Humanities desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 16 >

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.

July 15

Most influential American VP?

Is there scholarly consensus on who has been the most influential American VP? By influential, I mean with respect to White House policy and decisionmaking. Among recent administrations, my gut tells me that Dick Cheney loomed unusually large, but I'm no political scientist. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before Dick Cheney came along, Al Gore was often described as "the most influential Vice President in history". If you search for "most influential Vice President" while excluding "Cheney", you get a lot of hits for Gore. see google books, e.g.. I suspect the office's realm of influence has changed from back when John Nance Garner described it as "not worth a bucket of warm piss." The article Office of the Vice President of the United States mentions some of its varying spheres of influence throughout history. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson was the second VP and was a very influential individual, but how much of that influence was tied to his later presidency, I don't really know. Googlemeister (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His influence was probably more tied to his general standing in the country rather than as VP per se. Before he was VP, he had been Secretary of State, which was, even then, a very important office. The early cabinet ministers weilded a lot of power and influence, and such power and influence was more tied to the person than to the office; its likely than any real power and influence Jefferson had as VP was due much more to him being Jefferson rather than being veep. --Jayron32 23:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at it: According to our List of tie-breaking votes cast by Vice Presidents of the United States, John Adams cast 29 deciding votes in the Senate in eight years, while James K. Polk's VP, George M. Dallas, did so 19 times in four years. Of course, as the Senate has gotten bigger, the likelihood of a tie vote has decreased. Dan Quayle didn't get to cast a single vote in the Senate during his term. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be fair to say that the most influential VP (at least in a positive fashion) must necessarily have become president if he so chose to run? Otherwise, how good could he have been and then lost? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see influence while in office (not to mention competence) on the one hand, and snap-shots of popularity at the ballot on the other hand (and electoral systems or Supreme Court rulings on the third and fourth hand) as qualities which can be, and often are, distinct from one another. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question, judging from the article on the office of the VP, Garret Hobart and Richard Nixon look like two more top candidates of wielding influence. The dynamics of vice-presidential relevance under FDR are probably worth exploring too. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow in Asia

Which Asian nations receive snow as the precipitation during the Winter season? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.254 (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of tricky to answer. There are many countries in Asia we typically think of as hot that get quite a bit of snow in certain areas due to altitude - for example India has a variety of mountains that are snow-capped year-round. China gets plenty of snow (in places) during the winter. I think anything south of China is probably too southern and too low (altitudinally) to get snow. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For sure - China, Korea, Mongolia, Japan, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Iran, Georgia, Armenia, Russia and probably also parts of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Steewi (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I remember reading reports of occasional snowfall even in Israel, although this is obviously a rarity. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Turkey, Syria, Lebanon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is snow in Jordan almost every winter, including in the capital Amman. The mountains will do that. Same for the mountainous regions of northern Iraq. --Xuxl (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even hot countries where you wouldn't expect it. Vietnam, for example, in its mountainous north -- see the resort town of Sa Pa. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how accurate that map is. It lists Malta as having snow only above 1000m, but the highest point on Malta is only like 250m. Also, I don't know if there is value in having Lesotho in magenta, because the entire country is above 1000m. Googlemeister (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish they'd have used colors that contrast a little better, like red-blue-yellow, not cyan-magenta-gray. -- Mwalcoff (talk)

Florida Sales Tax

I've searched all over the Florida's revenue website, and I could not find what the Florida Sales and Use Tax pays for. What government service is paid for by the Florida Sales and Use Tax? 66.176.245.57 (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I assume that Florida doesn't earmark their taxes. If they don't it would mean that all taxes go into the general state budget, so that it's impossible to say "this tax pays for this specific expenditure". Gabbe (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a single currency seem to work better for the US than for the EU?

