Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 4

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.

October 4

Funding political parties

Which political party in the United States get most fund - Democrats or Republicans? Which type of industry give the parties maximum fund? How much fund third parties get? --AquaticMonkey (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

www.opensecrets.org is a nonpartisan website dedicated to tracking this. Rckrone (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Aid and relief

Please note: I'm not using this website as a crystal ball. But I'm interested in finding out if there may or may not be televised benefit concerts to aid the victims of the 2009 Samoa earthquake? Will there also be any charity singles for the same thing, as well? I'm also interested if the USNS Comfort and/or the USNS Mercy might serve in the relief efforts. If more information is available, please let me know. Thank you so very much.69.203.157.50 (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

While we understand that you are not expecting us to predict the future, it would make more sense to wait a bit longer and post your question some time a bit more into the future, after all, the earthquake in Samoa has only just happened and they are still looking for people trapped in the ruins, not thinking about relief concerts. If you want to know about whether a particular ship is planning to serve there, you may find it helpful to contact the ship in question. On the website of the USNS Comfort there is a FAQ button (which as you know means 'Frequently Asked Questions') so I would assume there was a place to ask questions, even though I couldn't find one on that page. Good luck! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction:- There is. There is an email address in the first paragraph. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I trust the OP's interest in the earthquake tragedy is a wish to help. They may call the nearest Samoan embassy[1] and ask how best to contribute. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Or simply donate to one of the many charities out there helping. --Tango (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But still, The USNS Comfort was activated on the afternoon of September 11, 2001 in the wake of the tragedy. The ship arrived in New York City on that same day. When Hurricane Katrina struck, quite a few televised benefit concerts were organized right away.69.203.157.50 (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the USNS Comfort is based in Baltimore, which is not very far from New York, so it's not surprising. Anyway, if you are interested in helping out, it may be best to contact the places mentioned above. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Benefit concert: [2] doesn't say anything about whether it will be televised even within NZ tho let alone outside. However I expect it will be televised in NZ and maybe streamed online Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A thought experiment of sorts...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If Jesus lived in Nazi Germany (ignore the fact that he was a Jew here) and was hiding a Jew, what would he have said if some member of the SS were to go and ask whether he was hiding a Jew (also ignore any historical mistakes I'm making here)? After all, the answer "no" would save a few lives, but "yes" would mean the entire household and the Jew getting sent off to concentration camps... 202.45.54.47 (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the enquirer's purpose, but this falls into speculation and opinion (What would Jesus do?, What if God was one of us?) that isn't easily supported by sources and references. Perhaps, Beliefnet [3] would be a good non-denominational forum for posing such a question. ¶ Factually, of course, the early Christians were faced with precisely this sort of problem in a very real (non-experimental) way during many persecutions, and I think responded in several different ways. Jesus rebuked a companion for cutting off the ear of one of those who had come to arrest Jesus (Matthew 26:51-52). —— Shakescene (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Kant discussed a very similar ethical problem in On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus would probably not have directly answered the question, if his interaction with Pontius Pilate is any guide. —Kevin Myers 15:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to meaningfully consider the question while "ignoring the fact that Jesus himself was a Jew:" his entire worldview and beliefs were firmly based in mainstream Pharisaic Judaism (notwithstanding subsequent Pauline biblical efforts to obscure this by substituting "Pharisees" or the ambiguous "Jews" where actual "Saducees" were being mentioned). The Pharisaic school of Judaic thought condoned the technical breaking of religious laws if a greater good resulted, such as saving health or life. Breaking a religious injunction against lying in order to save someone (whether or not a fellow Jew) from unjustified persecution and murder by such an obviously malign secular authority would in Pharisaic thinking have been completely justifiable and expected behaviour; not doing so would have been highly questionable if not reprehensible. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to either decide this for yourself or ask a religious leader of your choice. This isn't the kind of question a ref desk can answer, since it isn't based on facts, it is based on faith. --Tango (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

