Humanities desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 6

"At your desecration"

Today I read that one phrase that commonly arises from the Cupertino effect is "at your desecration." This got me wondering: do there exist any ceremonies or rituals whose main purpose is to desecrate a person? If so, how can I arrange to have a desecration? Neon Merlin 01:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking merely to humilate or socially ostracize someone? If so, there is a European tradition of defenstration... --Jayron32 02:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I was thinking of something more antireligious. Neon Merlin 03:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excommunication is a sort of desecration I suppose. So was Hirohito's renunciation of divinity. But generally people aren't considered holy enough to be desecrated. Algebraist 03:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, so you can live the consecrated life, but there's no option to live the desecrated life? Sounds unfair. Neon Merlin 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Black Mass actually ever existed, that's the ritual you're looking for. The Host is certainly desecrated. If you are female, then in some variants it looks like you'll be desecrated, too. Tempshill (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a (dead supposedly christian) person is found to have been very very bad the body may be exhumed and buried on unsanctified ground.

In general only objects can be desecrated as far as I know. So it's not possible for us to desecrate you, sorry.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to have your grave (or other mortal remains) desecrated after your death.. Good luck with that :)

83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are stories from long-ago conflicts of a winning general going into a conquered church on horseback, to desecrate it on purpose. It's a form of deliberately "adding insult to injury" (no article on that ?). --Xuxl (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, desecration of places and objects is fairly common, but we're talking about desecration of people here. Algebraist 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most desecration is done floristically nowadays. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "defile" eg "Please defile me", "I've been defiled". See also "corrupt" - "He led a corrupted life".

Thesaurus helps - perhaps you want to be "sacrilegious" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/desecrate verb profane, dishonour, defile, violate, contaminate, pollute, pervert, despoil, blaspheme, commit sacrilege.83.100.250.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The Pope "demoted" some saints in 1969, but I don't know if there was a ceremony involved. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woman in the Catholic church