Lest I am accused of soapboxing, there's certainly some published opinion suggesting it might fall. Given that the US, to this day, is a larger economy than the Eurozone, and with ~~lower~~ higher levels of inequality, why does the dollar seem to work better?--Leon (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the Gini coefficient for the EU is lower than for the US meaning that there is (according to the Gini measure) less inequality in the EU than there is in the US. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "the dollar seem to work better". The performance of the US economy doesn't solely depend on the US having one currency instead of several, so measures like the Gini coefficient and the size of the GDP are influenced by many different factors besides whether there's a single currency or not.

I realize this, but I've read nothing to suggest that the dollar is too strong/weak for any particular region to prosper.

There are many differences between Europe and the US. For one, labour motility in the US is greater due to the fact that most Americans speak English. This means that it's (arguably) easier for a typical family in Alabama to move to Idaho in search of work than it is for a typical family in Portugal to move to Finland.

That makes sense.

Or are you wondering why the Euro is at risk to be replaced by sub-Eurozone currencies while the dollar doesn't seem to risk the same fate? In that case, one difference between the two is that the dollar has been the currency for the US for far longer than the Euro has been the currency for the Eurozone. While a politican in France might argue in favour of bringing back the franc it would be unthinkable for a politician in California to argue in favour of adopting a new currency for that state. The dollar is a big part of US national identity, even if there could be big benefits (as well as big drawbacks) in implementing different currencies for different subdivisions of the US.

If that doesn't answer your question, could you be more specific as to what your question is? Gabbe (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP meant to say higher inequality in the US than the Eurozone (that kinda jibes with his question). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did!--Leon (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the reasons already given, it is easier to maintain the dollar effectively than the euro because the US federal budget is a much larger portion of US public spending than the EU budget is a portion of EU public spending. This means fiscal policy can be used to reinforce monetary policy. --Tango (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon: So you mean that since the US has a higher Gini coefficient, that means that the US dollar seems to work better, and you're wondering why that is? Gabbe (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is quite what Leon is saying. I think he means that higher inequality ought to make it harder to maintain a single currency (since the interests of different regions are more varied), so the dollar appears to be doing a better job under more difficult circumstances. There is a point that should be raised here: The Geni coefficient doesn't specify whether there are rich areas and poor areas or just a mix of rich and poor in all areas. Only the former is relevant to this discussion since you can only have separate currencies within a certain geographic region, you couldn't have separate currencies for the rich and for the poor in one city. --Tango (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I mean, sorry for not being clearer. You're dead right about the Gini not measuring regional inequality, though a glance at this suggests that the US has a similar (though arguably lesser) degree of that. But in any case, thanks greatly for all your help, I think I understand better.--Leon (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That makes much more sense... :) Gabbe (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon -- Part of it is because in the U.S. there's a higher level of the type of labor mobility where the migrant's skills and qualifications are easily transferred, so that he or she doesn't have to start at the bottom in the new location. Also, U.S. states are less autonomous than EU member countries, and their economies are less compartmentalized in a number of ways. For example, the majority of U.S. states are required to fully balance their budget every year, so national economic policies determine the degree of government deficits etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the key points from that last are the different types of political structure. The US is a country, the EU isn't.

ALR (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that oversimplifies it. The US is a federation, as is the EU. I think the main thing that determines that the US is a country and the EU isn't is that there is a US army and there isn't an EU army. The existence of a single army doesn't really make any difference to whether a single currency will work (although defence spending is a big part of the US federal budget so plays a big role in my point above about fiscal policy). --Tango (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both are federations? Riiight, the US just happens to be a federal state with a strong central government with full authority, while the EU is a loose confederation of national states. A member of the UE could choose to leave the Union (provided there is a strong popular backing) and the European parliament could do nothing to prevent it. You comparing two different things. Flamarande (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest difference from the point of view of fiscal policy is probably that the US can impose federal taxes on its citizens, while the EU cannot. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fundamentally changes the legal relationship between the entities. The relationships between the various levels of governance in the US have a very clear basis, and there is a broadly similar legal system across the US where there are significant differences between individual countries in the EU. There is also the issue of how EU directives are implemented in law, and the ability of countries to challenge one anothers implementations. A fairly common issue in cross border trade is the matter of state-aid; the UK and Germany are quite a bit more rigorous than, say, Italy.

