Humanities desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

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.

March 11[edit]

Reformation in Islam for women[edit]

What are things in Islam that women want to be reformed? meaning to change? like e.g. role in the mosque? Donmust90 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Islamic feminism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many of the many practices regarding women associated with Islam aren't actually part of Islam, but rather come from cultures which practice Islam. For examples, Islam only states that men and women must dress "modestly", and some cultures concluded from this that women must wear full burqas, others just wear headscarves, and others don't require covering a woman's hair at all. StuRat (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donmust90 -- you seem to have the idea that "reform" will necessarily mean more rights for women, but many of the self-proclaimed reformers or reform movements within Islam during the last 85 years or so have sought to replace customary or "popular" or Sufi-influenced forms of Islam with "back to the origins" or puritanical tendencies, which has resulted in additional restrictions on women (or at a minimum, taking rules which formerly applied mainly to one class of women in a society, and applying them uniformly to women of all classes). This applied in the Hejaz with the Wahhabite conquest of 1932, Zia-ul-Haq's Islamisation in Pakistan, the Iranian revolution, etc. In a number of Arab or Muslim countries, it was observable that when the previously prevailing secular nationalist ideology started to be partially supplanted by Islamism in the late 1970s, social customs became more rigid in some respects. In the United States (until rather recently) a common tendency has been for recent immigrants to come to have more influence over mosque administration than long-term American residents, in which case women have often lost rights in the mosques which they previously possessed. The main formal or organized countertrend is probably Islam hadhari, but that has limited influence in one country only, as far as I can tell... AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Port Hills fires[edit]

While looking to see whether we had an article on the ongoing wildfires in Kansas (examples 1 and 2), I encountered the 2017 Port Hills fires article. The infobox claims that these fires are ongoing, but as the article consists solely of information from mid-February, I question this. Are these fires still ongoing? Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean by ongoing and fires. There is probably still some theoretical risk of flareups, e.g. these from between two weeks to about 1 week ago [1] [2] [3] [4] and make clear hotspots are still being extinguished. The weather has been a lot cooler in recent days and also with some rain but the area hasn't been that affected by the storms which have hit the North Island causing flood etc [5] nor have I heard anything about the fire being finally fully extinguished (and the info in the sources strongly suggest they weren't expect to be extinguished by now) suggesting there are likely still some hotspots. However despite the slight risk of a flareups, most of the restrictions have now been lifted and the risk seems low enough that for a lot of people the focus is on assessing, recovery and rebuilding, not on the risk of fires [6] [7] [8]. Those four days was where most of the damage happened [9] . Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Online Certificate to become an Ordained Minister Online[edit]

Dear all.

I have seen that it is possible to get an online certificate to become an ordained minister. I am a Protestant and was wondering whether it is possible to make a small course to get ordained (you know, some basics in theology and church history etc.). Although I have seen, that there are certifications that you can simply “buy” off the Internet, I was wondering whether or not it is possible to make an actual online course to “earn” such a certificate. Does anyone of you have a tip for me, where I could find such an online certification course?

