Humanities desk
< July 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	August 1 >

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.

July 31

Kneeling and Yom Kippur

When is kneeling performed during Yom Kippur services and how prevalent is it throughout the Jewish community? Could someone please direct me to a good scholarly source that mentions anything about this? Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kneeling if performed one time on Rosh Hashana and 4 times on Yom Kippur. The first time is the same for both holidays -- it is during the musaf chazarat hashatz (repetition of the chazzan) when he gets to aleinu. Perhaps you have access to an ArtScroll machzor, in which case you can see this on page 550-1 of the Yom Kippur Ashkenaz version. This phrase is normally accompanied with the normal waist-bow during the rest of the year, but on High Holidays, because the musaf is so very associated with the Temple worship, a full bow is performed by the chazzan and whomever in the congregation cares to do so as well. The next three times occur only on Yom Kippur and accompany the "Temple service" portion of the Yom Kippur repetition of the chazzan (again, in the ArtScroll, pages 560-1, 562-3 and 566-7). These three kneelings are during the words "והכהנים והעם", when we recite the words about how the Kohen Gadol would recite the Tetragrammaton with its proper pronunciation -- at which time, they would all kneel and prostrate themselves and recite "Baruch shem kavod..." I'd say it's ubiquitous among Orthodox communites for the chazzan to kneel and perhaps less so among the congregants. Some congregations do, some probably don't, and the vast majority of, let's say, non-Hasidic/Yeshivish communities probably see a mixture within each synagogue. I do not possess a copy of the Shulchan Aruch but the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch includes mention of the custom of spreading something on the floor so that kneeling not be performed on a stone floor (as prohibited since Temple times, and later extended to either include all flooring or just remains as a custom to not do so on any flooring) in 133:23. The Chayei Adam mentions the same custom in 145:35. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the Shulchan Aruch for this kneeling and bowing with one's head touching the ground is: Orach Chaim chap.621 par.4 gloss of Rema. Not placing one's head directly on a stone floor is stated in the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim chap.131 par.8 gloss of Rema - (there is no prohibition for the knees to touch a stone floor). The Torah source for this prohibition is Leviticus chap.26 verse 1. For this reason the worshipper in the Synagogue places a cloth or a piece of paper to separate his head from making direct contact with the actual floor. Simonschaim (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do Sephardim do? --Dweller (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of days per month

The number of days per month, from January to December, is: 31, 28 (or 29), 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31. The calendar is based on the movements of the sun, the moon, and the earth; the seasons; etc. These are all very precise and predictable movements and patterns. How did it come to be, then, that the number of days per month has such an odd and seemingly arbitrary and random pattern (or, lack of pattern)? There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the numbering scheme. How did this start out? And why didn't anyone ever change it over these past many hundred years? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Because it matches the mnemonic with your knuckles. Dismas|^(talk) 02:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of calendars will give you some context.--Wetman (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A trivia book I once read said that Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar each stole one day from February to add to the month they named after themselves. Having some smattering of 31s among the 30s is the best you can do if you're committed to having 12 months. Paul (Stansifer) 05:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, February had a special status a long time before (see below). AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Roman calendar developed from an original ten-month lunar calendar (with January and February left out, since nothing interesting happened in the agricultural cycle during that time of year), to a solar calendar whose leap years consisted of shortening February to 23 days and inserting a 13th month between February and March, to the more familiar Julian calendar. At various stages along the way, there were various adjustments and fudgings, and the accumulated result of all those adjustments is the pattern of month lengths in the current calendar... AnonMoos (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you want to see a calendar which was consciously devised to have a specific pattern of month lengths, look at the Reformed Saka calendar... AnonMoos (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Julian Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar are key in this. A method was established before the Julian Calendar, and we are stuck with it. The refinment between the two was the one day in four years, missing in the Julian. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Descent of Elizabeth II

Can anybody tell me if she descends from any of the High Kings of Ireland or native Princes of the Welsh, with a verifiable line?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My library runs more to Heraldry than Genealogy, but according to Blood Royal (1956) by Sir Iain Moncreiffe and Don Pottinger, She is directly descended from Prince Llewelyn the Great aka Llewelyn I of Wales. I could type out the 15 generations listed between Llewelyn and James VI & I if you want them. The book (the second sequel to Simple Heraldry, Cheerfully Illustrated) is popular rather than scholarly, but given Sir Iain's stature as a genealogist is probably reliable on such matters. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should type it out the descent Llywelyn the Great from for me under Descent of Elizabeth II from William I#The Descent from Native Princes of Wales.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% sure exactly what you intended there, so I'll type it out here and you can do what you want with it . . .

