Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 February 23

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.

February 23

Mankind given dominion over the world

In the Bible, mankind is allowed to rule over the whole world by God. In which religions do god/gods specifically give mankind dominion over the world? Are any of these religions completely unrelated to Judaism? --98.232.12.250 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not in Buddhism/Hinduism, can't speak for the rest.PiCo (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've only ever seen that phrase written in the Old Testament. Also, bear in mind, many religions don't have gods, in the sense of 'the one and only creator of the world'. I think that only Abrahamic religions only have one god, whilst the rest which have gods generally have a pantheon of gods, all with complex relationships. Buddhism doesn't have any. Many shamanistic and animalistic religions don't have gods, just spirits. The concept of a monotheistic religion with only a single god is, as far as I can recall, purely Abrahamic. As a side note, even the Ancient Greeks knew the concept of infinity, as they have stories about Titans who existed before the Greek pantheon of Gods existed, to (sort of) explain how all these gods turned up (because all the Titans were in never-ending conflict and ended up killing each other). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 20:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean animistic rather than animalistic. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

See Category:Monotheistic_religions. Atenism and Zoroastrianism are of at least comparable age to the Israelite religion, and relegate other spirits to roles comparable to archangels in the Abrahamic religions. Tenrikyo, Cao Đài, Cheondoism, and (debatably) Tengrism postdate Islam, but are not identified as Abrahamic (though Cao Đài was definitely influenced by Christianity). Henotheism and pantheism also blurs boundaries between monotheism and hierarchical polytheism, resulting in some sects of Chinese Heaven worship, Hinduism (especially Vaishnavism), and traditional African religions (particularly worship of Waaq, Olodumare, and Nyame) as being at least complementary to monotheism (again, by framing any other figures in the pantheon as occupying a role comparable to archangels in the Abrahamic religions, or arguing that ancestor spirits simply affirm the immortality of the soul, not polytheism). There were also the Hypsistarians, who (like with the Zoroastrians) scholars aresplit on whether their monotheism was influenced by Judaism, influenced Judaism, or evolved in parallel. Over all, the Roman empire would have become monotheistic thanks to Neoplatonism, the cult of Sol Invictus, and Mithraism; even if Constantine or even Jesus had never been born.

As for other religions holding humanity being in charge of the world, Hermeticism sort of said that, but in a more cosmic sense. How unrelated it is to Judaism is a matter of debate, but most secular scholars I've read tend to favor the idea that Hermeticism influenced Judaism (Kabbalah) and Christianity (Gnosticism), while only occasionally grabbing some names from Judaism just to be trendy (such as incorporating Iao and Pipi into the Greek Magical Papyri, but favoring a more Neoplatonic panentheistic monotheism). Hermeticism saw humanity as the shattered, scattered, and ignorant remains of the nature-creating demiurge, however (though, unlike many forms of Gnosticism, it didn't see the material world as evil so much as a foreign land). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Genesis 1:26 (World English Bible),

