Humanities desk
< June 3	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 5 >

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.

June 4

Family Tree of Abrahamic Religions

I'm trying to find a flow chart/family tree style graphic of all of the branches of the Abrahamic religions and which denominations spawned which others. I guess Judaism is the oldest ancestor and the countless Protestant denominations are the youngest but I'd like to see graphically which sects begot which. Ig a graphic doesn't exist, some sort of text database would be fine. Making a graphic seems like a fun project. 99.42.165.162 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'í is always an interesting one to try to fit in, since it was influenced by both Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How detailed of a chart are you seeking? Bear in mind that the Protestant denominations really are countless — for example, File:Presbyterian Family Connections.jpg provides information only about the larger Presbyterian denominations in the USA, totally ignoring micro-Presbyterians and non-American denominations, and Presbyterianism is just a fragment of Protestant Christianity. Plus, you may have to deal with the innumerable non-denominational churches, each of which is functionally its own denomination. Judaism and Islam are likely to be simpler, as in many cases they don't have the firm boundaries characteristic of Protestant groups. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually, the view's changing somewhat among academics. Rabbinical Judaism is a post-temple religion. While it has roots in the temple-era Israelite religion (that also happened to be called Judaism), and have the most right to claim to being closest to the temple-era Israelite religion than any other religion, not having a temple makes Rabbinical Judaism a distinct phase. Then there's some consideration that as Rabbinical Judaism can be seen as a post-temple development of Phariseeism while Christianity was just the most successful of the various messianic semi-Hellenistic quasi-Essene, partly Zealous movements that were popping up. In effect, Christianity and Judaism are developments of earlier splits in an older religion (see Split of early Christianity and Judaism), rather than Christianity being a branch of the religion we now know as Judaism.

Samaritanism would just be it's own line, so far as I can tell, though it'd always be located next to Judaism on the chart (if with a much thinner line over time). Judaism includes Rabbinical and Karaite Judaism, the latter sometimes claiming or claimed to have descent from the Sadducees. Probably the oldest group of Rabbinical Judaism would be Orthodox Judaism, with Reform Judaism and then Conservative Judaism popping up during the 19th century; Reform generally saying that the Law changes with history, Conservative half-way agreeing on the condition that things shouldn't be changed unless necessary.

We do have a graphic depicting the different Christian denominations. From there, it's a matter of looking at a specific denomination and trying to work backwards.

Santería, Spiritual Baptists, and other Afro-American religions would start appearing Colonial era and into the modern era as a number of mergers between Christianity, different African religions, and reforms of both. The Rastafari movement would branch off from Christianity in the 1930s.

In the later 20th century, we get a variety of Asian new religious movements adopting varying amounts of Christianity, such as the Unification Church. We also have The Process Church of The Final Judgment resulting from a combination of Christianity and Scientology. Scientology is in no way an Abrahamic religion, but its founder L. Ron Hubbard was taught by Aleister Crowley. Crowley's religion Thelema usually isn't included in the Abrahamic religions despite admitted influence, inversion, and adaption of a lot of ideas from the Abrahamic religions, because (like theosophists before him), they tried to combine every religion.

Islam raises all kinds of issues. Some western scholars would want it branching off of both Judaism and Christianity with some outside influence, or even just branching off Christianity, while on the other end some devout Muslims would argue that Judaism and Christianity should be branching off from Islam. Generally, though, it's almost entirely uncontroversial to say that the form of Islam as is known today as revealed by Muhammad dates to the 7th century. Within Islam, the split between Sunni and Shia happens pretty quickly after Muhammad's death, with different non-competing schools appearing within the next couple of centuries in both groups.

Druze and Bábism would branch off from Islam in the 11th and 19th centuries (respectively), and the Bahá'í Faith from Bábism in the 19th century as well. If we include Black Islam on the chart (which we'd kind of have to) in the 20th century, we'd have to include the Moorish Science Temple of America (which split from Christianity as much as Islam, and which Black Islam split from) and probably the Nuwaubian Nation (which combines elements of Black Islam and Moorish Science).