How does the Catholic church get away with discrimination of woman?--Quest09 (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't they get into legal trouble? If you are a woman and want to become a preacher, why isn't it possible? It is like as if Microsoft said that no woman could become software developer in their company....--Quest09 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a church rule based on their interpretation of the Bible. To try to force them to allow women preachers would likely be unconstitutional. Keep in mind that membership in a church is voluntary. If you're a woman who wants to become a preacher, there are other Christian churches that allow women preachers. Now, when they hire people for various jobs (such as working in hospitals), that would be a different story, as that has directly to do with hiring practices rather than religion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where would it would be unconstitutional? Remember, America is not the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it would be unconstitutional in the USA, as it would be a governmental intrusion on freedom of religion. As I said, being a priest or a nun is a voluntary position. Another rule, for example, is that you have to be a Catholic in good standing. That would likely not be the case for hiring at that hypothetical hospital, as it would risk violation of anti-discrimination laws. Otherwise, consider this: You were comparing it to Microsoft. A better comparison might be Hollywood. If they're looking for a man in his 20s to act in a particular role, a woman of any age would be automatically excluded, for fairly obvious reasons. Likewise, the Catholic Church holds the belief that the Bible restricts the priesthood to men. The government has no jurisdiction over the church's religious beliefs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, America is not the world, but in other places, where the Catholic church is represented, there are also regulations against gender discrimination. Non being able to be a female preacher isn't a form of discrimination? Actually, it doesn't matter if membership in the church is voluntary or not. "Membership" in any company is also voluntary. You could say: "no woman can apply for well-paid positions, but hey, we are not forcing woman to join the company".--Quest09 (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee you, there is no place on earth where the government can force the Catholic Church to bring women into the priesthood. Their belief is that the Bible requires priests to be men. That is non-negotiable. Hiring practices are a different matter. When hiring someone for a job that is not provably a male-only job (such as a male actor, as I discussed above), the hiring party is not allowed to automatically disqualify women. That's a constitutionally-valid requirement, under the equal protection amendment, regulation of interstate commerce, and consequent laws created by the federal government. But the government has no jurisdiction over the church rules about priests. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not every country has a federal government, and not every country's constitution is the same. Please try to make it clear which constitution you are referring to. Or do you believe that the US constitution applies in every country of the world? 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine a hypothetical situation where some totalitarian government enacts an "anti-discriminatory" law that would force Roman Catholic bishops to ordain women as priests (priestesses). But if any of the bishops complied, then, most likely, the pope would excommunicate him, so he would be no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church. A possible scenario would be that a local "Catholic" Church with priestesses would operate openly in such a country, but outside the Roman Catholic communion, while the actual Roman Catholic Church would either stop operating in that country or go underground. Note the the term "preacher" is not used a lot by the Catholics; Catholics have priests, and being a priest is a sacrament, not a job. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some local Catholic churches in the USA have in fact tried to ordain women priests, and those local congregations are then booted out of the church. Men-only in the priesthood is a non-negotiable rule. No government on earth can force the Catholic Church to bring women into the priesthood. If they tried, the Church would likely withdraw from such a country. It would be interesting if someone knows of such an attempt. I've never heard of such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you're right that the priesthood is not a "job" in the conventional sense; as far as I know, there is no salary. But even if there were, it's out of governmental jurisdiction. "Preacher" is not a term I would connect with Catholicism, for sure. But I would point out that some other sects also forbid women in the ministry, even though it's a hired position. I think Missouri Synod Lutheran is one of them. One way to think of it is that a church is like a private club, and private clubs can set their own rules. If a woman wants to be a church minister, then she needs to find a church sect that allows it. If she's Catholic and wants to be a priest, then she missed the lecture on why it's men-only. The Catholic Church considers it be a Biblical doctrine. Non-negotiable, as I said. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's absolutely non-negotiable. There is, in fact, an ongoing discussion about it within the Church. I've read Roman Catholic theologians arguing that there's no scriptural basis for the men-only priesthood policy. And Catholic doctrine does change; it only takes very, very long time. There may be one day Roman Catholic priestesses – but we might not necessarily live long enough to see it. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I wouldn't say it will never happen. But it won't be because of governmental authority, it will be because the Church changes its mind, or maybe I should say changes its interpretation of the matter. But I recall seeing a Catholic spokesman on TV some time back who talked about the distinction between Church and Biblical doctrine. He said that celibacy is a Catholic Church rule that could be changed tomorrow if they decided to... and that women in the priesthood was a Biblical doctrine, not subject to change. All of this, though, strays from the original question. I say that the Church gets away with discrimination for the simple reason that the government has no jurisdiction in the matter. Would you agree? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Yes. I wonder whether Quest09 is convinced. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People have tried, of course. Roman Catholic Womenpriests, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I couldn't see anything there about the pre-1978 policy, whereby men of African ancestry were prohibited from becoming priests, being considered illegal under U.S. anti-discriminatory laws. They also have a male-only priesthood. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the constitutionality (and expanding to the rest of the world) there are in most places exemptions where a certain job can only be done by members of one sex. Bathroom attendants might be a less controversial example. If the Catholic Church believes that the job of priest can only be done by a man (which they do) then they are entitled to hire only men. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that should be (something along the lines of) "If the legislators accept the Catholic Church's belief that the job of priest can only be done by a man...". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thing "believing" it can only be done by a man would be enough since it would make the entire law null and void since anyone can claim to believe anything. In the UK, I think there is an explicit exemption for religious ministers. --Tango (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of believing that only a man "can do the job" - it's a matter of religious interpretation that "this is the way God wants it." No other profession could legitimately make a claim like that. It's also entirely possible that U.S. laws explicitly exempt certain professions for various reasons, including the Catholic priesthood. