Humanities desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

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.

March 11

Ibrahim father of the prophets

I understand that Ibrahim is the ancestor of Prophet Muhammad. I understand that Ismail and Ishaq were the children of Ibrahim. Lut was the nephew of Ibrahim. Yusuf was the son of Yaqub, who was the son of Ishaq. How is Ibrahim the father of prophets in case of Sulaiman, Dawud, Musa, Harun, Isa, Ilyas, Alyasha, Yunus, Ayyub, dhul-Kifl, Yahya, Zakariya and Shuaib?Donmust90 (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time has foggied the facts and mixed much with metaphor, but Abraham's family tree gives unraveling things a shot and there's a graphic in the oddly-spelled Abraham in Islam. In a non-literal way, he's the father of prophets/prophecy like Hippocrates is called the Father of Medicine, or Christians call God "Our Father". Someone whom later generations model themselves upon, learn from or respect. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Ancestry of Muhammad. In a literal way, as is Islamic belief. Rmhermen (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Restoration Act?

Can anyone make some practical sense of the Constitution Restoration Act? It looks like a lot of legalese to me. What would it actually mean in practice? I guess to protect people like Kim Davis? It seems to suggest that anyone could at any time claim to be acting by God's authority and immediately become immune from scrutiny by the Supreme Court. That sounds a little too crazy to be the intended effect of the Act. I assume it's supposed to be crazy, but surely not that crazy. Is there anyone still around (in federal office) who is a supporter of this act? Staecker (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-USian): why is it called an "Act" if it was never passed? Shouldn't it be "Constitution Restoration Bill"? Or is it usual in the US to call something an "Act" before it legally becomes one? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that it's a bill, or a proposed act. People are just sloppy in using the terms. Congress usually gives bills the name they want then to have once/if they are passed into law. So that the text of the bill states "This Act may be cited as the “Constitution Restoration Act of 2005", but that text doesn't go into effect until after it's been passed. Note that the text as given on Congress's website is "A BILL/To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism but that it's also referred to as an Act. Note that the names given proposed acts are propaganda and don't necessarily correctly describe the act's actual effects. - Nunh-huh 16:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until its passage I would refer to this as "the proposed Constitution Restoration Act" or "the proposed Act/law/statute" or "the bill." Once it becomes law it's "the Constitution Restoration Act." John M Baker (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It reads to me like it's exempting from the Supreme Court's judicial review/appellate jurisdiction specifically the "acknowledgment of God" by a government entity or official. This doesn't sound like it should mean anyone can gain immunity in general just by claiming to be acting by God's authority. For one thing, it only applies to governmental acts. For another, it would exempt a review of "acknowledgment of God" itself, whatever that means. I think how it would play out is, if an official executes a person for no reason and then claims that this was done by God's will, the execution would still be reviewable, but whether they breached the establishment/freedom of exercise clauses of the First Amendment by invoking God, would not be reviewable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bill was written in the context of Christian shop-owners/county clerks wanting to discriminate against gays (not photographing weddings, not selling wedding cakes to gays, not issuing marriage licences to gays, etc.) It's trying to provide legal cover for those people, preventing them from being fined or prosecuted for discrimination otherwise forbidden by law. Of course, it's written so broadly that there's no real way of knowing what its effects would be before it's implemented, which is one reason it languishes unpassed in the hopper, and is likely to remain so. Introducing the bill was a sop to try to get religious folk to vote for the introducer without regard for the bill's actual chances of passing. - Nunh-huh 16:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the bill was written in 2004, predating the recent pro-gay judicial decisions, which I don't think the proposed Act would affect anyway. Rather, this is about the bill's author, Roy Moore, who installed a version of the Ten Commandments at his courthouse; the installation subsequently was found to be a violation of the First Amendment and was removed. The bill purports to strip federal courts of authority to hear such cases, except for cases arising under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. John M Baker (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do bills that never became law remain as "live" bills forever, or is there some period after which they lapse? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bill has to be acted on within the session of Congress in which it was introduced [1]. If it fails to pass within that time, any sponsors wanting it to become law have to reintroduce it in a succeeding Congress. For an interesting graphic on what happens to bills, see this link regarding the 110th Congress (thousands of bills introduced, 442 laws enacted). Most bills die in a committee of the house in which they were introduced. - Nunh-huh 19:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So this motion was never more than a bill, and since 2006 has not even been that. It was never an act; and if it is ever to become one it would need to be reintroduced. But there's been no activity on it in the past 10 years, so that seems unlikely. The title must surely be changed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no, I think this is pretty standard use of language, at least in the US. Typically, the proposal says something like "this shall be known as and may be referred to as the Flibwidget Protection Act of 2525", and that really is the name of the thing, whether it's enacted or not. It says so, right in the language itself.