The Mandeans and Yazidis present some serious problems with a chart. There's evidence that they were influenced by Christianity (and in the Yazidi's case, Islam as well), but that they hold older beliefs too (way, way, older, the Sumerian Dingir sign is featured in some depictions of Melek Taus).

Then there's the issue of whether or not to include Sikhism, which resulted from Islam sitting on top of Hinduism for a few centuries. It's the result of a merging branch of Islam and Hinduism to the early 16th century. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be interested in this project. Going back earlier than what Ian.thomson has covered, you would eventually reach a branching point between Temple Judaism and Samaritanism some time in the second millennium BC - although the split was really finalised by the fall of the kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians. Before that, we get into the murky region of the relation between the early Hebrew religion and Canaanite polytheism. Inscriptions to 'El Elyon' (God Most High) have been found at Canaanite sites. In scriptural terms, this corresponds to the story of Abraham - abandoning his family's idol worship and eventually going to Salem to meet Melchizedek, priest of El Elyon. But it's hard to say how much, if any, of that is literally true. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an incredibly detailed attempt for all world religions. Don't know the accuracy but I am blown away by the effort. The Abrahamic religions take up the right-hand two-thirds of the tree. 142.150.38.155 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears mostly accurate, although it neglects a lot of overlap and makes a few mistakes. Kabbalah isn't exactly it's own denomination, and Sephardic and Haredi Judaism have elements that amount to "everyday Kabbalah for the masses.". It makes a ton of mistakes with the Hermeticism branch. Rosicrucianism started off as what we'd now call "fan fiction," and was deeply Protestant in its outlook. It influenced a lot of Freemasonry but Masonry isn't exactly a religion. There are a lot of religious or quasi-religious groups claiming Rosicrucian descent, but many of these groups also claim stuff like "Freemasonry started in Atlantis!" It almost doesn't seem to show Bahai as branching off from Babism. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly what I had in mind. It has a few problems: it appears to treat Confucianism as an offshoot of Shinto, although that's poor design, not the intention; it shows Shaivism and Zoroastrianism as offshoots of the ancient Brahmanic tradition, whereas scholars believe Shaivism may well have pre-existed in India before the Aryan invasion, and the links between Zoroastrianism and other early Aryan religions are obscure; it treats Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry as a direct extension of Hermeticism; and it's shaky on Unitarianism, which it treats as initially Universalist, and a revival of Arianism (note spelling). It also conceptually conflates Roman Catholic monastic orders with denominations. It's very confused on Anglicanism, showing 'Anglicanism' and 'Church of England' as two different branches after Henry VIII's reform, and a distinct proto-Methodist branch going off at the same spot. Further, it shows Mormonism diverging from later Methodism, when Mormonism in fact has its roots in the Restorationist movement and the Second Great Awakening. I also looked for Rastafarianism and couldn't find it. (I'd put it as an offshoot of Black Evangelical churches, with a dotted line from Ethiopian Orthodoxy, myself.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

whose ablli occupied, were ous positions of life

What does the bolded words even mean? I found the news obituary | here

Judge Kapena, the last rites to whose
memory, have just been performed, was a
man whose character stood unblemished in
this nation, and whose ablli occupied, were
ous positions of life, by him and social relati-
conspicious. In his official ties, in the vari-
tion he was admired and beloved by the
Hawaiian people. and his good name will
be cherished not only by his family, but by
a large circle of friends.

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text has got a bit garbled, and in particular some lines have been transposed (you've omitted a line in your transcript): "abili" [sic] should be joined to "ties" to make "abilities", and "vari-" to "ous". I can't make a completely coherent paragraph out of it, though, so some words may also have been lost. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, are you aware that your user page says you're retired from Wikipedia? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's editing in his free time, but now simply on an unpaid volunteer basis, unlike the rest of us active editors, who get ... paid ... handsomely .... trails off ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, my income here in dollars is always enough to go round ... IBE (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I've changed it to look like the original newspaper if anyone else is able to make sense of it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got it. It appears as if the ur-text was

this nation, and whose abili	ties, in the vari-
ous positions of life, by him	occupied, were
conspicuous. In his official	and social rela-

and the right part of these three lines somehow rotated up one step:

this nation, and whose abili	occupied, were
ous positions of life, by him	and social rela-
conspicuous. In his official	ties, in the vari-