The combined effect is that internal trade within the US has a lot less operational friction adding costs and inefficiencies.

I would agree with your pint about relative levels of public sector expenditure, although once one takes into account national budgets across the EU that difference probably closes quite a lot. The nature of that public sector spend is also a factor.

ALR (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some cultural points here as well. The US may have some strong cultural differences between its parts, but it has been a country for some 230 years (and within most parts for over 100), with a strong central government (saying nothing about governance) and a strong sense of unified nationalism. Europe has a long history of division and regional nationalism - its parts are just as strongly independent as they are unified by the EU. When you have a strongly unified country like the US, the thought of using a different currency in California and NY seems like idiocy. European countries have had their separate (if changeable) currencies and their separate (though overlapping) economies for some time. I'm not surprised that it's less stable than the US dollar. Steewi (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The currency itself seems to be stable enough (and seems to be more stable than the declining US dollar), the problem lies with the deficits and debts of the national governments. Flamarande (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert here, but a few thoughts. California is the worst-off U.S. state fiscally, so they say. California's budget deficit is $19 billion, which is something like 1% of state GDP. Greece's deficit is more than 10% of GDP. U.S. states have to balance their books each year, so they don't build up massive permanent debts like European countries and the U.S. federal government do. Most tax collected in the U.S. goes into federal coffers, while the EU collects comparatively little money directly. The EU's budget is tiny compared to that of the U.S. federal government. So the U.S., fiscally, is far more of a "country" than is the EU, and state governments, again looking at it strictly economically, are far less important to the overall U.S. economy than the countries of Europe are to the European economy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure but the article 2008–10 California budget crisis seems to state that the current deficit (of this year) is at 11.2 billion and that the current debt is 40 billion (I might be making a mistake). Flamarande (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the meaning of that sentence, either. U.S. states can issue bonds, but they can't simply spend more in a year than they collect in revenue like the federal government can. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California is performing a number of financial maneuvers that are roughly equivalent to deficit spending (eg. borrowing against next year's tax incomes), but it can't keep them up indefinitely the way the federal government can. --Carnildo (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Price of slaves

How much did slaves cost in the US during the 1840s, roughly? I am thinking in Atlanta, and New Orleans. Also, how much were wages for unskilled farm labor from white people? Googlemeister (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the info on the price of slaves. However, according to this research paper, white male USA wages in 1840 were as follows: $10.40/month plus board for farmhands, $0.85/day for non-farm unskilled labor. (I think these are in nominal dollars for median wages, but I just skimmed the paper, so I'm not fully sure). This study does not appear to account for regional wage differences, but the fact that white farmhands earned board is important, since that was the only thing that slaves 'earned'. --M @r ē ino 14:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to OpenYale HIST119, the price was around US$ 1000 for a healthy young male adult. For purchasing power, David Blight compared this to the price of a new car today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the price tended to slowly increase during most of the 1840s and 1850s. ... AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like roughly 8 years wages, assuming equal work from a slave and a normal laborer. I am of two minds if the board would cost less for a slave or a laborer though. On the one hand, you have a lot of $ tied up in the slave and you don't want him to get sick whereas with the regular laborer, it really will not impact you much if he gets sick, but on the other hand, the white laborer would be free to leave if he thinks he can get better food at the next farm over. Googlemeister (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The white labourers also would not breed with other white labourers to give you free little white labourers, which I suppose must have entered the slave owners' minds. To continue Blight's analogy, at first glance the comparison seems to be between hiring taxis versus buying a car, but in fact, the comparison is more like investing in two cars and waiting for them to make little cars for you to use or sell. What a lovely thought. Matt Deres (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the relative price of slaves increase once the US finally outlawed slave importation, or would the larger population of slaves, meaning more were being born, counteract that? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the population was increasing despite no importation being allowed, but the amount of land under cultivation, and hence the demand for labor, increased at a far faster rate, driving up the cost. Googlemeister (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

