Well, some options are to require that banks:


 * a) Keep a large portion of the deposits on hand as cash.


 * b) Get insurance from multiple large companies who are likely to be able to meet their obligations during a financial crisis.


 * c) Limit their deposits to the amount they can reliably insure.


 * Of course, these options will be quite unpopular with the banks, and if the banking sector is so large it controls the politicians, it won't happen. In this case there will be inadequate regulation until the depositors lose their money, then the banks will be forced to allow regulation in order to restore confidence and get their customers back. StuRat (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

September 11 alternative scenario
I read in the 9/11 Commission Report that if the hijackers couldn't hit the World Trade Center buildings, they were going to crash the planes into the streets of New York. Does anyone know of any published estimates of what the death toll might have been from such an outcome (whether by the media or any government agency)? IBE (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you give a link to that? "Into the streets" makes little sense literally, since east-west streets are quite narrow, and even north-south avenues, especially downtown, are not that wide.  Perhaps the claim simply meant, "into whatever they could hit"? The Wall Street area is iconic, but except for a few buildings it is not that densely packed compared to midtown.  The building I worked in, 140 West Street, suffered no casualties even though the WTC antenna fell into it. Such estimates would differ wildly, and with whether they could set fire to lobbies preventing escape from skyscrapers.  Doing that downtown would not be as successful as doing it midtown. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * here you go Medeis. See also Wikisource or the pdf, where page 244 has the bit referred to. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Charles Giraud
Why is there two different name for him? Musée du quai Branly calls him Charles Hippolyte Giraud but the French wiki calls him Sébastien Charles Giraud.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Musée du quai Branly lets you search for either Sebastian Charles Giraud (1819-1892) or Charles Hippolyte Giraud (1819-1892), and returns different pictures for each name. So the question, probably best directed at the Musée, is whether there really were two separate artists with the same birth and death years, or if they have mistakenly given the same painter two different names.  There were a lot of French painters named Giraud, many of them related, and the tendency of the French to have many forenames and use only some of them ("dit" names) can be confusing. For exmaple, Sebastien Charles Giraud is known as Charles Giraud; Pierre François Eugene Giraud is known as Eugene Giraud...- Nunh-huh 00:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)