God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

—Wavelength (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That "us" thing, which implies "gods" rather than "God", historically has required jumping through some theological hoops to explain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Even though I acknowledge that it was a historical reference to Henotheism, "angels" is still a simple enough resolution. Still, attempts to use the Trinity to explain it while trying to avoid tritheism are not as simple. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Translating אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) in Genesis 1 as "gods", rather than "God" is far more difficult to defend grammatically however, because every time it occurs (31 times in this chapter) it is accompanied by a singular verb. And even comparing verse 26 with the next verse shows that the meaning is singular. - Lindert (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the verse I was referring to. I have another question: in which other religions is mankind specifically said to be in the image of God/gods? Of course anthropomorphic gods are as common as dust, but I'm curious if other religious texts make it as explicit as the Bible. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, make what as explicit as in the Bible? I don't understand this last question. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That humans look like gods, and were made to be that way. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for non-Abrahamic parallels to the Imago Dei, or would you count religions that believe humanity is descended from the gods or patterned after some cosmic man (e.g. Keyumars, Pangu, or Ymir)? Because the Imago Dei concept is firmly rooted in Genesis and would only be found in religions influenced by it. As for the broader scope for examining religions that affirm a divinity-of-humanity, it would probably be easier to list those that reject the idea (and even then, there'd likely be exceptions once the religion got over a certain size). This could also open up opinionated debate on which religions treat people better, something the refdesk is not meant for. Off the top of my head, the Canaanite religion had currents in it that depicted humanity as the undignified slaves of the gods, while some of the Indian religions view humanity as just another consciousness that needs to either be extinguished or reabsorbed into Brahman -- but some forms of the Canaanite religion depicted cities (and so its citizens) as the brides of their patron god, and some Indian religions regard humanity as the minimum form of life capable of achieving enlightenment (and so comparable to the gods in that respect). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Imago Dei is only found in Abrahamic religions? I would have thought that human arrogance and anthropocentrism would make it a recurring theme in many religions, but I guess I'm too cynical. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published an article about images at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002149. According to the first three paragraphs, humans were made to reflect their Creator by their personalities and not by their physical appearance. According to the article about animals at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000281, having dominion over the animals involved responsibility for how they [humans] exercised that stewardship.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Scientists would probably say that microbes actually have dominion over the globe. The writers of the Bible obviously knew nothing about microbes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying the people of North Korea have dominion over their government. They're much more numerous than the government, but they can't act together in a meaningful way. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a valid comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a clear refutation. —Tamfang (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

North Korean politicians and citizens are all the same species. The comparison doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Without microbes, the human body wouldn't work. Nor would any other multicellular life forms which depend on a symbiotic relationship with microbes. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How many copies of 'Revolution' by Russell Brand have been sold worldwide to date?

I can't seem to find any sales figures online, are they usually not public or am I just poor at searching? 88.106.151.77 (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sales figures are often publicized for best seller lists, otherwise often not. Best I could find was these figures from shortly after the book was released [1]. Amazon has some info too, they say it was a "national best seller" and was at one point their number 1 best seller in "political humor" [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hatred against Israel

Why do Palestinians along with Most of the rest of the Middle East hate Israel so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.52 (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's extremely complicated. To begin with not all Palestinians do hate Israel, and of the ones who do many also hate the Palestinian authorities too. Other countries in the Middle East also have quite complicated relationships with Israel, the Israeli government, the Israeli people, and the Jewish Israeli people (all four of those groups are different). But a short and very limited answer would be that the establishment of Israel in the Middle East back in 1948 transplanted a lot of Jews and Europeans into a very Muslim and Arab area, and that has caused tension ever since. Additionally, the manner in which almost every action from 1930 in the Middle East has been done has caused tensions too. Whether one side is to blame or not, and if so which side, is for you to decide for yourself. But suffice to say I'd start with the WP article on Israeli–Palestinian_conflict and then read it and linked articles before you form a concrete judgement. There has been an enormous amount of fault on both sides: some people think one side's actions are justifiable, others think the other side's are, some think neither. As for what we do now to solve it, if you figure that one out you deserve (and will win) a Nobel Peace Prize. 88.106.151.77 (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's only reasonable that a people under a brutal military occupation hate their oppressors. The actual question is why do Israelis hate Palestinians so much. The answer for that begins with many Jewish Israelis believing that their god gave them all of Greater Israel and they are unhappy that those native to the land are still there. This issue for some turned into racist indoctrination, militarism, and jingoism for most. Arab states, and other Palestine supporters around the world, have offered to normalize relations with Israel if only Israel would return her military back to Israel. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, more pragmatically, they're weary of those self-same Palestinians blowing them up. --Jayron32 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Or sending their rockets to land harmlessly in open spaces, as the majority do. But yeah, it's still a bit of an annoyance firing up the jets for the mass revenge killing and demolition, when the very odd rocket does kill an Israeli. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a good thing Hamas has such lousy aim and/or lousy equipment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Good for Israel, yeah. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you read our article on Israeli–Palestinian_conflict? SemanticMantis (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As Israel is one of America's dearest friends, a lot of Anti-Americanism also rubs off of them. Goes way beyond Arabs and Jews. Without that rub, the sentiment would be far more local, and only pop up in relevant online comment boxes. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