(King Coel the Old, Ancient Briton, c. 400 -> [24 generations omitted here] -> Iowerth Drwyadwn) -> Prince Llewelyn the Great, died 1240 -> Gwladys the Black married Ralph Mortimer, Lord of Wigmore -> Roger Mortimer, Lord of Wigmore, died 1282 -> Edmund, Lord Mortimer, died 1304 -> Roger, Earl of the Welsh March, executed 1330 -> Edmund, Lord Mortimer, died 1331 -> Roger, Earl of the Welsh March, died 1359 -> Earl Edmund the Good, died 1381 -> Roger, Earl of the Welsh March, killed 1398 -> Lady Anne Mortimer married Richard, Earl of Cambridge -> Richard, Duke of York, killed 1460 -> King Edward IV died 1483 -> Princess Elizabeth married King Henry VII -> Princess Margaret Tudor married James IV -> James V died 1542 -> Mary Queen of Scots married Henry Stuart -> James I, King of Great Britain from 1603.

(Source: pp 40-41, Iain Moncrieffe of Easter Moncreiffe, Unicorn Pursuivant of Arms and Don Pottinger, Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd, 1956.)

Incidentally, the same book (pp 42-43) sets out a purported line of descent to James VI & I stretching back (via James V and Kenneth mac Alpin, died 860) 37 generations to the (semi-legendary) King Fergus the Great (aka Fergus Mór), died 501. If the latter was descended from the High Kings of Ireland (as well as being "traced By the Gaelic sennachies back to the Celtic god-king Eremon" aka Érimón), that would give you the other line you asked for. Also, the Pictish royal line merged with this one (according to Moncreiffe) by virtue of "a Pictish princess" marrying Eochaid the Venomous, c. 781. However, my impression is that this line's historicity is in its earlier portions less secure than the Welsh one. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One link with the Welsh Princes was Henry VII of England, whose "hereditary connections to Welsh aristocracy were not strong. He was descended by the paternal line, through several generations, to Ednyfed Fychan, the seneschal(steward) of Gwynedd and through this seneschal's wife to Rhys ap Tewdwr, the King of Deheubarth in South Wales.". This is a different line from Llewelyn the Great. This page[1] says; "Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the late Queen Mother (the last Queen of Ireland) brought the blood of the Dal Cais and Eoganacht dynasties of Munster and that of the Ui Neill high kings into the Royal Family. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of King Brian Boru, Nial of the Nine Hostages and the Iron Age sacral kings of Tara." However, this is matrilineal descent; I understand that Irish Kings could only inherit through the male line. Alansplodge (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me the line of descent of Elizabeth II from Brian Boru? It doesn't matter about the inheritance of Irish kings and I don't think it matters anyway Irish kingship was elective not hereditary.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After much rumaging around... The last High King of Ireland was Edward Bruce, or Eideard or Iomhair Bruis, who was the younger brother of Robert I of Scotland. Edward was "descended from Brian Bóruma" according to the WP article List of High Kings of Ireland, although I'm not sure how - the answer must be there somewhere - ergo, Robert I must have been descended from Brian Boru too. The House of Windsor descends from Robert I; as do the Bowes-Lyons, John Lyon (lord of Glamis) having married the Princess Joanna, the daughter of Robert II of Scotland. Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another line is suggested by this [2] page; "Brian's descendants are the O'Brien clan. One of them later married a Norman noble, and an offspring of this union was Elizabeth de Burgh. She later married the Duke of Clarence, who was the son of English king Edward III, and from their union came the York kings and the mother of Henry VIII."

