Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 January 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 11

Pennsylvania, USA Bar Admission

May a lawyer who is admitted to the bar of another state take the PA bar exam to be admitted? Is there another form of admission?

Go to your favorite search engine and enter "Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rules". Find a link that points to the document with that title. Open the document. Then read Rule 204. If you have any more questions contact the bar association. PA Bar Assn.. dr.ef.tymac 17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My best guess would be absolutely! Though I'm no expert the requirements to write the bar in each and every state, if you've got the academic credentials to write the bar in PA, (such as the possession of a JD or an LLB,) I can't see why you wouldn't be qualified to write the bar in any other state (with the possible exception of Louisiana; there you may require a BCL). Loomis 00:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

110th Congress demographics

How many United States representatives and senators have a law degree? I know all 100 senators have a Bachelor's degree, but how many representatives have one?

Thank you!

75.28.23.76 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

On the existence of God

If nobody believed in God, would He still exist? --67.185.172.158 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Still exist? Why are you assuming god exists in the first place when posing such a question? Or do you mean the concept of god? If that's the case, then it's just an if a tree falls in a forest kind of question. If nobody else knew about Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven, would it still exist? — Kieff 05:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If such a deity exists, then yes, it would continue to exist even if no one believed in its existence. If it does not exist, then it would continue not to exist. However, I can think of no theistic belief system in which the deity's entity is contingent on human approval. If that were the case, then universal apostasy would be sufficient to destroy God, and I can't imagine such a wimpy deity. However, this is a question which I think theists would find interesting. As an atheist, I would say that "God" is merely a concept that some regard as a reflection of reality. This concept would continue to exist even if no one accepts it as "real", provided that someone remembers it or it is recorded in a book or something. If everyone forgot what God was, then the concept would no longer exist. If everyone forgot about Santa Claus, there would be no more Santa Claus, ever, since Santa Claus is just a concept with no objective existence. However, from a theist's perspective, forgetting about God would have no effect on the existence of God, since God has an objective existence independent of human perception. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the existence of God in the first place is a matter of belief and not science, it must also be a matter of belief as to under what circumstances, if any, He might cease to exist. Since according to some belief systems we are all His creations, I think He has the upper hand when it comes to whether His existence is dependent on our belief in Him. If we could make Him cease to exist merely by stopping believing in Him, this would tend to suggest He never existed to begin with, except in our own minds. I think it's much more likely that we would cease to exist if He ceased to believe in us. JackofOz 05:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the existence of a god is a scientific question if you assume there are deliberate changes in the universe from a being of higher power that even created the universe in the first place. Why wouldn't it be a scientific question? — Kieff 05:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

John Polkinghorne manages to believe in both things at the same time -- strange 8-?--Light current 06:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's a legitimate scientific question, but can science ever prove that God exists, or disprove His existence? I say no to both. That means it's down to belief. (PS. Why isn't Polkinghorne called Sir John?) JackofOz 06:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it can't, in the same sense that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of phosphorescent unicorns in the world. But, like in god's case, all evidence points to no: they don't seem to exist, and that's scientifically enough until some evidence shows up. — Kieff 06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Science is very arrogant if it takes the position that it is the final arbiter on the question of the existence or non-existence of things. Millions of people who couldn't give a toss what science has to say about it believe in God. As far as they're concerned, belief is all that matters. JackofOz 07:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Who's saying science is telling us what exists and what does not? It's just saying there doesn't seem to be any sign of a personal god's existence in our universe (and that's an statistical argument). If you believe that's exactly how god wants it, then so be it, but it won't change the evidence, which is all that matters to science. But the decision of what to trust is, of course, a personal one. — Kieff 07:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. Science may have an interest in the question, but it's precisely because there'll never be any objective evidence that people must form their own private beliefs. Faith and belief would not be necessary if there were proof. Many scientists believe in God, despite lack of scientific proof. And I'm sure many archbishops don't. JackofOz 09:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If nobody believed in Quetzalcoatl, would He still exist? 211.28.128.195 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The west doesnt have faith in god. It banks on Desires and impatience. It doesnt have a cure for sexual weaknesses 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kjvenus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Flamarande 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

