Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 15

< September 14	<< Aug | Sep | Oct >>	September 16 >

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

September 15

Which song is this?

What's the title of this song? It was popular in the sixties (I think..?) I made a short MIDI of the melody. Listen to it--Codell ^{[ Talk ▪ Contrib. ]} 00:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's "Incense and Peppermints", originally by Strawberry Alarm Clock. TheMadBaron 00:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

...flute on that song is Steve Bartek, of Oingo Boingo fame. Random data. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Shaking fist

What does shaking one's fist mean? I saw this in a US English TV serial. —Masatran

Anger, usually directed at something or someone.---Sluzzelin 01:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Literally speaking,shaking one's fist is a vaguely threatening jesture, I suppose because one is vaguely threating to throw a punch. However, it is often used to simply comment on the frustration of the shaker, and may also hint at an inability to actually do anything. It is frequently referred to and acted out even when someone has absolutely no intention of any violence whatsoever. I myself often shake my fist as a joke. Dar-Ape (talk • contribs) 01:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Depending on how you interpret "shaking", it could be a gesture of encouragment, especially if it's held above the head and accompanied by calls of, "Woot, woot!".  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, if it was looser, and depending on the facial expression it could be a symbol of masturbating. — [Mac Davis](talk) (New! SUPERDESK|Help me improve)

Author of Nazi occupied Europe POW camp.

Question apparently moved from the help desk? Please remember to tag this kind of information!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 

Authors of Nazi occupied Europe Hello, I am in search for a name of a prisoner of war in Nazi occupied Europe, who was imprisioned (for what, I dont know)- but while in prison, he wrote a book (possibly 2) in his mind, due to not being allowed any writting paper or pencils. I believe that he was released and wrote his book, word for word, the whole book. Perhaps the Author was Russian/ Eastern European. Please help. I have been in search for years for the Author and the book(s) title, with no resolve. All I have is a faint memory of the above stated tidbit which was told to me when I was around the age of 11. Thank you in advance for any assistance provided. CcMm0602:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This help desk is for wikipedia related queries only. You might like to try asking at reference desk -- Lost(talk) 03:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I once heard something similar rumored about Paul Celan's famous poem Todesfuge. But in his case it was an unreferenced claim. Possibly Viktor Frankl? Have you checked the List of Holocaust survivors yet? There are several writers listed there - googling them might help you find the answer. ---Sluzzelin 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Primo Levi? --Dweller 07:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No idea if it is what you want, but you might wish to take a look at the Vrba-Wetzler report. Edison 23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read an obituary on György Faludy who was imprisoned in Recsk (Hungary) from 1950 - 53. Apparently, he sometimes used a broom-bristle as a pen and his blood as ink for writing on toilet paper. He also had his inmates memorize his verses so that, once released, they could dictate Faludy's poetry to his wife Zsuzsa. This, however, happened in Communist Hungary during the Cold War, not in Nazi Germany. So this probably isn't who you were looking for either.---Sluzzelin 02:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

what was the judenraat?

See Judenrat. ---Sluzzelin 02:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

20th century moments and Canada

I'm looking for significant events in the 20th century that affected Canada, i.e. roaring twenties or the 1982 constitution. Please don't mention military actions (Cold war, Korean war, WW I & II, peacekeeping operations, etc.). --The Dark Side 02:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster? Quiet Revolution? Loomis 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Statutory official bilingualism 1967. JackofOz 03:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

October crisis. And I don't know if it's too 'military', but the US Vietnam War Draft affected Canada. Anchoress 03:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Great Depression including the On-to-Ottawa Trek (1935). Tommy Douglas and Medicare as well as the various Canada Health Acts (1957, 1966, 1977, 1984).---Sluzzelin 04:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The GST and NAFTA. Anchoress 04:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See History of Canada. Lamont A Cranston 13:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And possibly more relevant, History of the United States.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

More relevant? How so? --The Dark Side 22:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I was being tongue-in-cheek, but it is still relevant. The history of the states has greatly influenced it's biggest northern neighbour. I'll leave that to you to decide how much so.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OH! OH! Here's a biggie: "The sponsorship scandal"! No? Too boring? You're right. Waaay too boring! Jeeez was that blown out of proportion! Loomis 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that corruption on that scale was the norm for all first world countries. --The Dark Side 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Chida

can anyone tell me exactly which year the chida was interred in Har Hamenuchos?