However, her great aunt, also Elizabeth de Burgh was Queen Consort to Robert I of Scotland and the mother of David I of Scotland. She was the daughter of Richard Óg de Burgh, 2nd Earl of Ulster, whose father was Walter de Burgh, 1st Earl of Ulster, and grandfather was Richard Mór de Burgh. Richard's maternal grandfather was Domnall Mór Ua Briain King of Thomond, a great-great-great grandson of Brian Bóruma. Sorted! Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember speaking to a ruler, lord, in the UK. He clamed to be the rightful heir to the throne and that there was a changling in the history-line! So how can you trace a legitimate line, if that is the case? And of course there has been too many battles, and too many claimants, to justify the concempt of direct line. Perhaps 1066 being the most notable. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sovereign is whoever Parliament says it is. Parliament says that Elizabeth Windsor is Queen Elizabeth II. End of argument. Alansplodge (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And UK lords are not "rulers". That concept is about 500 years out of date. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legitimate line is the one that was legally recognised at the time, the 'choice' between several candidates often being decided by force of arms, legal rules that were valid then though they might not be valid today, and other contentious points. There are doubtless many lines of descent that would be legitimate if some decisions had gone the other way, but they didn't, and cannot be re-raised now. Substitution of royal infants was always a worry, was not infrequently rumoured to bolster alternative claims, and was therefore always guarded against - Royal births were usually officially witnessed; whether it ever actually happened would be almost impossible to prove at this juncture other than by DNA analysis of all the relevant corpses, which in practice will never be permitted. When dynasties were changed by battles, the winners usually took care to marry some of the preceding dynasty into their own to strengthen their cause, and anyway usually (in the British Isles) already had ancestry from it. William I, for example, was related on his mother's side to earlier Anglo-Saxon and Danish rulers of England. In any case, we are primarily discussing lines of ancestral descent, not recognised lines of legal inheritance of the throne which are bound by much more restrictive rules, such as (usually) male-line only. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are getting off subject. I need a good line of descent from Brian Boru down to Elizabeth II or any other High King of Ireland if Brian isn't possible. Also I need another line describing her descent from the Kings of Ulster. It would be interesting to put on Descent of Elizabeth II from William I because it would show she is descendant of all the past rulers of the British Isles including Walse, Ireland and Northern Ireland. I'm perfectly aware that her descent does not affect her right to reign and that it is the Parliament that says who is Sovereign.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discursions around the primary question are allowed, Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, and are (or should be) marked off by the indent system to show they're not direct responses to it: Alansplodge, Jack of Oz and I were correcting MacofJesus, not you. If we could/can contribute further answers directly to the thrust of your question, perhaps discovered by reading and thinking around the subject while addressing the digressions, we would/will. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the story about Elizabeth being descended from Mohammed? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again according to Blood Royal, she is descended from, amongst other worthies, Mujahid Al Aâmiri, King of the Barbary Corsairs, whose daughter or descendant (this line is only sketched), a "Moorish Princess of Denia", married Mahomet I, King of Seville; the line proceeds via such as Joanna, Queen of Spain, William, Duke of Cleves, and Christian V, King of Denmark, mostly through intermarriages between ruling dynasties. I daresay it's likely that a descendent of Mohammed (PBUH) married into this line at some point. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can trace her descendants to Brian Boru, then she is an Irish Woman, with Celtic blood. The bit about "the lord, as ruler", I cannot elaborate for obvious reasons or give citations! I don't think this story is going to end! Actually, it is the other way around; The Monarch, gives creedence to Parliament and allows Parliament to sit, the leader; the Prime Minister to form a Goverment. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mac, try reading UK Constitution, UK government, William and Mary, Act of Settlement 1701 and monarch of the UK. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it confirms. The Mace, not an article page on Wikipedia, is significant. You can start this article page. MacOfJesus (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the articles linked? While it is true that Parliament maintains the polite fiction that the Queen rules and has the final say, the reality is that Parliament serves The Crown. If the particular person who happens to be the monarch at the moment worries Parliament too much, they can and will replace them. Which is why William and Mary got to reign, and is what the Act of Settlement was about. So, it really doesn't matter what claim anyone thinks they have to the throne: the Monarch is whoever Parliament says is the Monarch. It might lead to a constitutional crisis, but we've had them before. As long as the people generally feel it's the right thing to do, it doesn't lead to too much trouble. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such "polite fiction". The Queen reigns but does not rule. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are you using the word 'rule', then? I don't think I'm familiar with a meaning of the word 'rule' which would fit the context and yet not describe the function the Queen fictionally has in the UK. In the UK, Acts of Parliament are all signed by the Queen to become law, the government and the justice system are all apparently 'hers' and carrying out her will, the Prime Minister sees her regularly to 'advise' her. The pretence is that Parliament merely advises and the Queen takes their advice, that the Queen has the final say in the laws and their enforcement. Of course, this is not actually the case, but the pretence that it is is why we have the convoluted "asking to resign", etc. business with a change of government. Everybody knows that is not the case, and most of the time people don't even pretend, but often enough the government goes through a little constitutionally-necessary pantomime. And all Acts of Parliament still get signed off by her. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No bill can become law until it’s given Royal Assent, that’s very true. But there are two things to be said about this. Firstly, the Queen hardly ever personally signs bills into law; Royal Asssent is normally given in her name by the Lords Commissioners, who have a standing authority to act in this way. But secondly, the fact that her or her delegate’s signature is required, does not mean that she has the right to decline to sign. She has no right to decline, not in any real sense. She has the right to be consulted about the contents of bills, and the right to warn the government of any concerns she may have, but at the end of the day she’s presented with passed bills to sign into law, and she signs them. To refuse to do so would spell the end of her reign. She has no more say about the law than ordinary citizens do. She does not rule. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the Queen doesn't usually attend Parliament in order to give Royal Assent, she does personally consent to each bill by issuing a specific commission mentioning the bill(s). There is no standing authority. See [3] for details of the process. --Tango (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, Tango. But how's that for arcane ritual! Amazing that Norman French, of all things, still survives in such exalted places. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're British, we like arcane ritual! --Tango (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how I read it. During Margaret Thatcher's reign, Parliament could not discuss anything to do with Sovereign territory. "The Mace was withdrawn for that". I do not agree. And you have forgotten the House of Lords. The Monarch is not whoever Parliament says. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II has established, by her reign, a recognition and a strenght that the balance is now very much on the other foot. If a week is a long time in politics, then Queen E. II has got a head start.MacOfJesus (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not forget the House of Lords. "The Parliament Act 1911 effectively abolished the power of the House of Lords to reject legislation, or to amend in a way unacceptable to the House of Commons". The Lords (most of whom are no longer hereditary peers, since only 92 of the over 700 hereditary peers have the right to sit in the house any more) do not, by any stretch, 'rule'. In any case, they form part of Parliament, which has the power to do whatever it wants really, as long as people let it. You are getting caught up in the pretence: the UK constitution is flexible and allows for Parliament to reject and recognise Monarchs. This has actually happened in the past, as you can see. Elizabeth II has done well in that we are not a republic, but she has mostly achieved that by not doing anything. It is her non-involvement, her non-exercising of powers that she technically has (but in practice would find cost her the throne), that has led to the affection she is regarded with. By confining herself to the three rights listed in Politics of the UK, she has managed to retain those three rights. She technically has the right to seriously mess with the political system, but in practice if she did that she would be swept from the throne. If someone else came along and said they were the 'legitimate heir to the throne' (presumably involving legitimate descent from Sophia of Hanover), the response would be "That's nice.", without even getting into the interaction of the Commonwealth. It is Parliament who declared that the throne would go to the heirs of Sophia, it is Parliament who can change that. Although, of course, changing that for other members of the Commonwealth would be down to those other members. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue re The Constitution is a mute one. What was seen is that this would be set by now and not changable the way it is. You say that it is happy not to be a republic. However, a stable republic has a Constitution "written on stone", which every school child will have a copy of. That has the advantage that when a monarch dies the up-heaval is avoided. If E II dies who will succeed? And will Parliament go down that road? If there was a stable Constituation this step would be not so awsome! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "it is happy not to be a republic", I said that Elizabeth II has avoided a republic by not doing anything political. The people tolerate, and even feel some affection towards, a monarch who leaves them alone. A monarch that tried to 'rule' or mess with the political system would not last long these days. If we had acquired a written constitution a century or two ago, that would have crystallised our government in that form, meaning that now we would either have a much less progressive government, or we would have had a revolution. Instead, our constitution is (largely) unwritten and flexible. This has downsides, but allows us to be practical and go with what works when necessary. It is said that we never had a workers' revolution because concessions and changes were made gradually as people demanded them. When the Queen dies, Charles will automatically become King (unless he dies or converts before then), unless the government has decided to change the rules of succession, which should ideally involve the Commonwealth. Every schoolchild knows that, without holding a piece of paper that says it. If there was a stable constitution, making changes would be awesome indeed.