$1000 sounds very low for a healthy young adult male slave. On a typical plantation, the slaves were far and away more valuable than the mansion and all its contents, or the land. Edison (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also look for the prices that slaves bought their freedom. That should roughly approximate the market price at the time. I know the Ken Burns documentary about the Civil War makes reference to this. Shadowjams (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edison -- in books about the coming of the Civil War, $1500 seems to be the typical average price given for a "prime fieldworker" in the late 1850s, so $1000 probably wouldn't be too far off for the 1840s (given the pattern of steadily and slowly increasing prices). AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See p. 76, Table 17: Value of Cotton Production and Slave Population, 1802-60, New Orleans Prices in Alfred H. Conrad and John R. Meyer, The Economics of Slavery: And Other Studies in Econometric History (Transaction Publishers, 2007). ISBN: 9780202309347 Pub. site about book & authors-- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That table gives a lot of good information.

From Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution, pp. 201-202: "Men discussed the price of slaves with as much interest as the price of cotton or tobacco. Commenting upon the extraordinarily good prices in 1853, a South Carolina editor reported, 'Boys weighing about fifty lbs. can be sold for about five hundred dollars.' 'It really seems that there is to be no stop to the rise,' added a North Carolina editor. 'This species of property is at least 30 per cent higher now, (in the dull season of the year), than it was last January.'" And later on: "...the buying and selling of slaves ... was the favorite operation of speculators. Everywhere people invested cash in bondsmen as people in an industrial society would invest in stocks and bonds."

That's a good book, by the way. Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of the UK

Can someone give me or point me towards an outline of UK history for the preiods 1900-1914 and 1945-1990? The article on it here seems mostly about the wars and Ireland, I have tried looking through the list of prime ministers of that time as well, and that was not much more helpful. I only want a list of the few major events and issues of the time, hopefully if I feel any deserve further study I can find out more once I know what to look for.

80.47.234.85 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC timeline --TammyMoet (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy with a little more detail, the articles on 1900 in the United Kingdom, etc, give a decent outline of the main events of each year. Warofdreams talk 17:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Workers' revolts

OK, that done, I have a new question. I have heard that there were a few times in the early years of last century when the discontent workers rose up against their governemnts, though with limited success in most cases. Other than the two Russian revolutions, and a vague recollection of one in England in possibly 1911 or 1912, which I can't seem to find anything about, I cannot think of any more right now. Can anyone else suggest some more?

80.47.234.85 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Strange Death of Liberal England by George Dangerfield deals with the period 1910-1914 and the labour unrest. You might also be interested in the General Strike of 1926.--Britannicus (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labour revolts may be of interest. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...one example (in Scotland, not England) being the Battle of George Square in 1919, and another (in Ireland, part of the UK at that time) being the Dublin Lock-out of 1913. In relation to the specific years mentioned, there was the 1911 Liverpool general transport strike (very brief article though). Historically, the biggest strike in the UK was the 1926 general strike already mentioned. Looking at the later years covered by the original question, one of the biggest and most politically important was the UK miners' strike (1984–1985). See also List of strikes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also the article on revolutionary waves. Warofdreams talk 09:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there was a good deal of civil unrest in 1911 / 12; the army was deployed in some instances, but it didn't come anywhere near a revolution. Details of the 1912 London Dock strike are here[1], and the National Miners' Strike here[2]. We don't have an article about this. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also this. Maybe not WP:NPOV though... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was the German Revolution of 1918–19 as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does the saying "Off the altar" mean to the Hare Krishna devotees? I understand this is something negative against bleeding women or women who have young children they are taking care of.