HMM, have to supress very powerful urge to answer the comment above. :) Flamarande 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If everyone ignored Kjvenus, would he cease to exist? --The Dark Side 23:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(Late musings) Many people who believe in God say they do so because the evidence is all around them. To them, it's so obvious there's a God that it's beyond discussion. Carl Jung said something like "I don't just believe there's a God, I know there's a God". On the other hand, others don't believe in God because there is no evidence that meets their standards; and many of them spend their lives searching for just such evidence. I suspect that if they first believed in God, they would then find abundant evidence. Quite a paradox really. JackofOz 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To those who believe, everything is proof; To those who don't, nothing is. I forget where that comes from. Oh, and as well as those who know there is a god or gods, there are those who know there aren't, and to both groups their point of view seems obvious. Strange things, people. Skittle 00:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Skittle, are you thinking of this: "For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God, no explanation is possible"? These words appear at the start of Franz Werfel's novel The Song of Bernadette, and also at the start of the 1943 film of the book. JackofOz 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather call it confirmation bias instead of a paradox. If I want to believe the release of magic smoke destroys my electronics, then the failure of electronics will seem to be enough evidence to support my beliefs on magic smoke. So, a better question would be: can we explain things without using god, wheter we believe in him or not? So far, yes, we can to a pretty good degree. That's where personal choice comes in: do you still think you need a god? — Kieff 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But what does "to a pretty good degree" mean, Kieff? That's like saying, we can count virtually all the way to infinity. That's a bad analogy (of which I'm a self-proclaimed expert), but I'm sure you know what I mean. Isn't science interested in considering all the facts, not just those that happen to support any given pre-established view? JackofOz 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at God of the gaps. It's really like a conjecture: we can't prove or disprove it (yet, as far as we know), but from what we do know, we can think of one hypothesis as more likely than the other. Still, you have to make a conscious decision on what to believe. The "pre-established" scientific view comes from this, and only evidence can change the situation (as it happened several times in the past.)

But again, if you really want to think the existence of a tree is evidence for god's existence, then there's really no point in argument. Won't make any difference to anyone else, though. — Kieff 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was with you right up till the last sentence. I thought this was about belief, not about convincing others to share our beliefs. JackofOz 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, because that was exactly my point. That sentence was there just to say "it'd really be your belief, and nobody else would have anything to do with it" (hence, there's no reason to argue over it). I was just reinforcing the liberty one has in that particular point. — Kieff 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If I had been born in Rome 2000 years ago I would have probably believed in a whole pantheon of gods. But I'm a rational person and I have decided that Mithras and his pals don't exist. Any one who believes in the Judeo-Christian god is just one god short of my atheistic position and their reasons for their belief probably have a lot to do with the nature of the society they live in and what they were taught as children, just like those Romans back then. It's not faith it's indoctrination. Jooler 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of truth in that. And it has absolutely nothing to do with whether God exists or not. If God exists, or not, that is the case regardless of any human's opinion on the matter. So, we're not really even discussing whether or not God exists; we're actually discussing whether or not people believe He exists, and why they believe whatever they believe. JackofOz 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But by posing the question in that manner you define a belief system. The question is as loaded as 'When did you stop beating your wife?. Rather than Does God exist, you might says instead. - Do the gods exist? or is the Universe a computer simulation? - the ideas expressed in these questions are born from the minds of men. Man invented Mithras nand Vishnu, the Easter Bunny and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Jooler 02:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a loaded question to ask "Does the Easter Bunny really exist or not?"? Either the EB really does exist, or it doesn't. What's loaded about that? Why is asking the same question about a Supreme Being a loaded question? I agree that humankind invented Mithras, Vishnu etc etc - but who/what invented humankind? Humans have been asking this question for as long as there have been humans. It's not a bad question. JackofOz 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a bad question, but it's not quite a good one either. Why would we assume mankind had to be invented? "Where did humans come from?" is a much better one. — Kieff 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a response I gave earlier to a similar question is relevant here as well (in response to "Man invented Mithras, Vishnu etc..): The people who believed in God (before the Bible) did so because he dealt with them personally. God communicated with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job and others long before the Bible was written. The plagues on Egypt in Moses' time, the deliverance of the people of Israel (through a sea, mind you) - these things were done before the Bible was written. God dealt with them first, then things were written down - not the other way around. Let's see the Flying Spaghetti Monster do some comparable miracles to Jesus, or predict the future accurately hundreds - or even thousands - of years in advance. BenC7 09:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming quite a lot of accuracy on documents full of mostly non first-hand anecdotal evidence written thousands of years ago by people who quite probably didn't know a lot about how nature and the human mind works. Sure, believe whatever you want, but those people back then would probably assign supernatural explanations to almost anything they encountered in their lives. About the supposed prediction of the future, see confirmation bias. — Kieff 10:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Which books of the Bible are non-first-hand? The fact that they may not have known how nature works makes no difference to the final result: The scientific knowledge we have still cannot explain miracles, such as those I have mentioned. What non-supernatural explanation do you apply to the parting of the Red Sea? To the miracles of Jesus and those who came after him (i.e., the apostles etc.)?