Thank you for your answers

All the best--2A02:120B:C3FD:6760:C15E:8A5D:3955:6CA8 (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of thing for which you should primarily talk with the leaders of your church. Is your pastor familiar with any such programs, has he heard of anyone whom your denomination has accepted as a minister who took such courses and later was ordained by outsiders, etc.? Of course, if you're in an independent church, your pastor's answer won't be particularly helpful beyond the walls of your own congregation, due to the anarchic nature of non-denominationalism, although I'm not clear how much of an issue that is in Switzerland (I can learn where your IP address originates through WHOIS) as it is here in the USA. Ignoring the ordination side of things, there is plenty of online theological education. Some will not be accredited from a legal perspective, simply because many smaller theological institutions serve their own denominations (or independent congregations) and the reputation of the parent denomination or congregation serves the same purpose for graduates seeking ecclesiastical positions, although the larger seminaries will of course be accredited because they want to serve a broader student body. Here are some examples of accredited seminaries (all USA) of which I'm aware: [10] (Dallas Theological Seminary), fundamentalist; [11] Asbury Theological Seminary, evangelical to fundamentalist; [12], Liberty University Divinity School, fundamentalist; [13], Reformed Theological Seminary, conservative confessional. I checked a lot of the liberal seminaries of which I'm aware, but none of them appeared to have online programs. Of course, if your denomination/independent church is unfamiliar with a seminary (especially an unaccredited seminary), don't take classes from it; the leaders need to know that you're getting an education from an institution theologically compatible with your denomination/independent church's beliefs. A graduate of a conservative confessional seminary, or a graduate of a fundamentalist seminary, may be viewed as a fanatic by a liberal church, while a graduate of a liberal seminary may be viewed as a heretic by a fundamentalist or conservative confessional church. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, thank you for your answer and the links, they were very helpful! I am currently a member of the Swiss Reformed Church (“Evangelisch-reformierte Kirchen der Schweiz” in my mother language). I would love to talk to my pastor, but I have currently none. I had a good relationship with a pastor, but he passed away around seven years ago, after his death, the mother church shutdown the church where he used to serve as a pastor. There is no currently existing church of my own brand in the place where I live (there is only a Catholic Church nearby). I made some online course in the USA, and was impressed that I was largely accepted by most churches over there and was considered to be an “evangelical”.--2A02:120B:C3FD:6760:957E:FC9B:B9BC:AEA (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is with the requirement to pay, many online ordinations are free of charge. This past Christmas, my son, as a gag, became ordained three times and didn't pay once. As an example, Universal Life Church, which seems to be one of the popular churches for people to ordain themselves in so they may marry friends, charges no fees for ordination. However, different areas will have different stances on the privilege to marry couples and may or may not recognize any particular church. Matt Deres (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by your English. You say you want to "make" (past tense = "made") a class. That would mean you would design the class and others would then take it. Is this really what you meant, or do you mean you just want to "take" (past tense = "took") an existing class ? StuRat (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the OP was using "make" in the sense of "We're gonna make it to the church on time". Dbfirs 19:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:120B:C3FD:6760:957E:FC9B:B9BC:AEA, my suggestion is to contact some other minister within the classis (or whatever the relevant term is, if classis isn't the term used in the E-rKdS) of which your former congregation was a part, and ask advice from him. Something that didn't occur to me before is international matters — if you want to attend an accredited online seminary in the USA, remember that you'll be required to use the same books as American online students, and probably it will be harder to obtain them in Switzerland than in the USA unless you buy everything from Amazon or similar services. I'm going to guess that many American online seminary programs are meant primarily for the current pastor who wants to earn a theology degree without leaving his current church; if you contact a seminary that you're interested in attending online, you'd probably best start by asking whether they're capable of serving someone who's on a different continent. I'm sure they'd be happy to serve you, but whether they'd be able to serve you might be a different matter. Permit me to mention my own employer — I don't know if Liberty's divinity school has many foreign students in its online program, but as a whole the university's online programs serve students literally worldwide. Since you're in a continental Reformed church and you were considered an evangelical by American students, your theological position would probably be more in accord with Reformed Theological Seminary than with any of the other schools I found, and because they call their online program "RTS Global", I'm sure they're able to serve non-Americans. You'd need to consider, however, whether their online programs are what you need: they offer M.A. programs and certificate programs, but all of them are more on the academic side of things (biblical studies, theology, Christian philosophy, etc.) and not on the professional side — a man attending a Protestant seminary and planning to seek ordination will typically earn the M.Div., not an M.A. in anything, unless he's doing both. Of course, the best route (other than talking with someone from your classis) for that issue is contacting the RTS Global staff, who presumably will have experience with this kind of situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very, very much for your help and answers. I have assimilated most of the information you have given me. I think I am going to write to the RTS Global staff, it seems likely that they are in one way or another contacted to my own church.--2A02:120B:C3FD:6760:7DA8:7E9A:B66A:E734 (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AUSTRIA/POLAND[edit]

