January 16

Alexander produced the two required ends of the knot by slicing it, but he didn't conquer Asia. He didn't even conquer most of Asia. Was the 'Master of Asia' title supposed to mean the 'Master of Asia Minor', but he didn't even conquer all of Asia Minor. Was he the Master of Asia? --71.28.247.144 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asia at the time referred to todays Asia Minor. You can see Alexander's conquests on this map, which include much of Asia Minor. So you can probably legitimately call Alexander the Master of Asia. See Gordian Knot and Alexander the Great for more. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a litigation in NY Federal Court. Can my opponent a US mulitinational with NYC and UK offices legally launch and maintain a lawsuit in the UK as a scare or coercion tactic to run up costs and risks.

Is there anything in common law, collateral estoppel (which vaguely mentions relitigation not allowed), or say Hague convention, or something else that would dismiss any false lawsuit in UK if we won the race to courthouse in NY.

Thanks much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.211.127.5 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It would probably be best if you talked with an attorney about this. Your question requires a certain amount of expertise in international law and conflict of laws, and it might depend on the type of dispute that is at issue. I'm sympathetic to your situation, but Wikipedia really isn't the best place to go for legal advice. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jersyko is correct. I've dealt with this kind of situation and the answer is "it all depends" on a variety of factors including where the parties reside, where the underlying dispute arose, the docket congestion of the different courts, and the like. In general, collateral estoppel deals with the effects of a final judgment at the end of the lawsuit, not where the case may be maintained in the first place. The nature of the case is also relevant; for example, there are special conventions governing child custody and parental kidnapping situations, or cases involving the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But you'll really need to speak to an attorney expert in this area. Newyorkbrad 02:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you see a lawyer, be certain to get a very good one. This area of law, Conflicts, is hard. Many law firms have one lawyer who develops expertise in this area because it is so complex and the relevant variables keep changing. 75Janice 04:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)75Janice 18 January 2007[reply]

Are humans born with a conscience. Or is it something that is learned is gathered from observations. 24.16.185.254 06:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different people will give you different answers to this question. See Conscience. BenC7 06:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nature/nurture is an ancient dichotomy. While emphasis shifts over time, no definitive answer has been found, possibly because western dialectic argument is great at analysis, but lousy at description. DDB 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now that we know how much of the neural architecture is laid down after birth, I've been thinking recently that surely the distinction between nature/nurture is far more blurred than it used to seem. How we are nurtured in the first years of life hardwires us for the rest of our lives - not sure what I'm getting at here - except to suggest there's no way of telling, after a certain age, whether certain characteristics like conscience, are a product of nature or nurture... Adambrowne666 11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any video available to see how the compass tilts in the Magnetic North Pole or Magnetice south pole? Slmking 08:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC) slmking[reply]

I don't believe it's going to swing around as dramatically as you might think. The field strength is very weak right at the poles (at least weak in the North-South direction, I believe it's quite strong in the Up-Down direction), so any local magnetic deposits will affect the compass direction if it's kept absolutely level. However, even a slight angle from level might cause the direction to point either up or down, or as near to up or down as it can get. StuRat 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that some hardback books, usually published in North America, come with roughly cut pages. That is to say, the edges of the pages don't line up with each other when the book is closed. I've seen this so often that it can't be a mistake. It looks kind of scruffy to me, and I wonder why the publishers don't take more care to ensure that the pages are all cut the same size. And why is it only North American books? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of binding do these books use? I've seen hardback books where the pages are bound into smaller books before being bound to the full book. For example, 20 pages will be bound as a small book, 20 more pages as another small book, then each of the small books found as a large one. This type of binding would probably cause the kind of uneven pages you're talking about, because if the paper are all cut to be the same size, the inner ones will protrude further than the outer ones. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some books have pages cut in this manner to give a certain style, I believe. I've specifically noticed fantasy books cut like this, which I guess gives them an older feel. GreatManTheory 12:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed books at the library (old, mistreated ones) usually look like this. Barnes and Nobles, Borders, and the other big bookselling companies don't have this problem, but it might be that they have differant publishers. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a deckle edge. It imitates the slit edges that result when a freshly-printed, freshly-bound book has been opened with a letter-opener. Top edges are generally cut, for dust-resistance: at one time they were gilded in private libraries. --Wetman 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To echo what Wetman said, at one point most books were sold with uncut pages (nowadays, the pages are cut evenly by machine in a factory.) Pages need to be cut because, if I have this correctly, pages are printed in doubles (think of a regular piece of paper folded in half lengthwise and printed onto all four faces, and then the folding line is cut). The reader of an uncut book would cut along the seam of every new page with a letter opener. Though I don't really know the time period in which uncut books went out of fashion, you can still see this in use in, for instance, the 20s. If you read The Great Gatsby, for instance, you might have noticed that a drunk man in Gatsby's library announces with awe that Gatsby has a large book collection, and, even more impressive, that all the books are uncut. This impresses the man because it displays a wanton use of wealth. Gatsby doesn't even read the books, he just buys them for show. At any rate, I guess it's probably a choice of some authors or publishers who want to echo this old style of printing. Probably more popular in books dealing with earlier time periods. I kind of like it. Sashafklein 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On some books, pages are folded twice, giving eight faces ; you have to cut thrice before reading one. -- DLL ^{.. T} 09:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please briefly explain to me the basic distinctions in politics and apply it to the American system? That is, right wing = conservative = socialist = democrat (or whatever is actually correct). If someone could also apply it to the Canadian system, that would be great. Just a brief, survey answer would be much appreiciated. 74.12.102.131 08:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are refering to the distinction between political distinctions, such as in favour or against the welfare state for instance, this may help: There are a lot of different distinctions, I will explain some going from simple to complex

