Humanities desk
< November 14	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 15

UK Candidate Selection Process

Sorry if this is on Wikipedia, but I can't find it anywhere, or on the parties pages. How does each of the 3 main parties in the UK select it's candidates for MPs?

Many thanks, Prokhorovka (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't link to the site as it's blacklisted (Suite 101) but the 6th result down on Google (UK) search 'selecting candidates for election' gives a reasonable summary. Dalliance (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Prokhorovka (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Conservative Party recently began using open primaries to select most of their candidates. Otherwise, it is usually the members of the local party who vote on which candidate should represent them. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Conservative Party have only occassionally used open primaries. Most recently, to select Sarah Wollaston as their candidate for Totnes in this year's General Election, they sent out a postal ballot to all 69,000 constituents who were registered voters; this cost the party £38,000 [1]. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, in my constituency (not Totnes!) I was invited to their open primary, and I'm not a party member. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll just call them tomorrow, to see what they say. Prokhorovka (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged offender, accused, indicted accused, defendent, etc

What are the deferences between the following terms in general legal sense:

Alleged offender
Accused
Indicted accused
Defendent

Aren't they synonyms of each other?

182.52.101.139 (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged offender: The police have arrested/ticketed the person for the crime or identified them as the person who is wanted for the crime but it has not been proven in court that they actually committed the crime. So they are only alleged to have committed the offense.
Accused: Essentially the same as an alleged offender.
Indicted accused: The accused person has now been indicted.
Defendant: They have been arrested/ticketed and are now standing trial in court. See Defendant.

They aren't all synonyms of each other but are related to one another along a certain time-line. Dismas|^(talk) 09:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that in the US, at least, there is a difference between (1) and (2) in popular usage: (1) can be used for a person who the police or a victim say is the offender (no arrest is necessary), whereas (2) I think is usually more formal than (1) and implies it's a little further along in the legal process. Unfortunately I don't have the AP Stylebook at my desk to see what terms the AP uses. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invasions

As I understand, an invasion is when a country uses military force to seize a territory that is not under his command at the time (regardless on whenever the action was good or evil). But how do we name it when the invaded country prepares a counter-offensive, as part of the same military conflict, defeat the invaders and restore their original control over the territory? Liberation? Reconquest? I don't think "invasion" applies, unless both actions take place during different military conflicts. MBelgrano (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC used the phrase "recapture" in reference to the Falkland Islands. Our article on Falklands war uses "re-occupation" for the Argentinian action and "retake" or "recapture" for the British action. It all depends on your point of view. Dbfirs 13:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC also used "liberation" here[2] as do the Falkland Islanders themselves[3]. Then there's the Liberation of France[4] and the Liberation of Kuwait[5]. The Argentinians thought that their original invasion was actually a liberation, so what they called it when they were removed again I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reconquista? LANTZY ^TALK 14:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Dbfirs, I'm asking for a neutral term that doesn't involve a positive or negative opinion about the action (for keeping a neutral point of view at an article I'm writing). I have checked that "invasion" seems to be such a term, as described at invasion, and wanted to confirm if "liberation" is neutral as well or a biased term, and if it was, which other should be used.

As for "Reconquista", is that a valid word in English?

Off the record, the article I'm writing has no relation at all with Malvinas. MBelgrano (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for jumping to an incorrect conclusion based on your user name and location. I would consider both "invasion" and "liberation" to imply bias in many contexts, and I would suggest that "recapture" and "retake" are more neutral. Dbfirs 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reconquista is one of those that has a singular meaning, except in a purely metaphorical sense. The Reconquista is used pretty much exclusively in English to refer to the christian recapture of the Iberian Peninsula during the 15th centure, just as The Holocaust is used for a specific genocide, the Armada is used for a specific fleet, etc. etc. --Jayron32 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "reconquista" wasn't a serious suggestion, though I could easily imagine The Sun giving the event that nickname (were it not too high-brow for their readership). As for a sober, neutral term, avoiding the connotations of "conquer", "occupy", and "liberate", I'd suggest some sort of circumlocution like "reestablish control", "reassert sovereignty", "restore the status quo ante", etc. LANTZY ^TALK 17:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the words and phrases short. We don't want the writers of The Sun to run out of fingerpaint before the end of the articles, do we? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"defeat(ed) the invaders?" HiLo48 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reconquest is a perfectly good English word. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the Invasion of Normandy in June 1944 fits the description well enough, and as the article title indicates, it is referred to as an "invasion". For me that settles the point. --Anonymous, 14:45 UTC, November 16, 2010.