87.81.230.195 has the right answer, and it's a no-brainer. It's the Jewish principle of the "greater sin" vs. the "greater virtue". Lying may be a sin, but allowing a righteous person to be killed would be a greater sin. Also keep in mind that Jesus observably practiced this principle Himself, by healing the sick and the lame on the Sabbath. But as Myers suggests, this does not rule out the possibility that Jesus would have come up with something clever to say that would send the Nazis away confused, as He was pretty good at that sort of thing. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Move along. These aren't the Jews you're looking for." Adam Bishop (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP's question is counterfactual, it displays Godwin's Law at work and it can be rated with How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? as an exercise for theologians with too much spare time. Tango's answer should be sufficient. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Could he have magically turned their blood into wine, since he did equivalent magic tricks a couple of times? (John 2:1-11 water to wine; Mark 14, 22-26 turned wine into blood.) This would seem like a highly lethal and effective way to deal with pesky SS who come to your door, if you are the Messiah. Edison (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it more likely that He would have persuaded them of the error of their ways and to renounce their Nazism. However, it seems like the point of OP's original question was been lost. It was simply the question of whether Jesus (or anyone else, for that matter) would lie to protect people, and whether there's a moral dilemma. Of course He would. Anyone with a conscience would. And as 87.81.230.195 pointed out, there is in fact no moral dilemma in lying to protect innocent people's lives. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall Jesus having particularly impressive powers of persuasion - the Bible describes plenty of people disagreeing with him and not being convinced otherwise. Short of a miracle, I see no reason to assume he could persuade the Nazi to change his ways. Whether there is a moral dilemma or not depends on your morals, which is why the OP needs to answer this question for themselves. (Christians do not universally agree on moral issues.) --Tango (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' power of persuasion was sufficient to get him a billion or two followers today, though Paul certainly helped. The Jewish tradition, if I have it right, is that it's OK to break God's Law, pace rape, murder, and broadly construed idolatry, if you really have to. God wants his followers to have rich full happy lives, and if it's a pork chop that's the only food around and you're starving it's OK to eat the pork chop. If you have to lie to live, or to save another's life, it can be OK to lie. PhGustaf (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have noted that a lie repudiating a faith in God, or suggesting a faith in a false god, is right out. PhGustaf (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that Paul (and his peers) did far more than Jesus did (assuming he even existed in a way reasonably similar to that described in the Bible). The number of followers when Jesus died was pretty low, as I understand it - the boom didn't happen until after that. --Tango (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes. Much of what's currently called Christianity is really Paulism, and Paul had many failings, especially those including his bizarre notions about women. I was just speculating about how Jesus (and I agree it's less than 50-50 that he existed at all) might have acted as an observant Jew. PhGustaf (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And without Emperor Constantine, Christianity might have died anyway. But OP's question assumes the traditional Jesus, so the question needs to be addressed that way. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Blood into wine: Wait until the SS becomes suspicious about the missing officers, or until it becomes impossible to hide the dead bodies... Vltava 68 11:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needed for urgent problem facing before debate!!!!!

Friends brothers:

I have a question on how to oppose that democracy wasn't a faliure in developing countries? If anybody could tell me theese sametime some advantages also?? Thanks alot!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamrvd (talk • contribs) 11:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify the multiple negations inherent in your wording, do you mean that you will be arguing that democracy was/is a failure in developing countries? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Compare developing countries with oil reserves and developing countries without oil to see what difference the presence of Big International Oil makes. What difference does a thriving tourist industry have on democratic institutions? --Wetman (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ref. Desk won't debate for you. Pick a developing country that has a history of, say, colonialism followed by democracy. Identify things that have happened during that transition and use them as examples that support your case. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's if you can find a developing country that is a democracy. B00P (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your debate seems to be about the influence of oil, or tourism, on development. Neither requires democratic institutions, but here are a few examples that might be worth researching: Oil: USA and Canada (developing at the time of discoveries); tourism: Singapore (not quite democratic, but a nice destination) or Burma (losing vast tourism revenues by being such . . . must be NPOV . . . jerks). DOR (HK) (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