(The commata after memory and life are better omitted.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speech from the throne

The Queen's speech has some rather unusual traditions, i.e. the searching of the cellars for gunpowder and the idea of the hostage MP. Is there any protocol for if gunpowder is found, or if somebody were to kill off the queen during her time in parliament? What would happen to the hostage MP then? --Andrew 09:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ritual of searching for gunpowder dates to the time of the gunpowder plot; and the tradition is today just that: A tradition devoid of practical purpose that exists for purely symbolic reasons. Not unlike many such traditions in many places around the world. --Jayron32 10:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that but there's always a possibility, however remote, that they might one day find some. Just wondered if they had a plan --Andrew 10:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases, the Serjeant at Arms and Black Rod, who are the security chiefs for the respective houses, would call off the ritual and work with the mainstream security services to control the situation just as if such a crisis had arisen elsewhere. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After years of terrorism associated with The Troubles and more recent Islamist threats, I imagine that the Palace of Westminster is one of the most secure buildings on earth. The primary protection of the building rests with the Metropolitan Police who have their own Explosive Ordinance Disposal Unit. I would imagine (they don't publicise their actual operations) that every part of the building has been searched by trained personnel with sniffer dogs and electronic detectors and that the old gheezers with lamps are purely ceremonial. The BBC say "Today, officers from the Metropolitan police join the Yeomen in their search." [1] Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't familiar with the tradition of the hostage MP. Our article doesn't say much about it. When and how did the tradition originate?

In the event of an actual attack of some kind, I assume that it would have nothing to do with the hostage MP and that he or she would simply be released. At this point in history, it isn't even the token that the search for gunpowder is.

I am reminded of the American tradition of keeping one of the members of the Cabinet away from a State of the Union speech. In case of a devastating attack on the Capitol, that Cabinet member would then become acting President. Usually it's one of the less important Cabinet posts, leading to the possibility that, say, the Secretary of Urban Development could suddenly become acting President. John M Baker (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that it is nothing to do with that, although I have had a great deal of difficulty in finding any information at all about the "hostage". It is generally an MP who holds the post of Vice-Chamberlain of the Household that is sent to the palace. Our article on that post says in rather curious English: "Continuing a custom from the sentiments of the 1660s of the English Restoration with Royal suspicion of the holders before, who helped to execute Charles I the duty to stay (officially "be held captive") at Buckingham Palace when the Sovereign drives in procession to Westminster for the State opening of Parliament". This makes sense as the parliament that invited Charles II back from Holland contained several MPs who had been involved in the arrest, trial and execution of his father, Charles I. I expect the new king was keen to have insurance against any repetition. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French Polynesia

