Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 10

= March 10 =

NDE greatest proof that there is an afterlife?
Most seculars who experienced this left their skeptic positions. I do not know if they also believe in a personal God now. Are there any recent accounts, researches, studies that affirm or deny the existence of afterlife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Assuming you're refering to the Christian religion, there is no proof outside of Scripture. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Correction. There is no proof at all.  It always has been and always will be entirely a question of faith and belief - or lack thereof.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not so much a correction, as it is an addendum. Potential proof within Sripture depends on the interpretation of the refered text. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My point is that no text, no matter how sacred it may be regarded, can be "proof" of the afterlife, if all it does is assert there is one. If one happens to believe the Scripture, then one will probably believe in the afterlife. Not believing in the Scripture doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't believe in the afterlife - or does believe, for that matter.  If it's proof we're talking about - and it is (see the OP's heading) - the Scripture has no standing.  Mind you, the lack of proof - and there will always be lack of proof, no matter how hard people look for it - doesn't mean there isn't an afterlife.  Many people who go looking for the proof do so to prove there isn't an afterlife (the "I told you so" effect), but they'll never do this, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Many others look for a proof to prove there really is an afterlife - but they're doomed to failure too.  If you want to believe in the afterlife, it's simple: just believe in it.  If we had scientific proof, belief would be irrelevant.  But as I said above, it's all about belief and faith.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "If we had scientific proof, belief would be irrelevant." No, if we had scientific proof, belief would be justified, as opposed to a personal fantasy.  Your absence of evidence claim is fallacious--we have no evidence that goblins don't exist either, but no rational person would believe they do.  --140.180.249.27 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Then you have no real concept of belief or faith. Religious faith is about believing something one has been told (in sacred texts or wherever)  but without any independent evidence it's any more than a fairy tale.  The whole point of religious faith is that all you have to go on is what you've been told is the word of God or someone who speaks on his behalf.  People are able to make distinctions between the existence of goblins and unicorns on the one hand, and matters such as the existence of God, his creation of the universe, the life and works of Jesus, the afterlife, the existence of Heaven and Hell, reincarnation, the transmigration of souls etc on the other hand.  None of these have any scientific evidence, but they're still treated very differently by millions of rational people.  Why do you find this so hard?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Religious faith is about believing something one has been told (in sacred texts or wherever) but without any independent evidence it's any more than a fairy tale."
 * Exactly. That's the very definition of credulity.  "None of these have any scientific evidence, but they're still treated very differently" is the epitome of special pleading.
 * I don't want to continue this debate, but I do want to point out one thing to the OP (not to Jack). What purpose do you want your beliefs to serve?  Do you want them to make you feel good about yourself, or to approximate objective reality as closely as possible?  If the former, then by all means, believe in God, the afterlife, heaven, NDEs, etc.  Use faith when it tells you what you want to hear.  Maybe throw in young Earth creationism and geocentrism for good measure.  If, on the other hand, you want your beliefs to approximate objective reality, you have to exercise intellectual discipline.  This means, at a minimum, assigning the same level of plausibility to beliefs with the same amount of supporting evidence.  It is not valid to choose between beliefs on the grounds that one of them makes you feel better, because the Universe has no obligation to make you feel good, and is in fact guaranteed to kill you in a possibly slow and painful way.
 * Now for the afterlife question. No, there is no evidence of an afterlife, and plenty of evidence that such a thing is impossible.  For instance, consciousness is completely tied to the brain.  Infants and children do not have well-developed brains, and thus don't have a well-developed intellect.  Patients with brain damage have mental disabilities corresponding to the area of damage, like Henry Molaison, who could not develop additional long-term memory, or "Dr. P", who who could not recognize faces.  Patients with severe concussion slip into a coma in which the cerebral cortex is inactive, and after they awake, they have no recollection of anything that happened during the coma.
