Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 July 28

= July 28 =

State-approved and state religions and funding
I know some countries have national religions, and some countries have state-approved religions. China, for example, is officially atheist, but it "recognizes" five different religions - Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, and it approves of specific state-approved churches. Does "approval" mean a religion gets funding so that employees can probably use the money to pay the bills or at least feed themselves? The United States is also officially atheist, and because of freedom of religion, it recognizes and approves and protects all religions, but is not supposed to financially support a religion. Then, there are the various state churches of Europe. Now, what I would like to know is, what is the difference between a state-approved religion and national religion in terms of funding? Does the national religion get government funding, but government-approved religions don't? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Where on earth did you ever read that "The United States is [also] officially atheist"? There's a world of difference between separation of church and state, and having an explicit position of atheism, which asserts that there is no such thing as a god, which would render rather perplexing the US national motto "In God We Trust". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * According to some interpretations of Supreme Court decisions, the official religion of the United States is Ceremonial deism... [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a gross error on the part of the OP. The US is not "officially" anything, religionwise. Constitutionally, all religions are "approved". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * More like, Constitutionally, no religion is approved. Any law regarding an establishment of religion is forbidden by the first amendment. No religion can be approved; no religion can be disapproved. Congress has no power to do either. - Nunh-huh 05:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It adds up to nearly the same thing. As a practical matter, it is not literally the case that every religion has blanket approval. Polygamy, for example, is a feature of certain religious sects, but state laws forbid it, and no one (so far) has successfully appealed to the US Supreme Court that those laws violate their religious freedom. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's really not the same. There can be no established religion in the U.S. Religions are tolerated, as it were, not approved. And specific practices can be banned, even if they are advocated by religious sects. The law bans polygamy, not Mormonism. - Nunh-huh 06:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One federal organisation does more than tolerate religions, they actually recognise some special rights to them and their churches: exemption on most taxes . Extract "The term church is found, but not specifically defined, in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)." Now, wait for it, some people will say that religion and church are not the same things, yet will use the terms interchangeably in all other discussions. --Lgriot (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Assuming it's true, how does China distinguish Catholicism (Christian denomination) from Protestentism (Christian with many, many denominations)? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Unless you mean Roman Catholicism, the general concept of Catholicism also encompasses many denominations, some of which are even Protestant. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The OP needs to answer that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Three-Self Patriotic Movement. Though, I still have no idea how it's funded from that article, mainly because I don't know if "state-sanctioned" means state-funded. Persecution of outside Christians may suggest that the government at least funds for the persecution, which may imply government support for that church, despite that the country is officially atheist. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bugs, see Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. I get the impression that the Chinese government doesn't particularly care whether you're Protestant or Catholic if you're claiming to be Christian and you're not part of the CPCA or the Three-Self church, because regardless of what kind of Christian you consider yourself to be, you're illegitimate and illegal, although the degree of enforcement varies by a significant extent.  The Chinese Orthodox Church has a rather awkward place, being obviously neither Catholic nor Protestant, not having a status like the CPCA or Three-Self churches either, and not being a new-ish movement like Jehovah's witnesses or the LDS church.  Apparently the Church of the East in China no longer exists, so probably the state doesn't particularly worry about Nestorians.  Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Our article State religion will answer some parts of this question. Alansplodge (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This question is relatively straightforward to answer, provided you realize that some of the categories are quite different in mainland China. Firstly, discerning whether a building or document is Catholic or Protestant is straightforward because they use different words for God, and themselves. In official discourse, the groups are named "Christ-teaching" (基督教 Jidujiao ≈ Christianity) and "heavenly-Lord-teaching" (天主教 Tianzhujiao ≈ Catholicism). Academics use Jidujiao to refer to both groups together and use Xinjiao (新教 'new-teaching') for Protestants-as-distinct-from-Roman-Catholics. The distinction  correctly makes between Roman Catholicism and catholicism is unimportant to the Chinese state, but Mandarin has another word for the wider concept of catholicism (大公教会 Dagongjiaohui "great-public-church"), so theologians have an easier life. Secondly, you say Protestantism has many denominations. That is not true in the eyes of the Chinese state, which attempted to forcibly merge them all into a single structure in the 1950s, which is still in place today. Though some individual congregations are proud of their denominational heritage, this official ecumenism has widespread support. Unregistered (Protestant) Christians would also deny that they have denominations. They do have multiple structures with slightly different beliefs, but these divisions don't usually map onto the disputes that Western churches have inherited. Matt's talk 10:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As an example, most Swiss Cantons recognize at least two official churches Roman Catholic and Swiss Reformed (protestant). All residents are asked to declare their religious affiliation, and anyone who declares as an adherent of an official church has additional fees added to their taxes and sent to the church.  Churches that are not officially recognized presumably have to make other arrangements to get funds from their adherents.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Germany has, or at least had (before WWII), a similar arrangement, and if you declared yourself atheist (or, presumably, a non recognized church), you paid the religious fee nonetheless (it just stayed in the state coffer) Gem fr (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , you have some great questions and your distinction between 'state religions' and 'government-approved religions' isn't a bad way to summarize the way different places handle the place of religion in society. However, the situation in mainland China is quite different from that in Europe (and from Hong Kong, Macau & Taiwan):
 * As everybody knows, the state ideology is Communism, and the constitution goes into some detail about the exact type of theory. The Party pays some of its staff by subscriptions from members, but most senior staff also hold state jobs and work in buildings built and maintained by taxpayers. Ideological education classes are compulsory for all students, who are also indoctrinated by state-financed chaplains (in the Young Pioneers and the Youth League). The ideology's shrines are maintained at public expense.
 * The default response to other ideological groups is to destroy them. However, as you have noted, there are five religions that are too well-established for that. They are controlled by the State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA; a.k.a. the Religious Affairs Bureau, RAB). Its leadership are Party cadres who must be atheists who usually don't want the job, because there are few opportunities for corruption and many for career-ending mistakes.. SARA controls the national organization for each religion (Buddhist Association of China, Chinese Taoist Association, Islamic Association of China) through a form of democratic centralism. In addition, these structures are also infiltrated by Party agents of the United Front Work Department (UFWD). Christian structures are controlled from the outside and the : SARA's China Christian Council and Bishops' Conference of the Catholic Church in China and the UFWD's Three Self Patriotic Movement and Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association respectively, but they are so intertwined that they are usually just called the lianghui (两会; 'twin orgs').
 * As you suggest, it can be helpful to follow the money. Ideological groups without state approval are not permitted to open bank accounts. In the state-approved religions, local congregations and temples fund all their routine expenses from donations. Buddhist and Taoist temples are also able to raise considerable funds from tourism (sales of incense etc.), charging businesses for blessings, or listing on a stock exchange. The attitude to the construction or renewal of buildings can fall on a wide spectrum of possibilities, depending on the attitude of the local Party committee and SARA officials. Applying to build a mosque in Xinjiang might reduce your life expectancy and being in a state-approved religion won't stop your church building being destroyed for ideological reasons). However, if (for example) you have a pretty Buddhist or Taoist temple in a touristy area, then the local government might fund all or part of the cost of repairs . Moving from buildings to people, clergy must be trained in state-subsided colleges, after SARA has confirmed their acceptance of the ideological supremacy of Communism. Their loyalty is assessed again before they are ordained (or equivalent). Obviously the state does not give money or time for religions in public education or broadcasting.
 * Finally, a word about Confucianism. One of Confucianists' beliefs is that their ideology is different from and superior to religions, so it is not named as an official religion. However, the Chinese name (zh:孔教 Kongjiao 'Confucious-teaching') is formed in the same way as the names of other religions (see my earlier answer). There's no national organization and Confucian sites are generally state museums or monuments, so they receive heavier subsidies than the other non-Communist ideologies.