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the Catholic Church can legitimately make that claim. It is no more legitimate than me claiming that the Invisible Pink Unicorn forbids me from employing women in my convenience store. --Tango (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quest09, the specific, closest-at-hand reason in the US that they can get away with it is that US federal law regarding gender discrimination is primarily vested in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination against women in employment. Baseball Bugs, though he has not cited any sources in this thread and is incorrect about his assertion about 'voluntary' positions being somehow exempt from federal law, is correct that enforcement of the Civil Rights Act against the Catholic Church would violate the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment. If an eager federal commission were to try to enforce the Civil Rights Act by trying to fine the Church, or by attempting to get a court order to force the church to hire a woman as a priest, any court in the land would immediately strike down the attempt as unconstitutional on its face. (Edit: That's because the Constitution has primacy over any federal law, and laws are not to be enforced where they violate the Constitution.) I have not heard that any agency has tried this. In the US, a related and more thorny question would involve gender-specific groups and their hiring (like the Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of America and their "hiring" of Scoutmasters, or maybe a battered women's shelter that argues that only women should staff the shelter.) Tempshill (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any constitutional requirement that Hooters hire male servers? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so. You get into issues of "what's required for the job". In the case of, say, a computer programmer, sex discrimination and race discrimination would be illegal, because it's not a job that's gender or race dependent. Being a Hooter's server, or being a leading man or leading woman in a movie, or being an NFL player - those are pre-defined as being gender-dependent. And if the movie role requires a particular race, then it would also be race-dependent. But being an NFL player is not race-dependent, it's talent-dependent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And theoretically, if you had a woman who was better at football then most NFL players, she could probably be on a team as well, though culturally and biologically it is not particularly likely. Googlemeister (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? That is not the case in most sporting events, such as almost everything at the Olympics and football in the UK. The main sport I know that does routinely hold mixed events is chess. Algebraist 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry to butt in) See also Eventing and some other equestrian sports, in which men and women compete directly. --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 19:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Civil Rights Act of 1964#Title VII. There are exemptions for a few employers, including religious groups hiring people for jobs connected to their religion. Incidentally, what's all this about priests being voluntary? They get paid a salary, how else would they live? --Tango (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose someone could be ordained as a priest but not employed in any priestly capacity. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant church ministers typically get paid. I don't know about Catholic priests. I thought Catholic priests were supposed to give up all worldly possessions, and that anything they "own" after joining the clergy basically belongs to the church. However, maybe a Catholic here could straighten out the facts. We still have to get back to the original question - the way the church "gets away with" disallowing women in the priesthood goes back to freedom of religion, i.e. freedom from government intrusion in religion. The Catholic Church's view is that God wants men only to run the Church, and that a command from God overrides any laws that someone might try to pass. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Catholic Church, it might differ from country to country. Germany could be a special case, because there people who declare adherence to a particular religion are taxed extra and the tax money then goes to religious communities. I don't know if that includes pays for individual priests. In Poland, where I live, money earned by the Church – collested during masses, from donations, investments, etc. – is generally not distributed to individual priests, so they cannot be considred Church employees. They get their money mostly from the people in their parish, charging them for baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc. Thet're not required to give up all of their belongings to the Church and if they're very popular with the churchgoers, they may actually get quite rich. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I answered the question already. Whatever the doctrine may be of the Catholic Church, they are immune to any action under the Civil Rights Act, because of the First Amendment. Tempshill (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the USA. Questions have been raised about other countries. My assumption would be that most governments don't want to mess with the Catholic Church. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British government took them on. Not regarding women priests, but regarding gay adoption. The church requested an exemption from discrimination laws so their adoption agencies wouldn't have to accept gay couples adopting and were refused. (I don't know if the church has decided to go through with its threat of shutting down the agencies or will relax its rules. I don't think the new law has come into effect yet.) --Tango (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII (he was effectively the English government) took on the Catholic Church, and won. It's never recovered its former status in that country, once at the vanguard of Catholicity. It's still not possible for a Catholic to be the monarch, or even if their spouse is a Catholic but they themselves despise the religion. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but did he force the Catholic churches in England to employ women priests? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but he "nationalised the monasteries" (as Flanders and Swann put it). -- JackofOz (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original question was about the second-class status of women in the Catholic Church. The question that remains open is whether any government has ever tried to "correct" this situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys keep repeating the word "employed", but that's utterly wrong. The Church is not a company, priesthood is a vocation and not a job, and ordination is not employment. There is no employment contract, the Church doesn't pay the priests, it can't fire them, they can't go on strike. Laws about non-discrimination in employment don't apply to priests. The Catholic Church is a community of all Catholics – lay and consecrated. The latter just play a special role in that community. They're not Church employees, just like ordinary lay Catholics are not. Of course, priests may be employed by someone else – as teachers, university professors, social workers, journalists, military chaplains, etc. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, there are other Christian denominations that do not allow women preachers that do pay their church leaders and who are employed. For that matter, if preists are not employed, why would they not count against the unemployment %? Googlemeister (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're probably treated as self-employed for statistic purposes. At least, that's the case in Poland. Here, they pay a lump sum income tax calculated on the basis of their parish size. The bigger the parish, the more baptisms, weddings and funerals, and hence, in theory, more money to make for a priest. They don't pay the normal personal income tax because they're not paid by the Church. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Church can't "fire" a priest, as he was never "employed" to begin with. But the Church can strip a priest of his right to officiate, even excommunicate him. If he continues to operate as a rebel priest (many examples), his actions, depending on the case, may not be considered ecclesiastically valid; a marriage performed by such a priest might not even be valid in the eyes of the law (in countries that allow marriages to be performed by clergy; not all do). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but that wouldn't fall in the scope of labor law, that's my point. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant churches that hire a minister can also fire a minister, and a Catholic church taking away a priest's right to be priest amounts to firing, even if it's called by different names. It occurs to me that we're taking the wrong approach in answering the question. He's asking how they can "get away with it", as if sex discrimination were universally illegal. In fact, it didn't used to be illegal at all, but Congress and various other legislative bodies around the world have enacted various laws that make it illegal in certain situations. I think that's the real answer, in a nutshell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical thinking and logical thinking