Why did the French historically administered French Polynesia as a single body instead of smaller groups like Marquesas Islands, Society Islands, Gambier Islands, Austral Islands, Tuamotu? Each island groups had its own distinct history and traditions and were separate pretty far from each other.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See colonialism. It's pretty much how every European country has administered every colony it ran during the 19th century. Look at the Scramble for Africa for some comparisons. Do you think that a polity like French West Africa was created with even the slightest care for existing history and traditions? Even modern states created out of these colonies had their borders drawn with no real care for local cultural realities; which is why we have such major issues of sectarian and ethnic violence in such places. --Jayron32 10:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one potential cause of violence, but it's a myth to think that if only the borders were drawn in the right place, there would be peace. For one thing, the sectarian and ethnic groups overlap, so 100% separation is impossible, but even if you could completely separate them, this would not guarantee peace. Japan, for example, is rather monolithic in religion and ethnicity, yet that didn't prevent them from invading all their neighbors in WW2. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japan was not colonized by Europe. They rather famously put a stop to all that in the 1600s. And part of the problem with the artificial way that states were laid out in colonized lands like Africa is that it subverted the natural process by which nation states develop. Which is not to say that that process is peaceful. In Europe, the process took from about 1000 to 1945 to work itself out, and featured centuries of horrific ethnic and sectarian wars, genocides, and constantly shifting political landscape. Africa went through none of that necessary process on its own, and as a result, the states of Africa have not necessarily developed on cohesive cultural-ethnic lines as in Europe. --Jayron32 14:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that Japan had been colonized. I just used them as an example of how a monolithic population does not always mean a peaceful one. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Ethiopia is just about the only country approximating a nation state in the whole of Africa, but even they had a civil war which resulted in a split when Eritrea was formed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does South Africa not look like a nation state to you? Or Egypt? What do you mean here? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means it in a technical sense, where ethnic nationality boundaries more or less correspond to state borders (surprisingly rare in Africa). South Africa has many ethnic nationalities. Egypt is predominantly Arab, but most Arabs live outside Egypt. Ethiopia contains a number of ethnic nationalities, but it has a strong Amhara-Christian core with a distinctive identity dating from before the colonialist period. Ironically, one of the best fits of ethnicity to state boundaries in Africa is the case of Somalia... AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is to be made between nations, states, and nation-states. A nation is probably best defined as a group of people who share a common linguistic, cultural, and social heritage. A Sovereign state is probably best understood as a patch of land unambiguously controlled by a government which has supreme control over said patch of land (i.e. they have no higher authority they answer to). Not all nations are states, and not all sovereign states are nations. A "nation state" exists where the two concepts overlap to a significant degree. There are nations without states of their own (the Basque, the Romani, the Kurds). There are states that have little to no connection to historical cultural differences (much of Africa, as already noted) Of course, a perfect "one to one" correspondence of nation-to-state exists nowhere in the world, but nation states are those polities that, to some arbitrary level, come the closest to such a correspondence. The process of nation-state formation is long, arduous, and complex and arises from centuries of processes of both assimilation (the loss of a formerly independent culture to the dominant culture) and population migration (the movement of peoples from an area where they are oppressed to one where they are accepted). The process in Europe really only reached its completion during the 20th century (arguably as late as the 1990s after the breakup of Yugoslavia) and in some ways is still going on (see Ukraine-Russia issues today). Perhaps its a bit Eurocentric to state it, but ultimately the process moved along quicker in Europe than in other places, allowing European culture to either obliterate local culture after it arrived (the Americas, esp. North America) or to short-circuit the nation-state formation process before it reached its natural conclusion (Africa and parts of Asia). There's lots of theories as to why Europe was in such a position to do these things (Guns, Germs, and Steel is perhaps the best known) but ultimately there's an argument to be made that had Europe not interfered in these places via colonialism, they would have (albeit later) gone through the same (bloody, violent) evolution as Europe itself did, and eventually arrived at more natural nation-states than exist today, and while the growing pains would have been as bad as they were in Europe, the end result would have been a more peaceful world... --Jayron32 02:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar but worth a correction, I believe. "Egypt is predominantly Arab" – I think not. Versions of Arabic may now be the dominant language(s), but ethnically speaking Egyptians have always been quite distinct from Arabs, who originate in Saudi Arabia and who are present but a minority in Egypt. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of liquor companies during prohibition in the US

What happened to the existing companies, farms, factories, etc. involved in the production, distribution and marketing of alcoholic beverages which were suddenly shut down when prohibition was enforced? A huge amount of capital property, infrastructure, and equipment became worthless overnight and a large number of people lost their jobs too. Has anyone done an analysis of the socio-economic impact of the abrupt closure of the entire industry? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

1) There were exceptions to prohibition, so some were allowed to keep up their old practices. Others just violated the law.

2) At the farming end, most of the crops used to produce alcohol, like barley, can also be used for other purposes, such as bread. So, it could be grown for that purpose, instead. If that resulted in a glut of those crops for non-alcoholic purposes, then they could switch over to another crop.

3) Some of the distilleries and distribution systems were repurposed for other uses, such as Stroh's Ice Cream. Soft drinks were a more obvious choice for many others. StuRat (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a systematic survey, by any means, but see mentalfloss.com/article/55157/how-breweries-kept-busy-during-prohibition. 'Worthless overnight' isn't by any means correct. Anheuser-Busch used their fleet of refrigerated trucks to enter the ice cream business. Coors' glassworks (originally dedicated to beer bottles) moved into home and military ceramics. Pabst and others sold dry, non-alcoholic malt extract as a 'cooking product' for home-baked bread—with the winking knowledge that it would be used to make (still-illegal, but much more easily concealed) home-brew beer. A number of breweries moved into the commercial production of dyes; there are many industrial chemical processes that require large vats, temperature control, and lots of liquid handling.