British government supposedly works like a game of cricket: everyone gets their turn at batting and bowling, so it's in nobody's interest to mess up the field, and good sportsmanlike behaviour is expected at all times. In practice, it has its problems, but the flexibility is how we now have a coalition government looking at reforming both Houses. The flexibility is also why anyone telling you about 'secret real kings' is making stuff up. De facto is de jure. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's nothing magical about a written constitution, vis-a-vis stability of a national government. France has one. Heck, France has had several of them. That doesn't prevent France from undergoing a violent revolution every 40-50 years for the past 230 years or so... --Jayron32 04:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is no magic in politics I think. Maybe there is a gap for a genuine Religion that anchors in truth. If Prince Charles becomes a Catholic, that might be the spark that brings about a new future. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II's little spy, why not write to Buckingham Palace re this question, showing your historical interest and your support. I am sure you will get a favourable reply. Show your historical impartiality and interest. (Sorry for going off-subject). MacOfJesus (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I already founded a link through Isabel de Clare.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do remember, if you go back far enough though, then we are all related. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Education

Are more educated people less religious, or do they actually believe or follow less of their religions beliefs and values? You always hear the words "pray", "faith", "wish", "believe in g0d", "hope", etc... from religious people or figures. I just don't see how praying for someone that is terminally ill can help them at all and I once read a study that showed it did nothing at all. There are also several stories about parents who had very sick children, I believe it was cancer and/or other diseases, and they prayed rather than get them treatment and they all died. I also don't see how having faith, wishing, or any of that can help . It never helped me on any tests and back then I believed in all this stuff. I just can't see how anyone who is educated would think that any of the above would help. If I have a test, I need to study. If I want to make money or become successful, I need to work hard and make good choices. Are there any studies or any other data to support any of this? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was this study? Did it examine all the cases throughout history where a sick person was prayed for, to see what the outcome was? Well, no, it couldn't possibly have done that. Did it deny that terminally ill people have ever had a sudden, unexplained and totally unexpected remission - well, no, it couldn't deny that such things have happened, because they have. Whether the change had anything to do with prayer or not, is something that can only be guessed at. The thing with faith is, it can apply even when there's overwhelming evidence that it doesn't work or couldn't possibly work. So it certainly applies when there's a simple absence of evidence one way or the other. If you KNEW that something was going to produce a certain outcome, there would be no need to have any faith in it. Faith is used when logic/science/common sense either doesn't predict what the outcome is going to be, or predicts it will be something other than the outcome you have faith in. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you can do controlled studies to see if prayer has any effect on health outcomes, the same way you can do studies to see if owning pets has such an effect, or taking a placebo. There have been controlled studies on prayer. Many of them have been quite methodologically poor, to be sure (if someone thinks they are being prayed for, that can have a non-neglible psychological effect by itself — not necessarily for the better). The good ones have generally all found that prayer has basically no consistent effect on health outcomes. (One such very large study was done just a few years ago.) Now theologically you can debate the meaning of that all you want — maybe God doesn't help when he knows people are studying him — but to say there isn't evidence one way or the other is just not true. And from a purely practical standpoint, if praying made people rich, or could destroy the wicked, or save the good, and so forth, one would expect, given all the prayer done in this world, that things would be a bit different, no? Even if only 1% of all prayers were acted on, one would expect that to have a non-negligible effect on the economy, the justice system, the healthcare system, and so on, when you start magnifying it along the size of any group of worshipers. It's the weak atheist in me saying this, to be sure, but to me the world we live in looks indistinguishable from one in which there is no regular intercession into human or natural affairs by a benevolent and omnipotent deity. (That doesn't mean there isn't a deity, to be sure — it just means he doesn't seem to be willing, or able, to intercede very much in day-to-day affairs. Cf. Deism, Problem of evil, etc.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An educated religious person would generally seek medical treatment for their child and pray: it isn't an either/or. Personally, as someone who has lost many elements of my faith, I still sometimes pray. It isn't about trying to change the outside world, it's about helping the people involved in the praying so they can better deal with the things that happen in the outside world. It's a form of meditation and a way of ordering your thoughts and feelings. It often involves looking at your past and thinking of what you would do in future, identifying the things that worry you and working out why, sorting out what things you can change and what you can't, coming to terms with the things you can't change, appreciating the good things you've enjoyed, and much more. These things are very helpful to me, and I imagine they are very helpful to (to use your example) the parents of very sick children, and helpful for the children, too, if they know they might die. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was trying to say that I feel as if many less educated people tend to rely on faith rather than hard work to get what they want or to where they want to be (whether its being finally rich, successful, etc...) and end up failing miserably. I've seen this looking at many different groups of families where very few religious families have changed (from grandparents to parents to children). But I have seen hard workers grow and become rich and successful even if their parents or grandparents were poor.

You should read the article Religiosity and intelligence and Placebo effect. The first article seems to indicate that on average the more educated and intelligent segments of society are less religious and contain more atheists (I might be mistaken here). The second article is also interresting ("if a religous patient truly believes that his god will help in his recovery his faith might even help" - "and a less religious patient can undergoe the same effect by his faith in remedies and medics"). Flamarande (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one believes that prayer will secure outside help in passing a test, is it actually a proper thing to do? If this communication was achieved via a mobile device, it would be confiscated before the test began, for providing an unfair advantage to the righteous. 81.131.55.148 (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're being stuborn. If you pray to your god before a common test and he (assuming that something like your god even exists) decides to help you then the issue is between you, him, and your conscience. Someone self-rightous might say that his god will have his mysterious reasons for helping him. A reasonable person will say that the prayer simply calmed the person in need and that said person knew the correct answers all along. A cynic, like myself, will argue that it is truly a piteful prayer to make, and if someone truly believes that his god has nothing better to do than to help someone who prayed to pass a common test then his god and his faith are truly piteful indeed. Flamarande (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious people almost always consider their deity/deities to be above human laws and rules. If a deity decides to help you with a test then the will of the deity overrides the usual rules. If the invigilator believes in the deity in question, they'll allow that deity to intervene. If they don't believe in the deity in question, then they won't see any problem with the prayer, since it doesn't do anything. --Tango (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a study that data crunched IQ scores with some sort of "religiosity index" and found that a country's atheism rate can be predicted from its average IQ score. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere that there are few religions in which the more educated a believer becomes the more active they are in their faith. Judaism and Mormonism are among these religions.