Also, I fail to see how confirmation bias applies to this situation. The prophecies in the Bible were quite specific, especially regarding Jesus. Even if you were looking at things with an overt disconfirmation bias, you would have a difficult time finding any evidence to discredit Jesus as the Messiah. BenC7 03:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact they may have given supernatural explanations to those events (that may have also been distorted during telling, retelling, writing, rewriting and translation of the stories) already dismiss the said events as certain miracles of any kind. Science really cannot explain Jesus resurrecting from the dead, but you can't just assume it happened because of that: they're two different issues - "can science explain someone coming back from the dead?" and "did Jesus really come back from the dead?". If you dismiss the latter, the former becomes irrelevant... The parting of the sea has been theorized to have been caused by volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and a whole lot of other things. Note that the keyword is theorized: we can't know for sure if it happened and how it happened, but that's no reason to assume it did happen and that it was a miracle.

Confirmation bias is easily applied to the case of Jesus: people expected a messiah, and a lot of people claimed to be the messiah back then (they still do, and back then religiosity was much, much stronger.) Eventually, someone would show up and get people to believe he was the one, and it just happened to be Jesus (assuming he even existed, and as a single individual.) Maybe Jesus was just an incredibly smart philosopher with enlightening ideas at the time. And it's easy to imagine how someone like that could achieve messianic status back then, when people wanted to believe in a messiah. Since we can't assume people really knew everything about the life of Jesus from start, as well as we can't assume the complete historical accuracy of any documents in the bible, we can consider the hypothesis that his personal history was modelled to fit what they expected. They're all possibilities that should be considered. — Kieff 04:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

But if it were just bias that were making people believe that Jesus was the Messiah, we could easily look back and see where they were wrong. But Jesus fulfilled many prophecies, written hundreds of years before his birth, the majority of which were out of his control. Where he was born, where he was brought up, the way he was treated, the way he died, his rising from the dead, and more specific things like the fact that people played dice for his clothing were all predicted. These things if the story was changed to fit the events, could easily have been disproven by people at the time. In any case, that people who stood for telling the truth would lie to "make the data fit the hypothesis", especially when they had nothing to gain by doing so (and it cost many of them death), makes no sense. BenC7 08:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Does God exist or not?" is a loaded question because the acceptance of one of the alternatives within the question, belief in a Judeo-Christian God, implies that the other Gods that mankind has worshipped throughout the world for most of history do not exist – it implies that the alternative to having no belief system is the very specific (and one might argue, albeit flippantly - "fashionable") monotheism. The unspoken alternatives are analogous to the unbeaten wife. Belief in the Easter Bunny does not exclude belief in the Tooth Fairy. "Does the Easter Bunny really exist or not?" is obviously a stupid question –because we know that the bunny is an invention of man and anyone who argues contrary is either deluded or delving into the realms of absurdity - but if you replace 'Easter Bunny' with another entity which is just as ethereal and yet even more 'fantastic' and improbable than the bunny ('the One and only God') and the question is no longer viewed as absurd for some reason. Asking a committed Christian "does God exist?" is as pointless as asking a 6-year old child who has been getting presents under the tree all his life and has been taken to the grotto every Christmas - "Does Santa really exist?" - eventually the absurdity of idea of a man who flies through the sky in a sleigh dawns on the young mind. The question is - why doesn't the same realisation of the absurdity of a God/creator dawn on the adult mind of so many people? - The answer is that the belief is hammered home through conformity, groupthink, peer pressure and the appeal to belief and maintained through fear, positive and negative reinforcement and the spiral of silence. It's analogous to the story of the Emperor's New Clothes Jooler 09:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's nothing like that.