I couldn't find a date, but it could not have happened before 1958 according to this account on the somewhat shaky transfer of the Chida's remains from Livorno to Har HaMenuchot. ---Sluzzelin 07:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the Pope the highest cleric in Christianity?

In Qatar, prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi rejected the Pope's comments and said Islam was a religion of peace and reason.

"Muslims have the right to be angry and hurt by these comments from the highest cleric in Christianity," Qaradawi told Al Jazeera television. "We ask the pope to apologize to the Muslim nation for insulting its religion, its Prophet and its beliefs."

So is the pope the highest cleric in christianity? 210.49.155.134 07:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• If cleric means what I think it does, then yes. He is. But I do wonder what he said that sparked this comment. I know for a fact Islam is a religion of peace and reason, I'm just sad that not everyone who says they practice Islam follows these thoughts. Then again, there's plenty of Christians breaking the "You shall not kill" commandment. - 131.211.210.11 07:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_criticises_Prophet_Muhammad%27s_teachings

• He's the highest cleric in the Catholic sect of Christianity, yes. Other sects, however, like the Eastern Orthodox sect, Anglican sect and many other Protestant sects, each have a different "highest cleric", or, in some cases, none, as with the Quakers. StuRat 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

StuRat is correct. It follows from what StuRat says that the pope is not the highest cleric in Christianity. The pope is no more the highest cleric of Christianity than the Ayatollah Khamenei is the highest cleric of Islam. There is no single cleric recognized by all Christians as supreme. Marco polo 15:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I never read the Quoran, but I remember reading somewhere that indeed there is a command in the Quoran "to conquer and to convert the infidels by the sword" (Christians and Jews were originally excluded because they also followed the "book" given by God/Allah). Am I right or did I misremeber something? Flamarande 12:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the various Holy Books seem to include instructions to do contradictory (and often evil) things in different places. The Bible, for example, contains commands from God to go and massacre everyone in certain towns. Should we take that to mean God wants us to commit genocide ? StuRat 12:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

the point is not that there shouldn't be intelligent Criticism of Islam. The point is that the highest cleric in Roman Catholicism has the gall to quote a 14th century Byzantine emperor (i.e. refer to a political situation where the Christian empire was crumbling under the brunt of Muslim Ottoman expansion) who said that 'nothing but inhumaninty and evil' had come from Islam. Haha, very clever, the pope didn't himself say 'nothing but inhumaninty and evil', he just happened to quote a Christian emperor who said that. He (the emperor) didn't say "we regret that Islam among more honourable qualities has this tendency of military conquest", no, he said "Muhammad has introduced nothing but inhumanity and evil". That's fair enough for a medieval Christian emperor, but it makes you wonder if old Benedict didn't wish he lived in earlier, more morally clear-cut times.... dab (ᛏ) 12:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ratzinger is a hypocrite - When did anything change? — Dunc|☺ 13:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to rat out a fellow rat, but Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth. StuRat 12:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Many non-Catholics emphatically reject the pope's authority. Some Protestant denominations even reject the idea of any supreme clergy. See Congregational church, for example. Durova 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Except for ex-Catholics who've joined other Christian denominations, it's not a question of non-Catholics rejecting the Pope's authority. In most cases, they never recognised it to begin with. JackofOz 00:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