Meanwhile, crops used as feedstock for breweries and distilleries could be redirected to other food and beverage applications. Land could be replanted with different crops the following season. Don't get me wrong, there was certainly a major socioeconomic dislocation—but one shouldn't jump to the assumption that all of the infrastructure, real estate, and job skills were rendered completely useless. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As well, six distilleries were able to keep their doors open under the "medicinal" exception: as whiskey was typically seen as not only an enjoyable beverage but also a drug or tonic, it was legal to buy even during Prohibition with a doctor's prescription, at a rate of one pint every ten days. Those distilleries also wound up buying up other distilleries' existing stock for rebottling under their own labels - enabling the original producers to save up for the day of repeal they hoped would come soon. And the increased popularity of hard liquor (due to its bigger punch, and greater ease of smuggling compared to wine and beer), and people's willingness to ignore the law (due to its idiocy and its "affront to the whole history of mankind" - W. Churchill) meant that anyone with previous distilling experience would be able to make a living - whether in the hills or in the basement - even if the previously extant commercial infrastructure was repurposed or destroyed. Albeit an illegal and dangerous living. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 15:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "clean little secret" of Prohibition is that most people were inclined to obey the law even if they didn't like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting off topic, but worth pointing out: it's safe to say a lot of that obedience depended on who you were. According to our article, enforcement fell disproportionately on the lower classes (sounds familiar). An ordinary family getting caught with a bottle would be in trouble; but one bootlegger claimed to supply a majority of the United States Congress with illegal alcohol, and corruption of law enforcement officers was rampant (a state of affairs impossible without money changing hands). The speakeasy wouldn't have the semi-glamorous reputation it has today without a marked degree of patronage by the relatively well-off. It's clear that someone who stands to lose more (rather, lose anything at all by way of not having spare cash to bribe an officer) is going to be more likely to obey even the worst laws. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Print referencing for a London business, circa 1801-1810.

Does somebody have access to a London business directory? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Didier and Tebbett needs some references, and the best would be to use a London business directory circa 1801. According to the draft, "Peter Didier and William Tebbett operated children's book and board game shop Juvenile Repository of English, French, and Italian books and Repository of Instructive Games, 75 St. James's Street, Pall Mall, London." That seems correct based on Project Gutenberg frontspieces, but we could use a good source or two. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 1803 Kent’s Directory appears to be on google books: [2] but I don’t see either name. My library has an 1816 Kent’s, nothing in there either. You could try asking at WP:RX as well as here.142.150.38.155 (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A dichotomy in basic attitudes about laws and legality

I vaguely remember reading something many years ago that broadly/roughly explained a difference in mindset or attitudes about legality between "pioneer" versus "settled" cultures.

The concept (as I remember it) is that "pioneer" cultures tend to regard an activity or thing to be acceptable unless it is explicitly prohibited wheras "settled" cultures tend to presume that the same or similar thing or activity is not acceptable unless it is explicitly permitted by law, rule or regulation. It broadly explains things such as difference in gun ownership between Europe and America and even some of the differences between Democrats and Republicans or East coast US (original 13 states) versus the rest of the country (Wild West).

Has anyone else heard of this concept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it argued, but it isn't true. The 'permissive' construction of the law - usually common in common law jurisdictions - certainly applies here in the UK, where we've had more or less continuous government for 1200 years, and we have laws still on the books going back about 800 years. I don't think we can be considered 'pioneer', and we have extensive gun control - but we meticulously legislated it, because the presumption is that people can do as they please - subject to normal common law principles about tort etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The US Bill of Rights, specifically amendments 9 and 10 directly contradict this premise. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood the piece I read it's not about how the law itself is written/formulated, it's how people behave and their attitudes to legal uncertainty. A (rather extreme and stereotypical) example would be the everyday normality of openly carrying firearms anywhere and everywhere in the "Wild West" but at the same time such behavior being frowned upon in the "genteel" East coast cities. The cowboy's attitude is "I can and will do it until someone shows me the law that says I can't" while the gentlemen of Boston and Philadelphia would say "That's just not done, except on a designated shooting range" even though it might not actually be legally forbidden. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

