Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 29

Wikipedia misquotes the following Holy Scripture verse: THE PERFECT SHALL INHERIT GOOD (PROV. 28:10)

According to the Tanakh (Kethuvim) Proverbs 28:10 reads: "He who misleads the upright into an evil course Will fall into his own pit, But the blameless will prosper."

Wikipedia misquotes the other following Holy Scripture verse: I HAVE GIVEN YOU GOOD TEACHING, DO NOT FORSAKE MY TORAH (PSALMS 128:2)

According to the Tanakh (Kethuvim) Psalms 128:2 reads: "You shall enjoy the fruit of your labors; you shall be happy and you shall prosper."

Whomever has contributed to Wikipedia should double-check thier submissions, and not to misquote what many people (Jews and Gentiles) perceive respectfully as the Torah, Nevi'im and Kethuvim; and do deem these Holy Scriptures as The Sacred Written Word of God.

Thank you. DN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.143.77 (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree those translations are awful - however can you say which pages the mistranslations were on. (didn't notice) You could change the translations yourself, or mention it on talk pages of the articles in question.83.100.250.79 (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information was added on the 29 March 2005 ... I've notified the author, who is still active on wikipedia. I agree that on the face of it there is an issue; but the text is formatted as a quotation, so who knows what's going on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably translated by the same guy who came up with "All your base are belong to us." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As these texts were not originally written in English, a quotation in an encyclopedia article would best include citation of the published (and scholarly, reputable, recognized, e.g. KJV, JPS, etc.) English-language translation version used. This provides the opportunity for considering alternative translations (similarly published) to be discussed on the article's Talk page rather than getting into an edit war. On this query: I would suggest the suitability of a Jewish translation for citation in writing on Jewish topics. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the law that covers the removal of labor union information/posters from break rooms at companies, where is it on findlaw, i cant find it. this is not a request for legal assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.103.253 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, we don't offer legal advice. A California resource for searching California law is www.leginfo.ca.gov, though if I were you, I'd search Federal law and rulings, too, since lots of US law regarding unions is set at the Federal level. I have not found any law dealing with this matter, though Googling employer remove union posters california coughed up a couple of court rulings, which may or may not be on point for you. Tempshill (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Christian denominations are easiest for a crypto-atheist to belong to? NeonMerlin 07:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First tell us what a crypto-atheist is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you mean someone who pretends to believe in God but does not? If you're good at putting up a false front, any denomination will do. However, what would be the point? Compounding one lie with another? Ugh. If you're open about your atheism, Unitarianism would probably work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you mean by "easiest" - easiest on your conscience, because the doctrines are closest to an atheist philosophy? Easiest on your wallet because it involves the least expenses? Or perhaps easiest in terms of the least elaborate worship rituals? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty easy in Catholicism, if you've gone to Catholic schools all your life. (Extra fun: arguing with evangelical baptist-type as a Catholic rather than an atheist.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasons to pretend not to be an atheist, since there are instances of discrimination. For example someone openly atheist is essentially unelectable to public office in most areas of the US. Rckrone (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Jesse Ventura had made his comments during the campaign, about religion being for the "weak-minded", he wouldn't have drawn flies at the governor election. And that's in a state that's considered "liberal". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between being opening non-religious and insulting religious people. No politician can get elected by calling a large proportion of the electorate "weak-minded"! --Tango (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comment, by itself, probably sunk any chance of his being re-elected. There were plenty of other holes in his boat of state, of course. But the public has the right to know where their politicians stand. The public is a lot more willing to forgive mistakes than they are to forgive being lied to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays you are discriminated against (in Western Europe) if you're NOT atheist. 92.81.26.79 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In the west, it is pretty much just the US that has anti-atheist discrimination. I've never heard of it happening in the UK. --Tango (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the point about the lack of discrimination against atheists in Europe is largely true, a blanket statement like the one made by IP92 is definetely not true. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalism probably takes the cake in terms of not needing to lie very much at all. It is theologically extremely liberal and you are basically allowed to have whatever view of the world that you please. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarianism was/is based on a liberalistic view of Christianity, while the principle of Universalism is that "everyone is saved". The mental picture of Billy Graham someday hanging out with Ted Bundy or John Gacy or Adolf Hitler in some heavenly pub is certainly an interesting one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Apocatastasis#Christianity, Bugs. Although that notion has been rejected by most varieties of "orthodox" Christianity, it has been advanced by thinkers as brilliant as Origen of Alexandria and Johannes Scotus Eriugena. Personally, I'd say that the strand of Christianity to which I adhere—Anglicanism—has been generously hospitable, at least these days, to folks that I'd consider atheists at heart. Deor (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Christians would argue that this means anyone can do whatever they like - cheat, steal, murder - and it doesn't make any difference, as there would be no "divine retribution". There's a theoretical way around that dilemma: reincarnation. If you fall short in this life, you might be "sent back to try again" - and keep getting sent back "until you get it right". In theory, that would mean that humankind should be collectively better now than it was, say, 5,000 years ago. However, I'm not convinced they are. Human nature is what it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reincarnation would suggest humankind should be getting worse. Only the "bad souls" are still here and, given we generally have no memories of previous lives, there isn't much chance of improvement. --Tango (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The extreme right in America has injected religion into politics, for its own purposes. Despite the contradiction with long established principles separating church and state, this is a political reality. Fortunately, there are plenty of people who have been quite successful without the need to publically declare a religious affiliation. For example, Clarence Darrow, Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand, Norm Chomsky, GOPer Charles T. Beaird, Others from outside the US include David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, Simone de Beauvoir, Jawaharlal Nehru, Jean-Paul Sartre, Clement Attlee, James Callaghan, Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, Robin Cook, Ken Livingston, Richard Branson, and Bruce Lee. Oh, and Karl Marx.

