Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 27

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.

September 27

Searches of US citizens at the border

Do US citizens have the right to freely re-enter the United States? If so, then what is the legal basis for allowing Customs and Border Protection officers to question and search all US citizens at the border, while other law enforcement officers throughout the country normally can't search anyone without a warrant? Ragettho (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

US Citizens are definitely not given this right. I've been searched several times at the border. I don't know what the legal basis is, but at the time they were the ones with the guns. --Daniel 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The relevant article is: Border search exception. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP needs to be aware that his premise is not entirely correct. The police can stop you for suspicious behavior. They also conduct random stoppages to verify drivers' licenses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But they can't conduct random searches, generally speaking. They can search your stuff freely when you enter the country from abroad, including making complete copies of your computer hard drives. They can't do things like that without a warrant usually, if they don't actually have any probable cause for doing so. The border search exception is in fact a big, huge exception to the Bill of Rights, and one which has warranted quite a lot of discussion by jurists and legal scholars. The OP is correct to note there is a big difference between the border crossing situation and normal domestic situations. (It's also not clear to me that cops can stop people at random to check drivers' licenses as you assert, Bugs. It's clear that they can do so to check sobriety, but I see nothing in our random checkpoint article about checking for licenses. Googling around makes it somewhat clear that there are a lot off different practices with regards to license checkpoints, and I'm not sure there is an authoritative caselaw on it yet. Sobriety checkpoints do have major caselaw, up to the Supreme Court, and are supported by their overwhelming public safety aspects. I'm not sure the same thing is there for license verification.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

First thing the cops do when they pull anyone over for any reason is to ask for your license. If you don't have one, you in a heap o' trouble. Also, if something of questionable legality is visible, they then have "probable cause" to search you. And keep in mind that driving is a privilege, not a right. The OP's general question was whether you can "freely" re-enter the country. Depends what you mean by "freely". Being detained by customs is a part of our country's security. You know you're not smuggling something, but what about the guy next to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about the order of things regarding be pulled over. You aren't being pulled over to check if you have a license. Checking the license is the first thing you do once you have a valid legal reason for pulling someone over. (I think you must have missed a civics class, somewhere.)

Of course if they do have probable cause they can search you. That is not in dispute. That's the entire point, in fact. They must have probable cause to search you. No matter what. That's what the fourth amendment is all about. They can check your license, but if they lack probable cause, they can't search you or your car. They will say, "can I take a look in your trunk?" and you can say, "not without a warrant, you can't."

The OP's question is whether the fourth amendment gets waived at the border, because it is not supposed to be waived anywhere else. And indeed, this is correct. It is waived at the border. It is not waived when you drive a car. The OP is correct on this front. Whether you agree with this or not is really not the issue here, Bugs! (Also, I'm not really sure if "security" in the sense you mean is really at issue here. It isn't about stopping terrorists with bombs. It goes beyond that, into "reading your e-mail, to see if you're a terrorist" territory. Don't confuse the border search exception with airline security!) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

For a gross example, if you've got a marijuana plant visible in your back seat, they have probable cause for a search. Also, they can pull you over under a pretext, such as a taillight being out. And of course the 4th amendment is waived at the border, upon entry. There are certain things you cannot bring in. Cuban cigars, for example. You can leave the US anytime you want. But coming back in, you're subject to border security. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still baffled you're going on about probable cause. We're in agreement that probable cause allows you to be searched. That's not a question — it's actually part of the fourth amendment (have you read the fourth amendment, lately?). Crossing the border is not probable cause. And being pulled over is not synonymous with being searched — just because you have a tail light out is not probable cause for being searched. "And of course" — no, it's not "of course." See the link. It's a major exception and has been challenged in the court many times. And it's the entire point of the OP's question. And you've now gone from justifying it on the basis of security to justifying it by enforcing a pointless and failed Cold War embargo. (How copying your computer hard drive accomplishes that, anyway, I'm not sure.) None of what you've continued to write justifies your original conclusion that the OP's premises were incorrect. You seem to have either difficulty seeing that, or admitting it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What baffles me is why the OP thinks he should just be able to waltz back into the USA without being searched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the OP. It's the ACLU, it's the EFF, it's people who actually don't think we waive all of our rights just because we happen to leave the country. I fully support the government searching people it has a good reason to suspect of committing a crime. But leaving the country does not make one a criminal suspect. It's not suspicious activity unless you're a xenophobe. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The government has a responsibility to protect its borders. Searching folks entering the country is not unreasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the government has a responsibility to protect its borders, but it also has a responsibility to protect its citizens from domestic threats. Why have the courts allowed for a Fourth Amendment exception with respect to only foreign threats? Ragettho (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So? Walk in from Canada carrying a duffelbag full of ganja, child porn and machine guns, turn around and look; I'll bet you anything that the border will still be there. —Tamfang (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As a Romanian citizen, I cannot legally be prevented from reentering my own country. That being said, I'm pretty sure the law only applies to my person. If I bring suspicious stuff in, they're gonna take it from me at the border control (and I'll probably have to pay some fines or do some jail time, depending on what exactly it is that I was trying to bring into the country). ElMa-sa (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Pro-tip: While in International Airports in the customs area, you don't have the rights of a US citizen, so they can search you and do the other unpleasant stuff afaik (and that's what my pops says, though he's only a corporate attorney). As well, you can be randomly stopped and searched in the City of New York by the NYPD without any probable cause (trufax). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not legally anyway, at least for your second point. Terry v. Ohio (see also Terry stop) should prohibit that. NW (Talk) 19:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of Terry stops, and that's what I thought as well. It's called "stop and frisk" [1]. The NYPD uses it to keep people they consider too dark in-line. Only now are the useless NYCLU saying anything about it though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 19:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not legally, but the NYPD have a dozen ready-made lying excuses as to why they had probable cause, like saying that they thought that whatever you pulled out/put into/had in your pocket might be a gun. I know this both from personal experience, as well as from the Amadou Diallo case, and many others. I can probably think of one or two dozen such false searches I witnessed up close in Bronx and Manhattan. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget "furtive movements". (I heard of one case where a defense attorney demonstrated on cross-examination that the cop had no idea what "furtive" means.) —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Mechanics in pre-industrialisation society