_{I seem to remember the joke: "In US everything is permitted, unless explicitly forbidden, in Germany everything is forbidden unless explicitly permitted, in Italy everything is permitted, even the things that are forbidden, and in Russia everything is forbidden, especially the things that are explicitly permitted".129.178.88.85 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

The US and Germany parts of the above joke encapsulate the concept quite well. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recall much of the source in which you read this purported principle? It seems to be a personal impressionistic finding, or the type of soft/no-proof axiom that gets floated around quite frequently in sociology suggesting fundamental differences between disparate groups. Certainly, I don't see any way this rule of thumb could ever be empirically validated to exist across different cultures; there are just far too many other social factors, which are themselves varied between groups and individuals, which factor into how people view the permissibility of certain acts and the legitimacy of law or other social pressures permitting or disallowing them. I will say though that it's not exactly controversial that the variable degree to which government authority is established and backed-up by institutions such as courts and police will have a direct impact on how likely individuals are to respect and adhere to various principles of law. Whether you parse that as short-term pragmatics which individuals weight in their decisions or something that becomes a part of the local cultural zeitgeist is largely a matter of speculation, but the core idea is not new, going back to the earliest record we have for law in classical culture, for the obvious reason that it seems, intuitively anyway, to be undeniable that people will act in a less restrained manner in the absence of an outside force which looks out for the greater good (a concept labelled "the leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes, but, again, one which has been broadly advocated historically, before and after). Snow talk 23:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014

Some background: So a lot of people in my area are concerned about the Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014 (SB 212). Its a law that just passed in Maryland that grants transgender folks non-discrimination rights. [3] A lot of the conservatives in the area though are pointing to it and calling it the "bathroom bill" and saying that it will allow child predators to use the other gender's bathrooms to prey on children. They have even tried to bring the bill to referendum, unsuccessfully. [4] Now as far as I have been able to see this sort of thing has happened pretty much every time that a bill like this has passed or come up to vote [5] (My research tells me this last source is very partisan and sometimes unreliable because of that bias).

Anyhow, I've read SB 212, and I can't actually find any provision that discusses bathrooms at all. Can anyone point me to a provision in the law that would even make the predatory thing remotely possible? As far as I can see the bill only talks about employement, access to restruants and other public shops, housing, and credit. NOTE: I am not trying to start any sort of war about whether or not this bill should or shouldn't have been passed. I'm just looking for a straight answer or non-discriminatory discussion of the facts. I know this can be a heated subject. Zell Faze (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

None of this answers the OP's specific question. Katie R (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No point looking for reason in reactionary bigotry. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No point at all. When I was 13, I used to travel back home by train each week because we didn't own a car. That never was of no concern for Maryland. --Askedonty (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard procedure for conservatives, bigots and idiots. In my country a conservative politician managed to describe one of our most respected High Court judges, who has been openly gay for decades, as a paedophile. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same. In past generations, that accusation would have been almost certainly accurate. Society was non-permissive and frustrations high in proportion. Those who dared easily tended to proselytism. The different situation in present days may give the impression that those reluctant families and citizens in Maryland are only ^retarded. However safety is a legitimate concern. --Askedonty (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to follow you here; I don't think you're trying to be offensive; but you've used 'retarded' to describe a large number of people, and you've rather implied that you think trans people are a threat to children. Can you clarify, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a better a translation of "idiots". Regarding your other question, I'm only commenting the score ? --Askedonty (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by many of these phrases. For example 'commenting the score'? What score? 'reluctant families and citizens' - reluctant to do what? And what has you taking the train when you were 13 got to do with anything? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to return the compliment; Askedonty (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want you to explain what you mean. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was using "reluctant" as a synonym for "unwilling" (to agree). I'm not taking side that's why I wrote "commenting the score". Regarding the experience of travelling by train, commerce and their hygienic commodities are organized in a rather similar fashion. I thought anyone knew it's an area of possible psychological danger, for children, young adults, etc. --Askedonty (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of your train anecdote is certainly unclear. Are you saying that trains typically have unisex toilets, but that people don't get too concerned about 13 year olds using them? Yes, but such toilets are for one person at a time. The "fears" here concern larger toilet blocks which accommodate several people. Paul B (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One person at a time, yes. Besides everything is oversized, in that narrow space that's why sometimes I'd simply wait until arrival at the train station (not precisely true, I did not choose to wait in fact but there was sometimes a hour or so to spend before the bus there unless it was late and I'd hired a cab, and if it was cold in the hall, duty might have ~~cold~~ called. --Askedonty (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