Actually, Bertrand Russell did proclaim it pretty publicly, as did Nietzsche and obviously Marx... but it's of note that so many of those that you listed are not Americans. In the United States, even before the present time (e.g. by the 19th century) it was considered problematic to be a public atheist. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also didn't help that there is (or was?) a group called American Atheists and that they were crazy. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that no small number of Americans who knew about Madeline O'Hare figured that she "got what was comin' to her." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the article American Atheists and could find nothing there that would warrant calling the group "crazy". The group can hardly be blamed for the one disturbed person who abducted the founder Madalyn O'Hair and her family, murdering her, her husband and one child. Am I missing something here, Adam Bishop? And, to Baseball Bugs, I suggest that the opinion you expressed above, especially when couched in the weasel words, "no small number of Americans", is inappropriate and hardly germane to the question. // BL \\ (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was once called "the most hated woman in America", so I think I stand on fairly firm grounds. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I guess I just distrust organized groups of atheists. Anyway...more pertinent to the actual question, perhaps, is the Islamic idea of taqiyya, if you want to be a crypto-Muslim. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I feel the same way about organized groups of theists, but I wouldn't say so on the Ref Desk.  :-, // BL \\ (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**gobsmacked** unless you are making some sort of joke which has gone way over my head, that is just about the most bigoted thing you can say. Atheism ISN'T even a word that means anything.. Everyone is an atheist according to the religion of someone else, to a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu you are also an atheist, to the people who worshipped Zeus and Quetzalcoatl, you are also an atheist.. Vespine (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term you’re thinking of is heretic, not atheist. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Atheist" means (roughly) "without god". If you believe in a god, you are not an atheist, it doesn't matter what that god is. --Tango (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A theist holds a belief in at least one deity. An atheist rejects any belief in deities. None of this is specific to any given creed. // BL \\ (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what atheism means. While you two are "strictly" correct, the word is frequently applied in the way I describe it. People who are religious reject the "beliefs" of atheism just as strongly, if not more so then they reject the beliefs of other religions. Atheism is not a belief, just like "not believing in the tooth fairy" is not a belief. Vespine (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your disagreement regarding my use of the word atheism actually has nothing to do with my argument, remove the 2nd and 3rd sentence from my post completely and it still makes sense. Are you actually defending AB's comment? Vespine (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is like anesthesia. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't know any meaning for atheist other than a person who does not believe in any deity, and have no personal knowledge of its use in any other sense, I have no problem with AB's remark. It may be limiting for him, but that is his concern. I sincerely doubt he uses "atheist" in any sense other than the formal one. // BL \\ (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from you, I have never known anyone use "atheist" to mean "person who doesn't share my beliefs". Could you supply a reference for this usage of the word? --Tango (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism means believing in no supernatural gods whatsoever. I've never heard a Christian call a Muslim an "atheist" for example. I've heard Christians say that Allah is a "false god". That's not an accusation of atheism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, your obviously missing my point. A muslim doesn't believe in Christian God, just like an atheist. A christian does not believe in Zeus, just like an atheist. A Hindu does not believe in Baal, just like an atheists. I don't care to argue, I obvoiously haven't worded my argument correctly, that wasn't even the point, my point was that what AB said was bigoted but no one seems to care about that. Say someone wrote they don't trust organised groups of blacks, jews or gays? How would you guys react to that? Vespine (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says Muslims don't believe in the Christian God? Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet of Allah (i.e. God). What they don't believe, presumably, is that Jesus was the incarnation of God. And by your definition of "atheist", everyone is an atheist, which is silly. Atheism means believing that there is no such thing as any god(s). That's what atheism is. What that has to do with Adam Bishop's comments is unclear. If he doesn't trust an organized group, that's his choice. Say someone wrote that they don't trust organized groups of relgious right-wingers. How would you react to that? Is that also "bigoted"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim god are often considered to be the same god, the "Abrahamic god". They just disagree on which revelations from that god are reliable. --Tango (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is a major distinction to be made between believing in "false gods" (or perhaps "believing falsely") and believing in no gods at all. The former is the accusation made from one religion to another. The latter is atheism. Way different concepts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As usual I have said something stupid without really thinking about it. What I meant was that I distrust organized groups of atheists because atheism then becomes dogmatic, much the same as any organized religious group, which, like for example American Atheists, can be used in a political way. In their specific case, I thought they took shit-disturbing to a whole new level; is it really necessary to remove prayer from public schools? Who cares, really? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, far out, that's all it takes.. Sheesh! Everyone else nitpicking on what I call god and atheist are all completely still completely missing the point. At least you got it Adam :) I can't believe I wrote "ignore my arguments" and bugs still pick on that Muslims believe in the same god! I said that doesn't matter! Use ZEUS instead then if Christian god doesn't fit for you. IGNORE MY ARGUMENT ALL TOGETHER and it still stands, far out.. If someone said they don't trust organised groups of religious "right wingers" then yes you can say that, that is not bigoted, because "right wing" IS a doctrine with values and opinions which you can fairly oppose. But saying "organised atheists" is bigoted. Atheism is NOT a doctrine with values and beliefs and don't argue with me that "not believing in God" is a belief. You can disagree on this point if you like, not believing in the tooth fairy is NOT a belief, not believing in creationism is NOT a belief. People believe in OTHER things which preclude a belief in creationism, like evolution. Believing in evolution does not make you a "acreationist". Atheists belive in things which preclude the belief of god, but there isn't ONE specific thing to believe which makes you "not believe in God", and this is the point, atheists don't have a unifying "belief". For a lot of atheists it's mostly a belief in science, reason and logic but atheist arrive at the same conclusion by slightly, or widely different means. It is THOSE beliefs which results in "not believing in God", that's the result of their belief, NOT the actual "belief" it self. Some people have never even heard of god and they are atheists too. By qualifying and saying you don't trust "the dogmatic atheist organisations cropping up in the USA", THAT is a fair comment too, it is not bigoted, because you don't trust them for dogma, not for their atheism alone.Vespine (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Roosevelt famously called founding father Thomas Paine a "dirty little atheist", though in fact he was pretty much a Deist; though perhaps it's fair to add that Thomas Paine had called Christianity "a species of atheism" in The Age of Reason. Essentially, in such instances "atheist" is name-calling rather than sober analysis. - Nunh-huh 11:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the OP is ever going to come back and tell us whether any of the above megillah comes anywhere in the vicinity of answering his question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the Anglican Church in England was and is pretty open. I remember, I attended the choral evensong celebrations at St Bride's Church, London, for much 1995 - simply because the music was (and probably still is) so superb and the place ideal to end and begin the week. After a while the priest asked me who I was and where I came from (Germany, not confirmed, basically a kind of Wittgensteinian positivist if that was a denomination...), the priest eventually asked me whether I would not like to get confirmed. I still did not feel like believing in God or an afterlife. I will start doing when it will be less an act of believing than accepting the new situation, I said. He said I would not need to become a believer in the foreseeable future. Things would be all right for him if I allowed him to ask the congregation to pray for my faith. (I confess I felt uneasy about that option, and left things as they were.) Observing debates within the Anglican Church I still feel, they are pretty liberal. --Olaf Simons (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the original question: Quakerism. Their concept of the "inner light" is amenable to a number of interpretations, including nontheistic ones. Unitarian Universalism is welcoming of atheists (whether they are open or cryptic ones), but then it isn't exactly a Christian denomination. Why do you ask? Nick Graves (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the Anglican Church would do you nicely, my crypto-atheist cobber. Even the priests there are agnostic. There's an entire theology which regards God as a sort of convenient fiction to keep social order and calm the distressed. It's all about dress ups and a bit of smells and bells to pass the time. Of course, you could still be a fervent believer but the others would tend to think of you as a bit of a hick. No wonder Tony Blair became a Catholic as soon as he resigned from being a Prime Minister. 210.1.198.109 (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a definition of the word "panerotic" used in your Virgil article in Wiktionary or the internet. A Google Search produces many websites using the word but no dictionary definition of what it means. "... then to love, both homosexual (ecl. 2) and panerotic (ecl.) 3" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil) What do you mean panerotic?