Is there something like logical thinking that is not critical thinking? I mean, logical thinking redirects towards critical thinking, but I don't have the feeling that they are the same. I thought logical thinking was the ability of processing mathematical information, but critical thinking was more than that. --Quest09 (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on logical reasoning claims that there are three types. If you use this division, then there really is no difference between inductive logical reasoning and critical thinking. Typically critical thinking used to mean something non-formal, whereas inductive logic can get quite formal, so there may be the key difference. It is also possible that by "logical thinking" they mean "thinking using deductive logic", in which case it would be quite different from critical thinking. Deductive logic requires no critical thought, just the application of logically valid operations to sound premises. Whereas, critical thinking typically requires you to spend more time judging the veracity of the premises than on the logical operations used (though you will likely cover logical fallacies). In many logic classes, you will spend most of your time working on logical operations to variables (so if P then Q, given P, conclude Q) and minimal time doing argument reconstruction; the reason for this is that a large number of actual philosophical arguments cannot be adequately expressed in simple first-order logic that is taught in most intro to logic classes. Does any of this explain the possible difference between the two forms of thinking?--droptone (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article "Critical thinking" , it includes some aspects of subjective thought and analysis of errors brought about by subjective thinking.

..whereas "logical thinking" should/might be purely objective - maybe you are thinking of the related Deductive reasoning and Inductive reasoning.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe it's worth recalling that critical (like critic, crisis, criterium) comes from κρίνω, to judge; a critical thinking is aimed to take a decision. --pma (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interest in the similarity between logic courses and critical thinking courses, so I've checked into them at each university I've worked at (five so far). From the point of view of "what is the content difference between a logic course and a critical thinking course?", logic is heavily mathematical. It involves a lot of proofs and/or computer programming. Critical thinking is the exact same topic (true-false logic) with as much of the math removed as possible. Of note, all of the logic courses have been in a science discipline (mathematics or computer science) and critical thinking has been in a humanities discipline such as philosophy. So, the topic is the same but how it is taught is different. -- kainaw ™ 18:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Requirement(s) to Stand for Election to the Office of the Vice-President

While reading up on everyone's favorite source of Jon Stewart mockery, I encountered the following sentence in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#State_legislatures:

The only political office to be affected would be the presidency, which is the only position for which there is a specific constitutional citizenship requirement.