1. It is easier to conform to a non-Christian culture than a Christian one, especially in countries where Christians are persecuted or ostracized for their faith.
2. The diversity of denominations in Christianity is evidence that people do think independently, and that they do not necessarily agree with one another or acquiesce to the majority. Many Christians also find preaching that is personally challenging to be better than preaching that tries to reassure people that as long as they're doing what everyone else is doing, they're OK. One of the solutions to "groupthink" is to appoint a person to challenge the group's thinking (devil's advocate), which many times is what a preacher is (irony noted).
3. Peer pressure attempts to drive people away from Christianity, not towards it.
4. The appeal to belief is actually the opposite of what occurs, since Christians are encouraged, both in the Bible and through preaching, not to just 'go with the flow', but to do the right thing, even if you are the only person doing it.
5. Fear is not universally bad. Fear of something that is legitimately dangerous is rational fear. Not being afraid of something that is legitimately dangerous is stupidity (or ignorance).
6. As far as reinforcement is concerned, it is often more difficult to do the right thing than the wrong thing. Again, for Christians who are persecuted, they know that they could lose their life just for professing faith. Hardly positive reinforcement. And yet, in countries where Christians are being persecuted the worst, that is where the church is growing the most quickly.
7. The spiral of silence is related to groupthink, which I have already addressed.

So no, it's none of those things. What may seem "absurd" to you probably does so because of your own confirmation bias - you only see what fits with your no-God conception. As I've mentioned earlier in the post, miracles and Biblical prophecy do not fit with many people's concept of "there is no God", so they are effectively ignored. And ironically, Christians are the ones accused of being the product of a series of psychological phenomena. BenC7 04:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Excuse me, I've very little wit myself," Razumihin cut in sharply,

"and so let us drop it. I began this discussion with an object, but I've

grown so sick during the last three years of this chattering to amuse

oneself, of this incessant flow of commonplaces, always the same, that,

by Jove, I blush even when other people talk like that." - Dmitri Prokofych Razumikhin,Crime and Punishment -- Moonwalkerwiz 05:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to see you explaining #3, and also your opinion on indoctrination. Oh, and it's not really a "no-god conception", but a "naturalistic Universe" paired with "people from the past cannot be fully trusted on their accounts of the events of their time." We're not trying to dismiss god here, we're just not assuming god as an explanation when other theories seem (more) reasonable. What would you say if I told you you had a "no Norse gods conception" or a "no Santa Claus conception"? — Kieff 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a teenager for example (most people become Christians during their teens or childhood, so it is an appropriate example). Peer pressure can say things like, "let's get drunk, try this pot, sleep with me, don't be a square". Not always that overtly, but to put it simply for the sake of explanation. These things generally go against what a Christian believes is acceptable. So the peer pressure is in the direction away from Christianity, not towards it. I can hardly visualize groups of teenagers encouraging their friends to do the most ethical thing in a given situation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "my opinion on indoctrination". Can you be more specific?

As far as 'not assuming God as an explanation when other theories seem more reasonable', what are the "more reasonable" explanations for Jesus' miracles? Perhaps Jesus did not exist at all? Or, perhaps the disciples blew things out of proportion? But that would mean that all of the apostles (who were martyred) died for something they knew was a lie, and that they could receive no possible benefit from. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps all Jesus' miracles could be explained by natural means? Well... feeding 5,000 and 4,000 men with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, walking on water, making the blind see, healing all manner of diseases 100% of the time, rising from the dead - these would be a little difficult to explain by natural means. So, what are the "more reasonable" explanations?

As for the argument that "past people's accounts of the events of their time are unreliable" - people of all times are capable of recording what they see and hear, regardless of whether they understand it or not. The idea that such accounts are inherently unreliable, simply because they occurred in the past, is not one that is easily defensible. We also have multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus, not just one or two. You could not ask for a better legal-historical proof for a past event than that. BenC7 06:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring the other side completely. What about the peer pressure for a belief in a god, or for Christianity? Most people in the world believe in some sort of god, and nobody wants to be cast out as an (gasp) atheist! So people may not act like the ideal Christian, but they still consider themselves god-believing Christians and may even go to church and pray with all their will. That's religious peer pressure. Like you said, most people "become" Christians on their teen or childhood years. Why's that? Peer pressure, of course. My mother is Catholic, and raised me as such. When I was 15, I decided to refuse Christianity and god altogether because I just thought I didn't need any of it in my life, and that a naturalistic view filled me with much more amazement and joy for life. The thing is, whenever people heard I didn't believe in god, they instantly looked at me with this horrible, suspicious and even angry face, including my mother (who nowdays thinks she "failed" with me in some terrible way.) It's easy to see how such negative reactions would literally force someone into a religious belief system.