How exactly did he get high?Edison 23:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps some of you outraged folks who are quite politically correct but historically ignorant would like to remind us of anything that Islam has brought the rest of the world but blood and attempted conquest since the eighth century? Apart from some temporary inattention that allowed a few classical non-muslim books to escape destruction, they have a fairly continuous record of aggression, slavery, and bloodshed in the name of god. Remind us what percent of Islamic converts were not the result of conquest, force and oppression? Maybe you could name a single country that didn't become Islamic as a direct result of the killing of a substantial number of its inhabitants? And before you defend Islam by finding examples of Christians doing some of those things sometimes, the Pope's point was that for the rest of the world for 13 centuries Islam has been almost nothing but a bloody menace in the name of god. The only respite from islamic aggression the rest of the world has had in the last 2 centuries resulted from enough Western strength to defend ourselves-- name a single century before that that did not see a muslim invasion of another land in the name of god. I didnt realize old Palaeologus was so perceptive and find myself astonished to be agreeing with Ratzinger. You accuse Ratzinger of hypocrisy but where has al-Qaradawi been as Muslims have murdered hundreds to thousands of people a year in the name of god in the last 5 years? The words peace and islam in the same sentence form an obscenity from his mouth that should offend every one of us. Dalembert 00:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Look pal, I am a Atheist by nature and proud of it by choice. I also like Christianity better than Islam, but the majority of Muslims are tolerant ppl (not that the media is interrested in showing tolerant Muslims these days) and Islam is largely a peaceful religion. I am also scared by the notion of suicide bombers and I also am hugely disapointed by the violent demonstrations in many Muslim countries. BUT please, please get out of your great white Christian horse and please show me in how many countries Christianity was not imposed by Steel and Blood. Africa, North America, South America? Truly the most peaceful conversions I can ever imagine. Even many countries in Europe were converted by brute force. Religions are mostly imposed by force and neither Christianity or Islam is inocent in this chapter.

My honest opinion? It largely depends upon poverty and propaganda. A poor population blames "the others" of their misfortune, manipulated by their own politicians and religious leaders. Members of a minority feel themselves opressed and marginelized because of their religion and their race. Result: they embrace their religion to an unhealthy degree and are easily manipulated by radical clerics (who have the fame of (self)rightous belivers) and find other ppl with the same opinion. Someone convices them to lash out at "the others" ... the rest is history Flamarande 23:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I hear it again and again. "Islam is a Religion of Peace". "Islam is a Religion of Peace". "Islam is a Religion of Peace". Can someone please direct me to ONE, just ONE prominent Muslim cleric who speaks out against the atrocities of Islamic fundamentalism? WHERE are they? WHO are they? WHY are they so incredibly inaudible? Can someone please give me a link to a prominent Mullah or Imam speaking out against terrorism against Israel or the US? Just a link! Just a measely little quote from any small little Mosque in the middle of nowhere will do! Anything! And please, no "qualified" responses. No "9/11 was a bad thing, but...". No "Terrorism is a bad thing, but..." Just one unqualified statement. "9/11 was a bad thing, period." "Terrorism is a bad thing, period". Loomis 19:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I looked for a link for the young and senior Muslim cleric of Lisbon but couldn't find it anywhere. His peaceful POV (on the TV interview) sounded quite reasonable to me. He might not be very prominent though. Flamarande 23:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Peace is right here at "Gunmen slay Italian nun in Somali capital" (AFP via Yahoo! News), here at Khomeini's Islamic leadership#List of executions, Guardian Council at http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0609169368210934.htm just to name a few places.--Patchouli 01:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, in the last link: "Islam is a Religion of Peace". "Islam is a Religion of Peace". "Islam is a Religion of Peace". But not a word to back it up. Where ARE these PEACEFUL Muslim clerics, and why can't I FIND them? Loomis 07:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You will find peace in Islam once you become a crank and learn that 2+2 =5.--Patchouli 03:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, Patchouli, in fact we tend to have an affinity of perspective in certain areas, so please don't take this as any sort of harsh criticism. However I'd like to differentiate the nature of our approaches. I'm not here to slur Islam (deservedly or not). I prefer a Socratic, dialectical approach, or, to put it another way, I start of with a tabula rasa, and I then ask questions, all the while trying my best to never really assert any set conclusion. I find the questions themselves, and the fact that no one seems to be able to answer them, as a satifactory conclusion in and of itself. For example, it's not my style to "put down" Islam. In fact, I really don't know too much about the religion.