Seeing the question about Roman engines reminded me of something I recently read that spoke of mechanics in early modern England. I've read plenty of works that refer to mechanics in pre-industrialised societies, but they never explain what they would do. How could I expect one of these early eighteenth-century English mechanics to sustain himself and his family? Repairing the local gentleman's coach and waggons? Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Repairing a wagon sounds like a wainwright's job. You might like to look at the broad area of the history and philosophy of science. OED3 claims 1393 in the sense of "mechanical arts" as opposed to liberal arts. 1550 is the first use of mechanic as a noun, directly related to class warfare! At this time a mechanic was any manual (possibly non-agricultural) labourer. The idea of a mechanic being a worker in physically operating machines and mechanisms seems to come at "1681 London Gaz. No. 1643/4, His Majesty having sent for Sir Samuel Morland‥was Graciously pleased to Declare, that he was highly satisfied with all the late Experiments and extraordinary Effects of Sir Samuels new Water-Engine.‥ After which, the Lord Chamberlain‥caused him to be Sworn Master of the Mechanicks." (OED3). So an early modern English mechanic could well be a wainwright, carpenter, plumber, or watchmaker. The increasing sense of mechanics being associated with engines or machines comes about with early modern mechanisation (water engines, steam engines, etc.) so from 1700 onwards in association with the development of agricultural capitalism and mechanisation in England. DS Landes The Unbound Prometheus may help here. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Blacksmiths were the village engineers, they could turn their hands to anything that involved metalwork, and there was metal in most forms of transportation. So your "early 18th-century English mechanic" was most likely a blacksmith. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Coopers similarly. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Millwrights.
Sleigh (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

nagar panchayat

what are the powers of a ward comissioner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.137.67 (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? Willminator (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian College of America

Hi! I have been working on Christian College of America in Houston. But I cannot find a reference stating that it had disestablished. But I also cannot find evidence that it is still functioning.

Would anybody mind helping me with this? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

These links might be helpful.

• Directory of Postsecondary Institutions: Volume I: Degree-Granting Institutions, 1997
• Directory of Postsecondary Institutions: Volume II: NonDegree-Granting Institutions, 1997

—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You can ask a librarian at Houston Community College System, based in Houston, TX.

• Ask a Librarian - Houston Community College Libraries

—Wavelength (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are there more taxicabs in Manhattan than in the other New York City boroughs?

For example, I read that in Brooklyn and in the Bronx, the percentage of people who don't own a car also greatly exceeds the national average, and also, the majority of NYC’s population lives in the outer boroughs. So, why aren't the streets of the other boroughs filled with taxis like the streets of Manhattan are? Do the outer boroughs need more taxicabs? I read that NYC wants to add 6000 more yellow taxicabs in the outer boroughs only. Willminator (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Taxicabs are a pretty expensive way to get around. They are prevalent in Manhattan (and indeed, in the really rich parts of Manhattan) because the people there can afford the luxury of a taxicab. Wilmont Poindexter IV isn't taking the bus from his Madison Avenue office to meet a client at a posh steakhouse. I wouldn't be surprised if bus ridership was higher in the outer buroughs, and likewise in Harlem or Alphabet City, than in the afluent parts of Manhattan. People in the outer boroughs may not own cars, but they also may not find taxicabs to be a reasonable regular mode of transportation. Taxicabs in New York City indicates that a 5-mile trip can cost about $14.00 or so. New York City Transit buses cost $2.75 for a local bus and $5.50 for an express bus, for a trip of any length, and transfers to other busses are free. In working class neighborhoods, there is just not going to be the demand for cabs, given the costs, and for places further from the city center, the difference in cost between taxis and other modes of transport (buses and trains) is only going to be exacerbated. --Jayron32 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