CANNOT FIND ANYTHING ON THIS SUBJECT. WAS POLAND AND AUSTRIA EVER COMBINED? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbaj10 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from wrong page. Pinging @Chrisbaj10 czar 19:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the 18th century, Poland was divided between the (German) Kingdom of Prussia, the Russian Empire and the (Austrian) Hapsburg Empire. See the Partitions of Poland. Poland did not acquire nationhood again until the end of the First World War in 1918. The Austrian part of Poland was called the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria; the capital was Lemburg, which is now in the Ukraine and is called Lviv (it was occupied by the Soviets in 1939 and nobody has given it back to Poland yet). Alansplodge (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lemberg, no? —Tamfang (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Stanisław Lem, who was born there, used to joke that the city was named in his honor. — Kpalion^(talk) 02:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth which at times ruled what were at times part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There's also the Holy Roman Empire. But using the terms Poland and Austria as currently delineated, there's no such beast. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no current parts of Poland which have ever been ruled by any country which has been called "Austria" and the reverse is also true, that is there is no current parts of Austria which have every been ruled by any country which has been called "Poland". It should be noted that the modern states known by those names are only about 100 years old. The modern nation of Poland was created in 1918, no sovereign state by that name had existed for over 100 years before that. Likewise, the modern nation of Austria was created in 1919 following the dismantling of Austro-Hungarian Empire, a state created by the merger of the Habsburg Monarchy with that of Hungary in the middle 19th century. Of course, the Habsburgs and the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth (older states which controlled much larger territories; a small portion of which is the modern states we know as "Austria" and "Poland") did share a border and frequently swapped land. Silesia and Galicia particularly changed hands many times. --Jayron 32 14:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to expand a bit, while the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a Union of Crowns, the two states were only ruled by the same monarch, they had their own institutions. Furthermore, there WERE several times when the King of Poland/Grand Duke of Lithuania was also Monarch of another country as well, frequently after the position became elective in nature (see Royal elections in Poland). Often, the Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland would elect a prince from another European dynasty, who would then also sometimes also become King in their native country. Debatably, Henryk Walezy was both King of Poland and King of France, though he basically abdicated the throne of Poland after his brother died making him King of France. However, Sigismund III Vasa was at times simultaneously King of Sweden and King of Poland (see Polish–Swedish union), and his son Władysław IV Vasa tried to unite Sweden, Poland, and Russia under a single crown (see Seven Boyars and Time of Troubles). Augustus II the Strong was also Elector of Saxony, as was his son Augustus III of Poland. But none of those leaders were Austrian, even if none of them were Polish either. --Jayron 32 14:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, after the creation of the Dual Monarchy in 1867, the Habsburg part of Poland was in the "Austria" part (not the "Hungary" part) of the empire, wasn't it? —Tamfang (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Galicia was part of Cisleithania, even though the Habsburgs' claim to Galicia was officially derived from the Kingdom of Hungary's brief control over the Kingdom of Halych and Volodymyr in the 14th century. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Combined" is a pretty vague term. In a sense, you could say that Austria and Poland are combined today, both being member states of the European Union, a supranational entity. Another instance of Austria and Poland being combined in some sense is, as Alansplodge has mentioned above, the First and Third Partitions of Poland, in which the Habsburg Empire (commonly known as Austria) gained large chunks of the southern part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (commonly known as Poland). These chunks were dubbed Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (or Galicia for short) and New Galicia, respectively. Austria lost New Galicia in 1809, but held on to Galicia until 1918. After 1873, Galicia was largely autonomous and ruled mostly by local Polish aristocrats. There were also ethnic Polish members of parliament and cabinet in the Austrian part of Austria-Hungary; Counts Alfred Józef Potocki and Kazimierz Feliks Badeni even served as prime ministers. After the First World War, Galicia became part of Poland. Today, it is split between Poland and Ukraine. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness in Religions[edit]

Hi, which religion of the five major religions makes its people the happiest? (I am looking for a citation to a survey) 31.154.81.69 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official ‘Well-Being’ Statistics Show Religious People Are Happier Than Atheists which says that: "Of all the faiths in the UK, Hindus are the happiest, scoring well above the national average and just under the demographic of people who consider themselves to be “in very good health”, according to data compiled by the Office for National Statistics. Christians - of all denominations - were the second happiest, followed by Sikhs and Buddhists. Those who followed these religions were happier than the average person..." Alansplodge (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 31.154.81.23 (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note... "happiness" is not necessarily the goal of these religions. Christianity's goal is salvation. Islam's goal is submission to Alah. Achieving these goals may make someone happy... but that is a secondary byproduct. Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if one religious group is happier than another on average then it doesn't have to be caused by the religion. Choosing a religion based on a happiness survey would be particularly problematic since converts or newly religious people may be atypical for various reasons. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do you want to stay in public school ? What makes you think you won't be just as happy at Our Lady of Perpetual Sorrows ?" StuRat (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]