 * Matt's talk 13:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No one has mentioned the infamous reincarnation decree, which asserted state control over the afterlife... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Georgia (country)
Did Georgia (country) ever receive special social/economic favors during Stalin's reign? (On account of him being born there) Covfefe beans (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * See Georgian Affair for background on how Stalin viewed Georgia. Briefly, he wanted Georgia to be immediately Sovietized as part of Russia. He did not want any form of independent or special rules for Georgia. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Simon Sebag Montefiore, in Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, occasionally touches on a sort of old boy network among prominent Georgians (Stalin, Beria, Ordzhonikidze, etc.). I don't remember much about special treatment of Georgia itself.  One interesting thing towards the end of the book was that both Stalin and Beria thought that the next ruler after Stalin could not be another Georgian, but would have to be Russian, so after Stalin's death, Beria tried to maneuver himself to be the power behind the throne rather than be the formal leader himself.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Commercial traffic on US NPS parkways
The National Park Service maintains an assortment of recreational parkways, and the three on which I've driven (George Washington, Blue Ridge, and Natchez Trace) all have numerous signs prohibiting commercial traffic. Helpfully, the GW Parkway has a helpful information page explaining the situation: apparently you have to get a permit to take a commercial vehicle there, regardless of its type, so presumably you can drive a motor home there, but the insurance adjuster can't take the parkway as part of his route to see a damaged car on some other road. Unfortunately, other parkway websites didn't appear to have comparable pages, so I have two questions: Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are the regulations for the GW Parkway comparable to regulations on other NPS parkways, whether the two I mentioned or others?
 * How do they handle commercial vehicles that need to go on parkways rather suddenly, like tow trucks and the vehicle your locksmith drives to reach you when you've locked your keys in the car? "Applications for special use permits must be received at least four business days before the special use begins", so one would hope that they'd not enforce that in such cases.
 * Only they know, ask them. I very much doubt that they enforce this 4 days delay for permit in cases people ask for tow, mechanics, cab, health intervention, or the like. So they must have some system to cope with that. May be they issue permanent permit to locals; maybe they issue emergency permit, on a phone call; may be they even charge for the permits; may be they just tolerate commercial operation of the like you describe without permit nor charge, but don't care to mention on information page. Gem fr (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a reference desk. Any references?  Nyttend (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * come on, don't be a reference nazi, when obviously NO reference can nor should be found in Wikipedia (nor anywhere, actually) for such specific matter, that only the primary source can cope with; and that's not the scope of RD to look at such primary source, is it? Or prove me wrong, by providing a reference for the opinion that this can referred. Any reference for that ? (see? I, too, can be a reference nazi) Gem fr (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "...commercial vehicles are prohibited, except for tour buses." on the Blue Ridge Parkway. The same regulations apply to Skyline Drive.  Here is the part of the Code of Federal Regulations that deals with all parts of the National Park Service.  That may cover your questions as well.  Without finding any regulations, we have circumstantial evidence that tow trucks are allowed on the GW Parkway for the purpose of dealing with disabled vehicles: .  That makes sense, as otherwise there would be no means of removing such vehicles, entropy being what it is, the road would become unusable in a few months with the number of disabled vehicles that no one would be allowed to remove.  -- Jayron 32 11:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't ask, but the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is also part of the NPS, and here it states that commercial vehicles are not allowed, with an exemption for "people movers" (their term) including buses, shuttles, and limousines. I also found this definition from the code of federal regulations. -- Jayron 32 14:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Look on the park website under "Management"; many parks post their Superintendents' Compendium of regulations there. You could also call the parkway administrative office and ask the staff. This may be one of those things that just isn't easily accessible on the web. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump's travel ban
Regarding the first of President Donald Trump's travel bans: When it was promulgated on Jan. 27, 2017, it was supposed to have immediate effect. Is it true, as I hazily remember, that some airlines immediately refused passage to the targeted passengers, while others didn't? If so, was the practice changed, and how soon? What confusion was there, and how was it cleared up? --Halcatalyst (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Executive Order 13769 has lots of information. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)