State of American academia and universities

So there's this article, which seems to be reliable and comes from a very professional looking site that portrays American universities and academics in a quite negative light. According to the article, these universities are hotbeds for leftist dogma instead of the teaching of facts, and the people who study and teach there are highly dogmatic. Is this article accurate in its portrayal of the state of American academia? Will having courses teach about conservatism really alleviate these issues? 74.14.49.84 (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you hold that American universities are hotbeds for leftist dogma, why would you believe that having courses teach about conservatism would help things? Teaching something from a negative perspective generally won't help its cause, after all. What makes that question come to mind? To your first question, it's well established that American universities are generally left of ordinary Americans, or that ordinary Americans are generally right of American universities, or however you want to put it. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

University students are not stupid. If a professor is slanting his lectures towards one political extreme or the other, the students will quickly become aware of the professor's bias, and take it in stride. Some (the better students) will openly challenge the professor when he/she starts to spout dogma. Others will be less brave, and will pretend to adopt the teacher's bias (in the mistaken idea that doing so will earn them a better grade). But in either case, the students will understand that the professor is biased, and take that bias into account as they learn.

Of course the really good teachers (whatever their politics may be) teach their students how to think for themselves, and actually encourage their students to always question what they are told. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The first thing to note is that the website where this article is posted is that of a journal that is generally right-wing in its stance, and it is clear from an inspection of the list of the journal's contributors that some of them are not thinkers in the mainstream of the evidence-based academic community. Some of the contributors to the journal are from what we might call the "academically respectable" right-wing, but some others fall into the category of "clearly nuts". It's also worth noting that the article's author is certainly from the right-of-centre, but that he appears to adopt stances that are reasonably well grounded in reality. The article itself isn't an academic article, and relies largely on anecdote rather than quantified facts, and should thus be taken as a piece of rhetoric in favour of its author's personal views.

As for your interpretation of the article, it seems to me you have misread it in at least two places. First, the author doesn't suggest that all universities are "hotbeds for leftist dogma", but that some departments within some (perhaps many, though he doesn't really say) universities are largely dominated by a particular kind of thought, which he characterises as a "grievance university, mired in the morass of postmodern obsession with oppression and privilege". Second, the author was not hired to teach "about conservatism" - he is quite explicit about this, and made it a condition of his hiring that he simply taught courses like any other academic - and his article explicitly gives reasons why teaching courses such as "conservative studies" would, in his view, be unwise and counterproductive.

However, with these caveats made, it is possible to make some useful comments. First, it is not difficult to find working papers and professional publications that provide evidence in support of the general contention that academics, as a group, tend to adopt more "left wing" positions than the population at large. (For example, this working paper.) However, I wasn't able to find evidence that corrects these results for raw intelligence/level of education (though this may be available); it may simply be that more intelligent people, or people with more education, tend to adopt more left-wing positions irrespective of whether they are academics or not. I vaguely recall reading research that suggests that the higher the average education in a state, the more likely that state is to vote Democratic in a US presidential election. For example, economic theories suggest that it is certainly the case that several important social goods can best be delivered through a "left wing" solution, and these theories tend to be well-supported by empirical evidence, so a reasonably well-educated economist is likely to appear "left wing" in respect of these issues. I imagine that the same is true in other disciplines. I should say, for clarity, that in this paragraph I have used the phrase "left wing" to refer to what we might call the "academically respectable" left-wing - that is, people who have reached their conclusions on the basis of careful consideration of observable facts and soundly argued theory.

Second, however, is what I believe is the substance of your concern, and indeed the principal concern of the article: what we might call the "modern left wing". The article suggests that this kind of "left wing", described as those "whose main focus is the holy trinity of race, class, and gender, along with their close correlates, post-colonialist, postmodern, and post-structural analysis", and whose principal goals seem to be to enforce a particular set of political positions and require a particular set of personal beliefs from the population (both academic and general), is becoming increasingly dominant in many non-STEM departments in many universities. Your question is whether the article is correct in its assertion. The best answer we have at the moment seems to be "we don't know". I have not been able to find any empirical evidence to support the anecdotal contents of the article. This is not to say that the article is wrong, but just that we don't have evidence one way or the other.

