Humanities desk
< April 17	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 19 >

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.

April 18[edit]

Inauguration day falls on a Sunday[edit]

When January 20 falls on a Sunday, as it happend in 2013, the president is officially sworn in the next day. What about other public officials in the USA? Are senators, representatives, governors and mayors also not sworn in on Sundays? I know that some governors are sworn in on the first Monday (or something), but others have fixed inuaguaration dates. Cheers --78.51.171.36 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Senators and Congressman are sworn in at the start of their January session, which is theoretically the 3rd, although obviously it can fall on a Sunday also. Poking around Google, it seems that Congress can start pretty much any day they want to. As noted here, the starting date has varied from the 3rd to the 7th since 1996. I suspect the practical rule is that Congress starts no earlier than the 3rd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, note that plenty of presidents, senators and congressman have been sworn at on Sundays, taking the Lords name in vain or not. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

It's not correct that "the president is officially sworn in the next day": see United States presidential inauguration. Several presidents have been sworn in on a Sunday, but delayed the public ceremonies until the next day. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, inaugurations do happen on Sundays, but one President, Zachary Taylor, refused to be sworn in until ed: insert the following: "the day after..." Sunday. That event led to the apocryphal belief that David Rice Atchison was President for one day. That actually isn't true; no serious U.S. Constitutional scholar believes that; the Presidential term begins on the day it is mandated to begin, regardless of when the oath is taken. --Jayron32 19:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ~~(I assume "until Sunday" should read "until Monday".)~~ The Constitution doesn't stop him from becoming President - it just stops him from performing any official duties. Since he wasn't inclined to take the oath until Monday, presumably he wasn't doing anything else presidential on Sunday either, so no problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So corrected --Jayron32 00:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure. :) It's kind of neat that he knew about this at the time and had a sense of humor about it, reporting that he had slept through most of his "term". Ironically, though, given his pro-slavery views, had he actually become president he might have started the Civil War sooner, as opposed to letting the problem fester as Taylor and his successors were content to do. Did you ever notice how much Taylor looks like Mel Brooks? Zachary Lepetomane Taylor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Presidents prior to Lincoln were anti-abolitionist (or, at best, agnostic on the matter). Given the electoral politics of the time, it was VERY difficult for either major party to get an anti-slavery northerner elected President, and anti-slavery southerners didn't exist in the political realm. All of the Virginia Dynasty owned slaves. Martin Van Buren was morally opposed to slavery, but agnostic on the issue, instead deferring to its legality in the Constitution. William Henry Harrison initially opposed slavery as a rebellious youth, but eventually lobbied in its favor for the Northwest Territories. James Tyler and James K. Polk owned slaves; the former somewhat reluctantly, the latter with no shame. Zachary Taylor was opposed to expanding slavery into new states (Wilmot Proviso), but was a political pragmatist and considered the issue negotiable. Millard Fillmore was notionally anti-slavery, but also opposed the Wilmot Proviso, and like Taylor, supported political compromise over the issue (Compromise of 1850). Franklin Pierce, like most of his predecessors, opposed slavery on moral grounds, but was anti-abolitionist for political reasons. James Buchanan was more of the same (opposed to slavery on moral grounds, opposed to abolition on political grounds). Lincoln was the first President to openly consider abolition of slavery a political possibility (not even assuredly, but merely to float the idea that it could be discussed) and the Civil War started before he could even be inaugurated. Being anti-abolitionist was the ONLY way one could get elected President for the first 80 years of U.S. history. --Jayron32 01:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happens with the bail money?[edit]

There are offenses which are bailable. My question is, when someone pays the bail, what does the court do with the money? Do they donate it to NGOs or is that simply extra money for judges like a bonus for CEOs, for e.g.? 112.198.79.136 (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's returned if the person in question shows up in court on the specified date. There have been cases of quasi-corruption or blatant money-grubbing connected with civil forfeiture, but I don't know that the same is true of bail funds... AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what happens if the person doesn't show up of their own free will ?

1) Who gets to keep it if they never show up at all.