 * So if the brain is the seat of consciousness--in the sense that a well-developed brain has a well-developed intellect, that selective damage to the brain impairs selective abilities, that temporary cessation of cerebral cortex activity leads to temporary unconsciousness--then the logical conclusion is that permanent destruction of the brain leads to permanent loss of consciousness. Analogously, if you hack your computer to pieces and completely destroy its CPU, the CPU will stop computing.  Do you believe that computation could continue after the CPU is destroyed, even though there's no logical way for this to happen, and plenty of reasons why it shouldn't?  If not, then in order for your beliefs to be logically consistent, you can't believe in an afterlife, because the same amount of evidence exists for both beliefs (namely, zero).  --140.180.249.27 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That exemplifies my earlier comment - "you have no real concept of belief or faith" and you are enslaved to notions of logic. Many highly esteemed scientists and mathematicians still believe in God and his supposedly impossible powers, and are devoutly religious, but you seem to know better.  Where does it say that religious questions are commensurate with scientific or logical analysis?  Nowhere, that's where.  That doesn't make them invalid.  Science does not have all the answers, and never will.  It is a profound arrogance to think otherwise.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is profound arrogance to think that you can arbitrarily accept something on faith, without any evidence whatsoever, and have that thing turn out to be the absolute truth about the universe. Millions of greater minds have failed to come up with something as simple as F=ma, and that's with abundant evidence of how objects move.  Believing that an idea you pulled out of thin air is the absolute truth is nothing but anthropocentric hubris.  Your "many highly esteemed scientists" comprise the extreme minority: 93% of NAS scientists reject God, but of course, you'll find some way out of your own argument from authority.  --140.180.249.27 (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm more interested in the 7% who do believe. It's not a majority decision, this God thing.   --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As you indicate, if it could be proven, there would be no debate. Religion serves many purposes, and some will say that no one's belief system is a monopoly on the truth, as the true nature of God is largely unknown to humankind. But faith and hope help believers keep going. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Religious faith does have independent evidence, although, it is only credible to those who already have faith. It comes in the form of personal experience, such as in increase in improbable fortuitous events.
 * The problem with the above proof of impossibility, is first of all, it is a very limited interpretation of Scripture, secondly God can't be put in a box like that. He can break whichever physical law He needs to do whatever is neccesary. Afterlife is beyond the physical sciences. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also secular doesn't mean what you think it does. One can be in favour of secularism and still be a Christian (or other theist). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what "NDE" means, but the book The Physics of Immortality by Frank J. Tipler explores possible physics arguments for a kind of "afterlife"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Frank Tipler did some good work in general relativity early in his career, but he's widely regarded as a crackpot now. See this article in Discover Magazine.  The author applied the crackpot index to it.  At least 40 points!  --140.180.249.27 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Near death experience. 122.106.184.68 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ... or even Near-death experience. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that NDEs are the greatest evidence that there is an afterlife. Note that this doesn't mean this is very strong evidence, just that it is pretty much the only evidence we have, even if there are other explanations for NDEs.  (Religions/scriptural writings really don't count as evidence at all, especially since they all disagree with one another.) StuRat (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not evidense either, as it depends on popular opinion. There is no source that can confirm that a NDE is anything more than a hallucination. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in skeptical, scientific approaches to NDEs, this is a wonderful, gentle, devastating write-up by Oliver Sacks, the neurologist. Paradoxically, as Sacks points out, NDEs have led many people away from faith as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A NDE is evidence of the afterlife only if my dream of going to the Moon is evidence that I actually went to the Moon. (And no, I was not one of the Apollo astronauts.) --140.180.249.27 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There's enough consistency among the many NDE anecdotes to indicate that NDE's tend to be real phenomena - "real" in the sense that they can be observed or envisioned or dreamed by many who are near death. That doesn't prove there's an afterlife - it just proves that NDE's have reasonably consistent descriptions. It could just as easily be the mind's way of making dying "feel better". But it doesn't prove there isn't an afterlife, either. Jack has it right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a one easy experiment you can run that will definitively prove whether there is (or is not) an afterlife... die (fully and completely... no wishy-washy "near death" half-measures).  Of course, it is an experiment you can only run once (so I strongly suggest you wait until the end of your life to run it)... and unfortunately only one person will be convinced that the results of the experiment are conclusive.  But that one person will definitely and definitively know the answer, one way or the other. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironically, that's only true if there is one. If there ain't, then there's no mind present to perceive its absence. i kan reed (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeh, but if you're fading to black, you'll have a clue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that there's disrespect for Island nations?