Most people would probably consider me a religious person, and I have more education than most, so I might be a good example of what this discussion is about. I think the idea that you can pray for help on a test without studying for it or pray for someone who has cancer without seeking medical help for them is ludicrous. I believe in doing as much as I can (studying hard for the test or taking the person to the best doctor I can find or afford) as well as praying for God's help. I have had many experiences where I combined prayer with hard work and felt strengthened by it, whether it be in just feeling calmer during a test so that I could think straight and remember what I studied or in being better able to put other things out of my mind as I studied so that I could concentrate better.

My education has deepened my understanding of and faith in my religion. I think part of the issue is that, for many, religion and faith is something you do not question. For me, religion needs to be something strong enough to stand up to honest questioning, or it is not worth following. Wrad (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion, indeed must stand up to scrutiny. Saint Thomas Aquinas said: The God I can prove exist, is not the God I believe in. What he meant is the God he believed in was a personal One and a Redeemer. One the intelligence alone could not argue to. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religiosity, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with education level. It has to do with personal spiritual needs, or lack thereof. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is truly the case how do you explain the (admitedly few) studies which seem to indicate otherwise? IMHO the less someone knows (the more ignorant someone is), the easier he will accept/obey the teachings of his society without doubts or questions. He will not question his teachings (ie: his faith, because faith de facto is taught by one's parents and priests) because he has little reasons to doubt. Someone with a higher degree of education tends to have a wider perspective and can try to understand an issue from diffrent points of view. In the case of religion the more educated person tends to need evidence in order to truly believe (and as there is no empyrical evidence for the existence of god the more educated ppl will tend to doubt, which leads to atheism). (I vaguely remember that Amish limit the education of their children, I wonder why?) Flamarande (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking individuals, not studies. There are many college-educated religionists and college-educated agnostics and atheists. There are also many high-school-grad or high-school-dropout religionists as well as agnostics and atheists. Religion fills a need for all of these people who are religionists, regardless of their education level. It apparently does not fill that need for agnostics and atheists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever studies might show, an individual can choose to believe what they want. Just because I am statistically unlikely to be religious doesn't mean I'm not. Frankly, education has taught me that nothing can be proven absolutely, so to demand the same from religion seems a bit of a double standard. Empirical evidence is by no means absolute in its ability to determine or prove truth or demonstrate reality. It is, in fact, incredibly limited, otherwise we would know everything by now. Empirical evidence also depends on a lot of non-empirical beliefs and philosophies that simply can't be proven, such as the idea that anything at all actually exists in the universe, including the universe itself. Putting your faith in empirical studies is really not much different from putting your faith in religion, at least in light of the fact that both cannot be proven to be correct philosophies empirically. Wrad (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most prayers go unanswered because they are addressed to overextended deities. Just imagine the bandwidth necessary to monitor the supplications of upwards of a billion devotees; don't even try to imagine the job queue! It has been shown that prayers to more obscure gods are more likely to be fulfilled. -- ToE^T 13:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you pray for spiritual strength, as opposed to praying to acquire some material object or some other "thing", the answer is always "Yes", if you're willing to accept it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I pray because I can't help myself. I pray because I'm helpless. I pray because the need flows out of me all the time - waking and sleeping. It doesn't change God - it changes me." C. S. Lewis. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really an apples and oranges kind of thing; educated people approach religion in a very different way than uneducated people. Educated people tend to be 'spiritual' where uneducated people tend to be 'religious'. in other words, less educated people tend to take religion at face value and adopt religious doctrines in an uncritical (sometimes even fanatical) manner, while more educated people tend to reach for the principles that lie behind religious dogma, and take a more philosophical, universalistic view of faith. There is a kind of middle ground where people become educated enough to reject religious dogma but aren't yet philosophical enough about it to reconstruct the good elements of faith into a more personally meaningful structure - proselytic atheist (i.e. people who try to convince other people that religion is bad) invariably fall into that group. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of less-educated people who are "spiritual". If anything, they might be more so, as they've arrived at religious belief through "feeling" rather than through cold analysis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I guess I was exaggerating a bit. but you see the point... --Ludwigs2 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think those who say that education and religion, in the arguments that are shown here, are opposed should spend a day in a University (well established one). Have a look at the possability of getting a degree in Scripture. There are only about 10 Exegesis Experts in the world. Then Dogmatic Theology. Then Moral Theology. The related subjects would be Philosophy and Psycology. If you attempted to go down the road to gain efficiency in any of these, you might have to study the related languages, such as Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, just to stay on the subject. If you want to be heard on the theories you propound, then show that you have studied all angles of the subject and are aware of what others have propounded on that. You seem to forget that less educated people can show a great level of Common Sense and Wisdom. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If being philosophical is the natural progression of increased intelligence, then I'm happy with my current level of intelligence, thank you very much. --Tango (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are happy, but have you considered that your attitude might not be so much fun for the rest of us?