The left-right distinction is used most often. In economic terms the left favours state intervention into the economy and more equal incomes, the right favours completely free markets and incomes based on performance. These positions roughly go hand in hand with progressive (left)-conservative (right). Roughly (very roughly) it could be applied to the United States so that:

• The Left: Democrats
• The Right: Republicans

In Canada the situation (very roughly) would be:

• The Left: Liberal Party of Canada, Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party
• The Right: Conservative Party of Canada

A more complex distinction would be a political spectrum, which sees a line from the left, via the centre to the right, instead of two categories

• In Canada, the situation from left to right would be: (left) New Democratic Party-Bloq Quebecois-Liberal Party-(centre)-Conservative Party (right)
• In the United States, different individuals from the Democratic and Republican parties can be placed on different positions on this line, for instance so that (left) Howard Dean-Joe Lieberman-(centre)-John McCain-George W. Bush (right)

Still this would be an oversimplification of the relationship, because there are more issues than the economy. Several different distinctions with multiple axis have been proposed. The Political compass distinguishes between two different issues on which parties can take positions, in this case between I've added support for abortion and gay rights, which constitute personal freedom versus opposition to abortion and gay rights, which are restrictions on personal freedom. Combined with the economic left-right axis one would get four positions:

• Economic left-personal freedom: liberals and progressives; The U.S. Democrats
• Economic right-personal freedom: libertarians; there are no major parties here in the US
• Economic right-restrictions on personal freedom: conservatives; The U.S. Republicans
• Economic left-restrictions on personal freedom: "totalitarian"; there are no major parties here in the US