That said, I can give you a couple of observations from my own experience, which is in the UK. I have the strong impression that there are some departments at some universities where free academic discourse must be handled with great care. For example, I am aware of a research project at a leading university in London that was quietly re-purposed when it became clear from preliminary results that members of different ethnic groups seemed to have slightly different language capabilities at a neurological level. It was deemed unwise to present the results without providing a carefully-written "context", so that nobody could take offence. Language, and the ability to avoid upsetting particular interest groups, was important. Contrariwise, I am aware of a UK classicist whose facility with Latin and Greek is, I am told by experts in that area whose opinion I trust, noticeably poorer than might be expected, but who has nevertheless built a career for herself by concentrating on "classical studies" with a particular emphasis on the position of women and other politically disadvantaged groups in the classical era. She has, I suppose, the ability to say the "right" thing. These are, if you like, anecdotes that convey a general impression of what can and cannot be said, and who does well in such an environment. That said, I should stress that "grievance academics" are much less common in the UK than they seem to be in the US. All of this paragraph, though, is just anecdote. The truth is that we don't yet have real evidence one way or the other.

Returning finally to your last question, the article itself argues against the teaching of "conservative studies", taking the view that conservatism "is a point of view or disposition that informs nearly all the traditional disciplines". That is, it's a way of thinking, and not a subject in itself. This is not to say that particular "conservative" doctrines can't be studied. For example, some academics study the sociological aspects of heterodox economics - why, for example, do certain kinds of people subscribe to Marxian economics, Georgism or the Austrian school, even in the face of good evidence against these approaches? These studies, however, fall into the normal realm of academic research, and thus don't meet the requirements of an unbiased taught course on "conservative studies".

My apologies for the long response. I think the short answer to your underlying question, though, is probably "we don't know whether the article is accurate, because it cites anecdotes rather than data, and we don't yet have enough real data". RomanSpa (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Since educational generally pays less than other business opportunities available to someone with that background, yet has the potential to do more societal good, academia often attracts more altruistic individuals. You can judge for yourself whether such people are more likely to be liberal or conservative.

As for a correlation in lack of education and conservatism, the cause and effect might be reversed. That is, once conservatives get control over the school curriculum, they set about dismantling anything that might cause one to question a literal interpretation of the Bible. Evolution has to go, of course, but all science is a threat, since geology can teach that some rocks are billions of years old, astronomy and physics that the stars and subatomic particles are, biology can teach that dinosaurs once existed millions of years ago, anthropology teaches that Neanderthals and other hominids once existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