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.174.57 (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think panerotic means "sexually turned on by, or having sex with, everything" but the editor may merely meant "… by/with all humans" as opposed to wooden posts and the like. --Cam (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Eclogue III it would probably refer to the sexual/amorous imagery used of animals and plants in the poem. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify that the word is formed from Greek pan ("all") and erōtikos ("amorous" or "loving"). By the way, the fellow who added that bit, among others, to the article was a retired professor who was rather fond of obtuse linguistic constructs. Deor (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The related article would be Pansexuality. Mac Davis (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with pansexual is that it is (like homosexual, heterosexual etc) a bastard word, since pan is Greek and sexual is Latin, panerotic is much more elegant.

177.147.60.5 (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a song that my dad used to sing when I was really young, that began 'In 1840....', and he insisted it was about the American War Of Independence. I believed him at the time, but as I got older I realised that that was completely impossible, as that war had ended over 60 years earlier. Is there any war that the British were involved in at the time which was big enough for a song to be written about it? If so, could this be what this song is about? Or has he got it completely wrong and it's actually about the potato famine and the mass exodus of Irish to America? I am sorry I only have the first two words of the song. If anyone even knows the song itself, that would be a great help, too. TIA. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of New Orleans --Digrpat (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the Battle of New Orleans (song)? The song begins, "In 1814, we took a little trip along with Col. Jackson, down the mighty Mississip.'" And definitely NOT a British Patriotic Song!--TammyMoet (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so, he got a lot of little details wrong, but don't worry, my dad's head's always been puddled anyway. And this also explains where he got it from, because he used to sail on the Mississippi and he always talks about it. Thanks. You've cleared up a lifelong mystery for me!

• Note that the Battle of New Orleans was part of the War of 1812 (it actually happened after the peace treaty was signed, but before anyone in North America knew about it). That war was not part of the American Revolutionary War, but it was only about 20 years later and is the only other time the US and the British have gone to war. So it's not surprising that someone might mix them up. --Anonymous, 18:25 UTC, August 29, 2009.