ignorance is only blissful for the ignorant... <smirk>--Ludwigs2 19:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since no one seems to have linked them yet, there are the articles "Efficacy of prayer" and "Studies on intercessory prayer". Gabbe (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a difference between studies outlined above and Devotional Religion, devotion, & devotional song. We view prayer in a number of categories: Petional Prayer, Thanksgiving Prayer, Praise Prayer; prayer, Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer, thanksgiving after Communion. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a look at efficacy of prayer and religious experience. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in religious experience C.G. Jung is cited affirming his assertion that we have a spititual reality beyond the physical. I may not have found this page. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer always gets an answer but sometimes the answer is "no"...hotclaws 17:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, Saint Paul got that: He asked twice and received the reply: My grace is best received in weakness. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think to add this quote here is important, the Phenomenologist, Max Scheler said: "Religion makes man truly human". The Dean asked a student of that study if they too, were attending Mass as the others were doing! (Student: Edith Stein, then an agnostic and Jewish.)! MacOfJesus (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages banking

This link describes "Bills of exchange" of the late Middle Ages period:
http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/latemiddleages/econ/banking.shtml
At the end of the article ("Conclusion") is a black & white drawing of two merchants transacting business.
If you were to guess, can you give me answers on these questions:

What type of business are they transacting?
What time period?
What products?
What city?
What is the pouch called that the merchant with a hat has?

(do we have an article on such a merchant's pouch? what was it made of most likely? what do you suppose was in it?) --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is [4], so apparently one of them is a usurer, probably a Jew. We have the same image with some more info (it is from Sebastian Brant's Ship of Fools, and it is attributed to Albrecht Durer, which would make it sixteenth-century German). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article and its "Conclusion" seems to talk much about 'Bills of exchange' pertaining to the 13th and 14th century (if I am understanding it correctly). Could the gentleman with the hat have been a person that was delivering a "Bill of exchange" (similar to today's cheque) to purchase merchandise from the merchant for his client back home (say Florence)?