2) Do they get it back if they change their mind and come back, or are arrested or brought in by a bounty hunter ? StuRat (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this: The judge will issue a bench warrant for the defendant's arrest, and the bond will be in forfeit (default). In this instance, the only way you will get your cash bond back is for you to find the defendant and bring him or her back to jail within 90 days of the forfeiture OR for the defendant to be arrested by a law enforcement officer and brought back to jail within 90 days from the date the bond was forfeited. There is more but I didn't want to quote the entire thing. I still don't see what happens to it if the person comes back (by whatever means) after 90 days. And I would think that it differs from state to state and/or country to country. I noticed that the OP never specified that we were talking about the US. Dismas|^(talk) 15:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a reading of bail and various sites on the 'net, the person who posted the bail gets the money back even if the defendant is found guilty. It's basically just a deposit saying that you'll appear back in court. Dismas|^(talk) 15:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that with regards to StuRat's question about 'do they get it back', there's the obvious issue of who's 'they'? AFAIK and supported by our articles, in the US where I think the predominates anyway, bounty hunters are generally paid by bail bond agents who posted bail on the defendants behalf. This is unsurprising since someone needs to pay the 'bounty'. In the case where a bond agent was used, they may get some or all of the bail back if they recatch and force the defendant to appear within a certain timeframe but the defendant may not. In fact our article suggests in most cases the fee the bond agents charge for their services is non refundable although our articles have enough problems that I wonder if this is really the case. (Beyond the risk of being pursued by a bounty hunter, it would seem wise for the bond agents to give some other incentive to the defendants to appear on their own. Particular as I don't think they generally give as much consideration as the court does in deciding the risk of the defendant disappearing, although the size of the bail is probably a hint.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but we still haven't addressed the issue of where exactly the bail or bond goes when it is forfeited. I doubt if the judge is supposed to pocket it. Does it go to support the running of the court ? Does it go into the city, county, state, or nation's general fund ? If it goes to the court, that might lead them to hold hearings at 3 AM, to increase the number of no-shows and hence how much money they can grab by forfeiture. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disposition of forfeit bail bonds seems to vary by jurisdiction. Idaho, for example, first pays court costs and then distributes the rest according to a densely written statute that I am too lazy to read in full. Up here in BC, bail forfeitures are described as simply debt owing to the Crown, which suggests they go into general government revenues (though I expect there is some obscure regulation specifying exactly how they should be allocated)

As to 3 am hearings, the references I have seen all seem to allow a period of time to fulfill the terms of the bond, (i.e. if you miss the 3 am hearing, your surety has an opportunity to produce you along with a valid excuse to avoid forfeiture). There also seems to be a consistent requirement for hearings before declaring bonds forfeit, which could allow one to argue against onerous or impossible conditions - Eron^Talk 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully such hearings manage to avoid the obvious conflict of interest of having the same people benefit from the forfeiture who decide on it. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One assumes the judge at least won't be pocketing the money. But there is certainly precedent for worries about the abuse of forfeiture proceedings in general. - Eron^Talk 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget Judge Roy Bean, whose fines always miraculously happened to match whatever the "criminal" had in his pockets. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention this before and from this discussion I'm not sure if anyone else noticed but our bail bond agent article I linked above actually mentions a bribery scandal in Louisiana. From what I can tell per Ronald Bodenheimer and [1], the scandal involved judges accepting bribes, allegedly including to set generally lower bond requirements on behalf of a dominant bond agent. This may seem counter-intuitive at first since bond agents making a percentage obviously don't want bond requirements to be too low. (In fact, our article suggests there is generaly controversy over bail not being granted for a relatively minor offender who would generally expect a low bond, but being given for a serious offender who would expect a high bond with the obvious suggestion this is done to benefit bond agents.) Probably the wording used in the blog is better, affordable as I would assume the bond agents wanted a bail set such that the criminal could barely afford to pay the 10% or whatever fee a bond agent would demand, but not the whole lot.

Perhaps more germane to this discussion, in a somewhat our of place and unsourced manner, the article also mentions that in Louisiana a 2% fee is charged to bond agents of which 1/4 goes to judges. I presume they mean this is always paid in any case when a bond agent is used and it's non refundable but I dunno for sure. I would also presume this goes in to some general fund which is them distributed to judges rather than being paid specifically to the judge who set the bond.