DPRK? Zimbabwe? South Africa? Australia? New Zealand? Democracy seems to have been a failure in some places and not so much of a failure in others (pick whichever you want from the preceding list - all of these countries were developing when democracy was introduced). As said above, we won't debate for you, but we can only point you in the right direction to make your own debate. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Democracy originated in Ancient Greece. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant these countries were developing when democracy was introduced to them. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the sort of democracy where every adult got a vote, so long as they weren't a woman, or a slave (of which there were many) or didn't lack ownership of at least a substantial farm or the equivalent property/wealth. (Aformentioned conditions pertaining specifically to famously democratic Athens; other cities may have varied, but generally not for the better: don't get me started on Sparta). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to stir things up a little, compare the state of African countries in the colonial period (stable, peaceful,well-fed) with their state after independence and transition to 'democracy' (underfed and in a state of constant war). Note that I'm not saying that's the whole truth, but it would certainly make a good debate point. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned India, which is often touted as a successful developing democracy. Marco polo (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As Aasif Mandvi joked recently, India may wind up outsourcing its tech support to the USA! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

testifying in death penalty cases

In the US, has anyone refused to testify against a defendant on the basis that their evidence may lead the defendant to be convicted and face the death penalty? If so, what happens. If the evidence was crucial, would the judge make allowances for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.105.221 (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is within the power of a judge to impose sanctions on a witness who refuses to answer for Contempt of court particularly when the witness has taken the legal oath swearing to "Tell the whole truth". As an exception in USA the constitution upholds the right of a witness to plead the 5th Amendment instead of possibly incriminating themself but that must be stated as reason by the witness. Other reasonings such as disliking the legal system or the way a case might go are not exempted. BTW The use of the death penalty in USA can be used in countries that have abolished the penalty in an appeal against a deportation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hence the country that won't extradite the murderer, gets to keep the murderer on their own soul. I don't see how someone could plead the Fifth when they are merely a witness. Better he should have said up front, "I saw nothing." It would still be morally dubious, but it would save time and resources. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The UK usually gets a commitment from the US that they won't seek the death penalty during extradition proceedings. Such commitments aren't binding, though, at least not on state courts, which has caused problems in the past, as I recall. Committing perjury or obstructing a police investigation are also illegal (at least, they are in the UK), so lying about not having seen anything would also not be allowed. --Tango (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You can imagine cases where the witness only witnessed a crime because he or she was committing one as well, or the testimony would contradict something he or she said earlier, thereby committing perjury. In all likelihood, the witness would provide such testimony and would not be prosecuted (or would be to a lesser degree) for their crime(s). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the fifth amendment includes sentences like this: "The amendment has also been used, notably, by defendants and witnesses in criminal cases involving the Mafia." That implies you can plead the fifth when you are a witness in somebody else's trial. --Tango (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only if you are actually using the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination, like if a witness's truthful answer would be "Yes, I saw Bugsy take all the money from the vault, because I was standing there pointing my gun at the guard." If you're using the Fifth to avoid getting rubbed out by the mob later, you'll get thrown in jail for contempt of court. (You get to decide which is worse.) Tempshill (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, Frank Costello, at the trial of his would-be assassin Vincent Gigante testified that he couldn't see who shot at him. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Although in the particular case of the (old) mob, it was against a certain "moral" code to rat out someone, even if they were your enemy, to the cops. Enemy of my enemy or honor among thieves sort of thing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says that the other witness, a doorman, testified against Gigante. I wonder which cornerstone he ended up in. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

John de Bohun, 5th Earl of Hereford

In the article on John de Bohun, 5th Earl of Hereford it says John did not play much of a public role. Apparently he had some sort of incapacity. What was that "incapacity"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.105.28 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The quoted source also only says vaguely that it was an "incapacity". This is complete speculation, but since he was 16 at the time of the Battle of Boroughbridge, and his father was killed there, maybe he was also there and was injured in some way? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me like it was probably some kind of embarrassing incapacity, which is why references to it are vague (it would have been hidden by the family). Learning difficulties, mental illness, epilepsy, some congenital disfigurement, perhaps even just a stammer - these are all things that aristocratic families would try to keep hidden so as not to make their bloodline look weak. The fact that he (twice) married (albeit without issue, at least not surviving issue - the article doesn't specify) seems to contradict that slightly, though. --Tango (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Complete Peerage mentions only that on 26 Oct 1330 "on account of his infirmity", the constableship (of England) was granted to his brother, Edward. Whatever the infirmity in question might have been, it didn't interfere with a pilgrimage to Santiago (13 Dec 1330), a second marriage, another journey in 1333 "beyond the seas", and one in 1335 to Scotland. It frankly sounds like a temporary problem or an indisposition. It is unlikely to be a problem resulting from the Battle of Boroughbridge, as the king expressed dismay that the Earl had disobeyed his commands and repeatedly jousted and exercised other feats of arms in 1327. - Nunh-huh 13:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)