Men are allowed to go on the altars to perform daily functions in the temples but whenever a woman has her monthly cycle she is banned from going on the altar. Even if she is taking care of a baby she is considered unclean and therefore not allowed to go "on the altar". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.122.184 (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a start at Menstrual_taboo#In_religion. It is possible that the same prohibitions may apply to Breastfeeding. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US tax rate history

Does anyone know a Web site that contains year-by-year information for United States tax rates for the past few decades? I've tried searching for things on Google but I've only found general popular-history articles, and I need detailed statistics. Thanks. 76.204.127.175 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the kind of thing you are looking for? If not, please clarify exactly what you're after... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want income tax schedules? There's no one rate, but since about 1984 there's generally an income tax table, although exemptions and all the other tax code intricacies can change the net numbers quite a bit. Maybe you'd be interested in comparing GDP to tax revenue, or something like that, to bypass all of the tax-code stuff. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

Is it likely that the European Union will ever increase in power from a loose federation to an actual national government, merging Europe into one country? --138.110.206.100 (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do speculation. There are plenty of people who want that to happen, think it will happen or fear that it will happen, but there is no way to know other than to wait and see. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the articles on European integration, Federal Europe, and (the hypothetical) United States of Europe. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ever closer union has been the aim of many Eurocrats, but the poor reception by voters of the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty in various countries has shown that it's not something most ordinary citizens want. Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but in many other countries, there was strong support for the Constitution and Treaty, and in some cases it seems that the primary objection was to the current approach or policies of the union rather than the principle of ever-closer union. Warofdreams talk 09:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, things may change in the distant future (the OP sets no time limit on his question) so it may be something "most ordinary citizens" want then, but as has already been stated we don't do speculation on the ref desk. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage in Israel

I was reading "Same-sex marriage in Israel". The seconde sentence in the article states that all marriages in isreal are done by religious establishments. So my question is, how would a athiest couple get married?--SelfQ (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Marriage in Israel, Israelis who don't want to, or can't, have a religious marriage ceremony typically get married outside of the country, often in Cyprus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel still basically follows the old Ottoman empire "millet" system, according to which "personal status law" (marriage, divorce, inheritance etc.) is partially different for different for those in different religious communities (following the traditions of each religious community), and is administered by the leadership of the religious community. Being an atheist doesn't actually have all that much relevance -- what is most relevant is whether the two people who want to get married come from the same ethnic-religious background or not. If they do come from the same background, then things are likely to unfold fairly smoothly -- but if they don't, then they may not be able to be accommodated within Israel (though it won't have much to do with being atheists). AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: couples of atheists, homosexuals, and different religions, must pay taxes, obey the laws, and may be called upon to fight, kill, and even die for Israel but they can't get married in Israel itself. Something like that is spelled: D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N. Flamarande (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, please do try to get your basic facts right -- atheists are treated as being members of their ancestral religious community, and as long as they desire to marry a member of the same ancestral religious community, then there will generally be no problem with them marrying. Atheists may be discriminated against in not having their separate religious identity officially recognized (on ID cards etc.), but they are not specially discriminated against in marriage. Furthermore, a significant percentage of the Arab population in Israel is strongly in favor of retaining the traditional "millet" system. The "millet" system was invented and maintained for centuries by Muslim Ottoman Turks, and kept in place for 30 years by Christian British imperialists, but some people sure do seem to be eager to blame it on the Jews! AnonMoos (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, just read what you wrote: "as long as they desire to marry a member of the same ancestral religious community" means that two atheists (one whose parents are Jews, the parents of the other are Muslims, or Christians, or atheists) are simply unable to marry in Israel at all. This is a unfair and unjust situation. Let's not even speak of inter-faith couples and same-sex couples. I was unaware that the state of Israel was somehow bound to maintain the millet system because of the wishes of the Arab population of Israel (one can only wonder if the wishes of the Arab population are also important in more sensitive matters...). I also wish to point out that not blaming the Jews for the millet system (I urge you to retract your innuendo), I'm unable to understand the government of Israel for not providing civil marriage for all its citizens, thereby de facto forcing many to go to Cyprus or whatever to marry (wasting time and money). It is a simple matter achievable through simple reforms and new laws, already existing in most of the countries of the world. Flamarande (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still obtusely failing to perceive the main point, even though it's already been clearly explained to you several times by now. The marriage of two atheists of Jewish ethnic-religious background is generally treated the same as the marriage of two piously religious Jews, and the problem of the marriage of an atheist of Jewish background and an atheist of Christian background is pretty much the same as the problem of the marriage of a devout Jew and a devout Christian. In other words, atheists have the same problems as the rest of the population, but they are not usually specially discriminated against in this area because they are atheists. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp this basic point?