BTW, one thing I did miss until a few days but in retrospect should have been an obvious possibility, our article suggests bond agents may sometimes require a security againsts the defendants assets for the full amount. (I.E. In these cases there remains an incentive for the defendant to show up to the bond agents beyond the risk of being pursued. Of course if you're going to run away it may be hard to use your assets in the future. But I guess it ideally stops you trying to sell them secretly. And also prevents you running away while providing leaving some security for your family. )

Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formologics?[edit]

Is there such a concept in Philosophy? thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of formal logic? ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. Thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pentecostal Parenting[edit]

Why do Pentecostal Christians use "scare tactics" (note the quote) to teach their kids about morality? Or is this just the impression that their ex-Christian atheist/agnostic/deist/humanist/skeptic/freethinker children have? What is really going on? Please give me examples of Pentecostal parenting. I suspect the "scare tactic" is really the "speaking in tongues with the devil" in Pentecostal churches. 140.254.226.206 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, speaking in tongues in the Pentecostal tradition is linked with being touched by the Holy Spirit. It is not associated with the devil. - Eron^Talk 19:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Pentecostal exorcisms? I think I meant that. 140.254.226.206 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely uncertain why you believe that Pentecostals use "scare tactics" as a parenting technique. Near as I can tell, you're under any of a number of really ridiculous misconceptions based on your comments here, and I'm entirely uncertain which misconception to disabuse you of. 1) Pentacostal Christians do not use exorcisms as a parenting technique. 2) Pentacostal Christians are likely to use a wide range of parenting techniques, probably representative of the range of techniques present in the population at large. Teaching about morality takes many forms, and there are many techniques to do so. There is not a monolithic set of behaviors one finds in Pentacostal families. "Scare tactics" are just as likely in Baptists or Sunni Muslims or Agnostics; while calm, reasoned discussions about morality are perfectly acceptable parenting techniques among many Pentacostals. --Jayron32 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Do as we tell you or you will burn in eternal Hell" sounds like a scare tactic, to me, but certainly not one limited to Pentecostal Christians. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not going to work for Jehovah's Witnesses or Christians (i.e. Catholics) who do not believe that Hell is a physical place. 140.254.226.206 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your answer presumes that Pentecostals believe in Hell as place rather than a state of being. 140.254.226.206 (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that the Catholic Church teaches that Hell is not an actual place? It absolutely does teach that it is a place: that this place is also a state of "the absence of God" does not prevent it from being a place that people can actually end up going. Of course, the Catholic Church also teaches that we have no way of knowing who is in Hell, or how many people, but it definitely considers Hell a place that people are in danger of ending up for all eternity after they die. Hell is one of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses claim the Catholic Church made up: it's not something the two groups agree on. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got the idea on Wikipedia. 140.254.226.206 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a modern way of saying "I read it on the internet". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those pesky premoderns and their Wikipedia-less Internet. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah’s Witnesses have published an article about "hell" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001978, where you can see what they actually claim.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having followed the above reference, I'm no clearer as to what Jehovah's Witnesses do actually claim about this.--rossb (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things it claims: "Hell" is a misconception; "Hell" as a place of firey punishment is a pagan Babylonian/Assyrian idea. (N.b., calling an idea Babylonian is often code for Roman Catholic. It doesn't tell you what they actually believe about Hell (they believe that it doesn't exist, and that the wicked are simple Annihilated), nor does it spell out precisely how they think Christians came to believe in it (although it hints). 86.146.28.229 (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a theological conundrum with the idea of Hell as a place in the absence of God - namely, how can something exist if God is absent? That suggests the idea that not only there could be vast other universes that exist, but don't have God, and therefore perhaps follow other Gods with the same power as God, but also that people might plausibly travel to them, which contradicts the entire monotheistic idea. Indeed if one suggests that Hell is apart from God, with presumably Satan controlling it, it seems to make him out as a near equal, perhaps a younger brother like Hades. It seems easier to suppose that the idea of the "outer darkness", however put, is as a "place" that doesn't exist, that is defined by nonexistence, you might say. I suppose there must be terms of art for all these statements somewhere in the past two millennia of theological debate. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of our stereotypical images of hell are derived from Dante's Inferno. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]