Literary characters like Uriah Heep

What are some other literary characters who put forth a Goody Two-Shoes or perhaps smarmy image but later show their true angry self? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The White Witch of Narnia? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of the "New-teacher-with-the-unknown-past" that appears in each of the Harry Potter books could likely fit this. --Jayron32 16:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tartuffe - Ka renjc 17:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Salieri, as depicted fictionally in the film Amadeus. Maybe, the Mouth of Sauron, though his is a bit-part indeed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iago? Elmer Gantry? Rumpelstiltskin? John Hathorne? It seems like the description could be applied loosely to almost any malevolent hypocrite. LANTZY ^TALK 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The characters of Satan/Mephistopheles sometimes get portrayed that way - "A man of wealth and taste" one minute and the next thing you know, they're ready to "Lay your soul to waste". 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue for the Marquise de Merteuil too, who has carefully cultivated a public image of chastity and wisdom. Ka renjc 18:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mysterious Stranger. Savage piece of writing, that. Antandrus (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Regan and Goneril in King Lear? Antandrus (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex lives of the mentally disabled

Well, this is an odd question any way you phrase it. (Please don't think I'm asking for legal advice!) People with intellectual disabilities are often described in terms of "mental age", such that a mentally handicapped adult might be said to possess the mind of a child. Obviously this is not to be taken literally, but what exactly is the attitude of the law? Are there jurisdictions in which it is considered a form of statutory rape to have sex with people who are profoundly retarded? No doubt this is a question people would prefer not to address, but it must come up. And it's a non-trivial dilemma. On the one hand, it is quite probable that the mentally handicapped would be taken advantage of. On the other hand, if the person has the appetites in question, is it not cruel to prevent the person from satisfying them? Add to that the complication that there are various degrees of disability. How is this issue dealt with? LANTZY ^TALK 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, Sexual abuse of people with developmental disabilities. It seems to start off exclusively discussing "abuse" but then gets into the topic of how it's determined that sexual contact is consensual. Naturally, the law regarding this will vary a lot depending on which country you're discussing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least, the key concept is "capacity", i.e. whether an individual is capable of giving meaningful consent to something and communicating that consent. If they are deemed to have capacity, then presumption is that they have the same right to sex and relationships as the rest of us - see this BBC report about a campaign by the Family Planning Association on this issue. This paper from 2008 gives a general overview of the practical and ethical issues involved. Our most important protective legislation is the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which says that if someone has a mental disorder that causes them to lack "sufficient understanding of the nature of the act or the reasonably foreseeable consequences", or are unable to communicate a choice, then they lack the capacity to consent and sex with them is an offence. The Act also makes it an offence for a carer to have sex with a person with a learning disability, whether they have capacity or not. We also have the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which looks more widely at capacity and its implications. You may find Nina de Vries interesting, though the article needs work. Ka renjc 19:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! LANTZY ^TALK 05:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4th amendment and the TSA

For the benefit of unAmericans, TSA=Transportation Security Administration, and the 4th Amendment is to do with search powers. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone brought a lawsuit against the TSA with regards the the 4th amendment of the US constitution? What was the result? Googlemeister (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to "unreasonable search and seizure"? I've not heard of such, but I doubt such a claim would get very far. Is there a particular incident or scenario you have in mind? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the typical security screenings (including X-ray searches of hand baggage) at US airports and the occasional confiscation of items of non-dangerous nature. I know that there are a lot of people who go through this treatment and was wondering if anyone has brought forward a legal objection based on the 4th amendment. Googlemeister (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about references instead of guessing? A quick scan of the ACLU website yields their page on George v. TSA. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can not download the pdf file containing the actual legal argument at this time. Did the 4th amendment play significantly in the argument, or was it a minor point? Googlemeister (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The first claim on page 18 of the initial complaint is, "The detention, arrest, unnecessary and extended restraint, incarceration, and interrogation of the Plaintiff by the Defendants...constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." The second complaint is that there was "excessive use of force", also violating the 4th; then the third complaint is a freedom-of-speech violation complaint. Note that this case is about a guy being grilled for hours after having been caught with English-to-Arabic flash cards, and isn't a challenge to the new standard screening procedure itself, à la the "if you touch my junk, I'm going to have you arrested" guy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the George v. TSA case has basically just begun, and is somewhat exceptional (it is not just the regular search, but it's a detention of the defendant for having notably innocuous items). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of relevance here is the border search exception to the 4th Amendment — particularly because it is considered a special case scenario applying to international border inspections, and puts full-body X-rays into the "search" category that requires "reasonable suspicion" before they can be conducted (whereas searching of luggage requires no such suspicion). While I'm not opposed to the full body X-rays (I think they probably fall under what most Americans in a post-9/11 age would consider a "reasonable" search, when properly done, which would satisfy at least some of the requirements of Katz v. United States), it's interesting that what was once reserved only for international travel with reasonable suspicion is now routinely used for domestic travel without any specific suspicion. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks all. Googlemeister (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest what 98 already brought up - namely, that the slippery part is "reasonable". The ACLU has brought suit pertaining to a specific guy, but I doubt very much if the courts would overturn the screening process wholesale. If they did, the government might issue an order grounding all flights, and that would not sit well with the public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be somewhat arbitrary (phrases like "post 9/11 age" make me cringe) there is a line of cases that address these issues, so it's not as if the issue's never come up. Airport searches and some other types of public transport searches (common carriers have always had slightly different legal obligations... which isn't exactly the same as here, but worth noting for context) have always had more leeway than some other sorts of searches. This is actually a distinct, but related doctrine from border searches (unless it's customs... at which point it's a different question... but we're assuming domestic flights here). Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do homeless people die?