I am from Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia and I'm tired and angry when reading the newspapers on United Nations General Assembly votes in which my country always support the U.S. and Israel. And the comments say that we're not independent and that we are a colony of the U.S. Why such disrespect? Why don't people respect the independence of Pacific Island nations? FMicronesian (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The first step is start to respect yourself like a sovereign nation, and don't follow US everywhere he goes, but if your government decide by his own to support US, because truly believe is a good cause, is also a sovereign choose.In the votation against the embargo Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and others nations always support US, but Cuban people have no resentments we know your country have his reasons to support US.CubanEkoMember (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This question has been repeatedly posted by blocked User:Timothyhere and his various socks such as the recently indeffed User:Kotjap. See talk for diffs. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Chardal vs religious Zionist
What is the difference between Chardali and Religious Zionist in terms of activities and personality or characteristics?--Donmust90 (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90


 * A quick search on Google for [Chardali Religious Zionist] brings me to this website, which, in someone's opinion, Chardali is a far right-wing group. Sneazy (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Chardali are, by definition, Religious Zionists ("Dali") with leanings toward the charedim; though I am not sure how that answers the question. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 17:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To expand on Hasirpad's reply, above: the Hebrew Wikipedia page for the term gives the acronym as composed of CHAR'D + L standing for Charedi Leumi, literally "National ist Charedi." They are (a) religious-fundamentalist Torah-observant (Haredi, sometimes called "ultra-Orthodox") and (b) support "Eretz Israel Hashlemah" (nationalist, possibly though not by definition extremist). The Religious Zionists (Hebrew: dati leumi; literally "national religious") are nicknamed "crocheted kippah" (Hebrew: kippa s'rugah). They are a notable presence in the IDF and many serve as officers. Chardal, incidentally, means "mustard" in Hebrew. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a secular Israeli with some social Chardalim connections I must dissent. Most Chardalim, while definetly right-winged, are not extremists. Some are, and are a source of ongoing concerns. The murderer of Yitzhak Rabin is a fine example of the extremists.
 * Same principle applies to the religious model they follow: Tha last election showed clearly that they are not Charedim. Charedim do not serve in the IDF, Chardalim do, and are populating the more hazardous (and more prestigious!) roles. Charedim are, at best, indifferent toward Zionism. Chardalim are avid Zionists. Charedim scorn secular knowledge, and are pitifully ignorant in the sciences, but Chardalim take pride with excellence in the sciences and make a fair part of Israel's Hi-tech industry. Charedim keep to a dressing code from 19th century eastern Europe, Chardalim observe a casuall dressing code, characterized only by dresses for the girls, yermulka and Talit Katan for the boys. Zarnivop (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Zarnivop "dissents" and writes: "most Chardalim...ane not extremists". While I appreciate all the added detail, this does not differ whatsoever from what I wrote above, that the supporters of "Greater Israel" are "possibly though not by definition extremists." Those religious Jews who refuse negotiations on the borders of Israel are hard-liners beyond the bounds of nationalism. Those Jews who create illegal outposts and defend these, those who actively resist legal rulings and troops deployed to evacuate them from said illegal outposts, to say nothing of instances of criminal and violent acts against their Palestinian Arab neighbors in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) - are more likely to be "Chardal" than from any other belief community on the Israeli Jewish population spectrum. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the west bank settlers do not adhere to this description. Most will obey, reluctantly as it may be, a legal order to evacuate. Most value Democracy and acknowledge the sovereignty of The State. And last but not least - had most settlers were to be involved in "criminal and violent acts against their Palestinian Arab neighbors" there wouldn't be a day without scores of dead Palestinians, as the settlers are by and large trained soldiers. I do not try to defend the extremists that do all that- they do exist -but if most of the settlers population fit your description Judea and Samaria were far more violent than the Gaza frontier. In reality the opposite is true, and it's very easy to prove this. Zarnivop (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What philosophical school promotes the literary form of investigation over formal language investigation?