What is the pouch called that the merchant with a hat has? (do we have an article on such a merchant's pouch? what was it made of, most likely?)--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a purse, as in "he who steals my purse steals trash" and the word "cutpurse". I think purse is the correct term for both the sturdy pouch kind and the dangling drawstring bag kind (more amenable to cutting). I think the merchant in the picture is German, but you probably don't want the medieval German word for purse. Not sure exactly how it's made; once when I was doing a recreation I tried to make one, based on a painting, from a leather frame (to attach to my belt and allow a tongue-and-groove catch at the front) with cloth panels sewn in, but my experiment was a failure (too floppy). It's probably made of heavier leather than my one was. 213.122.22.127 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Added pic). The pouch looks like it is decorated with two cockleshells - so maybe that identifies the man with the hat as a (Christian) pilgrim. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the hat is a Judenhut? It's not very pointy though...but the bag reminds me of the usurers in the eighth circle of hell in the Divine Comedy, whose pouches have their family crests on them. Maybe the shells are a family crest. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dah, purse of coarse! I thought because a man was wearing it, that it might have had a special name, perhaps like money bag (now that I am thinking more about it).--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the man on the right is Jewish because of the hand gesture he is using with his right hand. It's similar to the gesture used when crossing or blessing someone or something. Also, he seems to be the one handling the goods, rather than the "money purse" (if that's what it is). Because of the shells, I doubt that either figures are Jewish. Wrad (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's saying "you owe me two thalers in interest". And the shells might be ruffles, and even if they aren't, I doubt there was prohibition on a Jew going near somebody else's shellfish. Then again, maybe it's the other way round and the gesturing guy is indicating how much he wants to borrow. 213.122.22.127 (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The next appearance is in 14th century Europe" (from coin purse) is blatantly wrong. Here's a seventh century Purse Cover from Sutton Hoo Burial. 213.122.22.127 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an early English translation of the text, with the image. It seems to imply that they are Christians (who are "nowadays" worse usurers than the Jews). But it doesn't describe their equipment. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If purse design is of particular interest to the OP, here's a useful page [5] ... "details of men's purses" links to a collection of details from paintings. I see something similar to the shells in this detail [6] (of St. Mary Magdalene), but I'm no closer to deciding what type of thing they are. 213.122.22.127 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am interested especially in the design and make-up of men's purses (money purses) of the Middle Ages. Thanks for leads in this direction. Could a man's money purse of Medieval times be made of leather and have a fancy cover, like say made of camel's hair or the like?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. If you mean "is this a typical design for a medieval money purse", I would say no, a luxury woolly cover doesn't sound like a typical feature, but I'm not an expert on medieval purses, so I think somebody (e.g. you) should look through all the purses on that site to make sure. If on the other hand you mean "is there anything to stop this from being a medieval money purse", the answer is no, nothing in what you said prevents it (not even the bit about camels, since medieval times happened globally), but I would like to have a good look at this putative medieval purse (if it exists) in order to check it doesn't have a crudely copied Louis Vuitton logo, and isn't made from a kangaroo scrotum, and other such details which may be missing from your description. 213.122.22.127 (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This man's purse of the Medieval minstrel looks to be made of leather, including the cover. Could the purse have been made of another fabric? Don't know the time period, however I am guessing 12th or 13th century. Anybody have a better guess? Typically what would have been in this type of man's purse? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon that's a Pre-Raphaelite wood engraving, which makes the actual picture only a bit over a hundred years old. I suspect the artist was aiming at a renaissance look, which is 15th century at the earliest. Probably 16th century, because his sword hilt is so delicate. Also those round objects in the background look like echoes of the astrolabes, geometrical models, and other scientific objects which sometimes appear in the background of 16th c. paintings. His long hose would be going out of fashion, and his codpiece appears to have fallen off, but maybe he's an unfashionable minstrel or maybe the artist was making it up as he went along. Here [7] is a 16th c. purse made of silk velvet with an iron frame. (This may well be a man's accoutrement; the lion head decorations don't look very feminine.) 81.131.53.31 (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the artist's signature has been cropped out of that image. See the original here - I'm not sure what it says though, "C Plasoner"? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So ..... bottom line, what is the purse made of (or could have been made of) and could it have contained money (i.e. metal coins, paper money, "bill of exchange" or equivalent)?? Any relationship to this as they talk about on page 106 of Modern philology, Volume 12?
http://books.google.com/books?id=4YtJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA106&dq=middle+ages+%22money+purse%22&hl=en&ei=ToNVTNXbKImhnQeNgOX2Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=middle%20ages%20%22money%20purse%22&f=false
Could it have also acted as a "sweet-bag" for scented herbs like honeysuckle? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

If I remember correctly, usury was originally a religious term which prohibited excessive interest rates being applied to people of one's own faith. One of the reasons why Jews became money-lenders was because they could to lend money at interest to Christians without being guilty of usury and thereby going to hell (whereas Christians could not). So the people in this picture are likely both Christian, or at least both of the same faith, otherwise it would not be usury.
bags of that sort were very common among travelers in olden times for the same reason they are still fairly common among motorcyclists - horses (like motorcycles) don't have trunks. I doubt there's anything particularly interesting about the bag; call it a murse and let it go. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is austerity another name for contractionary monetary policy?

If not, what is the difference or relationship between the two? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.227 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Austerity simply means reducing (or eliminating) your budget deficit. Contractionary monetary policy is about reducing money supply. The former is fiscal policy, the latter is monetary policy, so they are definitely different things. They are related, though. The government borrowing and spending increases the money supply (as does any act of borrowing), so not reducing borrowing will tend to reduce (or at least fail to increase) the money supply. There are other factors affecting the money supply, though (the activities of the central bank, for instance) so it is possible to have austerity with a contracting money supply and to have a contracting money supply without austerity. --Tango (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Oops, sorry, I meant to ask whether austerity is another name for contractionary FISCAL policy and if not, what is the difference/relationship between the two. Please answer that question instead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.227 (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And one could maybe argue that 'contractionary fiscal policy' is usually used within the context of managing inflation and unemployment through the business cycle whereas 'austerity measures' are more aimed at reducing government spending irrespective of the business cycle to lower government debt. Jabberwalkee (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, fiscal policy says: "A contractionary fiscal policy occurs when government spending is lower than tax revenue." I would say that that means a contractionary fiscal policy is a policy of maintaining an existing budget surplus whereas austerity is about achieving a budget surplus (or smaller deficit). Austerity measures are changes in policy intended to bring about a reduction in the deficit, so it's all about changing the deficit, whereas a contractionary fiscal policy is about keeping a surplus. --Tango (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]