About your opinion on indoctrination, I mean I'd like you to consider the case Jooler mentioned. If you were born somewhere else, in a different time, in a different family and culture, you wouldn't believe in the same things you believe now, including Jesus' miracles. The same can't be said about scientific knowledge, since intelligent aliens on a distant world will probably figure electromagnetism and gravity similarly as we did, but they won't figure Jesus Christ (although they may hold a belief in god as well - but this is not relevant to this argument.) If intelligent aliens exist or not is an irrelevant question in this case, since I'm appealing to the universality of the laws of physics which your miracles would be violating, as you have consistently and correctly stated.

Which brings me once again to the exact same point: you're always assuming miracles did occur in the beginning of your arguments (I wonder if you really just can't notice it.) If they did, of course science couldn't explain them, by definition. But what's the most natural explanation for statements such as: "someone feeding 5,000 and 4,000 men with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, walking on water, making the blind see, healing all manner of diseases 100% of the time, rising from the dead"? How about "these stories were made up"? Or "they are just an extrapolation and\or misinterpretation of real events"? These only fail as explanations if you assume everything written is factual, but if you do so your arguments that they were genuine miracles become self-proven, circular, which is entirely inconsistent. That's why I keep saying, if you really want to believe something, then there's no point in showing evidence, since that's not the basis of your beliefs. But it's worth pointing out that your beliefs came from indoctrination alone.

And since this whole discussion is pointless and you won't give up (or even notice) your a priori assumptions that those miracles did happen, then please, let the section be archived without further comments. I'm done here. — Kieff 07:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, I am quite entitled to argue a point, my "blindness" aside.

Which do you think is stronger, the peer pressure to be religious, or the peer pressure to not be religious? Even in the teenage years? If you think that there is a greater peer pressure to be a Christian than to not be one... well, I'd like to see that. I've given some fairly commonplace examples of the latter.

As for the 'indoctrination', yes, it is possible that if I lived in a different place/grew up in a different environment that I would believe in something else. But what I believed (or didn't) would have no bearing on whether God existed or not.

I already addressed the "the disciples blew things out of proportion" argument above. Jesus' rising from the dead didn't happen in a corner. Yes, I am assuming that the miracles did occur, because I have no reason at all to believe that they didn't, and good reason to believe that they did (multiple witnesses who had nothing to gain and much to lose by making it up). Especially considering rather obvious things (e.g., rising from the dead) could be so easily disproven at the time (e.g., there's his sealed tomb over there). Saying, "Oh well, maybe it just didn't happen" is not an answer. There is no plausible reason to take that stance. BenC7 08:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What you believe about the Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster has no bearing on their existence either, but all the evidence suggests that they don't exist. Do you assume belief in their existence too? Or are you open-minded? In order to function in normal everday life we have to be able to weigh up the evidence for such things. The 'God' meme has more has a lot more vocal and powerful support though. According to the last census the town I live in has one of the highest proportions of atheists in the UK, I think it was about 25% (nationally it's 14% Demographics_of_England_from_the_2001_United_Kingdom_census) - Britain is a much more secular country than the US. I too was brought up a Catholic. My Dad sees belief in God and going to Church regularly as an insurance policy against going to hell. Is that positive fear? Sorry that this post is a bit muddled, but I'm just about to go to bed. Jooler 01:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I know very little about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. But then, their existence (or not) will not have much of an impact on my life either way. It is different with the existence of God, for obvious reasons.

That your Dad sees going to church and belief in God as an "insurance policy" may be positive fear, but it is (as you describe it, I don't know your Dad) not coupled with the full complement of responses. The Bible makes it clear that even demons believe in God, but that doesn't do them much good. It's one thing to believe in God, another to have a faith of some substance that works itself out into the person's actions. (This may be your Dad, I don't know.) Fear may compel a person to some action, but there is no guarantee that it will always be the right one. It's good that your Dad believes in God and goes to church; I just hope that his faith is of the genuine type rather than the one that is 'put on' at convenient times. BenC7 04:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

medal of honor

Hi I once read somewhere that the british unknown soldier memorial was awarded the USAs Congressional Medal of Honor and that in turn the American unknown soldier was awarded the HRH Victoria Cross, both nations highest honor for there actions during the second world war.

