Humanities desk
< December 26	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 28 >

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.

December 27

Threats against government officials, internationally

(1) Is it illegal for someone in the US to threaten to kill the leader of North Korea? (2) If a US citizen goes into international waters, is it still illegal for them to threaten to kill the President? (3) Is it illegal for a US citizen to threaten to kill the US President from North Korea? Please note that I do not intend to do any of these things, and I don't know anyone who would even consider them in the slightest, so I am in no way asking for legal advice, just for a reference to the laws that determine what is and is not technically allowed. 63.228.180.122 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are referring to the recent Sony hacking incident.

1 No, it is not illegal to threaten to kill the leader of North Korea.
2 What president? There are lots of them.
3 That would be treason. So, yes.

KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this of interest, as it discusses First Amendment limits on threats of violence. For question (1) I doubt they could prosecute unless it was a totally serious and practical threat. Questions (2) and (3), presumably both about the US President, might not be prosecutable from their locations. But when or if they come back to the US, I expect they would be fair game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can also read Jurisdiction and Universal jurisdiction. For question (2) the jurisdiction varies in different countries. Some of the conditions that countries can use when they choose to exercise jurisdiction in criminal law are: crimes within the country's borders, by a citizen, against a citizen, against the country's interests or on vessels and planes registered in the country. So the answer to question (2) is a firm "it depends". Sjö (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening to kill the president of the US by a US citizen may be treason, but in ordinary circumstances it's more likely to come under Title 18, Section 871 of the United States Code as per Threatening the President of the United States. I'm not totally sure whether the US government will apply this or some other law if the person is in North Korea however, although as per universal jurisdiction which Sjö tried to link to, and also Extraterritorial jurisdiction, there's probably no particular reason the US couldn't apply the US Code, definitely I don't see anything in the wording of the law suggesting it's restricted to actions in the US. (Couldn't find any evidence for or against this ever having been tested.)

As already mentioned, the US may not be able to easily arrest the person when they are in North Korea. There is Extraordinary rendition, but's it's particularly risky in an unfriendly country and if the only thing is a threat which for some reason they're worried enough about to try that, as per those articles and others the US has also shown a willingless to kill people if they feel they are that much of a threat (or whatever). Unmanned aerial vehicle may be a bad idea in North Korea, but there are the older alternatives.

I'm also going to a ^{[citation needed]} on the claim it's not illegal for someone in the US to threaten to kill the President of North Korea. This may fall under US Code Title 18, Section 878 [1]. I say may because (and showing IANAL). One I'm confused whether section d means only any of 1, 2, or 3 have to apply; or it's 1 and 2, or 3; or it's 1 AND 2 or 3. I think it's the first, but not totally sure. Two, if I understand 1116 and how it applies to 878 [2], in any case it will only be against the code to threaten to kill the president of North Korea when he's somewhere outside North Korea (but doesn't have to be when he's in the US) as he's not an "internationally protected person" when inside North Korea. Of course if you make the threat while the president of North Korea is in the US, you don't have to worry about most of this and can assume you're screwed if it's taken as a serious threat but I took it this wasn't under discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I had world leader power, you threatened to kill me, and I believed you, I don't see why I'd want to take it to court. I'm sure Nil Einne meant to say "willingness to kill". Where there's a will, there's a way. Most of the ways aren't nearly as overt as a drone strike, but just as far above the law. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I mean willingness, sorry. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senior management In large corporations

What's the difference between what a chairman, a ceo and a coo does in a major corporation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.212.193 (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this varies between companies. I assume that you've read our articles on Chief operating officer, Chief executive officer and especially Chairman#Public corporations. Dbfirs 14:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Church vs social security in the US

I've heard it suggested that one of the reasons for higher levels of religiosity in the US than in Europe is that social security tends to be weaker in the US. I'm also aware that American churches tend to be politically conservative. Is there any evidence that American churches espouse conservative views because social security is their competitor?--Leon (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These churches were around long before Social Security was enacted. And conservatives' typical complaint about any kind of socialism is the theory that it erodes individual incentive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think American churches are more conservative than elsewhere, it's just that the conservative ones tend to be more vocal, like televangelists. A more liberal sect, like the Quakers, would be aghast at such publicity- and money-seeking tactics. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crime vs Offence in England and Wales

What is the difference between a crime and an offence in the E&W legal system? Is it just that offence covers civil law as well? Thanks. 78.151.100.0 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a distinction between the two, although "offence" is the word usually used in statutes and other official documents. See English criminal law. Every offence is a crime, and every crime is an offence, although a particular criminal act may involve the commission of several possible offences; for example, bashing someone over the head may constitute everything from common assault to attempted murder. The terms only apply to the criminal law - the civil law equivalent is a tort. Tevildo (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does Christianity and Islam determine the religion of offspring?