The answers to my previous question had revealed that not all philosophical schools adhere to mathematical methods. Mathematics cannot be used to answer all philosophical queries, especially if the questions are about influence and character. I have heard of different intellectuals who have philosophized in a literary way. Of course, their philosophical investigations promote the use of natural language than formal language. The first philosopher that comes into my mind is Nietzsche. He, being a poet, did not promote or conceptualize mathematical ideas. He is greatly connected to existentialism, but I do not know if existentialism favors the use of natural language over formal language. I do not also know what existentialism says about mathematics.

Ordinary language philosophy and the "linguistic-turn" are products of logico-analytic movement. They are used in the philosophy of logic and mathematics, thus it is not a "literary form of investigation" that I described. There are so many philosophical schools that we have today, but which among them is more literary and less or not dependent to mathematics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in Eastern philosophy. From the time of the Ancient Greeks, Western philosophy has tended to be influenced by mathematics and logic, as far as I am aware. This is true of the analytic philosophers like Russell, but also to an extent, of the system builders, like  Schopenhauer. It is less true of Eastern philosophy, as far as I understand it. IBE (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking one talks today about the divide between analytic philosophy (e.g. stuff that looks like math) and continental philosophy (e.g. stuff that doesn't have math, but is not necessarily "ordinary language," unless your ordinary language is really quite convoluted). These generalized approaches are separate from "schools," which are a level below these broad genre distinctions. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a quote I've seen several times that goes something like the principal dispute between the so-called analytic and continental traditions in philosophy is whether the task of being vague is to be accomplished in natural language or in a formal system. I can't find the exact quote right now &mdash; can anyone help? --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

IBE seems to be right. Eastern philosophy is less analytic compared to the western philosophy. The continental and analytic traditions are both western, thus they share the same method, which is math and logic. They have different approaches, but they have the same content. Mr. 98, I am intrigued by your response. Can you explain this further? -> (e.g. stuff that doesn't have math, but is not necessarily "ordinary language," unless your ordinary language is really quite convoluted). These generalized approaches are separate from "schools," which are a level below these broad genre distinctions.--Joshua Atienza (talk


 * Continental philosophers frequently speak in their own jargon, and it is deliberately non-formal. So they create words that are not only not "ordinary language" (e.g. épistémè), in the sense that they have specialized meanings, but sometimes they even create words that they argue are deliberately undefinable (e.g. différance). If you try and dive into The Order of Things or Of Grammatology you'll find them to be pretty non-ordinary in terms of its use of language, but not at all analytical in the sense of looking like math or formal logic. I really do not know if analytic philosophy and continental philosophy have the same content — they seem very much different worlds to me, concerned with different problems and entirely different ideas about the method of philosophy, its goals, its purpose. I do not think that Foucault's ideas about what philosophy was meant to do were at all the same as Whitehead's.
 * As for the distinction between schools and genres, all I meant is that many of those listed under "analytic philosophers" or "continental philosophers" have very different schools of thought, despite talking in more or less the same "languages." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So far, I agree with Mr. 98. I wrote my post to get the ball rolling, and to see whether anyone would refute me - hence the wording, "You may be interested in" rather than "Let's answer this definitively". My info was dimly remembered from Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy, but I thought I might never find it - it is presumably from the last paragraph of the section on Pythagoras, though there may be other references. I am well aware this is long before the rise of continental philosophy, so it may be no longer true. There may be a sense in which continental philosophy is fundamentally Western, and derived from logical method, but I would be curious to know what. I wouldn't retract my previous post, but it is rather incomplete, and I regard (what little I know of) continental philosophy as radically different from, say, Wittgenstein and Russell, or for that matter, Daniel Dennett or W. V. O. Quine. And don't take anything I say on philosophy with more than a pinch of salt, since I dabble, and read the bits that interest me. IBE (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

ePublishing
Not sure if this is the correct desk to ask, but here goes. I wonder if anyone has had any good / bad experience of "united p.c. publisher" (www.united-pc.eu) as I would like to publish my book that way.85.211.205.123 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally, something like Writer Beware is recognized as a useful independent perspective on publishers. The main question that comes to mind in this particular case is one of intent: what are you looking for in a publisher?  If you just want an ebook on Amazon and the like, you can do that yourself, with no publisher required.  If you have a niche product that you want available physically but not necessarily for mass sale, a print-on-demand house may be appropriate.  If you want a book on shelves at your local bookstore, make sure you work with a publisher that you can find on the shelf in the relevant section at said bookstore (that's the easiest way to determine which publishers are sufficently "real", for lack of a better succinct term).  Also do things like stick "[publisher's name here] reviews" into your favorite search engine; the first result returned by Google suggests that United PC is probably classified as a vanity press.  Finally, for any book that you hope to make money on, always keep in mind Yog's Law: "money should flow toward the author". &mdash; Lomn 02:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, most useful.85.211.205.123 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there no Chinese Papabili?