Now, in my U.S. Government class, we were very clearly told that the President and the Vice President have the same requirements for the job, while those in lesser posts still in line for the Presidency may be (s)elected despite not meeting some Presidential requirements, but will then simply be passed over should they otherwise have been next in line (see, for example, the second sentence of Madeline Albright#Secretary_of_State, or the selection process for the designated survivor). At least one person agrees with me on this— see the question at this RD/misc archive entry, which asserts and presupposes that my understanding is correct. However, this entry presupposes the opposite, which also passes without comment, and the best reading I've been able to give to this wonderful annotated Constitution resource does seem to suggest that one can elect a Vice President ineligible for promotion, who would then simply be skipped in the event of a succession. Which is the correct reading; does the quoted sentence, above, need to be redacted? Jouster (whisper) 14:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". Algebraist 14:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, crap. It's always the last sentence, ain't it? Okay, so that sentence needs to be revised in the Birthers/citizenship conspiracy theory article. Thanks. Jouster (whisper) 14:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been modified, with credit and thanks to you in the edit summary. :) Jouster (whisper) 15:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The complicating factor presumably could be the line of succession established by Congress many years ago. However, it's reasonable to assume that anyone in that line of succession who is not a natural born citizen would be skipped over - if it ever even came to that, which if it did would mean we've got a disaster on our hands anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, it's a two-part system. The first part is the requirements in Article 2, Section 1, which specifically apply to anyone wishing to assume the office of President. The second part exists solely of the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of Amendment 12, which states, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States," when talking specifically about (s)election. Thus, one can (s)elect a person in line for the Presidency who cannot serve as President (viz. Madeline Albright), with two caveats: you cannot select a Vice President (or a President, obviously) who cannot serve as President, and nor can someone not qualified to do so, serve. Quite a tidy little system, actually. Quite a pisser if you're a 34-year-old Speaker of the House and your birthday's tomorrow when you lose both the VP and the President, though. Jouster (whisper) 20:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a very good likelyhood of a speaker that young, but I suppose it could happen. Googlemeister (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if the Speaker of the House were that close, they would likely stall for a few days till he was Constitutionally eligible to be President, then they'd swear him in. Joe Biden was elected as a 29-year old to be Senator. You do need to be 30 to serve as a senator, so he simply waited to take his seat until his 30th birthday. The apparatus of the executive branch would keep working just fine without a president for a few days; if it were going to be months or longer they may skip over the Speaker, but otherwise they'd likely just let the President pro Tem of the Senate act as president for a day or two till the underage speaker became 35 and could assume office. See David Rice Atchison for a similar situation. --Jayron32 00:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to his article, Biden didn't "wait for his birthday": he turned 30 after the election but before his term began. —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindenting)

This is wrong in several respects. First, in the US it is now considered vital to have a president or acting president able to act at all times in order to be able to respond to any sudden and massive attack against the country. Second, under the Presidential Succession Act if the President Pro Tem becomes acting president because there is no president or VP and the Speaker is ineligible, then he remains acting president until the end of the elected president's term. It's only the officers still lower down in the succession who can lose a position as acting president when someone higher in the succession becomes ineligible. Third, an acting president does not become president and therefore would not be sworn in. And fourth, it's not the swearing-in that makes the president the president, it's the constitutional specification: in the Atchison situation, Taylor was president even though unable to exercise the powers of his office that day. --Anonymous, 03:57 UTC, August 7, 2009.