But my anecdote, anyway was that the problem could having been seen going in there, not being there - although it was smelly, so if Mr Nice guy (potential predator) have any reason to fancy that you are aware of a reputation of yours of being smelly... Even though. But it could be as well, anything else you may be suspect of being suspect of being smelly of. In short, I tend to agree that the objection is rather reasonable if the real problems are not yet identifiable. --Askedonty (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo is mischaracterizing the argument. (That's not to say it's a good argument, but one should at least understand it before attempting to refute it.) The argument is not "transgenders are probably pedophiles"; it's "pedophiles will masquerade as transgender to get into the restroom they want to get into". --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that's the argument. I also think HiLo is onto something in that this is a standard anti-queer dogwhistle - a matter of guilt by association. But as I've said below - the act is drafted in such a way as to preclude casual masquerading. And besides - actually molesting someone is as illegal as ever. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. But this "dogwhistle" argument is dangerous, in general. If you can claim that an argument is "code" for something else, it gets you off the hook from addressing the argument itself. --Trovatore (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, quite. "I think this argument is disreputable" is true, but gets me nowhere. As it happens - as outlined below - the facts are against the objectors. I've limited myself to the facts in the act; actual figures on how much more at risk trans people are themselves of being assaulted, etc, would be persuasive but not definitive here. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The act requires substantial evidence that the gender identity a person espouses is sincerely held, either by living full-time as that identity, or by other means (not specified in the act, but more than trivial). It also allows providers of changing rooms and other facilities where people undress in sight of each other to provide both 'non-trans' and 'trans-inclusive' facilities if it suits them. So I don't think it's going to enable anyone to pose as trans on a casual basis in order to gain the rights outlined in the act for the adopted gender identity, and the only facilities where nudity is an issue have an exemption. So I think the scaremongering is simply false. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read through all of that bill yet, but the way I understand it affects restrooms is that it accepts someone's gender identity as representing their true gender, rather than their assigned sex at birth, basically equating gender identity and sex under the law. Sex-specific facilities are exempted from sex-based discrimination, so men can't use women's facilities and vice-versa, but they are not exampted from gender-identity based discrimination. A trans man's sex is recognized as male for the purposes of this bill, so he can use a men's restroom and may be denied access to a women's restroom. He cannot be denied access to the men's room due to his gender identity. Katie R (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this specific Maryland act, but my understanding about some other jurisdictions with similar laws is that they merely prohibit discrimination. They don't require employers and service providers to treat the transgender person as a member of the sex they identify with, per se. They merely require that the trans individual be treated as an equally entitled human being regarding access to employment, services, venues, facilities, etc. In most areas, the difference is semantic, as laws generally prohibit discrimination between men and women in any case. With rare exceptions, you can't advertise a job "for women only", for example.