• That battle made the War of 1812 somewhat palatable after the British had burned D.C. (in retaliation for the U.S. burning Toronto). The other memorable song we got from that war was "The Star-Spangled Banner". Baseball Bugs <sup>What's up, Doc?</sup> carrots 18:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never 'eard of it. :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was written by a tone-deaf composer named Francis Off Key. It played a key role in the Battle of Baltimore. By the dawn's early light, the British heard it sung, and they fled in terror. Or so said Richard Armour. Baseball Bugs <sup>What's up, Doc?</sup> carrots 19:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a recording / BW video on YouTube with Johnny Horton here [1]. The song would be sufficiently popular for folks in Korea knowing the tune. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice bit of lip-synching and staging, a clip apparently from the Ed Sullivan Show, as it sounds like Ed's voice at the very end. Baseball Bugs <sup>What's up, Doc?</sup> carrots 14:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cookatoo. Actually, I am not in Korea anymore. I am in China. Oh, and that means I can't watch YouTube, because of the censorship. :(--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on "The Battle of New Orleans", Johnny Horton also recorded a British-friendly version of the song for Commonwealth countries, in which, among other changes, "British" was changed to "Rebels". Your dad may have been familiar with this version, which is why he told you that it was about the American War Of Independence. —Kevin Myers 21:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting; never heard of that one. I wonder if he also somehow changed the outcome of the Battle of New Orleans? "..they ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em / Up the Mississippi to Hannibal, MO" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Baseball Bugs <sup>What's up, Doc?</sup> carrots 22:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site claims to have the lyrics for the British version. Needless to say, this version doesn't really make much sense. Although "Colonel Jackson" has been changed to "Colonel [sic] Packingham [sic]", the Brits are still apparently fighting under "Old Hickory"! And the British Army is using squirrel guns! —Kevin Myers 23:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Johnny Horton was just making a parody. Unfortunately, we can't ask him. He died tragically, just a year or two later, killed by a drunken driver. Baseball Bugs <sup>What's up, Doc?</sup> carrots 04:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His Wikipedia article states simply that he saved up enough money to become a citizen (I didn't know you could just "buy" citizenship), and then sources that statement with an NPR article that only says he obtained citizenship while at Harvard. I'm just curious what exactly is the bureaucratic pathway to citizenship for an illegal alien already in the country which doesn't involve leaving the country. 71.161.61.23 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an amnesty passed under that radical liberal socialist Ronald Reagan -- see Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986... AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but I think you need a certain amount of cash to immigrate, though I may be confusing this with obtaining a visa.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Applying to a U.S. consulate outside the U.S. to obtain an immigration visa is different from what the original questioner was asking about... AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - The following is also on the user's user page. Baseball Bugs <sup>What's up, Doc?</sup> carrots 19:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing some research on Belgium Family law for a research paper in the United States. Can a user who is from Belgium answer this question for me? I may have to ask a follow up question.

A child born outside the marriage has to be acknowledged by the father. He has to do this with consent of the mother and in an authentic act by a notary or by the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. I mean for a one night stand, adulterous or even incestuous relationship and parent have never lived tougher. This could be different for separated cohabitees.

I was told by some body that in Belgium, a father can not have any legal rights if the mother does not give him permission to acknowledge the child and that a court’s can not intervene if the parents are never married. I was also told that if the father does not acknowledge the child he can never be made to pay child support and a court’s can not intervene. I have read some that this is not true in Belgium and some where this is true. What is the truth in Belgium, I do not know, so I am asking you the expert?

Belgium on the initiative of its Socialist Party now has implemented presumptive 50/50 joint physical custody legislation and was formally published by the Belgian Federal Government on the 4th of September 2006. This is how it usually goes in Belgium when parents divorce. This is no the default fixed end-result for all divorcing or separating Belgian parents.

Does this also apply to children that are born in a one night stand, adulterous or even incestuous relationship or separated cohabitees, yes or no?

Would a DNA test be ordered if the father asks the court for a DNA test, because he will only accepts paternity if a DNA test proves he is the father?

Is it very difficult for a mother in Belgium to get court ordered child support if the father is willing to take 50/50 joint physical custody (published by the Belgian Federal Government on the 4th of September 2006) if he is a fit father, yes or no.

Would this be the same if he child was conceived in a one night stand, adulterous or even incestuous relationship or separated cohabitees?

My sources are. I was told some fact by some friends of mine that I am not sure is true. This is considered Hearsay, is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience.

http://fatherknowledgecentre.wordpress.com/category/belgium/ http://www.dadsontheair.net/belgium/ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8001198.html http://fatherknowledgecentre.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/00008/ http://blog.pucp.edu.pe/item/63676 http://fkce.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/20090103-presentation-by-peter-tromp-in-greece-benefits-of-post-divorce-shared-parenting-and-the-netherlands-belgium-and-germany.pdf http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/research/childsupport/Belgium.pdf --Belgiumfamilylaw (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]