According to the text in the article you quoted, they will be sworn in (19 (d)(3)). And the Cabinet officers only lose the position if the VP, President pro tem or Speaker who was in that position when the President needed to be replaced became eligible. Not if a new one or a higher ranked Cabinet member was appointed. Also the difference between Acting President and actual President has never been clear. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right about 19(d)(3), but note that it only applies to cabinet officers, not the Speaker or the President Pro Tem. Which looks like sloppy legislating to me.

Speaking of sloppiness, note also in 19(b) the phrase "at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties" is evidently intended to mean "at the time when an acting president is needed", yet what (a) actually says is that the Speaker begins discharging the president's duties as acting president only when he resigns. If (b) was read literally as written and the position of Speaker was vacant, (b) could never take effect. Who writes this stuff? --Anon, 22:20 UTC, August 7.

Falerii

What would the main industry be of this ancient civilization from the 5th century BC to the 1st century BC?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Etruria, it was the production of olive oil, wine and trade of faience pottery to Egypt, although it is general for the area and doesnt give any specific time. Livewireo (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adoption in 11th-12th century Judaism

If a Jewish woman with a son from a previous marriage marries again, could the son take the step-father's name (ben whatever) if he wanted to or would he keep his biological father's name? I know sometimes a nephew would be adopted by his uncle and would take his name. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unemployment numbers

Typically, we are shown on the news the total number of new people filing for unemployment each month here in the US. What was that number August 2005? Googlemeister (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cats, Batman, Google has an interactive graph of unemployment data if you google "unemployment statistics us". You can click, say, "Bell County, Kentucky" to the left and it overlays that data in a different color. Sweet. Anyway, this link from the Bureau of Labor Statistics seems to almost have what you are looking for. Tempshill (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These weekly press releases from the DOL cover August 2005: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The answer appears to be about 1.3 million initial filings for unemployment insurance. --Sean 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that 1.3 million for the year, because At the January 2009 peak, that number was only 740,000. Googlemeister (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of new unemployment insurance claims in the US during August 2005, after regular revisions, was 1,030,555. The figure for the latest month (July 2009) is 2,349,320. Source: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims_arch.asp. The January 740,000 peak figure was weekly, whereas the OP asked about a specific month. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio of mean average and median average incomes

What is this ratio for countries such as the US and UK? (It indicates, I think, how much more money the median person would get if everyone had the same income). 92.26.30.9 (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the mean and median figures in the Statistical Abstract of the United States (available on line). I recall there being around a $4,500 difference between the mean and the median household incomes and that the median was somewhere around $39,000. So, that would put the ratio at approximately 1.12. Note that you need to specify whether you mean "wage income," "household income," "personal income," etc. -- each has a slightly different definition. Wikiant (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the income per person I'm interested in. 92.26.30.9 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before or after tax? Before or after benefits? Everyone or just people of working age or just people actually working? What about people working part time? "Income" is a very broad term and can refer to a great many different values. I would suggest you choose your definition based on what definitions you can find the information for, although you need to be careful to make sure the same definition is used for each country you are interested in, otherwise you can't easily compare the ratios. --Tango (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the UK, the BBC has (from ASHE) £26,020:£20,801 which is roughly 1.25 or 5:4 (gross income, full and part time workers). A slightly lower ratio occurs for full time workers only.[6] AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before tax, after benefits, every adult and irrespective of employment status, all income from any source. Another way of looking at the difference between the median average and mean average incomes is to say its the money being taken by the rich to line their own pockets - in the case of the UK stats, then over £5000pa. Perhaps after tax would make a better comparison, but that figure may be more difficult to obtain. 78.147.250.186 (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Gini coefficient#Income Gini indices in the world. —Tamfang (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Gini coefficient (and the mean/median ratio) is that they can be misleading when used as anything other than what they are -- measures of income outliers. The knee-jerk reaction is that a low Gini (indicating low income disparity) is a good thing. Gini (and the mean/median ratio) ignores the level of income. For example, two people earning $10,000 exhibit a lower Gini than do two people earning $100,000 and $150,000, yet (all other things equal) the latter two are better off. Wikiant (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]