Again, I start from a tabula rasa. I try to approach it as logically and dispassionately as possible, (though I admit I still haven't completely mastered the "dispassionate" part!) I find myself presented with two rather contradictory factors: 1) The assertion, repeated as nauseum, that "Islam is a religion of peace"; and 2) A total, utter and complete lack of any vocal, unqualified disaproval of terrorism and related atrocities on the part of any member, anywhere in the world, of the entire Muslim clergy. I'm genuinely puzzled by this apparent contradiction. Loomis 21:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Its a PC world and Islam lacks a central structured main organization like the Roman Catholic Church we can hold responsable. Most importantly Islamic history lacks a clear separation between political and religious powers. We in the West obtained that exactly because of all the struggles between various kings and popes and the glorious French revolution with Napoleon spreading all these ideas through Europe. Now, if you really want to hear the only real alternatives ... just ask me I might give them to you all :).Flamarande 23:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your point, Flamarande. Islam may lack a "central structural main organization like the Roman Catholic Church", but I'm not looking for a "central structured opinion". We're not all Roman Catholics. And even the Catholics seem to be able to make their disgust heard loud and clear. Many Protestant Christian denominations lack a "central structured main organization", as do, of course, Jews. Yet the clergy of these religious groups, on their own, without a "central structured main organization" tend to, rather independently, without any direction from a central authority, speak out against such atrocities. It's common fare among Ministers and Rabbis to speak out rather vocally against terrorism. In unqualified terms. Their numbers are far too numerous to list. If, for whatever reason, you want to put me to the challenge, I'd just refer you to the Rabbi that lives down the street. Or pretty much any Priest or Minister of any of my local neighbourhood churches. They'd be unanimous. Terrorism is bad. Period. Come to think of it, it would probably be a lot easier, with a quick hyperlink, to reference Christian and Jewish clergy who've gotten their views onto the internet. I'm just wondering if I can be referred to by anyone out here to any hyperlink to any Muslim cleric anywhere, who's on record as speaking out IN UNQUALIFIED TERMS, of their complete and utter rejection of the butchery going on in the name of Islam. Loomis 01:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you complety avoided the second part of of my answer :). Let me start very slowly: the Roman Catholic Church is the main representative of Christianity as a whole (like it or not), with alltoo many protestant Christian groups being defined by their rejection of the "flaws" of the Catholic church but still everybody speaking of an unified Christianity (to be blunt they are kind off "renegade Catholics" but Catholics still). Now if you study the history of Christianity you will notice the early separation between political and religious power in western society (it was certainly never complete, but still it was always there).

The church always proclaimed that its power was superior than the kings/state temporal power. All this was present right from the start: "give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar", "my realm is not of this world", etc. Emperors and kings where suppossedly ordained by God, but many times disagreed with the current pope because all kind of reasons (right to appoint bishobs, right to chose the pope (who by his part claimed the right to choose the emperor), divorce in the english case, etc) with enormous struggles between kings and popes for power under guise of pretexts. The king might have been considered ordained by God, but he was definitly not chosen by the church (tell me of a king the the church refused to crown, and if you find one ask yourself if this isn't a case of "the exception which confirms the rule"). The church surely influenced the king and his realm but it didn't rule it.

Another point is that the church being united watches itself i.e. over its members. A priest who makes a wrong action will (hopefully) be punished by the "internal affairs". A herarchy and certain amount of order is enforced (or encouraged, it largely depends upon the "sin", the public outcry, the importance of the victims, etc). I certainly admit after the reformation plenty of of "minor" protestant churches appeared on the stage but still they were and are quite influenced by the Catholic church. Notice also that several protestant churches are the result of the nationalisation by order of the ruling monarchs and their diffrences are not alltoo great (exceptions being what they are).

Now with the passing of time the whole state separated itself more and more from the church and vice-versa. The final step was taken during the French revolution (notice that Napoleon even crowned himself :) and is quite solid today in the WEST. It is our whole noble concept of "separation between state and church".

It was certainly a long and difficult process, with many setbacks and exceptions everywhere (the british monarch being the head of the Anglican church, certain nations being quite protective of their "traditional religious values", etc). The church certainly misses its influence upon the state and upon Western society as a whole but it largely accepted this separation long ago.

And to be blunt: the vast majority of Christians (even Catholics) accept some religious dogmas but they don't agree or follow alltoo many of them (make a opinion poll among Catholics and ask if they use the pill or not, pre-marital sex and you will find that the majority don't give a rat's ass about what the church says, same goes with abortion, etc).

These two developments are somewhat lacking in Islam. Mohammed (chosen by God or not, I don't care what you believe) used his new religion to unify Arabia and all his sucessors claimed both his authorities: the religious and the political. In their eyes both of them are part of the same. Even the Turkish Sultans claimed religious power as Caliphs.

The whole concept of separation between state and church is today certainly there (imported by European colonialism) but it is not very firm. It is even worse: it is widely considered a foreign idea, imposed by foreigners, for the benefit local foreign-influenced corrupt politicians.