For information about taxicab fares, see http://www.worldtaximeter.com/.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In the boroughs people are much more likely to have their own cars, because parking is in such short supply in Manhattan. I read a few times that parking spaces in lower Manhattan rent for as much per square foot as luxury apartments. Can anyone confirm that? 69.171.160.139 (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How does $225,000 sound? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan is by far the most densely populated of the boroughs. Gypsy cabs are not hard to get anywhere else though. It is not that there is a lack of cabs, but that yellow cabs have a legal monopoly on street hails south of Harlem, so they concentrate there taking advantage of the monopoly. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There aren't enough legit cabs of course. Never can find one in the rain. The yellow cab drivers also pay 300k for their licence unlike untrustworthy gypsy cabs (don't know about the limo cabs that are also sometimes called gypsy cabs as they're not supposed to pick you up), though that may have been a pity tactic so I wouldn't use the CC machine. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Many taxi passengers are visitors, and there are a lot more visitors in Manhattan than in the other boroughs. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This is very true, most do not venture outside of our mighty island as there isn't much of interest except the stadiums and the Bronx Zoo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There are 13,237 yellow cabs in NYC and much of them are concentrated in much of Manhattan. NYC wants to add 6,000 yellow cabs, but in the outer boroughs only, not in Manhattan according to the article cited above. So, based on the answers that have now been provided here so far, why do the outer boroughs need 6,000 more yellow taxicabs when taxis are not nearly as needed in the outer boroughs than in Manhattan? Here's another an article about this. It is from the New York Post. Willminator (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No one, aside from the New York Rag said they don't need'em; it's possible the people that live in some other places like the nicer parts of Brooklyn have been asking their congressmen for them. I could be wrong of course. Though this sentence is interesting "At today's medallion prices, the city could reap more than $1.3 billion" - I love having a businessman for a mayor.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unlike other forms of public transit in NY, taxicabs are privately owned, though heavily regulated by the city. The city may be wanting to license taxicabs for exclusive use in the outer buroughs because there may be a demand for them there, but given the economics of the situation, there may not be a motivation for existing taxicabs to take fares in the outer buroughs; i.e. they can make more money in Manhattan. Cabs can likely make more runs of people running around points within Manhattan, then they can off of, say, intra-Queen runs or runs between Queens and Manhattan. This could be for a number of reasons. One is that the downtime in Queens, being more spread-out in density, may be greater; and a cab sitting on a curb is losing money. The other problem may be that for individual cabbies, taking a fare from Queens to Manhattan may make more money on that fare; but then you have to wait for a return fare to get back to your home territory in Queens. You could make more money in both situations by just sticking to Manhattan; this would cause a cab shortage in the outer buroughs, as people who genuinely wish to use cabs in those places may have a hard time finding one. Plus, Manhattan customers may tip better, which would be added incentive for the cabbies to stick to Manhattan even if rides are needed in the outer buroughs. Because these are privately run businesses, they are market driven, as I have described, and the market is leaving inadequate service in the outer buroughs. This is all speculation, of course, but that's at least one reasonable idea on why the proposition is the way it is.--Jayron32 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at this more. It looks like the idea is to buy a ton of Crown Victorias, have them modified for taxi use (the people contracted for that make a bundle) have taxpayers foot the bill (I don't think they make the cabbies pay for the screens anymore), and then have the new cabbies buy medallions, each worth over 216.000 USD (did the math on a calculator) thus raking in millions for the cab modifiers and billions for the city government. Brilliant, evil, but brilliant. Hopefully the new cabs will be useful to some. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Edit: Don't the cabbies also have to buy the taxis from the city? 03:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I came across yet another interesting article about this matter. The article says that the 6000 new taxis “could deliver passengers to Manhattan, but would not be able to pick up fares there.” Based on the recent answers provided, how will the taxicab drivers make a lot money then by not being able to pick up fares in Manhattan, especially in the affluent areas of Midtown and Downtown? How will the plan improve, or not improve, the economy of the outer boroughs? Edit: This is the last follow-up question I got for this thread as I mentioned in a previous edit summary. Thank you all for your time and help! Willminator (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the outerboroughs. Gypsy cabs are already allowed to make stree hails there and the do not have to buy medallions to operate. The question is only the artificial monopoly in sub-Harlem Manahattan where a medallion is required in order to pick up a fare of the street who hasn't called into a dispatcher first. Gypsy cabs can make pickups in lower Manhattan as well, but only when they are called by phone, not from being waved down on the street. In that case they are treated as a limo-service. (You will find you can get a street pickup from an uptown bound empty limo in manhattan, so long as the driver is willing to risk that you are not an undercover TLC pig trying to bust him. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Taxicab cost

So, I just noticed that the reason the OP in the mother thread asked his q was because the city is adding 6.000 cabs to the fleet. What is the average cost of a Crown Victoria plus the amenities of a taxi? I know those idiotic screens are 3.000 USD alone; what's the whole kit and kaboodle (or w/e that phrase is if someone is familiar with it)? The reason I want to know this is because I'd like to know how much Michael's latest plan is going to cost NYC taxipayers (LIKE ME!!!!! D=<) <-- necessary shouting. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't cost anything if they charge a sensible amount for the medallion (i.e., the license to own and operate a taxicab). The better question is whether the industry-welfare organizations (owners and drivers) will ever allow the additional cabs to hit the streets. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It will cost the cabbies about 216.000 a piece (1.3 billion/6000) to buy a medallion. I'm talking about the purchasing and retrofitting the Crown Victorias which I believe will be on us, my good sir. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As a crown Vic owner (police interceptor model), the document in my glovebox says it was $24,000 new, but I got it at a surplus DMV auction for $2500 when it was 6 years old with 106k miles. Googlemeister (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to get off topic here, but I also own a Ford Crown Victoria with a police interceptor engine. I got the car recently in a car auction in Tampa. I was able to win the bid of $2,500 as well! It's funny to see people slowing down in the road now whenever they pass near me since my car used to be a police car. I finally get to be respected in the road. :) Willminator (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The gorvernment-created fictive value of a medallion, not the car itself is the relevant cost. Yet another of the infinite arguments fro free trade rather than government monopoly. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear NYB means if the government charges more for the medallion then it costs them to purchase and retrofit the cars then it isn't going to directly cost the taxpayer anything to add more cabs, in fact in a direct sense it will be a net positive. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Russian term limits

This is something I've been wondering for a while... As I understand it, the Russian constitution forbids more than two consecutive presidential terms, hence the office-juggling double act of Putin & Medvedev. But considering Putin's popularity and his party's legislative predominance, why don't they simply change the constitution to remove the term limits language? Would that be too difficult even for Putin? LANTZY^TALK 18:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was pretty much uneccessary for Putin to actually change the term limits provision as realpolitik allowed Putin to maintain all of his powers despite the change in title. Russia is a country which has never had much tradition of the rule of law as distinct from the cult of personality of its leaders; indeed for all of Soviet history, the person who was widely recognized as the leader of the Soviet Union changed titles willy-nilly as well, without any real difference in changes of actual power in the country. What Putin is doing isn't all that unusual (indeed, it is historically expected) given how Russian politics has long worked. One can think, perhaps, of the Russian Constitution as a nice piece of paper, but one which ultimately has little effect on the actual exercise of political power in Russia. If Putin were declared "head chef" or "starting goalkeeper of the Russian National Ice Hockey Team" it likely wouldn't make a lick of difference to how Russian politics works. --Jayron32 19:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But does Putin really have total control over Medvedev? I vaguely recall a few instances where they have recently butted heads, suggesting that Medvedev might have the political power to defy or at least stymie Putin from time to time. And what if they had a real falling-out? Wouldn't it be safer, from Putin's perspective, to remain permanently in the more powerful, prestigious office? LANTZY^TALK 21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first question, Medvedev, as actual president who stands to be replaced by Putin when he returns to the office (a situation everyone knew would occur sooner or later), the best he can do is delay political action until Putin formally returns to the office. Given that, it would poltical suicide to oppose him on any matter of substance; though of course the two men may have their disagreements. And for the second question, the more prestigious, powerful office is the one being occupied by Vladimir Putin. --Jayron32 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Putin is probably powerful enough to have himself formally appointed dictator-for-life. But there are good reasons, both domestically and internationally, for him not to do so. Anyway, we'll see what he does when these next two terms are up. Anything is fair game. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've suspected that public relations is the main reason that Putin hasn't tried to abolish term limits, but that's just my guess. Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to alter the constitution in this way? LANTZY^TALK 21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not in the least bit. There is no legal check on the President's power. Any change he wants, the duma (their parliament) will rubberstamp it for him (Source: Old AP Comp Gov Class). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[Disregard that, the OP knew that and I misread his question]. Putin probably will eliminate term limits in his next twelve years, but only time will tell. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think a more likely possibility is the term will again be reduced to four years with someone stepping in for those four years then for them to decide 6 years was betterand revert back with Putin coming back for another 12 years, presuming he really wants to. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Elementary study guides to Metaphysics?