?? In developping countries certainly malnutrition is a major factor, but what about in developped countries where they can usually beg or go to soup kitchens for enough food to survive? Theoretically if they can get enough food they can stay alive until they're quite old (assuming they don't die of drug overdose or something), but I find it hard to imagine an homeless person in ripe old age expiring peacefully on a curb as a better-off person might in a hospital or in their home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Should they start suffering a compliant where they can not physical move away from their door way, then they might end up in a hospice, (if this is in Europe). In the US they just are just moved to somewhere where they can be left to die somewhere out of sight and out of mind. Their bodies are then cremated as John/Jane Does.--Aspro (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreted the question as where do homeless people die, not how. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The homeless tend to have high rates of illness, and are probably slower to go to the hospital than 'ordinary' people. They will also have weaker immune systems due to the poor diet and sleeping habits. Finally, I suspect at winter a fair number simply die of the cold. Prokhorovka (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This literature survey gives a number of causes of death in various jurisdictions. For example, a survey in Boston found that amongst homeless people (mostly men) from 18-24, homicide was the highest cause of death (in women that also included age 25-44), and from 25-44, AIDS was the leading cause of death. Amongst the more elderly homeless (45-64), heart disease and cancer. Also noted is that hypothermia and tuberculosis, often associated with homelessness, were not terribly significant factors. In that particular study, though, it included only those who had sought medical care through a charity service, so probably was skewed a bit with regards to some aspects. Lack of food is not the primary cause of death for any, but food alone (without security, safety, health care, etc.) doesn't keep you alive too long on the streets — there's a lot more to living than just eating. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think where they die is an interesting question, because how they die might not be as different than would be the case with people with homes. My guess is that cause of death would be about the same as with people adequately sheltered, though at a younger age. My guess would be that the place of death for a homeless person would be indoors—in some institution—having been taken there when they were found to be so ill or dysfunctional that they were taken off the streets or out of public places. Although some die on the streets—and they probably do so in greater numbers than do those with homes. And probably people with homes are more likely to die at home than homeless people. Well, I guess that one is obvious. Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess somebody (Mr.98) has some actual facts. I was just pontificating (guessing). Bus stop (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, there are some transients who die rather violent deaths; some as a result of people beating them because they can, and some of them in fights with other homeless people. Sometimes, they just aren't as harmless as they're portrayed in some places. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if those stats only count people who showed up in hospitals under their own power, you're not going to see many starvation or hypothermia deaths regardless off how common those are in homeless people in general. APL (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It varies by the cities surveyed — some were shelter or hospital based, but some were surveys of all deaths in the county morgue. The meta-reviewers point out, though, that "Deaths occur throughout the year, not only during the colder months of winter. Hypothermia and exposure are surprisingly infrequent causes of death. Premature death is more highly associated with acute and chronic medical conditions than with either mental illness or substance abuse." Which is interesting and somewhat counterintuitive. With that data in hand, I think we can probably say that getting enough calories is not as hard as it once was (which is not too surprising, given how cheap empty calories are in the USA, anyway — you can probably get enough McDonald's to strictly survive for a couple dollars a day, not including food handouts), and freezing to death is less common than you might expect (though no doubt on a cold Boston night, anyone outside must be pretty miserable). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marine accident?