Do note that this is still a very simple representation and that a position, which is leftwing in one country, might be rightwing in another. I hope this helps, follow some of the links (Left-Right politics, political spectrum, Political compass) to learn more. C mon 10:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course in Canadian politics, there is a third dimension, in addition to the left-right positions on economic equality and state intervention and the opposition between social liberals (in favour of personal freedoms) and social conservatives (who want restrictions on freedoms). The third dimension is independence or sovereignty for Quebec. The Bloc Québecois occupies one pole of this dimension, while the four remaining parties occupy subtly different positions at the other side of the centre of this dimension. Marco polo 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, despite the fact that these issues are secondary to their raisons d'etre (Quebec Independence), both the Federal "Bloc Québécois" and the Provincial "Parti Québécois" happen to be rather left of centre. It should also be mentioned that unlike in the US, in Canada, parties with identical names on the Federal and the Provincial level, at least in the Quebec case, are rather independent of each other. For example, the Provincial, Federalist, yet still Nationalist, "Liberal Party of Quebec" has traditionally been far closer allied to Canada's relatively decentralist "Progressive Conservative Party", now simply the "Conservative Party of Canada" than the far more centralist "Liberal Party of Canada". As an example, in Federal elections I vote Conservative, In Provincial elections I vote Liberal, and in Montreal elections...well, there are no "Conservatives" or "Liberals". The parties have completely different names and I vote for the ones whose platform best appeals to me. It's not like in the US where Federal Democrat/Republican = State Democrat/Republican = Municipal Democrat/Republican. Loomis 05:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at ideology. Parties often have a historical tie to one branch of ideology but will move/deviate from this as the public mood changes/times move on. For example there was 'one nation toryism' in the Uk in the 60s/70s and this moved into the somewhat more monetarist-policy, supply-side economics of the Thatcher ran Conservative party of the 80s and early 90s. Now we move to see a return towards the soft-Tory image with more support of state-ownership and redistribution. The situation in US/Canada will be similar (not in detail but in parties changing with the times). Contrary to popular opinion the major parties move about the political scales a lot and their position/stances are as much set by the public as they are by the people leading them. I would spend many an hour reading the excellent articles on poiltics that Wikipedia has and see what you can find out. ny156uk 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys very much! I just wanted to get a basic overview, which is hard to get by doing in depth research and is usually something somoene knowledgable needs to explain. Now that I know where to begin, I will be able to read more about it. Thanks again! 74.12.102.131 18:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The USA in the 1940s like Nazi Germany defined a race as 1/16th Japanese. My question is to what extent was this policy carried out? Were half-Japanese put in internment camps in 1942? Were half-Japanese children taken away from white parents? What about quarter-Japanese and adopted children? Were families split up? I'm also intrested if anyone knows to what extent the Nazis pursued half-Jews and quarter-Jews duiring the Holocaust. --Stalin1942 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a synopsis of Nazi policies towards persons of mixed Jewish ancestry, see Mischling. -- Deborahjay 15:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Japanese American Internment, internment was mandatory for all "persons of Japanese descent". That presumably would have included person of partial Japanese descent. The article states that marriage between people of Japanese descent and white people had been outlawed for some time, so that there were virtually no such unions. However, there were some couples consisting of a person of Japanese descent and a non-Japanese, non-white person. According to the article, the children of such couples were subject to internment, and the non-white, non-Japanese partner often accompanied them, though the article is unclear about whether the relocation of non-Japanese partners was mandatory or voluntary. My guess is that it was voluntary. Marco polo 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia America actually had a stricter policy for mixed races than the Nazi Germans when it came to concentration camps. The USA has always been a more racially conscious nation than people admit but that was suprsing!

Is there any info on what happened to what happened to the few white-Japanese families that did exist? --Stalin1942 00:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that the internment policy was not applied to the place where the highest percentage of "persons of Japanese descent" lived, the state (then territory) of Hawaii. StuRat 00:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the 1930 US Census (the most recent one available to the public) shows that there were around 30,ooo Japanese born persons in California, and very few were married to non-Japanese, which would have been a violation of the California antimiscegenation law. In New York and Illinois there were far fewer persons born in Japan, but of of Japanese origin who were married, a high proportion were married to caucasians. It may have been against the law in those state; about 30 of 48 states prohibited whites from marrying Negros, Asians, American Indians, or other nonwhites. Edison 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What countries from the current EU members have transitioned to democracy from either a right wing authoritarian country or a formerly left wing authoritarian country? If possible, the countries should have made the transition since 1973.

Here are the countries in the EU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EU_map_names_isles.png

Sincerely,

Jon

193.122.239.253 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Spain, many Eastern countries such as Romania and (former) East Germany, etc, I think. How recent transition would you want? Post-WWII? 惑乱 分からん 13:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically:

• Spain (under Franco until 1975), Portugal (under Salazar and Caetano until 1974) and Greece (under a Junta until 1974) all had rightwing authoritarian governments until the 1970s.
• Romania (communist until 1989), Hungary (communist until 1989), Bulgaria (communist until 1989), Poland (communist until 1989), the Czech Republic, Slovakia (which formed Czechoslovakia, which was communist until 1989), Slovenia (part of Yugoslavia, which was communist until 1991), Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (part of the Soviet Union, which existed until 1991) all were communist dictatorships until the 1990s. East Germany, which now is part of Germany also was a communist dictatorship until 1989.
• And Germany, which also occupied Austria and Italy were national-socialist, respectively, fascist dictatorships until 1945.

- C mon 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland was arguably under authoritarian right-wing rule during the rule of Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim. But that was ages ago. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - this is a *really* stupid question... don't say I didn't warn you.