I have read Roman Catholicism in China and searched for "Chinese papabile" on the interweb. The best I get is Tagle from the Philippines. Are there no Chinese papabili? -- 22:04, 10 March 2013‎ Medeis


 * PRC Catholics are not officially allowed to respect the authority of the pope, and there are perpetual tussles between the Vatican and the PRC government over bishops' appointments, so that's not a particularly favorable environment... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, all male catholics are eligible. But in this case, according to the predictions I've seen in various media have no Chinese cardinals are likely candidates.  But stranger things have happened... Mingmingla (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What drove the question was the effect of picking a pope from behind the Iron Curtain. But I don't see where we even have a list of Chinese bishops loyal to the pope, which surprises me. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what you mean by that comment, CF, unless you are suggesting I or our readers might not realize KW was from Poland under Soviet hegemony? μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you already knew, why were you pondering the effect of picking a second pope from there? You're getting more opaque by the minute. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have been confused by the fact that "the effect of picking a pope from behind the Iron Curtain" is a tenseless phrase. I was referring to the effect picking John Paul II had, not the effect picking someone from behind the now non-existent curtain would have. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The JPII article leaves me with the impression that the Polish government was rather more tolerant of the Catholic hierarchy than the Chinese government is, it presumably being understood that they wouldn't involve themselves in politics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

While all male Catholics are eligible to become Pope... it is highly unlikely that the conclave will choose anyone who is not a "Cardinal elector". According to our article Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013, there is one Cardinal elector from China (John Tong Hon, Bishop of Hong Kong). So, to answer the question... there is at least one Chinese Papabili. He is probably a long shot candidate... but you never know how the Spirit of God will move the electors once they get behind closed doors. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * But being a "long shot" is the very antithesis of papabile. Papabili are those who are generally considered more likely to be elected, not less likely.  The papabili are a small sub-set of all cardinal electors, who in turn are a minuscule sub-set of the technically eligible people (all adult Catholic males in good standing).  See List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  18:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All male Catholics in good standing, even the married ones? Wouldn't it be restricted to those who are eligible for priestly ordination?  Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I believe even married males are technically eligible, which stands in stark contrast to the prohibition of clergy marrying (although it's a different matter when a married non-Catholic clergyman converts to Catholicism and is re-ordained a priest). But married men shouldn't get their hopes up.  The last married pope was Pope Clement IV, elected in 1265.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When this came up around the time of resignation I provided some links suggesting there may be an age requirement, perhaps 25. I don't think there is any disagreement that married Catholic males are technically eligible since amongst other things, as you say the limitations on married priests being ordained has some well established exemptions. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * However, it's more likely that they'd re-elect Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as pope all over again, than elect anyone who's married. I wonder what papal name he'd choose this time.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Benedict XVI.II. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Where Roman Catholics, or Christians generally, were suffering intolerable and irresistible persecution, the Pope would sometimes nominate a cardinal for the persecuted flock in pectore (lit. close to the chest), in other words secretly, to avoid exposing him and his mission to the hostile authorities. Although the institutional conflict between the Church in Rome and the People's Republic of China is fairly deep, and has lasted since the PRC's establishment in October 1949 (with even earlier roots), I don't think that there are Chinese cardinals today that no one but the Pope knows about. Wikipedia's article on in pectore tells me that they cease to be cardinals if unnamed before the Pope's death (nothing said about resignations), and if unrevealed, they can't participate in papal conclaves. If such a secret Chinese cardinal exists, presuming he's an adult male Catholic, he could theoretically be elected Pope, but it seems that it would would require a fairly extraordinary coincidence (or in believers' eyes, to be fair, a near-miraculous divine revelation of the best choice for Christ's Vicar on Earth.) —— Shakescene (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Presuming the just elected pope isn't Chinese, there will probably be a few more years for one to be around next time I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