Furthermore, the system has been entrenched in the region for centuries, and is not necessarily as easy to eliminate with a mere stroke of the pen as you seem to believe. This is indicated by the fact that the British kept it in place during their 30 years of rule, and then the socialist-leaning and semi-secular Israeli Labor Party changed it relatively little during their own thirty years of relatively unquestioned political predominance in Israel (1948-1977). Adding civil marriage would definitely have some positive effects -- but an attempt to abolish the millet system could create an alliance of strange political bedfellows between so-called "left" Arabs and "right" strongly-religious Jewish groups. In any case, it would be nice if you could inform yourself about some of the facts involved, instead of semi-obnoxiously pontificating from a position of relative ignorance. AnonMoos (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S-O-A-P-B-O-X. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a soapbox, just a request for referenced information. See Civil and political rights, which are often denied in a Theocracy (a society where some people say "God has spoken to us, and He says you have to obey our orders and do everything exactly the way we prefer.") Edison (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except Isreal isn't a theocracy. It is a secular state. --Jayron32 05:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the civil marriage? I'm not defending that Israel is a theocracy (after all the leaders of Israel are elected by the people), but in some areas the state declines his own responsibilities and hands them to the religious establishment. Flamarande (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Marriage in Israel has some information on that. Of course, the term civil marriage may be an oxymoron... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The modern State of Israel is not a theocracy; religion is not imposed, profession of faith is not mandatory, and there are large minority populations. Its founding principle of Zionism sought the creation of a homeland for the Jewish People (the meaning of Israel) whose religion is Judaism. In numerous countries, Judaism has had various streams for over a century, but in Israel but only the Orthodox form according to its law, Halacha, is recognized. The majority of Jews in Israel do not practice Orthodox Judaism according to Halacha, even fewer are Chassidic (often called "ultra-Orthodox"). However, matters of "personal status" dealt with by the Ministry of the Interior are religion-specific (per the "millet system" noted above by User:AnonMoos; for that matter, the state school systems are separated by religion and within religions.) The only marriage recognized for Jews in Israel is the Orthodox, halachic one with its contract, the ketubah. Even if the couple were "halachichally Jewish" and allowed to marry within Orthodox strictures, a Reform, secular, or other non-Orthodox Jewish couple unwilling to have an Orthodox wedding must marry elsewhere. Their marriage is then recognized as civil according to the prevailing law of X (where X = elsewhere). -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and do have a look at LGBT rights in Israel for some impressive strides in that area. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the USA, civil marriages have (or used to have) religious overtones to them. An atheistic couple could either go along with it and be done with it, or they could object and then the judge would probably say, "How badly do you want to get married?" The USA is not a theocracy either, but it still has significant Christian culture, which stands to reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, civil marriages and civil partnerships so much do not have religious overtones that religious elements are forbidden in civil ceremonies. (See for example [3], last line of first proper paragraph). --ColinFine (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In every state in the U.S. civil marriages are available. These are performed by judges, justices-of-the-peace, notaries, and other gov't officials. These ceremonies have no religious components unless the couple specifically requests them. In addition, 11 states and D.C. have common-law marriage which doesn't require any ceremony at all. —D. Monack ^talk 01:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]