This is going to be very vague; I'm sorry. I remember reading an article here on Wikipedia about either a sub-marine or submersible accident. It involved at least four people and I think they were bringing something through an opening in the vessel when the accident happened. I also remember reading about intense pressure changes killing a man instantly. Any help finding which vessel/article this was would help. -- 24.251.101.130 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether you are thinking of the Byford Dolphin incident? Ka renjc 00:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one! Thank you very much! -- 24.251.101.130 (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Ka renjc 08:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Debt

Apparently UK owes £4.8 tn ie £77,000 per person. What are the equivalent figures for Ireland? Kittybrewster ☎ 23:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The program that figure was taken from used a very unofficial method to gain that figure. As such the equivalent is likely very hard to determine without access to a lot of Irish documents, time and expertise. Prokhorovka (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like every person and nation owes money to one or more somebodies. Has anyone tried to figure out, if everyone on earth could magically pay off their debts, who (if anyone) would end up with a net gain from where they were? (A positive number, that is, not just a return from the negative to 0.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China and a bunch of other Asian countries? See also United States public debt, or this slide show [6] & [7] [8] [9] which gives figures for the US public debt only (not net, it includes the UK for example) Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know ehere the figures come from? Kittybrewster ☎ 07:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by external debt shows $9.088T for the UK, which works out currently to £5.66T , not £4.8T. List of sovereign states by external assets could help answering Bugs question, but it may have problems according to its talk page. For Ireland, the external debt list gives $2.287T , $515,671 per capita, Economy of the Republic of Ireland says €430,000 , somewhat higher.John Z (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That list shows Monaco, Luxembourg, Switzerland, UK (insurance), Belgium (EU), at the top. Maybe this is debt management under some designed control? Plus Ireland. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the US, Bugs's question really has no answer. The only entity that can create money is the Federal Reserve, and they put money into circulation by lending it. Currently they are lending some money at a zero interest rate, but most of the existing money was lent at a positive rate. That means that if all of the money in circulation went back to the Fed, they would still be owed money. But this is really pretty meaningless, because the effective money supply is actually well over ten times the amount of currency in circulation, as our money supply article explains. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debt is not a bad thing when used for investment. I speculate that the whole wealth of the west largely arose from borrowing to invest. I read that wealthy people actuially have the most debt. 92.28.250.11 (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Eucharist for unbaptized ones

Can unbaptized Catholics receive the Eucharist during the Mass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.156.31 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Eucharist in the Catholic Church and it may provide your answer. Look also for articles on baptism and confirmation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open_communion#Position_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church may also be helpful. Ka renjc 00:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact that an Anglican such as myself was able to receive the Eucharist as well as confess due to my parish priest having obtained a dispensation from the bishop of the diocese. I believe Tony Blair was able to do the same prior to his formal conversion. How can someone be considered Catholic unless they are baptised as one? Its the sacrament of baptism which makes a baby (or an adult) Catholic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going on vague memory, I don't think that's true. (My impression is that) the Catholic Church places minimal restrictions on what constitutes a valid baptism — must use water, must be done in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I think that's it. The celebrant doesn't have to be a priest or even a believer. Oh, it might be a sin for him, because the Church wants priests to do it, but they don't take it out on the person being baptized.

If you have been baptized in another Christian tradition and convert to Catholicism, you will not be re-baptized, because the Catholic Church considers baptism to be something that happens only once. In case it's not clear whether you were validly baptized, they may give you a conditional baptism. But otherwise, you go through confirmation, but not baptism. --Trovatore (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's unpick this and add some references.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church [10]:

V. Who can Baptize?

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

And from the Code of Canon Law [11] [12]:

Can. 850 Baptism is administered according to the order prescribed in the approved liturgical books, except in case of urgent necessity when only those things required for the validity of the sacrament must be observed.

Can. 861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 530, n. 1.

§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.

Can. 862 Except in a case of necessity, no one is permitted to confer baptism in the territory of another without the required permission, not even upon his own subjects.

So the Church considers it desirable for baptism to be carried out in a certain way, in a certain place, by a certain person, but considers any baptism that involves water, the trinitarian formula, and the intention to baptise the person as the Church would to be valid. From the Catechism, "1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church", so baptisms of other Christians are also considered valid. It could be considered a sin if someone baptised someone else who wasn't in their 'territory' without good reason to think it was necessary, but Catholics are expected to know how to baptise others in case of emergency! For example, "Can. 865 §2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion."

As to conditional baptism:

Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

§3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.