I am sorry, is anybody anywhere actually providing a basic course of Metaphysics as a real school discipline, like in an elementary school? I need a very elementary study guide to the basics of Metaphysics and metaphysical thinking (as opposed to dialectical or positivist thinking), in the shape of something like an ordinary school study-book (imagine a course-book on Arithmetic or, for instance, Music, or Logic in the elementary school). I mean, just a set of rules or introduction to specific methods, inherent for this discipline, which provide a new skill for the disciple and enable to solve new problems. (Most of all I am interested in the classical Christian Metaphysics of Middle Ages, as a specific scientific and cognitive method). Can anyone advise something like this? Because everything I found on the net seems to be either not differentiating Metaphysics from all other Philosophy, or just be a bunch of babble. Thank you in advance. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics spans essentially all cultures' religions and mysticism, and it's an understatement to say that those are not coherent taken together, so I think the closest you are going to get is a "world religions" unit for an elementary social studies class. The classical Christian metaphysics of the middle ages are primarily from Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, based around Aristotle's Metaphysics which was a little more structured and limited than general Metaphysics these days. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics is not at all limited to religion and mysticism. Metaphysics is about the fundamental nature of reality, starting with the question of whether there's such a thing at all (see e.g. philosophical realism, phenomenalism, solipsism).