I was wondering first if this information was accurate and if the same honors for lack of a better word were bestowed on Soviet Russia ( american supplies carried by commonwealth ships)and the China. (allied aid including American flying tiger Squadron)

Any help or information corrected appreciated.

From our Medal of Honor article:

In addition, the Medal of Honor was presented to the British Unknown Warrior by General Pershing on October 17, 1921; later the U.S. Unknown Soldier was reciprocally awarded the Victoria Cross, Britain's highest award for gallantry, on November 11, 1921. Apart from these few exceptions, Medals of Honor can only be awarded to members of the U.S. armed forces - although being a U.S. citizen is not a prerequisite. Sixty-one Canadians who were serving in the United States armed forces have been awarded the Medal of Honor, with a majority awarded for actions in the American Civil War. Since 1900, only four have been awarded to Canadians.[47] In the Vietnam War, Peter C. Lemon was the only Canadian recipient of the Medal of Honor.[48] X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 05:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This started me wondering what would happen if they suddenly found out who the unknown soldier was. Would it be rather embarrassing? Would they stick his name on the tomb? Or would they just keep very quiet about it?--Shantavira 09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This has happened, and yes it was very embarrassing. See Michael Blassie. JackofOz 10:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Very interesting. If you want honors and a super funeral, just throw away that dog tag, soldier!--Shantavira 11:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't explain what led to the family to believe that it was their son who had been buried as the unknown soldier. Jooler 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What would be really embarrassing is if the unknown solider turned out to be a Nazi. StuRat 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Especially because he died in Vietnam. Superm401 - Talk 05:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

quotation

Who's quotation is "Life is a misery to be lived not to be solved"?←69.179.241.92 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)francisco cantu

Attributed to Adrian van Kaam here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's got to be the most depressed, depressing, fatalistic aphorism I've ever read. Vranak

If you heard it wrong and it's "mystery" instead of "misery", it's Kierkegaard. GreatManTheory 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If the quote is about mystery rather than misery then it is certainly attributed to Kierkegaard but just about anything vaguely spiritual gets assigned to him and I haven't seen any proof that he said it. The earliest version I know is from Conquest of Illusion (1928) by J. J. Van Der Leeuw:

"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved; it is a reality to be experienced."

Earlier citations welcomed. meltBanana 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The original poster's source does indeed say "mystery". StuRat 20:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Union terminology: "grievance was resolved prior to Step 3."

I'm following a slightly wacky news story for Wikinews. A family accused Tigger at Disney World of hitting their son. They release home movie footage to the media of the hit, but not of the son pulling Tigger's costume to prevent air circulation. Tigger's suspended, and the Disney Company and sheriff's office both start seperate investigations.

Anyway, the Teamsters' Union Local 385 (which represents character performers at Disney) has the following statement on their website... "Michael Fedelem's grievance was resolved prior to Step 3." (Michael is the accused hitter.)

Would this "grievance" be a complaint of Feledem himself against the Disney company, or would it be the grievance against him, by the family?

Is the "step" system standardized across union recogitations, or is it company/union specific? -- Zanimum 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A "grievance" would be a complaint by the union member against the employer, typically a complaint of violation of the terms of the contract. The contract typically specifies the steps in the grievance process. Here is the Local 385 contract, which includes descriptions of steps 2 and 3. Marco polo 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it wouldn't be relevant to the Tigger incident, where the grievance would have been guest versus employee? Okay. That's one big file... Thanks! -- Zanimum 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may be relevant, as the grievance would take the form of the Tigger actor protesting his suspension by filing a grievance against his employer via the Union. There wouldn't be a "guest versus employee" grievance, that's not what the grievance procedure is for. It is strictly for use by union members, as a mechanism to seek justice or reparations due to mistreatment by the employer.