But, baptism is only considered part of the initiation into the Church. Dig this description of the theory.

In terms of receiving Communion, canon law states[13]:

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 913 §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.

It goes on to describe who is forbidden from receiving communion, which is basically those unable to receive it reverentially, and those who are conscious of grave sin and haven't gone through reconciliation. However, the Catechism says [14]:

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."236 It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."237

1401 When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.

So, Jeanne, for you to receive the Eucharist as a known Anglican, you should have had to demonstrate that you held the Catholic view of the sacrament, including a belief in transubstantiation. And it should have involved a grave necessity.

As to confession, in brief "Can. 991 Every member of the Christian faithful is free to confess sins to a legitimately approved confessor of his or her choice, even to one of another rite." [15] No matter which of the many names this sacrament goes under, your priest could hear your confession without a dispensation. Priests hear confessions of guilty non-Catholics all the time. 86.163.213.68 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To give a clear answer here: an unbaptised person who considers themselves Catholic could receive the Eucharist, in that people are supposed to police themselves and they are unlikely to be stopped, especially if they receive it in a parish where nobody knows they weren't baptised. However, they shouldn't because it is considered a sacrament by Catholics, something very holy, and is supposed to be received by people who have been baptised, confessed, and understand the religious importance of the sacrament. An adult who had not previously been baptised, and wanted to become a full Catholic and receive Communion (the Eucharist) could go through the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, which (after enough sessions of catechesis to ensure they understand the significance of what they're doing) would involve being baptised, confirmed and receiving the Eucharist for the first time, all in a single service. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little OR, but I've done that (didn't even burst into flames), and I'm not Catholic. It was very awkward, though, despite the fact that no one knew I wasn't baptised. ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 14:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

antisemitic?

I just watched a film called "The Social Network" about a thieving person with no friends who starts a "friend network" then rips off, in turn, all of his associates, in order to become a billionaire. Is this film antisemitic? It seems to me that it is trying to tell the story of a "thieving jew", giving its protagonist a Jewish name, Jewish featuresetc. Then there are the stereotypes, the connivery, the obsession with money (in this case becoming a millionaire). It all just seems too much for me. Is the whole film just a thinly veiled antisemitic screed? It just seems it goes out of its way to make a "Jewish problem" out of a situation that would otherwise be interesting. There are a lot of psychopaths in business, and most of them don't have Jewish names or features, or stab that many people in the back as him, so it seems to me that this story goes too far... Thanks for any insight you might have on this matter... 91.183.62.45 (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on The Social Network, it's about Facebook, which appears to have been started by a Jewish guy, so what are ya gonna do, try and make him Irish instead? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "Facebook" was the name of the network in the movie, I don't have any objection to picking that name, but Irish people don't have a stereotype of being obsessed with money or being conniving. They could have called him some nondescript last name, if they really wanted to portray such a character and not be antisemitic. I doubt their motives. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the movie article, the founders of Facebook indicated that the dramatization of their lives is only partly factual. It doesn't seem like they saw themselves as being portrayed in an anti-semitic way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading further, I don't see any complaints about anti-semitism from Zuckerberg or Moskovitz. And it would be a funny charge anyway, as the film's director, who is Jewish, also wrote the screenplay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alvy, you're a total paranoid. Anyway, while Zuckerberg's vague middle class Jewishness is perhaps meant as a foil with the old-money WASP Winklevoss twins, I don't think there's any anti-Semitic overtones to the film. (I say this as someone who is an occasional Jew.) They did not emphasize Jewishness in any way other than showing how "uncool" his Jewish friend was at that party. The film is based roughly on a book which is based very roughly on real life people and situations, so it's not like they could have (or should have!) called him something else. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original book's author also has a somewhat Jewish-sounding name, but I don't think the article identifies him as Jewish, as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mezrich comes from a conservative Jewish family — his grandfather was a rabbi. This article is actually quite interesting about the Jewishness of the book and movie. Not anti-Semitic, mind you, but similar to what I said above — that a lot of it is about the social differences of middle class Jews hanging around old money WASPs at these kinds of universities. (I don't personally know how obvious it is anymore. Jews are fairly assimilated, especially at places like Harvard. Maybe at the very top of the social hierarchy, like the "study clubs" discussed in the movie, it matters, but even then, I wonder. There are plenty of other more interesting "inside/outsider" groups at these institutions in my opinion. Class differences are certainly there, as are "legacy" admits, which historically favor the non-Jewish.)