In the early 20th century there was a significant contingent of philosophers who affected the position that it was possible to do without metaphysics at all. It was a silly position and I don't think it's taken particularly seriously anymore. --Trovatore (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, metaphysics is certainly not a religious science per se, although any serious religion has an implied or explicit metaphysics. But so does science. The questions of what it is to exist, what it is to be a thing, a person, and so forth, are all metaphysical questions. The physical sciences rest on certain metaphysical presuppositions, that things have knowable natures, and so forth. Unfortunately, much thinking is muddled and poorly conceptualized. Thomistic metaphysics, for example, has the mystical notion that there exist "essences" which can change leaving all the attributes the same, thus allowing bread to become the body of Christ without any change in accident. Cartesian dualism leads to the question of how the ghost moves the machine. Materialism in the crude sense leads to the denial of the reality of the mind. Concepts like entity, attribute, relation, substance, form, cause , effect, essence, accident and so forth are all indispensable, and all metaphysical. That being said, I am aware of no good primer. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The only organisations I am aware of who may offer such courses are Christian Science and Theosophy, and maybe Rosicrucians or Gnostics. I'm sure if the OP wished he could make contact and ask there. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Tammy, you're making the same mistake! That's not what metaphysics means; see my remarks above. All philosophy has to deal with metaphysics. The ones that affect to deny they're doing so, like logical positivism, in my opinion wind up, not with no metaphysics, but just with bad metaphysics. --Trovatore (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics isn't very popular in Anglo-American philosophical circles (influences of positivism, analytical philosophy, etc), and because it closely interacts with other areas like epistemology it's not really a separate discipline. It's more popular in European traditions, but the European version (drawing on Heidegger, Bergson, etc) tends to be very complex. John Hospers' classic college textbook An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis has some sections on metaphysics, and this is probably as straightforward as you're going to get. John F Post's Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction is well-regarded; I've not read it but it's likely to be harder going. But if you want a book on medieval metaphysics a contemporary textbook isn't going to be much help; you might be better with a text on medieval theology. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of misinformation going on here, so let me clarify a few things. Legitimate academic metaphysics doesn't involve religion or theology at all. That is considered a separate type of theory (for instance Divine command theory as a response to the metaphysical question 'what is value?'). "Theosophy," "Rosicrucianism," and "Gnosticism" are not metaphysics, they are esoterism. "Mysticism" is also most often esoterism, however it isn't that simple either. "Mysticism abandons philosophy, logic and reason in that it involves accepting sincerely p and not-p as both true at the same time. However there are some legitimate excursions into mysticism, as for instance later Heidegger and later Wittgenstein. The main criterion for legitimate academic, scholarly metaphysics is the use of reason as a method toward your metaphysical models, theories, claims, etcetera. Once you accept a faith claim as an axiom in your metaphysical system, you are no longer "doing metaphysics." Colapeninsula is correct in everything he or she said and Trovatore is incorrect in his claim that anti-metaphysics is somehow silly, and that it not one of the major prevailing views in academia. However that question isn't so simple either. As a pragmatic matter metaphysics is completely irrelevant to your everyday life. At no point should any average person be making decisions one way or the other based on some metaphysical model they have adopted. They simply aren't qualified, and fortunately the answers to almost all of the questions we face in our lives no longer require a metaphysical level of analysis to answer. Only people doing research into metaphysics have a lot of situations arise to where their metaphysical model enters into their behavior. Whether or not metaphysics is an appropriate subject matter for children is not at all clear either. Certainly, getting children to think about these questions is wonderful, however in teaching them introducing any bias would be very unfortunate. It is just unfair to tell a child "how it is" metaphysically when they are not really equipped to be able to question the subject matter being presented. It has the effect of prejudicing them forever as to the answer to these questions. Questions of which no answers can ever really be gotten. Greg Bard (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To argue that metaphysical assumptions aren't relevant in everyday life is rather odd. Whether you accept western medicine or alternative medicine is based on metaphysical assumptions whether or they are explicitly and coherently expressed. Identity politics holds the collective to be more significant than the individual. All sorts of various beliefs hold evil to be a substance, rather than a relationship, and things to be good or evil not based on results but mere existence. Guns are evil to liberals, not criminals. Drugs are evil to conservatives, not their abuse. Negroes are have (or had) the mark of Cain according to Mormons. Humans minds can be uploaded into computers according to most AI thinkers. These views may be nonsense, faith-based, and only implicitly held. But they are metaphysical ones. And they have a huge impact on our lives. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I second the recommendation John Hosper's book above. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need metaphysics in order to reject alternative medicine. You only need science. In fact what you have done is provide perfect examples of how inserting metaphysics into decision-making is a bad idea. Greg Bard (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You really can't have science without a metaphysical underpinning. You can pretend you don't notice it most of the time if you want to, but that just means by default that your metaphysics is realist. Which is fine with me; I am a realist. But then as soon as you get to QM you're going to have issues, ones that in my view have not been resolved. --Trovatore (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about understanding. A person doesn't actually need that level of understanding for almost anything in their lifetime. If you hear a bump in the night, you really should be using metaphysics as an explanation as a very far last resort. That is all I am saying. We can take science very far toward the answers we need in life. You never really need to hinge your decision-making on a particular metaphysical theory. Very few quantum physicists out there too, and even they don't have to resort to metaphysics as much as they used to.Greg Bard (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Trovatore is right. To assert that you accept the scientific worldview but reject any metaphysical stand is simply to mean you are ignorant of or don't care about the underlying implications of your view. That's fine, lots of people do it. But not explicitly knowing the philosop[hical underpinnings of your so-called "scientific" beliefs leaves you at the mercy of sophists and bullshitters. Ayn Rand (Philosophy: Who Needs It?) and Isaac Asimov (The Relativity of Wrong) dispel the myth of the needlessness of a metaphysics and attendant epistemology. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It just isn't that simple. Ideally, every human would live up to their intellectual potential to consider reflectively all of the various metaphysical theories, and decide for themselves those beliefs most convenient for understanding. Under this very humanistic view one's conscience would prevail and everyone would be a wonderful moral person. However, morally and metaphysically reflective people are in the tiny minute minority of the population. Also unfortunate, is the fact that everyone on earth no matter what their level of formal education on the matter sincerely believes that they are an expect on these matters. Again, a very humanistic view holds that everyone on earth is an expert on these matters (at least equally so as, for instance, the pope, or the dali lama, etcetera). As a pragmatic matter however, we really are better off listening to what academic metaphysicians and ethicists say. Also, --and up to this point I've succeeded in remaining diplomatic -- it just isn't a good idea for adults to teach metaphysics to small children, because inevitably the biases, prejudices, and dogmas of the adult work their way into the lesson. It's a shame to destroy what could otherwise end up an open-minded person. Greg Bard (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the real Metaphysics cannot contain "biases, prejudice and dogmas", by definition. Because it is, by definition, the clearest, simplest and most basic thing of all. Actually, anything containing "biases, prejudice and dogmas" is outside Metaphysics, by definition - because it is what Metaphysics is fighting with. That is Metaphysics. All the teachers say so (still not giving the full thing at once of course; but they hint in this way). Rasool-3 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. You seem to be equating metaphysics with either esoteric mysticism or terminological acadmeic debates. But there is no escaping a metaphysical worldview for any human. It is simply implicit and confused, rather than explicit and coherent, for most people. Children have to be taught such things as the difference between what is real and what is make-believe. In fact, they crave and obsess upon such information. And they learn such things long before science or any formal academic instruction. Not educating them in such things is not avoiding, metaphysics, it is just leaving them open to whatever nonsense might come along without the self-defense that education makes possible. Consider the implications behind the declaration of a friend of mine who, upon finding out that I was an atheist, protested, "You mean you are a Devil worshipper? But you'll go to hell!" He wasn't even capable of understanding why such a concern might not worry me. Whether you realize that you hold implicit philosophical beliefs or not, you do. It is the nature of being a conscious (semi-)adult. To quote the philosopher Neil Peart, "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice." μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I support Medeis' view that children's thinking in general is very metaphysical (as opposed to Gregbard's opinion that children shouldn't be taught Metaphysics). I wanted to say that myself. Children's perception and thinking is much more metaphysical than adults', because Metaphysics (as a mode of thought and connection to the Source) is something immanent and natural for man, not some "perplexive abstract science", not something "artificially invented", as it is viewed upon now. It's just centuries of positivism, marxism and other ungodly techings, that made society and public education neglect the very ground, the basics, what's within ourselves from the very beginning (that is, what is natural for children - but not longer natural for adults "enriched" by positivist "rational" thinking). By the way, there is a view among modern metaphysicists (e.g. Guenon), that the worldly science (known as an exclusive "science" nowadays) emerged in the Middle Ages from sacred metaphysical science (what was then exclusively known as the real "science"), such as alchemy and etc., as its "prolongation" and exteriorization into the profane world, just its derivate, its exterior part (as Christianity itself was double - esoteric and exteriorated); but then after the deterioration of Metaphysics and of inner Christian tradition, the real science vanished, and its profane derivate is regarded up to now as the "sole" "real" science. Trovatore's and Medeis' observation that each "scientific" (even "positivist") assertion is based upon an underlying implication, which is necessarily metaphysical - is very much to the point. Of course children crave for this knowledge... as we do here :) Rasool-3 (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, no, no, you sure aren't reading very carefully. Esoterism, and mysticism are not metaphysics, and I have stated so very clearly. Yes, yes, yes, you are certainly correct that a person cannot help but have metaphysical beliefs, because it is part of making sense of the world. However what people do not and should not do is agonize over metaphysical theories as if something important depends on them. What people do generally, is called bracketing. Rather than wake up and seriously consider that one may be living in the Matrix, it is more reasonable to proceed with your day as if the answer just doesn't matter. Bracketing is putting the question aside and proceeding as if you have an answer. Teaching children what is real and not real doesn't involve any metaphysics at all. It only requires sensory observation (i.e. empirical science). I sympathize with your concern that one might be left open to "whatever nonsense" is out there, but just look at what actually is happening where adults are teaching children metaphysics!!! My goodness. They are better off exploring those questions on their own. Greg Bard (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether you have an immortal soul is of no importance, but bracketing is a useful concept, and the difference bewteen real and imaginary is not a metaphysical one? What is it, a chemical one? It would be bad enough that you are making up your own definitions if you weren't also contradicting yourself. Children in my family are taught metaphysical principles at a very young age, like "wishing doesn't make it so" and "you can't have your cake and eat it too." And the statement that "it only requires sensory observation" is a metaphysically ground epistemological statement. But thank you for your opinion. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up for Medeis: "you can't have your cake and eat it too" - is really a very traditionalist educational saying, reminds me something from Sufi literature. Rasool-3 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for involvement. On Russian wiki, I was advised Emerich Coreth's "Metaphysics, A Methodical and Systematic Introduction". I had it before and I found it very helpful, although Coreth belonged to Jesuits, that is the grave-diggers of the original medieval Metaphysics (must have taken the best pearls for themselves, I guess). Still, Germans seem to be among the best in Metaphysics, after all. It is very linguistic and very reflective, as a true Metaphysics should be. It starts with a scrutinous research of the very act of questioning - which has actual parallels in real Traditions.