At least one scientist has claimed that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives [3]. So that might explain why many academics tend to be liberal. WP:OR I've spent almost 20 years in academia, never once met a dogmatic professor, conservative or liberal. Dogma is pretty much the antithesis of academics, so we tend to not promote people who rely on dogma. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a good point. In what I said earlier, I was using the phrase "academically respectable" as more-or-less a synonym for "undogmatic". In most areas of economics (and, I suppose, many other areas of the humanities) there are legitimate ranges of interpretation for many topics, and this is reflected in the positions that people adopt. For example, there is a legitimate debate on how all sorts of things should be paid for, with some people adopting positions that we might call "left wing" and others being more "right wing". The "academically respectable" person, whether left wing or right wing, should be able to change his mind if new evidence is introduced into the debate. (I should say that I personally hate it when someone forces me to move to a new position; my tactic is generally to change the subject to something else for several days, then quietly take up the new position when I think nobody's watching, possibly with a brief sentence along the lines of "however, bearing in mind X's results, we may also wish to consider...".) RomanSpa (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In the US in particular, there is a certain anti-intellectualism en-vogue with conservatives, partially because modern science does not agree with religious views (see creationism) or economic/ecological wishful thinking (see climate change), and partially because cultural icons are being challenged in academia (see Jefferson–Hemings controversy or even IAU definition of planet). Not all of this is a necessary alignment, but it is the current situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. We have an article on Anti-intellectualism that has some good info and refs, though it is currently lacking a section on 21st century USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is a number of things to note about this article. It's clearly written from a humanities perspective. In proper research and teaching (the sciences), politics is largely irrelevant at the university level (politically motivated government spendings decision are very different of course). Secondly, of course (and as mentioned above), demographical difference to the general population make a massive difference. Amongst the students, average age is going to be lower, and it's well known that the politics move right with age on average. Further demographical difference, amongst both the students and staff, you would expect a higher than average intelligence (well, in the sciences at least), so it's entirely logical that they are more left-wing than the general population. All things to take into account! The exact same things are seen here in the UK and on the wider continent. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Conservatism, but its very definition, is the political stance that seeks to maintain existing cultural, social, and political structures as status quo. Academia, by definition, is the pursuit of new knowledge. Insofar as new knowledge --> new understandings --> new paradigms --> new ways to deal with the world, there's a natural tension between conservatism and academia for that very reason. Academia which says "We've looked at things in deep detail, and everything you already know about the world is exactly what we've already thought", and which does that forever, is not very realistic. Which is not to say that academics cannot be politically conservative, or deeply religious, or anything else, for that matter. But the tension between a philosophy of perpetual status quo and the pursuit of change has some natural tensions... --Jayron32 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a very good point, I feel. To be a conservative is to always be on the losing side. None of what we would regard as the major positive social changes in our society over the past hundred years has been a conservative cause. Conservatives always lose: extension of the franchise to non-property owners, votes for women, improved civil rights for people who aren't white, letting women have control over their own bodies, the elimination of the death penalty (at least in Europe, if not yet in the US), and improved rights for lesbians and gay men - all were opposed by conservatives. I can understand that this must be very uncomfortable for conservatives, particularly in times of economic stress when it's convenient to find some group of people to blame for their discomfort. I don't think you can be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and an academic, because the academic mind has to be open to change. RomanSpa (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There's no inherent contradiction between political conservatism and academia, only a tension. It isn't as though political conservatives have to be "wrong" or on the "losing side". The one does not cause the other like hitting a baseball causes it to fly in a specific direction and speed. It's merely something we need to be cognizant of when looking at the situation. --Jayron32 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We may be using the word "conservative" in different ways. In my comment I meant it in the sense of "being unwilling to change under any circumstances" - this is why I added the qualifying "dyed-in-the-wool". This is dogmatism, and I feel is entirely incompatible with the necessary flexibility required in academia. RomanSpa (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

All this, however, is light years away from the positions adopted by the "grievance politics" of some of the academics in the article we're discussing. This kind of "modern left wing" approach seems to me to be as uninterested in evidence as any conservative. I have from time to time been in meetings with third wave feminists, for example, and the predominant impression I've had is that they're more interested in policing thought than advancing it, and in attacking (white heterosexual) males than advancing women. As an outsider, some of what I've seen has looked to me very much like bullying, and I think the article is largely concerned with developments of this kind on US campuses. RomanSpa (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We should also be careful about the etymological fallacy, not all "conservatives" are explicitly about maintaining the status quo, and we have social conservatism as well as Fiscal_conservatism as fairly distinct concepts. The latter, IMO is alive and well when the deans meet with the provosts... and that also explains why most universities in the USA have many more classes taught by adjuncts than they did 20 years ago. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The author's opinion is not entirely negative. I think this quote is representative of his opinion:

Gradually coming into focus is the plain fact that today we have two universities — the traditional university, which, while mostly left-liberal, still resides on Planet Earth, and the grievance university, mired in the morass of postmodern obsession with oppression and privilege. You can still get a decent education, even from very liberal professors — I had several excellent ones as both an undergraduate and a graduate student — if they teach the subject matter reasonably, and I came to respect several far-left professors at Boulder who plainly held to traditional views about the importance of reason, objectivity, and truth. But these traditional hallmarks of the university — one might call them the original holy trinity of higher education — are fighting words to the postmodern Left, which openly rejects reason, objectivity, and truth as tools of oppression.