If I were to excavate a channel between England and Scotland, along the Scottish border, five meters wide and to a depth of five meters below sea level;

• Roughly how much material would I need to remove - remember that the land isn't at sea level, so for a good majority of the length its not just a case of digging a trench.
• Over the decades after construction, what would be the likely fate of the channel - without maintainance would it backfill relatively quickly or slowly? Or would the actions of wind and wave eroding the walls cause the channel to widen and become a permanant feature of the landscape?

Yeah, sorry - I was in a very odd mood last night when I contemplated this. --Neo 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a bit impractical, frankly. Unless I'm oversimplifying it, you would effectively be extending the Tweed 96 kilometers to the Solway Firth (by comparison, the Panama Canal required 77 km of digging). Presumably you would disregard border communities, or you might have to zig-zag a lot. If you somehow managed to excavate the tens of thousands of cubic meters of earth, my guess is that the new and improved Tweed would gradually widen naturally. It might change direction as well. But I'm no geologist. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that you'd almost certainly have some landslides in the deeper channels. 5 m by 5 m by about 200 m (the average sort of length for a landslip) is a very small volume, so even a few boulders falling down could totally dam the river and provide a crossing point to allow either Scots into England or the English into Scotland, depending on your perspective. Laïka 22:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be quite a large engineering project. You could calculate the amount of earth removal given a digital elevation model of the region (we have them at fairly high resolution for the U.S. and I imagine they are available in the UK as well); use a program such as AutoCAD with a surfacing plug-in, or Land Desktop, to do the calculation. The slope on either side will vary depending on geology, but will be substantial. Over time the channel will inevitably fill in again due to natural processes of erosion, landslide, slip and slump, unless it were to be well-maintained. All those hillsides want to come back down. Antandrus (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Hadrian's wall inverted. How did that work out? Edison 07:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty well actually; the Romans just forgot about it. ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 11:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find the source for the following?

"We are not bourgeois. We are soldiers."

146.243.4.157 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Dick Kimball, Boston, MA[reply]

According to this page, it's Hitler on the subject of why he expects his staff to parade in open cars in inclement weather. But I can't find confirmation in a reliable source. Compare a similar sentiment in the mouth of one of Hitler's victims: "Nous ne sommes pas des petits bourgeois excités, mais des révolutionnaires prolétariens."[1] Wareh 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth considering Hitler's statement after the death of a possible heir, Reinhard Heydrich, who was assassinated while riding in an open car. DDB 23:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who do not speak french? could you translate that please? And what did Hitler say concerning Himlers death?

"We aren't a bunch of excited petit bourgeois, we're proletarian revolutionaries." The echo is coincidental; I was making the point that "We're not comfortable middle-class do-nothings, we're the authentic/macho/committed hardcore" is a pretty common declaration. Wareh 14:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please react to this statement: "Democracy is a system of government in which two cows are more highly valued than one human." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.164.249.90 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This isn't a place to test people's reactions. Do you have a question? Bhumiya (said/done) 19:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a quote? See speciesism. 惑乱 分からん 22:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might actually be You have two cows-joke: "You have two cows. They outvote you 2-1 to ban all meat and dairy products." or something of the like. Wikipedia had a list of them. C mon 23:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Question by User:Garb wire and answer moved to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk since it is a meta-discussion of policies)Edison 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a Wikipedian with an established account, please examine Talk:Iranian_Revolution#Requested_move and the article, then offer your judgment. Please do not come to vote. I want to get independent users involved other than those who typically work on that article.--Patchouli 21:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the majority. Its current title is more informative; also, there must have been other Islamic revolutions in the past. Clarityfiend 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2L with the majority! To hell with the Internet too, but in any search a great majority of hits are related to Iran, few to Irak ... good luck, Patchouli. -- DLL ^{.. T} 08:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone could help me I'd appreciate it. I'm looking for permissions/high-res on the mamluk picture located here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mamluke.jpg

The post said that it's public domain, but that doesn't mean that someone doesn't own the original. (Old artworks might be public domain technically, but you have to contact a museum to use them. For example, Goya - I contacted the Prado.)

We have a series of stories on the History of the Arab Horse in Warfare starting in January's issue, and our designers would really like that image or something like it.

Thank you!