In Judaism, if a child is born to a Jewish mother, then the child is considered Jewish. The father's religion had no bearing. How do the various sects of Christianity and Islam work for passing religion to an adherents natural offspring?--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you start with Interfaith marriage and see what conclusions you can draw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a large number of the 1 billion Catholics is people who were made Catholic as a baby and are secular, non-observant, believe little or none of the Bible and rarely think about religion. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By Catholic Canon Law a Catholic is born to the ~~religion and~~ rite of his father. So even if a Roman Catholic woman marries a Maronite Catholic man, her children are supposed to be raised in the Maronite Church. Again, there are dispensations if, say, you live in a Roman Catholic diocese and the nearest Maronite church is at a burdensome distance. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Catholic, and I have never heard of that. Traditionally, the Catholic Church prefers that offspring of its members be raised Catholic. It's usually a condition of interfaith marriage by Catholics that the couple promise to raise their kids Catholic. Also, one is not born in Catholicism; one must be baptized. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Not sure what the church would do in a case when both are Catholics of different churches which are in full communion. But in the general case, as emphasised by our article (which links to Interfaith marriage in Christianity and further to the source mentioned below), the expectation is that the children should be raised Catholic whether it's the wife or husband that is Catholic. Our article says it isn't actually a requirement that both parties promise this any more, but it's still a requirement that the Catholic party do their best and the non Catholic party be made aware of this promise. Of course the Catholic church isn't shy about talking about differences between males and females, so they may be more likely to discourage an interfaith marriage when the wife is the one who is Catholic and the husband is not, our article gives some examples, but definitely the general expectation is that the children should be raised Catholic. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson is confusing non-Catholics with non-Roman Catholics, Nil has brought up as an objection interfaith marriages, which I was not addressing. In marriages between parents belonging to two different rites within the Catholic Church, if there is no agreement between the husband and wife, the children are to be raised in the father's rite. (Children over 14 may choose for themselves which rite to follow.) New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law By John P. Beal, p 181 In marriages between Catholics and non Catholics, whether the husband or the wife is the Catholic, they can only have a Catholic wedding with the bishop's dispensation and on the condition that any children be raised Catholic. That's a separate matter. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually as I mentioned the last bit it isn't true any more. The current requirement is that the Catholic partner must promise to do all they can to raise the children as Catholic and the non Catholic partner must be made to understand the implications of this promise. Or as I put it earlier, it may be an expectation, but it's doesn't appear to be a condition any more. It's possible individual bishops may set their own standards. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When μηδείς writes "Roman Catholic" the link goes to Catholic Church but the context suggests to me that Latin Church was intended. jnestorius^(talk) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord (irony) Bugs & Milky,it was a simple question. Not everyone is trolling this place. The answer I was seeking was along the lines of what Medeies proffered. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the link I posted inadequate to answer your question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your link led to this rule for the Catholic denomination (I don't think "sect" is quite the correct word). Other mainstream Christian denominations tend to be less formal about upbringing, often with a parental promise at infant baptism to "help [their offspring] to take their place within the life and worship of Christ’s Church"( Anglican baptism), or just hoping that parents will bring up their children in that same or a similar denomination. Some cults may have stronger expectations. Dbfirs 09:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah I too don't understand the OPs complaint. The article on interfaith marriages also has a decent section on Islam and links to our article Interfaith marriage in Islam both of which seem to give a good overview. The general idea is that the children must be Muslim and because they will take their fathers faith, a marriage between a Muslim man and non Muslim woman may be okay, but not the opposite. (Of course actual practice and intepretations does vary. Some discourage or even disallow and marriage between a non Muslim and Muslim. A small number consider a marriage between a Muslim woman and non Muslim man as okay.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does Christianity and Islam determine the religion of offspring?

In Judaism, if a child is born to a Jewish mother, then the child is considered Jewish. In Christianity, a child has no religion until he is baptized. In Islam, any child is born Muslim, until his parents decide he is a Jew, or baptize him Christian, or just let him be a Muslim. Akseli9 (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand that, in some Christian denominations, entry to the church is marked by baptism and conversion. But there are many Christian denominations that perform infant baptism, which seems to break the link between religious conversion and baptism. Obviously, baptized infants don't have a conversion experience, but they are expected to be raised Christian in preparation for their confirmation ceremony. The question is, what happens if the child is baptized but never confirmed? I suppose baptism is sufficient enough to be considered a Christian and to be buried in a Christian cemetery or have a Christian funeral, with a dispensation from a priest. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This varies by denomination, but those that practice infant Baptism would say that Baptism is Baptism: it is being born again of water and the spirit, and is being initiated into the Church, and everybody who has received it is fully a member of the Church, no matter what other Sacraments they may or may not receive. No dispensations necessary. The idea that you must have a one-time "conversion experience" as an adult in order to really become a Christian is very much a Protestant idea, especially associated with once saved, always saved and so on. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, it is fashionable for offspring to reject the religion of their parents once the offspring reach secondary school age. Not all do so, and a few might return later, or join another denomination or religion, but for many there is no continuity of the religion of either parent. Dbfirs 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things are not quite so simple for Judaism either... the answer to "Who is a Jew?" really depends on which sect/denomination of Jews you talk to... I have young cousins who have a (nominally) Christian mother and a Jewish father... the kids have been raised Jewish because the father cared and the mother didn't. Now, there are some sects/denominations of Judaism that do not consider the kids to be "real Jews" at all... others consider them fully Jewish converts ... but in their sect/denomination (I forget which it is) there is no question... they have always been considered Jewish... from birth. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]