In other words, there is one faction of the university that he respects, even if it is mostly left-liberal. There's another faction (which he seems to see as a loud and aggressive minority) that he doesn't. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This has a bit of the "some of my best friends are [black/gay/jews/muslims/atheists]" trope, though... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Back when I was at University, I had a elderly professor who commented that when he first started teaching (in the 1950s), he had a reputation for being very liberal. Then, came the 1960s and suddenly he was accused of being a conservative reactionary. By the 80's (when I knew him) he was pleased to note that he was considered liberal again... and what he found particularly amusing was that his views had not really changed all that much over the years. It was the student's attitudes towards his views that had determined how he was viewed. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Rafael Trujillo

When Rafael Trujillo was in power, how long was a presidential term in the Dominican Republic, and were there ever any term limits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:18BC:9212:6F41:596F (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to this, he refused to run in 1938, citing American two term practice, rather than any written law. When Roosevelt took a third term, Trujillo again decided to follow suit. A term was four years. Not sure if that was codified in Trujillo's day or if it was also just because America did it that way.

Now, at least according to List of Presidents of the Dominican Republic, they go four years, max two terms. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-involvement in marriage

Lately, I've been seeing people offer as a third option in the marriage debate that we should "get the government out of marriage". What exactly is meant by this because it makes no sense, conceptually or grammatically to me. — Melab±1 ☎ 21:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is the religious marriage and also the legal one. Historically, these have been the same thing. However, it doesn't have to be that way. You could have religious marriage(s) to whomever or whatever you want, so long as your priest, imam, rabbi or witch doctor agreed, while a legal marriage, perhaps called a "civil union", could be arranged by sending in a form to the government. Only the legal marriage would count for tax purposes, adoption, the "can't testify against your spouse" law, etc. This would finally separate the state and church in regards to marriage, and each could then define their own rules for it, without stepping on each other's toes. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It basically means that the government should not give benefits to married couples or make any distinction in the law between married and unmarried persons/couples. The idea is that marriage is purely a private thing, something that the government should not be involved with (e.g. by granting marriage licenses). - Lindert (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Similar to what StuRat said, another proposal is that the government could recognize some form of households but not concern itself in any way with the makeup of those households. Side remark: for years, these proposals came almost entirely from social radicals generally opposed to the institution of marriage. Once many governments began to recognize same-sex marriages, the same proposal of getting the state out of the marriage business was suddenly coming from the opposite side of the political spectrum. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

But as far as I know that comes from the kind of conservatism that says "Don't let the government change what I'm used to, including any governmental favoritism from which I benefit." —Tamfang (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's useful to understand why churches got into the marriage business in the first place. In earlier times, marriage, at least where one or both parties came from families with some wealth (however little) was to some extent a business deal. The historical use of the phrase "to contract a marriage" makes this very obvious. Marriage contracts were recorded by churches because the clergy had a long-standing historical role as witnesses to political, social and business contracts of all kinds (for example, the Magna Carta was witnessed by two archbishops, ten bishops and twenty abbots), and because in pre-medieval times in most places the only person who could read and write was the local clergyman. The church's official position for a long time was that celibacy was preferable to marriage, but when the church was intertwined with the state the church inevitably got involved in writing and witnessing all kinds of contracts. This was so institutionalised that scriveners in England were even authorised by the Archbishop of Canterbury as "minor clergy" in 1392. Inevitably, this led to the church eventually taking the view that marriage was a contract that could only be entered into in church.