Colapeninsula and Medeis, I looked through the contents of John Hospers' "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" on google-books and failed to find any sections on Metaphysics. John Post's Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction was a little bit more helpful. But just a little bit, so as to see how Metaphysics is viewed upon in U.S. nowadays. Lack of a system, earthly newspaper-style language, neglection of previous teachers - just show the author's non-adhesion to the real metaphysical tradition; and any talks about the real teaching and about metaphysics without such an adhesion are senseless. The whole thing was made on a level of a secondary school essay (as Hospers' "Introduction" was, too), and cannot be regarded as a serious study guide, and of course cannot be regarded "classic". No research in Europe is done on such a level. Sorry. Guess, U.S. is not where such answers should be sought. I wished to talk to English here, but they seem to be busy with something else... Rasool-3 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I should have made it clear that my recommendation of Hosper's was a general one, and not specifically in regard to Metaphysics. You are probably right that the US is not the place to look for anything worthwhile. Deconstructivism is all the rage in the US from philosophy to linguistics. Russians are lucky to be insulated from these fads. My grounding in metaphysics is from an Aristotelian, Scholastic and Randian background. I am also a fan of Spinoza and the Stoics. But all these schools are notoriously difficult and I am aware of no simple introduction. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that "the US is not the place to look for anything worthwhile". Beach Boys, Freeborne and Monks are my favourite bands. And South Park, I believe, is a global cultural phenomenon which may be regarded as nowadays-Beatles. I'm just saying that the U.S., despite Protestantism flourishing (at least it seems to be so), seem to have lost the real science of the traditional (Luther's and Calvin's) Protestantism, which of course was very metaphysical, as it was opposed to the Catholic growing profanity. As of now, what we have in Europe, is the Catholic Western Europe (except for England, Germany and Scandinavian countries), with semi-profane teachings, reduced to the level of ethics, and of course not metaphysical; and Eastern Europe ruined by marxism, which is only beginning to try to restore something. And also we have the US. So, I just wished to see, where is something left. I suppose, there is a kind of such work going on in European Protestant countries, such as England or Germany. Still, as there's little heard of it, sometimes I think that public education nowadays is given just something profane, and the real metaphysical teachings are provided only for closed groups such as masons, I don't know.

Scholastic literature (especially of 13th-15th cent.) - is probably very much to the point. What is your favourite reading of this kind? Of course, there is no simple introduction, especially in the shape of a public textbook - but it doesn't mean that the whole thing is necessarily "notoriously difficult". Metaphysics is simple, by definition :) Because only errors, bias and aberrations can be complicated and perplexed, the real knowledge is straightforward and simple.

P.S.: By the way, note many purely Protestant and metaphysical moments in South Park plots. I would say, the creators come from a really traditionalist Protestant environment. P.P.S.: About Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", there is a South Park episode "Chickenlover" :) Why don't you add Guenon and Idries Shah to your metaphysics reading list. Rasool-3 (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Can a region from a foreign country join the USA?

Imagine I am elected president of Extremadura, a region in western Spain. Could I ask for admission as a US state? --Belchman (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. You could be admitted by a majority vote of both houses of congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state#Admission_into_the_union μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Guyana is thinking of doing that. Would be nice to have some real estate in South America.... I think that's how the Texans did it btw. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I advise you don't. Of all countries, why the USA? →Στc. 22:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe Guyana offered (well, its president offered) to lease 2/3 of jungle Guyana to the UK as one massive carbon offsetting scheme, if they invested to protect it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's also this with regard to Guyana. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalism, greed, grinding poverty, lax corporate law, unfair tax system, lack of upward mobility except through luck, rampant corruption, violent police forces, apparently over 50% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of less than 1.000 people (source: Ajay Bruno). What's not to love about our fair country? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the main problem would be convincing Spain to allow a hunk of its territory to secede. Joining the U.S. would be comparatively easy. LANTZY^TALK 22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think joining the US would be a walk in the park either. Both major parties would be capable of figuring out which party would benefit, and whichever one that is (I'm guessing the Dems but I can't be sure of that), the other one would oppose accession with all the forces at its disposal. So you would have to wait until the party expected to benefit had a strong majority in both houses, and probably the presidency as well (I don't know whether the president is officially involved in the decision, but I imagine he could make it hard going if he didn't want it to happen). --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Admission of a new State is by ordinary legislation, and does require the President's signature (or an override of his veto). I read somewhere that when South and North Dakota were admitted (simultaneously but by separate acts), the then President asked that the papers be handed to him in such a way that nobody would know which one he signed first. —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem might be that the USA recognises the sovereignty of Spain, and such recognition might preclude taking actions that prejudice Spain's territorial integrity. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. See my 29 September post below, beginning "Nobody's mentioned the recognition factor ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We haven't let that stop us before! Though the political environment is much different now.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Spain is a Unitary state, that means the all authority that provinces have is given to them by the nation. If you tried something like that, Spain could just dissolve your province's government. If Spain was a Federation, where power was given by the individual states to a government, than you could leave the nation. So Texas could leave the US as the US is a federal state, but Extremadura has no ability to leave Spain. Public awareness (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Texas can as secession is illegal now (I think it is anyway), unless they have some special agreement in the annexation treaty (though I thought that was just their governor trying to get the unpatriotic secessionist vote). You have a point though, except in the case of Extremadura breaking away in a rebellion and the US recognising them as a state and then annexing them with their acquiescence. Kind of like the Republic of Hatay or South Ossetia (soon). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