State Judaism
What are the countries that had of have Judaism as the state religion? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can think of at least four. But you really need to give a definition of Judaism and of state religion and give us a time range. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which four? Mingmingla (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if I don't know what four Medeis is thinking of, but I can think of the ancient historical Israel, the two kingdoms that formed from it (the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judea) and the modern state of Israel. There was also the Khazar Khanate, which had a Jewish ruling class.  -- Jayron  32  01:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, but the OP hasn't told us what he is actually asking for, hence it's difficult to say whether the original Israel and the Israel separate from Judah count as one (as I did) or two kingdoms. There are also the petty Roman states which recognized Judaism, even if it wasn't the state religion per se, the Maccabean period, and so forth. And does modern rabbinical Judaism count as the same as the Solomonic temple religion?  All very vague. Credit for pointing out the Khazar Khanate, of course. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If by "ancient historical Israel" you mean the United Monarchy, there's no convincing historical evidence to indicate it ever existed. On the other hand, the Hasmonean dynasty ruled over a territory similar to modern Israel. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it it at least debatable in how far modern Rabbinic Judaism (which evolved only after the Second Temple was destroyed in the siege of Jerusalem) is the same as the religion of Saul, David and Solomon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and even more so, that of the traditionally-cited "founder" of the religion, Abraham. But note that the same issue would apply for most religions that have survived even one millennium, never mind several. Would Jesus recognise much of the rite associated with any branch of Christianity? --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then we have the issue of what constitutes a "state religion"?... are we talking about a state that limits voting rights to those who are members of a specific religion and disallows those who are not members from serving in Government (As, for example, happened in England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries... the Test Act limited the vote to Anglicans, and banned non-Anglicans from serving in Government)... if we use that definition then we would have to exclude the modern Israel (which does allow non-jews to vote and serve in Government). Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, we have an article explaining what "state religion" means - it does not mean (only) a state which limits voting rights. Unfortunately, whether Israel can be described as having a "state religion" is not clear-cut - as the article explains. Warofdreams talk 15:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a trivial distinction that doesn't matter for anything except modern Israel. Democracy is a modern Western idea, not an ancient Jewish one. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The modern State of Israel was created as a homeland for the Jewish people, organized by the nationalist political movement called Zionism. There is freedom of religion according to Israel's Declaration of Independence and bolstered by subsequent laws (in the absence of a Constitution). By tradition and statute, the country follows the Hebrew calendar with its holidays, and observes the Jewish Sabbath as the weekly day of rest. (Adherents of other religions manage with this as in the U.S.A. that observes the Christian calendar and holidays even though there is "separation of Church and State.") Note that the only form of Judaism recognized in Israel is Halakhic, i.e. according to Orthodox rabbinic law. This affects personal status (marriage, divorce, and burial with some exceptions); e.g. only Orthodox marriage ceremonies are performed, though foreign civil marriages are recognized. So there's not a one-to-one correspondence between the Jewish religion and Jewish national identity in Israel as well as elsewhere. == Deborahjay (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Few minor (nonetheless, important) corrections: The weekly day of rest applies to (a) Jew-owned businesses (b) all state sevices except emergency services. The law allows for different day of rest according to religion (Friday for Muslims, Sunday for Christians). State services days of rest are generally Friday and Sabbath (Friday in accordance with a large Muslim minority) but many exceptions remain. The most notable Jewish trait of Israel is that any Jew (either by birth or by orthodox conversion) automatically deserves citizenship, while non-Jews has to pass certain criteria. The law system is heavily influenced by the British heritage, maybe more than it is by Hebrew law. Zarnivop (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)