You can't get government out of the marriage business, since marriages are still contracts, and these contracts must from time to time be enforced or (more commonly these days) arbitrated through the courts. In the past, churches got into the marriage business because the government needed people who could read and write contracts. Now that churches no longer have a monopoly on literacy, it seems reasonable to get churches out of the civil marriage business. You can't get government out of the civil marriage business, though, because there will always be civil contracts between people. Christians who want to "get government out of the marriage business" really mean they want to "get government out of the same-sex marriage business" - they still want to be able to use the government to enforce "opposite-sex marriage". RomanSpa (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In some countries, only "civil ceremonies" are valid (e.g. Mexico). Churches were big into ceremonies as a result of the Catholic definition of the Sacraments. Any ceremony officiated over by a Catholic cleric which is not in accord with theology is not only invalid, but a major sin (likely true of some other groups as well). There is no way to overcome the difference between "Sacramental Matrimony" and any civil ceremony to that Church. The support for "civil partnership" is large, but no courts have sought that solution, so who knows what will happen in the next fifty years - we has alcohol Prohibition, then repeal, Marijuana prohibition, then relaxation of the laws, and unlimited consumption of sugar and tobacco which some would not restrict (Prohibition of tobacco, anyone?) Society has never been truly static, I think. Collect (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• The libertarian stance against legally institutionalized marriage is that government should not be telling third parties how to treat a couple/family or preventing things like multiple-partner marriages. If you don't want to rent to a mixed-marriage couple, that should be your right as a bigot. If you don't want to insure your employee's four wives and 32 children, you shouldn't be forced to do so by law. The issues that come up with getting rid of marriage are next of kin rights, such as visitation rights, end-of-life decisions, and inheritance. Another issue is common-law marriage. In places where that still applies, an officially unwed couple living together may have children, or the woman may become pregnant. Where common-law marriage applies, the man has no right to throw the woman out on the street, and the children are considered his legitimate heirs with the right to child support. There's also the issue of bigamy, which is fraud, in essence. A search of the Ludwig von Mises Institute's mises.org site will give plenty of material. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What's to be done about government employees who refuse to issue marriage licenses? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure if you are addressing me. The libertarian solution would be to issue civil union, next of kin or adoption documents, and to fire those civil servants who would not issue them. It's all an open question, especially when a white lesbian couple sues because the child they "conceive" is black. In reality, the child has a black father. In fantasy land, the child has two white mothers. The victim is the child who, according to court papers, is an embarrassment to the legal guardians who had him created. In that case, a return to common law marriage (you father him, you support him) would be a logical resolution, but not necessarily one a certain political faction would welcome. The ultimate issue is that children are humans with rights, not their "parents'" fashion accessories. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Separating legal and religious marriage could make people of many political leanings happy:

1) Liberals would like that gay marriage could now be legalized (that would be a legal marriage, and perhaps a religious marriage, too, if they can find the right religion).

2) Conservatives would like that their church could then ban gay marriage, interracial marriage, and whatever else they felt like.

3) Ultra-conservatives, like some sects of Mormons, would love to be able to legally have plural marriages (although the nation might not recognize them, but at least it wouldn't toss them in jail). StuRat (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If the Supreme Court decides to make same-sex marriage the law of the land, it might open the door to legalizing polygamy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha, considering the polygamy situation in progressive states, I really don't think you have to worry about polygamy happening anytime soon in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.123.188 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't rule it out. In the year 2000 or so, if you had said that by 2015 same-sex marriage would be valid in a majority of US states, what percentage would have believed it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that the US never progresses, just that the US government has never been a leader in social issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.123.188 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ông Địa

Ông Địa

Does anyone know a Chinese term for this figure in the East Asian lion dance? The Vietnamese call him Ông Địa.

Our article on the Lion dance suggests it is a Vietnamese cultural addition to the broader tradition of the lion dance. Could it be that the figure doesn't traditionally appear in the Chinese version? If it did appear, they might use the "traditional" Vietnamese name? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good question. The people who do the lion dancing here in Seattle are associated with a martial arts group (Mak Fai Kung Fu Club) that I presume is Chinese in origin, and lion dancing here goes back far enough that our older pictures of it are public domain from pre-1923 publication, but there is enough cross-cultural interaction in the A.P.I. community here that such an adaptation would be possible. - Jmabel | Talk 22:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And did that character feature in those pre-1923 lion dances or is he a relatively new addition to the Seattle scene? St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the old stuff, hard to know because there are only a very few pictures. I'd suspect a later addition, and it could well be from the Vietnamese (in which case it wouldn't just be post-1923 but almost certainly post-1970). I'm hoping someone might weigh in here who actually knows. I wasn't planning on doing a research project just to describe my photo accurately, but it wouldn't be unprecedented if I have to. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This paper contains the following sentence: "the concept ‘Ông Địa’ is truly culture-specific. It is a famous and unique character in Vietnamese water puppetry and cannot be found in any other cultures."--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Huh. So it must be a recent appropriation. - Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)