See Texas v. White. --Jayron32 23:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary: Winners write legislative history. —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The question was not whether it would lead to war or be recognized internationally or actually pass congress but whether such a petition could be made. The solution to admitting a territory that would become a state favoring one party would be to admit some other territory (Cuba would be solidly Republican) or to split the territory into two regions, if possible, one more conservative, the other liberal. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Cuba would be solidly Democrat. Cubans who left Cuba and settled in Florida tend to be Republican because of the anti-socialist nature of the Republican party, and the Cubans that left Cuba are, understandably, anti-socialist. The Democrats, while being the second-least socialist party in the civilized world (the least socialist being the Republicans), still come out slightly to the left of the Republicans, so those Cubans who are actually in Cuba are more likely to support the Democrats than the Republicans. --Jayron32 23:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Second least socialist party." Oh, come on. German Free Democrats would be comfortable in the US Libertarian Party, and they're in government. --Trovatore (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a deliberate hypercorrection to head off all of the "But the Democrats would be a right wing party in Europe" comments whenever you describe them as a leftist party. Yes, we all know they would be. But they are the leftist party (of the two) in the U.S. If pro-Castro Cubans had to pick one of the two parties in the U.S. to support, they'd likely go Democrat. --Jayron32 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know. The nonsensical 1-d spectrum that's taught in school makes people think that communism is some extreme version of "liberalism" in the US sense of the word. But Communists (at least of the Castro sort) are not liberal at all, not in any sense of the word. (Both major US parties are liberal in the more general sense, though there are non-liberal tendencies within each, the religious right in the GOP and the identity-politics folks among the Dems. There are some so-called Communists in, say, Italy, that could be called liberal without complete violence to the word, but they wouldn't do well in Cuba.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironically enough, Dave Foley once said of his native Canada, "We're so liberal we make Castro look like a Republican!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

People say these things, but it's total nonsense. Castro is no liberal, never was, and Communism in the Lenin/Stalin/Mao sense of the word has never had anything to do with liberalism. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor Dave Foley, he used to be cuter in drag than Laura Tierney in her red-carpet best. Have to assume Foley was using liberal as a synonym for leftist. Modern leftists do, or did until it became dysphemistic and the term progressive was recycled. Given Castro's policy on homosexuals, Foley was right. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point. If you compare Castro to George Soros on a 1-d scale originally designed to measure one's attitude towards the French Revolution, you just get garbage, no useful information whatsoever. Castro is not some sort of extreme version of Soros. --Trovatore (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can assume that those who haven't left Cuba have done so because they are liberals. Eastern Europe is more conservative than Western Europe. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Would Congress still allow the people of Extremadura to enjoy bullfighting? HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear from Animal Welfare Act of 1966 that the federal government would have anything to say about it. That might be at the state level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the original question, several states of the United States were formerly independent countries, e.g., Texas, California, Hawaii, and arguably for a short time Vermont. As for modern proposals for new states, for related discussion, see 51st state. For less related discussion, see Proposals for new Canadian provinces and territories. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Of those four, only the Republic of Texas and the Kingdom of Hawaii/Republic of Hawaii were really sovereign countries in a functional way. The US treated Texas and Hawaii as sovereign states, or at least went through the motions of pretending so. The Vermont Republic was longer lived and slightly more of a real thing than the California Republic. At least Vermont created something of a government. California never did. A flag was made. That's about it. In neither case did the US federal government treat them as sovereign states. Pfly (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Get in line. There is Guam, American Samoa, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands ahead of you. The political reality is that unless you get a majority vote of the Spanish legislature and a majority vote of the people of such a region, you will not be able to "apply." Such an application will be submitted to some committee of Congress and it just doesn't move forward unless the political environment will allow for it. See U.S._state#Admission_into_the_union. Greg Bard (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But since nobody in their right mind would even want to join the USA.... →Στc. 00:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

...he protests on an American website run on the American invented internet using an American invented personal computer. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Good for you; I'm sure you feel very proud of your observation, which I would like to point out, is half-true. The computers could not have been invented if Nazi and Soviet technology was not stolen during war, and the internet was only a product of the pressure built by the Soviet Union. →Στc. 06:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's mentioned the recognition factor. Currently the USA recognises Spain as a sovereign nation. That's all of Spain, not just some bits of it. In order to even hypothetically consider an application from Extremadura to join it, the USA would first have to recognise Extremadura as no longer being a part of Spain, which would mean no longer accepting that Spain includes Extremadura. How could the USA possibly arrive at such a position? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, only with Spain's recognition of Extremadura's right to self-determination. Basically, if an important country were to object (Spain would probably be considered important in this context), then it would not happen. Hence the situation in Taiwan. Googlemeister (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, Jack, but are you aware of some clause of the American Constitution of which I am ignorant? The recognition of Spanish sovereignty might be an issue in Congressional debate. But all that matters in admitting a state is a majority vote in both houses. Such a vote might lead to war were it enforced. But it would not be Constitutionally invalidated by yours or anyone else's shock or good intentions.μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, too, but mainly about your lack of indentation skills, which makes this part of the conversation a little hard to follow. I'll struggle on manfully, nonetheless.