Many Mullahs and Ayathollas long for their power and influence lost because of the foreigners and this "separation idea". Some of them want that power back; and how will they get it back? By appealing to the peaceful side of Islam and calming the crowds? That might certainly bring peace, but not the power these Mullahs lost, as the ppl would obey the current local state authority. Therefore many of them appeal to violence. Through violence they hope to regain their influence upon society. This problem is strenghtened by the fact that there is no centralized authority (like the Pope and the Catholic church), and nobody watches and punishes the mullahs if they appeal to violence (something that would happen in the Catholic church, as the pope is not very keen in getting bad reviews).

Another point is that many muslims are being manipulated by their own media and their politicians. The media sells them a vision that the West wants to invade their countries "AGAIN", beginning in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many politicians present themselves as strongmen who oppose the WEST simply to gain votes. Add to this the usual bullshi* of the "international Jewish conspiracy" and the "Israel crusader state". Add to that plain old poverty whose cause "certainly" must be the WEST. Add to that states and frontiers drawn by European politicians. Add to that a glorious past where all Muslims lived in peace before the West began to atack them (and don't forget to exagerate any of it in anyway). All these problems together create a large resentment towards the West who is easily manipulated. Don't forget that if any Muslim publicly disagrees with this he will be labeled a traitor. The majority of muslims are as peacefull as everyone of us, but they won't argue against their own neighbours for foreigners they never met amd never will meet. How many ppl in the old communist East were really communists? Yet almost none of them spoke openly against Communism and showed their support for Democracy or capitalism? They were scared. Its the same shi* whith diffrent words in the Muslim world.

Loomis the political system and political establishment of Israel is whithout a doubt a brainchild of the West (Christianity). And there are Muslim clerics who speak out against any violence. To find them in the media is hard and in the internet is not much better. Search for the Muslim cleric of Lisbon who openly spoke out against any violence in Portuguese television. Can't find him? Well I saw him with my own eyes, so unless I lying to you, you will realize that our media shows what it wants to show, and that the internet is not flawless. Flamarande 19:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WOW! Talk about the "Mother of all Non Sequiturs"! Ok. You're a Catholic. You're proud of it. You think the Protestants are a ridiculous bunch of misguided fools. I'm not even a Protestant and I'm offended! Now you tell me that Israel was the brainchild of the West (Christianity). Are you serious? Just what aspect of Israel are you speaking of? Democracy? That gem of brilliance and justice invented not by Christians, but rather by a bunch of sinful Greek faggots several centuries before Jesus was born? And what about the Jews? You imply that we've contributed absolutely NOTHING to "western civilization". Anyone else you want to offend? Hindus? Buddhists? You're a disgrace and an embarassment to all my good Catholic friends. Loomis 02:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh brother, you have misunderstood everything I wrote. Im not a Catholic and I pointed out that many of the Protestant groups define themselves as Christians who rejected the errors and flaws of the Catholic system, but They are kind of "reformed Catholics" who wish for a reform of the church and a reunification of the whole Christianity (officially the ultimate goal). They still are influenced by the Catholic church to a huge extent. Catholic or Protestant makes no dif to me.

About Israel you only have read what you want to see. Do you disagree that the political system of Israel is a Western multiparty democracy with a separation of the govermental branches, and has a clear separation of religion and politics? I never denied that these notions were invented by the ancient Greeks but they were adopted by Christianity and today are part of it. I certainly acknowledge the huge positive contributions of the many Jewish scientists, politicians, philosophers, etc to the entire world. I never ever denied them. I am definity not a bigot. That is the real problem with these texts: I can write something but someone can alltoo easily misunderstand it and take offense. In a face-to-face conversation I will explain exactly what I mean (as I am trying to do now) to clear any doubts to avoid the eventual miunderstandings. Please, try not to see insults everywhere. Read carefully what I wrote, I got the impression that you ignored everything except the last paragraph which you misunderstood completly.