When and if it's enacted, it becomes a "law", not an "act". (But it still has "Act" in its proper name.)

That's my vague non-lawyer sense of how I've seen these terms used. --Trovatore (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the phrase "This shall be known as...." doesn't become law until it's enacted. It properly should be referred to as a proposed act, not an act. But sloppy usage in this regard is generally accepted. And our article might more correctly be at proposed Constitution Restoration Act of 2005. At its present title it does indeed suggest (particularly to non-Americans) that it has, or had, the force of law. - Nunh-huh 07:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, except that if one peruses Category:United States proposed federal legislation, one sees they're almost all "something Act", with only a couple of "something Bill"s, and no "proposed"s at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you're both missing is that it's a proper name, not a description. Proper names don't have to accurately describe the things they name. "Constitution Restoration Act" is indeed its proper name; the fact that it was not enacted as a law has no bearing on that whatsoever. --Trovatore (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Act of Congress is quite enlightening here ... but also, strangely, not so much. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More not so much than quite, I think. Giving a measure a name that includes the word "act" does not assert that such measure is an act. Proper names don't assert anything at all. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this in the earlier part of the thread - see above. It's a bill and not an act until it is passed, no matter what you call it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not hearing me. Whether it "is" an act is completely irrelevant to whether its name is "Constitution Restoration Act". That is in fact its proper name. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore, I think you are not hearing me. I am not arguing one way or the other about the article title. However, as an aside, in this discussion you are being a bit too hung up on the "proper name" concept, which I think you came up with yourself and which I don't think is the right concept when you are discussing legislation. Legislation has a title (or a long title and a short title), and it might have a conventional name, but we don't call either of them the "proper name". I think what you are arguing is that "Constitution Restoration Act" is the conventional name, which is derived from the proposed title of the proposed law - and that is certainly an arguable position. Another, also arguable position, is that the article title should not use the proposed title because the proposed law has not become law yet. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Proper name" just in the ordinary sense of English grammar. Something that names rather than describes. I don't mean "proper" in the sense of "correct". Sure, "conventional name" is the same concept, and there could be more than one proper name (including, I suppose, ones that are not the conventional name, but that's not important right now).

I wasn't arguing directly about the article title either, though if we get to it, I think the article is clearly at the correct title (though I could also live with something like Constitution Restoration Act (proposed), with a parenthetical aside after the proper name). I was talking about the distinction between names and descriptions, in a philosophy-of-language rather than legal sense. Your comment of 12:35 14 March was clearly irrelevant to what I was saying. --Trovatore (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am not interested in debating with you whether my comment is relevant to the discussion or not. But I think you need to think about the way you use words like "clearly" and "whatsoever", especially when discussing a topic in which you have already said you do not have specialist expertise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no specialist expertise in law. This is not a legal question. --Trovatore (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Jurisdiction stripping. Neutrality^talk 18:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In other words, the bill would limit the power of the federal judiciary specifically in religious liberty cases. The bill also states that judges or other court officials that listen to cases that meet said criteria are to be impeached and convicted." Seems pretty clear to me. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear at all to me- my question was "limit exactly how?" Answers above are helpful- Staecker (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The background is the dispute between Roy Moore and practically all other government authorities over the Ten Commandments statue he had erected in Alabama. If I've read it correctly, it's not a religious-liberty measure; it's just about public officials when they "acknowledge God". I don't think it would really have protected Kim Davis even if she weren't in a different state; her issue was different. It would have protected an official who wanted to put "in the name of God" on the wedding licenses, but not one who wanted to refuse to issue them. --Trovatore (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can just tell they were up to something nefarious when they came up with the name "Constitution Restoration Act". When was the Constitution suspended, exactly ? I guess "Let Religious Nut-Jobs Ignore the Law and Do Whatever they Damn Well Please Act" was just too long. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Laws with pretentious titles such as "Constitution Restoration Act" carry the implication that federal judges have taken away peoples' religious freedom by not favoring one religion over another, and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]