My guess is that the guest complained to the employee's supervisor, the employee was then suspended, and the employee then filed a grievance regarding the suspension, with his union. Per the contract, the Area Manager responded to the grievance in a matter satisfactory to the employee and his union steward. 192.168.1.1 10:30am, 12 January 2006 (PST)

Cardinals in Catholicism

I would like to know - do Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church get salaries? It doesn't say anything about salaries on the article (i don't think!) Jake95 17:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the second article on this page, cardinals receive €4,000 per month. They also receive a free apartment in Rome. I don't know whether this salary is in addition to the salaries that some receive as diocesan bishops (or archdiocesan archbishops). Marco polo 18:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! Jake95 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly a vow of poverty, is it ? StuRat 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant it in innocent good humor, but just for the record, secular clergy (i.e. most priests and bishops) don't take a vow of poverty. Some of the cardinals are undoubtedly members of religious orders, and people who join religious orders do take a vow of poverty. In that case how they handle the salary would depend on the rules for that order. Perhaps they forfeit the salary, or hand it over to the order. Evan Josephson 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is Queen Ndate Yalle of Walo?

All I know is that she is the second woman to become queen of Walo after her sister, Queen Njombot Mbodji died.

Her husband's name was King Tasse of Walo.

Perhaps she was a queen of Waalo, not Walo? Rmhermen 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I know her people were called the Waalo but I wanted some more info on her.

Federal law and image use

A user has asserted that the use of an image of the FBI logo is a violation of U.S. federal law (United States Code, Title 18). I am hoping a user familiar with U.S. law can comment on this issue. Thanks! --Ginkgo100 ^talk 23:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Title 18 is the whole federal criminal code and has hundreds of sections in it. I will leave a note on the user's talk page asking which specific section he or she has in mind. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the email he sent me:

“ The section I refer to is section 709 which is specific for the use of initials "FBI" or words "Federal Bureau of Investigation" without permission of the Director of FBI. Since these words are contained in the graphic, the section would appear to be applicable. ” — Patchbook, in an email to myself

→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Alas, it looks as though frat boys everywhere will have to destroy their "Federal Booby Inspector" shirts. StuRat 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically they just want you to not pretend that something is affiliated with the FBI when it is not (i.e. "This product is endorsed by the FBI!" or "Hi, I'm a member of the FBI, give me your money"). It is not likely a real problem here. --24.147.86.187 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the text of that section, and the specific part about the FBI reads:

Whoever, except with the written permission of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, knowingly uses the words "Federal Bureau of Investigation" or the initials "F.B.I.", or any colorable imitation of such words or initials, in connection with any advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ...

Note the part I've boldfaced. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems clear enough to me that 24.147.86.187 (may I call you 24?) has it right; nobody would be likely to mistake the use of the emblem as a sign of endorsement. --Anonymous, January 12, 2007, 06:15 (UTC).

Better than Robert E. Lee

Lee graduated 2nd in his class from West Point. Who was ahead of him? Clarityfiend 23:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Charles Mason, who didn't even serve in the war. See [1] and [2].--Pharos 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• So he was smart enough to avoid getting involved in a bloody civil war ? I see why he came in first. StuRat 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo Da Vinci

Hello, Im a highschool doing a essay on Da Vinci. My question is- Where did he get his inspiration for his most famous paitings such as the Mona Lisa and Virgin of the Rocks? 71.113.56.90

The question of where an artist gets inspiration is a very hard one, often quite impossible to answer. In the case of Da Vinci there have been many, many speculations about why he painted what he did the way that he did, none of which are usually very well grounded. At a very mundane level, our pages on the paintings (Virgin of the Rocks and Mona Lisa) discuss what is known about why Leonardo was commissioned to paint them, though that does not quite answer the "inspiration" question. --24.147.86.187 02:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Some have remarked a lot on the relationship between Genius and Insanity. There is a good place to start if you want to research the origin of inspiration among humans. NoClutter 03:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(quote)"There is a very thin line between genius and insanity. In Mexico, we call that line the Rio Grande." (/quote) Grutness...wha? 08:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The more tractable question, who got inspiration from Leonardo, is treated in early pages of Sydney J. Freedberg, Painting in Italy 1500-1600. Leonardo's own synthesis of what would become High Renaissance Style, twenty-five years before anyone else, in 1475, is also discussed. Get the drift of that, and quote it, and you'll get a A. --Wetman 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, the Renaissance Italian artists inspired the pinnacle of artistic attainment, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, true splinters off the old block of the masters. :-) StuRat 20:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)