You ignored my argument that the West as whole is quite used to the separation between the state and religion. You ignore my point that this is not the case in the Muslim world, and that the separation there was largely imposed by the Western colonial powers. That many religious leaders there want their lost power back, and preach agaist this western idea and against the West in general. Therefore they appeal to the violent side of the crowd despite the peaceful aspects of Islam. That the lack of a central authorithy (or major influence, take your pick) like the Catholic church has upon Christianity as a whole, in Islam, who would watch over radical clerics, deeppens this problem. That the media and the politicians in the Arab countries manipulate the ppl against the WEST to sell their product or to gain their support. That the major channels (like CNN, BBC, etc) are not very interrested in showing moderate and peaceful muslim clerics but are keen in showing the radical ones (like the guy with the eye-patch and the hook interviewed in the BBC) to improve their aduience ratings. That all religions (Islam, Christianity, Judiasim, Budhism, Hinduism, etc every single one of them) are no strangers to violence and that all of them can be used towards furthering violence. That plenty of Muslim clerics speak publicly against all sorts of violence, only to be largly ignored by everybod, including us. Flamarande 12:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I admit that I have a short temper when it comes to certain things, and that personal attacks should be avoided at all costs. I apologize for that last outburst. I'll just say for now, as mildly as possible, with all due respect, that your communication skills are rather poor. Perhaps there is some truth to what you're saying, but trying to extract it is enough to leave one with a migraine. At the same time, while you may not be a bigot per se, your apparent "statements of fact" are rather bizarre, to say the least. "The Roman Catholic Church is the main representative of Christianity as a whole"? I beg to differ. It may be the largest unified segment of Christianity, but hardly "the main representative". Maybe it's a cultural or geographical thing, but when I think of the term "Christian", what immediately comes to my mind is not the Pope or priests or nuns, but rather Jesus and the New Testament and preachers giving sermons on Sundays in little suburban churches, with modest congregations, who then go out to vote for those people who are basically the most influencial of the leaders of the free world, the "West". And apparently so do the terrorists. Which Christians are they most pissed off with? The Protestants of course! After all, on 9/11 bin Laden didn't send jetliners to crash into St. Peter's Basilica, it was the Protestant Americans with their "World Trade Centre" and all. Who's considered the "great Satan" anyway? France? Italy? Of course not. It's Protestant America of course! In fact, just take a look a that unholy alliance that seems to be forming between Catholic Venezuela, Muslim Iran, and even a little help (or at least opportunistic sympathy) from Orthodox Russia and Atheist China. I don't want to but down all these other Christian groups, my only point is that in the minds of the terrorists, though all these groups may be infidels, it's clearly the Protestants that, for them represent the worst of "Christian", "Western" infidels.

Now, after asserting without a logical thread to hang from that "the Roman Catholic Church is the main representative of Christianity as a whole," you then proceed to divide the Christian world up between the "Catholics" and the "renegade Catholics" (being made up of some "minor protestant churches"). Is it any wonder I assumed you were a chauvinistic Catholic? Where in the world did you get such bizarre terminology? (And come to think of it, where do the Orthodox fit in to this whole picture?)

Next, there's the bizarre assertion of some sort of wish among all Christians to reconcile their differences and hopefully one day reunify into one great Christian Church. Huh? Have you ever even spoken to a Protestant minister? They don't merely "take exception" to some of the "flaws" in Catholicism, but wish to one day "rejoin" a single church. They want no such thing! The Protestants reject the entire notion of the whole "centralized authority" that is the Catholic church. (I'm leaving aside the Anglicans for the moment). They want no part of that entire hierarchical structure that is so fundamental to having a centralized Church. In fact, one of their biggest issues is with the Catholic notion of a sort of "caste" of people, (the Priests, etc.) who serve as intermediaries between man and God. One of the most fundamental tenets of almost every Protestant denomination is that, contrary to Catholicism, man has a personal, private and DIRECT relationship with God.

Also, you seem to have a pretty distorted understanding of how, since the Great Schism, (and even before in some cases) the various Christian denominations viewed each other. You seem to believe that the attitude could more or less be summed up as: "well, our Church disagrees with your Church on x, y, and z, but hey, we're still all Christians! How about we agree to disagree?" Well nothing could be further from the truth. The Great Schism, for example, created such animosity between the East and the West that each side considered the other to be heretics, even worse than heathens. Then with the Reformation the same thing happened all over again. It was actually quite bloody. Take the Edict of Fontainebleau: no Protestants allowed in France!