The issue you mention only arises in those (relatively few) areas where, even in "modern" society, we accept that men and women are to be segregated, e.g. bathrooms. My understanding of the law is that if a transgender individual asks a publican (for example) to use the pub's bathroom, the publican is perfectly entitled to politely tell the person "please use the mens / womens /disabled cubicle", as the publican considers appropriate in his / her judgement. That would not in itself be discrimination. What would be discrimination is if the publican said "since you're not fully a man or a woman, you can't use the bathrooms at all in this pub, as you'll make patrons uncomfortable whichever gender rooms you use. You'll need to hold onto your bladder until you get home". The same would apply to changing rooms at swimming pools - the pool's managers can tell the person which changing room they want him / her to use, they just can't leave them in a situation where they can't use either changing room. Can anyone either confirm or refute this? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely this situation which the Maryland act aims to address: there's a link at the top of this thread; please go and read it. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the law, there appear to be no references to any requirement that the transgender individual be treated as a member of their "self-identified" gender - the sole exception I can see is that an employer must allow a transgender employee the right to dress in accordance with their self-identified gender. Am I missing something? Would I be correct that a venue owner could still direct a trans individual as to which bathroom or changing room to use (not necessarily their self-identified gender one), as long as the person wasn't ultimately denied the ability to change or empty their bladder somewhere? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The part that makes it tough is 20-303(2), which I certainly would have preferred to see updated to use gender-based language rather than sex-based. The definition of gender identity in 20-101(E) makes it clear that gender identity covers everything normally associated with sex regardless of assigned sex at birth, and I think that given that definition along with the declarations in 20-102(2,3) it could be argued that a transgender person has the right to use facilities that are restricted to their identified gender, as that discrimination does "cause limited or prevented access to basic necessities of life, leading to deprivation and suffering." Katie R (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find this FAQs on Senate Bill 212, which seems to state that currently transgender people use the restroom associated with their gender identity, and that this bill codifies that option as law. They sort of explain it as part of "public accommodation[s]". They say that public accommodations are not bathrooms persay, but rather places like bars, restaurants, etc., but if such a place offers bathrooms that those would be covered as well. This still doesn't quite answer my question satisfactorily I think, but it does help a little bit. Is anyone else here able to expand on that at all and maybe explain why this is the case (or if perhaps everyone seems to be mistaken, if that is the case). I'm not terribly familiar with a lot of civil rights legislation. Hopefully that FAQ can help point someone here who is slightly more knowledgeable than I in the right direction. Also thank you very much @Katie Ryan A: for hat-ing the thread at the beginning. Zell Faze (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The clearest explanation I can think of is that if there is a restroom that is open to women but not to trans women or men but not trans men, then access to it is clearly based on transgender status, and this law makes that discrimination illegal. The only possible problem I can see with that interpretation is section 20-303(2) which I mentioned above, but I think it is clear that the intent of the law is to treat gender identity as sex in that sort of context. I recommend contacting someone at Equality Maryland with your specific concern. They may be able to give you a more informed explanation of things. Katie R (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Japheth at time of death

Does anyone know of a traditional source (possibly apocryphal) that specifies the age of Japheth, son of Noah, at the time of his death? Because the Genesis lineage goes through Shem, Genesis specifies the (legendary) ages of Noah and Shem at the time of their deaths, but not Japheth. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on the conflicting Biblical evidence for the births of Noah's sons is here, but I couldn't find anything about their deaths I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was aware of the inconsistencies involving the respective ages at birth of the sons of Noah. I have gone with the Book of Jubilees in making Japheth six years younger than Shem. Based on that, and using 3761 BC = 1 AM (Jewish chronology), I have Japheth born in 2364 BC. Given Noah's and Shem's lifespans, apparently if you grew up under the "vapor canopy", it rendered you almost immortal even after climate change to modern conditions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The EU

Could the EU make it illegal for the UK to leave the EU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.74.66.93 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless the UK had first allowed it to, which it so far has not. There are no credible proposals that it should. Such a move would only make sense if the EU were to reconstitute itself as a nation, which it really isn't. After all, what sanctions could it levy? A nation which leaves might expect less favourable trade with the EU anyway. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is as yet no precedent for a member nation withdrawing from the EU. In that event, the EU as a Legal personality could sue a defaulting nation to claim compensation for any alleged specific breach of agreement(s). The Court of Justice of the European Union could find in favour of itself(!) which would give the EU executive arm, nominally Commission President Barroso, grounds for enforcing sanctions by all EU nations against the defaulting nation. Nothing more concrete than symbolic economic measures by the EU against the UK are conceivable because of its semi-dominant rôle as a nuclear power in the military alliance NATO to which 22 EU member countries also belong. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the article "Withdrawal from the European Union". Gabbe (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]