Cathy Bernardy, photo researcher Arabian Horse Times www.ahtimes.com

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cathb (talk • contribs) 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You do not need permission from a museum to use an image that they own the origional of - this is a common misconception. The image owner may own a copyright on a picture they took of the artwork, but for pictures older than 90 years, there is no method by which the origional could retain protection. Please review [2], for one explanation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm still looking for high-res, though.

Cathy B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cathb (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'd recommend attempting to contact the image uploader (Xosé (talk · contribs)) - he's likely to know more about this specific image, which could, conceivably, include access to higher resolution copies. His userpage on the Galician language Wikipedia, where he seems to be most active, is here. Picaroon 22:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While reading today's DYK entry, List of freshman class members of the 110th United States Congress, I noticed that although there are a great many religions listed on that page, not one of the Senators or Representatives are listed as atheist, agnostic or even "Unknown". Since none of the other lists mention religion, have there ever been any elected Congressmen or -women who were publicly Atheist? Laïka 22:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know for sure, but I doubt it. Even if there are atheist members of Congress, its unlikely they would declare it publicly, I remember a survey that showed that the majority of Americans distrust atheists above all other groups, and that 75% of those surveyed would not vote for an atheist candidate for office, even if they were the most qualified. There are also eight states whose constitutions disallow atheists from running for office, holding office, being appointed to office or to judgeships, sometimes even working for state agencies. Although the US Supreme Court struck down all laws like it (Torcaso v Watkins, 1961), they technically remain on the books, but unenforceable. Cyraan 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distrusting people and disallowing them office based on religion? That's terribly narrow-minded. I don't trust politicians no matter what their religion is. ;)- Mgm|^(talk) 13:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The (you have to either laugh or cry) funny thing is, everyone is running around shouting "freedom of religion" and "end religious discrimination", but if you say "oh, but I'm an atheist!" you're considered a monster, and you'll get all the discrimination and hate from everyone else, and no one will give a damn about that. Sad times... Sad times, indeed... — Kieff 14:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, very sad, I personally have contemplated going into politics at some point in my life, but due to the mistrust held towards atheists/agnostics, I doubt I would get very far. Cyraan 17:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other sad thing is that all the hot air spouted about freedom of religion is completely wasted in respect of politicians who, no matter what their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are, are widely distrusted because of the shocking, heinous crime of being a politician. JackofOz 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there ever have been admittedly atheist Congressmen. I think there have been atheist governors, though (Jesse Ventura comes to mind). --24.147.86.187 23:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Ventura, Culbert Olson comes to mind. I can't think of anyone else at the moment. Bhumiya (said/done) 04:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article List of current members of the 110th United States Congress by religion mentions six "non-affiliated" members: Mark Udall, Neil Abercrombie, John Olver, John F. Tierney, Earl Blumenauer and Tammy Baldwin. All are Democrats and all (except for Udall who comes from a Mormon family) represent relatively liberal areas. I don't know if any of those people are really non-religious, and I doubt any of them would call himself or herself an atheist (which has the connotation of being against religion). -- Mwalcoff 04:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambercrombie is listed on his page as being non-denominational Protestant, just pointing that out. --24.147.86.187 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is a "non-denominational Protestant"? Sounds like someone who has somehow magically resolved all the conflicting claims of the thousands of non-Catholic Christian sects, but still rejects Catholicism. That's more a belief against something than a belief in anything. JackofOz 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it's someone who doesn't believe that those "conflicting claims " relate to anything important, but more or less agrees with the things that the various Protestant denominations agree on. What else? --Anon, January 18, 09:22 (UTC)>

It would be a fascinating exercise to analyse all the teachings and beliefs of all the Christian denominations and see if there is even one single thing that they all, without exception, agree on. JackofOz 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they all believe in the existance of God. --Carnildo 23:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Buddhist members: Mazie Hirono and Hank Johnson. Buddhism is a nontheistic religion. C mon 22:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, politicians who declare they personally talk with God and "do whatever God tells them to do", don't tend to do all that well either. Other than members of his own PTL Club, I don't think many others would be willing to elect Pat Robertson as President and have him send assassination squads after Hugo Chavez, (because "God told him to do so"), for example. StuRat 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, George W Bush comes to mind, but yes, generally, that puts people off. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Ventura was mentioned as an atheist above, but check the Religion section on his page. From what's said there, he's an agnostic who personally finds it more natural to have some sort of religious belief than the contrary, although he strongly rejects organized religion. --Anonymous, January 18, 09:18 (UTC).