I would actually read the movie as being somewhat triumphalist about the Jewish aspect. The Jewish kid is the excluded one, intended to be somewhat used by the WASPs to cement their fortunes, and instead he turns it around and outwits everyone. The American historian David Hollinger has written about what I believe he calls the booster-bigot dichotomy in relation to Jewishness — it flips around quite quickly, as positive exceptionalism can be used as fuel (or misread as) negative exceptionalism. This might be what the OP is sensing. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've often thought that a good deal of anti-semitism is based on envy, i.e. the willingness of Jews to look after their own (since almost no one else will), to organize, to persist and to excel - something Americans, at least, claim to be all in favor of. It's just that Jews have often displayed a better "Protestant work ethic" than even us Protestants supposedly do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly right. The Protestant work ethic is about quiet, repetitive toil. They get ahead by keeping their head down, being proud, working hard, and saving and scrimping. The Jewish work ethic (if there is such a thing) is about cleverness and ingenuity, about trading, about assimilating yourself into key positions, about occasional use of clannishness to get ahead. They're not quite the same thing at all. In the 17th century, the Protestants in the Netherlands (which are the sort of Protestants that Weber was talking about primarily — Calvinists) were toiling in their fields; the Jews were making and losing fortunes trading and speculating in Amsterdam. Not quite the same thing. And Zuckerberg would more properly fit into the latter category than the former. Yuri Slezkine, a noted historian, has argued in a fairly recent book (The Jewish Century) that we're all becoming "more Jewish" in our mode of living — the 20th century is one that leans towards the kinds of work previously reserved for Jews, and so on. It's an interesting and quite controversial argument. I find it troublesome, but my wife (who is classic Protestant ethic WASP, whereas I am such a muddle of things that I have no obvious ethnic identity, though Jewishness is part of that muddle) finds it compelling! (I suppose one could probably argue that I draw the distinction here so firmly because I live it on a daily basis. I am no toiler...) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a good argument for why the traditional WASP "work ethic" now seems to be overrated. Hard work as such is no longer so highly valued. What's valued most highly in America is salesmanship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Jews in the past were heavily restricted by discrimintory laws about how they could earn a living. Lending money, ie banking, was one of the few things they could do, and which was in short supply as Christians were not suppossed to do it. The emphasis on book-learning also aided them getting into the professions in more recent years. Brain- rather than manual-work is more prestigeous in our society, even though plumbers and their chums charge extortionate rates. 92.15.28.182 (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See chutzpah. 92.28.252.5 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DNFTT. Corvus cornix_talk 00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was so obvious that I find it difficult to believe others did not see through the OP intentions... 93.172.111.201 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you're arrested by the sergeant-at-arms for avoiding call of the house, does it go on your criminal record?

I never see serious criminal charges or consequences levelled at Congressmen for avoiding roll call. John Riemann Soong (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of that procedure is to help establish a quorum. Is it actually considered a crime? The article doesn't suggest that that's the case. It merely authorizes the sergeant-at-arms to go round up legislators in case the legislative body is short of a quorum. However, I expect anyone frequently absent would find that it becomes a campaign issue next time around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just starting to read it, but I expect the official U.S. government page on the subject might provide some answers:[16] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses the term "arrest" in quotes, and I see no hint that there is any kind of criminal charge connected with it. Presumably the legislative bodies have rules that they could use to deal with frequently-absent members. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a criminal infraction; the arrest is non-criminal. Neutrality^talk 21:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. Congress, as noted above, a motion to "direct the Sergeant at arms to arrest absent Senators" (for example) is a pro forma motion to bring senators to the floor. The first attempt is a quorum call; the second is a motion to direct the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators, the third, in extremis, is a motion to call for arrests. Actual arrests are rarely made. I do recall one late-night session during the 1980s when the Republicans were boycotting the proceedings and the Capitol Police bodily carried Senator Packwood into the Chamber to establish a quorum. Packwood presumably went along, but Senator Dole, then the minority leader, dissuaded further attempts along these lines by stating that there were other senators who would have resisted being brought into the chamber by any means necessarily including the use of a weapon.

During a 1990s dispute over redistricting in Texas, the Republican-controlled state legislature needed to compel Democrats to attend the session, and the Democrats didn't want to. The Republicans authorized the state police to arrest the absent legislators anywhere in the state and bring them to the capitol, whereup a dozen or so Texas legislators actually fled to Oklahoma for several weeks to prevent this from happening.

All of this is considered an internal affair to be handled within the legislative body; there are no criminal consequences. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]