Are you saying that the Congress could vote to recognise Tasmania, say, as a new state of the Union, without there being any ramifications for the USA's ongoing recognition of Australia as a sovereign and indivisible nation? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there would be ramifications in your case Jack, but the US Constitution does not specify that we can only add states when there are no ramifications. Politically, I don't see any circumstances where this might happen, but as a constitutional matter it would still be valid. Googlemeister (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but just because some action is not constitutionally prohibited does not necessarily mean that it has even the remotest chance of ever actually happening. Practicalities are kind of important and relevant in this type of scenario. So, returning to the original question: would Extremadura ever apply for US statehood? No, but if it ever did, would the US Congress ever consider it? No, but if it ever did, would it ever vote to accept Extremadura as a state? No, but if it ever did, would Extremadura ever actually become a US state? No. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Priestesses of the Greek and Roman gods

Which Greek and Roman gods and goddesses in antiquity had female priests? I know abut the Vestals and the priestesses of Aphrodite, and I suppose also the oracle of Apollo in Delphi can be regarded as a sort of priestess, but I ave never heard about any other priestesses about the Greek and Roman gods. I once heard that Hera and Juno had priestesses, is this correct? Which gods had female clergy? All the female gods?

I am aware that this matter may differ somewhat between Greece and Rome, but the gods were quite similar, so I hope it will be okay to ask about both the Greek and Roman gods. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if we can say these had priestesses as such, but the Eleusinian Mysteries and Dionysian Mysteries had female initiates. There were also festivals for Bona Dea in Rome, although the Vestal Virgins were in charge of that. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Essentially all of the ancient Greek and Roman temples employed "priestesses" because they would perform "rites" for certain donations, which were very popular because they involved, um, sex. Any temple which didn't offer such services would not be able to compete. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, no, essentially none of them did that, except maybe Corinth. We have an article about sacred prostitution (although it's not very good). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to have been a far swing in historical thought on that question over the past 70 years. 69.171.160.229 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What I am referring to is, specifically, clergy, female priests, not participants or initiates. Perhaps they have been rather ignored in history? All gods had clergy, I assume? Which had female clergy? Can we confirm that Hera and Juno had priestesses? --Aciram (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not all religions have clergy. Actually...do any religions have clergy, aside from Christianity? Not even all forms of Christianity have clergy. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

English is not my native language, but as far as I understand, the word clergy means "priests": religious experts with the task of leading and organising the worship, ceremonies and rituals of a religion. Not all religions may have them, but the majority can be said to fulfill this criteria, even in the cases when they are not officially regarded to be priests. To say that only Christianity had clergy does sound a little discriminating and chauvinistic, in that context, if I may say so. --Aciram (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Our article Ordination_of_women#Ancient_Greece covers this well. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That was a good article, thank you. Though it may not cover it very clearly, as it does not always specify exactly which gods, only that it was common with priestesses. In the article of Hera, Cynippe refers to her priestess, but I have the impression that she was not a proffessional priestess. Were these priestesses always selfsupporting professionals, or only in some cases? --Aciram (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Christ, a sometime Greek and Roman God, appeared to have female priests, at least of the gnostic variety, also possibly of the "orthodox" kind: see this paper. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the Pagan gods, but that was interesting nonetheless. --Aciram (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mormon high

I know that observant Mormons are forbidden to drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, etc. But while they can't alter their consciousness by use of chemical substances, are they permitted to do so by some other means? (Spinning in a circle, holding their breath, running into a wall, etc.) Would habitual indulgence in self-induced dizziness prevent a Mormon from receiving a temple recommend? Is there any history of Mormons pushing the envelope in this respect? Obviously it violates the spirit of the rules that forbid drug use, but considering the apparent existence of "Mormon porn", perhaps that doesn't matter. LANTZY^TALK 23:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably Brigham Young or whoever formulated the various articles of Mormon faith had a slightly more serious approach to policy. I mean really, if he started telling people not to get high from hyperventilating, don't you think he'd lose credibility? Seems rather trite to me to start telling people how they can and can't breathe. It's kind of unenforceable too. A coffee drinker is likely going to leave evidence of their habit, while a chronic hyperventilator can indulge their habit as they please with zero trace their terrible sin. Vranak (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mormons are allowed to use such substances if medically necessary. A Mormon employer of mine was required by his doctor to use caffeine which he drank in coffee. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See Lantzy, it's about what the church leaders genuinely feel is for the best for their parish, not about making strange and byzantine rules governing a person's life in toto. I hope. Vranak (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree - I'm sure more consideration is given to those who try to follow the rules in spiritus. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:05, 1 Tishrei 5772 / 08:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Resident Mormon here. I know this is almost 2 years later, but I'm doing a search on "mormon" in the reference desk archives and am trying to be helpful anywhere I can.

Let me make three points:

(A) There is no explicit prohibition for Latter-day Saints (Mormons) against caffeine. I drink several Coke Zeros (or is it Zeroes) every day, and I carry a temple recommend. Caffeine is not apparently the reason for the prohibition against coffee and tea. My understanding is that there are (or may be) other harmful components in coffee and tea other than caffeine. Personally, I believe it has more to do with the resulting decrease in self-control and willpower (how many jokes have been made about people at work who missed their "morning coffee" etc.) than any particular substance. Further, we uphold the prohibition, to a certain degree, on faith, not necessarily requiring a full explanation why we shouldn't eat or drink something.

(B) The dietary and health principles that we call "The Word of Wisdom" are self-governed, and only regulated in the temple recommend interview every other year. And, it boils down to one question that the Bishop asks: "Do you keep the word of wisdom." If someone answers "yes," (and, ahem, doesn't stink of cigarettes or alcohol) that is basically the end of the issue. There is no verification other than that. If someone really felt the need to lie about coffee or tea use in their interview, that would completely betray the spirit of temple attendance in the first place.

(C) The Word of Wisdom was initially published as a recommendation (in 1833) rather than as a commandment. As such, strict adherence (even by Church leaders) wasn't really achieved until many years later, when it was (in effect) "upgraded" to a kind of commandment, and obedience was included in the temple recommend interview. Best-- Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)