To the Catholics, (perhaps not today, but for much of the history of its Church), you're either a Catholic (and therefore a Christian) or you're a non-Catholic (and therefore not a Christian). There was no middle ground. Just check out the etymology of the word "Catholic" and you'll see that it's derived from the Greek "universal" or "whole". That's why non-Catholics tend to prefer to add the qualifier Roman Catholic. That way they're deliberately not identifying the Catholic Church as the one, true, "whole", "universal" Church.

What's also bizarre is your interpretation of the Roman Catholics as being the driving force in the separation of church and state. That one is truly bizarre. Have there ever been any Christian theocracies in history? I can't think of many, but surely there were some, and the only one that seems to immediately pop into my head is Catholic Spain during the Inquisition. You're doing quite a great deal of twisting and contorting history. Give unto Caesar..., who actually took that one seriously? The Catholics, with their notions of the divine right of Kings? Of course not. The whole Give unto Caesar bit was given no more than mere lip service until the Protestant Reformation.

Anyway, I can go on and on, but I'll just stop here. If I may though, I'll add a couple of points. Pretty much the entire academic world, when refering to what you describe as "western" values use the term Judaeo-Christian. It's not that Jews have "made some great contributions to civilization". That's actually a rather insulting understatement. We're, at the very least, the "co-founders" of western civilization. Even the Catholic Church itself has acknowledged this, in the Vatican II ecumenical council, describing us as their "elder brethren". That's why that whole "brainchild of the West (Christianity)" remark was particularly, particularly insulting. I just wish you'll be a big enough person to apologize as I have for your particularly insulting comments. Loomis 21:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Muslims, as the vast majority are innocent of the "accusations" of terrorism, and have no part in the attacks on Israel. However, I am confused, was the Catholic Pope not speaking of past Islam actions, as opposed to present? Also, I heard that the Pope was a Hitler Youth also, however he escaped as he did not like it. | AndonicO 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific quote from philosopher Hegel

From school I remember reading a passage from Hegel where he discusses the meeting of two people. As I recall it was intended as a description of the most fundamental relationship between people. Can anyone help me with more information?

Patrik

Maybe you mean the close friendship Hegel had with Schelling and Hölderlin. The German wikipedia's article on Hegel mentions an episode, which allegedly occurred on July 14th 1792, where the three of them dance around an Arbre de la liberté near Tübingen. But the same article states that it is questionable whether this actually ever happened. Nevertheless, it is not doubted that the three of them were very close friends. ---Sluzzelin 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dream

Which species do not dream at all ?

We can cross off blue turtles. :-) StuRat 13:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw a film of a cat that had some kind of treatment that "switched off" the mechanism that pretty much paralyses animals during sleep. The (apparently) sleeping cat was stalking invisible prey and behaving in a fairly cat-like manner. The inference was that it was acting out its dream. --Dweller 13:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure, but invertebrates seem not to sleep, ergo they do not dream.--Shantavira 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they daydream.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Great

http://www.sortitoutsi.net/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=5843

A very strange looking picture of an apparent scientific great. Would be greatly appreciated if someone could tell me who he is. I think it may be a generated phot of what he "may" have looked like.

Where is the original thread? — Dunc|☺ 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is some kind of joke. Here is another instance of the image, claimed as a photograph of Copernicus. Marco polo 16:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It not entirely a joke. It is a reconstruction of a body who may be Copernicus http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4405958.stm MeltBanana 12:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to admit, that's pretty sweet. He looks like the kind of science teacher I'd like to learn under.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  08:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

African-American female singers

Can you guys list some African-American female singers that reached atleast a bit of mainsteam sucess before or during 1990s? This obviously includes the 60s, 70s and 80s, etc. so dont hesitate to list anyone. It does not matter if they still active. - Tutmosis 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aretha Franklin and Gladys Knight. You might also try here: Category:African-American singers. Dismas|^(talk) 17:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, didnt even come tom mind that a category existed as such... Thanks. - Tutmosis 17:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Ella Fitzgerald? --Robert Merkel 11:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also check out the Motown article. Rmhermen 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to repeat Ella Fitzgerald. She was HUGE! Many consider her to be one of, if not THE best American singer of all time. Of course there's also Billy Holliday, Tina Turner, Diana Ross ... the list is actually pretty endless. I couldn't possibly list them all off the top of my head, but if you ever need another couple of dozen, go ahead and ask! Loomis 19:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dick Van Dyke show

In the first season (1961) of the TV classic Dick Van Dyke show, why did Dick Van Dyke wear heavy eye makeup? Did it have to do with lighting on black and white film? I don't recall other TV shows from that era where men wore heavy eye makeup. Andrew L.

Never noticed it. Too busy enjoying young Mary Tyler Moore in capri pants. So I question the assertion that he wore "heavy eye makeup."Edison 23:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he had rings under the eyes or some other problem that necessitated the use of eye makeup. StuRat 00:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Sin

What is the Biblical/Scriptural basis for original sin?

See Original sin Nowimnthing 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Less tensions in Israel with Israeli Arabs?

Hello,

this is probably gonna be outrageously controversial, but I'll give it a try:

Quite often I hear about trouble in the Gaza strip or West Bank. The IDF often goes back into the Gaza strip to look for terrorists (as they explain that) and a wall is being created around the West Bank.

How come I never hear about walls being constructed to seperate Arab villages like Nazareth inside Israel from Haifa for instance. Why do I never hear about the Israeli army going into towns like those to arrest people? Is it not reported? Does it not happen? I mean, considering there are strong ties between the Arab population inside Israel and those in the Palestinian Territories, you'd think it would be very interesting for armed groups to have contacts/bases in villages like that.

Or do Arabs inside Israel live more in peace with the Jewish majority there?

Please enlighten me. Thanks!

Evilbu 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they live more at peace with Israel. There are many reasons for this. They can vote in Israel and are also better off economically, advantages they aren't eager to lose by causing trouble. Also, they, or their ancestors, stayed, while those who ended up in Gaza and the West Bank are largely those who left to fight the Israelis after the partition. So, those who stayed were historically the more peaceful ones while those who left were the violent ones. Those Arabs inside Israel are even openly hostile to the terrorists, viewing them as just causing trouble. StuRat 00:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I read in the New York Times a few months, or maybe even a year, ago, that there was disagreement amongst the Israeli Arab community. Some members favored voting in elections and participating in the government, while others favored a boycott of country they live within. I don't recall anything about violence, however, just varying (if any) degrees of resentment against their Jewish neighbors. I'll see if I can find the article online... Picaroon9288 00:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

How would boycotting elections ever accomplish anything ? It just reduces the political power of those who engage in the boycott, as the Sunnis in Iraq found out after the first election. StuRat 03:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good comparison. I always wonder how boycotts will help one's cause, too. I've generally determined that election boycotts come into being because minorities can't gain the majorities needed to force their ideas through, so they boycott to save face, which is a reasonable idea. Such boycotts are still in progress in Venezuela and Zimbabwe, last I checked. Back on the topic of Jewish Israeli-Arab Israeli relations, the general stance of the boycotting segment of the Arab communities was to completely deny the sovereignty of Israel over them. They can't have their cake and eat it too; nor can they boycott the country and vote too. Picaroon9288 03:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the article, (but it's available only to New York Times subsribers who can find their account number, apparently and annoyingly.) Picaroon9288 01:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Israel kept Israeli-Arab towns under marshal law until shortly before the Six Day War. As noted above, Israeli Arabs, while they have the downside of living in a state designated for a different ethnic group, do get lots of benefits from living in a prosperous, democratic country. The standard of living for Israeli Arabs is far higher than that of West Bank Palestinians. It's an interesting situation, because while many Israeli Arabs (or "Palestinians of 1948," as some now call themselves) sympathize with the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians and are ambivalent about the State of Israel, they have no desire to become citizens of a future State of Palestine. A few years back, an Israeli politician proposed swapping some Arab towns in Israel for some Jewish towns in the West Bank as part of a settlement with the Palestinians. The Arabs in the Israeli towns in question were quite offended at the suggestion they would be shifted out of Israel. -- Mwalcoff 01:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be curious to get a source to read about how Arab-Israeli towns were kept under martial (who's marshal?) law up until shortly before the 1967 war. Sounds interesting. Loomis 19:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In any case, Mwalcoff is right. Israeli-Arabs actually get along quite well with Israeli-Jews. A very good example of this is demonstrified quite well in Haifa, Israel's third laregst city, and the one with the highest per capita population of Israeli-Arabs. Many businesses there are actually joint-owned by both Jewish and Arab Israelis; a great example of how Jews and Arabs can live and prosper together. Loomis 19:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)